ALAN Jenkins (Letters, August 18) shares Clark Cross's view (Letters, August 14) of those who choose to cycle. It would be far better if they, and others who find it easy to criticise cyclists, analysed the situation on our roads and streets, looked at where the major hazard comes from and looked at the space allocation for the different ways of getting round our towns and cities.

The motor vehicle, the vast majority of them only carrying one person, takes up the greatest amount of space and causes the greatest hazard and inconvenience not only to people walking and cycling but also to other motor drivers. Just look at how many drivers go through red lights, at how many accelerate on approach to an amber light and then still go through on red, see how many block junctions by being in the yellow box, stop in the advance cycle box, drive up on the footpath to park, park in cycle lanes – one could go on and on, and that is before we get to the numbers of people killed and maimed by drivers behaving badly.

So it is clear that something needs to be done. The number of motor vehicles coming into our towns and cities, particularly the private cars carrying only one person, needs to be significantly reduced. Cycling, a mode of transport ideally suited to short journeys – under five miles – in urban areas, needs to be catered for so that there is no requirement for cyclists to share with pedestrians, or with motor vehicles, particularly where motor vehicle speed is over 20mph. Local authorities need to stop "redetermining" footways (the "pedestrian" area at the edge of our roads and streets) for both cycles and pedestrians. It's a cheap way of ticking the box to say that they are catering for cycles but local authority staff and councillors must lose the "car is best" mindset and encourage people to walk and cycle and use public transport. It's better for individual health, it's better for public health and it's better for our urban centres.

Patricia Fort,

15 Lanark Street, Glasgow.

I WOULD like to respond to Alan Jenkins's letter. He seems to have gained the impression that I am a member of a “holier than thou” coterie of cyclists who have little regard for rules of the road. Whilst I am active in campaigning for the right to cycle on the roads network of Britain, I have never made claim to defend anti-social use of our roads and pavements by any individual, be they a cyclist or motorist. I am nonetheless determined to exercise my right to cycle and not be intimidated off the roads by drivers who though hostility or lack of attention make it scary at best, lethal at worst. There is unfortunately a small constituency of drivers who consider that cyclists have no place on the road and actively seek to intimidate cyclists.

Fortunately most drivers are cautious and courteous around cyclists, but there is a sizeable sub-set of well-meaning non-aggressive drivers who are careless and fail to see cyclists, resulting in cyclists needing to perform emergency manoeuvres to try to avoid the sometimes inevitable collisions. Unfortunately, when I address these issues in print and online, many people try to deprecate any argument in favour of cycling by running out the old tropes of red light jumping, cycling on pavements, lack of helmet wearing, lack of insurance, you name it.

Anything rather than discuss making the roads safer for cyclists, or indeed addressing why some cyclists behave as they do. Solutions to problems start with understanding.

The main point of my previous letter, however, was that “pavements are essentially provided for pedestrians and roads are essentially designed for motor vehicles”. Just where is the space for cycling? Thus I call for a modest 10 per cent of the transport budget to be spent on active travel, cycling and walking. Cycling is going to be a much, much bigger part of transport in our future society. I would ask that people help in this process by engaging with the arguments rather than tarring cyclists as a group of lawbreakers, when their behaviours are by and large no better or worse than those in society as a whole.

Bob Downie,

66 Mansewood Road, Glasgow.

ANENT the current ding-dong on the rights and responsibilities of cyclists, I take no sides in the argument over those who favour pedal power, the internal combustion engine, or Shanks’ pony, and will settle for "live and let live", and just hope that as I homeward plod my weary way I am spared the attention of the other two.

But as an afterthought permit me to remind motorists that there is a Highway Code, and cyclists that while bells may be ringing merrily in heaven they are too often missing on shared pathways and the sky riv’n not with angels singing but with language unlikely to be heard at a church social.

R Russell Smith,

96 Milton Road, Kilbirnie.