I AGREE with your reader's letter ref: Cyclists should use designated path.

I am a motorist who also enjoys cycling, so I support the engineering of cycle only lanes and routes where they can be accommodated. But I also get extremely irritated by those cyclists - who seem to be in a majority - who ignore the designated cycling lanes and continue to use the roads, often cycling abreast in pairs - not only endangering themselves but annoying other road users who have often been forced to sacrifice some road width to accommodate the cycle lane.... this frustration is certain to lead to poor decision making by vehicle drivers and could ultimately result in accidents. But woe betide the vehicle driver who is involved in an accident with a cyclist - the default position will be that the cyclist is innocent and the driver is the guilty party, irrespective of the standard of road behaviour exhibited by the cyclist. These cyclists seem to believe that a Lycra cycling outfit somehow provides the same protection as Superman's costume....combined with the same immunity from the common sense as a set of diplomatic parking plates on an ambassadors car in London provides.

Given that the council is investing a lot of time and money in the continuing expansion of these cycle-safe options (e.g. Port Road West), isn't it time that there was a bit more emphasis placed by those in authority, to enforce their use, since it’s obvious that they will not be used on a voluntary basis by the majority of cyclists?

I'm not in favour of unenforceable bi-laws but maybe the so-called 'safety partnership' organisations who oversee the operation of mobile speed cameras could turn their attention to this - as it is an issue of safety also....?

But the downside to that suggestion is that there isn't any financial incentive for that course of action - is there?

Name and address supplied