YOUR VIEWS: Pedestrian safety is main priority of the Highway Code
As a pedestrian, cyclist and car user I am very strongly in favour of making the 20 mph limits in built up areas permanent with speed limits rigorously enforced using the full resources of current technology.
The introduction to The Highway Code makes the safety of pedestrians the top priority under the concept of a ‘hierarchy of road users’.
To quote: ‘hierarchy of road users’ is a concept that places those road users most at risk in the event of a collision at the top of the hierarchy.
The hierarchy does not remove the need for everyone to behave responsibly.
The road users most likely to be injured in the event of a collision are pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders and motorcyclists, with children, older adults and disabled people being more at risk.’
Rules H1-H3 clarify this concept.
Regrettably this very important concept, which was added to the Highway Code in January 2022, has not been properly publicised.
The Highway Code makes it clear why 20 mph speed limits must be made permanent, which is further boosted by the strong evidence that death or injury is reduced if hit by a slow-moving vehicle.
Jim Budd
Newtonmore.
* * *
Reduced 20mph limit is a bad joke
Re the Strathy article Highland Council launches a five-week region-wide 20mph zone consultation about whether to make the scheme permanent.
The 20mph limit is a joke, Do as Wales has done and revert back to normal 30mph.
Also reset traffic lights so that everyone keeps moving, without traffic building up at every junction.
John Parish
Nairn.
* * *
Government STL policy damaging to tourism sector
Having operated a successful B&B for 14 years, until closing the business in 2022, I read with interest your page in the Strathy on the latest local develoments concerning short-term lets and the associated Contol Area Order.
It is now very clear that the short term lets licencing legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament has been an administrative and economic failure.
In the B&B and guesthouse sector, the result has been around half of these valued tourism accommodation businesses in the Highlands closing.
Despite the persuasive advice given to them, the Scottish Government in its ivory tower continued to believe that this legislation would help solve the affordable housing problem.
It is now clear that the only effect is that this legislation has deeply harmed Scotland's tourism economy.
This failure has been compounded by Higland Council unlawful insistence that many businesses needed to apply for a Certificate of Lawfulness, which in most cases was not a legal requirement.
Just when will Higland Council redress this damage with appropriate compensation?
The other culprit in this scandal is VisitScotland.
For years I tried at all levels to convince them of the great value in the B&B and guesthouse tourism sector.
So many visitors, especially from overseas, greatly appreciate and value staying in owners' accommodation and getting personal advice on how best to enjoy Scotland.
I found that VisitScotland doesn't understand this, and, frankly, is now more than a vassal of the Scottish Government.
I appreciate that these are strong words, even for me, but I wonder if the powers that be are even listening, or are they determined to continue to hide out in their dug-outs?
Gordon Bulloch
Grantown.
* * *
Don’t fall for Highland Council’s ploy on STL fees for change of use
The explanation by Highland Council in last week’s Strathy of their policy over planning being required by pre existing to control area operators is a deliberate muddying of waters that are actually now crystal clear.
It is no doubt in an attempt to justify their refusal to return fees to operators under their blanket refusal to process licenses without an application for planning having been made
There has been no change in the law and therefore no justification for any change in approach and of course no justification for discriminating against operators in Badenoch and Strathspey adding extra requirements and onus not being insisted else where in the Highlands region
The fact is pre existing to control zone operators in the strath are in the exact same position as operators outwith the control area. As senior counsel James Findlay KC has stated very clearly the position remains as has been the case for the last 70 years: no onus on operators to prove anything , and no need to engage with the council.
The onus lies solely on the local authority. So if it believes a ‘material change in use’ occurred it is for the council to raise enforcement proceedings and argue why, with a background of 70 years not requiring planning for holiday let as not regarded as a material change , why in the particular exceptional circumstances of a property, they justify a ‘material change’ ruling
If faced with such enforcement proceedings the operator can defend and have right of appeal. There have been very few such proceeding raised in the past as it is settled practice that holiday let is not material change in use .
It is therefore disingenuous of Highland Council to advise operators engage with their planners to satisfy why their holiday let is not material change as there is no onus on them to do so.
It is further evidence of their practice of deliberate obstruction, misleading advice to operators and opposition to holiday let
It is disingenuous of the council not to hold up their hands and return fees they unlawfully insisted upon
Gordon Thomson
Kingussie.
* * *
Incorrect claims on CO2
Charles Wardrop’s letter (Strathy January 9) decries futile spending to tackle climate change. But his letter rests on errors.
He suggests that manmade greenhouse gases (GHGs) are not proven to be guilty. But increasing GHGs in the atmosphere are warming the planet; and this drives climate change (NASA, The Causes of Climate Change).
He asserts that we have no proven, practical means of beneficially influencing climate. This is incorrect.
Mainstream science is clear that “Human activities, principally through emissions of greenhouse gases, have unequivocally caused global warming” (IPCC, 2023, AR6, A.1). Lynas (2021 Environmental Letters) found from more than 99 per cent of peer reviewed scientific literature that this ‘is no more in contention among scientists than is tectonic plates or evolution’.
Global warming drives climate change (UN, Causes and Effects of Climate Change). Since we are a main cause of climate change, we undoubtedly can influence it by reducing our GHG emissions.
This would be of enormous benefit to mankind and nature.
Mr Wardrop states that storms and floods are comparable over the long-term. Yes, they can be compared. But contrary to what he implies, that trend is of increasing frequency and severity (Global Water Monitor 2024 Summary Report; Economist 2024 Wildfires are getting more frequent and more devastating).
Climate change is increasing insurance premiums (FT, Catastrophes cost world $320bn in 2024).
The main problems in tackling climate change are politics and economics, not science. We as members of the public can influence them in what we vote for, and in what we buy. But climate change denial, such as Mr Wardrop’s letter, impedes tackling climate change by creating public doubt about climate facts and science.
Dermot Williamson
Kincraig.
* * *
Energy is used at alarming rate by AI and smart tech
A headline recently stated that data centres in Ireland have overtaken rural homes in their electricity consumption.
A 2022 scientific paper (Katal et al) estimates that data centres will consume 2,967 TWh of electricity globally by 2030 (the UK used 316 TWh in 2023).
We are told that these and more data centres are needed for AI (artificial intelligence).
And then there's ‘smart’ technology.
On the website of a well-known retailer 457 out of 469 TVs are smart TVs, and 49 out of 60 of a brand of fridge freezer were likewise smart.
I never voted for AI or smart technology. I was never asked my opinion. I have the feeling this isn't going to end well.
Geoff Moore
Alness.
