Heff’s makes valuable contribution to S Dunedin

I AM dismayed at the actions of the Dunedin City Council employees in attempting to stop a man making an honest dollar.

I refer to Stephen Clark and Heff’s Hotel, a longstanding South Dunedin community institution serving a need, filling a gap in our infrastructure in this part of the city.

From the reports it appears that Steve was doing no harm, no patrons were intoxicated, or fighting, or driving drunk, or dealing in drugs. So why are these faceless bureaucrats able to walk into a man’s place of work and tell him they are putting him out of business? Who are these powerhungry people who think they know best what is good for us?

Heff’s is increasingly important in South Dunedin — as many readers will know our population out here is ageing and there is a resthome in every second street.

Heff’s caters for a few of the elderly who are able to gather together and enjoy each other’s company for the few years they have left.

Steve Clark is a man to be congratulated for trying to care for these good people. Age should not be a restriction of our freedom of assembly or of a man’s attempts to cater for their needs.

Steve was also filling a huge gap in the accommodation shortage by looking after 10 people who are now to be expelled and could end up living on the street. Who does that help?

How do these council papershufflers sleep at night?

M. R. Thompson

South Dunedin

Careful, not ‘dithery’

AS a pedestrian once knocked down while using a pedestrian crossing, I would like to comment on Tom Moore’s letter re ‘‘dithery drivers’’ (ODT, 9.7.18).

In my case, the vehicle was driven by an otherwiseresponsible young man who Mr Moore would doubtless regard as ‘‘nondithery’’.

A ride in an ambulance, a night in hospital, a fractured fibula, several hundred dollars’ worth of damage to spectacles and clothes, plus weeks of medical visits to have an elbow wound dressed, were some of the consequences for me.

I am aware that the young driver who hit me has also suffered significantly through loss of licence, reimbursing costs, plus a significant fine.

May I suggest to Mr Moore that instead of debating interpretation of road rules with the AA, he takes a deep breath when delayed by a ‘‘ditherer’’ and relaxes for the extra two seconds he has to wait for the crossing to be completely clear.

I am sure his blood pressure, not to mention the pedestrians, will benefit. Murray Smeaton

Fairfield IT is a concern that some careful drivers who are properly giving way to other road users are seen as ‘‘ditherers’’, as suggested by Tom Moore (ODT, 9.7.18).

His selective reading of the Road Code is incorrect. And if he reads the whole section, he will find that a driver is required to give way to a pedestrian on any part of a crossing if there is no traffic island in the middle separating the crossing.

This is amply supported by the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 part 10, the legislation behind the Road Code.

The AA article provides great advice for car drivers on the rules they should follow around crossings. After all, drivers are also often pedestrians, just like their children, grandchildren and older friends.

We are all entitled to use our public roads safely, including crossing them, and even enjoy being out with other considerate road users.

Ellen Blake

Living Streets Aotearoa — Tumuaki tuarua, Kaituitui a Whanganui a Tara,

Wellington

BIBLE READING: Lord, I know that people’s lives are not their own. — Jeremiah 10:23.