Wednesday 15 February 2012

A common complaint of motorists and pedestrians on the 'Grey Coast'


Letter to the Editor in The Daily Examiner 13 February 2012:

Mobility speedsters

After the story in Saturday's paper I would like to make a plea to the riders of mobility scooters.
Please, before you cross Prince St from one of the vegetated kerb blisters, STOP!
Because of the height of the vegetation at these points and your low height, it is damn near impossible for a driver to see you.
I have witnessed and experienced several near disasters from scooter riders bolting out of these blisters and expecting to be immune from disaster.
One day someone will just not be able to stop in time and some poor driver will have to live with the consequences of having knocked a disabled/elderly person off their scooter.
Simple solution - just stop and look before you cross the road. It doesn't matter that there is a pedestrian crossing; you still have to enter it with caution. And technically, you are driving a vehicle, you are not a pedestrian.
So before we have a disaster on our hands - and remember there have already been 60 fatalities - use your common sense and don't just assume because you are on a pedestrian crossing that you have right of way.
And of course, all drivers should be approaching the crossing with due care as well.
But, given the speed that these scooters are capable of, sometimes it is just impossible to predict their approach.
If they are supposed to be designed for simply "mobility", why is it necessary for them to be capable of such speeds anyway?
From where I see it, it looks like they are being used as commuter vehicles, rather than mobility aids in a lot of cases.
Any vehicle capable of travelling at any faster than a swift walking pace (say 10 kph), should be regulated in some form, for the sake of all road users.

LISA CRISPIN
Grafton

Monday 13 February 2012

The digital ignorance of Australian judges is mindboggling


Like others who from time to time use the Internet to undertake serious research I am well aware how easy it is to retrieve from cyberspace documents that have been published or posted concerning a given individual once I have a name or initials and, at least one 'fact' associated with that same individual.


Not all Australian judges first came to the bar before the Internet was invented and some were still practicing as barristers when Google became a popular research tool. So it is more than naive, indeed it could be seen as reckless, for any court to suppress the name of a defendant or witness yet allow journalists to identify them by their own initials.

After reading one recent newspaper article online, it took me exactly two minutes to hit a correct search engine link which lead to the full name and details of unlawful activity to which one suppressed-identity defendant had plead guilty.

Another two minutes was all that was needed to retrieve further publicly available information which might allow an educated guess as to the general contents of a document which had been sealed by the court, as well as detailed evidence he had given previously in another matter.

One more mouse click and I had access to a number of full face and body photographs of the defendant. Several more after that and online media reports produced age, marital status, number of children, suburb of residence and welfare benefit status.

One has to presume that identities are often suppressed by the courts because of physical safety concerns. However, in this country such suppression orders are a feeble joke. Because even though the law may seek to blindfold, the Internet has myriad eyes.

Splendour in the Grass comes home to NSW North Coast in July 2012

U.S. Presidential Election 2012: Conspiracies Unlimited



U.S. President Barack Obama probably will be the subject of character assassination long after he's met his maker.
This is one of the enduring classics - calling into question his American-born status - still doing the rounds during the run up to this year's presidential election.
Doctored ID