I’d like to express my concern at your article on the “pavement vigilante” Cameron Roh, and at the nonchalance with which this is presented (The ‘pavement vigilante’: why Cameron Roh is naming and shaming bad walking etiquette, 5 November). As an Italian, vigilantism is for me always a road to fascism, but as an academic, I’m also struck by the contradictions that your article did not pick up on.

So the road is for everyone, as we all have a right to walking, but if I want a stroll I should “go to a park”? How about areas that don’t have a park? The issue is that we live in a disconnected world, but two people having a conversation as they walk, or a group having a chat must be shamed? I’m sure Roh pays attention to elderly people and children, but how about hidden disabilities?

As the mother of a young child, a person with a job that demands flexibility and who was subject to stalking, I have been in the situation of having to look at my phone on my way to the tube.

I have always tried to be considerate to fellow walkers, but, especially as a mother and a victim, I shouldn’t also have to be worried about a total stranger filming me. And I’m certainly not ready to walk in the efficient single line that is advocated so that it is deemed adequate by some self-appointed judge.
Dr Tiziana Morosetti
London

One of my great bugbears regarding pavement pedestrians walking in opposite directions is – in which direction should they give way when passing? Bring the countryside code to the city, whereby pedestrians should face oncoming traffic at the kerbside.
Richard Dargavel
Manchester