Greater common sense by drivers could avoid accidents

THE recent multi-vehicle crash, in fog, in Kent, made the headlines and Barrie Frost (Yorkshire Post, September 10) made several correct statements about the bad driving habits of the sizeable minority who drive much too close (and therefore too fast) and those who persist in not using adequate lights in the dark and in fog.

He rightly concentrated on the correct use of headlights, having seen about 20 per cent of drivers just using sidelights in recent heavy mist. I would, however, make an equal case for the use of the rear red fog lights.

In mist or fog these brighter red lights enable any vehicle behind to see much sooner than if they were not lit, so the driver behind can stay that bit further behind (if he/she has a bit of common driving sense).

In multi-vehicle pile-ups in fog, it usually starts with a rear-end shunt and then those behind add their weight to the mayhem.

On motorways, the only lights that a driver can see ahead are the red lights in front (plus any headlights in their rear-view mirror).

When driving in fog with no headlights in your mirror, you are at risk from the idiots who approach too fast from behind, 
so it is essential to switch on the rear fogs and hope that any vehicle in front of you is doing the same.

It is a most disturbing fact that many drivers don’t understand that, in most urban and suburban journeys after dark, or in fog, the lights are mainly intended for the car to be seen by other road-users.

I agree with Mr Frost that driving in fog without any headlights should be a more serious offence. The new type running-lights are a move in the right direction (away from just sidelights) but I am still of the opinion that dipped headlights should be the minimum (and mandatory) when driving after dark.

From: Allan Ramsay, Radcliffe Moor Road, Radcliffe, Manchester.

THE law is an ass – always has been, and always will be. Benefit cheats are to face up to 10 years in prison: a clampdown is needed says Britain’s chief prosecutor. Is it common sense, good sense or a moral necessity?

A woman who killed a pensioner and his dog, due to texting whilst driving, was spared jail, as has a driver who killed a cyclist due to adjusting his sat nav.

A driver with three defective tyres was fined just £180, after his car ploughed into 12 cyclists, killing four.

Largely due to law-breaking drivers, an average of five 
people a day are killed on 
our roads.

Each costs the taxpayer over £1.5m. Few are accidents. The vast majority do not attract a prison sentence.

“Car is king”; it rules – always has and always will.

Care and courtesy whilst behind the wheel are absolute and moral necessities. It’s common sense. Those who lack these qualities should not be given a “licence to kill”.

With money saved, and invested in fair, affordable, and integrated transport, Britain could again, be the green and pleasant land it once was.