WITH regard to the article “Sixty wants 40” (Voice, October 12, 2018).
The survey about the proposed 40kmh speed limit was skewed to get the result the city wanted.
Statistically about 40 per cent of a target group will respond to a survey.
However, the city maintains it carried out an “extensive consultation”.
Only 392 people responded to the survey. This is about 2 per cent of the total population of the city of Vincent.
Of those responding, 169 people (57 per cent) supported the trial, with 129 (43 per cent) against it, according to the city. This is not an overwhelming majority.
In addition, how many of those saying “yes” belonged to the lobby group Streets@40?
A convenor of this group was a member of a Vincent advisory group.
Therefore her opinion, and those of any others so involved, is biased.
There is a definite conflict of interest.
Responsible motorists adjust their speed to allow for the road and weather conditions at the time.
In an earlier letter to the Voice, I shared information from Main Roads that there has not been any pedestrians killed in motoring accidents in the city of Vincent in the 2016-17 period.
If there have not been any fatalities, how can one improve on zero deaths?
Yes, Carr and Cleaver Streets have had a 40kmh speed limit for some time now, but many motorists and motorcyclists choose to ignore it.
Last week, Lifeline in Northbridge was seeking $150,00 to maintain its work in assisting people with mental health conditions and to reduce the number of suicides.
Surely if Vincent council has spare cash it could donate the $150,000 it intends to spend on a trial, which will achieve nothing, to a very worthwhile cause.
We have just experienced Mental Health Week, and the city could win applause for donating to a worthy cause.
WITH regard to the Speaker’s Corner “Heads must roll” (Voice, October 6, 2018), by year 12 student Joel van Boxtel.
Joel it was pleasing to see your first efforts in tackling an issue that you apparently feel strongly about.
The next step in the process is to examine the subject from the opposite point of view.
What would constitute a better system and how would it be implemented?
In popular debate, the United States system is often argued as a better model of government.
It is interesting to note that 150 years after their civil war their law and justice system is still riddled with racial discrimination.
It is also worth looking at their political inertia on gun control. But enough of the United States.
I like the way you have managed to sidestep the problems that the US presents as an alternative to our system by proposing a “ruling group of elected citizens”. This does sound rather like our present federal parliament.
Are you proposing a fourth level of government above federal, state and local? I would also be interested to see the make-up of this group.
Are quotas to be imposed to ensure minority representation?
Remember, the devil is always in the detail.
Well done on your first effort. You have managed a “loud shout” on an issue that you care about.
This qualifies you as a genuine placard-carrier.
It is up to you now to grow beyond that stage, to develop the skills and character that permit you to examine an issue from all sides and contribute to this country as a truly responsible citizen.
Harold Street, Mount Lawley
ADVERTISEMENT – Click here to discover more.