The facts about cycling

Click here to read the original letter.

It is not in the interests of anyone who wants to promote cycling to have a scheme that is inherently unsafe.

Moreover, Worthing Borough Council's plans are being very much concentrated by the requirements of their insurers.

Firstly, it is necessary to scotch the idea that schemes to promote cycling are a poor use of public money.

The Department for Health has recently released a report detailing the costs to this country of physical inactivity.

The annual cost to the West Sussex Primary Care Trust is 12.7 million.

Work for DEFRA suggests that car use for food shopping alone costs the UK more than 3.5 billion per year from traffic emissions, noise, accidents and congestion.

Schemes that encourage a shift away from car use are among the best investments that can be made to benefit the whole community.

This has long been recognised in the West Sussex Local Transport Plan.

There are now many shared-use spaces in this country, and plenty of evidence to support a shared use scheme on the Prom.

Last year Sustrans commissioned an independent review into the merits of segregated and non-segregated traffic-free paths.

I also draw on first-hand experience of some of these shared-use schemes around the UK as well as my knowledge of Worthing Prom.

It's important to establish that in a shared-use scheme, pedestrians have priority.

It is vital that Worthing Borough Council get this message across, because (as Mr O'Malley rightly points out) there is a period of risk when allowing cyclists into an area that has been previously pedestrian only.

Mr O'Malley observes how busy the Prom can get.

In practice, this makes shared-use space safer than a segregated cycle lane: cyclists have no option but to slow down or get off and push.

It depends what type of cyclist Worthing wants to attract.

Shared-use space tends to attract leisure cyclists and family groups.

A segregated cycle path favours those cyclists who want to get from A to B as quickly as possible.

The perception of risk is understandably high where there is no experience of shared-use schemes.

It is worth citing the findings of a shared-use trial in Kensington Gardens, London:

"A very interesting finding of the research was that pedestrians' negative perceptions of cyclists were significantly lower after cycling was permitted, even though the number of cyclists had increased.

"Before implementation, 26 per cent of people thought that collisions with cyclists were a problem, which fell to only two per cent a year after.

"People also thought that the proportion of cyclists that behaved well rose from 40 per cent beforehand to around 80 per cent a year afterwards."

"In summary, there was a small and decreasing incidence of danger, with no actual accidents between park users.

"A small minority of people wanted to see segregation between pedestrians and cyclists, but this fell from 18 per cent before cycling was permitted to nine per cent a year afterwards."

John Coote

Sustrans Worthing

Orchard Close

Ferring

NOTE: All letters must include a name and address which can be withheld by request.

Write in to Readers' Letters, Worthing Herald series, Cannon House, Chatsworth Road, Worthing, BN11 1NA, email the Herald, or use the contact us template by Clicking here.

-------------------------------------

Click here for more readers' letters.

Where are you? Add your pin to the Herald's international readers' map by clicking here.

Email the Herald: [email protected]

Want to read this page in French, German, Spanish, Polish, Portuguese, Urdu or 48 other languages? click here for Google translate.