Observer Editorial

"How many people have been reported under the byelaws for cycling on the promenades?

"How many of these have been successfully prosecuted?"

The answer in both cases was 'None'.

The councillor then, quite logically, enquired why the meeting was pursuing the then byelaw debate if it had no effective means of enforcement...

The district's byelaws, some of them dating back a century, are again about to come under review. Prominent among the issues raised as Rother invites the public's comments is "should cycling be allowed on the promenades?"

It is an absolute certainty that this will cause a furore.

On the one hand, cycling enthusiasts will argue it is a healthy, environmentally-friendly and thoroughly worthwhile occupation and that the establishment on a formal basis of the right to ride on the proms will enable children to ride in safety and adults to forsake the car in favour of the bike.

On the other hand, those who enjoy a quiet stroll on the seafront will argue equally forcefully that the promenades were created for just that - "promenading."

They will argue with equal conviction that cycling on the proms could lead to accidents and possible injuries and that the presence of cyclists will ruin their enjoyment on the proms.

Both overlook one essential fact.

Cycling already exists on the proms. It was prevalent those many years ago when the councillor raised his pertinent points.

It existed long before that. And it has continued ever since.

Byelaw prohibition exists. But in practical terms it might just as well never have been drafted.

Many possible solutions to this issue have been put forward over the years.

Some of them have been complex in the extreme. Others have been immensely costly.

Pre-eminently, the question of whether or not cycling on the promenades should receive an official endorsement comes down to one key issue '“ safety.

Safety cannot be guaranteed if cycling is allowed. But then it is not guaranteed under the present unenforcible prohibition.

Risk exists in every sphere of life. Not least, in Bexhill in particular, is the risk implicit in the fact that mobility buggies are allowed on pavements. They are swift, silent and '“ in the hands of a few users '“ quite hair-raising.

But who in all conscience could seriously consider depriving people dependent on buggies of their essential mobility of their use?

Sometimes, judgements have to be made balancing a reasonable and responsible degree of risk to one section of the community against the danger of depriving another section of a legitimate aspiration.

If the promenades were to become a shared-use area '“ whether by white-line demarcation or otherwise '“ peaceful co-existence would depend on toleration, courtesy and good sense by both parties.

Just as it does now.