I was interested to read in Lindsi Bluemel's letter (letters June 27) about Southampton Cycle Campaign's support for pedestrians across the City, and the action the group has taken to bring some issues to the attention of the council.

However, I can't help thinking that her suggestion that shared use paths should be retained alongside cycle lanes rather missed the point of my previous letter printed in the Echo on June 23, and reinforced what many pedestrians and motorists feel, that cyclists want everything done for their benefit alone.

We are told that in line with Government policy, the sudden spread of "temporary" cycle lanes across the city was to facilitate the increased numbers of cyclists and pedestrians making active travel choices to reduce the burden on public transport, whilst making their journeys safer and providing more space to aid social distancing.

Retaining the pavements as shared use alongside a designated cycle lane means there is no safety or social distancing benefit for the anticipated increased numbers of pedestrians, who are still at risk of being "buzzed" by cyclists.

Rather, it has the effect of creating a potential three lane motorway for cyclists.

Those that can travel faster use the road or cycle lane, with the inexperienced and vulnerable slower travelling cyclists using the pavement.

Younger and inexperienced cyclists may well feel vulnerable using the road or cycle lanes, but surely, as with learner drivers, that emphasises the need for practice around quieter roads until they feel more confident to use the busier routes.

Motorists, quite rightly cannot drive in the cycle lanes until they feel confident enough to use the road, and the same should apply to cyclists.

Whilst the current law doesn't make use of a cycle lane compulsory, it does state that cyclists must not use pavements which are not shared use.

They should not, as Ms Bluemel suggests, use pavements if they don't feel safe using either the road or cycle lanes where they are provided, and it is wrong that a leader of the Cycle Campaign should advocate this misuse.

If we are to have these lanes all across the city, and indeed the country, there needs to be better legislation regulating cyclists to ensure theirs and other road users safety.

I would suggest a good basis for a starting point would be, pavements for pedestrians, cycle lanes for cyclists and the road for motorised transport.

Bernie Pearce

email