Search

Cycling on the prom

PUBLISHED: 15:27 21 January 2008 | UPDATED: 19:29 05 July 2010

I DON'T accept that Peter Anderton (January 4) has given a good argument against promenade cycling with the example of the accident he had with a child pedestrian.

I DON'T accept that Peter Anderton (January 4) has given a good argument against promenade cycling with the example of the accident he had with a child pedestrian.

I have been a serious cyclist for over 40 years and I've had skirmishes with pedestrians. Admittedly none as serious as Mr Anderton's although I've had near misses.

However, I have cycled in probably every possible traffic condition from central London in the rush hour to country lanes on the Isle of Skye.

By far the majority of my incidents with pedestrians have been in quiet areas. Quietness seems to cause many pedestrians to “switch off”.

Therefore, it does not stand to reason that promenade cycling will be dangerous when it is busy. Yes, it will need to be monitored at first to make sure that pedestrians properly realise that cyclists are being allowed and there will need to be signs.

The big point, however, is that promenade cycling has the potential to take a lot of cars off London Road South. Pedestrians have far more accidents with cars than cyclists do and don't forget breathing in those unhealthy fumes and that London Road South was once over the EEC acceptable pollution level.

I am sorry but Alan Hines's argument (January 11) that allowing cycling would be seriously detrimental to the enjoyment of a promenade stroll is ridiculous.

Some opponents are again arguing around the definition of "promenade/promenading". I checked the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary: "to walk or ride..."

JOHN THOMPSON

Dell Road

Oulton Broad

Most Read

Most Read

Latest from the Lowestoft Journal

Hot Jobs

Show Job Lists