I KNOW that I am not the only one who is deeply concerned at the attitude and tactics of those who somehow wish the motor car ''uninvented''. They are attempting to foist an unsustainable economic myth on us, in that they believe that our present society can operate successfully without the car. They will use any ''data'' to illustrate their point while dismissing all information and discussion which does not fit in with their ideas.

In their arguments they rely little on fact and a great deal on repeating the same ''experiences'' till they take on the substance of fact.

For example, in his letter (May 18) David Spaven states that '' . . . the M25 and countless other new motorways created more problems than they solved''. By repeating this nonsense often enough he and his supporters have almost succeeded in persuading us that no more roads should be built.

How would he respond to an argument that we should build no more houses because additional homes will only cause more people? New homes, as with new roads, improve the life of those using them and thereby the economy of the area in which they are built.

The basic argument should be about pollution, not congestion. On this front the anti-car lobby fare badly when compared with others. In California, for example, they have taken a different approach. Instead of trying to strangle the road system they have decreed that vehicle makers will have to reduce exhaust emissions. The result is that car manufacturers will produce the required vehicles.

Compare this sensible approach with ours. We are going to solve the problems of pollution by putting the price of petrol up by inflation plus 5% and refusing to build new roads. All this does is increase the income of the Government.

Attacking every new road proposal does nothing to improve pollution levels. The M74 extension should be built as soon as possible because of the improvements which will come from reducing congestion in the area of the Kingston Bridge. It will also provide good and reliable links for companies in Scotland.

Without these links existing businesses will find it difficult to grow and new companies will go elsewhere, thereby harming the whole Scottish economy. At the same time the new road will also help to regenerate the East End of Glasgow, an area where successive Government and local authority initiatives have failed even to keep up with ongoing decay.

George Wills,

5 Alton Road, Paisley.

May 19.

THE letter about the M74 from David Spaven, Chair of Transform, is full of curious contradictions (May 18). He calls the forecast 6000 job losses ''spurious,'' but then admits that because the Scottish Enterprise consultant's report is confidential, he has been unable to assess the methodology. He calls for a ''review to look at all transport options along the M74 corridor''. We would support this, but first we need the 4.8-mile M74 missing link to be completed so that there is indeed such a corridor.

The M8 through Glasgow is demonstrably grossly inadequate and unreliable. With no alternative route, it is prone to severe disruption from breakdowns and other incidents, all of which causes increasing worry to business and commerce.

We should not be putting strategic business and freight traffic through the centre of Glasgow adding to congestion and pollution. The M74 completion through mainly brownfield sites would enable such schemes as bus priority lanes to be introduced on the M8 and take traffic away from the roads on the South Side of Glasgow.

Our members, who represent a very wide spectrum of Scottish business and commerce groupings, would back many other transport improvements including some mentioned in Mr Spaven's letter, but as complementary, not alternative, schemes to improve further the competitiveness of Scotland's manufacturing heartland. The M74 completion stands out for them as the key missing infrastructure link.

Vernon Murphy,

Chairman,

M74 Complete to Compete Group,

152 Morrison Street, Edinburgh.

May 20.