Letter: Crowded pavements
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Your recent correspondence about conflicts between pedestrians and cyclists on pavements highlights two issues. First, the urgent need to make cycling safer and more attractive. Second, the equally compelling need to achieve this without reducing pedestrian safety or comfort.
Pedestrians and cyclists would both benefit from less traffic and slower vehicle speeds. This has led many to assume that the two groups are identical and can be lumped together in "shared use" facilities.
Your correspondence clearly reveals that the interests of pedestrians and cyclists are not identical. Bicycles do not belong on pavements. They are vehicles and should be catered for as such, either on roads that have been made safe or on tracks segregated from pedestrians. It is drivers, not pedestrians, whose space and convenience should be reduced to create the safe conditions for cyclists we urgently need.
BEN PLOWDEN
Director
The Pedestrians Association
London SW8
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments