A couple of weeks ago, I was in the City of London for an event, but I just had time to go and have a look at the St. Paul's gyratory project which has improved north-south cycling between London Wall and New Change via St. Martin's Le Grand.
However, this post is not about the scheme or really about the design of the new floating bus stop on St. Martin's Le Grand. Sort of. I like this photograph from the site though. It pulls at the tension between traffic engineering and human behaviour, and also the misunderstanding people have about what is trying to be achieved and for who.
Zebra crossings are not black and white
Many people see the role of the zebra crossings sometimes used at floating bus stops being very much, well, a black and white thing. It's a zebra crossing and so those cycling must stop to let people cross.
That's already wrong because pedestrian priority only exists when someone steps on the crossing. While stopping for people crossing might be good behaviour and a recommendation of Rule 195 of the Highway Code that few people have read recently, it's not a requirement.
While we're on the Highway Code that few people have read recently, Rule 18 recommends that people crossing should stick between the studs or on the zebra crossing markings.
Rule 19 recommends that people crossing should "give traffic plenty of time to see you and stop before you start to cross", but also "remember that traffic doesn't have to stop until someone has moved onto the crossing" - those statements don't work together when you think about it; and where there are people cycling in clumps, it's all the more tricky.
Our legislation has developed from a very motor-centric position in that people can do what they like unless otherwise regulated, and zebra crossings are a method of regulation that's really there to give pedestrians a right of priority in specific location in situations where it's otherwise going to be harder for many to cross otherwise.
This system also only "works" when everyone obeys those rules at all times and in the case of zebra crossings at floating bus stops, this includes people crossing as well as cycling, but it is the latter "group" who get the the ire for not obeying the rules.
Why are we putting zebra crossings at floating bus stops?
Of course, all of this hasn't considered why we are putting zebra crossings at floating bus stops and I can confidently tell you that it isn't for the two people crossing in my photo.
Despite floating bus stops actually being present in the UK for decades, the newer slew of cycling infrastructure projects that started to be delivered over a decade ago (many in London) brought them closer to people's attention and I would say in part, that was driven by some of the media and certainly some politicians railing against the shift in street space towards what was often seen as an out-group - The Cyclists - and it's an easy bandwagon to join.
Zebra crossings (with humps) started to be used in London at floating bus stops in reaction to complaints that some people, including visually-impaired people, who were finding it hard to cross the cycle tracks of such layouts. This is an unresolved (and possibly unresolvable to the extent some people might wish to see) issue and we need to acknowledge it as such. Even this has nuance though.
For some people this is about confidence in being able cross or at least being able to "create" a gap in cycle traffic by setting foot on the crossing, for others it's a useful way to help orientate themselves in preparation as they arrive at or depart from the bus stop.
After some experimentation, Transport for London updated its design guidance to make them the default. The research here showed most people understood zebra crossings, even if compliance was variable - and that's the compliance of people cycling only. Manchester also experimented with them and the idea spread across the UK and into the various guidance documents of the devolved nations.
The wayfinding issue purpose is also complex. The use of tactile paving tells visually impaired people that they are encountering a kerb which is flush with a carriageway or cycle track, rather than somewhere "safe" to cross.
The zebra crossing regulates the interactions between the users as I explain above, but the position in the photo and in currently guidance is that the crossing is aligned where the loading doors of the bus will be (rear doors in London) so wheelchair users and others can use the ramp deployed from the bus, rather than any objective thought about the best place (although at some stops there is more than one crossing point identified). But I am getting too much into the detail.
Lost in translation
The bus stop in my photograph shows a couple of people crossing in a location that suited them at the time and as far as I am concerned, that is fine and also quite common, because we are dealing with human movement and desire lines more than we are dealing with traffic engineering; but that is where I think we have the problem and where things are getting lost in translation.
It's also worth noting that as I watched the bus stop, there was definitely human-scale behaviour going on with pedestrians waiting to let a group of cyclists go past and cyclists slowing down so that people ahead would be able to cross before they arrived at the crossing (from a use of energy perspective, that's easier than stopping).
While people driving are generally doing so in reasonably well-defined streams of traffic within a system of traffic control, people waking, wheeling and cycling tend to want to follow desire lines that don't coincide with convenient driving or even street layouts.
That is surely why we add crossings on busier roads because some people can't just find a gap to suit them; even if said crossings are not in the right location from a desire line perspective? Desire lines are powerful things and from individual perspectives, they lead "other" people to do "wrong" things. Tricky to do in a car spatially, far easier when you're a cyclist or a pedestrian.
Coming full circle
And this brings me full circle. All of this stuff on our streets only exists because of motor traffic and most of the compromises that people walking, wheeling and cycling have to make are as a result; and that's not the conversation we're having.
This is partly because our culture is very motonormative which makes it hard for even non-drivers to envision a different system, but to some extent, it is also very easy to point at a thing we don't like rather than consider systemic issues and in our media landscape of short attention spans, nuance cannot compete with outrage.
Personally, I have seen zebra crossings at floating bus stops an issue where I have just been on the side of using them in principle because they have value for wayfinding.
However, using them might well have created a perception problem in which at some locations where there are higher cycle flows they are the wrong treatment, and we need to be far cleverer in our design approach.
I have some ideas as to the how, but it's very context-specific and besides, it would be nice to pick up some work trouble-shooting this kind of thing!
This first appeared as a LinkedIn article which I have republished here with a little bit of editing to reach a wider audience.























































