The episode in detail
Why cyclist and pedestrian coexistence in the city is a problem
Tension between cyclists and pedestrians does not come from a fundamental incompatibility between the two modes. It comes from poorly designed layouts. Florine Cuignet, Brussels policy officer at GRACQ, points to the mechanism: to avoid disrupting motorised traffic, planners group cyclists and pedestrians under the label ‘active travel’ and make them share the same space. The result is predictable.
Along the Brussels canal, a key route on the bike network, cyclists commuting in from the suburbs share the same infrastructure as people out for a walk. Speeds and uses are incompatible. The experience is poor on both sides: cyclists see pedestrians as obstacles, and pedestrians experience a fast bike passing close by as an act of aggression.
“Often, to avoid annoying motorised traffic too much, cyclists get put with pedestrians. It’s a catch-all package that gets called active travel.”
First lever: physically separating the flows
The first response is infrastructure. GRACQ argues for a clear separation between pedestrian space and bike space, particularly on high-traffic routes. Pavement-level cycle tracks work when there is plenty of space, but become a problem as soon as the width narrows. With an 80 cm lane running along the pavement, as was the case on Rue de la Loi before it was redesigned, both sides inevitably spill into each other’s space.
Rue de la Loi is a clear example. In 2003, a traffic lane was removed to create cycle tracks on the pavement. Cyclist numbers grew sharply over the years, well beyond initial forecasts. Conflicts with pedestrians multiplied. It was only when another traffic lane was taken to create a separate bike facility, giving the pavement back to pedestrians, that the situation calmed down.
“You do not build a bridge by counting the number of people who swim across the river.”
Second lever: training cyclists and raising pedestrian awareness
Even with perfect infrastructure, training remains essential. Many cyclists do not realise that their own confidence on a bike does not remove a pedestrian’s sense of insecurity. A bike passing close by, even at a moderate speed, causes a surprise that the pedestrian experiences as an act of aggression. It is this element of surprise, more than any real danger, that causes most of the confrontations.
GRACQ is campaigning to build bike training into the school curriculum, so that every child learns the same basics. This training also benefits future drivers, who will understand why a cyclist keeps clear of car doors or why they take the full lane in certain situations. GRACQ is opposed, however, to a bike licence, which it considers restrictive and unworkable.
“The fact that a cyclist is in control of their bike and their speed does not necessarily mean there is no problem with the pedestrian.”
Third lever: enforcement when it is necessary
GRACQ does not hesitate to say it: cyclists who endanger pedestrians should be fined. This is not a comfortable position for a cycling advocacy group, but Florine Cuignet defends it without ambiguity. Enforcement should stay targeted and considered, not systematic.
A distinction is needed. Some cyclists ride on the pavement because they do not know the rule. Others do it out of fear, because the infrastructure does not give them confidence. Others still are genuinely dangerous. The response is not the same in the three cases: training for the first group, infrastructure for the second, fines for the third. That is the whole point of a joined-up policy rather than a purely punitive approach.
“We cannot accept cyclists putting pedestrians in danger. If that means fines, then it means fines.”
The pedestrian zone: ban or adapt?
The row over the pedestrian zone on Brussels’ central boulevards sums up the tensions. This pedestrian zone was created on a key cycling route, with no alternative offered to cyclists. As a result, cyclists end up either mixed in with cars on parallel routes, or among pedestrians in the pedestrian zone.
GRACQ argues for keeping pedestrian zones open to bikes by default, while accepting that certain busy periods make coexistence impossible. On Rue Neuve during shop opening hours, no cyclist attempts to ride through. In the evening, the same street is almost empty and works well as a route. A blanket ban makes no sense. The solution lies in creating parallel bike routes for faster journeys.
“If a cycling route is removed to create a pedestrian zone without providing an alternative, the tensions we see are a direct consequence of that choice.”
