Cycling England has come to an end and the backpedalling on some of its successful schemes has already started. Woking, a commuter town in Surrey, last week decided to ban cycling in the centre of town for much of the day.

Until now Woking has done a good job as a cycling town. They've upgraded a major off-road route through the town, installed much more cycle parking and focused promotion on key locations. Cycle use has increased substantially but is held back by the existence of large, busy roads that are just too hazardous for the majority of people to dare to ride on.

The town is also sliced in two by the railway line that allowed it to flourish in the 19th century. That line is punctured in the town centre by just one arterial road that circles Woking town centre. Cyclists were, until two years ago, obliged to use this route and, as usual, this is where casualties occurred: six cyclists were injured along this stretch of road in three years. To make cycling much easier and safer, access was permitted to the old road network through the town centre, much of which has been part-pedestrianised, with motor vehicle access greatly restricted.

Over the last two years the scheme been very successful with no major incidents and around 2m cycle trips in and out of the town centre, bearing out Department for Transport research which found that cyclists and pedestrians mix perfectly acceptably in pedestrianised areas and have done so comfortably for many years in hundreds of locations around Britain and Europe.

The decision to partially reverse this came about because of sustained campaigning by a coalition of disability lobby groups, helped by Guide Dogs for the Blind (GDB), which believes that cyclists in the town centre pose a threat to people with disabilities.

GDB's focus on this area is interesting. It is a surprisingly large charitable organisation which last year had an income of £60m and 1,000 employees. Much of its staff equip 4,500 guide dog users. Yet a significant chunk of its expenditure goes on a 56-strong "advocacy" arm. Its number one priority last year was blocking "shared surface" projects ranging from huge, multimillion pound redesigns of major roads, down to small projects like Woking's, where motor traffic is already limited.

GDB has campaigned against and blocked projects which could have helped civilise Britain's chaotic, dangerous and ugly urban environment. Clearly our streets should be accessible to all and the needs of visually impaired people must be taken into account, but this shouldn't come at the cost to everyone else - including the millions who would be prepared to cycle more if conditions were conducive.

Campaigning activities tend to have a greater public appeal when they can be perceived as fighting against a threat. Tell people enough times that it is terrifyingly dangerous to allow cyclists into an area and they will start to agree with you. Clearly some of those concerns are real - visually impaired people can be greatly alarmed by anti-social behaviour whether by cyclists travelling too fast or intimidating pedestrians. But are bans the best solution? In Leicester, a similar shared pedestrian and cyclist space has been managed by education campaigns endorsed by the RNIB.

The national casualty figures tell only one story: over the last five years 72 pedestrians have been killed on pavements, just two in crashes with cyclists (both of whom went to jail), the remainder - 14 per year - in crashes with motor vehicles. In many "pedestrianised" areas we often have the bizarre situation that enormous lorries - not known for their pedestrian safety record - are allowed access for loading but cyclists must keep to the perilous ring road.

We'd much rather be campaigning with organisations that represent people with disabilities on issues of shared concerns such as lowering speed limits and improving driver (and cyclist!) behaviour. After all cycling is the second most popular way (after swimming) for people with disabilities to remain physically active - with almost 150,000 taking part once a week or more. Many people with disabilities find it much easier to cycle than to walk. Restricting cyclists' access to town centres and pedestrian areas means they are unable to use their preferred mode of travel, while the rest of the population also lose out.

• Chris Peck is the policy coordinator of the UK's national cyclists' organisation, the CTC