A safer alternative

Dear Sir,

The recent rise in tourist deaths on hired scooters are indeed tragic. It deeply saddens and strikes an emotional chord for each and everyone of us who call Bermuda home.

To be blunt, when I pick up the newspaper and see that another one of our precious guests has been killed on our roads it sickens and infuriates me because the tragic accident could have been avoided. The reason tourists are killed on our roads are basically three fold:

1) We have bigger cars now and drive them faster, naturally they drive faster so we go faster.

2) There are more (larger, wider, longer) cars, trucks, buses then ever on our already congested and narrow roads, often times causing road rage and hence, dangerous driving conditions for everyone; and finally

3) Our tourists don't grow up driving scooters on Bermuda roads from the age of 16, as we do. The reality is that our roads are becoming unsafe for hiring out two-wheeled scooters to unsuspecting tourists.

I've read the rebuttals from scooter hire owners and the spokespeople in that industry that “of the tens of thousands bikes rented, only a handful of fatalities occur...”

To this I cry foul: One death is one too many. However, I do not think we should entirely rid the Island of scooter rentals, just give our guests some safer choices. This is especially true for the older, less agile person or timid novice who hasn't been on a bike, let alone a motorised scooter, in decades and is expected to navigate our roads competently. Add a pillion passenger and the scenario is that much more dangerous.

When my wife and I were visiting Australia earlier this year, we were sightseeing Fremantle, West Australia. This is a historic maritime town, very similar to St. George's. It also attracts thousands of tourists who want to get about town and see the sights on their own terms.

I have enclosed a photo of the scooters they rent to their tourists. I think we can do much better in terms of tourist road safety. In fact, we owe it to them as hosts. These three-wheeled scooters are much safer, stable and desirable than those wobbly old bikes we hire out. Had those unfortunate tourists been behind the wheel of one of these we may have had a different headline on the front page of the papers last week.

GAVIN DAVIS

Hamilton Parish

Ferries sitting idle

October 19, 2004

Dear Sir,

I believe it would be reasonable to assume that one of the busiest times for our public transport system is the morning hours between 7.30 a.m. and 9 a.m. Certainly according to my experience 8.30 a.m. is probably the height of traffic flow whether by bus, ferry or private vehicle.

Ewart Brown has, according to his own and to the PLP propaganda, made great strides in supplying Bermuda with four fast ferries at I believe something approaching $5 million expenditure, we are told, which is essential to the needs of Bermuda. We have been treated to photographs of the said Minister standing on the deck smiling broadly. We have even had naming contests for these jewels of public transport. We have spent money on new dock systems and car parks to encourage commuters to leave their cars behind.

Imagine my surprise on Tuesday morning at 8.30 a.m. as I entered, along East Broadway, the City of Hamilton. There, proudly lying idle, at the East End of the container docks were the two oldest of our fast ferries presumably now surplus to requirements. I guess no one would want to drive these old hacks as they must be four years old now.

PHIL CRACKNELL

St. George's

Lady Chaplin's ‘gift'

October 19, 2004

Dear Sir,

I refer to your the letter published in The Royal Gazette on October 18 entitled “Protect Chaplin's gift”.

I must correct a statement the writer made and repeated throughout her letter regarding the status of the land in question.

Lady Oona Chaplin certainly did not “give, donate or bequeath” the wooded hillside to Government. The facts of this case are set out below.

In 1987, a subdivision application was submitted on behalf of Lady Oona Chaplin that proposed the creation of two residential building lots. The application was approved by the Development Applications Board on November 16, 1987 subject to a condition that required the applicant to enter into an agreement with the Minister pursuant to section 34 of the Development and Planning Act 1974 “to protect those areas designated Woodland Reserve”.

The section 34 agreement between the Minister and Lady Chaplin was signed on February 15, 1988. The land in question remained in the ownership of Lady Chaplin to be sold as she saw fit as part of the two building lots. The woodland was not given to Government.

Sometime after 1988, the lots were sold and subsequently developed by the two new owners. In 1998 and 1999, several unsuccessful applications were made by the two owners to create new access roads off Harbour Road. This was a proposal any new owner could have been expected to pursue.

The Board refused the applications. The final application proposed one, shared right of way from Harbour Road to serve both of the developed lots. This application was approved on appeal by the then-Minister. In his decision letter, the Minister made reference to the provisions of the Bermuda Plan1992 that allow the approval of an access through Woodland Reserve if“it is necessary for gaining safe vehicular access; there is not a safe and suitable alternative; and the width is kept to a practical minimum and avoids specimen trees”.

The Bermuda National Trust appealed the Minister's decision to the Supreme Court. The Trust argued that the section 34 agreement signed in 1988 should function as a permanent restrictive covenant. The Supreme Court allowed the Trust's appeal.

The Supreme Court's decision was appealed to the Court of Appeal. The issues before the Court of Appeal included the permanency of a section 34 agreement; and the power to vary or extinguish such an agreement if both parties agree. The particulars of this case are examined thoroughly in the Court of Appeal's judgment of June 27, 2003 (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2003). A copy of this judgment can be made available to the writer by me.

In conclusion, the Court of Appeal quashed the Supreme Court's decision; confirmed that the grant of planning permission stands as granted by the Minister on July 31, 2000; and advised the appellants to apply to the Minister to vary the restrictive covenant of the section 34 agreement. Most importantly, the Court of Appeal found that “the Minister does enjoy the power to enter into a subsequent agreement under section 34 with regard to the same site which has the effect of varying or extinguishing the obligations in the first agreement, either wholly or in part”. The Court of Appeal's judgment does not point to a “loophole in the law” that needs to be closed.

The attorneys acting for the landowners made application to the Minister to vary the agreement on September 30, 2004.

Without prejudice to the Minister's decision, it is important to note that should the agreement be amended to allow the road, about 97 percent of the protected woodland area will still be protected (approximately 2.6 acres).

With all due respect, I doubt that “Lady Chaplin would be turning in her grave”. She subdivided the land into two lots and sold them. She did not “give that tract of land to the Government” as you have claimed. She could have - but she didn't.

BRIAN ROWLINSON

Permanent Secretary

Ministry of the Environment

Try a different route

October 7, 2004

Dear Sir,

I side with the SPCA on the horse and carriage debate and feel the combination of motor congestion, heat and lack of appealing ride choices imposed on both the customer and the horses has created a stigma of extreme dislike within the public toward the carriage owners/operators.

When you see a carriage in August travelling past Belco on a tour with four disorientated visitors and 20 cars lined up behind them (the same thing applies to either end of the Island), you get a feeling of disgust that (a) these animals are being subjected to this level of inhumanity and (b) a sense of loathing that the owners/operators are actually getting away with charging people what they do to see such a tiresome part of town.

This is not to say Belco is not an attractive architectural design, or that the houses on route are not attractive but please, if a tourist is so busy wiping the fumes out of their eyes when do they have chance to see the scatters of beauty?

After all these years why hasn't the Horse and Carriage Association (if there is one) pursued the concept of either driving straight out of town to the Botanical Gardens and back, or better yet, have the horse shelter located at the Botanical Gardens? I know this has been mentioned in the past and I'm sure there have been all sorts of reasons why it never got off the ground. I would imagine that the carriage owners think they would lose business by moving out of town, well why not have the trains take people through the streets of Hamilton and then drop whomever wants a ride at Botanical Gardens?

If this is not enough, have one large carriage, a ten-, 15-seater, whatever, collect tourists from Hamilton and cart them to Botanical Gardens for individual rides? Either way you can't tell me that this could not be worked out where the carriage driver/owner is going to retain the same income as if he were working out of Hamilton, it would only take a little common sense and some commitment to work together on everyone's part to figure this out. I am not sure what problems the Botanical Gardens might have about all this but could only imagine it may be the droppings left behind, and how easy is that to fix (baggies)!

My suggestion is to pursue the concepts of taking the carriages out of Hamilton to the Botanical Gardens, there a visitor can grab lunch (see if the Italians will open another place), have a look around, and the horses will be in a non-congested area with plenty of shade, access to water and food, everyone's happy.

It will only be a matter of time before the customer (tourist) starts to complain about the ride that they are getting currently for the money they are paying, so maybe there should be some pro-active discussions made by the carriage association instead of the defensive reactive ones that seem to pop up every now and again. It may be your lively hood that is affected if you don't look to the future now. But it's a lot easier to just continue on the same road if there is no law or procedures to follow for cruelty to horses. There are some who would say that a horse is meant to stand in the heat all day and meant to pull 1,500 pounds through city streets in and out of traffic but who made those rules?

Some people don't have the same feelings towards animals as others and don't see the suffering. The only thing I would say is that maybe the public should get on board and protest the situation, maybe flash your lights at them in protest type of thing.

The sad thing is there seems to be so much resentment between the carriage owner/operator and the SPCA that all progress that could potentially take place to benefit the current situation is stunted by personal pride and greed. Put your pride aside and maybe your greed will take care of itself, there's a whole other market waiting to be explored if you could just make the effort.

If this fails someone on the Hill should force the change, as cruelty is cruelty, bottom line!

C. POWELL

Warwick