I AGREE with Rosemary Goring that it does not make sense to even contemplate raising the speed limit on motorways when road deaths remain so high ("End this race to raise the speed limit", The Herald, November 7).
During very heavy rain in October, I was a passenger as my wife drove back to East Kilbride from East Lothian on the Edinburgh bypass and M8 motorway. I was extremely concerned that there was going to be a very serious accident as so many drivers ignored the atrocious conditions and drove at excessive speeds. HGV drivers were particularly reckless in this regard as they sped along, often only one or two car lengths behind the vehicle in front.
I was so concerned that I phoned Lothian and Borders Police and asked to speak to someone in the traffic division about the reckless behaviour of so many drivers. The woman I spoke to did not appear particularly interested, but eventually agreed she would pass on a message. She said that, if I wanted, I could go to my local police station and submit a report.
With so many inconsiderate and downright dangerous drivers at large, let us have no more nonsense about raising the speed limit.
Ronnie Dillin,
64 Dunedin Drive,
East Kilbride.
I SHARE Rosemary Goring’s bafflement over why road traffic legislation “would be given a moment’s consideration if it risks increasing the numbers who die by so much as one”. Another recent decision from the Road Safety Minister, Mike Penning, has been given very little publicity. He has agreed to allow even longer lorry trailers on the roads. Pedestrians and cyclists are left shuddering at the thought of a likely increase in the number of side impacts knocking us, and roadside furniture, to the ground.
R J Ardern,
26A Southside Road,
Inverness.
Rosemary Goring appears to be jumping on the bandwagon after the tragic crash at the weekend. I am at a loss to understand how she arrives at the conclusion that more vehicles would have been involved had the speed limit been 80mph and thus demands that proposals to raise speed limit are not implemented. She then gives irrelevant examples of poor driving standards observed on motorways recently which sadly are not uncommon and are probably a greater contribution to accidents. Perhaps she should have noted that thus far while several possible contributing factors to this accident have been mentioned by those investigating, speeding was not one of them.
Douglas Jardine,
20 Buchlyvie Gardens,
Bishopbriggs.
Rosemary Goring’s article demonstrates a weak grasp of arithmetic. She claims that a rise in the motorway speed limit of 10 mph will cause a 1% increase in motorway fatalities. Fatalities last year, according to her article, were at 118. That means that we can predict that only one more person is likely to die as a consequence of raising the speed limit rather than the 18 additional deaths she calculates. The suggested time-reduction benefit is six seconds per mile driven. One extra death then seems to be a very small price to pay for such a large time benefit for all motorway users but Ms Goring would rather we all spend longer behind the wheel, which is not productive and rarely enjoyable.
I’ve also seen much of the same undesirable behaviour of drivers that Ms Goring has observed but none of these is speed-related; they are all cultural. Texting or applying make-up while driving is dangerous behaviour at any speed. Forcing people to drive more slowly does nothing to address cultural norms. In Istanbul, where traffic speeds during rush hour are significantly lower than in Glasgow or Edinburgh, the accident rate is much higher. Speed reduction in itself doesn’t fix anything. Good driving behaviour, however, has a significant effect on fatality rates. This can be addressed by better education and strong enforcement of the law.
Ms Goring’s conclusion that there will be a net deficit doesn’t make sense. A 15% rise in fuel consumption surely equates to a 15% lift in tax and duty revenues which will go straight to the Exchequer. Raising motorway speed limits is good for everyone.
Graham Harris Graham,
South Kersie Farm House,
Stirling Road,
South Alloa.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article