A parliamentary meeting about cycling provision along the route of HS2 showed me that MPs just don’t get it

These are not most cyclists. Image: Getty.

There is a moment in Ben Elton’s novel Gridlock, when a small group of rail enthusiasts are left alone in the basement of a building while car industry lobbyists are upstairs talking with ministers about the real business of building roads. I was reminded of it recently at a Parliamentary committee meeting on HS2, the high speed rail line between London and Birmingham. But this time, rail was the real business – and it was cycling in the figurative basement.

Here’s the context. Cycling UK, a charity, was trying to hold HS2 Ltd to account for its promises to ‘cycle proof’ the route. This means considering cycling at the design stage: tunnels and bridges are very expensive to retrofit, so getting the extra width in at the start is key. If you don’t, communities all along the 330 mile route will be permanently prevented from cycling safely to their neighbours, schools, shops etc., across the tracks.

The first phase of HS2, from London to the West Midlands, is already considered a write-off as far as cycle crossings are concerns: the government-owned HS2 Ltd. has told the cycle proofing working group (CPWG), the group of experts it is supposed to consult on the subject, that it didn’t have enough money in the £56bn project to think about cyclists.

The company looks set to use the same excuse on phase 2a, from West Midlands to Crewe, after a letter from its director, Oliver Bayne, referred to the “principles” rather than the “applicable aspects” of design standards. This is a worry: design standards mean the difference between a safe, traffic-free cycle route anyone can use, and sharing a fast, narrow main road lane with lorries.

Cycling UK’s policy director Roger Geffen, and his expert witnesses, John Grimshaw and Phil Jones, arrived at the Parliamentary committee room at around 9.30am; I was present, covering it for the Guardian. We waited – only to be told at around 11.30am to come back after lunch.

At 1.45pm, Geffen was finally allowed to set out his case. He argued that communities along the routes to be able to walk and cycle safely. He explained the need for design standards, and safe, direct-vision standard vehicles. 

The MPs, though, didn’t seem to understand. The first question from the chair of the committee was an expression of surprise Roger wasn’t wearing Lycra. That’s like asking someone advocating for better pedestrian facilities why they don’t turn up to Parliament wearing running shoes and a sweat wicking vest.

The chair also failed to understand why design standards were relevant, and eventually, growing frustrated, stopped Geffen entirely, forcing him to bring on his witness, Phil Jones, a leading expert on cycling infrastructure, without introducing him or his credentials. Jones had just a couple of minutes to explain why HS2’s design standards were exactly the wrong kind if you wanted people to be able to cycle safely. By now, it was almost 3pm.


At one point an MP asked why contractors should use safer lorries, given the potential impact on delivering “best value for the public purse”. This question, with its implication that cost savings trump human lives, was astounding. I don’t know if she understood this implication, but Geffen paused, politely, before pointing out that there is also a cost when companies kill cyclists – an attempt to state the potential outcome of poor vehicle standards, using the MP’s own metrics.

Next came John Grimshaw, co-founder of the national cycle infrastructure delivery charity, Sustrans. Grimshaw is delivering, on his own initiative, a whole new cycle route, the Waddesdon Greenway, complete with crossings, where HS2 cuts through Aylesbury in Buckinghamshire. This has meant negotiating with landowners, raising money, the lot. His partner even obtained a newt licence.

Grimshaw noted that he had personally negotiated access for a new cycling bridge ramp from the Rothschilds – infrastructure of a kind that would also help those with mobility issues, such as wheelchair users. And yet, he said, HS2 were still reluctant to put the ramp in, even though it would cost “pennies”.

At this point, it’s worth noting that the return on investment for cycling infrastructure ranges from £5.50 to £35 per £1 spent. HS2 has an ROI of just £1.47. What’s more, much of that comes from the business benefits of cutting travel times, rather than from anything experienced by communities along the route.

Last up was Peter Miller, director of environment for HS2 Ltd. He said it was difficult to cost cycling infrastructure, and questioned whether there was any desire for cycle crossings from communities along the route anyway. He was led through his points by HS2 Ltd’s QC, during which time one MP challenged him to say that not designing for cycling at the start would rule it out forever. During some of his claims on HS2’s provision for cycling, Phil Jones, in his frustration, murmured “rubbish”. Before we knew, it was over.

Geffen has often said that, before making the case for cycling infrastructure, you have to make the case for cycling. For some politicians cycling looks like men in Lycra on weekend jollies, not normal people doing everyday journeys. Phil Jones said he left feeling bullied – that during 30 or more such Parliamentary meetings in his career he’d never been treated this way.

Once HS2 is built many smaller roads will be blocked off, leaving fewer crossings, inevitably with heavier traffic, without cycle infrastructure. The last time I cycled on a rural dual carriageway I was nearly mown down by a lorry, before a fallen branch tore off my front mudguard, stopping me dead: I had been too terrified of being run over by another passing lorry to swerve to avoid it. I continued my journey by pushing my bike along the grass verge, thankful to be alive.

Instead of looking to the future, those making decisions on how we travel are recreating the very conditions that result in obesity, air pollution and reliance on expensive private transport. Manchester mayor Andy Burnham recently called active travel an “orphan policy” in Whitehall; and MP Ruth Cadbury has said that mentions of cycling often elicit figurative eye rolls in Parliament.

I now get what they mean. What I saw was a worrying insight into why our government seems determined, not just to sideline cycling, but to stubbornly refuse to see the point of it at all.

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook

 
 
 
 

There isn’t a war on the motorist. We should start one

These bloody people. Image: Getty.

When should you use the horn on a car? It’s not, and anyone who has been on a road in the UK in living memory will be surprised to hear this, when you are inconvenienced by traffic flow. Nor is it when you are annoyed that you have been very slightly inconvenienced by another driver refusing to break the law in a manner that is objectively dangerous, but which you perceive to be to your advantage.

According to the Highway Code:

“A horn should only be used when warning someone of any danger due to another vehicle or any other kind of danger.”

Let’s be frank: neither you nor I nor anyone we have ever met has ever heard a horn used in such a manner. Even those of us who live in or near places where horns perpetually ring out due to the entitled sociopathy of most drivers. Especially those of us who live in or near such places.

Several roads I frequently find myself pushing a pram up and down in north London are two way traffic, but allow parking on both sides. This being London that means that, in practice, they’re single track road which cars can enter from both ends.

And this being London that means, in practice, that on multiple occasions every day, men – it is literally always men – glower at each other from behind the steering wheels of needlessly big cars, banging their horns in fury that circumstances have, usually through the fault of neither of them, meant they are facing each other on a de facto single track road and now one of them is going to have to reverse for a metre or so.

This, of course, is an unacceptable surrender as far as the drivers’ ego is concerned, and a stalemate seemingly as protracted as the cold war and certainly nosier usually emerges. Occasionally someone will climb out of their beloved vehicle and shout and their opponent in person, which at least has the advantages of being quieter.

I mentioned all this to a friend recently, who suggested that maybe use of car horns should be formally restricted in certain circumstances.

Ha ha ha. Hah.

The Highway Code goes on to say -

“It is illegal to use a horn on a moving vehicle on a restricted road, a road that has street lights and a 30 mph limit, between the times of 11:30 p.m. and 07:00 a.m.”

Is there any UK legal provision more absolutely and comprehensively ignored by those to whom it applies? It might as well not be there. And you can bet that every single person who flouts it considers themselves law abiding. Rather than the perpetual criminal that they in point of fact are.


In the 25 years since I learned to drive I have used a car horn exactly no times, despite having lived in London for more than 20 of them. This is because I have never had occasion to use it appropriately. Neither has anyone else, of course, they’ve just used it inappropriately. Repeatedly.

So here’s my proposal for massively improving all UK  suburban and urban environments at a stroke: ban horns in all new cars and introduce massive, punitive, crippling, life-destroying fines for people caught using them on their old one.

There has never been a war on motorists, despite the persecution fantasies of the kind of middle aged man who thinks owning a book by Jeremy Clarkson is a substitute for a personality. There should be. Let’s start one. Now.

Phase 2 will be mandatory life sentences for people who don’t understand that a green traffic light doesn’t automatically mean you have right of way just because you’re in a car.

Do write in with your suggestions for Phase 3.