Guide to Chicane Accessibility

This guide sheet is paired with the narrated video presentation “Are Chicanes Ever Inclusive?”

Download this guide sheet as a Word document

Download this guide sheet as a pdf

1            All chicanes reduce active travel route accessibility

1. Narrow and close-spaced chicane barriers on active travel routes are increasingly recognised as inaccessible and discriminatory. They prevent many Disabled people from using active travel routes at all.
2. We are pleased that narrow and close-spaced chicanes are being removed in many locations, and call for all inaccessible access barriers to be removed from walking/wheeling and cycling routes, in line with national guidance and the requirements of the Equality Act (2010).
3. Some organisations are recommending wide-spaced chicanes as an “accessible” alternative at route junctions, especially where traffic-free shared routes meet roads.
4. Unfortunately, even these wider chicanes create access barriers and make active travel routes difficult or impossible to use for many Disabled people.

We call for scheme designers and decision-makers to stop installing wide-spaced chicanes, and to remove those already installed, unless evidence can be provided that they are the least-restrictive way to reduce a defined, measured risk.

We call for use of and investigation into more accessible, safer and more effective active travel route junction design options

2            Definitions

2.1           What is a narrow chicane?

As a broad guide, to be confirmed by swept path analysis, taking into account any gradients and proximate features of the location, a narrow chicane is one where any gap between barrier and path edge is less than 1.5m.

2.2           What is a close-spaced chicane?

As a broad guide, to be confirmed by swept path analysis taking into account any gradients and proximate features of the location, a close-spaced chicane is any set of staggered barriers with more than two barriers, and any set of two barriers where the chicane barriers are placed closer than 4m to each other or closer than is dictated by swept path analysis (whichever is greater), along the direction of travel of the route.

2.3           What is a wide-spaced chicane?

As a broad guide, to be confirmed by swept path analysis taking into account any gradients and proximate features of the location, a wide-spaced chicane is one where no gap between chicane barrier and path edge is less than 1.5m, and where no more than two chicane barriers are installed, with a gap of no less than 4m and potentially more, as required by swept path analysis, along the direction of travel of the route.

3            So, why aren’t chicanes accessible?

3.1           A typical wide-spaced chicane design at an active travel route access point

This is a top-down view of a typical “wide-spaced” chicane design that we are sometimes being asked to assess as part of active travel schemes.

The route it’s on is about 3m wide, with a timber fence on either side, right at the edges of the path. There are two chicane barriers placed perpendicular to the direction of travel on the path, with one on either side of the path so that anyone approaching the chicane will have to move first to the right hand side of the path, then the left, from either direction.

The barriers are spaced 3.5m apart, and there is 1.5m between the end of each barrier and the fence. The adjacent dropped kerb access onto the road will have a ramp gradient and steep edges which create an extra barrier, especially for people using 3 or 4 wheeled cycles and mobility aids of any kind.

3.2           Directions of movement around the chicane

Now, we’ve added arrows to show the directions that people might be travelling when near the chicane, with walking/wheeling and cycling movements in blue and motor vehicle driver movements in red.

All junctions are complicated. Many people, using many modes of travel, are likely to want to use the same space at the same time. That creates risk of collisions – meaning designers need to focus on how they can reduce risk.

3.3           Physical inaccessibility – Cycle Design Vehicle movements

Now, we can think about how people cycling will need to move through this space. We use the Cycle Design Vehicle (LTN 1/20) to assess accessibility of spaces for people using non-standard cycles and people cycling or using other mobility aids as part of accompanied groups. More details are available on our swept path analysis guide sheet and our guide to defining accessible surface areas.

The larger image below shows the Cycle Design Vehicle approaching the chicane. It is a 1.2m wide, 2.8m long rigid (not articulated) cycle with a 4m external turning radius.

To allow for people not cycling perfectly and for maintenance not being perfect either, the minimum access gap permitted on cycle routes is 1.5m. The five smaller images show swept paths for the Cycle Design Vehicle using the cycle track and either the road or the pavement, from or to all possible directions.

The swept paths drawn are 1.5m wide with a 4m turning radius. Proper swept path tools would produce better pictures, but we don’t have access to those – and these images show the key points.

The red circles on the swept paths show points where the Cycle Design Vehicle will hit things, even in perfect conditions: in these diagrams, there are no maintenance issues narrowing the area and no other people using the space, restricting where the Cycle Design Vehicle can turn. Users or the Cycle Design Vehicle – which means users of larger cycle types, and frequently Disabled people, can’t get on and off the cycle track without risking tipping on the dropped kerb or hitting the fence and chicane barriers.

And how do wide-spaced chicanes function in the real world, where maintenance isn’t perfect and where most people have no choice about using the route at peak times, like school start and end times?

3.4           Chicane inaccessibility with real-world maintenance

Here, the same chicane has experienced a couple of years of fairly standard maintenance. Lack of funding means that maintenance is unlikely to ever be as thorough as would be needed to maintain design-standard accessibility.

In this drawing:

1. Hedges planted at the sides of the route have been cut in front of the route-edge fence, narrowing the usable path width and restricting sight lines between the path, pavement and carriageway. This is typical: it’s difficult to cut behind a fence, and it’s difficult to cut around chicane barriers. Plants tend to be managed badly and narrow routes most near fixed features that are already causing hazards and route narrowing.
2. Debris has built up around the chicane barriers (shown in brown). This is likely to be a mixture of gravel, leaves, thorny twigs, broken glass and small pieces of other litter, pushed onto the less-used surface areas by people moving through.
3. The transition from unbound surface area to asphalt surface has worn to a pothole, creating a step which is a hazard and access barrier, especially in wet weather, when the pothole fills with water and in cold weather, when the puddle will turn to ice.
4. Broken glass, dropped sticks and dog poo are typical additional barriers which, when co-located with access barriers such as chicanes, will often make routes completely impassable for Disabled users who can’t step over or lift a cycle around debris.

At a chicane, a path’s width has been deliberately narrowed so it is barely wide enough for many non-standard cycle and other mobility aid users to fit through even in ideal conditions. When extra barriers such as rubbish, plant growth and path damage are added, the space rapidly becomes impassable.

3.5           Chicane inaccessibility through “antisocial” behaviour

Chicanes are typically placed at places where multiple paths meet, slightly away from the main thoroughfare. They’re often easy places to lean or sit, and can become places where people, especially older children and teens, congregate, either by arrangement or casually – people who’ve just bumped into a neighbour or friend and have a chat.

Mostly, these people aren’t being antisocial at all – they’re having normal, positive social interaction that we want to encourage and enable!

But unfortunately, because chicanes already form a space where someone can easily be trapped, the presence of even friendly people in or near a chicane is likely to be very intimidating to many Disabled and otherwise marginalised people.

Disabled and otherwise marginalised people are likely to have experienced harassment and assaults, especially in secluded, constrained locations. The risk of this happening at chicane access points creates an access barrier that will exclude many people from using a route, especially when alone and at specific times of day or night. For example, teens travelling home from school may avoid using the route if they know that other teens may wait for them in the chicane. Disabled people, women and racialized people of all ages may avoid using the route at quieter times of day or after dark.

It is important that active travel routes are designed so that it is difficult for a single person or group to inadvertently or deliberately obstruct the route, and with the good sight lines, natural surveillance and escape options that make harassment and assaults less likely.

3.6           Chicane inaccessibility with expected use of space

Most people need to travel at peak times. Peak times for a traffic-free shared path will depend on where the path is. Sunny weekends and school holidays are likely to be busy. For routes that are in useful locations for active travel, then peaks at school start/end times and to meet standard 9-5 working hours plus events flow (e.g. football matches) are also likely.

The picture above shows how at busy times, a chicane obstructing two-way flow means people using cycles and mobility aids can easily end up stuck on the road, unable to get into safe space away from drivers. This effect is much more serious when the chicane is placed on a slope, because then Disabled people and other less agile or strong cyclists who have to stop, will need to re-start on a slope and often also while turning. This sort of manoeuvre is impossible for many Disabled cyclists, including many handcyclists.

Placing the first chicane barrier further back from the road may help reduce the chances of people being trapped on the road at busy times, but the only way to fully resolve this sort of inaccessibility is by designing access points to enable continuous two-way movement of route users.

4            What are chicanes meant to do? And what do they actually do?

Decision-makers, designers and consultees often ask for physical barriers to be installed on active travel routes because they feel the route will be made safer by the barriers.

4.1           Keeping motorcyclists and micromobility users off traffic-free routes

Most motorcycles and almost all micromobility devices such as e-scooters are smaller than the Cycle Design Vehicle. That means it’s simply not possible to stop motorcyclists using routes by installing barriers, without stopping Disabled people and others with protected characteristics from using the routes, too. Space improvement, education and enforcement are good ways to reduce dangerous and illegal use of routes.

Walk Wheel Cycle Trust research from projects around the country has found that barrier removal does not increase antisocial behaviour. Removing barriers often hugely increases numbers of legitimate route users, and makes routes feel safer due to increased natural surveillance.

Installing barriers to try and protect people walking/wheeling and cycling from dangerous driving prevents many Disabled people and our families from using the “protected” traffic-free routes. If we can’t use traffic-free routes, we’re forced to use on-road routes where we’re at much higher risk from dangerous driving!

4.2           Slowing down faster path users / reducing antisocial behaviour

We regularly hear that chicanes and other access barriers are intended to slow route users. But people using cycles, e-assist cycles, micromobility and even running accelerate and decelerate very rapidly (see potential peak acceleration graph in our 2024 discussion sheet on e-assist pedal cycle power).

An access barrier such as a chicane can only ever slow path users down in the few metres around it.

And, by reducing numbers of legitimate users on a route, chicanes may increase numbers and speeds of antisocial or inconsiderate users along the full route length.

In addition, it seems likely that some users of narrow, fast devices such as e-scooters and racing bikes would be able to lean to steer through wide-spaced chicane barriers, and would hardly need to slow at all unless the barrier was tightened to the point that Disabled users of larger cycles would not be able to pass through at all.

This could mean that wide-spaced chicane barriers would increase risk to other path users, by forcing all path users into the same narrow route and reducing collision escape options.

4.3           Warning path users of hazards ahead

Chicane barriers and other access barriers are often installed near to road crossing or junction points on traffic-free routes, in effectively the same places that for road junctions, “give way” or “stop” signage and associated on-road paint markings would be used.

We believe that in most locations, there are better ways to warn path users of hazards than by putting access barrier chicanes across a route. These better options are discussed in the sections below.

5            Making active travel routes safer and more accessible

5.1           Sight lines and bollards

Instead of installing ineffective, inaccessible chicanes and creating spaces with high risk of harassment and assault by restricting sight lines, routes can be made safer and more accessible by widening paths and improving sight lines at junctions.

In this diagram, the path entrance has been splayed wider, the fencing and hedges moved back from the path edge, and the chicane has been swopped for vehicle access restriction bollards. Bollards are not always needed, and create a collision hazard in themselves. Bollards should only be installed if there is a clear case that they will reduce hazard on the route more than they increase hazard by their presence.

5.2           Tactile crossings, raised tables and seating

In some locations, where dangerous vehicle parking is a problem, it might be necessary to put vehicle access restriction bollards closer to the road. This should only be done to reduce a specific, known issue and if enforcement and signage don’t work, because bollards placed like this will also make turning on and off the track much more difficult for people using larger cycles and mobility aids.

Benches (and bins) set back from the route improve accessibility for people who need to sit down, and encourage socialising without creating an intimidating gauntlet for people to move through.

Tactile raised table crossing points create accessible, design-prioritised movement for people walking/wheeling and cycling, while giving a clear warning to drivers that they need to slow down and be alert to people wanting to cross the road.

6            Summary and further considerations

1. Close-spaced and/or narrow chicanes are always inaccessible and must not be installed or allowed to remain on pedestrian or cycle routes. We believe close-spaced chicanes are always discriminatory under the Equality Act (2010).
2. Wide-spaced chicanes always reduce accessibility of a route and create hazards.
3. We think there are very few situations where installing or retaining a wide-spaced chicane could be justified. We consider that wide-spaced chicanes should be an absolute last choice option where a specific serious hazard is identified and it can be demonstrated that there is no less restrictive option available to reduce that hazard.
4. Where traffic-free routes meet roads, there should be clear signage indicating the traffic-free route crossing or entrance point for drivers and others using the carriageway. Depending on the location, such signage could include warning road signs, raised tables over the carriageway, controlled or uncontrolled crossings, surface colour changes and/or markings and speed limit reductions.
5. Where traffic-free routes meet roads, there should be clear signage indicating the crossing or entrance point for people using the traffic-free route. Such signage should not routinely include barriers that reduce the route width. We call for investigation of non-restrictive measures including on-route surface markings, route-side signs and overhead indications of the hazard ahead.
6. Where a traffic-free route moves up a slope to a road crossing, route users will naturally slow. It seems unlikely that any route narrowing or chicane will be justifiable.
7. Where a traffic-free route moves down a slope to a road crossing, good prioritisation (see point e above), good sight lines, hard engineering to change the geometry of the slope and changing the angle at which the traffic-free route meets the road may all reduce risk of collisions. Creating a wide S- or L- bend in the path such that any out-of-control or unaware route user will be directed into a barrier between road and path is not a perfect solution, but will be much better than narrowing the whole path with a chicane.
8. If none of the above solutions are possible due to space constraints, and a downhill slope remains so path users may accidentally travel fast into a road, then a wide-spaced chicane may be a reasonable measure. However, small children are likely to be able to pass through chicanes of any spacing much faster than their parents/carers due to their size and agility, and chicane barriers are likely to force parents accompanying children into single file, reducing the ability to physically restrict a child’s movement: Any organisation installing a chicane should be able to demonstrate that their chicane genuinely reduces, rather than increases, risk to children.
9. Where wide-spaced chicanes are needed, good practice is to still design for two-way movement through the location, which requires at least two access routes through the chicane. Two-way access helps to ensure route users can exit the road without delay, and provides access resilience when one point of access is temporarily obstructed.
10. Wide-spaced chicanes must not be installed on or close to unbound surfaces, semi-bound surfaces (including resin-bound rubber-containing surfaces) or junctions between bound and unbound or semi-bound surfaces. Chicanes force route users to all follow the same path through the barrier and to make turns. This causes rapid wear of a narrow strip of the unbound or semi-bound surface, which results in an uneven, inaccessible and hazardous surface through the access restriction.
11. Wide-spaced chicanes should only ever be installed on level ground, and must never be installed on steep slopes or ramp gradients, or where crossfall exceeds 2%. Mobility aid users risk tipping over if forced to make turns on a ramp, and many Disabled cyclists are unable to start uphill while making a turn. If there is a significant level change between a traffic-free route and a road crossing where a chicane is deemed necessary, install the chicane well back from the start of the ramp, even if this moves the chicane a long way from the road junction: the point of the chicane is to warn of the hazard, not to create a new hazard.
12. If a wide-spaced chicane is installed, the position of the barrier closest to the road must be assessed using swept path analysis to ensure the Cycle Design Vehicle will be able to turn on and off both footway and carriageway and move freely through the chicane. Such analysis must take into account likely growth and maintenance patterns of any nearby hedging and other plants which will restrict movement of path users.
13. If a wide-spaced chicane is installed, consider using shorter barriers that do not reach the centre of the path, giving a clear visual warning of the upcoming hazard but with less physical access restriction.