FOLLOWING this week's debate on Cycle Law Scotland's stricter liability proposals in the Scottish Parliament, I am heartened to see political support for our proposals growing.

All too often, however, I encounter arguments against stricter liability that unfortunately work to obscure the true nature of our proposals.

One of the most frequent is that stricter liability would violate the principle of innocent until proven guilty, as argued by John Maxwell (letters, October 30). However, the concept of innocent until proven guilty exists in criminal law and does not extend to Scots civil law.

Also, as Iain AD Mann said, more cycling-specific infrastructure is offered as the only true solution to cycle safety, but this does not address the fact that right now we must seek to reverse a worrying trend of increased cycle casualties on our roads. By taking steps to extend greater legal protection to vulnerable road users as part of a package of measures we will hopefully achieve a safer environment for those cyclists on our roads and at the same time encourage others to take to the roads.

By slowly chipping away at misconceptions, I'm confident that the public will understand the merit of introducing stricter liability into Scots civil law to protect vulnerable road users. We are not equal on our roads as cyclists and pedestrians are at risk of sustaining severe injury in a collision with a faster-moving and much heavier vehicle. For all of us who drive with care and attention and in accordance with the Highway Code there is nothing to fear from a stricter or presumed liability regime.

Brenda Mitchell,

Founder, Cycle Law Scotland,

16-20 Castle Street,

Edinburgh.

The blinkered and frankly, selfish, views of the cycling lobby never cease to amaze me. Campaigners are once again calling for more money - that will be taxpayers' money of course - to be spent on their hobby, on the grounds that it improves health and helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the transport sector.

Cycling on our roads today is akin to bungee-jumping and far more dangerous. Just look at the accidents and casualties which are reported almost daily in the media. I cannot understand why schools, the Scottish Government and other agencies which ought to know better continue to encourage and support this most dangerous and unnecessary mode of transport, given the congested and totally inadequate state of our roads. Many safety experts argue that mixing traffic of very different sizes and speeds is a major cause of many accidents. Once our roads are fixed (and our cyclists are properly trained, licensed and insured), by all means encourage the sport. Until then recognise the dangers and advise accordingly.

The claimed reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is another misconception. How many litres of fuel and how many tons of greenhouse gas are produced daily by lines of vehicles having to slow down to a crawl - often for half a mile or more - before accelerating briskly to overtake a cyclist, only to find the manoeuvre has to be repeated a few yards further down the road? The only real winner seems to be the Treasury, which receives more tax from the unnecessary sale and consumption of extra fuel.

J Napier,

71A Park Street, Alva.