I AM saddened by the fact that the highways committee have, after consultation, chosen to ignore the views of the Cycling Forum that cycle lanes should be introduced along Peel Way.

Their reason, that they cannot guarantee the safety of cyclists using this busy road, is in my opinion just a get-out, caving-in to those motorists who do not want to modify their inconsiderate behaviour.

Whilst I am given to understand that the local authority, under its traffic management scheme, has a responsibility to make roads as safe as possible, I cannot understand their decision based on the premise that "they would be unable to guarantee the safety of cyclists using such a busy road". After all, in the UK 3,600 people are killed each year in traffic accidents and I am arguing that it is primarily we motorists (yes, I am one) who kill in this unremitting fashion and that it is our responsibility to limit the chance of accidents by, for example, driving within speed limits at all times. If it came down to local authorities guaranteeing the safety of cyclists, not to mention hikers, we would, according to the thinking of the traffic management committee, be banned from many country lanes on Sunday's during the summer.

The question now arises as to the policy the authority will be pursuing in relation to what has already been done?

There appears to be general agreement that Bolton Road, where cycle lanes have been introduced, is is now much safer and we already have a cycle lane along Bolton Street, as we approach Bury Bridge. Those arrangements are a delight, but they do involve a short stretch along the main highway. Even if the authority manages to concoct an alternative route, cyclists will still keep to the more convenient main road along Peel Way. The present facility along the north side of Peel Way proves the point.

One of the reasons why cycling is more dangerous than motoring is that even when we wear bright colours we often go unnoticed. The greater our presence the more likely we are to be noticed: to shunt us out of sight means that we will be even less evident.

When I drive my car I probably have a greater chance of killing someone than a punter on the Lottery has of hitting the jackpot, a sobering thought to me, at least. On the other hand, my chance of killing someone when I ride a bike is virtually nil.

I am arguing, then, that the local authority should not weaken its cycling strategy and should give more credence to the view of the Cycling Forum. It should also do its utmost to promote health-enhancing cycling and, when possible, discourage health-damaging motoring. In this connection, I sincerely hope that the proposed cycle lanes along Brandlesholme Road are implemented, not least because I am reliably informed that this measure does reduce traffic speed.

In conclusion, anecdotal evidence tells me that most adults who have bikes also have motor cars. The local authority should be doing its utmost to follow through its cycling strategy and encourage these people to use their bikes rather than their cars, for short journeys at least.

PETER ROSCOE,

Horncastle Close, Bury.