The City of London's 'Traffic and Environmental Zone' (otherwise known as the ring of plastic/steel/rubber/lego) is to be extended into the southern fringe of our borough. Our influential neighbour intends to advance its defensive perimeter into Hackney by cutting down the number of points of entry available to traffic south of Worship Street and west of Wilson Street.

'That's OK', you may say, 'after all, they only want to stop cars and trucks. We'll still be able to get through, won't we?'

Sorry, wrong. The blunt instruments they currently plan to use to 'canalise' motor traffic are either (Option A) thirteen new one-way streets and one closure or (Option B) six new one-ways and a battery of road closures. If we don't make our voices heard, there will be another significant reduction in amenity for cycle traffic in the area.

Option A - despite what it says! You can orient yourself by opening your London A-Z at page 142, around 5C. Red arrows are proposed new one-ways, outline arrows are already one-way.

Option B. The blue bits are closures to motor traffic, with cycle gaps. The red arrows are still new one-way streets.

Many people travel by bike over Hackney's southern boundary into the City and beyond, to the south, west and east, while cycle couriers criss-cross these busy streets on working days. Route choices in the south Shoreditch area are already restricted by widespread one-way working. The new proposals threaten to clamp our freedom to move even more.

The public consultation leaflet says there will be improvements in the environment and better conditions for pedestrians, but there's no serious analysis of impact on cycle traffic - the environmentally friendly mode par excellence. Iain Simmons, cycle liaison officer for the City of London, claims that streets used by through cycle traffic will remain two-way, but what about Worship Street and Appold Street?

Option B is clearly the less bad choice, with cycle gaps in the road closures and 'only' half a dozen new one-ways - (perhaps this is why the consultation leaflet claims 'improved facilities for cyclists' from this option). It would at least be an orderly withdrawal rather than a rout.

But with a few modifications, Option B could actually provide an opportunity to improve improve the cycling environment. The solutions are simple enough. Either the proposed one-way streets should have contraflow cycle lanes provided on them, or they should be two-way with appropriate junction treatments which allow cycle traffic through but bar motor traffic. (After all, if they're considering relying on one-ways in Option A, what's to stop a suicide bomber in a motor vehicle from simply going the wrong way? Junction treatments would be a good compromise between one-ways and road closures.)

Both of these solutions have been used very successfully elsewhere.