If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
re we the only ones to see the irony in the story on page 14? Bardon (England) wants its owner-drivers to fit rear-facing TV cameras on their tippers rather than audible reversing alarms which have been waking up their neighbours. Call us insensitive, but what do people who live near a West London quarry expect to hear at six o'clock in the morning? Cuckoos? It also begs the question: Who was there first—the quarry or the residents? Full marks to Bardon for trying to live at peace with its neighbours. It only takes a few ruffled feathers and you've got an environmental objection to your 0-licence with all the hassle that involves. But isn't this solution rather like amputating a leg when you've stubbed your toe? Isn't the whole point of an audible reversing alarm that it makes everyone in the immediate vicinity stop and look around to see what might be heading their way? In short, it makes anyone outside the truck actively responsible for their own safety. Only if you were deaf would you not wonder where all the noise was coming from. A TV camera, however, shifts the balance of responsibility for avoiding pedestrians or stray workers firmly back on to the reversing driver. As if he didn't have enough on his plate. On dark grey mornings will the camera see all? Shouldn't everyone working in a quarry or and haulage yard be made fully aware of the dangers caused by reversing trucks— not just drivers? CM wouldn't dream of denying anyone a good night's sleep. But at the risk of sounding churlish, why not simply issue the local residents with free earplugs? In the interests of striking a balance between road safety and golden slumber it seems to us to be the most obvious, not to say cost-effective, solution.