Phone fines
Ian Riseborough is right that “drivers using mobile phones simply do not care because they know it is highly unlikely that they will get caught” (Weekend Herald, October 19). But added to that fact is the paltry $80 fine is worth the risk as for nearly two years now Hon Julie Anne Genter has flatly refused to increase the fine. When I asked her then to increase it to $150, the same as driving in a bus lane, she replied: “no need, $80 plus points is enough”. So just get used to seeing many drivers refusing to drop their phones.
Murray Hunter, Titirangi.
Bombshell admission
Who was it that limited the viewing of the ISAF report by Brigadier Christopher Parsons (Weekend Herald, October 19) to one paragraph only? Why was such limitation put on its viewing by that senior person, who would have known of the report contents? The conclusion that must be reached is that such senior person intended that Captain Parsons would give a rosy report. Never mind that the senior officer had compromised Captain Parsons’ ability to make the correct report. Additionally, why did Captain Parsons accept such a task when he would have been fully aware that he was unable to properly understand the reports total significance? Also, did Captain Parsons raise the issue of the limitations on him with any senior officer? Finally, the senior officer clearly knew what was in the report. So why was he happy for a lowerranked officer to issue the false report when he, the senior officer, should have done so and then been responsible for the report he issued? Dennis Pahl, Tauranga.
Pedestrian hazard
Simon Wilson fills two pages (Weekend Herald, October 19) about the harm caused by cars in the city, in particular, to pedestrians. But our main problem is something he doesn’t even mention. At least in morning rush hour, motorists are generally alert and courteous — to each other and to pedestrians. Most of the inconvenience, and even danger, walkers face is caused by cyclists and now scooters using the footpath — illegally in the case of cyclists; crazily, not illegal for scooters.
Tim Hazledine, Freeman’s Bay.
Sound decision
With the demise of TV3, it would be a good time for Sky to shift Prime to Three. Then, when they show all their programmes, it would be broadcast in 5.1 surround sound instead of just stereo. Prime has a lot of very good offerings such as Prime Rocks which explores the beginnings/history of rock bands/groups/artists and nothing beats listening to good music than in 5.1 surround sound. Plus, all their good movie offerings would benefit from decent sound. One question I would like answered is: Why is Netflix the only streaming service, apart from Sky, that streams in 5.1 surround sound? They have also upped their streaming rate so now you get Dolby Digital Plus.
Ian Summerfield, New Plymouth.
In the gun
I believe Sam Kircher of the Council of Licensed Firearms Owners is wrong on two points (Weekend Herald, October 19). Firstly, I do not believe intelligent gun owners who have had their semi-automatic rifles confiscated because the major parties cravenly used the Christchurch tragedy to steamroll over their gun privileges will turn around and happily support those same parties if only they promise not to do it again. Second, his stated intent to not “cause a huge fuss” guarantees the continued irrelevance of the Council of Licensed Firearms Owners. When the government seriously wrongs you, that is precisely the time to make a huge fuss.
Greg Beck, West Harbour.
Election changes
Now the local body elections are over, we have had various media postmortems on the low voter response. Whilst voter apathy, coupled with a creaking postal system may be blamed, there has been little discussion about the voting process. Firstly, we as voters, are expected to make our choices based on a photo and the candidate’s brief policy statement. Unless they have a media profile, it is impossible to make a reasoned judgement. It is a process somewhat akin to pinning the tail on the donkey. Voting for the district health boards requires us to vote preferentially: by single transferable voting. From placing a tick on the mayoral vote and for the local boards, we are suddenly faced with ranking the candidates in numerical order for the health boards. Judging by the total number of invalid votes for the three Auckland health boards add up to 25,582 suggests that thousands ticked boxes instead of numerically ranking them. For our next local body elections we need access to more information, which could be accessed from an official website, about each candidate, together with abolishing the illogical and confusing preferential voting for health board candidates.
B B Owen, Bombay.