The opinions in the letter on this subject (May 31) tried to ridicule (?) the opinions expressed in another letter, published a few days earlier, by Hugh Peralta - a professional lawyer and long-time car driver. Both the writers of these different opinion-letters have the right to express their opinion. So do I.

My opinion is that the second (response) writer failed to convince many readers that what Hugh Peralta wrote was incorrect. The robbers who stole €1 million from the Balzan bank - and are still enjoying the money - did not use vans and vehicles with tinted windows. That does not prove anything in favour or against tinted windows on any vehicle. The only thing it proved is that they were clever, and now richer. Just one example - taken from Dr Peralta's letter: no, I would not like a little daughter to go to school in a van with tinted windows. I do not care if the other occupants and the driver can see "outside more" than I can see inside - in fact that is the whole point, apart from other reasons that Dr Peralta pointed out.

Another example - airline crews are trained to save people from a crashed and burning aircraft; but not many of them would risk entering a crashed and burning car if they cannot see anybody inside. We need not go as far as saying that all vehicles, officially manufactured with tinted glass, should be stopped from going on the roads; even though we know that many people would like that. Would it not be more beneficial if we consider both opinion letters (and more) seriously? Progress does no "exclude" correcting errors we might have made; in fact it is important that we include that, because it gives us more courage to venture further, with the confidence that we can revise or correct whatever decisions we take today.