If there is one topic guaranteed to set our letters pages abuzz, it is the so-called ‘war on motorists’ and the debate over perceived attacks on people’s ability to get about by car.

With parking charges on the rise, ULEZ expanding to Kent’s borders, and roads often in gridlock, it can seem like drivers are increasingly embattled – but, as Rhys Griffiths reports, advocates for alternative forms of travel argue the ‘war on motorists’ is nothing of the sort...

The government press release promises to “end the war on motorists”. But given the date of the statement is 2011, it is fair to say that this perceived conflict between drivers and their massed opponents rumbles on – with the Conservatives once again pledging to win the war with its “plan for drivers” published last month.

Yet 12 years on, our letters pages suggest that many drivers still do – as Rishi Sunak’s administration’s recent policy paper states – “feel under attack”.

“The establishment wants us all to go back to bicycles, like our impoverished ancestors,” one letter-writer complains.

Many point to soaring car parking charges, the expansion of low-emission zones and efforts to reduce speed limits as examples of a nefarious conspiracy to gradually restrict the freedom of motorists. Some even detect a desire by some local authorities to monitor and control movement under the guise of so-called “15-minute cities” – something the government now says it will work to prevent.

Ian Taylor, a director of the Alliance of British Drivers pressure group, is one of those convinced that there is a concerted effort to target drivers, with the ultimate aim of some politicians being to force people out of their vehicles altogether.

“For years governments of all shades have been accused of waging a war on motorists – drivers in general in fact,” Mr Taylor said.

“This has largely been down to the combined effects of it being an easy way to collect money, especially for local government, by endlessly tightening rules and then pocketing penalties.

“They have found this easy to do because it has come about in small increments that are fuelled by a vocal ‘safety’ lobby.

“In recent years this has become an increased threat to the future of our cars and personal mobility by accusations on the environmental front that our travel, much of which is for essential business, is causing air pollution, climate collapse and must be curbed by the ‘get people out of their cars’ policies being adopted almost universally by councils – and more importantly their officers and advisers.”

Mr Taylor offers criticism of London’s ultra-low emission zone (ULEZ), recently expanded to the borders of Kent, which he claims is a policy aimed at a problem – dirty air – which is in fact not an issue at all.

He said: “In fact, London's ‘dirtiest’ air, from particulates, is on the Underground, which the Mayor is responsible for, not the street.

“Any bad air comes from traffic stuck in congestion, and most of that is actually caused by reduction of road space for bus/cycle lanes and closure of roads and whole areas to through traffic in the mistaken belief that the traffic will go away and people walk and cycle more – wrong on both counts.”

The Mayor, Labour’s Sadiq Khan, has made the expansion of ULEZ one of his flagship policies as he seeks to tackle polluted air in the capital, aiming to prevent 4,000 premature deaths every year in London.

Commenting on the zone’s controversial expansion in the summer, Mr Khan said: “All the evidence shows that it’s clean air zones like ULEZ that are the gamechanger in a city like London when it comes to cutting toxic air quickly and meaningfully to protect people’s health.”

Even Kent’s own Howard Cox is running in London’s upcoming mayoral elections, with an overriding aim to “scrap ULEZ”.

Closer to home in Kent, local authorities have been coming under fire for proposals to hike the cost of parking in town centres across the county – a move many traders have told KentOnline will have a negative impact on their businesses.

In Sittingbourne, town centre traders told us the fear an increase in parking fees will represent “another nail in the coffin” for shops, as Swale council mulls a sliding scale of charges to boost revenue in the area’s busiest car parks.

Meanwhile, in Canterbury, the city council has insisted financial pressures mean “there’s just no way around” a rise in parking charges. However, in Folkestone and Hythe the local authority has rowed back on plans to hike fees after a backlash against its proposal to scrap two-hour free parking in certain town centres.

Whether these moves represent a new front in a conflict with drivers, or simply an opportunity to plug gaps in threadbare council budgets, is up for debate. As is the very notion of there being any such thing as the “war on motorists”.

Duncan Dollimore is head of campaigns at Cycling UK, and when asked about the suggestion of a concerted attack on drivers he was dismissive of the idea.

“The narrative and the suggestion that there is a war against the motorist is completely manufactured,” he said.

“We got a government announcement from October 2 in relation to a plan for drivers, which was published on the back of a suggestion that there was some form of war on motorists. What that plan should have been is a plan for better transport choices.

“It's not our position that we want any anti-motorist rhetoric. Most of us accept that many of us are what's often called multi-modal. We drive, we use the tube, we use the train, some of us cycle.

“We're not saying that driving is not the appropriate mode of transport for some journeys. What we are saying is that people should feel that they have options.”

Mr Dullimore believes the government’s decision to come out explicitly on the side of motorists is a purely political ploy designed to create a dividing line with Labour following the Uxbridge by-election, where antipathy towards ULEZ expansion is credited with saving the outer London seat for the Tories.

He said: “What the government tried to do at the Conservative party conference was, for political reasons rather than policy reasons, try to frame themselves as the friend of the driver.

“They were almost daring the Labour party to say ‘oh, that policy isn't the appropriate one’ so the Conservatives could then say ‘oh, Labour are against the driver’. They were trying to create it as a wedge issue.”

But whether or not you believe the powers-that-be are engaged in an epic conspiracy against the motorist, roadworks look to remain a fact of life. Other alternatives – like the buses – can look shaky at best. Meanwhile, the cost of parking up in town seems set to climb ever higher.

It’s enough to drive you round the bend.