CONGRATULATIONS on a balanced report on the bollard controversy (February 15).

Peter Evely's defence is a significant shift of the council's ground. Its case now rests, not on the current situation, but on an unquantified projection into the future.

Many factors can influence traffic flow, not all within the control of those making the projection. They are usually made (as in this case) in order to "prove" a point in their favour, since no one is in a position to confirm or deny them.

At present the roads we live in have no more congestion than any other - much less than some. This in part accounts for the fact that only 52 per cent of residents found it necessary to reply.

The original questionnaire included alternatives such as speed humps which would have been even more obnoxious and unnecessary, so those who did respond were left with the feeling that this was the lesser of the evils that the council had decided on anyway.

I hope all residents will now write to the council making their views known, rather than allow a pre-conceived idea from traffic engineers to slide through.

The only certainty about this proposal is that it will waste £60,000 of taxpayers' money, which could be better used tackling the side effects that spending it will have on the area as a whole.

D B Brewster,

Westlands Grove, York.

Updated: 10:18 Tuesday, February 22, 2005