John Vidal (The age of ‘the car is king’ is over. The sooner we accept that, the better, 30 August) concludes that, because cars kill and injure thousands, pollute, clog our streets and are costly to own and run, their time is running out. If only.
The examples he gives of car-free benefits are for cities, where high population densities mean that public transport is frequent and cost effective, local shops and businesses can be viable, and people can access these conveniently without a car.
Car ownership has allowed the spread of low-density suburbs, where public transport is not cost effective, and there are fewer people to sustain local businesses, so – full circle – we need cars in order to access those dispersed services: jobs, schools and shops.
The current planning free-for-all is exacerbating these problems: low density estates spread out from every town and village, all needing cars to get anywhere or do anything.
We need a new planning framework, based on sustainable principles rather than on the lobbying of property developers. This would mean intensifying existing suburbs, setting higher development densities and viable settlement sizes, limiting greenfield development, and integrating services and public transport. Only then can people manage their daily lives without a car, and realise the benefits that Vidal sets out.
Moira Hankinson
Henley-on-Thames, Oxfordshire
• Dare one ask where John Vidal lives? Presumably in London or another large city. We are just back from visiting friends in the Northumberland countryside where it is an eight-mile journey to the nearest bus route, for a bus that runs once a day, two days a week. If they need groceries, a trip in their electric car is more viable than an electric scooter, a ride-sharing app or the other solutions Vidal proposes.
Melvyn Ellis
Harrogate, North Yorkshire
• It makes sense for private cars to be eliminated from major cities, but many of us who live in villages have no choice but to drive.
I would gladly forgo my rarely used bus pass for a reliable, regular bus service. Bury St Edmunds (our preferred shopping centre) is only accessible by car. Our choice of cultural centre, Snape Maltings, is the same. We would gladly pay £3 for return journeys to either. Equally, we would go by bus to Ipswich, less for shopping than for the theatre or to the Dance House, but the last bus home leaves at 5pm, ruling out all but the earliest matinee.
If the UK government had the foresight of our continental neighbours we could have a properly subsidised and efficient public transport system that charges reasonable fares.
John Pelling
Coddenham, Suffolk
• John Vidal provides impressive evidence of the need for ending our dependence on cars. But “car culture” remains strong, as manufacturers and celebrity enthusiasts continue to promote cars as things to love, and symbols of status – perhaps with a little help from a fossil fuel industry keen on delaying its own eventual demise.
Will the children of generation Z really continue this love affair with something as ancient and crude as an internal combustion engine? I think not. Certainly, cars will remain essential for a while as a better connected society is built. For this purpose they can easily be made more utilitarian and less polluting.
Jeff Waage
London
• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication.
