has I thought the excellent aim to increase cycling and walking and reduce motorised traffic. I had been a member by invitation of Ashraf Ali and wanted to attend the next meeting scheduled for 13 January but unfortunately Joe Feltham, the chair cannot deal with matters that are not directly happening on the actual connect 2 route, e.g. routes, roads and walkways leading onto the Connect 2 cycling routes as this is not within the realm of the group.
I find this unsatisfactory and cancelled my membership in the Connect2 group because I feel that the route itself is as important as the traffic leading to and from it.
Especially as we discussed in church and in a recent TRA meeting how disturbing cycling on pavements can be, Joe Feltham mentions that new laws may come in that make the more dangerous vehicle responsible for any accidents regardless whose fault it is but that is a long way away and not yet in place.
I think reducing motorised traffic to promote cycling and walking is an excellent aim but this cannot be done on the expense of walkers as it seems to be right now. It is important if cyclists think they can cycle on footpaths to get to their routes or escape the danger of traffic. Pedestrians’ safety should be as important as cyclists’ safety and it would be counterproductive if cycling traffic on pavements terrorizes pedestrians. I thought the Connect2 group would be an excellent forum to discuss this issue but according to Joe Feltham Connect2 cannot deal with this unless it happens on the actual Connect2 route. I think that the publicity that encourages cycling could easily be used to remind cyclists that pedestrians have a right to walk on footpaths without constant fear of cyclists.
More cycing should not be encouraged on the expense of pedestrians but more joint up thinking in road and traffic planning is needed all around.