Driving too slowly is criminal, a reader says. Photo/file
From February 14 until September 30 last year was I a regular driver Waihi-Tauranga. It is like an horizontally-oriented helter-skelter. Agreed - some of the curves should be eased and bridges widened. The new roundabouts at Bethlehem are too sharp. Most of the drivers are impatient, arrogant and
aggressive let alone those who purposefully drive at speeds such that following motorists become frustrated. Why do not these slowcoaches pull to the side of the road? Driving at 50km/h in a 100km/h zone is simply criminal - worse than that evinced by any speed-merchant. When there is little traffic, then driving is a pleasure, but in most cases, it is a question of my life in their hands. Here is apprehension, not here just a state of mind - it is a fact.
Christopher Miles
Waihi
Half-truths can be seriously misleading if not refuted. Historically, the significance of the Treaty of Waitangi has not been well taught in New Zealand. This sad fact is exemplified by councillor Murray-Benge (Letters, March 29) who states that Queen Victoria (the Crown) gave Maori equal rights with British subjects (true) but did not invite Maori into a partnership (false). In 2014, the Crown, with its highly trained team of lawyers, sought to contest the right of Maori to govern (tino rangatiratanga) as equal partners in New Zealand, Aotearoa. Despite their superior resources, the Crown failed and in the name of justice, accepted the Waitangi Tribunal's finding that the Maori chiefs who signed the Treaty in 1840 did not cede sovereignty to the British Crown. Although Maori at that time held the land, they agreed to share power and authority with Britain as equals with the Governor. Maori wards are a means of restoring a Treaty promise by providing a place for Maori to actively participate in decision-making (within the parameters of the law). From what I see, there is more to fear from current dominant voices of how, for example, the environment should be treated than from Maori principles regarding the care of Papatuanuku (Mother Earth).
Avril Manley
Katikati
Esther Richards continues to push for end-of-life choice (Letters, April 4). But we already have this. You can choose to withhold treatment, say no to resuscitation, turn of the respirator, etc. What end-of-life proponents are disguising is the serious matter of assisted suicide. Nowhere in our law or lore do we allow anyone to kill another (well, yes we do in the tragic matter of abortion). If the medical profession and many other care agencies are totally against the proposed Bill then Simon Bridges is making the right choice.
A G Stewart
Pyes Pa
I respond to Meg Butler's assertion (Letters, April 6) that mangroves hinder the survival of wading birds in the Firth of Thames, and that Forest & Bird should be supporting their destruction. Mangroves are native plants. At least two species of endangered and vulnerable birds are dependent to a large extent on mangroves – banded rail and Australasian bittern. Many other native species also use mangroves, including spawning snapper. There is no evidence that mangroves are having any effect on feeding space for wading birds in the Firth of Thames – these species have over 8000ha of feeding area. These birds may be affected by mangroves establishing in their roosting space, and as a result, Forest & Bird supports mangrove removal from roosting sites. Other than that, there is no justification to destroy native plants that provide important habitat for birds and fish, as well as serving other functions such as acting as a buffer against floods, filtering pollutants from coastal waters, and removing carbon from the atmosphere.
Dr Rebecca Stirnemann
Forest & Bird Central North Island regional manager
