I READ with interest that the speed limits are to be cut on the stretch of road between Netherton and Meltham.
Merely to put up a sign that tells these bad drivers to slow down is a complete waste of time.
I am a Netherton resident who lives in the 30mph area. Drivers regularly head up and down this stretch of road at speeds which must be nearer 60 than 30 mph, clearly disregarding the signage and the slow down signs that are already there.
Anyone who uses this stretch of road on a regular basis will know that the only way that it can be made safer is to install the same safety measures that are in place on Manchester Road, Bradford Road and Wakefield Road.
It is very clear that when drivers have the threat of having penalty points added to their licence they reduce their speed to keep in line with the law.
Have there not been enough fatal accidents to warrant us having proper safety measure in place here or do we need more families to suffer the loss of or serious injury to a loved one before others can be protected from the bad drivers?
Lynne Lynch
Netherton
Penalising all drivers
HERE we go again (Examiner, June 9). Road accidents have occurred (the last quoted in February) so the council have to ‘do something’.
It is far easier to introduce speed limits than tackle the real cause of the accidents – bad driving, drunk driving and driving under the influence of drugs.
So the maximum speed permitted on a 60mph stretch from Netherton to Meltham Greenway (try going round Healey House at that) is to be reduced to 50mph and 40mph from the Greenway to the start of the present 40mph zone.
Unfortunately, one of the three accidents used as justification, at the Bent Ley Lane junction, is already in the 40mph zone. (How does that work, Clr Lyons?)
Clr Lyons gives the game away, loud and clearly – ‘We can’t stop bad driving....’. So they have thrown in the towel and penalised all the sensible drivers, instead. That is Kirklees Council logic.
The fact that the boy racers and incompetent drivers, who cause the accidents, will take no notice of the new limits, just as they ignore the old ones, simply does not register on our councillors’ radar, or, if it does, they much prefer to ignore it. It’s only tax payers’ money, after all.
A L Jones
Meltham
Celebrate town’s history
MR MARKHAM Weavill (Letters, July 11) provides us with a fascinating insight into an unintentional yet ironically retrogressive understanding of progress, previously advocated by political figures such as Edward Heath.
Like Mr Heath, I daresay, Mr Weavill appears to advocate a position of destroying historic assets for the dream of indefinable short term economic benefits, which in reality only destroys a town’s history with no gain.
Mr Heath would have been more than happy to demolish Cardiff Castle for the short term economic benefits.
Let us not forget that it was these misguided ideas which won favour in the ’60s and ’70s, yet are now lamented by those who remember the lost buildings which boasted such majesty.
In reality, we should seek to always preserve our historic building for contemporary use and/or historic utility.
Few towns boast the handsome appearance of Huddersfield, so we should seek to preserve this asset as a significant selling point to attract visitors and, yes, those students who Mr Weavill appears to disregard.
Students help bring a great deal of much needed investment into the town through benefits to the town’s nationwide reputation – such as students choosing to study here – as well as commercial benefits, not to mention growing the excellent reputation of the University, which we, as a town should seek to celebrate.
Mr Weavill is correct in saying we should plan for the future. But, in Huddersfield’s case, that future should be as a town keen to celebrate its history given the practical economic benefits such a celebration brings as well as the cultural potential.
We would do significant damage to the reputation of the town if we followed suggestions of his ilk, turning Huddersfield into an unattractive town with no distinctive character worthy of note.
Dr Andrew Scott Crines
Disregard for the flag
THE letters from John Appleyard and Ian Brooke (July 7) ‘I assume they are English’, go a long way to prove my point made in my letter (July 2).
Their disregard for our nation’s flag, the flag of St George, is incredible.
Whatever your beliefs or point of view it should come second to your loyalty to your nation. If not, one should seek an alternative elsewhere.
I assume they have the same disregard for St Andrew and St Patrick.
There is also St David and the Welsh dragon, the lion and the unicorn and many more unproven myths attached to the wider British Union of nations.
Should we get rid of them all to avoid offending others?
My allegiance is to England first and foremost and Britain collectively, not the EU, America, or the banking fraternity or people who condemn our ancient nation in whatever guise.
Len Sandford
Lepton
Sense of perspective
A STRANGE set of values we seem to have these days, when the Government is more abhorrent of phone hacking than it is by the distress that the enormous rise in the cost of heating will have on those on lower incomes.
Allen Jenkinson
Milnsbridge
Take pride in Park
I HAVE to agree with John Thorpe of Lindley’s letter (Mailbag, July 7).
I enter Greenhead Park at certain times of the day for the reasons he describes.
It is a sad reflection on today’s society that so many people have little respect for the environment they live in. So it would not matter how many litter bins were provided.
Public parks are consecrated but neglected. Church grounds and cemeteries are havens for alcohol and drug abusers, along with the graffiti artists.
The bottom line is if Kirklees Council is prepared to spend our money on pet projects and upgrades they should be prepared to maintain them, and that includes employing park wardens to ensure a code of conduct is observed.
Anthony Smith
Springwood
Gratitude in triplicate
A FEW days ago I had the misfortune to have my car break down at Shore Head roundabout. I didn’t have my mobile phone with me.
I sat there for two hours and lost count of the number of cars who sounded their horns at me expecting me to move, although my hazard lights were on.
Five police cars had to go round me but not one of them offered to help or asked if I needed any assistance. A community support lady walked past but I might as well have been invisible. I suppose this is 21st century England.
But finally a very kind man stopped and asked if he could help. And he did. I didn’t get his name but I hope he reads this and accepts my grateful thanks. He was in a yellow car driven by a lady, and he said he was a policeman. He is a credit to them.
Heartfelt thanks also go to men working outside Kingsgate who pushed me to a nearby lay-by where I was not causing a problem.
My third thankyou goes to the people who designed and carried out the revamp to Greenhead Park.
I was born and brought up outside the park and have spent many happy hours there. I went for a long walk round recently and what a delight it was to see.
The paddling pond, the new duck pond (I remember the old one!) the cafe, and the playgrounds all beautifully restored.
The paths too are in better condition so a gold star to everyone involved.
Barbara Rushforth
Cowlersley
Poorly paid workers
MAY I make a little connection to Tony Sosna’s July 7 letter about Huddersfield textiles?
The saying is ‘Where there’s muck, there’s money’. This area was brought up on music and the assonance is more important than the dialect, the flat sounding ‘brass’.
Weavers were notoriously low paid for the skill needed.
It was said because women could operate a loom equally as well as men, the wages were depressed to what was considered a woman was worth, and this had a knock-on effect to other jobs such as doffers and fettlers.
Mr Sosna might well note the disparity between the high cost of the cloth and the low wages.
Is it any wonder that as other sorts of jobs became available so there was a shortage of workers in textiles?
Victoria Park
Holmfirth
Islamic balance
THE series on BBC 2 television about the prophet Mohammed should be balanced with the Centre for Science in the Public Interest’s publication ‘Mohammed and the Unbelievers’.
The Quran is to be read together with the Hadith and the Sira, and its passages should be read in their correct chronological order (not longest down to shortest as they are commonly presented in English translations.
Only then will we understand the true intent of Islam within democratic societies.
Leymoor Lad
Cowlersley
