Boris Bikes were created by Boris Johnson as an alternative mode of transport that is eco friendly and promote the idea of healthy living. However, they cost money, money that many people cannot afford to splurge on.

In my opinion, although a healthy lifestyle entails physical fitness, which the promotion of is just, what about the other element that makes up healthy lifestyle - healthy eating? To create a succinct healthy living city both elements need to be considered properly.

Correct in its' essence, many who live close to roads live at the expense of the damaging effects, but this is a universally acknowledged part of living in the city. Everyone, those that live and plan to live there, know what the city entitles.

When are delivery vans suppose to make their rounds to the businesses that require their services? An idea has been presented, but now alternative to conquer caused problems haven't been thought out - the argument is one-sided, fit only for those who enjoy cycling.

The idea of 'Cycle cities' are environmentally sound, however, the cities are just that, of a metropolitan stand point, accessible and provided to those only within close distance.

Although the benefits that the infrastructure will bring, both environmentally and in many people's lifestyle, are of a very positive nature, it is obvious that those who are immobile or live a far distance away have not been taken into consideration.

The use of a past tense 'had' suggests that London now aims for a healthy and environmentally sound economy, rather than what it was classified as historically - poor living conditions and riddled with disease.

Tabula Rasa refers to a theory that connects to purity and a blank canvas. In this sense, it became unnecessary as what was once a blank canvas due to a fire was gentrified.

Does this mean that cycling and its' connection to a rebirth could be seen as tangible? This puts into question the whole foundation of what cycling as an element of change sits upon.

This statement acts as an inconsistency with the argument put forward before. It stated before that cycling would act as the catalyst, whereas here it mentions that the catalyst stems in part from a disaster. The two contradict themselves, what is the real catalyst?

Natural disasters continue to be a prevailing problem within our world, the Parliament in England has taken steps in the right direction to ensure the safety of their residents.