Scare tactics

I live in the national park and am fully aware of their concerns. Excessive police presence and speed cameras may be a short-term solution but after the problems have been removed it will be local people who will ultimately be penalised by these measures.

Living in a national park has both pluses and minuses, which should be viewed together. There are many things, which annoy me, but I personally prefer the live-and-let-live attitude (which seems to be disappearing fast).

A few mini-roundabouts placed along the Bilsdale road would significantly slow traffic and reduce accidents. This would also need less policing, no speed cameras and have the least impact on locals in winter, when this route is least used.

I am a motorcyclist and ex-clubman racer and doubt the claims that people are trying to ride at 200mph. Many high performance motorcycles have top speeds in excess of 150mph, but maintaining over 150mph on public roads is not as easy as it sounds.

At the Isle of TT races some top professionals hit 200mph. Their motorcycles, albeit based on production bikes, are built for speed with better suspension, tyres and brakes, race-tuned engines, and race exhausts etc. The average speed is around 120mph for a 37.5 mile lap at the TT.

The undulating and winding road out of Helmsley, on the other hand, does not give the opportunity to hit the top speeds claimed in your article. Even a highly experienced racer would not be able to hit 200mph on a road-legal motorcycle, as even the quickest motorcycles available to buy will not crack 200mph in standard form, even those that can reach this figure (tuned bikes) usually attempt top speed runs on closed two mile runways.

The Queen's highways are public and open to all who observe the law of the land, whether BAND like it or not. Once it has achieved its goals of removing lorries and motorcycles from this stretch of road, what next? How about banning day-trippers in old cars, hot hatches, old people etc, etc?

Sensible, well thought-out measures are required, not knee jerk over-the-top responses. BAND may win the fight but we will all lose in the end.

R SMITH

Wass,

Coxwold.

Unrealistic

Sir, - I was pleased to see the amount of space that you devoted (D&S, Jan 2)to the problem of motorcycle terrorism that takes place on North Yorkshire roads each weekend throughout the spring and summer months.

As much as I abhor this motorcycle terrorism that is inflicted upon us, both in the North York Moors National Park, and the Yorkshire Dales National Park, I cannot support the call for a blanket 50mph speed limit throughout both areas. This is both unenforceable and unrealistic.

Firstly, there are simply not enough police officers in North Yorkshire to enforce such a law. Secondly, to impose a 50mph limit on residents and users of the parks' roads during weekdays and weekends alike, 24 hours a day, 12 months a year, is an unfair and unrealistic proposal to responsible users of the parks' roads.

It is perfectly safe to travel at the current speed of 60mph on many of the roads, and to impose a 50mph limit would in my opinion cause unnecessary frustration to those drivers wanting to overtake the typical holiday maker who seems happy to drive along at 31mph. Surely we have more than enough rules in this country.

PAUL WIGNALL

West Witton,

Leyburn.

A right step

Sir, - With the latest protests against unrestrained rural development it should not be forgotten that the purpose of a rural planning regime is to balance conservation against the needs of the 13 million people who live and work in the countryside and depend upon a sustainable rural economy.

Conservation needs management. Non-residential historic buildings do not maintain themselves. Ten or twenty years ago the income and employment from farming would have underpinned hedgerow laying, the village shop and even the village school. This is no longer possible.

The future lies in examples like Broughton in North Yorkshire, where diversification of farm buildings has created 500 jobs that not only keep the local shop and school alive, but also support farming which maintains the landscape.

Planning needs to involve those who live and work in the countryside whilst supporting and encouraging imaginative solutions, for example old farm buildings being converted for commercial or residential use. Blanket designations which frustrate well-designed and suitably scaled employment or housing developments will, as a result, do nothing to support either our landscape or heritage.

The Government's draft guidance would not allow unrestrained building, either on green fields or in the green belt. It is a step in the right direction and merits serious attention, not a knee-jerk reaction.

The Hon M C J WILLOUGHBY

Chairman, Country Land and Business Association Yorkshire

Easingwold.

In conversation

Sir, - In the penultimate paragraph of my letter (D&S, Jan 2) you managed to change "Christians in conservation" to read, "Christians in conversation".

Initially, I was disappointed because of the historical inaccuracy, but, on reflection, your new title could have very relevant meaning in describing the work of A Rocha.

One thing they are engaged in all the time is conversation with Christians and people of other faiths, whether in the Bekaa Valley of the Lebanon, or on the East African coast, where they are working with local people to save the last remnant of coastal rain forest and its rare species, or now in Southall, near Heathrow.

Without that conversation, building trust and working relationships, the conservation projects would have little chance of long-term success. So thank you for (inadvertently) giving me the opportunity for further comment, and to develop my own thinking.

PETER WOODS

Rosedale Intake,

Danby.