So the saga of cycling/cycling prohibited along the promenade west of the pier continues (Herald, February 8).
The byelaw prohibiting cycling on the promenade (section 2 (1)) says “No person shall, without reasonable excuse,ride or drive a cycle, motor cycle, motor vehicle or any other mechanicaly propelled vehicle on the promenade...”
I have a copy, sent me by EBC as a result of a letter of mine here over a year ago stating I regularly cycled along the Promenade west of the pier.
Now that the ridiculously ill-conceived shared cycle route on the southern-side pavement from Holywell to The Wish Tower has been completed, cyclists insistent on using the lower Promenade could offer the potential dangerousness of the new official route as a ‘reasonable excuse’.
What, for goodness sake, does a bit of hatching in the road by the kerb, and the white line on the pavement all actually MEAN?
Is it within this area that cyclists are supposed to stick to? But then weaving in and out of the hatching where some vehicle-drivers, those not knowing as well what the hatching signifies, have parked right up to the kerb? Crazy.
And far more dangerous I submit than if cyclists were allowed to use the lower Promenade.
So I shall continue to use the promenade when I consider it safe to do so and not a hazard to other users. And wait to be apprehended for contravention of a byelaw.
Perhaps Bespoke as a group, instead of pushing (literally) for a cycle route along the Prom, need to up their game, and stage a mass ride along the prohibited section, and ready themselves for a potential testing of the wording of the byelaw. It may not even result in cycling being allowed there, but it would at least cause drafters of such documents to be careful about including such an ambiguous three-word phrase in a byelaw again.
GRAHAM WEBB, Upperton Road.