I REFER to the article “Seafront cycle lane backed”. The Argus, September 23.

The environment, transport and sustainability committee seems to have drawn some odd conclusions. The project has not received 70 per cent support - 34 people out the city’s population responded favourably to the idea which is 0.0136 per cent.

Councillor Bagen was correct. The consultation process was flawed, questions were designed such that responses supported the council’s idea.

That only 48 people responded shows the council didn’t adopt a proactive approach to engage more people, again making the consultation not fit for purpose.

His further assertion that people just aren’t interested is correct. The usual vociferous cycling fraternity remained oddly silent, (unless there are only 34 cyclists in the city!). I would have concluded no support for the cycle lane.

For Steve Davis to deduce that only 48 people responded because people wanted the cycle lane extended is bizarre. His logic could lead to a conclusion next May that people want the Greens to lead the council because they didn’t bother to vote for them. Beware!

Nancy Platt’s assertion that a culture of hatred towards cyclists stems from someone having just one bad experience with a cyclist couldn’t be further from the truth. Every day I see at least one cyclist jumping lights, weaving between pedestrians, going the wrong way up one-way streets, riding on the pavement, behaviour the council wouldn’t sanction among drivers of vehicles but it turns a blind eye to cyclists.

The council was told "dedicated road space for cyclists was the solution (to the animosity)because it protected pedestrians from cyclists" but this is not true, especially along this stretch of road.

Pedestrians leaving or going to the promenade will have to cross a cycle lane. Those wishing to catch a bus from a “floating bus stop” or get to their car will also have to do so.

That such a cycle lane has been thought up outside of the new "Kingsway to the Sea" (that consultation saw 2,700 respondents) is preposterous. How will people access this "green" space without first traversing a cycle lane? It is all part of this council’s continued inability to do any joined-up thinking.

There is no appetite, except among Green councillors, for the cycle lane to be doubled (sorry extended). The existing cycle lane is adequate for the 34 respondents who wish to use it.

Name and address supplied