OFF YER BIKE

When I rode a bike for recreation, I concluded that cycling was pretty much incompatible with all other road or track uses (“Bikelash”, February 17) and that the activity should be restricted to quiet suburban streets or dedicated cycleways and tracks.

It’s verging on stupidity to ride such flimsy contraptions on dangerous arterial roads or city streets where motorists have enough going on without watching for cyclists.

The cyclist-pedestrian mix doesn’t work, either. In a recreational setting, each diminishes the enjoyment of the other. It’s disconcerting for a walker to have a cyclist speeding from behind; equally, cyclists must find it a pain having to dodge straggling walkers.

Cycling has long been banned from roadside footpaths for the very reason that it’s a pedestrian hazard, so it’s disturbing to see authorities introducing not only combined recreation tracks but also roadside paths. Murray Eggers (Paraparaumu)

I was a full-time coach driver for 30 years in Australia, where there were many hazards. But three things really frightened me: cattle sleeping on the road; slow-moving but unpredictable camels; and the real heart-stopper – rounding a bend at 90km/h to see a pair of cyclists two abreast on my side of the road and a large truck coming the other way.

Would I hit the brakes then swerve off the road to pass the bikes on the left, risking rolling the coach? Or swing right into path of the truck?

I encountered this situation twice and both times my career was saved by a fast-thinking truck driver who was able to get off his side of the road. On one occasion, I looked in the mirror to see the cyclists shaking their fists. Evidently I passed too close.

My point is, yes, cyclists have a right to be on the open road, but they should be aware of the risks they face and pose to other road users. We all know who gets hurt in a bikeversus-motor vehicle collision. Roger White (Hastings)