luses just as oad as lorries
Page 17
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
REFER to the Bird's-eye View Jrnment by The Hawk entitled Equating buses and lorries is ot on", (CMJanuary 23).
Now, The Hawk generally omes out with some quite Iteresting and witty comments nd articles, but on this occasion must be said, in the view of a umble driver, that such a load f unadulterated rubbish has itherto not been published.
Noise from a bus of equivalent olume to that of a lorry is qually as obtrusive to passersy, other motorists and esidents who live on bus ranks. Not always their fault as reouteing often seems to occur fter moving in to new Premises.)
Visually I find them more tbtrusive, and to pedestrians Ind car drivers alike, there is no ,alidity in the area of glass orming the body — particularly it this time of year when all buses seem to have a quarter nch thick layer of grime and salt ill over them — windows ncluded. If clean, one can hardly idmire the view through them!
I will have to take The Hawk's vord that there are no 15-metre )uses about, but it is the width ather than length which oresents the hazard: and I malieve there is no difference lere.
And, most importantly of all, ;tending or sitting in a car close 3eside a bus is, in my opinion, 'at. more intimidating than a ;imilar situation beside a lorry, tie to the total unpredictability of bus drivers, and their apparent attitude that the relatively new Highway Code rule that buses should be allowed to pull out if safe gives them the right to suddenly pull out without warning or signals or checking their mirrors, causing us inoffensive car drivers to deposit 1,000 miles worth of rubber on the road.
Lorry drivers appear, on the whole, to be more considerate more predictable and less of a hazard than bus drivers, and many lorries are visually appealing, presenting a variety of colour — which cannot be said of London buses with their monotonous red.
One feather in the cap of Nottingham buses — there are a number which are used as mobile advertising hoardings, all available advertising space being sold to one advertiser who apparently is-at liberty to have them painted as he wishes — visually very satisfying when several different buses are in sight.
Why is it, when various authoritative bodies contemplate new regulations affecting road transport — I refer in this instance to the proposal to ban lorries in London, which gave rise to the article — that they never seem to consider the financial effects on all goods transported by road? I cannot think of a more certain way to add 10 per cent on the inflation rate if this is permitted.
G. SHORTER Nottingham