PETER SPINNEY (Letters, May 11) is clearly an enthusiastic defender of the car, but I do feel he has not addressed the problems of excessive city traffic which Councillor David Begg has long been acutely aware of.

The difference is crucial. There are simply too many cars entering cities and this has to be made as unattractive as possible. There are park-and-ride alternatives for most people, but not until these options are (a) distinctly cheaper, (b) frequent, (c) user-friendly, and (d) secure, will people be encouraged to desert their cars in sufficient numbers.

However, it is all too easy for those whose homes lie in the outer suburbs or in rural areas to be blithely insensitive to the needs of city-dwellers, or even totally ignorant of the unpleasantness they cause. They are not the ones who have to cope with the major health and safety aspects of the daily invasion of traffic with its problems of noise, pollution, excessive speed, and uneconomic single-occupancy.

Whatever technical advances in exhaust pollution may have been made by car manufacturers, they are of little consolation to a local mother wheeling her offspring in a buggy down streets like Byres Road or Leith Walk when, after 10 minutes, the foul taste of fumes pouring out of long lines of vehicles is undeniable.

That exhaust pipes are at the level of infant lungs does not augur well for the future health of the nation. Surely a child's health and safety deserve greater priority than some impatient adult's personal convenience, or have our values become so distorted that we fail to see this clearly?

Were the situation to be reversed and the avenues and drives of leafy outlying suburbs be invaded to a similar degree, I could just imagine the cries of outrage which would follow from those who shamelessly apply the double standard of inflicting their way of life on others, while studiously avoiding the worst effects of this in their own lives.

So, could we please have a little more consideration from people who don't think twice about heading into the city as the sole occupant of a car? Those city tenement blocks you pass every day are just as much ''home'' to some as your chosen location and, what is more, the people in them pay for the upkeep of the city you choose as your daily destination.

By any reasonable standards of social and financial justice, this entitles them to a preferential say in the way they would like their city to be run.

Dave Stewart,

50 Cranworth Street,

Glasgow.

May 11.

I would like to counter the arguments of Peter Spinney (May 11). No matter how you power it the car is a highly inefficient use of space and transport resources in our small country. Around 60% of Glasgow households have no access to a car yet suffer the effect of those who clog the streets with an inordinate amount of space per person - invariably going to the same places at the same times.

Those who have been drivers and then give up car ownership express great feelings of release from a burden of #3000 a year in fixed costs, and a need to always return to the point where you parked and (hopefully) drive off to join the merry roundabout again.

The greatest mobility in transport is with the pedestrian rather than the car, which merely increases the capacity to consume travel resources - a bit like confusing action with movement in the workforce.

I recall the old craftsman's adage which applies well to the car as commuter transport - no matter how much you sharpen a screwdriver it will never make a good chisel.

Dave Holladay,

95 West Graham Street,

Glasgow. May 11.

I was disappointed to read the vitriolic attack on the range of solutions from Councillor Begg by Peter Spinney (May 11). Technical fixes are part of the solution but the issue ignored so far is equity.

Technological improvements to motor vehicles of the sort offered by hybrid cars are to be welcomed by even the most ardent anti-car campaigners. However, I take issue with the assumption that cars are six to eight times less polluting than 10 years ago. Last year fuel average mpg actually decreased, due to larger more powerful and more driveable (sic) cars! This means an increase in the levels of CO2 emissions - more, not less, pollution.

Even with effective road engineering it is not desirable let alone feasible to cater for the forecast growth in car use that would otherwise occur if it were not for a fundamental shift in reducing the way people travel and the amount people travel.

There will always be those who are unable to drive - the young and the old, the infirm and those who are disqualified or disabled (my wife has diabetes and has been advised not to drive while pregnant). Even with very low levels of pollution there will always be the effects of accidents, the restriction on the freedom of our children because of danger, congestion, and noise pollution.

The road environment has to be made safer and more attractive for people to choose to use alternatives to the car.

Many people do have the choice to take public transport and to walk and cycle. A statistical breakdown shows how much potential there is for a shift in the way people travel - 72% of journeys and 60% of car journeys are under five miles, 50% are between one and two miles (Department of Transport statistics).

Richard Crook (May 9) is one of many motorists who would cycle if there were a comprehensive network of safe cycle routes. Investment in routes for cyclists and pedestrians is very cost-effective - the whole National Cycle Network for the cost of six miles of the M74. Good for the individual's health and fitness, good for the environment.

Reducing the impacts of transport by reducing the need to travel requires long-term policies that will improve the nation's health, well-being, and quality of life. Scotland's transport problems won't be solved overnight and they certainly won't be solved by driving a 6-10 lane motorway into the heart of Glasgow.

Mark James,

32 Meadowhouse Road,

Edinburgh.

May 11.

I WAS interested to read the letter from Douglas Harrison (April 23) in which he criticised Stagecoach's provision of bus services in Glasgow, by alleging that Stagecoach only ran on profitable routes, at the expense of services elsewhere, while confusingly alleging we were making ''significant losses'' by so doing.

I would have taken the allegations more seriously if my accuser had not given the impression of being a humble reader of 32 Sandbank Crescent, Glasgow, but had honourably declared himself to have been a director for the past five years of ''the other'' bus company in Glasgow!

Perhaps Mr Harrison is too ashamed of his company's record of increasing fares four times in the past two years to reveal his true identity!

Neil Renilson,

Chairman, Stagecoach Scotland,

Sandgate, Ayr. May 13.