Readers’ letters - April 20

Should the over 70s be required to undergo testing before being allowed to stay on the road? A correspondent disagrees
Should the over 70s be required to undergo testing before being allowed to stay on the road? A correspondent disagrees

Vendetta against the elderly continues behind the wheel

Here we go again.

For the umpteenth time people are suggesting that drivers over the age of 70 should have to undergo testing before being allowed to stay on the road.

Apparently nearly 250,000 have signed a petition supporting the view.

What does that prove?

Only that millions more have not signed this petition!

Drivers of all ages become involved in accidents, for all kinds of reasons.

The answer is to put off the road or retest those who are regularly involved in accidents and proved to be culpable.

Job done, the police will have records of their errors.

So why pick on older drivers or drivers of any age who may have clean records of driving for years?

It seems that the vendetta against the old is not dead, but still thriving.

In later life, older drivers need their cars in order to remain independent and most will be the first to know when it is time to hang up their car keys.

After over 70 years on the road, the time for me to do so has not yet come!

Ernest Lundy

via email

Trump shows off ‘big boy’s toys’

It could only happen in America where anyone can run for the office of President.

The only other countries which have undiplomatic, bullying egomaniacs as political leaders are acknowledged as being governed by dictatorships.

In the past I have often knocked our own political establishment for being out of touch with the ordinary people, but at least our career politicians will explore every diplomatic avenue to resolve a situation and only use military force as a last resort, unless of course Parliament has been deliberately mislead as to the causes for taking military action.

I think that someone should point out to President Trump that when a business deal turns sour, no one gets killed, but when political relationships turn sour, tens of millions, and under the present threat of nuclear war, billions of people could be killed. The American dropping of the ‘mother of all bombs’ in Afghanistan last week was to my mind simply the act of the new kid on the block showing off his big boy’s toys, and demonstrating that he is not afraid to authorise his military to use them while he is thousands of miles away just a few minutes from his underground bunker.

I just wish that Theresa May would stop acting like a groupie waiting outside the stage door in the hope of clinching a post Brexit deal whenever she hears the name Trump mentioned.

Business people are just as adept at saying one thing then doing exactly the opposite as any politician.

Derek Barker

Address supplied

Best interest of nation or party?

I’m concerned that this General Election will give Theresa May the ability to quietly drop some of Cameron’s manifesto objectives.

Chiefly, the Northern Powerhouse and the tax freeze on income and NI. If the Conservatives get back in, it’ll be in time for the autumn budget.

I also believe it makes a Scottish referendum more likely because you can’t say “Brexit is more important than your referendum” and then turn around and say “a General Election is more important than Brexit”.

Is this in the best interest of the nation, or the best interest of their party?

BarryRR

via email