Make cycling safer to help with fuel poverty

SPEED limits for cyclists seems like an issue being introduced to distract. Why not just stick to existing limits for cars? The risks from people on bikes are tiny compared with the risks from motor vehicles because the weight difference is massive.

Yes, we need to protect pedestrians but let’s do that simply and sensibly. Keeping bikes off pavements would be a good start and having fewer cars on the roads, so it is safer for bikes, is a great next step.

What really concerns me is the proposal to require number pates and insurance for people on bikes. That’s ridiculous! Such restrictions on cyclists will lead to a dramatic reduction in people prepared to cycle when we need more.

It would mean more journeys by cars, leading to more serious injuries and deaths; 99% of current road deaths involve motor vehicles. It would also cause more pollution, more carbon dioxide emissions and a less healthy population.

Do we want higher costs and more work for the NHS? The net loss to society would be massive, and for what? It makes no sense when the Government is funding a pilot scheme to prescribe cycling to improve mental and physical health.

With the cost-of-living crisis, cycling is a great way of supporting those in fuel poverty. We need cycling to be safe, so that means better provision for people wanting to get to work, school or the shops by bike. It is a key part of our transition to Net Zero. It is to be welcomed and encouraged.

Cathy Slaughter Bideford, North Devon