Cycling

AS I did not witness the cyclists that K J Nunn (July 24) complained about I cannot categorically defend them.

However, Mr Nunn needs to produce better evidence than that.

There could be a number of reasons why the cyclists in London Road South were over to the right.

They might have been going to one of the establishments on the right hand side or making for the right turn.

Whatever the reason it seems Mr Nunn would have had no difficulty getting past the cyclists if he had realised it is not illegal to drive in a recommended cycle lane.

The idea of a recommended cycle lane is to indicate to drivers the correct width to overtake cyclists. It is not the case that a cyclist is obliged to stay in a cycle lane.

With regard the cyclists riding on the relief road with a cycle path alongside, cyclists have a right to be on the road.

Off-road cycle paths are for those cyclists who feel more comfortable on them than on the road. They are not for the benefit of drivers.

On the two-abreast point it is not law, but advice, that cyclists ride single file in appropriate traffic conditions.

Those conditions as defined by many drivers are questionable. I accept that there are instances when cyclists are less than considerate. However, the tone of Mr Nunn's letter suggests he is another driver who thinks cyclists want it all ways.

It is driver behaviour that has made off-road cycling facilities and cycle lanes necessary and historically cyclists were on the roads a few years before drivers.

JOHN THOMPSON

Dell Road

Oulton Broad