Letters to the editor | October 12, 2017

A roundabout at Prospect. F. O’Sullivan says some road users are confused about when to indicate when using a roundabout.
A roundabout at Prospect. F. O’Sullivan says some road users are confused about when to indicate when using a roundabout.

Roundabouts and blinkers

I BELIEVE that using your indicator when going straight ahead on a roundabout is fraught with danger. 

Coming from the Launceston General Hospital down Charles Street last week, the car in front of me put his left turn blinker on, giving me the message he was turning left, but proceeded straight ahead. Had I not slowed down, I would’ve rear-ended him.

This happened for three roundabouts (Balfour, Canning and Frederick), before he decided to cease using it as he continued to go down Charles Street.

The rule noted by Tasmania Police states “only if not travelling straight ahead through a roundabout you need to indicate”. 

Maybe it’s time this rule was reiterated to the drivers in Launceston.

F. O’Sullivan, Riverside.

TasWater takeover

THE Tasmanian Government continues to parrot the line that water and sewerage prices will be cheaper under its takeover proposal than under the TasWater plan.

Indeed, TasWater has acknowledged that prices will be fractionally cheaper, but not the $550 over six years claimed by the government in their back of the envelope calculation. Rather it will be just $286 over the six years, if it caps price increases at 3.5 per cent. That’s less than 90 cents a week.

But what the government won’t say is that it will be taking $120 million away from hospitals, schools and police in an attempt to pay-off councils over the same period. This equates to $600 per household over the six years. The claim of savings is devious. The government is in effect taking $600 out of your pocket and only putting $286 back in.

At the same time, it will ring up an unnecessary $600 million on the credit card to fund its rushed plan. This is debt that will keep gathering interest for years until every last cent is paid off by all Tasmanians.

The government’s takeover proposal is ultimately unnecessary, unfair, and expensive. The plan is ultimately unnecessary, unfair, and expensive.

Miles Hampton, TasWater chairman.

Elder inclusion

I READ recently that Tasmania’s population was ‘ageing faster’ than mainland states. Does this mean there’s something in our air?

Tasmania does have an older population and a poor health service, two factors that don’t go well together.

Keeping people in their homes longer is desirable, but it puts enormous pressure on families and can lead to elder abuse.

We must put in place a well funded professional care system to provide for their needs – food, cleaning, maintenance, health and travel. The upside of this is the employment it creates across the board.

Stronger community inclusion means an ability to reduce crime, substance abuse and antisocial behaviour.

Older people may allow younger people to utilise their resources to achieve a common aim. Younger people give older people the benefit of their mobility.

Improving access is necessary to allow people of disability the chance to live in the community, not in a home.

Mal Wilson, George Town.

Land giveaway

INTERESTING that a few days after the Launceston City Council approved the large giveaway of public land at Inveresk we had a test run of the siren which announces a flood in this area, as we have had 36 major floods or about one every five years since Launceston was established.

The next one should be due around the time the new university is close to coming online, if it gets built that is.

How sad that at the last council meeting only one alderman had the intestinal fortitude (sometimes called guts) to speak out re: the secrecy this council works under. At least Danny Gibson attempted some transparency on behalf of the residents of Inveresk and the ratepayers.

Ron Baines, Kings Meadows.

Gloom and doom

ANDREA Dawkins raises the anti-progressive head in the sand Green banner once again (The Examiner, October 6) protesting against architectural development in our cities.

I recall being older than almost any living entity, the loud protests when the great cathedrals towered above our humble wattle and daub hovels.

Had the masses then been able to read and write we might have formed innumerable fairy dust political factions. We might have overlooked in the full flood of our absurd protests that these outrageous structures gave us employment, apprenticeships and our daily bread. Nothing has changed since the good old days of King Canute.

Time and tide waits for no man. There is nothing more constant than change.  We cannot stifle the innovative creativity in human nature. We must accept that word so repugnant to the Green fraternity "compromise" and move forward. We do not really miss the hole in the roof where the smoke sometimes went out and the rain always came in.

Len Langan, Longford.

Wind and solar

LETTERS like the latest from A. Carter,(The Examiner, October 3) and the frequent articles titled "Our Future" never recognise there is a limit on how much Australia's electricity system can support wind and solar without making it too costly and too unreliable to be of much use.

It has become obvious during the last 12 months that our way of life is based very much on having a reliable electricity supply, so surely all suppliers must bear in a fair way the burden of any associated costs.

It is only then should we decide what will be the trade off will be between the important, but conflicting aims of lower emissions and lower costs. With our addiction for targets, let's call it a TCET, Transparent Clean Energy Target.

Gordon Thurlow, Launceston.

Deserving

THE last word on marriage equality. Surely all conjugal couples deserve a mother in law.

Malcolm Neilson, Bellerive.