NIGEL Spragg raises the question of the danger of cyclists on pavements (Pavement abuse, January 13), I believe the danger to be more apparent than real.

Why does he not fist complain of the real danger of two-tonne lumps of metal driving on pavements, taking Port Street as an example?

Abuse and inconsiderate behaviour is never acceptable, on that basis I suspect a large percentage of car drivers would be banned from the roads.

The real problem should be how does society enable “Active Travel”, in all its forms, as the primary means of transit for short distances, say five miles?

Evesham is a particular example of excessive devotion to the motor car, electric cars will hopefully improve the environment, but will do nothing to solve the traffic problem.

Worcestershire County Council has recently published its “Walking and Cycling Strategy for Evesham”, although not wrong in itself, even if fully implemented it will do little to improve Active Travel. 

I read on social media of parents complaining about the length of time it takes to drive from Greenhill to the football club for training. How does society make such car use unthinkable?

My suggestion would be to use Swiss-type road regulation and design with an enforced 20mph limit within, say, the by-pass, enabling safe use of the roads for bikes and scooters, electric or not.

Then legalising dual use of footpaths outside that 20mph limit, which might incentivise the county council to improve them!

However, all this requires changes to national legislation that would really make the changes in the Highway Code due to come into effect on January 29 effective and safer.

Is there any other realistic option to my suggestion, which is economically possible in both money and space terms? Posturing purely about “more cycle lanes” will do nothing.

Robert C Hale

Evesham