• JOHN Chamberlain of the Camden Cycling Campaign encourages us to read Camden’s Draft Transport Strategy, (Get involved with Camden’s draft transport strategy, November 29).

It should encourage walking, cycling and road safety. However there is a serious lack of clarity in the Cycling Action Plan part of the strategy.

I have scrutinised it in the light of the Prince of Wales Road segregated cycle path where there was no mention anywhere in the consultation of the removal of all the traffic refuges.

I find two alarming references to cycle routes – alarming due to the potential impact on pedestrians:

• The Cycling Action Plan talks of Prince of Wales Road having “dedicated cycling facilities” in both directions meaning one in addition to the one recently consulted.

This road from kerb to kerb is only 12.4 m wide which is why anyone knowing the area would realise that building one segregated lane would mean the removal of refuges.

Where is the space coming from to be able to create another lane? Or does “dedicated” not mean segregated?

• Still in the same area, it proposes “protected” cycle lanes on Haverstock Hill between the Prince of Wales Road junction and Upper Park Road.

I can find no definition of “protected” but common sense tells me it would means something physical. If so. where is the space going to come from?

There are five refuges on that stretch of Haverstock Hill. Are we seeing what seems to have happened on the current Prince of Wales Road consultation – a lot about cycle lanes but nothing to tell you that they mean removal of refuges.

Or, put another way, additional speed and safety for cyclists, danger to the more vulnerable class of road user, the pedestrian.

Should we read from these examples that little thought has been given or that the whole truth such as pavement being converted into road (the first point above) and/or traffic refuges being removed (the second point) is not been told?

NICK HARDING
NW5