Cut freedom? Oh, come on...

I share some of the concerns expressed in letters about the proposed new zoning system and a big new by-pass to deal with Canterbury’s traffic problems [‘Zones proposal cuts freedoms’, letters January 10].

But please can we move beyond the vacuous rhetoric about “freedom”? Unlimited “freedom of movement” for car drivers to drive wherever they want, whenever they want and however they want, would be hell.

It would be hell for drivers as well as for everyone else. Why do we have a rule to drive on the left? Why do we have traffic lights, roundabouts, oneway streets, pedestrianised areas and the like? Because we need them.

So please can we have a grown-up conversation about what regulations and possible restrictions might help to tackle the problems of congestion on Canterbury roads?

We know that the problems are at certain times of the day.

In the rush hours and especially during school terms, congestion is serious, with long queues of cars wasting vast amounts of time, and with disastrous effects

for carbon emissions and air pollution.

A zoning system isn’t the answer, but what is?

What about restrictions or disincentives to drive in the centre of Canterbury at certain times of day? Wouldn’t a congestion charge, say, just for peak times, be a lot less restrictive and a lot more acceptable than the proposed zoning system?

How might the creation of more bus lanes or more cycle lanes help? How could people working in Canterbury be discouraged from using their cars to get to work and be provided with better alternatives? What alternatives could be tried for the school run? These are questions, not answers. But please can I put them to your regular correspondents who extol “freedom of movement”? What answers do they suggest? Richard Norman

St Michael’s Place, Canterbury