Letters: Why are only cyclists blamed for damaging the Forest?

SIR - After reading Lucie Rowe's letter in last week's edition reminding off-road cyclists that "the Forest is not an open cycle track", I found myself wondering why it was that cyclists should be the ones singled out.

Why not horse-riders and, indeed, all the other users of the Forest as well?

In her letter Lucie says cyclists should "stop the habit of taking off across the Forest wherever they want to".

Um, isn't this exactly what horse-riders do? Often after clogging the car parks with 4x4s, horse trailers and enormous, wheeled 'horse-palaces'.

Horse-riders and cyclists have a lot in common: both sets of riders wear helmets, both sets of riders often wear high-vis clothing, both seem to really annoy car drivers, both travel at roughly the same speed (although I'd bet a horse is probably faster than a bike at full-pelt.) and, in terms of damage to the forest, you only need eyes to objectively see that horses chew up the ground much, much more than bikes do.

On that note, it's also a fact that bikes tend to stick to trails whereas horses go everywhere.

So I guess what I really want is for someone to please give me a reason - a real reason - (not one based on perceived wisdom and unsubstantiated conjecture!) as to why off-road cycling is not allowed on the fragile Forest.

If it should indeed be banned then surely so should running, walking, dogs, kids, picnics and, of course, horse-riding!

Name and address supplied