THE Nanyang Technological University's model to determine whether cycling paths should be widened or segregated appears to suggest that some pedestrian paths may be shared with cyclists ("Cycle paths for Punggol, Jurong Lake, East Coast"; Monday).
The model likely considered that paths which are usually empty or used by only one or two pedestrians at a time may be better utilised by allowing cyclists to use them, too.
But this is akin to saying it is acceptable for an able-bodied person to use a vacant toilet for those with disabilities.
Did the model factor in whether the most vulnerable pedestrians are capable of defensive walking amid cycle traffic? Do pedestrians or cyclists get the right of way?
Will it legitimise cycling on all pedestrian facilities, including places like overhead bridges, void decks and linkways?
The perception of being safe and secure is important in providing pedestrians with peace of mind and enjoyment on their walks.
Many countries reclaim space from roads to build cycle paths.
Does the model consider it better to compel pedestrians to share narrow paths with cyclists, and risk collisions, than to reclaim road space for cyclists?
Tan Lay Hoon (Ms)
