Letters to the Editor: Driver error can't be ignored on road toll

Blaming roads and/or government for the carnage instead of attributing responsibility to drivers who cause crashes may help grief-stricken families and friends of victims, but fails to address the major cause of this entirely predictable cost. Certainly there is considerable scope for improving roads and vehicle safety, but overwhelmingly driver error is the cause of road crashes.

Gaining a licence to drive is almost a rite of passage for most Australians. But given the demonstrable physical and material damage caused by a moment's lack of attention, the standard required to obtain and retain a driving licence is clearly inadequate.

Attitudes expressed in these pages over recent weeks by drivers who regard the speed limit as a right, and who deride anyone who prevents their achieving it, reflect an arrogance and selfishness behind much of the road trauma. The willingness of people to drive while fatigued, drunk, drugged and emotionally upset reflect a complete lack of awareness of the responsibility that should apply to driving.

Many heavily trafficked roads, including the Kings, Barton and Monaro highways, should be duplicated. But to blame the road when people overtake unsafely ignores driver responsibility. Improving safety of vehicles, largely to compensate for unskilled drivers, also has merit. But the factor that will contribute most to improved road safety is a major change to driver attitude.

This will probably require harsher penalties for people who demonstrate while driving contempt for the safety of themselves and others.

Meanwhile, I offer condolences to all who grieve the death or serious injury of family and friends.

Graham Downie, O'Connor

I feel really sorry for the consumer shockingly overcharged by Costco (Canberra Times, January 2). And then there's the guy trying to get his NBN sorted and happily had the police intervene on his behalf. This appears to be the way of the world and, while corporations seem to express regret, none are in a hurry to resolve a problem. And they hide behind a big corporate wall so it's impossible to speak with the right person to settle an issue.

I've been overcharged by Telstra for more than two years (that we agree on – I think it might be longer but I don't have any records). I have spent, on average, two hours per week for six months trying to resolve the issue – this doesn't take into account the endless hours on the phone. I keep being told it's a "back room" issue and it will take time to resolve.

We can't seem to speak with the person in charge of the "back room" to fix the problem. Meantime, I continue (on a monthly basis) to be overcharged and then can't do anything because my account shows up overdue amounts. Further, a helpful soul at Telstra told me to continue paying so I wouldn't be charged late fees. Like others, I've been to the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman – but it seems it is hopelessly understaffed for the problems of 2018.

All I want is a properly rendered, and accurate account. And I want to stop being overcharged. I'm glad I've been their customer for more than 40 years. Big corporations can't do it.

Helen M. Goddard, Turner

In our highly valued and environmentally sensitive RZ1 (typical suburban) zones, substantial, subdividable dual-occupancies are generally only permitted on the scattered "Mr Fluffy" blocks.

For neighbourhood equity reasons, the Territory Plan strives for due developmental sensitivity in RZ1, and a dual-occupancy dwelling there that does not "front a public road" is limited to one storey and a constrained footprint.

That's to ensure minimal impact from rear-sited dwellings on neighbours and the local environment.

On Mr Fluffy blocks with wide frontages (and corner ones), each dwelling may be able to front a road, and therefore can be two-storeyed, with a larger footprint. But in those situations, especially with unfavourable topography, the technically legal maximum height of the back building sections can still have significant detrimental impacts on neighbours' private open spaces, etc.

Despite government efforts to prevent that happening, through reasonable development approval processes, cavalier developers appear to be thumbing their noses at the problem and/or the approval regime, and greedily insisting on, or proceeding with very intrusive dual occupancies on wide or corner blocks in the RZ1 zone.

The government needs to take a tougher line to avoid serious privacy and environmental problems, as well as property devaluations, among affected Mr Fluffy neighbours.

Jack Kershaw, Kambah

Terry Wright (Letters, January 3) makes a good point about the visibility of cyclists at pedestrian crossings: "It is not the cyclist's 10km/h speed on the crossing nor the visibility of the crossing, it is the sudden emergence of the cyclist onto the crossing. Reacting in time to that demands too much of the car driver."

The real problem in my view is the proximity of the "zebra crossing" to the intersection itself. In my observations there are too many "zebras" at intersections. My belief is that this a design fault as it requires a driver turning left for example to look right for cross traffic, ahead for turning traffic and at the same time left and right for pedestrians and cyclists.

A cyclist can appear from nowhere even though the driver is actively checking for other traffic.

My view is that pedestrian crossings or zebras should be located at least 20 metres back from a road intersection so that all participants can see each other and make adjustments. This practice is common in many cities of the world where balustrades are fitted in a curve to prevent pedestrians and cyclists crossing at the intersection.

It would also be a good idea that pedestrians and cyclists be provided with an etiquette which says "stay back from the crossing if you see a break in the traffic coming and then cross". Something I do regularly as a pedestrian, allow the flow of traffic through and then cross. Simple, effective and safe.

Steve Provins, Latham

Jane Wallace (Letters, January 5) seems to suggest that the 200th anniversary of the birth of Karl Marx in May is worth celebrating in the same way as the 100th anniversary of the end of the Great War in November.

A quaint idea given the horrors that were inflicted on the people of Russia (and subsequently in many other parts of the world) by leaders trying to apply Marx's bankrupt philosophy to the real world.

Has any "economist" ever wrought more harm than him?

M. Moore, Bonython

Sadly, fatal accidents continue to happen on charter, cargo and private flights, a reader points out. Photo: Christopher Pearce

Rejoice. In 2017, not one passenger died in an accident on any scheduled jet airliner. That includes the proliferation of budget airlines which are booming around the world.

More amazingly we got to November 15 without a passenger fatality on any scheduled service; not even on small turbo-prop airliners. Since then five passengers have died in two turbo-prop accidents. Airlines rarely instigated the techniques and technology that now make air travel so incredibly safe. Regulators imposed them; usually in response to accidents and deaths. It's called the "Tombstone Imperative".

Let's also give credit to the International Civil Aviation Organization. In recent years ICAO's mentoring and audits have helped ensure that its Standards and Recommended Practices are implemented worldwide. ICAO has a neat tool to compare the competencies of different national aviation authorities; https://www.icao.int/safety/pages/usoap-results.aspx.

For instance China has overcome its poor safety record to rank alongside Australia, but not as highly as Canada. Singapore is brilliant.

Sadly, fatal accidents continue to happen on charter, cargo and private flights; as Australia saw with fatal crashes at Essendon in February and into the Hawkesbury River on New Year's Eve. There's still work to do.

Martin Aubury, Scullin

Mike Hutchinson (Letters, January 4) expresses concern that Australia's Westminster-system constitution combines explicit provisions – generally big-picture structural – with tried and tested conventions, generally covering the procedural matters of government.

As an example, despite existing by convention since the early 1700s, the prime minister and cabinet are not mentioned in our written constitution. Neither, incidentally, is the term head-of-state, although in 1907 the High Court ruled the Governor-General exercised this authority in practice.

Our founding fathers naturally considered it unnecessary to write down the precedent-based conventions of cabinet government in a Westminster-system democracy.

They also recognised conventions based on applying first principles adapt better to changing circumstances than densely-prescribed written rules that inevitably are soon out of date – as the US, for example, is perpetually forced to endure. Similarly, while every Westminster-system parliament has three equal parts (Crown, House of Representatives and Senate) by convention no GG has ever declined to sign a bill into law nor, in Australia's case, referred one to the reigning monarch despite our constitution explicitly allowing this.

Finally, by convention the exercise of Australian government must be carried on by a cabinet capable of legally providing advice to the Crown.

So even if we were temporarily conquered because of our successful separation of power and authority, Australia's legal sovereignty and indeed much popular hope would endure by the Crown declining to validate quasi-legal measures imposed by a puppet government.

Neil James, Burra

Reports that the rate of coral bleaching is on the rise raises serious concerns about the health and future of the Great Barrier Reef.

Most worrying is the observation by scientists studying the reefs that coral bleaching events have become five times more frequent in only forty years because of climate change (ocean warming and acidification), and that since 1980 only six of the 100 reefs studied had escaped severe bleaching.

Another worrying finding of the study was that before the strong El Nino year of 1982-83 there was no coral bleaching on a global or even regional scale.

More recently, however, bleaching has occurred even in the slightly cooler La Nina years, its extent has expanded, and its frequency has increased from once every 25-30 years before the 1980s to once every 5.9 years by 2016.

A situation in which bleaching and death of coral occur at a regional scale every hot summer was judged by the scientists to be approaching and to be inevitable because of the man-made carbon dioxide emissions already in the atmosphere.

This is bad enough, but there is also the likelihood of the added warming effect of increasing amounts of methane being released from the Arctic tundra, which is thawing at an increasing rate.

To add further to this rather grim scenario, I heard on ABC news on January 5 that an infestation of crown of thorns starfish had been found feasting on a large area of the southern Reef about 150km off Yeppoon.

Something serious must be done to save the irreplaceable reef over which we have custodianship.

Douglas Mackenzie, Deakin

Brian Stone and M Flint (Letters January 4) have misrepresented what I proposed in my letter (Letters, January 2).

I am not discussing the merits of Light Rail. What I am debating is the best way for Canberra residents to arrange the financing of community infrastructure whatever that infrastructure might be.

The ACT government has entered into a Private Public Partnership with a consortium including financiers to fund and build Light Rail. With a PPP the government guarantees a financial return to the private party.

My suggestion to the ACT government is that it goes into Public-Public Partnerships to finance all infrastructure. The first Public in Public-Public is the ACT community. The second Public is the ACT government. Many ACT residents are either on allocated pensions or are saving up for them.

I suggest they go to the Money Smart ASIC website and find out how long their superannuation money will last. They will be surprised at the low rate of return on allocated pensions.

Putting savings into a Public-Public Partnership annuity for ANY community infrastructure will return at least twice the amount of money compared to an allocated pension.

The high return from Public-Public Partnerships annuities comes because it removes the private financial intermediary. With today's technology we do not need financial intermediaries. Implementing a Public-Public Partnerships is low-cost and quickly deployed.

A Public-Public Partnership can finance it, and it could be operating within six months.

Kevin Cox, Ngunnawal

The Adverse Reactions Database of the Therapeutic Goods Administration indicates suicides induced by effects of antidepressants have more than doubled in the last seven years.

Unfortunately, some affected have been adolescents and children. Let's usher in the new year with resolve to demand greater safety within the mental health industry.

Linda Vij, Mascot, NSW

PLANE'S AGE A CONCERN

The plane that crashed killing six was reportedly 55 years old. For a car to be classified as vintage the prime requirement is to be more than 20 years old. A minimum age of 45 years is usually required for an antique classification.

And they don't have to fly.

Something seriously wrong somewhere.

Colliss Parrett, Barton

LANE HOGS INFURIATING

Bob Salmond (Letters, January 4) uses the petty calculation of time variances to justify the bad-mannered and dangerous habit of right-lane hogging.

Impeding the progress of others creates anger in other people; it is an act of deliberate dangerous driving and is recognised as such in Germany where the penalty can be three months' imprisonment and cancellation of driving licence. There is no excuse for sitting in the right lane; it is not about "doing the speed limit" it is about not impeding others.

Consider this, the driver behind you may be a doctor rushing to an emergency, an unmarked police car on an urgent call or perhaps even an armed robber trying to escape who might shoot you!

Whatever the reason just do not do it.

Michael Lane, St Ives, NSW

BURNOUTS NOT ILLEGAL

David Kennedy (Letters, January 3) states that burnouts are "illegal activities". My nanny says, and she should know, that burnouts are only illegal if done in certain areas such as public streets/roads. It is not an illegal activity if done on motor racing circuits and purpose-built facilities such as at the Summernats.

T. Matic, Hume