Sponsored by
Saturdays Letters: Why cutting speed limits doesn't mean safer roads
From: Paul Rouse, Main Street, Sutton upon Derwent, York. IT'S not often that I disagree with Yorkshire Post editorial comment, but I take issue with your statement that "undoubtedly excessive speed is a major factor in many accidents" (Yorkshire Post, June 24).
Some years ago, a factually-based accident survey was carried out by the police which showed that only seven per cent of the incidents attended during that period had been caused by excess speed.
Given that the seven per cent no doubt included joy riders and drunks, only a very few, if any, would involve normal law abiding motorists like you and I, yet we are the people who have to put up with the constantly changing speed limits, and the lurking cameras ready to
catch out the unwary with a hefty fine and an insurance premium expanding three penalty points.
I have yet to see a properly conducted survey result that contradicts those findings, yet we are bombarded with calls to reduce rural speed limits, and the speed obsessed councils are applying so many different limits on the same road that motorists spend more time trying to work out which speed limit applies, than they do on their driving, and it shows.
My favourite example of this was the stretch of A591 between Windermere and Ambleside in the Lake District. It went from 30 to 40 to 60 to 30 to 20 to 30, all in four miles. Even the speed obsessed local council had to remove the 20mph section in the interests of common sense.
What we do know is that many of the accidents on rural roads involve motorcycles. We can all guess why that is, as one rarely sees a motorcycle on a rural road that is not intent on overtaking everything else, but a reduction in the speed limit wouldn't make a scrap of difference to that situation.
There are other factors that need addressing before rural speed limits. For example, let's clamp down on the van drivers, lorry drivers, and even bus drivers, still using hand held mobile phones, as they must be an accident waiting to happen.
I do wonder if any joined up thinking has gone into the proposals to impose 20mph limits in towns and cities. Any reduction in speed limits means that cars are on the roads for longer, which automatically increases congestion. If, for example, the City of York imposed the suggested blanket 20mph limit, journey times would increase, and there
would be significantly more cars in transit at any one time. As the road system cannot be expanded, York could become gridlocked.
From: Peter Horton, regional co-ordinator, The Association of British Drivers, Sandy Lane, Ripon.
IN reading your editorial "The route to safer roads", it would appear that you are in favour of the imposition of a blanket 50mph speed limit on the open road.
It is ironic that, as vehicles become faster, cleaner, safer, better to manoeuvre and quicker to stop, the speed limits become ever lower and more extended. Experience over the last 15 years shows that this is
a creeping process that will finish up with a return to the speed of travel of the horse and cart era.
It is very clear that this Government hates the motorist and has set out, through excessive taxation and increasing restriction, to make motoring as unpleasant and unrewarding as possible under the guise of saving the planet and reducing casualties.
This proposal to reduce rural speed limits to 50mph or below is just the latest misguided example of that mindset, and may doubtless be counter-productive in terms of road safety.
If inappropriate low speed limits are to be enforced, it may well lead to a forest of signs – as you have said – and probably also a forest of cameras. It will lead to traffic bunching, massive frustration and dangerous overtaking, not to mention the adverse effects on the efficiency of the movement of people and goods in industry and commerce.
It would make much more sense for the Government to take a positive approach to invest some of the huge motoring taxation revenue into widespread road improvements and enhanced driver training, and scrap this miserable idea of further restriction of mobility.
Memories from pictures of the past
From: Mary Robinson, Butt Lane, Snaith, Goole.
IT was most interesting to see the the archive photograph of the ship Cape Canaveral being launched at Cockrane's shipyard in Selby in 1962 (Yorkshire Post, June 20).
I remember watching a vessel being launched in the 1950s when I used to go for my lunch there from Sturges chemical works. They supplied a hot meal for 1s.9d (11p).
One of the unique things about launching the trawlers was that they had to be slipped into the River Ouse sideways – as could be seen from your picture – at high tide, due to the narrowness of the river being so far inland. If you stood on the far side bank of the river, there was a possibility of getting drenched by the spray as the ship landed in the water and swayed from side to side before settling.
My daughter worked there in the accounts department as a wages clerk in the late 1970s and they were still launching trawlers in the same way.
I was also interested to see the picture of Tom Whittaker (Yorkshire Post, June 17). He was a talented woodcarver and he carved me an otter as a thank you for my friendship in the 1980s. I also have anoccasional round table.
From: Malcolm Adams, Moorland Drive, Moortown, Leeds.
THE archive picture (Yorkshire Post, June 23) brought back some memories for me. I was a schoolboy in Aberford during this period and I spent a lot of time following the threshing outfits around the farms.
I used to "supervise" the setting up operations when they were getting the engine level and the belt line true. The traction engine shown is a Fowler which, of course, was made in Hunslet, Leeds.
Thank you very much for showing this picture.
From: Len Fincham, Warrels Road, Bramley, Leeds.
WHAT a fine archive picture of the policeman taken in 1948 (Yorkshire Post, June 22). There he majestically stands, his eyes searching everywhere, quietly alert. His uniform buttons polished, his boots shine like a guardsman. He's erect, not leaning on the post behind him and one immediately feels safe just looking at him. So unlike today, with scruffy uniforms overloaded with bits of protective equipment, much looking as if it needs a good wash.
Policemen then didn't need such gear. To resist arrest meant serious trouble. To persevere to be very difficult, the policeman would draw his truncheon and with a short sharp blow fracture the miscreant's collarbone and the arrest would swiftly be made.
It shows how we have sunk down the ladder of personal pride and self-respect.
Keep up the archive pictures, please.
Sensible safety stance
From: Judith Hackitt, chair, Health and Safety Executive, Redgrave Court, Merton Road, Bootle, Liverpool.
AT the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), we applaud the achievement of schoolboy, Mike Perham, on his aim to become the youngest person to sail single-handedly around the world ("Spirit of adventure", Yorkshire Post, June 19).You are right that it is "marvellous" and we wish him well.
Bill Carmichael's comments that "we should be grateful that the massed ranks of Clipboard Men from the Health and Safety Executive don't operate patrols in the Pacific…" are unjustified and undermine the hard work of the dedicated professionals who work at the HSE.
The HSE encourages a common sense approach to health and safety in Great Britain. Children cannot be wrapped up in cotton wool. We believe that risk is part of growing up and our children need to learn how to manage risks in the real world.
We released figures recently showing that 180 people died in workplace incidents in the 2008/09 year. Many, many more suffered serious injuries – those are the real risks HSE focus on.
We do that by getting risk makers to put measures in place to manage workplace risks as far as is reasonable, instead of eliminating all risk – we don't regulate what people do in their own free time and we don't carry clipboards!
Electricity companies punishing their customers
From: B Knowles, Forge Stores, St John's Road, Bishop Monkton, Harrogate.
I AM the owner of a small village shop still just managing to survive but recently I studied an electricity bill and to my dismay the rate had doubled since February 14.
Upon contacting my supplier, I was informed because I had not responded to a letter allegedly sent in October they are allowed to push me into a rollover contract at twice the market rate.
The small print in the contract deems that as they sent it I must have seen it and just ignored its implications. The reality is I have no recollection of such a letter ever being received or read and a thorough search has not uncovered it.
Also in the small print there are punitive terms if I have the temerity to cancel my direct debit.
Their customer care person at first offered a new contract for 12 months at a rate marginally less than the one they are at present extorting from me. After declining, a new offer was made which was still 50 per cent higher than what can be obtained in the market. The next day, two identical letters were received containing forms and instructions as to how to take my complaint to the ombudsman with a warning this process could take up to six months.
It would seem that commercial contracts issued by all the energy companies contain these clauses allowing them to subjugate their customers when what the customer wishes is some redress for the overcharging and freedom to seek another supplier who hopefully treats them in a fairer way.
Since this matter came to light, I have met an energy supplier agent who has just found six more cases in recent days in this area alone.
While these companies with their small print are operating within the law, they are inflicting financial damage on people who have to rely on them for energy supplies.
One remedy would be a requirement that all communications which necessitate a response within a certain timescale should be sent recorded delivery, the other would be to see if the crime of extortion fits the bill.
Low risk from swine flu
From: Paul Newham, Kirkstall, Leeds.
EDWARD Barker (Yorkshire Post, June 25) criticises Ministers for telling us to "carry on as normal" in the face of the swine flu "pandemic".
Yet, by his own admission, the disease has a "low death rate" in this country – a single, solitary casualty, out of just 180 deaths worldwide.
Perhaps Mr Barker could suggest what we should be
doing in the face of a disease that has a global infection rate
of seven cases per million people, and a death rate of four per thousand cases (for an analogy, despite massive vaccination, measles still has a mortality rate of 1 per 1,000 cases in the UK).
Should we all sit cowering in our homes, handing out
massive amounts of public cash to multinational pharmaceutical companies to produce "cures" for a disease that, to date, is only slightly more dangerous than a common cold?
Flood question
From: J Duckitt, Wormley Hill, Sykehouse, Goole.
YOUR article by Martin Slack (Yorkshire Post, June 23) concerning the Environment Agency's spending on improvements to the River Don banks in the Stainforth area, near Doncaster, quotes a cost of 6.4m.
When the scheme is finished, will the flood defences on the Stainforth
side of the Don, an urban area, be higher than the existing river bank on the opposite side which is an agricultural, rural area?
In simple terms, when the next flood comes and the river overflows which area will be flooded?
Email to a friend
Print this page- Leeds lose Ward to Palace: Is there anyone they can afford now?
- Sheffield Wednesday leaving it late to hijack Leeds United over Ward
- As Snodgrass dithers over Leeds, Warnock throws a lifeline
- Ball is in Leeds United’s court over contract - Snodgrass
- Police turning blind eye to Asian voter fraud, says MP
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Yorkshire
Saturday 26 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 9 C to 21 C
Wind Speed: 17 mph
Wind direction: East
Tomorrow
Sunny
Temperature: 9 C to 22 C
Wind Speed: 13 mph
Wind direction: East
