No disrespect to David Fisher ('Cycling code', Review, w/e August 7), who is clearly genuine and sincere in his faith in his personal code of conduct when out cycling in the woods. But he belongs to an older, more restrained, courteous and law-abiding generation, and unfortunately his own highly responsible approach to his hobby isn't shared by an increasing number of riders these days. For them, the woods are simply a convenient assault course to let off steam, test their machines' capabilities and their own rough-riding skills, and shatter the stillness with their shrieks. Giving a thought to the plants and wildlife, the Forest 'atmosphere' or other users isn't high on their agenda, nor is it likely to be.

Originally there actually was a 'code of conduct' for woodland mountain bikers, instituted when the cycletracks were first put in place. It placed emphasis on sticking to the official hard-surfaced tracks, there­by avoiding damaging plant surfaces or disturbing animals, and on acting responsibly towards walkers. But it quickly fell by the wayside, and today the norm is for more and more of the softer paths beneath the tree canopy to be turned into speedways or short-cuts. There's one such track between the Dilke and the Linear Park car-park where the original two-foot-wide pathway has been eroded back to such an extent that in places the bare-earth surface is often between 12 and 15 feet wide, with a consequent loss of vegetation. Needless to say, it's a tyre-rutted quagmire in rainy periods, a dustbowl in hotter weather.

The same applies to concern for Forest wildlife – well, just how was an almost constant stream of shiny machines and brightly-clad and extremely vocal riders ever going to be conducive to the welfare of shy, sensitive mammals and birds? There's nothing 'green' or 'sustainable' about panicking these creatures when they're just trying to live their lives. As for litter, the usual dismal trail of discarded sports-drink bottles, sweetie wrappers and bits and bobs of broken bike parts or rider apparel show all too well that respect for beauty isn't a big part of some people's 'enjoyment' of the woods. Just a quick thrill or a cheap day out is the driving force here, a predictable ethos for the Xbox generation and their striving-to-appear-young-and-trendy parents.

Likewise the safety angle. Well, maybe it's not yet quite as bad in the Dean as with the Kennet and Avon Canal towpath cited in the Review's earlier 'Opinion' column ('Pressure on all as bikers go wild', July 31). Yet. But things are moving in that direction, particularly given that mountain bikers are taking over all the Forest tracks and paths nowadays (and denying walkers their right to seek out solitude), just as they've taken over the pavements of our towns and cities nationwide. (And are they ever brought to book and fined? Dream on.) So there is genuine cause for concern. 

The guide-map to the Family Cycle Trail provided by Pedalabikeaway is often to be found lying abandoned along that self-same trail (see what I mean?). Curiously, while highlighting the dangers of a certain section of the track where smaller children will need to take care with the steep gradient, the leaflet makes absolutely no mention at all of the fact that other users of the woods, and the animals that live there, might also be at risk from overexcited riders. This glaring omission needs to be rectified, swiftly. Even if there are notice-boards giving such advice at the firm's Cannop premises, it needs to be added to their route-map to serve as a reminder of their clients' responsibilities. And perhaps the Forestry should abandon their 'ride where you like' policy and restrict recreational/ tourism woodland cycling to a few widely-publicized official tracks, and leave the rest for people who simply don't want their peace and quiet, and sometimes their personal safety, jeopardized by such traffic?

And perhaps the Forestry Commission should also be prepared to accept some form of general liability should anyone be injured by activities the Commission are themselves encouraging and promoting? Yes, in an ideal world cyclists themselves should all carry insurance, but in the event of a hit-and-run incident by a cyclist on a walker, the only way of identifying the culprit is likely to be through compelling all riders to carry registration plates, but just how do you fit ones which are large enough to be legible on something as thin as a bike?

The reason why such official acceptance of liability is becoming increasingly necessary is because the Dean woodlands are becoming more and more hazardous for some of us these days, and the danger is coming not from the wild boar, big cats, adders, or psychopathic squirrels and deer, but from a small but unpleasantly effective minority of individuals intent on transferring to the woods behavioural patterns that would be illegal and highly dangerous on a main road. It's all very well the Commission opening up three miles of forestry track around Blaize Bailey for drivers to enjoy the views, but have any thought and precautions been given to the possibility of boy racers or all-terrain freaks taking liberties with such freedom? (Was the wildlife consulted on this? And in the event of any four-legged casualties, will their deaths be hushed-up?)

The reason I ask, is that this last Friday a pair of scooter riders (yes, they're back. Didn't take 'em long, did it?) roared up to the junction with the Family Cycle Trail at the old Foxes' Bridge colliery works and sped along the trail, forcing the cyclists who normally cluster around that point into the side. I'd permit myself a brief smirk of schadenfraude here, given that these cyclists them­selves often don't bother very much about pedestrians trying to pass across that junction, but no one wants to see anyone get knocked down. So, in the case of the Blaize Bailey experiment, is this genuinely going to be merely a temporary permit (four Sundays only) and for this location alone, or will goalposts be moved and parcels passed yet again, and before long we'll see more and more of the Forest tracks opened-up to motorists, motorcyclists and 4x4 'green lane' enthusiasts? Because if the Dean woods become a motorized Piccadilly Circus, who protects the environment and its numerous vulnerable spec­ies? And in the event of accidents and possibly fatalities, who carries the can? Who takes the rap? Who does the buck stop at, when all others have hastily passed it on?

 Who takes ultimate responsibility? – Andrew Stephens, Prospect Road, Cinderford.