Be fair to truckers

Browse pages
Current page

1

Current page

2

Current page

3

Current page

4

Current page

5

Current page

6

Current page

7

Current page

8

Current page

9

Current page

10

Current page

11

Current page

12

Current page

13

Current page

14

Current page

15

Current page

16

Current page

17

Current page

18

Current page

19

Current page

20

Current page

21

Current page

22

Current page

23

Current page

24

Current page

25

Current page

26

Current page

27

Current page

28

Current page

29

Current page

30

Current page

31

Current page

32

Current page

33

Current page

34

Current page

35

Current page

36

Current page

37

Current page

38

Current page

39

Current page

40

Current page

41

Current page

42

Current page

43

Current page

44

Current page

45

Current page

46

Current page

47

Current page

48

Current page

49

Current page

50

Current page

51

Current page

52

Current page

53

Current page

54

Current page

55

Current page

56

Current page

57

Current page

58

Current page

59

Current page

60

Current page

61

Current page

62

Current page

63

Current page

64

Current page

65

Current page

66

Current page

67

Current page

68

Current page

69

Current page

70

Current page

71

Current page

72

Current page

73

Current page

74

Current page

75

Current page

76

Current page

77

Current page

78

Current page

79

Current page

80

Current page

81

Current page

82

Current page

83

Current page

84

Current page

85

Current page

86

Current page

87

Current page

88

Current page

89

Current page

90

Current page

91

Current page

92

Current page

93

Current page

94

Current page

95

Current page

96

Current page

97

Current page

98

Current page

99

Current page

100

Current page

101

Current page

102

Current page

103

Current page

104

Current page

105

Current page

106

Current page

107

Current page

108

Sir,

I read with curiosity David G. Styles letter (November) where he deems it necessary to ban all goods and public service type vehicles from overtaking whilst using two lane motorways. He argues that the great majority of vehicle mileage is business mileage and consequently (reading between the lines a little) it is against the national interests to retain speed limits out of built-up areas, due to increased travelling times.

Does he not think that goods and PS type vehicles are also undertaking business trips? So why should their journey times be perhaps doubled, as they are held up on a two lane motorway behind a retired couple in an 850 Mini, doing 30 mph, or a slower vehicle of their oWritype?I’see nothing (almost!) more disturbing than a column of 32 ton trucks capable of 70 m.p.h. caught in this situation. The frustration of truck drivers is at least equal to that of the budding business executive held up for V4 mile whilst a truck or two braves the impatient flashing lights and abuse usually administered by this type of gentleman. Incidentally, how many times has Mr. Styles been held up by the throng of businessmen in the third lane of a three lane motorway? I certainly have, and they are usually more loathe to move over than the average truck is.

Surely it would be better if all drivers were educated in more of the advantages of sensible lane utilisation. Also I feel that the “them and us” attitude of car drivers to truckers is wrong. I have experienced driving both types of vehicle and as a generalisation the average trucker is friendlier to his own kind and the car driver than the car driver is to either.

We are all road users of an average road system. Let’s just make the best of it until the legislators improve it for the common good and always let us be considerate towards each other whether we’re in a Scammell or a Cortina.

Stamford T. P. EWING

You may also like

Related products