YET again the long-running debate resurfaces about the relative claims of motor vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians to have adequate access to the busy roads and streets of our congested city infrastructures (Letters, August 9).
The problem is, of course, that most of that infrastructure was laid out and built many years ago, when the traffic volume of private cars and other vehicles was much less than it is today.
Of course, the obvious solution is to provide dedicated separate routes for cyclists but there simply isn’t the extra space available.
Our city planners cannot simply demolish thousands of existing flats, houses, shops and other buildings so that the layout of the roads can be re-planned to provide additional lanes for vehicles and separate spaces for cyclists and pedestrians too.
The uneasy compromise has been to establish bus lanes from which private vehicles are banned, at least during rush hours, and allow cyclists to share these lanes with public transport.
But this means that, every time a bus, running to a strict timetable, comes up behind a slower-moving cyclist, it either has to stay behind or overtake by trying to move into the only other lane, which will already be full of frustrated motorists.
In Glasgow, Great Western Road is one of the main arteries providing access to the city centre and beyond.
But eastbound from the Gartnavel junction there are only two lanes in each direction, with private cars and delivery vehicles confined to the outer one, and cyclists must share the bus lane. The only other available space is the pavements, which have a very small number of pedestrians, usually walking to the nearest bus stop.
Yet cyclists are legally banned from these pavements and must therefore add to the frustrating congestion in the two road lanes.
Surely it is time for a little common sense to prevail.
With a little care and consideration for pedestrians, cyclists could easily share these vacant walking areas, thus reducing the frustrations of road users and having a much safer journey themselves.
Iain AD Mann, 7 Kelvin Court,
Glasgow.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel