Letters to editor: Compulsory headlights, Jerusalem and Maori wards

Headlights on day and night will make our roads safer, a reader suggests. Photo/file

Twenty-four hour headlights

In regards to the road toll, some action is often better than none, so it is good to hear that someone is going to spend about $30 million on road safety improvements.

Not to detract from this initiative, but has anyone considered making 24-hour headlight display compulsory - probably at near zero cost to anybody? Driving at twilight time, morning and night, it is often impossible to see oncoming cars at even a few hundred metres. This creates serious exposure to head-on collisions.

This regulation applies in many countries, with most cars built so that when the engine is running, so are the headlights.

Please don't tell us that this is too simple or too sensible to be applied in New Zealand.

Graham Steenson

Whakatane

Following Trump

Surely it is sensible for Donald Trump and the United States to recognise that Jerusalem belongs to Israel. They conquered Jerusalem following the 1967 war. The 1948 United Nations creation of Israel was, with hindsight, flawed in some aspects, one of which left the people now called Palestinians in limbo in the sense that neighbouring countries chose to expel their longstanding Jewish settlers but gave no encouragement for the displaced Palestinians to be relocated in the resulting vacant houses. I believe Israel is never going to give up Jerusalem. The Jews were there hundreds of years before Christ was born, creating Christianity, which has the same affinity for Jerusalem. Sure the Jews have had a chequered career with their land periodically occupied by Romans, and various neighbouring Middle Eastern tribes, some of whom became Muslims around the sixth century.

It is better to face reality and recognise that Israel will stay there. Now other nations and the UN can assist in protecting continued access to their Jerusalem mosque which is special to Islam.

Let's hope that New Zealand follows Trump's lead. (Abridged)

Bill Capamagian

Tauranga

Maori wards

Alan Armstrong's take on council wards (

Letters

, December 16) leaves me somewhat bemused. In most cases in areas like Rotorua and Tauranga City, I believe there is no justification for any ward system at all. The arrant nonsense being floated is that it is a way of ensuring minority representation of whatsoever kind (in reality Maori race-based representation) and I have advocated against wards and for that matter race-based Parliamentary seats for many years.

Yes, councils by virtue of statutory compulsion have been forced to acknowledge Maori vested interests and I believe that is wrong because citizens are never consulted. New Plymouth and its mayor got exactly what they deserved. Where necessary, simply have community boards to protect minority interests.

In my opinion, the trouble is councils are not open, transparent or honest about what they are up to, hence voters have every reason to be incensed when this try on promoting race-based privilege occurs. Make no mistake Mr Armstrong, the numbers will be there to force a poll and I for one would be very surprised if voters do not overwhelmingly overturn the Western Bay District Council decision on Maori ward seats. (Abridged)

S. Paterson

Arataki