HS2 accused of breaching cycle crossing commitments

[snowball]

From the Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...e-crossing-commitments-along-high-speed-route

Government-owned company has back-pedalled on its pledge to cycle-proof the line, say campaigners, locking out cyclists for generations to come

The company building the HS2 high speed rail line is accused of watering down commitments on cycle crossings along the route, in a move campaigners say will endanger lives and lock out cycling for generations to come.

The government-owned company, HS2 Ltd, was accused of back-pedalling on its legally-binding assurance that it would “cycle-proof” phase 1 of HS2, from London to the West Midlands, earlier this year by Cycling UK, the national cycling charity. The assurances, which became legally binding when they were incorporated into the High Speed Rail Act, stated HS2 Ltd would have a dialogue with the Cycle Proofing Working Group (CPWG), a government advisory body, with the assumption that they would include high quality design standards.

Members of the CPWG say HS2 Ltd breached that agreement when it adapted poor cycling design standards without consulting them, adding that HS2 Ltd claimed there was not enough money in the £56bn project to cycle proof phase 1.

They say, while adding extra width on 40 bridges and tunnels at construction phase would cost very little, the high cost of retrofitting tunnels and bridges means cycling could be permanently designed out.

In a select committee meeting on Tuesday, CPWG members said the same thing looks set to happen again with phase 2a, from West Midlands to Crewe, following a letter sent by HS2 director Oliver Bayne on Monday referring to following the “principles” of design standards, rather than the “applicable aspects” of them. These pledges do not become legally binding until the HS2 phase 2a Act is passed.

Before the meeting, Phil Jones of transport consultants PJA and a CPWG member, said: “HS2 have treated the CPWG with contempt. They were supposed to engage with us, but the only engagement was turning up to two meetings, and making some vague statements with no further commitment to do anything.

“They made it clear they had no money [for cycling]. They said we could scrutinise their designs [for crossings] but didn’t provide them. This is the government’s advisory body; that’s what it’s there for.”

Highways England and the Welsh government have both adopted high quality design standards, which set out minimum standards for cycling, and Jones joined Cycling UK in calling for HS2 to do the same.

John Grimshaw, co-founder of sustainable transport charity Sustrans, wrote a feasibility report on an HS2 cycleway which was proposed by government but later cancelled – Grimshaw says the report was presented to local authorities, effectively leaving it to them to deliver. He says cycling provision on the 40 crossings would, in many cases, cost a minimal amount but benefit communities.

“If you don’t plan for cycling provision on bridges or tunnels you design out cycling forever,” he said. “It will make it prohibitively expensive in the future to do them.”

Grimshaw told the committee it was “extremely difficult to get HS2 to make minor changes that would cost pennies” and pleaded with HS2 to “link local communities, rather than separate them”.

For example, he says children living in Quainton in Aylesbury, who go to school in Waddesdon two miles away, will not be able to ride to school after phase 1 of HS2 is built. Grimshaw told the Guardian: “In the original proposal there was an underpass; that mysteriously got dropped, and now if you want to cycle between the two you face a 60mph road.”

The HS2 route through Birmingham has six major bridges planned, none of which, the Guardian understands, will have cycling provision. Campaigners are concerned HS2 has not made clear how communities can apply for such provision.

In Tuesday’s meeting, Peter Miller, director of environment for HS2, described the difficulties of including a cycle lane on one road HS2 is already widening near Yarnfield, in Staffordshire, and said it was difficult to cost cycling infrastructure. He questioned whether there was any desire for cycle crossings from communities along the route.

HS2 committee member Martin Whitfield MP responded: “If you don’t make room for cycling on a bridge or tunnel when you build it, it’s never going to happen. If you put it in, it gives communities the opportunity [to add cycle lanes later on].”

The former HS2 and cycling minister, Robert Goodwill, was among those who supported a network of bridleways alongside HS2 in 2015.

Tim Mould QC, representing HS2, said that though it was up to HS2 to build crossings, it was up to Cycling UK to negotiate the necessary permissions for cycling, for which the secretary of state set aside £15,000 for the entire HS2 phase 2a route.

Roger Geffen, Cycling UK’s policy director, said: “HS2 Ltd could be a model of best practice for cycle proofing. However, employing sub-standard cycle provision and penny-pinching on the costs of tunnels and bridges means they’re on the opposite course.”

An HS2 Ltd spokesperson said: “To help ensure HS2 leaves a positive road safety legacy for local communities, £36.5m has been made available through the Road Safety Fund for Phase 1 and 2a, ensuring areas along the route benefit from high quality road and cycle safety projects. HS2 is engaging with various organisations to identify opportunities where cycling can be incorporated in the design.”

 

[Via Bank]

Can’t help but feel like this is a repeat of the mistakes of the 1950s and 60s, with motorways severing communities and railway lines being built over after the Beeching cuts.

HS2’s environmental credentials will be rather suspect if it ends up forcing people into cars to cross the railway line.

 

[AndrewE]

I imagine that in the Netherlands they would take the opportunity to build cheaper bridleway (horse and cycle - plus pedestrian of course) bridges and underpasses and close some roads to cars, thus encouraging modal shift and reducing car traffic and pollution. What a backward country we live in.

 

[quantinghome]

Leaving aside the purple prose in the article, what are the actual facts of the case? What is the physical difference in the infrastructure proposed in the design standards HS2 has adopted and the standards CPWG want them to use? Also, how do other road and rail projects compare?

 

[Via Bank]

There’s a chicken and egg problem here. Most road and rail projects in the UK are mediocre for cycling provision at best, dire at worst. As an example, Highways England are proposing to throw £3m at a scheme to widen the A23 in Merstham to three lanes. The pavement is being narrowed, cyclists are to be allowed to ride on it - until a point where they either have to get off and push (which inconveniences everyone, and also excludes people with mobility impairments) or rejoin a carriageway full of fast-moving motor traffic (which excludes anyone without a death wish.)

Part of the problem seems to be a lack of design standards. The London Cycling Design Standards (LCDS) might be a good start. TfL also have a Cycling Level of Service tool that they can use to assess plans for junctions.

The bigger problem seems to be that no-one’s thought about it. This country’s transport planners are incapable of seeing cycling provision as anything other than a frippery. And we have a dismal modal share to show for it, even for journeys under 5 miles where cycling is an ideal means of transport.

 

[HSTEd]

Cycling has fundamentally different alignment requirements than roads though, to the point where I think constraining cycle routes to the same alignments as roads is silly.

Cyclers tend to be power limited to an enormous degree, implying that they would prefer an alignment more similar to a canal than to a straight road. (They will prefer a longer alignment that is flatter because they can more easily reach high speeds on the flat)

 

[Via Bank]

Cycling has fundamentally different alignment requirements than roads though, to the point where I think constraining cycle routes to the same alignments as roads is silly.

Cyclers tend to be power limited to an enormous degree, implying that they would prefer an alignment more similar to a canal than to a straight road. (They will prefer a longer alignment that is flatter because they can more easily reach high speeds on the flat)

i wouldn’t be so sure about that. The main things people will want are routes that go where they want to go - and the key destinations people will want to visit (shops, offices, schools, hospitals, homes, railway and bus stations) are all built along roads, and not necessarily canal paths.

Speed is less important for transport cycling. Sure, you have the Bradley Wiggins wannabes who treat the commute like a time trial, but if you want to enable “ordinary” people to cycle for their journeys, you need to provide routes that go where they want to go - and crucially, allow them to go at whatever pace they choose (by not forcing them into the same space as cars.) Hills become much less daunting if you don’t have a white van man tooting his horn behind you and can climb it at your own pace.

An exemplar facility is the new cycleway on Embankment. It now carries between 8000-12000 people cycling on most weekdays, depending on the weather - because (a) it’s physically separated from motor vehicles, so you can cycle as fast or as slow as you want and still get there in safety; and (b) it serves Tower Hill, Parliament Square, Charing Cross, Monument, Blackfriars, Hyde Park Corner - all places where people want to go. It’s not perfect (the pelican crossings should really be zebra crossings) but it’s made a huge difference to the experience of cycling in central London and made many more cycling journeys possible.

Designing for leisure is a different kettle of fish to designing for everyday transport, which is what HS2 have seemingly neglected.

 

[HSTEd]

i wouldn’t be so sure about that. The main things people will want are routes that go where they want to go - and the key destinations people will want to visit (shops, offices, schools, hospitals, homes, railway and bus stations) are all built along roads, and not necessarily canal paths.

Sure you have to go to places you want to go, but I am not in any way convinced that optimising a cycle network to serve these places would produce something that looks at all like the road network optimised for those locations.

Speed is less important for transport cycling. Sure, you have the Bradley Wiggins wannabes who treat the commute like a time trial, but if you want to enable “ordinary” people to cycle for their journeys, you need to provide routes that go where they want to go - and crucially, allow them to go at whatever pace they choose (by not forcing them into the same space as cars.) Hills become much less daunting if you don’t have a white van man tooting his horn behind you and can climb it at your own pace.

However a substantial fraction of the population is not particularily fit, and a hill is daunting if you can't actually climb it without having to go so slowly the bike falls over.
One of the hills near my home is great when you are cycling down it, but climbing it most people have to dismount - that seriously reduces the attractiveness of cycling. (And the cycle path is shared with the footpath)

Speed is important because if it takes much longer than the car or other transport they will take the car and not cycle.

An exemplar facility is the new cycleway on Embankment. It now carries between 8000-12000 people cycling on most weekdays, depending on the weather - because (a) it’s physically separated from motor vehicles, so you can cycle as fast or as slow as you want and still get there in safety; and (b) it serves Tower Hill, Parliament Square, Charing Cross, Monument, Blackfriars, Hyde Park Corner - all places where people want to go. It’s not perfect (the pelican crossings should really be zebra crossings) but it’s made a huge difference to the experience of cycling in central London and made many more cycling journeys possible.

Its also an exemplar for me, because its flat - so not particularily fit people can still reach speeds that are actually useful in a transport sense.

 

[quantinghome]

Playing Devil's advocate, if the CPWG were to get their way, I have a feeling we would end up with dozens of minor roads in the Chilterns getting isolated 100 yard sections of superbly engineered but rarely used cycle lane where they cross HS2, but nothing else. There are far better cycling projects to spend the money on.

 

[Via Bank]

Should the crossings of HS2 not be at least designed to allow construction of safe cycling infrastructure in future?

If a tunnel is only made wide enough to accommodate a carriageway (a high speed one, at that) that will effectively mean that cycling is designed out of that route - unless you then plan to reduce the width of the carriageway, or close HS2 to replace the crossing.

Adding a few extra metres onto the width of crossings to future-proof for it (and not severing existing routes) shouldn’t be controversial.

 

[Via Bank]

However a substantial fraction of the population is not particularily fit, and a hill is daunting if you can't actually climb it without having to go so slowly the bike falls over.
One of the hills near my home is great when you are cycling down it, but climbing it most people have to dismount - that seriously reduces the attractiveness of cycling. (And the cycle path is shared with the footpath)

Well - this may be true, but it may become less of a problem as e-bikes become more popular. And providing a high-quality path for cycling that isn’t shared with the pavement also makes climbing hills less daunting - if you can zig-zag without having to dodge pedestrians. You certainly see a lot of cycling in Nijmegen, which is very hilly but has cycling infrastructure to the usual Dutch standards.

There is a point here about crossings. The general best practice for crossings in the Netherlands is for cycle crossings to be in underpasses - that way, when people cycle through it, they pick up momentum on the way down so they don’t have to pedal as hard on the way out. (A good British example is the Blackfriars underpass of CS3)

Speed is important because if it takes much longer than the car or other transport they will take the car and not cycle.

Speed is not just about instantaneous speed, though - it also means directness (so not diverting miles out of your way for a flat route), minimal stop-starting (so no excessive waiting times or ceding priority at junctions) and convenience and comfort (decent quality surfaces, decent width.) The average speed of a Dutch cyclist is around 7.5mph - e-bike riders are only marginally faster. For shorter journeys inside and between towns and villages, cycling is not going to be excessively slow for distances under around four miles, especially given the time it takes to park up a car at either end.

 

[HSTEd]

Speed is not just about instantaneous speed, though - it also means directness (so not diverting miles out of your way for a flat route), minimal stop-starting (so no excessive waiting times or ceding priority at junctions) and convenience and comfort (decent quality surfaces, decent width.) The average speed of a Dutch cyclist is around 7.5mph - e-bike riders are only marginally faster. For shorter journeys inside and between towns and villages, cycling is not going to be excessively slow for distances under around four miles, especially given the time it takes to park up a car at either end.

Well outside of the most extreme circumstances, you can remove very steep gradients without resorting to enormously circuitous routes, and we also have the advantage over canal builders that we can move earth far more cheaply and can resort to bridges far more cheaply than they could - the load of a canal is absolutely enormous due to the water after all.

But I certainly believe that simply slavishly following the road pattern is not going to achieve the attractiveness needed to make substantial headway in an entrenched car-culture like the modern UK.

Additionally one of the advantages of "scenic" routes is that they tend to be relatively sheltered from the effects of the weather, which serves to increase the attractiveness of cycling.

So the challenge is to produce relatively flat, relatively direct routes that are sheltered from weather effects.

 

[The Ham]

What would encourage cycling more is much more high quality cycle parking.

Try cycling to most towns and other than at the stations most cycle parking will be outside and not that much of it.

 

[6Gman]

An exemplar facility is the new cycleway on Embankment. It now carries between 8000-12000 people cycling on most weekdays, depending on the weather - because (a) it’s physically separated from motor vehicles, so you can cycle as fast or as slow as you want and still get there in safety; and (b) it serves Tower Hill, Parliament Square, Charing Cross, Monument, Blackfriars, Hyde Park Corner - all places where people want to go. It’s not perfect (the pelican crossings should really be zebra crossings) but it’s made a huge difference to the experience of cycling in central London and made many more cycling journeys possible.

Since, in my experience, too many cyclists ignore them anyway ...

 

[infobleep]

From the Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...e-crossing-commitments-along-high-speed-route

I once heard Nick Ferrari, on his LBC breakfast show, ripe up a statement saying it was bland. If I'd been given the HS2 statement I would have done precisely the same thing.

I bet they didn't wish to discuss it because they might be doing just what they are accused of. If that isn't the case then they should feel free to chat to the media.

 

[Via Bank]

What would encourage cycling more is much more high quality cycle parking.

Try cycling to most towns and other than at the stations most cycle parking will be outside and not that much of it.

Fine - but the importance of putting in parking (even a few stands) is small fry compared to the cost and importance of actually making it safe to get there in the first place.

People will get creative and lock their cycles to railings, lampposts, etc - but if they didn’t get there in the first place, because the only routes are a boggy unlit bridleway or a 50mph six-lane motorway-in-all-but-name, what’s the point?

 

[The Ham]

Fine - but the importance of putting in parking (even a few stands) is small fry compared to the cost and importance of actually making it safe to get there in the first place.

People will get creative and lock their cycles to railings, lampposts, etc - but if they didn’t get there in the first place, because the only routes are a boggy unlit bridleway or a 50mph six-lane motorway-in-all-but-name, what’s the point?

Or even an uphill Duel carriageway leading to a motorway junction (large roundabout with three lanes) all of which is unit so isn't great to cycle in especially if it was home from work in the winter when it would be dark - but then I'm crazy!

Anyway the point is that the level of provision is mostly just to cross HS2 and so isn't likely to help very much with the cases suggested.

 

[Via Bank]

Precisely. The point is that any road carrying high volumes of through traffic is incompatible with comfortable, safe, and inclusive cycling.

So there are two options:

• Provide physical separation
• Remove through traffic from the road

The concern, as I understand it, is that HS2 claim there’s no money to build new bridges and tunnels with the space for physical separation, and potentially will be building brand new roads for through traffic without any provision for cycling. (Never mind that the cost of adding a cycleway is minimal if it’s done at build time.)

So realistically, the options are

• actually spend the £££ now to build new roads, tunnels, bridges etc. properly with physical protection for cycling
• only build the new crossings for cycling and walking, and don’t allow general traffic on them (This is not as silly as it sounds - large amounts of the Netherlands are crisscrossed by cycle tracks where the only cars allowed are pass-holders)
• build the new crossings only wide enough to accommodate a carriageway. The cost of adding a cycleway becomes astronomical, the prospect of closing it becomes politically difficult. There are more cars on the road and people who would’ve cycled along those routes drive instead.

It’s hard to see why HS2 (and most of the select committee) seem to think the third option is the most attractive one.

 

[quantinghome]

It’s hard to see why HS2 (and most of the select committee) seem to think the third option is the most attractive one.

Money.

 

[Via Bank]

Money.

Well, in that case, it’s tremendously short-sighted, considering the cost of doing it properly is relative peanuts on top of the cost of doing it at all.

 

[PeterC]

Money.

Better spent on transport cycling that in turning the Chilterns into a velodrome for the lycra brigade.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Better spent on transport cycling that in turning the Chilterns into a velodrome for the lycra brigade.

People in the Chilterns cycle for transport purposes too, you know (as they do here in the not-too-dissimilar Cotswolds).

 

[Via Bank]

People in the Chilterns cycle for transport purposes too, you know (as they do here in the not-too-dissimilar Cotswolds).

And critically, if money isn’t spent and decisions aren’t made now to cycle-proof HS2, transport cycling will be locked out and the Chilterns will only be any good for hardened Lycra-clad road racers.

 

[The Ham]

And critically, if money isn’t spent and decisions aren’t made now to cycle-proof HS2, transport cycling will be locked out and the Chilterns will only be any good for hardened Lycra-clad road racers.

I would question whether high class cycle provision at every crossing of HS2 was a suitable requirement. I would suggest that almost no cycle provision is required where:
- the two way flow of traffic is less than 300 vehicles per hour
- there's no settlement of over 500 people within 2 miles

Likewise providing on carriageway cycle lanes or a minimum of 2.5m wide shared footway/cycleway should probably be suitable for locations where:
- two way train flows are less than 450 vehicles
- there's no settlement of over 2,000 people within 2 miles

The reason being, is regardless of how much cycle infrastructure you build in those locations almost no one will use it and so it would be better to use the money to improve things more elsewhere where the cycle facilities would get used a lot more.

 

[Dave_Cardboard]

I would question whether high class cycle provision at every crossing of HS2 was a suitable requirement...

I couldn't agree with you more. If I recall when I used to cycle regularly, it was not pleasant sharing a busy "A" road with cars and juggernauts thundering along at 60mph and overtaking one with bearly a foot of "clearance." One would have loved a properly segregated cycle lane. (I can't believe I was ever brave/foolhardy enough to do so - but then I was 20-something.) But when tootling along "Daisy Lane" where one would be lucky if one ever met another car, it seems pointless spending out to provide a separate cycle track when the road carriageway is more than good enough. I suggest some pragmatic decision making is required rather than dogmatic "cycle track must always be provided" mantra.

 

[Via Bank]

So, here’s the thing: it’s fine if “Daisy Lane” has no cycle path, as long as there are not high volumes of through the traffic. And it’s all well and good to say “well, the model doesn’t predict any more traffic,” but believe me—once a few housing developments have gone up, and there’s a jam on the main road, “Daisy Lane” will be teeming with frustrated drivers seeking a shortcut, hooning along at the national speed limit.

So the question here is, “should Daisy Lane ever carry through traffic?” If no, fine - as long as there are measures to stop it being used for through traffic. This can be planters, rising bollards with access for residents, or even just a “no entry except pedestrians and cycles” sign with a camera to fine anyone who drives through. This is called modal filtering, or filtered permeability, and is nothing new.

If it is intended to convey through traffic, it needs to provide physically separated space for active travel. It needs pavements and cycle tracks. Full stop.

 

[AndrewE]

I would question whether high class cycle provision at every crossing of HS2 was a suitable requirement. I would suggest that almost no cycle provision is required where:
- the two way flow of traffic is less than 300 vehicles per hour
- there's no settlement of over 500 people within 2 miles

Likewise providing on carriageway cycle lanes or a minimum of 2.5m wide shared footway/cycleway should probably be suitable for locations where:
- two way train flows are less than 450 vehicles
- there's no settlement of over 2,000 people within 2 miles

The reason being, is regardless of how much cycle infrastructure you build in those locations almost no one will use it and so it would be better to use the money to improve things more elsewhere where the cycle facilities would get used a lot more.

That's a good way of ensuring that utility cycling is never safe enough to return to widespread use then.
I used to cycle across Bristol to work, my dad cycled daily from Tring to to Aylesbury to get a bus onwards for about 7 years. How is your proposal ever going to allow these sorts of work travel patterns to return?
Sod it, let's just keep burning petrol and building bigger roads.

 

[Dave_Cardboard]

I would agree that traffic levels (and any other safety concerns) should be what informs the decision, but on the basis present requirement, not trying to second guess what might happen in 10/100/150 years time. (Though I would argue any known present plans should be accommodated - essentially this is one of the things safeguarding directions are all about.)

Continuing with my Daisy Lane exemplar for the purpose of debate; if some future development takes place, say the housing development postulated, it should be the promoter of the housing development scheme that is required (by the applicable planning authority) to make (and pay for) any modifications to the road network necessary to accommodate future traffic demands and safeguard cyclists, hoverboarders, monowheelers, hyperloop tubes or anything else that may be invented in the future.

I submit we should not expect HS2 to try and second guess everything that "might" happen "one day" and provide a solution for it as part of the current scheme. However, to cite the counter argument made by the cycle lobby in petitioning the Phase 2A bill, is that (in their view) it is "not much more expensive" to build (say) a bridge a couple of meters wider so it could carry a cycle track one day.

I very much doubt any new bridges etc are going to be built with with no footpaths etc. - they will be built to current design and safety standards. Coincidentally, there's a very old bridge just like that on Harvil Road in Hillingdon near me (no footpaths and bearly room for two HGV's to pass) that is due to be demolished and replaced as part of the HS2 build - and good riddance, it's a horrible hazzard that's had some nasty accidents.

 

[The Ham]

So, here’s the thing: it’s fine if “Daisy Lane” has no cycle path, as long as there are not high volumes of through the traffic. And it’s all well and good to say “well, the model doesn’t predict any more traffic,” but believe me—once a few housing developments have gone up, and there’s a jam on the main road, “Daisy Lane” will be teeming with frustrated drivers seeking a shortcut, hooning along at the national speed limit.

So the question here is, “should Daisy Lane ever carry through traffic?” If no, fine - as long as there are measures to stop it being used for through traffic. This can be planters, rising bollards with access for residents, or even just a “no entry except pedestrians and cycles” sign with a camera to fine anyone who drives through. This is called modal filtering, or filtered permeability, and is nothing new.

If it is intended to convey through traffic, it needs to provide physically separated space for active travel. It needs pavements and cycle tracks. Full stop.

Firstly, to give you an idea of how busy a road with a peak of 300 cars an hour is, a road carrying 100 cars an hour is seen as the threshold of a road where footways are provided. In actual traffic frequenties that's (assuming a fairly even split by direction) that's a car overtaking a cyclist on average once every 24 seconds (which sounds a lot but government guidance says that cycles should be able to cycle at 15kph, meaning that along a 2km road you would likely be passed by something like 20 cars).

I would also question how many people would be cycling if there's no settlement of over 500 within 2.5 miles, as that would mean that the major places that people wanted to cycle to would likely be over 3 miles away, even if you were taking from within half a mile of the bridge and going just beyond the 2.5 mile distance.

Even if they were then providing 500m of cycle route to get you across/under a bridge is hardly going to make any difference to hire safe that route is.

I also said next to no cycle provision, that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be some passive provission for a shared route if traffic volumes increased.

Even at the higher traffic flow figure out 450, that's a car overtaking a cyclist every 16 seconds or 30 cars overtaking a cyclist on a 2km length of road.

Both those traffic flows are fairly low and probably a lot lower than a lot of roads which have a fair number of cyclists and no cycle provision.

Yes traffic flows can change when new developments happen, however if that was the determining factor of where we provided cycle facilities then the whole country would need to have cycle tracks along side it.

Actually a better thing to spend government money on would be to ensure that there was a better provision of cycle routes to schools. For instance changing the provision of school buses so that the 3 mile distance only counted if there was a safe cycling distance over a large percentage of the route as this petition calls for:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/224790

 

[AndrewE]

I would also question how many people would be cycling if there's no settlement of over 500 within 2.5 miles, as that would mean that the major places that people wanted to cycle to would likely be over 3 miles away, even if you were taking from within half a mile of the bridge and going just beyond the 2.5 mile

which is all completely irrelevant. Cyclists have the absolute right to use the road (apart from where a mandatory cycle path condemns them to an unswept un-maintained parallel route.) Motorists need to learn to drive more safely and enforcement needs to become the norm, rather than sympathy for the poor motorist who hit someone.
Are you saying that if you live in a rural area you should not be allowed to commute - let alone explore - by bike? Or that kids should only visit neighbours to play if a parent can drive them there? There are a lot more people without access to a car nowadays...