I WRITE to support 76-year-old Mr Whyte (Your Letters, March 5) who complained about cyclists using the Interchange walkway as a cycle track.

I have complained about this kind of behaviour for years. I have had a police inspector in my home asking him why the police have failed so lamentably to control this menace, and I have spent a considerable time talking to one of the council officers responsible for what is grandly described as "the cycling strategy".

I have written several letters to this paper in order to alert the public. I have pointed out the dangers of bikes on pavements to elderly people like Mr Whyte, to handicapped people with mobility problems, to young mothers struggling to control wayward toddlers, and to blind people. All to no avail.

And the situation is about to get considerably worse. Until the council introduced this policy, cycling in any urban areas, other than roads, was illegal - though the police did precisely nothing to enforce the law. Indeed, the police, by an act of omission, positively encouraged this irresponsible behaviour, and by so doing helped generate a general contempt for the law, not least among impressionable and often thoughtless young people.

Have Bury police ever heard of a "Zero Tolerance" policy - a policy of law enforcement which brought crime under control, even in formerly lawless New York? This new cycling policy means that the council is about to confer legal approval on the bikes-on-pavement problem. It seems that, despite its being forbidden in the Highway Code, cycling on pavements can be made lawful by the local council simply re-designating parts of pavements and underpasses as cycleways. This is what Bury Council has done, hence the white lines and public notices regarding cycling on pavements now being produced.

It is important for the public to understand just what this means in terms of the innocent pedestrian's safety and legal responsibility.

Imagine a young mother pushing a trolley, and holding the hand of a lively three-year-old. The child sees something of interest on the "wrong" side of the white line, so dashes into the cycle lane, and there is an accident. Who will be responsible in law, and liable to be sued for damages? Answer: the young mother - and it has been made clear to me that she will get no help or assistance from the council. The old, the handicapped and the blind will be in the same position.

This council regularly trumpets its concern for the environment and the safety and welfare of local residents. Has it not realised that pedestrians do not pollute the atmosphere, and that they threaten no one? Has none of its "experts" informed it that walking is the means by which the whole transport system is held together?

Walking accounts for nearly one-third of all journeys and 80 per cent of journeys under a mile. Most car journeys and nearly all public transport journeys involve walking. What is more, a significant proportion of Bury folk do not own a car, and have to walk to do their shopping. What about their urban environment and their rights?

This crazy policy makes it clear that Bury Council has nothing but contempt for the humble walker who does no more than ask that he be allowed to place one foot in front of another in reasonable safety. This policy is a disgrace.

RAY HONEYFORD,

Wragby Close,

Bury.

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.