I AM at a loss to understand Mr Clarke's letter (June 7). It is 55 years since I did any physics so perhaps somebody could explain his figures to me or perhaps Mr Clarke himself could let me know his source.
Surely the most non-polluting vehicles are yachts and gliders, also I do not understand how a bike (foot propelled) is 100 per cent efficient while a foot-propelled pedestrian is only 40 per cent.
Explanation please! Also, he states that trains are 28 per cent efficient.
Does this cover steam, diesel, electric, cross country and local?
Are all these equally efficient? Why does he omit aeroplanes and ships altogether?
Also, Mr Clarke, the fact that cyclists do not cause pollution (a highly debateable point) does not absolve them from obeying the law.
Finally, if cyclists are so efficient why do so many of them not push the pedals round correctly?
I was taught that one pushed the pedals round with one's toes but I see quite a few cyclists I see have their instep firmly planted on the pedals.
Mike Usherwood,
Mendip Close,
Huntington, York.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article