InDaily

Adelaide's independent news

Support

Your views: on city speed limits, land tax, electoral fairness and airport renaming

Reader contributions

Today, readers respond to a call to cut CBD speed limits to 40km/h, maintain the land tax rage, question motives behind electoral boundary changes and how to honour our early aviators.

Print article

Commenting on the story: Call to cut city speed limit to 40km/h

I suggest a person walks in front of the horseless carriages carrying a red flag. Richard Brinkman

More stupidity. Of course there are a higher percentage of accidents. There are more people!

Also, if you lower the speed limit there are going to be fewer accidents – but where do you stop? 40km/h – still accidents. 30km/h – still people getting hit. 

Let’s go the whole hog and go back where we started. Every car must be preceded by a person waving a red flag to warn everyone a car is coming. 

Enough. Huw Morgan

I fully support the call to drop the speed limit across the entire city to 40km/h.

It may well be considered a “transport hub”, however the speed reduction will not adversely affect city transit times, more often than not traffic is reduced well below 50km/h anyway.

Safety of pedestrians and cyclists is paramount, especially when considering the increasingly hostile and selfish culture which has developed across Adelaide’s collective driving community.

I am a commuting pedestrian (and cyclist, kick scooterist) and am daily concerned with the great majority of drivers who do not slow down or give way to pedestrians at marked left hand turn crossings.

That is just one example of many which validify the argument for slowing down traffic.  The attitude of ‘rush’ needs to be curtailed and transformed into one of care and patience.

I would suggest that any “backlash” experienced from previous (half-hearted) attempts came primarily from a vocal few, and did not in fact represent the feelings of the majority who most likely did not bother to make their views known. – Terence Cox

One statistic that shows how stupid this call is this. Over 5 years, from 2013 to 2017 in Adelaide, this equates to 4.82 accidents a month.

When the total number of vehicles and pedestrians in the city on a monthly basis is taken into consideration, then it would be statistically insignificant.

An educated estimate is that it probably would be less than 1 accident for every 100,000 cars and pedestrians in the city.

Turning this around, it could be argued this is a very good result, with such a low number of accidents. 

What next will  they want; 30km/h?

It means that pedestrians especially need to be totally responsible for their actions; not expect that motorists to be able to avoid them.

Do these people know how slow 40km/h is when the streets are quiet? When they are busy it not likely that motorists can do 50km/h anyway. 

What analysis has been done on why each accident happened? That would be far more interesting and meaningful statistic and show what the problems are.

I suspect that the number of motorists being responsible for an accident is quite low compared to irresponsible pedestrians. What Walking SA is showing are results; not causes.

Analyse the cause and attempt to can fix that if you can, but it will be hard to stop poor pedestrian behavior such as inattention, drink and/or drug affected, not looking, was looking at my phone and more.

But some people though will only be happy if motor vehicles have to follow behind a person walking in front of them holding a red flag. – Andrew  Satterley

Commenting on the story: Land tax rebels tell Libs: “See you in court”

Investors owning multiple properties are the ones that will be paying more under the proposed changes and the more properties they own, the more they will pay.

I can understand why they’re complaining. It’s human nature to protect one’s self-interest.

But in my opinion, the ones complaining – the multiple property investors – are not “mum and dad investors” no matter how much they use that line.

 Maybe there needs to be consensus on the term “mum and dad investors”.

Sure, it’s every mum and dad with a normal superannuation account and maybe those with a single investment property.

When you get into multiple investment properties, creating trusts and whatnot, you leave the true mum and dad investors behind, so leave them out of the argument.

In the bigger scheme of things we can’t rely forever on the property market to sustain the economy.

As we face climate change, water shortages, a dying River Murray, heat stress, loss of tree canopy cover, land clearing, species loss, congested roads etc, etc, we have to find more sustainable ways to prosper that don’t rely on endless growth. – Carol Faulkner

So the person who has weathered bank interest hikes and then ESL plus huge land tax costs – the ordinary people who stupidly believe we can support ourselves in old age and leave the aged pension to those who deserve it – are screwed over again.

Might as well sell up and take the aged pension.

Hang on, who will buy our properties as there will be no incentive to purchase them? There’s also a huge bank debt to be paid out.

Pension looking good, no troublesome tenants or repairs to fund. A shame SA is still going backwards. Lyn DeGuglielmo

Commenting on the story: Lib MPs to fight for ‘fairness’ in party-room showdown

You don’t have to be a genius to work out that it would be impossible to work a system of single member electorates which always gives parties exactly the same percentage of seats as the percentage of the vote they get; especially of the result is distorted through the prism of two-party preferred.

A much fairer result would be achieved with multiple representation by using something akin to the Tasmanian system.

Of course, the main parties won’t accept this as they don’t really want a fair system; they much prefer one where they always win, regardless of what percentage of the first preferences they get. – Adrian Dormer

It seems that politicians are exercised about fairness when it narrowly concerns them. 

I would welcome a fairness clause that ensured that there was an obligation on the part of government to ensure that all policies treated people fairly.

But of course that is far too much to expect. John Tons

Commenting on the story: Adelaide Airport considers call to rename after pioneering aviator

Despite being a Minlaton local of 68 years and having lived all my life on the neighbouring farm to that on which Harry Butler grew up, my knowledge of Captain Butler’s exploits was limited.

I have just read the biography “Red Devil” by Dr Samantha Battams and Leslie Parsons and wholeheartedly support the call of Cr Phil Martin, the Hon Fraser Ellis MP, Dr Samantha Battams and Leslie Parsons to honour Captain Butler in this way.

Captain Butler played a significant part in the establishment of the aviation industry in South Australia but this is largely unknown by the population at large.

It would also be fitting for Sirs Ross and Keith Smith to be similarly honoured. Bruce Cook

Please don’t be stupid enough to rename Adelaide Airport, as Adelaide already has an identity crisis and changing names of anything here will make us even less memorable. – John Webber

Want to comment?

Send us an email, making it clear which story you’re commenting on and including your full name (required for publication) and phone number (only for verification purposes). Please put “Reader views” in the subject.

We’ll publish the best comments in a regular “Reader Views” post. Your comments can be brief, or we can accept up to 350 words, or thereabouts.

InDaily has changed the way we receive comments. Go here for an explanation.

We value local independent journalism. We hope you do too.

InDaily provides valuable, local independent journalism in South Australia. As a news organisation it offers an alternative to The Advertiser, a different voice and a closer look at what is happening in our city and state for free. Any contribution to help fund our work is appreciated. Please click below to become an InDaily supporter.

Powered by PressPatron

More Reader contributions stories

Loading next article

Subscribe to InDaily – it’s free!

South Australia’s locally owned, independent source of digital news.

Subscribe now and go in the monthly draw* for your chance to WIN a $100 voucher!

Subscribe free here

*Terms and conditions apply

Welcome back!

Did you know it’s FREE to subscribe?

Subscribe now and go in the monthly draw* for your chance to WIN a $100 voucher!

Subscribe

*Terms and conditions apply