In response to your front page story on January 7 (‘Revolutionise cycling’, Enfield Independent), the total cost of Cycle Enfield is nearly £41million, itemised by Councillor Chris Bond in October last year, which includes a substantial sum from Enfield.

Therefore, how strong is the case for spending this amount on cycling when over the next four years, because of the Government cuts in local authorities grants, Enfield Borough Council will have to reduce expenditure by £80m.

To justify the spend of nearly £41m on cycling we are subjected to a certain amount of brain-washing on the value of cycling. We are told cycling will become safer, even though risk will always be there as there is in all forms of transport. How many casualties were there in Enfield last year and who was to blame?

We are told cycling will cure obesity even though we know, apart from unfortunate medical conditions, it is caused by eating and drinking too much. We did not have this problem during the Second World War when food was rationed.

We are told to reduce car-use by riding a bike for short journeys and shopping to improve air quality and live longer. This will not happen because of the versatility and popularity of the car. Ownership has risen to 37 million and is forecast to rise to 43 million.

Air pollution is caused by traffic congestion. Imposing cycle lanes on roads not wide enough for them will increase congestion and air pollution. Money should be spent on road-widening instead and the Government says we are living longer anyway.

With regard to the six options on offer for the town centre, there is no requirement for changes and option four provides the least disturbance for residents in Cecil Road.

I am not anti-cycling, I had a bike for many years in my youth, but it does not make sense to spend £41m on a small number of cyclists in Enfield when the council cannot afford £27,000 to keep the parks locked at night.

G A Musey

Mitchell Road, Palmers Green