Passengers in on evils drivers do

A significant number of vehicles being driven by drunk drivers, stolen vehicles or those involved in nefarious activities and particularly those being chased by police, are carrying passengers. Those passengers know exactly what the driver is up to and by not intervening are surely guilty of aiding and abetting the offence and should be charged accordingly.

So many passengers are killed or injured because they do not do enough to prevent unsafe situations. Commonly they “egg the driver on” in dangerous circumstances.

Passengers know very well when they are riding in a stolen vehicle or the driver is drunk or stoned and/or fleeing police and should therefore be subject to the same penalties as the driver . . . if still alive!

Robin McGrath, Forrest Hill.

End of life bill not Armageddon

The last time we were subjected to a barrage of Armageddon prophesies was over the Marriage Equality Act. The world was predicted to fall apart if same sex couples were allowed to marry. Eighty per cent of submissions recommended that MPs vote against it.

But MPs did the common-sense thing and voted in favour. And here we stand a few years later with the sky still above us and the world still turning from east to west.

Now D.J. Scott is warning of dire consequences if we follow other liberal democracies in passing the End of Life Choice Bill. This would allow people suffering extremely at the end of life to curtail that suffering humanely if that is their wish.

I have a joyful prediction: the world won’t fall apart when the bill is passed. Suffering for some will be reduced. What a good thing! Ann David, Waikanae.

Young in harm’s way

I was very concerned to read in the letter of D. J. Scott that the Attorney-General’s Report on the End of Life Choice Bill found that it discriminated on the grounds of age. A simple Google search has confirmed this for me.

The prospect of a future court decision declaring that euthanasia could not legally be withheld from those younger than 18 years fills me with alarm, particularly as the other provisions of the bill are considered to be so wide.

I do not believe that most New Zealanders would support the euthanasia of those under 18. It is certainly never mentioned in public opinion polls or in other public forums on the subject. David Seymour has not been upfront about it either.

But should the bill pass, the normal interpretations of the law would naturally take their course and any public protests would then be too late.

For this reason alone, I urge all MPs to vote against the End of Life Choice Bill to make sure it never becomes law in this country. As New Zealanders we owe our youngsters a better duty of care than to put them in harm’s way like this.

K. McLauchlan, Mairangi Bay.

Law would apply to under-18s

D. J. Scott has done the New Zealand public a service in pointing out that the End of Life Choice Bill would in time apply to citizens below the age of 18. This is clearly foreshadowed in the report from the Attorney-General which states that the bill is discriminatory as regards to age.

How much does this matter and why? It matters a great deal because the issue of discrimination by age leaves the bill open to legal challenge on this basis. In other words, the restriction to 18 years is not likely to stand in a court of law.

I for one would not accept that we place Kiwi children in this dangerous position.

It is worth noting that public support for Michael Laws’ Death with Dignity Bill foundered once the public realised that euthanasia for children may have been on the agenda.

It is clear that Seymour has not been honest about the implications of the Attorney-General’s report in this respect but we would do well to bear in mind this serious implication of what the bill would actually mean for our children in the future.

MPs should reject this bill on the grounds of public safety.

Melissa Hardy, Army Bay.

Scooters and liability

I walk and bike the Tamaki Drive bike path and walkway most days. This has always been a chaotic experience on sunny weekends and public holidays as walkers, children, bikes and selfie-taking tourists compete for space and road rules at best speculative. With the arrival of Lime scooters, the chaos and risk to other users has increased markedly. A lot of people use the scooters. Nobody seems to be clear whether they are to use the bike track or the footpath. They use both. Nobody seems clear what “road rules” scooters are to use. Do they stay left, weave between everyone else as quickly as possible or switch between footpath, bike track and road as they wish? They do all of the above.

I can confirm that over recent weeks about 10-15 per cent of scooters are ridden by children, some seemingly barely old enough to reach up above their heads to grasp the handlebars. Another 10-15 per cent are ridden by two people at once, some of whom are adults with children and some are both large adults. This translates into between 150 and 250kg of weight moving at 30km per hour in a densely populated urban walkway environment. That is enough force to kill or injure pedestrians severely, especially the elderly or children.

Would a pair of adults riding a Lime scooter which results in a death on the footpath be susceptible to a criminal prosecution, perhaps for manslaughter? After all, they are engaged in a nonconsented, dangerous activity which can predictably have the potential to cause serious harm to others. Would the parent of a child who has been allowed to ride a Lime scooter despite being too young to pilot such a device in public also be liable for injury or death of others?

In the meantime we shall just have to keep on our toes and keep our eyes open!

David Woolner, St Heliers.

Downside of freedom camping

Tony Holman speaks for the silent majority when he asks the Government to go into reverse and heed what communities are saying about the environmental and economic downside of freedom camping. Would these local councillors and ministers of the crown casually use their unfettered powers to legislate for freedom campers in their own backyards? I think not. Just another example of Nimbyism by paid representatives of the community. And I bet the Domain and Cornwall Park don’t feature as eligible.

Mary Tallon, Morningside.

Fines nothing to boy racers

Regarding boy racers causing mayhem on the roads until the early hours, giving of 177 infringement notices in Christchurch is about as effective as a slap with a wet bus ticket. How ridiculous that our police are limited to giving out fines which often are disregarded by these stupid people.

The only answer is to impose consequences such as permanent impounding of cars and later auctioning them to raise revenue or crushing them. This would make a deterrent impact. A fine is useless and will not stop these boy racers gathering. What is wrong with our soft soap, softly, softly goes law? Come on coalition Government, have the intestinal fortitude to change the law to give the police more power to act. Chasing these idiots is taking police away from genuine emergencies and burglary investigations.

Marie Kaire, Whanga¯ rei.

Disaster on our doorstep

The latest output from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was a real shot across the bows for me. We are talking not 30 or 50 years to avert disaster but less than 12 to make the necessary urgent and unprecedented changes.

Why do I believe this? I’m not a scientist but when the world’s leading climate scientists report this and when the facts are clear and results visible I can no longer turn the other way.

The astonishing thing to me is not the output of this report but the lack of urgency with which it has been received. Why was it not the front page of the Herald and other mainstream media? Why is the Prime Minister not addressing the nation on the imminent threat and announcing the immediate mitigation actions we are taking? Where is the declaration of war that will bring us together, accepting personal constraints and sacrifice for our children’s future? It is unconscionable that most governments have accepted these findings and yet fail to react appropriately.

This abdication of leadership does not free us as individuals from our responsibility to participate in our survival. Instead it empowers us to act together to force real mitigating actions now. This is what is required not the phoney long-term targets and window dressing that give the lie of effective action. Governments need to make the structural and significant changes that are required and we need to make them do it.

The reality is that we can’t do much on our own but together we can bring pressure on our government and councils to act.

National and Labour have agreed to a co-ordinated approach but seemingly doubt they have the mandate. Let’s show them what we expect. Don’t say you’ll do anything for your children if you do nothing about this.

Margette Campbell, Waihi Beach.