GRAHAM Webb asks for someone to tell him why he should not be allowed to cycle on the seafront (Herald, January 6 and 13).
Essentially for the same reason he is not allowed to cycle on pavements: their purpose is for walkers.
The clue is found in the words: foot paths, and in the case of the sea front: promenade.
If Mr Webb wants to avail himself of the undoubted joy of the seafront, then he should do what the rest of us do – walk it, whether we have come to it by car, bus or shank’s pony itself.
Several months ago the editorial of the Herald took a swipe at what it described as the ‘anti-cycling brigade’. I doubt that is valid.
I am as keen as the next one to have a system in which cyclists are safe. Their lives will not be made satisfactory until every traffic route has provided accommodation for them.
That may take a long time but it is an ideal that should be kept constantly in view.
The operative word there though is ‘traffic’.
It should apply to all vehicular ways; it should not apply to what are unquestionably walkways.
To an extent Mr Webb is right when he talks of inconsistency if it is still the case that certain parts of the seafront east of the Pier are open to cyclists.
The object here should be to adopt a standard approach.
And of course dogs or anything else that poses a danger to one degree or another should be controlled.