AS a near octogenarian with my summer car a potential 150mph Jeremy Clarkson missile, it is interesting to see the topic of fitness to drive responsibility being raised by Ian Johnstone.

In his case the opticians' test has taken his licence, but if you look at the DLVA's website regarding alcohol, for instance, there is a definitive test which if deployed would probably take many licences – but whose responsibility is it to blow the whistle?

Mr Johnstone does not disclose how the DLVA acquired the information to revoke his licence.

Many of my elderly acquaintances self-police, because this being a rural area, they find the motorway intimidating and wisely don't wisely venture out of their comfort zone.

Policing of fitness to drive would raise an outcry of unnecessary bureaucracy and the nanny state no doubt. At the moment there is just this random arrangement where the odd minor (hopefully) accident or scare or eye test or random doctor's appointment causes things to conspire to remove a licence – or not, such as was illustrated in the tragedy in Glasgow.

Thomas Law, Sandbank.

IAN Johnstone (Letters, January 27|) takes a 500word discourse to register his disappointment at having his licence revoked by the DVLA. Surely he should appreciate that following the required eye examination he failed the test. Simple as that. His disqualification is in the interests of both his own and the general public's wellbeing.

Mr Johnstone concludes by warmly acknowledging possessing a free bus pass for future outings. That's the spirit to life-changing challenges … onward and outwards.

Allan C Steele, Giffnock.

No need for more multi-storeys

ON Saturday (January 25) Glasgow City Council had consultants out on Stockwell Street and Glasssford Street in the city centre asking people their views on the latest plans for the Avenues project, ie transforming our streets from multi-lane car routes to pleasant places to walk, cycle, shop, stop and chat and generally do the things one wants to do in the city centre. This all ties in with greening the city, bringing back trees, reducing the use of the private car and thus improving the health and wellbeing of all us who live and work here.

At the same time you publish plans that are apparently to get the green light to make the Clydeside near Partick a magnet for car drivers, with shops, multi-storey car parks and a "leisure unit" ("Clydeside retail plans set to get green light", The Herald, January 25). We already have a multitude of shops and covered shopping arcades in the city centre, but, sadly, with empty properties waiting for business. We already have multi-storey car parks in the city centre, so why do we need more?

The Clydeside near Partick has a railway line passing close by and it has been promised, more than once, new public transport links that have come to nothing. Why is this? If the city council stuck to its plans then we could have more public green space, more allotments, more walking routes, more good cycling facilities and people would not need a "leisure unit"; they would be out and about, enjoying fresh air rather than suffering diesel and petrol fumes as they struggle to get to the shops.

The council really needs to be consistent in its moves to improve the city and to impress the dignitaries from around the world who will be here in November for COP26.

Patricia Fort, Glasgow G1.

A frightful nuisance

TRYING to ascertain train departure times from Lanark railway station recently, the small screen displayed a ditty beginning "Oh the weather outside is frightful".

Instead of facile irrelevance I'd prefer the railwaymen to focus on providing useful information – and getting the trains to run so smoothly on time that one need not consult the departure board in any case.

Christopher Ruane, Lanark.