Further to the letter from Paul Mandel (‘Segregated cycle lanes will increase congestion’, Opinion, May 13), what is the justification for spending nearly £41million on cyclists when only well under one per cent of journeys in the borough are made using a bicycle?

I agree with Mr Mandel that segregated cycle lanes will increase congestion and air pollution when they are placed on roads not wide enough for the free movement of traffic. One such example is Green Lanes, between Hedge Lane and the A406. Mr Hughes should take a look.

We have been told by the cycle lobby to ride a bike and live longer. How can this be when cyclists breathe more vehicle exhaust fumes than drivers inside their cars? However, a recent report has said life expectancy is now 85 years and the Government has increased the retirement age for a pension.

Mr Hughes’s criticism of the A406 cycle lane is odd. Does he only want cycle lanes on roads with little traffic? I agree that cycling provides exercise, but it is not the only source of exercise.

If Cycle Enfield is meant to get people out of their cars, the council is wasting time and money because the car is one of the most popular possessions. Exchanging the versatility of a car for the limited use of a bicycle is nonsense.

Councillor Doug Taylor’s foreword to the 2015/16 budget paper says: “We have already delivered £86million of savings while protecting frontline services but we need to find another £98million of savings because of unprecedented Government cuts. This means we will need to make some difficult decisions on the future of council services based on our residents’ priorities and what we can afford to do to make Enfield better.”

Against this background, should we be spending nearly £41million on cycling in Enfield?

G A Musey

Mitchell Road, Palmers Green