A card of thanks

January 2, 2009

Dear Sir,

Please allow me in your valuable editorial on behalf of Prospect Primary School and Prospect Pre School to thank the various establishments who sponsored both schools for their Christmas Fundraisers and both school's Christmas Plays, raffles to assist the schools various projects for the children. A big thank you to the following; The Market Place, Fairmont Hamilton Princess, the MEF Restaurant Company, Red Carpet Restaurant (Chris), Butterfield & Vallis (Jim Butterfield), Dunkleys Diary, (Hon. Michael Dunkley), Reefs Hotel (David Dodwell Jr.), Garden Market, Arnolds Markets, Meyer Travel, John Barritt (Mr. Kennedy), Lobster Pot Restaurant (Eddy), Silk, Frescos Restaurant (Claudio), Supermart Front Street (Mr. Gorham), The Kiwanis Club (Ms. Lilieth Bailey President), White & Sons (Mr. Pearman). Again on behalf of the children and staff a big Thank You and may God bless your staff and establishments and Happy New Year.

TERRY FLOOD

Director Fund Raising for Prospect Primary and Prospect Pre School

We can do more

January 4, 2009

Dear Sir,

Education is important (and enforcement of our traffic laws) but I don't think we have nearly enough traffic calming measures on our roads. Anyone who has spent any time in some of the smaller towns in Britain will be familiar with the one way road systems, speed bumps, large signage, night reflectors, centre lane posts, chicanes, traffic lights and other measures that force the motorist to slow down. Couldn't we install some of these measures on our roads?

KENT STEWART

Hamilton Parish

Simply not true

January 7, 2009

Dear Sir,

A few months ago you published a letter written by me, concerning speed bumps. I was, and still am, in favour of these items. I mentioned that they are prolific in Fiji, an island of some 18,270 square kilometres. A little larger than Bermuda? These bumps are very effective. I know... I drove around the main island for four days. Forty-foot container trucks, ambulances et al have to slow down as do the many motorised cycles. The argument that an ambulance delay could cause danger to the public doesn't have much substance. The traffic slows them down anyway. Also, if we had speed bumps, we would have fewer ambulances attending accidents, wouldn't we?

Most of the bumps, to the best of my recollection are the same size, or larger, than the one on Dundonald Street outside Masters Store. i.e. they are large and not dangerous. My reason for bringing this matter to the public's attention once more is quite simple. On a recent Everest DaCosta radio show, EDC, the host, stated that an "expert " from Bermuda had stated categorically that bumps were NOT used in any country on highways. That statement is not true.

JOHN L. WILLIAMS

Smith's

It's the rider who's at fault

January 8, 2009

Dear Sir,

There has been much debate on the pages of this newspaper recently about the range of measures that could be introduced to cut the tragic number of lives lost in motorcycling accidents due to speed. The suggestions mooted have been argued by various contributors but several flaws exist in the suggestions raised.

Lets start with speed bumps.

1) Speed bumps have been successfully deployed in the UK and Europe with the primary aim of reducing the speed of traffic in residential areas to cut the number of pedestrian collisions. They are installed mainly on smaller residential streets and not installed on the main arterial roads due to the restriction they place on normal traffic flow and the dangers this in itself brings. As the accident locations here in Bermuda are nearly all on arterial roads, this would indicate that the speed bump solution is not the right answer.

2) In and around Hamilton there are several speed bumps installed with pedestrian crossings on the top (which links back in to the pedestrian safety issue mentioned above). If you care to watch the effect this has on motorcycle traffic outside the Youth library on Church Street you will see that it only serves as a challenge to see who can go over it fastest, who can make their bike jump it and who can think of the most dangerous way to actually ride around it.

3) As has been shown in Europe, speed bumps encourage more reckless riding/driving by introducing the added "thrill" of racing between them, seeing who can accelerate quickest and brake latest. This can again be seen on the existing speed bumps in Hamilton. This in itself is inherently more dangerous than constant speed, more accidents occur when accelerating and decelerating than at constant speed.

4) In these days of elevated costs and environment issues, speed bumps increase fuel consumption by requiring acceleration and deceleration of the engine.

Secondly, speed cameras.

Speed cameras have a short- term effect until people learn their location, and that wouldn't take long on a small Island. Also evidence suggests that they encourage driving/riding as mentioned in 3) above.

Thirdly, the power of the bikes available.

The smallest 50cc two stroke bike is still capable of hurtling round at 60 mph; the danger is not the machine but the rider. We don't use this argument with cars.

Drink driving cannot be addressed by any of the above measures, and that is perhaps the biggest flaw with each and all of them.

Unfortunately, the issues will only be resolved with a combination of two things, Police on the ground with a willingness to stop and caution (with a two strikes and out policy for speed, one strike for drinking) coupled with a change in mindset. I hold out little hope of the mindset change, which leaves only the police option. Only feet on the ground will address the problems.

"Speed in itself doesn't kill, inappropriate speed does"

" There is no such thing as a dangerous machine, just a dangerous operator".

M. BRITTON

Paget

Say no to longlining

January 8, 2009

Dear Sir,

We do not continue taking medicines if they have been found to be unduly harmful; neither do we buy cars that have been recalled for safety concerns. I wonder, then, why we would want to pursue longline fishing when past evidence suggests that it is not socially, economically or environmentally viable? International agreements that allow Bermuda control over 200 miles of sea around the Island may mandate a certain level of resource use, assuming that we have signed such agreements (i.e. UNCLOS). But we must also remember that these agreements specify responsibilities for conserving fish stocks and ecosystems for future generations. Longlining is at odds with these responsibilities and presents no long-term benefits to Bermudians.

Longlining has truly been the method of choice behind a staggering decimation of global marine life. To its name can be attributed the disappearance of more than 90 percent of large predatory fish in the past century, including sharks, marlin, tuna and swordfish. The expected extinction of the majestic Pacific leatherback turtle in the next few decades may also be placed squarely at the feet of this industry. Add to this list the litany of other bird and fish species depleted by endless miles of dangling hooks and we begin to see the risks this venture poses to Bermuda's only remaining wilderness.

Economically, longlining is an equally unwise gamble. Areas opened up to fishing on this scale typically become exhausted within fifteen years. Although catches are governed by international quotas, the body responsible for this regulation (ICCAT) has been labelled 'an international disgrace' for its failure to restrict bluefin tuna fishing, even after its own self-commissioned report recommended a ban on this fishery. The modest, short-term profits of longline fisheries are negated by hidden costs, both economic and social. These fisheries are heavily subsidised by governments (e.g. gear, fuel), carry a high risk of collapse, damage smaller-scale fisheries, threaten local food security and can even harm tourism. Marlin, for example, are vital to the charter fishing industry, yet are frequent incidental casualties of longlining.

The poor profitability of longlining from hidden costs is highlighted when we consider that operators studied in the Atlantic, on average, incurred losses. Longline fishing is thus a risky venture that threatens our economy, as well as its social and environmental underpinnings. We need only look to the dramatic events unfolding in the international financial community to see what havoc can be wrought when hidden risks and social costs are ignored, when short-term thinking trumps prudence. If Bermuda believes it can overcome the risks posed by longlining, release the data (from the pilot project or elsewhere) that demonstrates it. Otherwise, taking on this disgraced fishing model, without a novel and precautionary focus on conservation, will surely rob our grandchildren of their most precious inheritance.

MATT HAMMOND

Hamilton Parish

P.s. Readers wishing to learn more might read the latest issue of "The Economist".