Once again Harold Scruby has somehow got back into the spotlight, pushing his personal vendetta against owners of 4WDs, only now he is suggesting that these same people (I presume both male and female) are somehow anatomically challenged (“4WD ego and low sex drive,” Daily Telegraph, June 29).

In this article, Mr Scruby said that it was hard to tell to what degree the people driving 4WDs were responsible for the high injury rates, and how much was due to the physical nature of 4WDs. What does this tell us? Absolutely nothing.

Surely Mr Scruby should do his homework and get the facts before he pushes this hackneyed barrow that all 4WD drivers are bad - and now, apparently, sexually challenged.

The article also quoted a Monash University study which found that 4WDs were far more likely than conventional vehicles to kill or maim other road users. What's a conventional vehicle, anyway? A truck, bus, large family sedan, small hatchback, people-mover, sports car? Surely some of these vehicles are far more likely to kill or maim other road users than a 4WD?

I suggest Mr Scruby investigates the instances where a 4WD is the cause (i.e. at fault) in accidents and compares these statistics with other accidents involving all other forms of transport and provide us with facts on what the real issue is, and steers clear of uncorroborated references to people's egos and sexual tendencies. Leave that to Jackie Collins.

For the record, I drive a 4WD. I'm also a pedestrian, a cyclist, a public transport user and a small-car driver. What does that make me?