Promenades were constructed first and foremost for pedestrians

“WHY can’t cyclists enjoy our wonderful seafront?,” asks Jane Schulze (letters Aug 3).

They can, providing they are prepared to experience it on foot which was always its intended purpose. As an ex-pedal pusher myself I would be the first to acknowledge and respect that promenades, piers, pavements and precincts were all essentially designed and constructed first and foremost for pedestrians.

Resorts that possess long, wide thoroughfares with minimal footfall may be able to offer some limited pro-sharing to cyclists with safety although that is debatable.

Regardless, pedestrians, particularly young children, the elderly and those with hearing, vision and mobility restrictions, should all be free to go about their business on traffic-free walkways - including the promenade - with enjoyment, comfort and ease. And what’s happened to health and safety on this issue?

Perhaps they consider that a can of white paint and a few lines and symbols on the pavement afford sufficient segregation and protection between pedestrians and cyclists?

I suggest that local pedestrians, far from being less tolerant of cyclists, simply feel aggrieved, not to say concerned for their personal safety, as they see more areas designated for walking being hived off or under threat for a purpose that was never intended.

And not without cause, given the current negligible chance of recompense should they be injured by a cyclist.

Sooner or later, with increasing numbers of cyclists on the road, serious thought must be given to enforcing liability insurance certainly for adults.

B Edwards, Old Camp Road