William, I might accept your argument if providing cycle tracks solved the problem. However, it doesn't because cyclists so often ignore cycle paths if it suits their purpose. For example, on the other side of the railway line from me there is a cycle path. However, so many cyclists use the pedestrian only path on my side of the railway because is saves a few yards and pay no attention to pedestrians and children playing on open space. In fact, cyclists often cut across the grass.We hear so much about what cyclists want and that seems to mean that many feel that they can break the law with impunity. I am fed up to the back teeth of going for a walk on a quiet footpath, only to have lycra louts whizz pass me with absolutely no warning - they are breaking the law. Those who go through red lights - a regular occurrence - are breaking the law. Those who cycle on pavements are breaking the law. Which laws (as a pedestrian) is it okay for me to break? Which laws (as a car driver) is it okay for me to break?The alternative to cycling on "dangerous roads" might be to find routes through quieter roads, rather than riding at 20 mph+ on footpaths.Just as a final note: why is it that where cycle tracks are marked on what were previously footpaths only, the cycle tracks take up so much more space than what is left as footpath, leaving pedestrians with very little space to pass each other?
Jane Eades ● 2764d