SIR, All over Kendal you meet cyclists ignoring the prohibition signs on Waterside, Gooseholme, Thorny Hills, Riverside Walk and elsewhere (Gazette, March 1, Aisle group block bike link').

They ride in areas closed to traffic, go the wrong way up one-way streets, use footpaths, footbridges, even pedestrian crossings.

Rather annoyingly, they ignore paths that go around and choose to ride across green areas.

But the vast majority are polite, careful and considerate.

They act sensibly in a small town with known access problems.

Has anyone been injured, or even alarmed? Certainly nobody in authority ever seems to have considered enforcing the existing nominal prohibitions.

Then some genius suggests barriers to separate cyclists and pedestrians.

What nonsense! Alongside the Thames, through the heart of London, vastly greater numbers of cyclists and pedestrians share common walkways.

Better still, in Holland huge numbers get along admirably.

They, of course, have the sense to recognise absolute right of way priorities for pedestrians, then cyclists, then motorised vehicles.

They also teach road manners and consideration.

Back to Kendal, however.

If the ` missing link' is deemed too narrow for cyclists and pedestrians to share, why are cars permitted to use it? The most it needs is a white line and a few symbols.

Can we not muster a bit of commonsense and concern ourselves with more important matters?

Incidentally, I do not ride a bicycle, but I do walk all the places mentioned and gladly share them with responsible cyclists.

Norman Burnell

Kendal