Sir, – It was reported in the press on September 18 that John Yuill, who crashed a car killing himself and his girlfriend, Lamara Bell, in an accident on the M9 near Bannockburn on July 5, did not have a full driving licence.
It is reasonable for the public to assume that Ms Bell, as his girlfriend, must have known that Mr Yuill was not a qualified driver and that to allow him to drive a car with her as a passenger on a motorway was both illegal and dangerous.
It is also reasonable to assume that Mr Yuill knew he was breaking the law.
The fact is, if Mr Yuill did not drive illegally with consent from Ms Bell they would both still be alive.
Yet, more than four months later, the press is still bad-mouthing Police Scotland over the incident using phrases such as “incompetent” and “shambles” to describe the police.
I know a call-handler failed to appropriately log a telephone call from a member of the public and that caused a delay of three days to find the crashed car. There is no excuse for that.
However, the reaction from the press and politicians is over the top.
They could not wait to sensationalise the story and are still doing so.
Nobody seems to be defending Police Scotland, which is unfair.
After the tragic events in Paris on Friday, the press, politicians and the public should become far more supportive towards our police because what happened in Paris can easily happen here.
I suggest that, instead of pandering to criminals (including illegal drivers) we should stop taking every opportunity to berate our police and, instead, back them up to the hilt.
If (or when) terrorists strike here we will be expecting every police officer to give their all to protect the public.
How can we expect police officers to do their best if we are continually looking for faults with them?
Kenneth Brannan. 42 Greenlee Drive, Lochee.
Introduce rules for safe cycling
Sir, – John Barker (November 16) rightly complains that many cyclists endanger themselves and other road users by failing to utilise bright lights and high-visibility clothing.
I would go further. All road users should be legally obliged to be seen.
Most motorists will have been shaken by suddenly coming upon an invisible cyclist in poor light, round a bend or on a country road with no lights and/or in dark clothing.
Nothing could be easier, or more sensible, than for the Scottish Parliament to legislate that in built-up areas, high-visibilty clothing, good lights and a bell must be used.
Where there is no pavement, all cyclists and roadway-users (equestrians, joggers, walkers) must wear high-visibility clothing.
The latter should also walk or run facing oncoming traffic.
All motorists and motorcyclists must use dipped headlights or use bright running lights as is common in most other European countries.
To be fair, motor-cyclists got it years ago: it being the crucial importance of being seen even a split second sooner.
A terrifying number of drivers seem to not understand this.
Easily comprehensible rules such as these could be easily enforced and even our allegedly overwhelmed police need only issue a few tickets for the message to get home fast.
As has been the case in other areas, where Scotland leads, the rest of the UK would surely follow.
David Roche. Hill House, Coupar Angus.
Give cyclists true freedom
Sir, – Recently your letters pages have been taken up with concerns regarding the behaviour of some cyclists.
Some writers have commented that either cyclists should be defined as vehicle users and be subjected to the same laws as govern say, motorists in terms of insurance and taxation.
Others dispute this as being unworkable. They argue that cycling is good for your health, has the moral imperative of being green and consequently cyclists should be allowed a degree of
freedom which is denied to other road users.
The two sides seem so implacably opposed to each other that a solution, or compromise, does not readily present itself.
There is, however, I think, a means whereby this problem might be overcome, which lies in redefining the term cyclist and looking afresh as to what this might mean in practice.
Instead of defining push-bike users as non-fossil-fuel-mechanised- pedestrians, we could perhaps use cykopeds: pedestrians who choose to travel differently from walkers, runners and skateboarders.
By definition this would mean that cykopeds have exactly the same rights and freedoms as pedestrians and could ignore safe places to cross in the face of oncoming traffic, jay-walk, take shortcuts by climbing barriers, barge through crowds without giving audible warning such as tooting or bell-ringing and essentially feel total justification in their right to do so.
Frank Kenneth. 6 Lawside Avenue, Dundee.
St Andrews rail link not needed
Sir, – Jane Ann Liston (November 13) says many parties favour a rail link to St Andrews and all, it must be assumed, want others to pay for it.
Just how it would benefit Scotland is unclear.
There are countless ways in which the funds needed could be better spent such as dealing with chronic ill-health and poverty.
Compared with most places, St Andrews is exceptionally well served by rail.
Only a tiny minority of people in the UK live within a 15-minute car or bus ride of a mainline station such as Leuchars.
Most residents of, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Dundee, Oxford and Cambridge have no such accessibility and the great majority of public transport trips are by bus.
Compared with those and many other places, parking and traffic problems in St Andrews are minor.
Even if a link was built, few, if any, direct trains would run between Dundee, St Andrews and Edinburgh.
Rather than changing trains, most people would drive or take a taxi directly to their homes or hotels.
Providing a new station in the town would mean having a large amount of costly parking beside it.
It is unlikely many commuters would choose train rather than car. They would have to walk or take a taxi from the new station and it would cost much more.
Many live in outlying places because they cannot afford house prices in St Andrews.
The more sensible approach and one which would cost far less public money would be to build many new houses on parts of the town’s periphery. Residents could walk or cycle to their work places.
This is prevented by having a green belt around the town.
I know of no other place as small as St Andrews where such exists.
It makes no sense in economic, social or environmental terms. The concept is as obsolete as the steam engine and twin-tub.
St Andrews has many elderly or disabled residents who have bus passes and would continue to use buses.
Ms Liston’s comparison with the Alloa and Borders lines is unjustified. The former was built mainly to carry coal. The latter has yet to prove itself and the Audit Commission says it offers poor value for public money.
John Munro. 68 Buccleuch Street, Glasgow.
Sound case for rail extension
Sir, – In reply to Messrs Black, Reid and Topping, the case for a railway to St Andrews can be summarised as follows:
The main industries in St Andrews are higher education and tourism, including golf. These depend upon large numbers of people making journeys into the town. The most efficient and environmentally-friendly way to transport these numbers is by rail.
Too many people find the bus/train option unattractive.
Many residents choose to take a car, either to Leuchars or even further, while far too many visitors opt to drive all the way to St Andrews, to the detriment of the environment and the visual amenity of the town.
One cannot force people onto a bus and, judging by the overflowing car parks, they are clearly voting with their ignition keys.
St Andrews is about the same distance from Edinburgh as Cambridge is from London. However, its lack of connectivity is hindering St Andrews from fully realising its potential as an economic generatorMany more people commute into St Andrews than commute outwards.
Improving the transport infrastructure with direct trains from Edinburgh and Dundee would make this commute easier and benefit the macro-economy.
The blinkered views of some correspondents are disappointing. We are not disheartened because the same negativity was aimed at the Alloa and Borders campaigns.
Jane Ann Liston. Team StARLink, 5 Whitehill Terrace, Largo Road, St Andrews.
Scotland still rejects Tories
Sir, – I saw your regular Edinburgh contributor Martin Redfern’s latest contribution (November 14) and had to laugh.
We are in the middle of the latest Tory redistribution of wealth – from poor to rich – and again witnessing the sort of economic policies that have made the Conservative Party a truly toxic brand in Scotland.
So, just as the Tories are overseeing tax cuts for the rich while funding for health, social care and benefits for the disabled are being slashed, Mr Redern concludes that the only consequence of these policies in Scotland
will be a sudden growth in support for the Conservatives.
Although Mr Redfern would have it otherwise, the Tories will have to do a bit more than reward the bankers and hedge fund managers who both crippled our economy and largely bankroll the Tories before they attract the support of decent Scottish people.
Mike Hodgson. Tigh-na-Craobh, Cortachy.
Fife Council’s wishful thinking
Sir, – I refer to your news story about Fife Council fencing off Prestonhill Quarry.
I don’t know about Fife councillors but even though it is more than 60 years ago I can remember the area from being a teenager (they’d only just been invented then).
There’s not a fence yet built that would have kept us away from water if we fancied a swim, particularly if there were any girls to impress.
Laurie Richards. 100 Crail Road, Cellardyke.