Letters to the Editor October 2018
Find out what readers are talking about in the October 2018 edition of RoyalAuto.
I note that your September RA CWA article features a photograph of a different scone to the recipe published. The scones in the image contain sultanas, which are not in the recipe, nor listed as an optional ingredient. Of further note, I wonder if the members of the CWA would agree that it is more appropriate to put the cream or the jam on a scone first? Looks like even the humble scone has gotten caught up in today’s style wars. Personally I feel the jam should always lead.
Jared Curnow, North Melbourne
EDITOR'S NOTE: For sultana scones you can throw a handful of sultanas into the scone mix!
Thank you for the great article regarding the joy and dangers of riding a motorcycle (September RA). As a car driver who also rides a motorcycle and occasionally a pushbike, I can relate to everything written in the article.
Two points I’d like to emphasise to all riders is to make yourself as visible as possible. The common line “sorry mate I didn’t see you” sticks in my mind every time I ride.
Also, the reason I lane split to get to the front at traffic lights is for safety, not queue jumping. It reduces the risk of collision with other road users as I can check that other cars have stopped before I proceed through the intersection.
As any motorcycle rider will attest, “A clear road ahead is a safer road ahead”.
Simon Hearn, Kew East
Re ‘Balancing Act’ in September RA, the financial cost for households is only one factor to consider when designing energy and water policies. When choosing energy providers, the two main factors I consider are:
The environmental impact of energy production and the company’s record of supporting low-carbon and non-nuclear production;
Company ownership and management. I prefer government-owned utility providers because I believe the provision of utilities is a public good and should be driven by service not profit. Where that is not available, I look for Australian owned and managed companies with reasonable corporate and social responsibility records.
Policy should encourage reduced consumption and discourage excessive consumption. The best interests of Victorian households depend on reducing our environmental footprint. That might not boost private profits, but would certainly boost our collective and planetary wellbeing.
Deborah Storie, Flemington
Your 11 July eNews article on new solar-feed in tariffs was disappointing in suggesting that “changes to Victoria’s solar feed-in tariffs should mean bigger payments for householders”. Householders will be worse off.
A tariff of 7.1 cents at night provides minimal benefits only to those with battery systems after using stored energy to run their households at night.
The article highlights a “massive 29 cents between 3pm and 9pm on weekdays”. Summer solar production reduces dramatically by about 4pm as the sun tracks around to the west. Most solar panels are geared to the north, tracking the sun for the longest period of the day. Even with panels on the west their productive use, at best, is declining and limited by about 7pm. Winter solar production is all but over by about 3pm.
A fixed tariff of 9.9 cents is a backward step from the previously poor 11.3 cents.
Spiro Agius, Vermont South
EDITOR'S NOTE: Our Home team acknowledges that your points are all valid, but adds that based on an analysis of installed systems they expect the average solar customer to be better off if the new tariffs are adopted by retailers.
In response to Peter Tharle’s letter (August RA), on the contrary, loss of big industry does not necessarily spell the end of a whole town.
As a creative, all I need is a studio, the internet and a strong postal service, and buying both a bedroom and studio space is only fathomable outside city and suburbs at my age.
An episode of Backroads on ABC highlighted a Tasmanian town where the younger generation is coming back to their home town to make small business, microbreweries and the like, thrive. It’s about technology, reinvention and innovation.
Taylah Louise, Mornington
Media reports of the 30kmh speed zone trials in Fitzroy and Collingwood suggest that the RACV is opposed to this road safety initiative. As a resident of the 30kmh trial zone I welcome initiatives that may make our local streets safer. Is the RACV against the testing of potential road safety improvements?
Peter Anderson, Fitzroy
EDITOR'S NOTE: RACV’s commentary was whether the TAC should spend $250,000 on further lowering average speeds from 34kmh to 30kmh in that area. RACV believes there’s greater need for funding road safety projects elsewhere in Victoria; for example, improving country roads or providing protected bicycle lanes and paths along busy roads.
Submit your own letter to the editor
post: RoyalAuto Letters, Level 9, 485 Bourke Street, Melbourne VIC 3000.
Letters cannot be considered for publication unless they are under 150 words and have the writer’s full name and postal address. This applies whether submitted by email or post. Only the name and suburb will be published. Letters may be edited for clarity and length.