Sir - Robert Sephton's arguments against trams (Letters, December 8) are highly misleading. Where a tram stop has no platforms, other traffic must not pass between the tram and the kerb (Highway Code 238).

Tram rails can catch bicycle wheels, but only if cyclists don't take care (Highway Code 240). Mr Sephton would prefer a bicycle-free city centre, so why does he claim to care about cyclists anyway?

Emergency services couldn't overtake trams? Trams can be slimmer than 'buses and goods vehicles.

A failed tram need not stop traffic.

The following tram has enough power to push the disabled tram back to depot, except in the remote likelihood of brakes jammed on. James Styring's tram proposal (Letters, December 1) was flawed only by supposing that a light tram should be small. In fact it can have enough sections articulated together to replace any bus!

Oxford has good buses but they can damage roads, drains, mains and cellars.

A bus's 20 tonnes are concentrated on just a few square inches of tyre.

A tram has more wheels to spread its weight. Its track is in 20-metre panels welded into continuous lengths, dissipating the weight even further.

The trams in Manchester, Sheffield, Croydon, Wolverhampton and Nottingham are heavy and might not suit Oxford.

Heavy trams are also expensive, which is why the Department for Transport has cancelled schemes for Liverpool, Leeds and South Hampshire.

Light trams might suit Oxford better.

They would need no overhead wires and no electric conduit in the road surface.

The 40-seat Parry People Mover in Stourbridge uses a tiny amount of propane gas, aided by flywheel energy storage, to move up to 80 passengers.

It can maintain 40mph and climb hills steeper than Headington Road. Parry's designs for 50- and 60-seat models could be just what Oxford needs.

Hugh Jaeger, Oxford