I am bemused by correspondents like Jazz (Soapbox, September 2) who are quick to demonise the cheapest, healthiest, most sustainable, most enjoyable and – more often than not – the quickest vehicular mode of transport around Bristol.

I refer of course to bicycles, (which have been around considerably longer than motor vehicles, and still vastly outnumber cars worldwide).

It's not quite fair to paint cyclists as an eccentric, unclean minority when the bicycle is such a huge part of life in several major world cities, (particularly in Asia, but also notably Copenhagen, Amsterdam and other cities closer to home).

It's also unfair to say that cyclists are recklessly dicing with death. Cycling is statistically much safer than driving. In fact the only major risk to cyclists is motorists.

Cyclists are safer in numbers, as Copenhagen has proven beyond doubt, so the more people who get out of their steel boxes and onto a pair of pedals, the better.

In the UK where one third of people die from illnesses related to lack of exercise, the health benefits of cycling thoroughly outweigh any risk. And if you're worried about hills and sweat, remember that a bicycle is a machine, which means it makes work easier, so you can get from A to B in a fraction of the time, using less energy than walking. And breaking a sweat is optional, depending on how fast you want to go and what you choose to wear. Just like walking and running.

Concerning Jazz's hyperbole of there being a million cars and only 20 bikes in the city centre... Give me one of the bikes any day and I'll be the first home with a cup of tea while the motorists can enjoy the luxury of their steel pod quarantine as they crawl home.

Name and address supplied,

By email.

● IN response to Jazz of Bristol who wrote a very childish "Car vs Bike" article, I think a few of your ill-informed comments need addressing.

Firstly, there is not a "war" going on between "the bike and the engine". If there's any dispute at all it's between good road users and bad road users.

A bad road user will jump red lights, speed, act irresponsibly regardless of what vehicle they choose to utilise. Good road users will respect the road rules and be considerate to others, again regardless of what vehicle they travel in or on. Blaming cyclists for all of Bristol's woes is neither constructive or even accurate. In fact, it just makes you (Jazz) look very much like another whining Nimby that our city can well do without.

As a regular morning commuter into the city centre I see both cars and cycles jump red lights in equal measure. Yes, it's dangerous, yes it's annoying but it is not any 'one' group of road users. Regular daily cyclists, believe it or not, have no desire to be mown down on the way to work and as such wear appropriate safety equipment and follow road regulations.

The only cyclists I see breaking the rules tend to be ones that I don't see on a regular basis and who give the impression that they dragged their bike out of the shed that morning merely because they couldn't get their car started. A car which no doubt, they drive as badly as they ride a bike.

So Jazz, I'm sorry that it offends you that I choose to cycle into work in 15 minutes rather than spend 45 clogging up the rush hour with yet another car. I'm sorry that it offends you that I opt to make some effort at keeping fit and healthy rather than sitting like a lazy, fat slob in a "Personal Transportation Pod".

I'm sorry that you are so ignorant to Bristol's desire to cycle that you mistakenly believe that just 20 people cycle in to the city each day when the rest of us daily see hundreds do the journey by bike. I'm even sorry that I can't afford to pay £1.07+ per litre to fuel an unnecessary car each and every day... but Bristol is a proud cycling city, so get used to it.

Mr Hector,

Knowle West.

● TO all those who wrote in to whinge about cyclists' imperfections, I would like to say that in six months of cycling to work and back this year I have twice almost been knocked off my bike and seriously hurt by dangerous car drivers.

The first was a young lady who was using her mobile phone while driving (yup, illegal), the second a junction where a Jaguar driver did not look properly (yup, dangerous).

In both cases I had to take immediate, instinctive evasive action, and it was only by this and sheer good luck that I was not hit. At the speed of those vehicles, I could easily – easily – have been killed on either occasion. Who was at fault? The motorist in both cases. Who would have paid the price for their incompetent driving? Me. Those drivers nearly killed me, and I don't like that. They are still out there, driving around.

When cars and cyclists collide, regardless of who is at fault, it is the cyclist who comes off worst.

In 2007, 2,940 people died on British roads, of which 136 were pedal cyclists. Per mile travelled, pedestrians and cyclists are around nine times more likely to be injured or killed on their journeys. Sobering, isn't it?

Oh, and I haven't told you about the motorist who reversed – yes, reversed – into me on the road. Presumably his impatience had melted his rearview mirror.

It is because it is so dangerous on our roads that sometimes I ride on the pavements, and sometimes I go through a red light – but only when it is clear – to pull away early from snarling traffic or maintain momentum.

Safe travelling everyone.

Evening Post reader and cyclist,

Name and address supplied.

● ON WEDNESDAY at 5.20pm as I was riding my bike, a white van with a male driver listening to loud music cut right in front of me to make a left turn on a roundabout – he made me brake and curse his legitimacy.

He should have slowed down and waited. Whose fault is that, petrolhead writers?

It's dangerous out there on the roads, and it's the unthinking drivers utterly cocooned in their wraparound glass and steel, oblivious to lesser others who are the biggest problem.

Angela James,

Bristol student.