Readers' Letters: 50mph speed limit for single carriageways won't make roads safer

This idea is to reduce the speed limit to 50mph on single carriageways for cars and motorbikes while increasing the speed limit for lorries to match this.

I really do wonder, however, if these proposals have been put forward by someone who has never travelled on the undualled sections of the A9 or A96. I am a regular user of both roads and like my fellow travellers, I am often lucky to reach 45mph, let alone 50mph. The speed alone is not what makes these roads dangerous.

It is, amongst others, frustration at being stuck behind lorries etc at 45-50mph and the lack of safe opportunities to overtake vehicles which lead to dangerous overtaking manoeuvres.

Many people will speed up to overtake on straight sections as they know the next opportunity may be ten miles down the road. They take risks, break the speed limit and often put themselves and others in danger. Lowering the speed limit will not change any of these behaviours. This is just another shooting from the hip reaction by the SNP to a problem they don’t want to fix by investing money in dualling the A9 and A96.

Jane Lax, Aberlour, Moray

Driven round bend

Another day, another clever scheme to impose something on us which (of course) is for our own good.

Ban smoking anyone? Increase alcohol prices? And the outcome is? You guessed it. People ignore it, because they are sick and fed up of do-gooders who want to nanny them.

I watch the cars on the streets of Edinburgh in their clever 20mph zones, driving at 30. Why do they do so? Well, mostly because they learned to drive with 30mph limits and it is their default speed, without thinking. It doesn’t mean that they are speed fiends. They will slow down, strange though it may seem, when road conditions merit it.

What will the result be, if a 50mph limit is imposed on single carriageways in Scotland? It will be ignored, because people are used to driving at 60. What is the alternative? A policeman at every junction?

We are told by Transport Scotland that “the change could cut fatalities by 23 per cent”. Equally, it might not.

People’s frustration when they need to drive to the north of Scotland from the Borders will, inevitably boil over if they are stuck behind someone driving for mile after mile at 50. Then, they will overtake and there is a chance of an accident which would otherwise not have happened. I doubt if that is part of Transport Scotland’s calculations.

The solution? Leave well alone, or do what they did in the early days and have a man with a red flag walking in front of every car to prevent accidents.

Peter Hopkins, Edinburgh

Dualling folly

The Transport Minister, Fiona Hyslop, is so concerned over road deaths in Scotland that she wants countryside speed limits reduced from 60 to 50 mph.

This might have sounded sensible but this same government still has no real plans to dual the A9 and A96 any time in the next ten years. The death toll on these roads is very sadly real so why the pressing concern over one aspect of road safety but not the other?

Gerald Edwards, Glasgow

Speed frustration

I very rarely agree with Conservative spokesmen, but am wholeheartedly in sync with the comment from that party about the ludicrous idea to reduce the speed limits on rural roads to 50mph.

The limit is perfectly fine as it is, as drivers adjust to the conditions and the roads naturally. Accidents are caused primarily by bad driving, not fast driving, and you can’t legislate against bad driving. No-one wants deaths or accidents on our roads, but this potential legislation will do more harm than good as frustration will cause bad drivers to take more silly risks.

Brian Bannatyne-Scott, Edinburgh

Pylon misery

I am in complete agreement regarding the need to produce our energy in a way that will cause least damage to our precious Earth and slow, if not stop, any further deterioration of our climate. However, in Britain and especially Scotland, at what cost?

I live directly on the proposed Kintore to Tealing section of the proposed overhead line. The UK and Scottish Governments proposed this line. There are multiple booklets regarding “consultation”, with landowners, the impact on the environment, positive community benefits etc. They are full of smiling people hanging over gates. I have no experience of anyone smiling at what is proposed.

What is proposed are monster pylons marching across our land and that of our neighbours, 170 metres from our house. Also, the lines will cross closer than that, over people’s houses. Our home will be dwarfed by these monstrous towers.

We are told to object after the planning stage. Guess what! Objections are heard in Scotland by the Scottish Government Energy Consents Unit. After all the money invested getting the proposed line to planning, I don’t believe that objections will be successful.

Scotland’s beautiful countryside, which people from across the world come to visit, is to be totally destroyed. It is nothing short of vandalism. Even ancient scheduled monuments are to be adversely affected.

All this, when there is no need. Alternative methods are available, such as placing the cables underground or subsea. The cost would not be that much greater, especially taking into consideration the revenue lost from tourism and the decimation of the hospitality industry in the affected areas.

SSEN, the UK and Scottish governments, aren’t listening to anyone. They are determined to push this line and others, though, despite our protests and alternatives being available. Not in the least democratic.

Sheila M Mather, Brechin, Angus

Nuclear’s safe

Regarding Joshua King’s article “I stood on Scotland’s last nuclear reactors and met the people keeping our lights on” (27 November), your readers can be reassured that not only does nuclear keep the lights on, but it is also the cleanest source of electricity we have.

UN analysis shows nuclear has the lowest life cycle carbon use – including mining and decommissioning – of any power source. It also has the lowest mining requirement, the lowest land use, and the lowest impact on ecosystems.

Scotland can be proud that Torness is cutting emissions, cutting bills and protecting our natural environment all at once.

Lincoln Hill, Director of Policy and External Affairs, Nuclear Industry Association

Assisted dying

The public should have deep misgivings about Kim Leadbeater’s Assisted Dying Bill on which MPs will vote after its first reading in the Commons today.

Our communities have to be concerned about the possible consequences of our Westminster Parliament passing this Bill. The equivalent Bill before the Scottish Parliament is even more controversial, not least in the lack of safeguards for vulnerable patients.

News reports in the media, TV, newspapers and social media, have inured us to the idea of violent and mass deaths being remote and impersonal. This has developed a perception that human life is cheap and disposable.

The passing of legislation on assisted dying in other nations has created a precedent which is difficult not to follow. However, there is evidence that the original legislation and safeguards in, for example, Canada, Oregon and Belgium, have become less stringently interpreted.

The supporters of assisted dying legislation give harrowing examples of patients suffering agonising pain in their last days and hours with which we find it difficult not to sympathise. However, the aphorism “hard cases make bad law” could be applicable to this Bill.

With the Assisted Dying Bill the critical issue of coercion is also contentious, as is the potential desire of older or disabled patients to not want to be a burden, physically or socially or financially, on their families or on the NHS.

MPs should carefully consider what kind of society we want to live in if we can’t look after our most vulnerable members.

James Quinn, Lanark, South Lanarkshire

Eve of destruction

Ian Johnston's story of the future (“A world full of ‘quiddlers’ on the highway to Fire Age hell”, 27 November) is deeply worrying but not new. For quite a long time now we have known that humans are ruining the planet that gave them life. We are steadily fouling our own nest.

I don't see a bright side to this. Stopping greenhouse emissions seems impossible. We are too addicted to our wasteful lifestyle to save ourselves and all other life on Earth. Humanity will continue to damage the environment to the extent of making it uninhabitable. Earth will survive but I’m not so sure about humanity.

I don't believe that there are many intelligent races in the universe (I think we are alone) but perhaps this is how they exterminate themselves. Exploiting all their planet's resources without thought of the consequences seems natural – until it's too late.

Steuart Campbell, Edinburgh

Write to The Scotsman

We welcome your thoughts – NO letters submitted elsewhere, please. Write to [email protected] including name, address and phone number – we won't print full details. Keep letters under 300 words, with no attachments, and avoid ‘Letters to the Editor/Readers’ Letters’ or similar in your subject line – be specific. If referring to an article, include date, page number and heading.