Letters to Editor: Cyclists entitled to entire lane

Cyclists entitled to entire lane
What Arthur Meyers has to understand is the next time he bikes across the Tutaekuri bridge at Awatoto, he is entitled to claim the whole lane for himself.
That means riding in the middle of the lane, making him absolutely visible to all traffic.
It's far better to be in that position as it should ensure that there would be no chance of putting Arthur at risk. Remembering also that this bridge has double yellow lines indicating no overtaking on the bridge.
As cyclists, we need to have the confidence to get out there in that lane where the situation demands. Waiohiki bridge is another example. We shouldn't feel marginalised just because we are travelling at a slower speed. Motorists are well used to coming up behind orchard tractors, harvesters and the like as they move around the bay.
They key factor in all of this is safety. If you keep yourself safe on the bike, it's better for everyone in the long run. What are the costs to the community if Arthur had to be hauled into the back of an ambulance, emergency flight to Wellington. Hours in surgery. Trauma to him, his family, the truckdriver if things had gone badly that day.
If you can't give a cyclist 1.5m of clearance then don't even try to overtake.
Bernie Kelly, Cycle Aware HB, Clive
Safest in centre
Your editorial re Arthur Myers and his near-death encounter with a truck on the Tutaekuri Bridge has prompted me to comment.
As we should all be aware, cyclists have just as many rights to use bridges and roads as motorists.
There is nothing dangerous about the bridge if motorists (trucks especially) give cyclists the courtesy needed for basic safety.
Most motorists seem to think that they have an unconditional right to overtake a cyclist. This is not the case.
If a motorist does not have enough room to overtake and still give the cyclist the accepted 1.5 metres of space, he or she should not overtake at all.
Generally this means that on a bridge with approaching traffic, motorists should stay behind the cyclist until the approaching traffic has passed and they can then pull out to overtake safely.
Even if this means following a cyclist for the entire length of the bridge, so be it. If the cyclist were an even slower moving tractor or horse and cart there would be no passing in the same circumstances.
When crossing a bridge such as the Tutaekuri Bridge, the safest place for cyclists to ride is not far to the left, but in the centre of their side of the road. Then it should be quite clear to every motorist that there is insufficient room for any vehicle to overtake safely and please stay behind.
The cycle path is an excellent amenity for recreational cyclists, but it is unsuitable for serious road cyclists and cycling commuters.
Just as it is for motorists, when on the way to work one does not take the longer scenic route.
JH Povey, Hastings
Cycling stupidity
On Wednesday I saw two cyclists, one male and one female, crossing the Ngaruroro Bridge heading north. This is the bridge with the wonderful cycleway on the eastern side which means they would have had to cross the road to safely cross the river.
I know serious cyclists are too proud or stubborn to cross the road and believe that we should provide cycleways on both sides of every bridge but they are putting their lives and others lives on the line by their utter stupidity.
I was heading south and a truck and trailer unit was heading north and passed the two cyclists while keeping on his side of the road.
It only needs the slightest miscalculation on the driver's part and they would be history, and his life would be destroyed and he would not even have felt the bump.
So the lesson is, that whatever the law says or whatever facilities are provided for cyclists and pedestrians, they are still responsible for their own safety.
David Beere, Napier
Nutritious in tin
I write in response to the HB Today (Friday 29) article regarding Wattie's opposition to GST being removed solely on fresh fruit and vegetables. In that article Wattie's said that frozen or canned fruit and vegetables were just as nutritious as fresh fruit and vegetables. They said that Labour's policy to remove the GST on fresh vegetables but not canned or frozen would disadvantage sales of Wattie's products thereby effecting jobs in the Bay.
The article got me thinking, so I went to New World to test Wattie's point. The cheapest fresh tomatoes I could find were $6.99 for a 480g pack. That's $1.45 per 100g.
Alternatively a 400g can of Wattie's chopped tomatoes was $2.19. That's 55c per 100g - nearly 3 times cheaper than fresh tomatoes. What's more if I'd bought three cans I could have got the lot for $4.50. That makes 1200g for $4.50. That's 37.5 cents per 100g or four times cheaper than fresh. What's more the canned price was available out of season and for as much nutrition.
Wattie's make a very good point.
Wayne Schofield, Napier