Reports of cycle accidents are all too common, and yet the council seems unconvinced by calls for a gold-class cycle lane on Leith Walk.
Surely this is a no-brainer? More than £5 million is going to be spent on the road post-tram and there is an Olympic wave of interest in cycling in all its forms. The bold suggestion has been made that any tribute to city boy Hoy is something that actually has a lasting and positive impact.
Meadowbank needs investment too, but transforming Leith Walk with a cycle Hoy Way gets my vote.
Ben Miller, Brougham Place, Edinburgh
City is geared up for cycling legacy
Gavin Corbett’s comments (August 6) on cycling provision and the need to create a fitting legacy for the incredible achievements of Sir Chris Hoy are welcome.
However, it should be remembered that the council is already spending a record 5 per cent of the entire transport budget on a variety of projects from ‘I bike’ which encourages school children to cycle (done in partnership with Sustrans), to new cycle lanes such as the secure bike corridor to King’s Buildings. We also maintain a superb network of off-road segregated cycleways, often converted from disused railway lines. Overall, cycling provision in Edinburgh is excellent by UK standards and getting better every year.
As a means of transport cycling is cheap, healthy, fun and convenient and I would strongly encourage your readers to explore the network.
Jim Orr, vice convener of Transport Infrastructure and Environment
A simple solution for indy question
When the independence referendum was first postulated I was firmly of the opinion that it should contain only one question.
I was concerned that both sides would use a third option to obscure the key yes/no decision, and would fight, not to win the referendum, but to not lose it.
In the 18 months since then I have changed my mind: I now recognise that most of my friends, relatives and the people around me daily, are strongly in favour of staying within the Union, but with a devolved parliament with increased powers ... and their voices must be heard.
They must not be pushed into an either/or decision if neither is their choice.
I did think at one time a “yes/no” referendum, followed by a “greater powers/status quo” referendum a year later, if the “no vote” claimed the first one, might be a way forward – but that would be expensive, campaigning exhausting and the political landscape between the two votes subject to change: it just wouldn’t work.
So can anyone explain to me in plain words what is wrong with a single multiple choice question:-
“Would you like Scotland to a) separate from the rest of the UK b) remain within the UK with increased powers devolved to Holyrood or c) for the current political status to be unchanged”? Tick one box only. Winner takes all.
I know that we made a dog’s breakfast of the last Holyrood election count but one, but even we should be able to get a clear result from that!
David Fiddimore, Calton Road, Edinburgh
Light went out on the candlemakers
In reply to former deacon Peter Rae’s letter complaining about no mention of the Candlemakers (August 13), I must point out that, for much of its history, that venerable organisation has chosen not to associate itself with the Convenery of Trades, which is the subject of our exhibition.
The Deacon of Candlemakers was invited to join the Convenery in 1598 and did so.
However his successor, the appropriately named David Burn, blotted his copy-book and was excluded from sitting with the other deacons in 1604, so the association with the Convenery of Trades was no more than “a candle in the wind”, so to speak.
Visitors to our exhibition at Ashfield, 61 Melville St, will see that the Candlemakers are indeed accorded an honourable 15th place (out of 15) in the sequence of the Incorporated Trades of Edinburgh. They are also mentioned on our website at www.edinburgh-trades.org
Henry Steuart Fothringham,
Honorary Historian to the Convenery of the Trades of Edinburgh