SIR: Reply to Dr. Burwood's letter on cycling. Oh dear, Dr. Burwood really does not like cycling or cyclists does he (Letters, September 24)?

Whilst I find myself agreeing with some of his points such as electric buses or trams being the future and cycles not being suitable for all, he sets the tone straight away by saying that he is concerned about the increased support for cycling within the city and that they are adversely affecting motorists and bus users. He goes on to say that cycling is anti-social behaviour and an inefficient use of narrow roads. Since when were cars an efficient means of using narrow roads? He goes on to point out the tailbacks caused by a cyclist toiling up the city's hilly streets, perhaps these are due to being unable to overtake said cyclist because of the motorised traffic coming down the hill.

May I quote one more of his sentences: "Bicycles are fine when there are only a few of them on quiet roads, but a saturation point is easily reached beyond which they begin to obstruct one another and, especially, other traffic".

Replace the word 'bicycles' with 'cars' and I would fully agree.

Winchester's roads date back to the days of horse traffic, an animal which takes up about the same amount of road space as a cycle. Lets keep the cars on the edge of the city and bring the passengers in by bus. Perhaps we could these newfangled motorised scooters on hire including ones with a seat for the less agile!

By the way, I speak as one who regularly commuted by bike from Eastleigh to the city until my employer told me I must use a company car so as to be able to be 'on call' for unsocial hours.

Terry Bond,

Archers Road,