RE. the letter from Chris Ruoff on tarmacing the surfaces of cycle routes.
Judging by the antics of some (not all) cyclists who seem to think that the laws on any public highways do not apply to them, I think all this will do is enable some irresponsible cyclists to go faster and further spoil a rural environment.
Perhaps they should make some direct contribution for the use of these facilities and be covered by compulsory third party insurance.
I must say, I cannot understand the attitude of a few (again by no means all) cycle enthusiasts, some of whom appear to want everything done for them whilst contributing little towards the cost.
New routes taking in what were previously rural bridlepaths (route 27), special lanes on roads, old railway lines cleared and surfaced, all for their benefit.
In spite of all this, when a suggestion that might benefit the whole county is proposed, such as re-opening the Okehampton-Bere alston line, all we hear is ?No, it?s our cycle track?.
Finally, please do not keep trotting out these claims that cycling is the means to cut down congestion and pollution. With the exception of a dedicated few, cycling is purely a leisure pursuit for most people and, in many cases, a car is used to transport the bike anyway, as the number of cars parked at the start of a cycle route will show!
P Mercer
Ivy Cottage
Peter Tavy