Cyclists must prove they’re fit to be on the road

SIR – There may be some merit in the proposals to subject cyclists to the same laws as dangerous motorists. However, there is one important difference.

When a motorist causes death or injury by careless or dangerous conduct, it is always in direct contravention of the formal training and testing which they undertook in order to be allowed to drive – so there can be no valid excuse.

Cyclists, on the other hand, have no obligation to undergo any skill, risk or hazard training; neither are they tested to assess their abilities, so they may legitimately complain that no one ever told them how to ride correctly. Moreover, bicycles are never validated for safety, nor must they have visible identification marks or basic insurance.

Perhaps the current plans are putting the cart before the horse. A smarter approach would be to make every road-cyclist over 10 years of age undergo formal training and testing, and to develop a form of mandatory MOT for bicycles. Once that is all enacted, the penalties being

SIR – I’d like to see a review of legislation concerning vehicles not covered by road traffic acts.

There are increasing numbers of bikes and mobility scooters weaving at speed around pedestrians on pavements and paths. I would like the use of bells – or some other audible warning – to be made mandatory when such vehicles are going to overtake. Margaret Barr

Wolverhampton

SIR – If more punitive measures against cyclists are to be introduced, we should consider the same for pedestrians who step off the pavement while simultaneously communing with their mobile phones. This may not always result in injury, but it certainly causes stress for drivers and cyclists. Trevor Guy Dunmore London SW11