Worsening pedestrian space in the name of safety

Reading Time: 4 minutes

Earlier this year, the County Council was applauding itself on the installation of new guardrail barriers between a pavement and main road outside a primary school in Atherstone. A social media post from the Road Safety Education and Active Travel team (Twitter/X, Facebook) told how the barriers would help improve the safety of pedestrians, particularly children, ensuring they only cross the road at designated points. In doing so however, they also narrowed the pavement on the far side of the road.

I noted this in Twitter/X back in April 2024 after seeing the photo shared on social media by the County Council’s Road Safety and Active Travel team, including through a discussion with the team via direct message. It looked clear that the barriers were intruding on pavement space which, when measured on Google Earth, seemed to have an original width of around 1.5 metres. However, I was told that the remaining space was 1.2m and therefore met minimum footpath standards.

Recently I happened to visit Atherstone and had the chance to take measurements. The available space is indeed around 1.2m between the grass edge and the barrier. However, guidance from the Department for Transport notes that pavements should be as wide as practical but with a minimum width of 2.0m, allowing space for two wheelchair users to pass. Where physical constraints prevent that, 1.5m would be the minimum acceptable, allowing a wheelchair user and person walking to pass. A reduction to 1m might be acceptable where obstacles such as lamp posts exist, but this should extend for no more than six metres in length.

On this basis then, the County Council has reduced the pre-existing available space for walking and wheeling by 20%, reducing it below the ideal minimum standard by 40%.

In addition, an aged barrier on the south side of the road remains in place which has clearance of only about 80cm albeit only for a few metres at the most. There has been no attempt made to remove or reposition this barrier to make it accessible – surely an ideal time to do so, when making other changes involving guardrails.

Why did I call this performative theatre? Because the provision of guardrails does little to really protect people. Yes, it herds people to specific crossing points, but it restricts pedestrian freedom and creates potential congestion at crossing points. It attempts to “improve” road safety by changing pedestrian behaviour rather than addressing the actual source of harm by altering driver behaviours. But then that perception of an improvement in road safety is just that – a perception. Guardrails won’t protect pedestrians from out of control vehicles; they can’t protect crossing points from speeding, impatient, or inattentive drivers.

Given this is a long, straight road a very short distance away from a 40mph zone, essentially next-door to an industrial estate, meaningful changes should be chosen that would impact driver behaviour to create a safer, more pleasant environment. The Council did not choose to do this. Instead, they chose nothing more a security blanket – and worse, one that communicates to drivers that they can be *less* attentive to the presence of pedestrians because they see that people shouldn’t be in the road at this location; one that reduces the rights of people to cross the road wherever they decide is appropriate for their route; one that has the potential to hinder the use of the pavement by people in wheelchairs, mobility scooters, with prams etc.

What could Warwickshire Highways choose to do to make meaningful improvements, to enhance Safe Routes to School, and contribute towards a Safer System approach (whereby dangerous driving behaviours are restricted through design, and negative outcomes limited in the event that conflict does occur):

• Extend the 30mph zone so that the 40-30 transition is not near the school;
• Reduce the speed limit around the school to 20mph;
• Provide raised table crossing points;
• Install road-narrowing traffic calming measures;
• Remove aged guardrails to improve the footway for accessible walking and wheeling;
• Provide cycle infrastructure to enable primary school children to safely cycle to school.

Failing all of this, the County Council could have taken a small amount of space from the large grassed area to convert to pavement, to provide the 2.0m of recommended width while still installing the guardrails, to at least ensure the path is accessible. It didn’t.

This development came at the same time as Warwickshire Highways also installed a restrictive chicane barrier formed of two guardrails in Nuneaton which has been the subject of an extended complaint by yours truly. In that case, the Department ignored current legislation in the form of the Equality Act 2010, using the now repealed Disability Discrimination Act instead. Here, the Department seems to have ignored DfT design guidance issued only three years ago, and may well have again ignored its obligations under the Equality Act. Whether an Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) has been done here, I don’t know.

It has to raise the question; does Warwickshire Highways pay any attention to current legislation and standards with regard to 1) accessibility, and 2) walking, wheeling, and cycling? Or is it just that it does things this way, because that’s the way it has always done them?

---

1. My Twitter/X feed has been purged of old content and these replies may therefore no longer be directly available. ↩︎