letters
Page 32
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Do you want to comment on any of the stories in Commercial Motor? Does someone in the industry deserve a pat on the back—or a public dressing down? Or is there simply something you want to say to our readers? Don't keep it to yourself —drop us a line at CM letters, Rm H203, Quadrant House, The Quadrant, Sutton, Surrey SM2 5AS. Alternatively, you can fax your letter to us on 0181 652 8971 or e-mail it to Mites.Brignallorhi.co.uk Letters may be edited for length and do not necessarily represent the views of the editor.
Campaign continues
Ican assure Peter Black that the 12-year-old fight to bring common sense and realism to the London Lorry Ban continues (CM 10-16 Sept).
We have put forward proposals to link the excluded route network to London's planned strategic road network and to reduce the hours of operation of the ban.
Unfortunately, the Lorry Control Unit's review seems to be going on behind closed doors with the result that consultation looks like being on a fait accompli. Meanwhile the Government Office for London says it is a matter for the boroughs and remains firmly seated on the fence.
The real need, though, is to change Condition 5, so that prosecutions are not brought when a driver (in the midst of London's traffic) takes a route which uses a mile-and-a-half more restricted road than that calculated by the Lorry Control Unit's officials in the comfort of their offices.
This is not to mention those operators of high vehicles who are prosecuted for taking a route avoiding
a low bridge. We already have a bulging file of "nonsense" prosecutions, but would welcome further input from Commercial Motor's readers to put before the politicians. John M Guttridge, Regional director, FTA, Tunbridge Wells, Kent.