The 4x4 debate goes on but, unfortunately, a lot of it is ill-informed and now we have another ban campaign, apparently with the good wishes of Councillor Taylor.

Maybe the following will clear minds and help address the problem.

1. Your photo of two campaigners of the NAAU shows them slapping tickets on two 4x4 vehicles - a Lexus 3.0 litre and a Toyota Rav4 2 litre. Does this mean they think a method of transmission defines big, dirty and dangerous?

Just what are they compaigning against? Is it "gas-guzzling" vehicles? There are many makes of cars with similar or greater engine capacities which are also larger.

The Rav4 is shorter than a Ford Escort Estate so it can hardly be defined as big.

Will they target a BMW 3.0 litre, a Rolls-Royce or a certain cabinet minister's Jaguars?

2. History tells us that, in the dim, distant past, road tax on a vehicle, was based on engine capacity - the bigger the engine, the higher the tax.

In its infinite wisdom, the Government of the day changed this to a flat rate for all cars.

The reason given was to encourage British car manufacturers to build bigger cars which would increase export prospects.

Perhaps a return to the old method of tax would be a better solution to campaign for and maybe Coun Taylor would support that.

But then politicians have to balance practicality against popularity.

As a Rav4 owner, I would support the change.

3. Will Harley concedes that "most 4x4 owners don't aim to be selfish", for which I am truly grateful. He might also accept some of us find our vehicles best meet our needs.

He should be aware that campaigns for banning anything not based on a defined logical theme are not resented but might well be subject to ridicule.

-Brian Beck, Lewes