Check out today’s YEP letters
Theresa May was ‘unfairly vilified’
Hilary Andrews, Leeds.
IS it only me that feels that Theresa May has been unfairly vilified about her conduct towards those affected by the Grenfell Tower fire?
It was, indeed a terrible event and she must do all she can for the people affected. Surely to mingle with angry residents in the immediate aftermath of the fire would have meant police officers detailed to her security would be unable to help their colleagues? Glad-handing victims of calamities may make good television, but does it make good sense?
There is no doubt that Mrs May is deeply affected by what has happened. We shouldn’t blame her for not making political capital out of it.
Retrograde action puts city back in the dark
Phil Brooker, Brigg
I was dismayed to read in the YEP of the proposal by Leeds City Council to expanded the switching off of street lighting across the city.
In my opinion the turning off of street lighting does a great disservice to Leeds residents and damages the reputation of this great Yorkshire city, as a go ahead, 24-hour city, now reduced to groping around in the dark. Not a very good image for a Northern Powerhouse – more like a Northern Powercut!
Some years ago Leeds undertook the upgrading of every street light in the city, a scheme which is now degraded by the current policy of turning off the lights. To me it was a utter waste of time and money to upgrade the lighting, to now switch them off.
I don’t think the upgraded Leeds scheme uses the new LED technology? (But I may be wrong.) LED lighting is now being adopted by most councils as the way forward to make substantial savings to illuminate the streets, without having to switch off the lights.
The neighbouring south Yorkshire and north Lincolnshire authorities have either switched, or are in the process of switching to LED and whilst there is obviously an initial upgrade cost, massive cost effective savings can be achieved by the very low running costs of LED lighting.
The savings achieved by Leeds by fiddling around switching off or dimming lights are miniscule to the savings possible by adopting the progressive solution of upgrading street lighting to LED, a scheme which would avoid plunging the city into darkness.
I am not a Leeds resident, but am a retired 70 widower, who during my working life has worked in Leeds since the 1960s on many construction and other projects. I have a good social life in Leeds, with many friends in the city and I am a frequent visitor. The electric light was an invention that brought us out of the dark. The retrograde actions of Leeds City Council are now returning the people of Leeds back into the dark. I love the great city of Leeds. Can somebody please put a stop to this madness?
Listen to what citizens want
Trevor Robshaw, by email
Leeds City Council are to turn off street lights to save money, yet they waste millions on unwanted cycle lanes and now the City of Culture that no one, except themselves, wants!
It’s time that the council went back to basics and concentrated on just that. They have to stop this dictatorial attitude they have and listen to what we the citizens of Leeds want and need.
They bulldoze through things that only they want without consulting us and taking in what we think. Their so called public consultations are a bad joke. Any views contrary to their wishes are totally ignored. The council should remember that they are not there to be professional politicians, but to represent our wishes. If they can’t do this, resign.
Let’s try solar panels instead
Jaimes Lewis Moran, member of Leeds Green Party
In response to your article about the street light switch-off (YEP, June 20), how about this as an alternative action plan or indeed future proposal?
Let’s start retro-fitting them with solar panels and energy efficient bulbs instead of our many current halogen-based versions.
Doing this would not only save money in the long term, but also generate energy for the grid and help us to have self-sustaining lighting infrastructure.
Has no one thought of trying this on a trial basis? Surely it’s better then just shutting them off!
Ninety per cent of British motorists believe that drivers over the age of 70 aren’t as safe as other road users and should be forced to resit their driving test.The poll of 2000 current motorists found that nine in ten of them viewed older drivers as less capable citing slower reaction times and failing eyesight as their main reasons for concern. Respondents said that all drivers should have to sit a mandatory retest at the age of 72 and supported repeating this process every five years. We asked YEP readers for their views and here’s how some reacted on social media...
I think you have bad drivers at all age ranges for varying reasons. And to be fair to everyone maybe a retest every five to ten years with maybe a link to a discount in insurance for passing first time?
If it’s a good idea to retest the over sevens then they ought to retest all drivers every five years to ensure the highest level of competence with special emphasis on speed limits in urban areas. And a in-depth questionnaire on the the highway code.
The only truly dangerous drivers I’ve seen are school run mothers in 4x4s who treat them like go-carts. And people who swerve into the fast lane doing 60mph because they are slightly faster than a lorry or someone braked in front of them.
As you get older you’re not moving at the same speed you did 20/30 yrs ago, reaction times are slower, thinking time is slower. Granted they are not boy racing around but yes some of them are quite dangerous.
Once you have retired you should have to do this every two to three years. If you pass, it’s the government’s responsibility to reimburse the DVLA. If you fail but wish to still drive, you should have to pay to be at a suitable level again.
Looking at the standard of driving in general, retests should be done every 10 years, it’s not just the young and old that are bad drivers, it’s across the board. Should be taught, from the start, to drive not to pass a test.
Not this old chestnut again. Instead
1: limit young drivers to under 1400 cc (for example)
2: limit young drivers as Australia and New Zealand do (time wise out and about and no passengers after a certain time)
3: compulsory eye tests before an actual driving test – older drivers have experience, and think on why insurance premiums go down after age 25 – because that’s an age when responsibility and experience creep in.
I’d support health and eyesight tests but someone with 52 years of driving experience must know a thing or two if they still have maximum no claims.
100% discrimination! Retest all drivers every five years. Ninety five per cent of all drivers are poor drivers .What’s the insurance premium for 70+ as opposed to 17 yr old?
Everyone should be retested every ten years. You drive badly in between tests you get banned.