“Malcolm - if you believe that "Lorry drivers, bus drivers, van drivers, car drivers, motorcyclists, cyclists and pedestrains are all competing with each other for space and advantage, all being forced into smaller, narrower, more congested and more regulated space by a taxpayer-funded political system that is intent on making travel more difficult rather than helping people to get on with their lives", then why aren't you arguing against the barrier? It seems that you don't want that, and that's what the barrier does: make travel more difficult. It's unneccsesary.

The argument here is not who should give way to who: cyclists on the whole are, as you say, a sensible bunch. But without the barrier no-one has to give way to anyone, because there's space for everyone. isn't that better? All it does is exacerbate the problems with the few that do want to bully their way through (this will inevitably happen anyway at times, no matter how wide the path), plus a few associated problems.

In any case you're wrong when you state the barrier is there to slow down cyclists. It's not: It's there in attempt to block the passage of motorbikes, something it will fail to do.

You say, "Welcome to the planet - this is the situation all transport users face on a continual basis" which is also demonstrably not true. In countries which rely on common sense and shared ownership of transport space, rather than increasing regulation, there's far less conflict between user groups.”

“Hmmm...it seems that Malcom Cupis and Laurence have entered this discussion with the same amount foresight and planning as the genius that decided this barrier would be good idea in the first place.

I use the path regularly as both a pesdestrian and a cyclist and I think most other users of the path would agree that it's not the purpose of the barrier that is the main problem here, it's the way in which is has been implemented. Even with something as simple as having two openings the problem would be considerably smaller and the possibility of conflict reduced. The slowing of cyclists and increasing the safety of pedestrians is a completely valid reason for having the barrier installed but in this case a poor solution to this problem has created further inconveniance to the users of a great shared use path.

We're not asking for special treatment, people to hand over their cash, or publicity. We're asking for sensible management of a useful public space.”

“Tim, with respect, I think it is you that doesn't understand. The barrier does funnel people, but this should not create conflict because cyclists should give way to pedestrians. If you are approaching the barrier on your bicycle as pedestrians are approaching you should give way to the pedestrians, not just ignore them and try to bully them out of your way. The barrier forces cyclists to slow down. That is the idea. Unfortunately the majority of decent, sensible cyclists are inconvenienced by the actions of the idiotic few. Welcome to the planet - this is the situation all transport users face on a continual basis. It's like the old maxim big fleas have littel fleas upon their backs to bite 'em. Little fleas have smaller fleas, so on ad infinitum. Lorry drivers, bus drivers, van drivers, car drivers, motorcyclists, cyclists and pedestrains, all competing with each other for space and advantage, all being forced into smaller, narrower, more congested and more regulated space by a taxpayer-funded political system that is intent on making travel more difficult rather than helping people to get on with their lives.”

“Laurence,

Yes, some cyclists cycle where they shouldn't.

This article isn't about that. Victoria Bridge is designated shared space, and as such it's legal for cyclists to ride there. The barrier is bad for pedestrians and runners too, as they are funnelled through a narrow gap along with cyclists.

Pedestrians who don't appreciate being in close quarters with bikes have every reason to oppose this new barrier.”

“What is it with some cyclists? They can ride on any road in Bath for free but still want to ride in pedestrian areas and go the wrong way on one-way streets.”

“Malcolm - you make mention of "The amount of publicity given to [cyclists] and the amount of bending over backwards made to their every whim [which] is totally ridiculous" - perhaps you'd like to back that up with some illustrations and figures? because what i see, particularly in Bath but also nationally, is precisely the opposite. The government blow its big eco-trumpet when it's awarding small sums for cycling. £11.4m of Government funds is enough to make Bristol a 'cycling city', we're told. Meanwhile the road improvement budget spirals out of control to over £8bn ( http://tinyurl.com/dayazp). Cycling's not exactly making a big dent on the overall traffic spend, is it?”

“er, yes JC. That is exactly what I meant to say!”

“Too right Christine - Let's all unite and tell B&NES that this barrier is badly designed, going to cause congestion problems, an utter waste of money, and whoever decided to erect the wretched thing should be sacked immediately!”

“Oh the joy of reading another heated debate on cycling courtesy of The Chronicle.”

“What a waste of money. They should have installed CCTV instead. I witnessed someone get mugged on the bridge and there are often groups of teenagers hanging around in that area causing trouble.

I've never had a problem with cyclists on the bridge (just on the towpath below it!)”