The following comments are in regard to Principle 4C.

We add the following statement: 'In order to foster safe routes for children, all of the schools, parks and the village centre should be designed in such a way that they can be reached using off-street or quiet-street-only walking and cycling routes suitable for children from every dwelling.'

In general, we oppose the design features known as 'level carriageways' and 'shared surfaces' because they are not appropriate for any streets with significant motor traffic. These features may only be used in areas where motor traffic levels have been reduced to insignificant levels using measures such as filtered permeability and elimination of all motor traffic through-routes.


The following comments are in regard to Fix G.

Without further details we must oppose the terms 'appropriate barriers' and 'soft surfaces': they must be removed from the list. The only appropriate access controls are bollards, at least 80cm tall, spaced at 1.5m intervals on straight sections of path with suitable forewarning and lighting. Any other type of barrier is likely to be exclusionary to people with disabilities, riding cargo bikes or pulling trailers. Routes that are intended to form part of the normal, utility cycling network cannot have soft surfaces. The cycling segment of the route must have sealed surfaces that are suitable for all weather conditions, at all times of year and all times of day. This does not rule out the provision of a soft surface parallel to but separate from the strategic cycle route.

We add the following statement: 'Routes must be fully accessible to people with disabilities who are using mobility aids such as mobility scooters, adapted cycles and wheelchairs.'