QB-2022-002451 - [2025] EWHC 2204 (KB)

All of the Defendant’s witnesses gave evidence that it was necessary to have some obstacle/ marker to prevent motorized vehicle drivers from using the cycle lane when it was closed to traffic. Their evidence was that the risk of drivers ignoring signs and information that Pitfield Street was closed to vehicular traffic and driving along it was a very real one and, further, one which presented a potential risk to other vulnerable road users (pedestrians or cyclists). Their evidence was that therefore, something was needed to be put into place to prevent, or reduce that risk from arising.

However, the evidence of those witnesses was that it was also necessary to ensure that emergency vehicles could access Pitfield Street. Whatever system was used, there were therefore, a number of objectives which it had to meet. First, it had to ensure the safety of vulnerable road users, which included pedestrians and cyclists. Secondly, as part of ensuring the safety of those users, there was a need to prevent or reduce the risk that drivers would ignore the signage clearly informing them that the road was closed to such vehicles, by putting in place some impediment to their ability to pass through and over the road. Thirdly and finally, emergency vehicles still needed to be able to access the roadway.