Letters
Sydney Morning Herald
Thursday March 25, 2010
We depend on police to stop reckless driversIan Harris (Letters, March 23) says: "Surely criminals drive at reckless speeds because the police are chasing them."About two months ago the car in which I and my young family were travelling was narrowly missedby a recklessly speeding performance car that was not being pursued until several minutes later, when police appeared from the opposite direction.This near-death experience made me realise that people don't drive recklessly because there are police behind them. They drive recklessly because of a lifetime of bad examples and bad decisions, and because they don't care how their actions might affect those around them.The police are merely doing their best to remove these dangerous people from the roads before they hurt someone.Unfortunately, sometimes they get involved just late enough to witness what they were tryingto stop.Graham Lea WollstonecraftYour editorial concludes: "It is unfortunately self-evident that no laws exist which will control the actions of lawbreakers" ("In pursuit of safety", March 23).While that is perhaps literally true, it is certainly not true that laws cannot exist that will control the actions of this type of lawbreaker, and prevent this type of horrific road accident.Philip Smart (Letters, March 23) has the germ of the right idea. Legislate for all new vehicles sold after a specified date to have a speed regulator, which is factory set to the maximum speed limit (110 km/h) and is controllable by secure radio to lower values.There is no problem with the technology, and costs would be modest. The question is how much we care about saving innocent lives versus protecting our individual rights to speed.Keith Hungerford BathurstKen Wallwork (Letters, March 24) rather ingenuously asks: "If all car chases were stopped, how many criminals would see this as carte blanche to drive as they pleased?" It seems a purely rhetorical question. My observations lead me to believe a good percentage of motorists (not necessarily criminals) drive just as they please every day of the week with impunity.What's the difference?Anthea Doe Russell LeaAustralia must stand up for itselfGiven Britain's lead, Australia, too, needs to expel an Israeli diplomat if it is serious about its concerns over the use of Australian passports in the assassination plot of a Hamas leader in Dubai ("Brits to expel Israeli diplomat in Mossad passport row", March 24).The British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, accused Israel of a "profound disregard" for Britain and its sovereignty."No country or government could stand by in such a situation" and "the fact that this was done by a country which is a friend, with significant diplomatic, cultural, business and personal ties to the UK, only adds insult to injury".That sentiment is surely mirrored by our government, and if it isn't, it should be.With the secret trial ofStern Hu, China is also treating Australia with contempt. Neither case is acceptable.Brian Haill Frankston (Vic)Next time I visit a Middle East country on my Australian passport, as I have done many times, I suppose I should assume that the answers to the following questions are "yes":Will my host country's intelligence services suspect me to be an Israeli government assassin, intent on dirty work?Might I innocently and unwittingly say or do something which sharpens that suspicion?If I fall from a balcony or get flattened by a bus, should my family be concerned that my host country's secret police's suspicions have got the better of them?Thanks, Israel. Thanksvery much.John Allen MosmanVictory in IraqWhich two "unwinnable wars" that America is involved in is Tim Wilson referring to (Letters, March 24)? There is a war in Afghanistan, and then there is Iraq.Saddam Hussein is dead and Iraqis turned out to vote recently in larger numbers than the American electorate did at the 2008 election, despite threats fromal-Qaeda. I would say that war has been won.Alice Khatchigian RydeThink of an even bigger numberGreg Graham (Letters, March 24) says US health costs are twice those of Australia. And the rest! US hospital fees can be up to 10 times or more those of Australia.A thyroidectomy, usually requiring two days' admission, would cost maybe $3500 here (and would be covered by Medicare) but in California it ranges from $15,000 up to $75,000. Any reform of the US health system also needs to target these grossly excessive fees. This would free a lot of money to be spent elsewhere in the economy by individuals and their employers, who in the US pay most of the health insurance.Bruce Stafford TascottSuper the answerRoss Gittins and others warn of increasing rate rises as the Reserve Bank tries to reduce consumer spending to avoid inflation. Such a dreadful tool, depressing business investment and entrepreneurial dash. So here's a thought. Why not temporarily raise the superannuation levy to cool the economy? Why not use the levy as a fiscal tool?I would feel better if my money went into a super account instead of paying higher mortgage charges to the banks. I would spend less. And such a levy wouldn't affect business investment. Someone tell me why this doesn't work.Sandy Libling Centennial ParkSinking warship an act of vandalismThe placing of a marker buoy in Avoca Bay two months ago was the first indication residents had of the location of the scuttling of HMAS Adelaide (Letters, March 24). It was the first we knew of its proximity to the beach and therefore the environmental impact it would have on this small, pristine bay.I am sure those who support this environmental vandalism have never visited and have no idea of how close to shore the frigate will be scuttled. Compared with the beachgoers who will be affected, divers with a vested economic interest are a very small proportion.Jean Melloy North AvocaSorry, John Rowe, it's not "not in my backyard" but "not off my beach". The Nombies have struck.Ross Fyfe Lane CoveEfficiency makes plants redundantAllan Hicks (Letters, March 23) suggests Sydney needs a nuclear power station. Fortunately there are other solutions. The best is energy efficiency. As power prices rise, predominantly due to the high cost of transmission and distribution systems to meet peak demand, efficiency becomes more attractive economically, while large centralised power plants become less so.How much energy could be saved? Estimates from the federal and state governments as well as the McKinsey group say 30 per cent, with an economic payback period of less than four years. Greater savings could be achieved with longer payback periods.The state government's 2005 greenhouse plan indicates cost-effective energy efficiency savings of 20 million tonnes of carbon dioxide each year are possible with targeted investment across the residential, commercial and industrial sectors.These savings are equivalent to the energy produced by two large coal-fired power stations.From an economic point of view, energy efficiency is the best option we have. It also wins on aesthetic, safety and environmental considerations in comparison with coal and nuclear.Associate Professor Alistair SproulSchool of photovoltaic and renewable energy engineering, University of NSW
© 2010 Sydney Morning Herald