MAY I say how disappointed I am after reading Mike White's letter "Green lanes are being lost forever" (March 5).

It is not unusual to encounter such bigotry and ignorance when out in the countryside, it is however a little disconcerting to find it on the letters page.

Clearly Mr White believes the countryside is there for the exclusive use of himself and people like him, when in fact it is there for us all.

With over 140,000 miles worth of legitimate Rights of Way why do people like Mr White insist on walking on the very routes that they know are legally frequented by vehicles? Could it be that they are looking for confrontation? May I suggest that if he wants to walk in the countryside and does not want to see vehicles then he should walk on footpaths and bridle-ways.

I find it interesting that this whole debate started with The Ridgeway and how vehicular use could be limited but now at the insistence of Mr White and people like him the debate has moved on and they are now lobbying the government for a complete shut down of the countryside to vehicle users.

Does Mr White think that any sort of vehicular ban is enforceable?

I can assure him it is not. I would like to see the countryside opened up and not shut down. Maybe the government should consider upgrading some bridle-ways to vehicular status that way lessening the chances of walkers like himself coming into contact with vehicle or their drivers/riders.

The debate continues and the one thing that is for sure is that vehicle users are not going to go away, so may I suggest that we put our prejudices aside and all work together?

Paul Harrison

Marlborough