PUBLISHED: 11:36 05 June 2008 | UPDATED: 13:18 06 May 2010
SIR, — I am responding to C. Stewart s letter (Herts Advertiser, May 29) in which she comments that she hopes my previous letter regarding the number of cyclists using the pavement was not a criticism. The short answer is yes, it was a criticism. It is u
SIR, - I am responding to C. Stewart's letter (Herts Advertiser, May 29) in which she comments that she hopes my previous letter regarding the number of cyclists using the pavement was not a criticism. The short answer is yes, it was a criticism.
It is unlawful to cycle on the pavement and it is potentially dangerous. I am a regular cyclist myself so I am well aware of the dangers to cyclists using the roads, but this does not excuse them/us from transferring that danger to pedestrians by cycling on pavements. No doubt C. Stewart cycles on the pavement and gives consideration to pedestrians, unlike the many, young and old, who cycle aggressively and without any consideration for others on the narrow pavements around St Albans.
I wrote to the police on this subject fairly recently and received a quick acknowledgement, but then had to wait two months for a response, and this after two further prompts. The verbal response when it came was that the matter was of low priority - not unexpected and with which I agree. What shocked me, however, was the implicit response that the police turned a blind eye to the offence as it was dangerous for cyclists to use the road.
So it appears that C. Stewart and others can continue unlawfully cycling on the pavements with impunity - until someone is badly injured. I wonder if the injured pedestrian could then not only sue the cyclist for acting unlawfully, but also the police for in effect condoning the offence?
THOMAS ANTONY FISHER,
Culver Road, St Albans.