We need action, not words, to keep Scotland's cyclists safe

It's particularly surprising to see his commitment to this initiative after he dismissed proposals for a strict liability regime which would have instantly brought Scotland into line with the majority of Europe, created a friendlier environment for all road users and would have cost significantly less.

It is simply not good enough to say be nice to each other and leave it at that, especially when the Government has the ability to do something far more substantive. By changing Scots civil law, we would see a much greater, longer lasting impact on the culture amongst drivers, cyclists and pedestrians rather than what can be achieved through a here today, gone tomorrow advertising campaign.

Despite Keith Brown's exhorta­tions that road casualties are down, the fact of the matter is that the roads are not safe for cyclists. Official figures released by Transport Scotland just last month revealed the number of cyclists killed has steadily risen over the past five years and already nine have been killed this year so far. It is unacceptable.

Is the Nice Way Code really going to make any difference to the number of road deaths caused? I can only comment from my own experience, but as a lawyer who deals with victims and the families of victims involved in road traffic collisions, it seems to me far more needs to be done about the way our legal system handles road safety.

I deal with people every day who have been either seriously injured or who have lost a loved one and who have been let down by the criminal justice system. Civil law improve­ments to protect the vulnerable in road traffic collisions are urgently required and the Government should reconsider its dismissal of strict liability regimes and bring Scotland into line with the rest of Europe.

I understand the motivation behind this initiative is to improve road user relations but this money and time could be much better spent in so many other ways including training, investment in infrastructure and stricter liability.

Brenda Mitchell,

Founder and partner,

Cycle Law Scotland,

16-20 Castle Street,Edinburgh.

IF Glasgow's cycling tsar Frank McAveety wants to avoid making motorists angry, I would suggest that he desists from riding two abreast down the middle of busy city centre streets and "swerving suddenly to avoid chip-eating seagulls", as pictured and reported in The Herald ("Potholes and broken glass: the thrill of the Tour de Frank", The Herald, July).

To make cycling safer in urban areas, he wants separate cycle tracks to be provided, main roads altered, roundabouts rebuilt and junctions redesigned. All very worthy aims, perhaps, but prohibitively expensive, especially in these days of imposed austerity and severe public spending cutbacks on both national and local authority budgets. Like all politicians when in opposition, Mr McAveety is keen to demand more expenditure without considering where the money will come from, or suggesting what other public spending should be cut to provide the funding for such schemes.

Your editorial comment ("Work needed to make roads safe for cyclists") calls for changes in the driving test to improve the attitude of motorists towards cyclists and "include more about the correct way to interact with them". Why not also improve the attitude of the cycling community towards motorists? Every car driver has to undergo special training, pass a severe driving test and then pay for a driving licence and insurance cover, before being allowed on to the public highway. Cyclists have no such tests or obligations. In theory a five-year-old child or an 85-year-old pensioner can mount a bike and wobble along main arterial roads in heavy traffic without any legal restriction.

Your leading article also points out that at present only 2% of all road journeys are made by cycle, meaning that the other 98% are made either by car or bus. Why should such a small minority, even if it is increased to 10%, receive such preferential treatment? To add to the unfairness, the vocal minority are now calling for a new law of strict liability, under which a vehicle driver would be automatically assumed responsible for any accident involving a cyclist, unless or until he (or she) can prove otherwise. Guilty until proved innocent – what a perversion of the normal legal system. In fact your correspondent Bob Downie (Letters, July 29) seems to regard all drivers as possessing a "lethal implement" and wants them to be treated accordingly.

The only practical solution is, of course, for cyclists and motor vehicles to be kept separate at all times. But that involves major and hugely expensive infrastructure changes, which are not possible on the existing road layouts in congested urban areas. The only pragmatic answer seems to be to allow commuting cyclists to use the almost-empty pavements on arterial and suburban roads, with the proviso of course that the law of strict liability would also apply to them in all collisions with pedestrians.

Iain AD Mann,

7 Kelvin Court, Glasgow.

GEOFFREY Robinson (Letters, July 30) takes exception to the fact that some cyclists do not always obey red lights when roads are quiet and no-one is coming. This phenomenon of red-light crossing by cyclists must be put in the context of the current road design, starting from the fundamental question of why do we have red lights at all?

I am old enough to have seen the transition from roads unencumbered by traffic lights to roads where there are lights every couple of hundred metres. The reason for the change is simple: the increased prosperity of the populace and dramatically increased rate of car ownership. In other words, traffic lights are a response to volume of motor traffic.

So where does this leave the cyclist? He arrives at one of these numerous lights, traffic is light and there is nothing coming, so what should he/she do? Some wait, obeying the letter of the law, some take the view that as the way is clear and they can safely proceed, why not just do so? So what is my point? Simply that the roads are now designed for cars and the current road control measures such as lights are often of limited usefulness to cyclists and simply impede their already slow journey.

I would not suggest that a cyclist should ride dangerously but I cannot get excited if a cyclist comes to a red light, sees nothing coming and, assuming it is safe, decides to proceed. I would like to see the roads with 100 times the number of cyclists and vastly fewer cars. We could then remove the red lights except those at the busiest junctions, allowing smooth traffic flow to the benefit of all road users.

Bob Downie,

66 Mansewood Road,

Glasgow.

I AM in favour of this healthy sport in the right place, but in the west end of Glasgow there are strong young men on powerful bicycles cycling on busy pavements. They endanger pedestrians like me. I do not object to young children cycling on pavements, but these young racers travel above 20mph – why can't they do it on the road where it is legal, instead of the pavement where it is not?

I have spoken to the police about this by phone and in person. They confirm it is illegal, but say they can only ask them not to do it. Why? If it is illegal there must be a penalty.

They do not even give warnings of their silent approach from behind.

Your editorial today (July 29) does not make any reference to pedestrian safety. Would Mr McAveety like to join me in observing this misconduct on Byres Road, for instance? Or should we elect a pedestrian tsar? Or organise a protest movement of those whose walking sticks and crutches could, accidentally of course, become weapons of defence?

Morag McAlpine.

2 Marchmont Terrace,

Glasgow.

THE report from your Transport Correspondent, Helen McArdle ("Crisis at bus giant as boss Park is 'put out to pasture'", The Herald, July 30) which hints at a planned programme of deep cuts to bus routes, and Tom Shields's article on a return to old values in the provision of public services ("Tom Shields on... New old Labour", The Herald, July 30) are wake-up calls to our political leaders that public ownership of public services should be back on the agenda.

In some areas of Glasgow the main thoroughfares now resemble rural communities,with no buses after 7pm. If it were not for Strathclyde Partnership for Transport(SPT) supported by the 12 local authorities who have combined from Oban in the north to Girvan in the south and east to Lanark, bus services would be in even more dire straits.

After 25 years of privately owned and managed bus services, the public pay more for less.

The energy companies are another example of private greed over public need. In some respects the situation here is even more dire, as control of most of these providers of electricity and gas now lie outwith the UK.

This should highlight the folly of the privatisation of Royal Mail. In the words of a previous Prime Minister on the sale of our public utilities in the 1980s, this was tantamount to selling the family silver. To sell the post office is like flogging the Crown Jewels.

Willie Maley,

47 Masonhill Road,

Ayr.