I WOULD like to correct some of the statements made in Cllr Hannah Clare's response to Peter Kyle's recent article on cycle lanes ("We'll listen to feedback on the cycle lanes", The Argus, March 12).

Cllr Clare says that "Labour councillors voted for the latest plans" on cycle lanes and other transport plans. This is highly misleading.

Our councillors voted to consult on these plans, having amended those plans at the environment and transport committee.

This amendment called for a pause on any further emergency transport measures to allow for meaningful consultation so that local residents could have their say and influence the next round of changes.

Cllr Clare then calls the Old Shoreham Road (OSR) a "vital route".

Quite so. It's a major arterial route for cars, vans and lorries but is not popular with cyclists like myself who prefer to use quieter or more level routes.

She then goes on to quote from a national document, citing 60 per cent support for road layout changes. Most right-minded people, of course, support cycle lanes but only when they are properly planned, fully consulted on and well constructed.

She then says that the current consultation is not a "referendum", a statement repeated by the various cycling lobby groups in the city.

Well, what is the point of the consultation then?

If the response to the consultation for both the existing temporary and proposed extension to the OSR lanes is mainly negative then, surely, they should be removed and not go ahead.

That would definitely be the "listening to feedback" that she states she is so keen on.

Lastly she lifts a statement from the government which says that councils shouldn't "prioritise a vocal minority"

- I assume this is referring to local residents who have genuine and perfectly reasonable concerns about these cycle lanes?

Transport minister Grant Shapps, in the same document she takes her quote from, also says "I want to be absolutely

clear: We are not prepared to tolerate hastily introduced schemes which will create sweeping changes to communities without consultation and ones where the benefits to cycling and walking do not outweigh the dis-benefits for other road users."

Our MP, Peter Kyle, is absolutely right, the debate has become toxic and has set motorist against cyclist in an

unhelpful and destructive way and we also have the perception that residents are simply not being listened to.

Hopefully the outcome of the consultation will put this right.

Melanie Atkinson

Address supplied