This letter was written in July 08 in response to another letter from an aggrieved citizen, writing about one cyclist's inconsiderate and aggressive behaviour. I suspect I know the cyclist, not personally, but as the chap who does ride extremely aggressively and dangerously. One time this chap, if the same, rode at high speed, inches away, between myself and a young couple with a baby in the pram, when I had stopped to chat - we wouldn't have been more than 2 feet apart. It was appallingly inconsiderate and dangerous cycling, and was exactly the sort of behaviour that gives all cyclists a bad name. I don't have the original letter, but it was a complaint about cyclists in general. My letter was published.
Dear Sir/Madam
I was sorry to read the letter about one cyclist's inconsiderate actions causing injuries to an elderly pedestrian. Five months ago I started cycling to work in Wellington, and I agree, I see too many aggressive fellow cyclists - they ride across pedestrian crossings, jump red lights and fail to observe road rules, weave in and out of traffic and treat pavements and pedestrians as a mountain bike course. They give all us cyclists a bad name. But many car (and bus and truck) drivers behave no better, and a thousand kilograms of car are rather more dangerous than ten kilograms of bicycle. Cycling in Wellington is not pleasant and, as two recent deaths show, often perilous. Of great benefit would be a 40 kph limit on main streets, with side streets and residential streets reduced to 30 kph. Overseas experience confirms major reductions in serious injuries and deaths with these speed limits. Put a New Zealander in charge of some wheels - cars, buses and trucks, cycles, skateboards, or whatever - and their behaviour seems to change, invariably for the worse, so also of benefit would be a bit more maturity and responsibility from all road users.
Yours faithfully,
I was sorry to read the letter about one cyclist's inconsiderate actions causing injuries to an elderly pedestrian. Five months ago I started cycling to work in Wellington, and I agree, I see too many aggressive fellow cyclists - they ride across pedestrian crossings, jump red lights and fail to observe road rules, weave in and out of traffic and treat pavements and pedestrians as a mountain bike course. They give all us cyclists a bad name. But many car (and bus and truck) drivers behave no better, and a thousand kilograms of car are rather more dangerous than ten kilograms of bicycle. Cycling in Wellington is not pleasant and, as two recent deaths show, often perilous. Of great benefit would be a 40 kph limit on main streets, with side streets and residential streets reduced to 30 kph. Overseas experience confirms major reductions in serious injuries and deaths with these speed limits. Put a New Zealander in charge of some wheels - cars, buses and trucks, cycles, skateboards, or whatever - and their behaviour seems to change, invariably for the worse, so also of benefit would be a bit more maturity and responsibility from all road users.
Yours faithfully,
Some further correspondence ensued, another writer wrote back about my letter, suggesting I was excusing bad cyclists, and generally sounding off about cyclists, saying we deserved no respect. Since I've started cycling in town regularly, I have become quite conscious of the degree of antipathy between motorist and cyclists here. It's a very childish and dangerous attitude, and I would suggest that the local council and the government, along with interested groups, do a lot of education of the public to foster a better degree of tolerance between different road users. It would help too if the council were rather more pro-active in promoting cycling, and in not pandering to the car lobby. It might also start saving the planet, to save nothing of improving our city. See my submission to the council. I didn't keep a copy of Dougal's letter, but this is what I wrote back.
Dear Sir / Madam
I trust Dougal Congalton drives his car with more due care and attention than he reads my letters, because I can't believe anyone having properly read my letter of the 22nd July would understand that by criticising some drivers, I was excusing bad behaviour from cyclists. My last sentence is perfectly clear, it is plea for maturity and responsibility from ALL road users. In fact, Dougal's letter really worries me because it illustrates exactly the sort of intolerance exhibited by New Zealanders on our roads that I was writing about. And contrary to Dougal's jaundiced opinion, cyclists do deserve respect because, as opposed to car drivers, they are keeping themselves fit, reducing congestion, looking after our planet, and reducing the depletion of our resources. It is Wellington City Council's great shame how little they support cycling, for instance, they are proposing to spend twenty-five times as much money on a mere scoping study for a road tunnel under Mt Victoria than the total amount spent on cyclists in the whole city. Finally, when Dougal can no longer afford the petrol for his car, he is welcome to enjoy the friendly company of cyclists in the city.
Yours faithfully,
I trust Dougal Congalton drives his car with more due care and attention than he reads my letters, because I can't believe anyone having properly read my letter of the 22nd July would understand that by criticising some drivers, I was excusing bad behaviour from cyclists. My last sentence is perfectly clear, it is plea for maturity and responsibility from ALL road users. In fact, Dougal's letter really worries me because it illustrates exactly the sort of intolerance exhibited by New Zealanders on our roads that I was writing about. And contrary to Dougal's jaundiced opinion, cyclists do deserve respect because, as opposed to car drivers, they are keeping themselves fit, reducing congestion, looking after our planet, and reducing the depletion of our resources. It is Wellington City Council's great shame how little they support cycling, for instance, they are proposing to spend twenty-five times as much money on a mere scoping study for a road tunnel under Mt Victoria than the total amount spent on cyclists in the whole city. Finally, when Dougal can no longer afford the petrol for his car, he is welcome to enjoy the friendly company of cyclists in the city.
Yours faithfully,
This letter, from 23rd August, was written in response to Dominion Post article which was written by the business editor. As previously mentioned, there is no available archive of articles and I am unable to direct the reader to the original article. However I think my letter gives enough information to gain an understanding as to the nature of the article. I asked that my letter, which would have been too long to publish, be forwarded to James Weir.
Dear Sir / Madam
I trust you are keeping well. Today James Weir publishes an article entitled "Carbon trading bill premature and immoral". I understand that James Weir is your economics commentator, so by what right and understanding does he use his article to publish what is basically a diatribe against global warming science, which is accepted by all but a tiny handful of the world's most illustrious scientists? James Weir has no professional qualifications to be allowed in your newspaper to publish such poor science and prejudiced opinion. He is undoubtedly entitled to comment on an emissions trading scheme, but if he really neither understands nor accepts the science of anthropogenic global warming, then logically he's not going to agree with an emissions trading scheme, however well planned or coordinated. So what is the point of the article? If he wishes to promote his sceptical opinion before the public then the only rightful place for that is in your correspondence pages, where he can be published or not as the editor sees fit, and take his place in the queue along with letters from others such as me. But of course as the Dominion Post has firmly kept both its feet, and its brains, firmly stuck in the sceptic's camp, he may have better luck than I have.
And you have to laugh, James has the temerity to point out that the public have been hammered by a 60% increase in power prices since 1999. Well, so they have, but if I recall rightly wasn't our wonderful Bradfordian electricity market supposed to fix all this? And precisely how does this increasing cost of electricity have any bearing at all on what our response to global warming should be? Perhaps James Weir would be kind enough to e-mail me with the logic of this observation.
And for James to talk about the immorality of the Government position, this is breathtaking in its hypocrisy. There is a moral issue here, but it's a very simple one. And that's this generation's moral responsibility to the next generation, and to the only planet on which we can prosper, or not. James's morality unfortunately only seems to extend to his wallet, and in my understanding at least, that's no moral principle worth even stating; it does James's reputation no good to have allowed him to publish this shallow and self-serving article.
I look forward to hearing from you. (I didn't, unsurprisingly. JKM)
Yours faithfully,
I trust you are keeping well. Today James Weir publishes an article entitled "Carbon trading bill premature and immoral". I understand that James Weir is your economics commentator, so by what right and understanding does he use his article to publish what is basically a diatribe against global warming science, which is accepted by all but a tiny handful of the world's most illustrious scientists? James Weir has no professional qualifications to be allowed in your newspaper to publish such poor science and prejudiced opinion. He is undoubtedly entitled to comment on an emissions trading scheme, but if he really neither understands nor accepts the science of anthropogenic global warming, then logically he's not going to agree with an emissions trading scheme, however well planned or coordinated. So what is the point of the article? If he wishes to promote his sceptical opinion before the public then the only rightful place for that is in your correspondence pages, where he can be published or not as the editor sees fit, and take his place in the queue along with letters from others such as me. But of course as the Dominion Post has firmly kept both its feet, and its brains, firmly stuck in the sceptic's camp, he may have better luck than I have.
And you have to laugh, James has the temerity to point out that the public have been hammered by a 60% increase in power prices since 1999. Well, so they have, but if I recall rightly wasn't our wonderful Bradfordian electricity market supposed to fix all this? And precisely how does this increasing cost of electricity have any bearing at all on what our response to global warming should be? Perhaps James Weir would be kind enough to e-mail me with the logic of this observation.
And for James to talk about the immorality of the Government position, this is breathtaking in its hypocrisy. There is a moral issue here, but it's a very simple one. And that's this generation's moral responsibility to the next generation, and to the only planet on which we can prosper, or not. James's morality unfortunately only seems to extend to his wallet, and in my understanding at least, that's no moral principle worth even stating; it does James's reputation no good to have allowed him to publish this shallow and self-serving article.
I look forward to hearing from you. (I didn't, unsurprisingly. JKM)
Yours faithfully,
The next, sent 30th August 2008 relates to a proposal to decomission the pedestrian precinct, Manners Mall, to allow for buses to travel each way along it. This will (slightly) shorten the present (slightly) circuitous bus route, but shortens by a third the small length, about 300 metres, of pedestrianised street in the whole city. Manners Mall, and Cuba St Mall, have existed for nearly thirty years, not a single further yard of pedestrian precinct has been put in its place since. This is a council fully thirty years behind the times. I have previously written a submission about the transport corridor through town - I am a very strong proponent of a light rail system for Wellington, Manners Mall could be a possible route, as explained by the council at the time, though I am not personally convinced that it would be the best route. The letter wasn't published. However as I'm writing this, a report in the Dominion Post of the other day suggests the council might be "cooling" on the plan. For my part, I couldn't really see the point, as the times saved by the buses would be insignficant, and in addition, anyone who knows Wellington would see that either end of Manners Mall would bring some complicated traffic intersections.
Dear Sir/Madam
Today's article about Manners Mall losing its pedestrian-only status to make room for buses displays yet again the pathologically muddled thinking in Wellington transport planning. Whilst improving public transport is a laudable aim, to suggest that a benefit would be more car parks is absurd, it totally contradicts the recent recommendations of the NZ Transport Authority (from which, perversely, the WCC is seeking funding), urging effective restrictions on private motoring, including reducing parking spaces. To be losing some of what little pedestrian space Wellington has would be a real blow; I doubt there are many planners who haven't visited Europe and seen how cities can be utterly transformed by pedestrianising streets and restricting private transport, but they must travel with their eyes shut, because nothing of this seems to percolate back to this country. Like the "Wellington Bypass", this Mall proposal is not a solution, merely an expedient sticking plaster from a dysfunctional council and planning structure that still has to get to grips with the realities of this new century. If this route is considered suitable for a light rail system, then the solution is a light rail system, now, and not yet another stop-gap.
Yours faithfully,
Today's article about Manners Mall losing its pedestrian-only status to make room for buses displays yet again the pathologically muddled thinking in Wellington transport planning. Whilst improving public transport is a laudable aim, to suggest that a benefit would be more car parks is absurd, it totally contradicts the recent recommendations of the NZ Transport Authority (from which, perversely, the WCC is seeking funding), urging effective restrictions on private motoring, including reducing parking spaces. To be losing some of what little pedestrian space Wellington has would be a real blow; I doubt there are many planners who haven't visited Europe and seen how cities can be utterly transformed by pedestrianising streets and restricting private transport, but they must travel with their eyes shut, because nothing of this seems to percolate back to this country. Like the "Wellington Bypass", this Mall proposal is not a solution, merely an expedient sticking plaster from a dysfunctional council and planning structure that still has to get to grips with the realities of this new century. If this route is considered suitable for a light rail system, then the solution is a light rail system, now, and not yet another stop-gap.
Yours faithfully,
Finally for this page, we get up to September 2008. Bill Ralston, a broadcaster and commentator, had published his diatribe against global warming, and Greenies, in the Listerner - you can read the article here, if you must. My letter was published, it even won the prize for the best letter of the week, and a bottle of eau de toilette eventually found its way to our home. Dear Sir / Madam
I can take Bill Ralston's musings about most things with a large pinch of salt, or should that be pepper, because I know, just like the Duchess's little boy in "Alice Through the Looking-Glass", he only does it to annoy, because he knows it teases. So when Bill admits he is a global warming denier, I know he really doesn't mean it; that his negligent insouciance is a mere facade for a deep concern, which no self-respecting, blue-blooded conservative like him should deign to admit. It's a peer pressure thing, which one would have thought he might have grown out of, but environmental matters are like that, you're either for them, or against them, only wimps would consider something in between. Greens, according to Bill, label anyone who dares disagree with their view of climate change as some kind of nutcase, which is obviously a very bad thing, so I suppose when Bill implies Greens are over-reacting, paranoid and wrathful chicken-littles and hysterical pseudo-religious lynch mobs who's punitive policies will leave his children impoverished and homeless, he is merely indulging in a bit of playful banter.
Max Planck once observed "A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." I bear Bill Ralston no ill-will, but it seems we will have to wait for all the Bills of this world to die before we get a general acceptance of the truth, and perils, of global warming. As Bill is younger than me, I would consider waiting this time to be well worth it, the only problem is, will the planet?
Yours faithfully,
I can take Bill Ralston's musings about most things with a large pinch of salt, or should that be pepper, because I know, just like the Duchess's little boy in "Alice Through the Looking-Glass", he only does it to annoy, because he knows it teases. So when Bill admits he is a global warming denier, I know he really doesn't mean it; that his negligent insouciance is a mere facade for a deep concern, which no self-respecting, blue-blooded conservative like him should deign to admit. It's a peer pressure thing, which one would have thought he might have grown out of, but environmental matters are like that, you're either for them, or against them, only wimps would consider something in between. Greens, according to Bill, label anyone who dares disagree with their view of climate change as some kind of nutcase, which is obviously a very bad thing, so I suppose when Bill implies Greens are over-reacting, paranoid and wrathful chicken-littles and hysterical pseudo-religious lynch mobs who's punitive policies will leave his children impoverished and homeless, he is merely indulging in a bit of playful banter.
Max Planck once observed "A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." I bear Bill Ralston no ill-will, but it seems we will have to wait for all the Bills of this world to die before we get a general acceptance of the truth, and perils, of global warming. As Bill is younger than me, I would consider waiting this time to be well worth it, the only problem is, will the planet?
Yours faithfully,