This is a poor and objectionable use of public money.
In the real world, this "sharing" of space by pedestrians and cyclists is selfish, unsafe, anti-social and bad in principle.
It constitutes a demonstration of intent, by both inference and example, which reveals contempt for the concept of "pedestrian refuge on the footway", where cyclists constitute a threat and for whom this is simply a convenient route.
There are obvious reasons as to why there have been bylaws prohibiting such cycling (and note Monty Street's reference to the Gazette of 1925).
When I looked on Sunday, the promenade was so busy with people walking that there was not sensible room for even responsible cyclists.
Two features are of particular relevance in Worthing:
1) If ever there were sufficiently large numbers of cyclists using the promenade to reflect all the time, the effort, the expenditure of "public funds" and the changing of the law that will have been employed here '“ pedestrians i.e., "promenaders" would have formally to be banned on safety grounds.
2) Visitors to Worthing, who have been exposed to several years of prominently visible "no cycling" signs, would reasonably expect not to encounter cyclists on the promenade '“ and would be justified in their distress, alarm, objection, heart attacks, falling, etc., even if there were to be a series of new, and huge, "beware of cyclists" signs to replace the (burnt off and removed) present painted markings.
Kevin J O'Malley
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.