• I WAS disappointed in the response of the cycling lobby to my letter about the danger of turning Amwell Street into a racetrack, (Amwell Street racetrack will post threat to shops, July 20).

Does David Lincoln seriously think that through traffic in Amwell Street is a deterrent to locals taking up cycling? (Quietway an opportunity, not a threat, July 27).

Does John Ackers honestly believe that there were no accidents between cyclists and pedestrians just because none was reported? (Reducing traffic in Amwell Street would make it safer for pedestrians and cyclists, July 27).

And does Meg Howarth genuinely think that implementing first and consulting afterwards is the way things should be done in a democracy? (The idea that retail outlets will suffer under Quietway 10 is already disputed, July 27).

I think we need to be clearer about the problem we are trying to solve, about whether the closure of Amwell Street to through traffic will solve it, and about whether the downside for those who lose out as a result is a price worth paying.

The main reason stated in favour of Cycle Islington’s design for Quietway 10 is that it will enable less-confident cyclists to take to two wheels, an ambition that the Amwell Society supports wholeheartedly.

Last month, before the start of the school holidays, the society carried out a survey of traffic descending Amwell Street between 7.45am and 9.30am. We counted 1,113 cyclists and 213 motor vehicles in the busiest 60-minute period, in other words cyclists already account for 84 per cent of road users.

It hardly seemed to us that an average of 3.5 cars per minute constitutes a serious impediment to the flow of cycles. On the other hand we did observe that a significant proportion of cyclists were travelling at speeds clearly in excess of 20mph, one of whom yelled at a pedestrian on the zebra crossing outside Clerkenwell Parochial School to get out of the way. I would suggest that these urban warriors are far more likely to deter the nervous cyclist than a car every 17 seconds.

We also noted that of the 204 cyclists who crossed Amwell Street into Lloyd Baker Street on Quietway 2, 30 (15 per cent) continued (illegally) straight down Lloyd Baker Street instead of turning right along the NE side of Lloyd Square – excusable perhaps in the weeks immediately after the scheme was implemented, but surely not after two years.

There seems a reluctance on the part of the spokespeople for the cycling lobby to acknowledge that a proportion of their number are damaging the reputation of cyclists as a whole, and that by making it easier for this aggressive minority to hurtle down Amwell Street at will, pedestrians, particularly children and the elderly, will be put at greater risk.

PAUL THORNTON
Chair, Amwell Society