Letters: Consider others and we can all enjoy canal paths

I have long been denied the pleasure of walking along the canal paths with my dog Heidi because she was run down by a cyclist when she was one year old.

This occurred in the Colinton Dell when a cyclist shot past from behind me with no warning. I had no opportunity to call my dog in.

The cyclist had no bell and I didn't even hear her approach until it was too late. She hit my dog sideways on and shot over the handlebars (that is how fast she was travelling).

It was only the fact that my dog is large (a Labrador) that no real physical damage was caused. I hate to think what might have happened if it had been a small child.

There seems to be no redress when cyclists cause problems, the police can't seem to do anything and, of course, they don't have licence plates, so how can they be reported?

These paths are for everyone, and if everyone considered other users, and I mean dogs being under proper control as well as cyclists having bells to warn walkers, we could all enjoy the canal paths.

Helena Malcolm, Broomhouse Grove, Edinburgh

'Sneaky' way is most effective

I REFER to your story "'Sneaky' new speed traps exposed", News, April 4). To be in any way effective, all speed cameras should be hidden.

Moreover, all penalties for speeding, and using hand-held mobile phones, should be increased by ten! People's lives are more important than the pockets of idiotic lawbreakers.

Alistair Miller, Clackmae Road, Edinburgh

Airport criticism out of perspective

I READ with interest Martin Hannan's one-sided perspective on Edinburgh Airport ("The last call for BAA to take off", News, April 5). I don't think that there are many businesses that have invested hundreds of millions of pounds in an asset in a relatively short space of time that would be criticised in such a way.

Most airports that have added 25 new routes in 2010 and 18 in 2011, have finished a new 40 million departure lounge and security facility creating more than 200 jobs, have been ranked fifth in Europe in terms of customer service, have one of the best public transport usages of their size, have spent 500,000 per year in local communities and on charities, and been praised by its airlines for its commercial approach would, I think, be dealt with more evenly.

In this increasingly competitive and taxed environment, airports are seeking ways to deliver great service and remain competitive and Edinburgh is no different. Perhaps Martin should be directing his ire at the Chancellor whose raising of APD affects all passengers and is forecast to cost Edinburgh 400,000 passengers over the next three years and see a drop in tourism revenue for the city.

Of course we can do better. Our snow resilience has been updated to deal with any future snow. We're also continually improving the look and feel of our terminal and our performance on security queuing.

Taking feedback is something we do daily. So yes, let's debate how we can deliver a better service, but let's keep that debate in perspective.

Kevin Brown, Managing Director, Edinburgh Airport

Quick decision is body's target

I NOTE your article of April 2, "Loss of funding threatens support group".

We currently hold no active application for charitable status from Pink Ladies Scotland.

I would reassure your readers that our application process for charitable status is intended to be straightforward. We aim to make a decision within 90 days of receiving a completed application, and our current average is 44 days. Where we do not need further information from the applicant, the decision period can be considerably less.

It would be unfortunate were your article to cause concern among those currently considering options available to them.

Martin Tyson, The Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator, Dundee