Many recent letters to the Argus Opinion page argued against the fuel tax protest, whereas TV polls showed more than 90 per cent of the population was in favour of them.
I see this as a desperate attempt by anti-motorists to appear credible. Their arguments can all be answered by a few facts and figures.
The suggestion the price of fuel should be increased so we use less, thus forcing producers to drop their prices, is flawed. The reverse would happen, as producers would have to charge more to stay in profit.
I agree, however, that we should look into alternatives to petrol and the Government should invest in funding research so we are not so reliant on OPEC.
Have those who blame cars for global warming ever flown abroad? One flight across the Atlantic burns more fuel than a motorist will use in their lifetime.
A common question is where the money would come from to replace the fuel tax, if it were reduced. One solution would be not to waste money on projects such as the Millennium Dome but instead consider taking us out of the European Union, which costs us £1 million every hour.
The protest has shown public transport to be completely inadequate. Without private road vehicles the country would soon grind to a halt. However, Brian Phillips of Transport 2000 and others would like to see us permanently in this position. They then have the audacity to call motorists selfish!
-C. Gould, Georgia Avenue, Worthing
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article