Michael de Percy ("Uber flagfall could be steep", Times2, July 9,p1) did not address the potential for Uber to impact public transport in Canberra, and the underlying reasons. Large-scale ride-sharing has been an elusive dream amongst visionaries who want to deal with the traffic-congestion problem without confining commuters to mass transit.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
A fare-determination system such as Uber, that is independent and market-based, and seen to be fair by all participants, removes one of the social inhibitors involved in giving and receiving a ride. The savings in travel costs are always precisely distributed, and since the role of driver and passenger can be reversed, all participants could have significantly less out-of-pocket expenses for commuting to work by car.
The potential for ride-sharing amongst commuters is greater in Canberra, because of the relatively long distances that commuters travel, without the fast heavy-rail services that are available in more densely populated cities.
Another factor that would foster increased ride-sharing in Canberra is the concentration of commuter destinations in town centres and a few campuses. Loose-knit co-operatives of commuters, sharing compatible journey patterns, would arise over time, thus avoiding some of the deterrents associated with riding with a complete stranger.
There is a win-win situation here if the government could only get its mind off the inappropriate investment in a tram and promote ride-sharing, by roadway and parking incentives, and by addressing the insurance and licensing issues.
A. Smith, Farrer
Michael de Percy's analysis of Uber drivers' income may be bleak, but their suffering will be short and some will then earn a decent living cleaning Uber's fleet of autonomous cars. As Uber CEO Travis Kalanick says: "When there's no other dude in the car, the cost of taking an Uber anywhere becomes cheaper than owning a vehicle."
This week, Kalanick said he wants to buy every one of the 500,000 autonomous cars Tesla plans to produce in 2020. Do we have the capability to plan for this future, to shape the service to provide universal and egalitarian transport and capture the savings for our community, or do we cede the design and the profits to a multinational whilst distracting ourselves with a tram line?
Kent Fitch, Nicholls
Roll out the trams
The nonsense about light rail in Canberra rolls on. Whilst other advanced industrial economies continue to invest in light rail, an army of naysayers, instant experts, and just plain cranky people continue to blame all Canberra's problems on the proposed light rail.
One day, this will all provide interesting data for a social psychology thesis. In the meantime, Canberra, chill out. We have to do something about increasing traffic density, increasing expenditure on expressways and parkways, and global warming. Let's get with what the real people do, and start building a light rail system.
Elizabeth Morris, Curtin
Disability parks scarce
I cannot believe the ACT government would cut down on parking in the CBD even more by reserving the London Circuit parking for use by tram construction.
I am mobility challenged and often take a friend into town who is 91 years old and even more challenged. It is already very difficult to find a disabled parking spot, thanks in part to the usurping of in-between spots for wheelchairs, but we understand the need for them.
If we cannot park in the London Circuit parking area, we will not come to Civic any more.
M. Pietersen, Kambah
Two talented writers
In her comments on To Kill A Mockingbird ("Why Mockingbird changed the world", Panorama, July11, p13), Anna Funder wrote: "[Harper Lee's] old friend Truman Capote, jealous of her success, abused her generosity and belittled her – greater – talent".
It's true that it was Harper Lee who suggested to Truman Capote that there was a book in the murder of the Clutter family, and even what sort of book it might be. It's also true that Capote was immature, mean and vicious whenever he chose. Whether Lee's talent was the greater, though, is open to much debate.
Funder's comments, like those of the other four authors writing about Harper Lee's work, were warm, descriptive and emotional responses to a warm, descriptive and emotional book. Truman Capote's book In Cold Blood is anything but descriptive or emotional. It is a dark and chilling analysis of a split in the American soul. Emotional descriptions and chilling analyses are different things. Which is greater depends on where the reader starts from and wants to end up. And I doubt that Harper Lee could ever have written In Cold Blood. The only certainty in this particular case is that both Lee and Capote wrote masterpieces.
G. T. W. Agnew, Coopers Plains, Qld
Tackling poverty
In his wise assessment of the global situation, Pope Francis calls for the poor to have the "sacred rights" of the "three Ls", namely labour, lodging and land ("Pope calls for new economic order, slams capitalism", July11, p11).
As the major cause of their plight, he could have added the three "Ps", namely population, poverty and pollution, although his ideological dogma would not allow him to include population, which is the root of the problem.
The Pope's attack on increasing resource inequalities and environmental destruction is in line with modern scientific opinion, although Christian and communist texts conflict. The Gospel of St Mark declares "to him that hath shall be given, to him that hath not shall be taken away", which reflects contemporary capitalist society, whereas Karl Marx in his Communist Manifesto maintains "to each according to his needs, from each according to his ability", which supports social justice and the Pope's message that the obscenely rich should help the poor.
Perhaps the world would do well to return to Aristotle's view in his Nicomachean Ethics that what people seek most is happiness and virtue. The lowest in his hierarchy of virtues is the acquisition of wealth and property, which is the driving force of rampant capitalism.
Aristotle regarded the highest hierarchy as being spiritual values, comprising regard for others, protection of the environment and development of the arts, which attract little economic support in today's materialistic world.
Bryan Furnass, Hughes
Saudis should show respect and pay up
The Saudi embassy has again topped the unpaid traffic fines list ("Saudi embassy tops unpaid fines list again, with $25k bill", July 12, p7). What a disgrace. And their ambassador, Nabil Mohammed Al Saleh, is pathetic if he is correctly reported as saying "I also encourage all diplomats to pay off their infringement fines". What he should be doing is ordering them to do so or have them removed from this country. And why does the Saudi embassy need 28 diplomatic staff and their wives?
My feeling is they spend a lot of time supporting the spread of Wahhabism which has been Saudi Arabia's dominant faith and is an austere form of Islam that insists on a literal interpretation of the Koran. At the very least the Saudis should show some respect to the country where they are posted.
Eric Hodge, Pearce
Expansion of courts
There'd be no need for expensive, disruptive temporary accommodation ("Lawyers open to shipping-container courts during redevelopment", July 13, p3) if our courts' expansion was sited to the south-west of the existing Supreme Court, as originally preferred by our Attorney-General, and as still designated in the National Capital Plan.
Currently proposed (reportedly by a profit-driven private sector project deliverer) is an outlandish link building between the existing Magistrates and the Supreme Courts, the details of which have never been available for public comment. The bulky link building will destroy the architectural integrity and heritage importance of the fine freestanding 1960s Supreme Court, and compromise the civic character of Knowles Place, while blocking important views to and from City Hill. Maybe the ACT Land Development Agency noticed that the originally preferred site could be flogged off, like lots of other valuable public land at City Hill.
Jack Kershaw, Kambah
Treacherous to allow miners to destroy pristine land and water
Environment Minister Greg Hunt's pathetic decision to approve the Shenhua coal mine on the Liverpool Plains is yet another attack on our farmers, farmland, woodland, native animals and scarce freshwater supplies.
While the mine will not be located on the black soil, the close proximity on nearby hills and ridges means that surface and underground water contaminated by the toxic carcinogenic hydrocarbons will flow into the farmland aquifers.
Shenhua has overexploited groundwater in China and dumped industrial wastewater in Inner Mongolia. China has a poor record of toxicity in agriculture in its own country, yet the LNP is content to allow the threat on land with the world's best soils and pristine waters.
The so-called science used to justify this act of treason is a sham. Huge political donations to the LNP and ALP by mining companies and the jobs-for-the-boys culture bestowed on ex-politicians and public servants has resulted in the two large political parties giving open slather to allowing the coal-seam gas and coal-mining companies pillage our country, despite the wishes of the Australian public.
The NSW government is complicit in this treachery, as it has been with the Leard Forest destruction, and the betrayal of the people of Bulga in the Hunter Valley. After the Bulga community winning two different court cases, the government changed the laws to suit the Rio Tinto expansion plans. Destroying our country for short-term greed is unacceptable. The fact that most of the profits relating to coal mining and CSG go off shore shows even more stupidity.
Ken Brown, Invergowrie, NSW
Giving away jobs
The Abbott government China free-trade deal states: Chinese investors in projects over $150million will receive additional rights to bring in temporary migrant workers to Australia without local labour market testing.
How does this fit with claims of generated jobs on the Liverpool Plains coal mine, unless you mean Chinese jobs. Well done, Tony – another far-sighted policy our kids are to inherit.
K. Davis, Pearce
Intentions irrelevant
Good intentions, that are not clothed in reason, lead to greater disasters than those actions built on ill will or stupidity. It is difficult to tell where the old-world, ideological musings of our leader (sic) fit, but one thing is quite clear. They can no longer be jokingly dismissed as harmless idiosyncrasies. It's becoming too serious for that.
Phil O'Brien, Flynn
Rural lobby at work
Setting aside exactly where that proposed new coal mine is in relation to the agriculturally valuable bits of the Liverpool Plains district, and the future of coal, if agricultural dirt over that coal is so valuable (and it can't be put back after mining finishes), exactly why isn't its great agricultural value reflected in its market price, rendering coal mining uneconomic?
Or do farmers on the plains really know agriculture isn't that land's best use, but they'd just prefer its nationally, economically optimal, first-best use be banned, because they dominate the regional vote and their elected representatives fear them doing so for someone else?
Sort of reminds me of the vocal (politically connected?) minority here who demand the unprofitability of half-baked little suburban supermarkets be used as the rationale for government banning big supermarkets from their region, when most people in their region strongly prefer to shop at big supermarkets because they compete better on range, quality and price.
Cuthbert Douglas, Bonython
Vote below the line
In her article "Self-interest behind opposition to Senate voting reform" (Times2, July9, p5), Lee Rhiannon makes the point a number of times that the voting system for the Senate is one over which voters have no control. She says that all the power sits with the parties who make deals with each other. This is rubbish. The only reason parties have any power to determine where a vote goes is because people give it to them by voting above the line.
If people took their vote seriously and made an informed choice by voting below the line, parties would have no control whatsoever. Parties could make all the deals they liked, but they would be of no consequence, because they would have no votes to haggle over. People decry parties for the deals they make, but it is the voting patterns of electors that allow them to do this.
The major parties brought in above-the-line voting because they knew the apathy of Australian voters would give them the power to make deals. That a plethora of minuscule parties have worked out to play the system that the major parties thought would just benefit them, well, good for them. While preferential above-the-line voting is an improvement on the current system, the way "to put preferences back in the hands of voters", as Senator Rhiannon states, is to abolish above-the-line voting.
Senator Rhiannon also says that electors often don't find out what happens to their votes until after the election.
Information on each party's group voting ticket is published on the Australian Electoral Commission website before each election. If you don't like what your preferred party intends to do with your vote, then vote beneath the line.
Fintán Ó Laighin, Narrabundah
Sorry for Germans
While Mikayla Novak ("A nation trapped in a too lavish safety net", Forum, July11, p6) is perfectly correct in suggesting that overspending by Greek governments in recent years has contributed to the country's woes , my well-informed Greek colleague is in no doubt that corruption, including tax evasion, has been equally responsible for the current situation.
In my judgment, however, the Germans also deserve our sympathy, for it is their culture of saving, rather than spending, that has made Germany the largest European contributor of funds to Greece. Is it any wonder, therefore, that the Germans want their leader, Angela Merkel, to put a halt to Germany's rescue program, as they suspect the Greek government seems unlikely to hand back their contribution.
Sam Nona, Burradoo, NSW
TO THE POINT
RENEWABLE ENERGY
Look out, Colin and Anna Steele (Letters, July7). They're coming to get you. But don't worry, your ideas are safe.
Fred Schelb, Chapman
LEADER LAW-ABIDING
Thanks to Professor Brian Cox's explanation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, where life transforms energy from an ordered to a disordered state and inevitable decay, I now have a far greater understanding of what drives the leader of "Team Australia". When all is said and done, Tony Abbott is simply following the law to a T. The big problem is that Mr Abbott appears to be in a greater rush than most to make his contribution.
Jon Stirzaker, Latham
HUNG OUT TO DRY
The label on my recently purchased running shorts states: "Think Climate. Cold wash and line dry". Tony Abbott might well consider this as propaganda. Should not he now direct that clothing bearing such labels be banned from being imported into Australia? Such a decision would be consistent with his captain's call to direct the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to cease funding wind farm projects.
Tim Hardy, Florey
EXPAND THE LEXICON
Question two in the "Take The Challenge" quiz published in The Australian newspaper on July 10 asked: "Which term describes a person who adheres to old customs or ideas in spite of evidence that they are wrong or unreasonable? (a) Mumpsimus; (b) Muktuk; (c) Incrassate; (d) Sternutator." I say it's: (e) Tony Abbott.
Annie Lang, Kambah
CANNABIS OIL
Having read Scott Hannaford's lengthy thought-provoking article ("Laura's oil ... when the elixir of life is on the black market", July11, p1) I'm thinking, why deny the right of those who suffer as Laura Bryant has, when there is a solution to their problem? Why not show compassion and put to good use a banned substance?
Evelyn Bean, Ainslie
FRACTIONS OF SUPPORT
Professor Gillian Triggs, in her enthusiasm for bashing the Abbott government ("Parliament has 'failed' same-sex leadership", July11, p7) has messed up the old statistic of five-eighths of FA when calculating Irish support for same-sex marriage. There was never 75per cent support by the Irish, as only 60per cent of them bothered to vote and only 62per cent of those voted in favour. The result was about 37.2per cent – a far cry from her claim of 75per cent support.
Baden Williams, Lyneham
Email: letters.editor@canberratimes.com.au. Send from the message field, not as an attached file. Fax: 6280 2282. Mail: Letters to the Editor, The Canberra Times, PO Box 7155, Canberra Mail Centre, ACT 2610.
Keep your letter to 250 words or less. References to Canberra Times reports should include date and page number. Letters may be edited. Provide phone number and full home address (suburb only published).