I quote from a recent letter in The Argus (April 26) that the Government has set a target for councils to achieve a 25% (quarter) of all journeys to be made by bicycle by 2050 – something beyond comprehension considering the number of journeys made by the elderly, who cannot be thought of as being cyclists.

All the roads which are tree-lined could have trees removed and the subsequent space made into cycle lanes In those roads without trees, cycle lanes could be delineated on either side of the road on the basis of width of cycle lane, and width of road left – in proportion to the number of relative movements of cycles and vehicles. That’s not 25%, more like 1%. A width for one cyclist is quite enough; if they wish to travel in convoy then they travel in line as vehicles do now.

Then of course there are the numerous roads which only have narrow pavements and two-car width roads; there is no solution to these and they must stay as they are.

To have cyclists allowed to travel the “wrong” way down a one-way street is sheer madness.

The work carried out, and proposed, by Brighton and Hove City Council sometimes beggars belief. The wide cycle lanes and subsequent narrowing of Old Shoreham Road from Dyke Road to The Drive bears examination.

In places, it is considered to be satisfactory to have a cycle lane of relatively narrow (and sensible) width. In others there are cycle lanes capable of taking four cyclists side by side. Why?

This narrowing makes the stretch from the Upper Drive to The Drive single-file vehicle traffic, with the result that when traffic is heavy (and not only at rush hours) the traffic queues from the traffic lights at the Upper Drive back across the top of The Drive, completely blocking it.

And it all costs thousands from our tax and creates traffic disorganisation lasting months.

I suggest all cyclists be treated like motorists and pass a cycling test (for which they pay) and have L-plates beforehand.

It would be interesting to hear from those responsible.

John Galway, The Drive, Hove