"City Streets Get a High ‘D' for Cycling" (September 1) was informative, and I am delighted that City provides on a regular basis some visibility to cycling transportation. But I'd like to make a point that I seldom, if ever, see addressed in the mainstream press.

Cycling has a lot of benefits to society, which are widely known and so hardly need to be restated: better health for the participants, better health for the non-participants. Activists seek support from governments to encourage cycling and to improve the lot of cyclists. The argument goes something like this: "If cycling is such a good idea, why aren't we doing something to support it?"

What governments do best is to build infrastructure, put up signs, paint lanes onto roadways, and things like that: spend money. But governments don't have unlimited money, and so priorities need to be set.

It's ironic, therefore, that what cyclists actually need is what motorists also actually need. There is no conflict and no requirement for "additional" funds, i.e., funds set aside to build cycling-specific stuff to encourage cycling. (Motorists and cyclists are, for the most part, the same persons using different machines on the same roadways on different days.) This is one of the few areas of government action that does not require one priority to be scuttled in order to afford another priority.

What motorists need is wider, smoother, cleaner tarmac, and better driver training.

What cyclists need is wider, smoother, cleaner tarmac, and better driver training.

Build that, and they will come. The really smart thing for governments to do for cycling would be to do what's best for traffic. Cyclists are part of traffic. Cyclists don't need special infrastructure.

ROBERT COOPER, ROCHESTER