M Boyask states “it is a fact of life that a large proportion of people need, and want, to drive where they wish” (Letters, May 2).

This may be the case, but it is in no way a convincing argument for Brighton and Hove City Council to reduce parking charges or abandon its sustainable transport strategy.

Firstly, there is a big difference between “want”

and “need”.

I accept a large proportion of people “want” to use their cars, but I think the number of people who actually “need” to is considerably smaller.

Secondly, the accumulated decisions of individual car drivers add up to some big collective problems for all of us. Over-dependence on cars leads to congestion, pollution, climate change, an obesity crisis, road deaths and injuries.

Should we, as a community, just shrug in the face of these pressing health and economic issues? Or should we try to find a better way to organise transport in our city?

After all, many people want to smoke cigarettes, drink too much alcohol and drop litter in the street.

In response, we fund stop-smoking clinics, drug and alcohol advice and environmental awareness campaigns. We make licensing and tax decisions to discourage these anti-social habits. We ban smoking in workplaces, because someone’s wish (or even need) to smoke doesn’t override everyone’s right to safety at work.

Being a successful city means finding community solutions to the problems of high-density living. We won’t do that if we only think about our own needs.

Dani Ahrens, Southampton Street, Brighton

WHO are the individuals at Brighton and Hove City Council with the fanatical and missionary zeal to persecute the motorist at every opportunity?

They obviously don’t live in one of our suburbs miles from the city centre or up a windy hill, or have a young family with shopping. They also don’t live in an outlying town or village, wanting to visit the city to shop, eat out, or go to the theatre or cinema. Nor are they bothered about visitors from London or wherever who want to come to the seaside for the day. They also can’t be tradespeople needing to carry equipment to a work site, or a delivery driver moving bulky items.

They won’t be happy until the city is paved over and has died a death through lack of easy accessibility and reasonably priced parking. An alternative economy is gradually building up around the edges and in other more accommodating coastal towns.

Even the edges are being chipped away. The Lewes Road scheme, while good in parts, is another example of this persecution while free parking in Hanover is disappearing.

The council pretends to be consumer-friendly by holding so-called “consultation exercises”, quoting statistics and then stating “lack of opposition”. Whatever the response, though, it will still bulldoze a scheme through.

Driving a vehicle is a legal, expensive and, for many, a necessary right. For a city to thrive, a balance must be struck so all modes of transport are catered for. I feel this balance is now being unhealthily skewed too far away from motorists. The council must cater for those who can’t always walk, cycle or use public transport.

Nigel Davis, Hollingdean Terrace, Brighton