Speed changes here to stay — get used to it
I have read the three letters to the editor in recent days regarding the reduction in speed limits to the Hamurana Rd and side roads.
I would like to point out to David Carman that he is incorrect that there have been no deaths near the golf course.
There was a pedestrian killed only a few years ago between Kaska and Turner Rds (high visibility areas).
So I ask him why should that not happen a little further along opposite the golf course and Hamurana Springs entrance?
Perhaps he should leave 30 seconds earlier on his way into town to compensate for the lost 24 seconds (as Ian Guy said in his letter) or look forward to paying the speeding tickets he will get if he travels over the limit.
Bryce Heard and the two other members of the Rural Community Board in their July meeting were not happy with the reduction in speed from 70km/h to 60km/h, recommending that the council should refer this to the Hamurana residents for public feedback based on 60km/h and 80km/h options.
There was a lot of feedback give to the local ratepayer association, all in favour of a reduction to 60km/ h.
I might add that the ratepayer association has fought for this change for over a year and the Rotorua Daily Post has written two articles on the subject.
I totally agree with Ian Guy in his comments and thank him for his common sense on the issue and support of the change.
So just live with it and stop bleating. speed has Jerry Douglas Hamurana Ages ago I wrote about an unused and vandalised bus stop shelter on Malfroy Rd, near the end of the No. 8 Westbrook route, which was a relic of another, long-gone, bus service. This was in response to an article about Mamaku School children having to wait in the rain for their bus, and I suggested that this shelter could be repaired and shifted there. Last Friday the shelter was still on Malfroy Rd and still seemingly unused but “they” were installing new clear panels in it. Is this local or regional council folly? Ronald Mayes Rotorua Martin Green points out that trout and salmon are introduced species.
Yes they are, and they were introduced without so much as a by-your-leave to the owners of the lakes and rivers.
Trout are an introduced pest that devastated the native freshwater fish.
Trout are nothing more than aquatic possums or ferrets.
Between the introduction of aquatic pests, habitat modification, and short-sighted white baiters who insist on their “right” to harvest endangered species, there is a very real chance our native freshwater fish will go the same way as the moa.
New Zealand has already lost one species of freshwater fish, the grayling, and I do not want to see others go the same way.
As for the supposed tourismrelated benefits of trout, let us remember that rock snot was introduced by foreign anglers. CC McDowall Rotorua I totally oppose Peter Williams’ view on the national anthem, “English should be dropped from the national anthem”.
I think that it shouldn’t because if you go back to 1840 when the Treaty was signed, we share a country and our language.
So it is essential and fair to have both Ma¯ ori and English in the song. Emma, 10