I CAN assure cycling's "Caped Crusader", Allan Ramsay (Letters, July 29) that I am fully in tune with "the real world".

I simply use my comic book humour to cloak me from the "politically-correct brigade" and the "thought police" who only seem happy when they are imposing their will upon others or are further eroding freedoms enjoyed by decent, law-abiding citizens.

I tire of having the ills of the motor car drummed into me by people who are unwilling to completely disown theirs. I do not want to turn this into a "saddlebags" at 30 paces slanging match so I will stick to facts.

Firstly may I congratulate Mr Ramsay on recently winning a 60-mile cycle road race after training on local roads. It would seem that the "Speed is King" ethos is not just confined to the errant motorist or to Jeremy Clarkson, whose original statement has often been quoted out of context. By all means prosecute the law-breakers but do not persecute the innocent.

Owning a car for image or status is not yet a crime, nor is being selfish, vain or even jealous for that matter. We don't close shops because of a shoplifting minority, we don't ban football because of minority hooligans.

So why do politicians continue to close or strangle our roads because a minority choose to speed. In order to then introduce congestion charges, maybe? If they must turn our two-lane roads into one (for example Manchester Road from Bury through Whitefield) why not make one lane a dedicated bus/cycle lane to promote alternative transport rather than waste money on hatchings, islands and build-outs? There is no joined-up thinking, especially with the refusal of the Metrolink extension.

Mr Ramsay uses global statistics to highlight deaths, serious injuries and pollution. The UK arguably has the safest roads in the world along with stringent emissions tests. Can he seriously compare UK standards with those of most Asian countries, or even some of the more lax European countries.

As for pollution it is all around us. Jeremy Clarkson, no less, said that when internal flights stopped over America post 9/11 the world's temperature dropped by one degree. Probably every household item we use will cause pollution at some point in its life cycle.

The legacy of the nuclear industry gives me far more cause for concern for this planet than the motor car does. Why is it we can invent engines to send man to the moon and propel spaceships to other galaxies yet seemingly can't find a viable alternative to the internal combustion engine?

Mr Ramsay mentioned Iraq. I have heard many people argue that the war is as much about about oil as about banishing the bad guys. It is obvious whoever controls the oil holds power and wealth. What would happen if there was no longer a demand for that oil?

I also disagree with Mr Ramsay's comment that the motor car is "a weapon of mass destruction". It is not flawless, but it is being used more like "a weapon of mass distraction", constantly being blamed for the faults of Man.

LEX LUTHER