Sir,-Many of your readers will identify with the views expressed in your editorial of February 1st following the recent tragic accident to the cyclist at Kew Bridge.

Although it happened on the border of the borough, there are all too many locations in Richmond where the accident could have occurred. As someone who has many times had to assess risks in industrial contexts, I find myself questioning if authorities, and I include Richmond upon Thames Council, are acting wisely when they advocate that residents should give up the relative safety of four wheeled vehicles for the vulnerability of the bicycle.

The crucial consideration is whether the facilities that are being provided for cyclists are as safe as they reasonably can be. Anyone surveying the local cycle network must conclude, as you suggest in your editorial, that they are not. Cycle routes give the unavoidable impression of having been conceived and installed and indeed of being maintained, on the cheap. Probably the worst deficiency of cycle lanes is that they are not joined up; a cyclist can one moment be enjoying some protection from other traffic and next find it has abruptly terminated. And as far as local policy is concerned one cannot overlook the fact that the narrowing of the carriageway by adjusting kerb lines, which has been carried out all over the borough, supposedly to improve conditions for pedestrians and bus users, is almost invariably to the disadvantage of cyclists. The question which must be addressed by those responsible for cycling policy is this: Should we be seeking to emulate certain European countries which have achieved high levels of cycle use in their towns, when those countries have been prepared to allocate far greater resources than ourselves to cycling facilities. The answer I suggest may be found by comparing our accident statistics (for London) with theirs. Perhaps the council or one of the organisations promoting cycling can provide us with this information.

-John Shelton, Broom Lock, Teddington

Sir,-I read your article dated January 25th about the death of the 20 year old cyclist caused by the driver of an articulated lorry. The article concluded with the mention of local MPs and members of the public calling for improvements to the dangerous junction. I would like reference also to be made to the attitude of the drivers of HGV class I lorries, which I believe has deteriorated in recent years. Last October, I was hit by a 38-tonne truck on the other side of the same road. I was on the inside lane indicating my intention to turn left into Lionel Road, the narrow link to the M4. At the last minute, the driver of the truck decided to take a left turn, despite being on the outer lane. He paid no attention to my existence there, and later admitted that he did not see me. I was not hurt, though my car was damaged. The insurance companies are still arguing about culpability. I have been a driver for 50 years, and have not experienced such bullying tactics until quite recently.

-Mary Buck, Ham Common.

Sir,-It was great to see such wholehearted support for cyclists in last week's editorial. There was just one point I wanted to clarify. As far as I can work out, cyclists can already cycle on the pavement over Kew Bridge. On the Kew side, on both sides of the road, there are blue signs telling cyclists to dismount and denoting the End of cycle route'. These signs definitely refer to the pavements, given this is a red route and there are no cycle lanes. I think the council has forgotten to put cycle route signs on the other side of the bridge. So, cyclists, keep safe - use the pavements over Kew Bridge!

-Victoria George, Hamilton Road, Brentford.