A NUMBER of recent letter writers have suggested that bicycles should be taxed. Most are missing the point.

Motorists pay a road tax for the privilege of using the road network, for the privilege of destroying the road surfaces, the privilege of pumping harmful chemicals into the atmosphere, the privilege of bringing York to a standstill twice a day, and the privilege of maiming and killing thousands of innocent men, women and children every year.

Whereas the cyclist has to be content with potholes, broken up road surfaces, smog, irresponsible and blind car drivers and simply trying to stay alive every time they go on the road.

As for providing new bicycles with bells, can anyone explain the reason for this? After all, pedestrians shouldn't be on the road and car drivers locked in their lumps of metal listening to music at several hundred decibels won't hear them.

Or is it to assist the 90 per cent of drivers who don't even see cyclists and at least will be able to hear them before killing them?

Perhaps motorists should stop moaning about cyclists and realise that we all have to use the roads, and it is everybody's responsibility to help each other stay alive in this ever more dangerous environment.

S J Brown,

Gladstone Street, Acomb, York.

...I BELIEVE Paul Hepworth has highlighted one of the most important aspects of the pro-cyclist's lobby ("Rules of duty", Letters, May 10).

I raised the issue of the council implementing Government policy with our MP Hugh Bayley. He said Government policy has to be implemented with care and not to the detriment of other areas of policy.

That is the centre of many people's objections to the seemingly unlimited supply of finance available for the needs of cyclists.

If all areas of Government policy were implemented with the same degree of enthusiasm and financial backing as the policy of encouraging cycling, most York residents would be happy.

There are many other areas of Government policy, affecting the elderly and those with special needs, where York's interpretation only applies the basics.

There are also areas where the provision of cyclists' needs contravene the policies put in place to protect other citizens.

I am sure readers will have many examples of where the £750,000 earmarked for another cycle track could be much more usefully spent. I know I have.

Liz Edge,

Parkside Close, York.

Updated: 10:53 Tuesday, May 18, 2004