Corrigendum to “Excluded by design: Barriers to human-scale travel revealed through marginalised groups’ experiences of streets”. [Transport. Res. Traffic Psychol. Behav. 116 (2026) n/a–n/a/103383]

Streets involve a compromise between engineering, regulation and behaviour, aimed at meeting the needs of a diverse range of users (motorists, pedestrians, cyclists, wheelchairs, micromobility) while often attempting to fulfil both Movement and Place functions. It is reasonable to ask to what extent these compromises prioritise the needs of some over others and what might be the consequences. This study used Q-methodology with a selection of road users chosen to represent groups likely to be marginalised by compromises of regulation or design, particularly those who walk or cycle. The analysis revealed five common categories of viewpoints: ‘We are traffic’ (the need for movement in streets, comparable to motorists), ‘Safety and comfort first’ (recognition of streets’ Place function), ‘Access is not optional’ (streets currently deny access to some), ‘Designed for all’ (unless designed for everyone, many will never choose to walk or cycle), and ‘Rules matter’ (rules should prompt those that can harm most to take a greater share of responsibility). These themes show that more marginalised users recognise the balances between Movement and Place and perceive restrictions on their access to public spaces arising from design and regulation compromises. A clear theme was that compromise designs, which expect users of very different vulnerability to mix, are a major barrier to more active travel and that, while a reduction in intimidating behaviour from motorists would be welcome by more marginalised groups, physical separation between means of travel would contribute the most to the creation of street environments conducive to human-scale movement.