Albert Bezzina (‘Cars the wrong target’, December 17) alludes to our inability to think outside of the proverbial tin box, suggesting that there is no possible alternative to a car for those with a “hectic life... (who) juggle work, offspring, household and second job...”

There are many people, in single occupancy vehicles, who could actually use numerous alternatives. The truth is not everybody needs their car all of the time, we just think we do.

It is our own choice, our fear of losing our cars, that has brought us to this current impasse. Neither can we build roads or parking spaces fast enough to keep up with demand. It’s not just an emissions issue or rocket science. It’s far more important than that!

The sustainable handling of cars (Maria Attard, December 6) does not imply banning them, but merely using them more wisely, perhaps more moderately. Certainly we may have to accept and encourage alternatives like bus lanes and public transport, but the reduction in overall congestion increases traffic flow: a net gain for the remaining drivers.

It is also far better to adopt sustainable measures voluntarily than having them forced upon us. That won’t be very nice for anybody.

When advocists gather, one of the oft discussed subjects is, which is most effective, actively campaigning for sustainability or by the law of diminishing returns, to say nothing and just let cars get on with it and fester themselves into an inevitable gridlock?

Perhaps we should actually listen to informed people like Dr Attard, in the interests of everyone and paradoxically in the interest of cars and their owners too!