Having read the letter by Daniela Borg Mizzi, one wonders whether she is trying to explain or excuse the inappropriate so-called bicycle lanes. Is it true that cyclists are now bound to cycle on pavements? Wow, I always thought that was illegal. In my opinion it is unsafe for both cyclists and pedestrians to have someone cycling at approximately 40km per hour where a pedestrian is walking. It is also a fact that being so bumpy these pavements are not adequate for cycling. I think there was no consultation on what are the characteristics of a proper bicycle lane.

Drawing a white line on the side of the road cannot be called a bicycle lane. If the bicycle lane is in a main road, it should not be discontinued on every side street. The average cyclist today rides a bicycle that can cost Lm1,000 or more and having bumps or grids on a bicycle lane can very easily damage the bicycle. I still believe that the pavements on the new roads are too wide. Proper bicycle lanes could have been laid out with ample room for a pavement.

When passing next to Kennedy Grove, in the middle of the road there is a line across the bicycle lane saying "end". So I guess one should stop cycling, climb down from his bicycle, put it on his shoulder and walk on the side wall.

Or perhaps the transport authority can come up with a brilliant idea like that of cycling on a pavement. I agree that the bicycle lanes heading from St Andrews towards St Paul's Bay were a waste of paint and man power.

I appreciate that there is some consideration and at last we are trying to find a solution to a cleaner transport alternative, but it would have been better to have ridden a bicycle on Maltese roads before attempting to explain to cyclists where and how they should cycle.