HURRAH, Glasgow claims the prize ("Glasgow in top spot for bus lane fines", The Herald, November 14). In these straitened times I guess any kind of revenue must look attractive, but surely it is time the city fathers started playing fair. After all, I would guess that a fair proportion of those drivers caught in bus lanes are visitors already preparing to put their hands in their pockets to the benefit of businesses who pay the city's rates. Or are we just trying to cut out the middle man?

You quote the council as claiming that its bus lane and gate signage is "compliant" with legislation. I think the word we are looking for is "complacent": the road markings are often scuffed to obscurity even in dry daylight, never mind on a wet night, and signs are not only poorly placed and unlit but I suspect not in conformity with Department of Transport recommendations.

Witness a plain white board on a lamp-post in Hope Street just before West George Street, predicting a bus lane ahead. Motorists learn to prioritise signs in a hierarchy beginning with the mandatory red circles, warning red triangles, special temporaries (often yellow), and so on, all the way down to plain DIY signs advertising pizzas and forthcoming cycle races. And bus lanes, apparently.

Why doesn't the council tidy the place up (as it strives to do elsewhere) by adopting clear signs using unmistakable bold images that even we harassed and illiterate drivers might recognise?

While I applaud the city spokesman's concern to support bus services in the face of falling passenger numbers, I am sure there are better ways of helping than badly thought-out and badly signposted traps for the unwary.

James Sandeman,

3 Scone Place, Newton Mearns.

YOU quote a spokesman for Glasgow City Council as stating: “Our bus lane and bus gate signage is compliant with the relevant legislation.” I do not believe this to be the case.

As one who allegedly contravened the Cathedral Street bus gate restriction, I attended a Parking and Bus Lane Tribunal review hearing where I presented evidence that the warning signage at the Cathedral Street/North Frederick Street junction was not compliant due to obstruction in the line of sight by a pedestrian crossing sign. The Traffic Signs Manual 2008 Chapter 3, at paragraphs 1.15 and 1.16, specifies a "minimum clear visibility distance" requirement which is not met by the Cathedral Street warning sign.

I am awaiting the adjudicator's ruling on my review hearing of August 27 as to the applicability of the "minimum clear visibility distance" requirement with some interest. Having been in contact today with the Tribunal office, after being prompted by your article, I have been assured that the ruling should be available shortly.

Christopher Strang,

46 North Deeside Road, Bieldside, Aberdeen.