It is also worth noting that such an upgrade is for the benefit for both the tourists, and us locals alike.
As to the financial ramifications, sure $40m is a lot of money to spend on such a project.
However, with half the expenditure being provided by the Government, why would one not utilise this offer, assuming that it is a dollar-for-dollar package.
I would add however, that given the significant spend it would perhaps be reassuring to review the public consultation as this would go a long way to appease the public disquiet about the project.
With regard to the increasing debt the council is incurring, I would much rather support such worthwhile projects that help to grow our city, rather than allow a minority of negative ratepayers put a stop to developing such an asset.
Mike McVicker
Rotorua
Crazy helmet claim
Peter Wainwright's argument, (Letters, November 10), that cyclists wear helmets more to avoid a fine rather than to prevent injury is in my view just plain crazy.
All research shows clearly that while helmets may not prevent concussion, they reduce the odds of skull fractures, cuts and abrasions to the head by 50 per cent and reduce the odds of face and neck injuries by one-third.
Contrary to Wainwright's view, of course most cyclists wear a helmet to help reduce the chance of injury and I am one of these cyclists.
Studies show that in most cyclist deaths, the most serious injuries are to the head, highlighting the importance of wearing a helmet.
Wainwright's idea that dual cycle-pedestrian lanes on footpaths will enable cyclists to give way to pedestrians is interesting and will be proven with time but as a cyclist, I am more concerned about avoiding cars reversing out of driveways and would prefer to ride on the road to give me a better view and more time to avoid these collisions plus not having to avoid pedestrians using the footpaths.
(Abridged)
Paul Carpenter
Rotorua
