70 kilo­me­tre limit would frus­trate mo­torists

Warragul & Drouin Gazette - - NEWS -

I would like (again) to bring the at­ten­tion of coun­try driv­ers to the plans in mo­tion to change var­i­ous as­pects of lo­cal travel.

Fri­day’s Her­ald-Sun in­cluded an ar­ti­cle by the As­sis­tant Com­mis­sioner, Road Polic­ing Com­mand for Vic­to­ria Po­lice, in which he raises the no­tion of a zero road toll, and plans in part to achieve this by in­tro­duc­ing a blan­ket 70km/h speed limit on all un­sealed roads in coun­try Vic­to­ria.

While an ex­pe­ri­enced driver may often al­ready travel at less than 100km/h on our lo­cal roads due to their wind­ing na­ture (and often poor con­di­tion), any­one who jour­neys to re­gions such as the Mur­ray coun­try, western or north­ern Vic­to­ria in par­tic­u­lar, would know there are roads that are straight, open and with good vi­sion, where 100km/h can be used – pos­si­bly with greater safety than jock­ey­ing at 80km/h with self-fo­cused or dis­tracted driv­ers on Mel­bourne free­ways.

The in­tro­duc­tion of a 70km/h limit would see in­creased frus­tra­tion and se­lec­tive de­fi­ance of such an im­po­si­tion.

Ru­ral mo­torists have large dis­tances to travel, and should ex­pect rea­son­able travel times. Again, I sug­gest that crashes are caused by a range of fac­tors, of which speed is only one. I ap­plaud the lo­cal Baw Baw Shire for in­clud­ing a num­ber of ar­eas for im­prove­ment in their Road Safety Strat­egy, which we are still able to com­ment upon.

An­other wor­ry­ing pro­posal in­cluded in the state plan (‘To­ward Zero’) is to fit wire bar­ri­ers down the cen­tre of key roads, to pre­vent over­tak­ing.

Imag­ine how that will be re­ceived at times such as Easter, when a slow-mov­ing car­a­van sits ahead of you. Try the western sec­tion of the Yea-Mansfield road for a pre­view. Would it not be more pro­duc­tive in­stead to re­in­state over­tak­ing ar­eas, and to ed­u­cate driv­ers on their safe use?

While we all look for­ward to re­duced road trauma, there are strate­gies that aren’t as re­stric­tive as some cur­rently pro­posed. I have writ­ten a more de­tailed re­sponse else­where, and en­cour­age other coun­try driv­ers to re­spond to the pro­pos­als be­ing con­sid­ered, be­fore it be­comes a fait ac­com­pli. Ian Maud, Clover­lea

An his­tor­i­cally and morally un­prece­dented re­def­i­ni­tion of mar­riage is based sim­ply on un­sup­ported as­ser­tions.

It epit­o­mises the per­sonal in­fal­li­bil­ity com­plex of lib­eral big­ots thus: “We say so there­fore it is".

The false as­ser­tion that a re­def­i­ni­tion of mar­riage is a “right" begs this ques­tion: When and how did it be­come a right when it never was for past gen­er­a­tions?

Yet the spu­ri­ous ex­pres­sion mar­riage equal­ity con­tin­ues to re­sound not least on our ABC. When last week the ABC pro­gram 7.30 chose to ef­fetely ad­dress the yes and no cases it bla­tantly omit­ted the cam­paign of threats and abuse against a Syd­ney Chi­nese woman doc­tor who had ap­peared in an ad for the no cam­paign.

The cow­ardly and disgusting at­tacks on this doc­tor also fea­tured a sub­se­quently aborted pe­ti­tion to have her med­i­cal regis­tra­tion with­drawn. ABC bal­ance?

Then there are sundry state­ments from our ever pusil­lan­i­mous po­lit­i­cal class. Apart from ho­mo­sex­u­als and les­bians in par­lia­ment who want their way of life en­dorsed by leg­is­la­tion the mealy-mouthed state­ments from var­i­ous MPs on both sides of the party play­ground re­flect only one ac­tual concern.

That is how the prospec­tive postal vote, whichever way it goes, will af­fect their elec­toral for­tunes. Un­ad­dressed are the moral and so­cial con­se­quences for those who re­ject a re­def­i­ni­tion of mar­riage should fu­ture leg­is­la­tion val­i­date it. Frank Car­leton, Long­warry Po­lice said he had some med­i­cal prob­lem. My points are: 1. He should not have been driv­ing if un­der the in­fle­unce of med­i­ca­tion and if given by a doc­tor and told not to drive the per­son should com­ply with that.

2. A doc­tor must report the regis­tra­tion of mo­tor­cars in that per­son’s name and ad­dress and the li­cence should be sus­pended un­til given clear­ance from a doc­tor.

With so many dif­fer­ent doc­tors prac­tic­ing in Aus­tralia and the amount of newer drugs sup­plied it is im­por­tant that this is made le­gal to all medi­cos.

I am a se­nior woman with a good driv­ing rep­u­ta­tion. I have driven through­out Aus­tralia with­out any prob­lems.

I am now with­out a car as my in­sur­ance is not enough for a re­place­ment ve­hi­cle.

I have been driv­ing since I was 14-years-old and hop­ing to con­tinue driv­ing into my nineties.

I hope that the pow­ers that be and the po­lice can get this sys­tem work­ing as there are too many deaths from drug af­fected driv­ers.

Ellen Co­la­han, Trafal­gar

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Australia

© PressReader. All rights reserved.