Accidents on cycle lanes

The Court of Appeal recently handed down judgment in Transport for London v Young & Anr [2026] EWCA Civ 1095, the appeal from two county court personal injury actions arising out of cycling accidents on London’s Cycle Superhighway 6 and in particular, a ‘Stepped Cycle Track’ which was set below the level of the pavement but above the carriageway so that there were kerbs on either side of the track.

Two experienced cyclists collided with the raised kerb separating the carriageway from the cycle track because they mistook the kerb for a white line on the road and did not notice that the cycle track was raised above the height of the carriageway.

The appeal raised issues common to both cases including the nature and scope of the duty owed by a highway authority or road designer when it has created a feature on the highway; the obviousness of the hazard; the relevance of the risk only presenting to a negligent road user; and the extent to which the judge was entitled to find breach of duty by reference to potential mitigating measures, in particular the possibility of installing a row of wands along the kerb.

The CA concluded that there is no inconsistency between Gorringe and Yetkin. Those authorities address different situations. Gorringe rejects a general common law duty to improve the highway or warn of ordinary and obvious hazards arising from the highway as found. Yetkin confirms that, where the authority has created or materially contributed to the relevant hazard by a positive act, it may be liable if it failed to take reasonable care. The fact that a claimant was negligent does not preclude the existence of the duty, though it may bear heavily on breach, causation and contributory negligence.

The CA found that the judge at first instance did not sufficiently distinguish between foreseeability, duty and breach. The fact that some cyclists might mistakenly treat the kerb as a painted line did not of itself establish negligence. The question was whether, having regard to all the circumstances, reasonable care required Transport for London to take further steps to reduce (or eliminate altogether) the risk of that error. That required proper evaluation of the risk, the design purpose of the feature, the relevant standards and guidance, the accident history, and the practicality, effectiveness and consequences of the proposed measures. The judge’s reasoning did not adequately carry out that evaluation.

The appeals were therefore allowed but the CA was not prepared to remake the decision on breach. That conclusion depended on a full assessment of the evidence and on judgments about risk, design, practicality, causation and contributory negligence which were closely interrelated.

The CA therefore sent the claims back for a fresh hearing before a different Judge – but with encouragement to engage in ADR.

This decision is a useful reminder of the relevant legal principles and how they are to be correctly applied in the context of such accidents which carry the risk of serious injury, potentially even fatality. The guidance might also be seen as timely as cycle pathways between the pavement and the carriageway become busier and perhaps more complex in their layout.

David Sandiford is a barrister at Exchange Chambers.