From: Ron Spicer
I refer to the response by Paul Humphreys in the Herald (March 3) to my letter of February 23 in which he states that car drivers must get used to cyclists.
He is the same person who was firmly of the idea that car parking on the seafront road should be abolished to provide for a cycle lane.
Part of the very bread and butter provision by the town to visiting and resident car drivers alike.
A facility which helps towards people using our seafront area in very large number. So far as his argument goes, it is certainly not a necessity for car drivers to get used to cyclists in the circumstances I have described, who have in many areas been provided with a cycle lane for safe cycling, and which in such circumstances are disregarding that line guidance.
For cyclists to ride two and three abreast, holding back the safe passing by car drivers for quite long distances is not in any shape or form a legal acceptance of their road use and they need to be prosecuted to discourage such behaviour.
His letter simply illustrates the mindstate of someone who is in a position to properly outline the legal or social requirements to fellow cyclists yet not only fails to do so but attempts to assure otherwise, and that is to be much regretted.
Indeed, if cyclists adhered to decent social and legal requirements whilst out and about they would naturally be supporting their own cause for necessary separate, safe cycling. I would have much preferred he took note of my words on the need for a cycling track between Hampden Park and Eastbourne through the intervening parkland for which he has never shown any practical signs of support, especially in recent years when the then CEO of Sainsburys had agreed with me to open up entrance to the parkland at the superstore end if others involved agreed to pursue the provision of a track.
Now that is something that Eastbourne sorely needs.
As for the Department for Transport’s figure of Eastbourne being amongst the most poorly providing towns for cyclists, surely that supports my additional argument for any track being apart from the motor vehicle with its obnoxious fumes and general inherent danger to other road users which I can sadly say is a suggestion totally avoided over so many years. Are you digesting these facts, councillors?