IT seems my appeal for common sense regarding the relationship between cycling traffic violations and other crimes (The public enemy, letters, April 6) fell on deaf ears. Not only that, but I seem to have provoked even more hysterical fantasising.

Mike Usherwood's claim that child pavement cyclists move on to petty criminality is quite a leap to make without qualification.

It's true that they might go on to shoplifting, but they could just as well move on to charitable work, or even sainthood. There's no obvious behavioural connection, and the "cycling as a gateway crime" theory is preposterous and illogical enough to be laughable.

However, the next point merits outrage. I'm sure that the families of motorcyclists killed in accidents and members of motorcycle groups will take huge offence at the claim that some riders would still be alive today if only they hadn't ridden on the pavement when younger.

Again, that's a big leap to make, and I would say that to use such unrelated tragedy to further the dogged pursuit of the cyclist is beyond logic, sense and decency. Mr Usherwood owes an apology to all these people for his lapse in taste.

I am neither arguing for or against cycling, nor am I trivialising breaking the law.

I am just asking that we treat the matter sensibly and objectively, with an idea of the relative gravity of offences committed, and without the wailing, finger-pointing and conjecture that always seems to surround this debate.

Jason Rayner, Fulford Road, York.