Q Do pedestrians need more protection from traffic? I think pedestrians need protection from cyclists, more than vehicles. Numerous times I've crossed with the green man, only to have a cyclist ride across in front of me. A lot of the time, it's way too close for comfort. When the cars have stopped, your brain tells you its safe to cross - you don't expect to be suddenly dodging a fast-moving object. They're just as dangerous on the pathways, too. Why are they allowed to have their own set of rules? Amanda Thomas, Tsim Sha Tsui Q Will you use the Star Ferry when it moves? We would be better off with a tin shed in the existing location than any building in the new location, especially if we have to traverse the pedestrian-unfriendly aerial walkway now in place. This ridiculous arrangement completely negates the relatively smooth experience of jumping on the ferry to cross the harbour, especially for those of us walking from Central. Let's face it, as the distance and time required to get to the terminal increases, the distance across our shrinking harbour and the time required for the actual journey decreases, making the new arrangement horribly tenuous from an 'ease of travel/logic of using the ferry' point of view. This is another massive loss to Hong Kong. Peter Basmajian, Causeway Bay On other matters ... Perhaps in November, by which time the Lantau-Big Buddha cable car will hopefully have been operating smoothly for a couple of months ('Date set for delayed Lantau cable car's debut', September 12), we can ask Bill Calderwood and his company, Skyrail-ITM, to run some additional lines, stanchions and gondolas from the new Hong Island Star Ferry Pier (christened 'TST South' by some waggish work colleagues), five or six hundred metres south into Central, the place where office workers and tourists alike probably all want to be. Also, for people heading to Lantau via the Outer Island ferry piers, a glimpse or even a ride on my proposed mini-cable car system in Central should have them licking their lips at the thought of being able to make a from-the-air, back-door entry into Tung Chung using the sister cable-car line running down from the monastery up at Ngong Ping. R.E.S. Charles, Tai Tam In your recent article reporting a membership recruitment drive by the Helena May (September 8), it was mentioned that 'the move follows a recent Hong Kong Jockey Club promotion to try to attract members from the mainland'. This is not the case, as the Hong Kong Jockey Club has not accepted membership applications from mainland residents, nor has it plans to do so for Hong Kong operations. Your reporter may have misunderstood a recent announcement that the club intends to open a clubhouse in Beijing in early 2008. The principal purpose of this facility will be to meet the needs of our members visiting Beijing for business or social purposes, following surveys that show increasing numbers of them are travelling to the capital on a regular basis, and 75 per cent of our corporate members have a presence there. The Beijing club house will be a self-financing, stand-alone operation and we have stated that in due course it will also admit a select number of mainland-based members, subject to the same stringent nomination and approval process that applies in Hong Kong. However, this membership will be specific to the Beijing operation, although certain reciprocal usage rights will be put in place for members of the Beijing and Hong Kong club houses. There will be no betting facilities in the Beijing clubhouse. June Teng, head of public affairs, Hong Kong Jockey Club Could our politicians stop squabbling over trivia and our chief executive take a pause from kissing babies' backsides to try to improve his ratings and take a look at how this city is run or, in this case, not run? Everything has deteriorated since the return to sovereignty and there are no real signs of improvement. Civil service pay (for newcomers only, of course), is still down, and so are services. Take our airport as a typical example. It has lost the world's-best-airport title to Singapore, yet still blatantly advertises itself as such on bright signs in the terminal building. And outside, a huge Chinese-cemetery-looking structure is going up in the name of Sky City. That's what you get when you have foreigners running a local institution. And transport to the airport? It is now much worse. The Airport Express prided itself on running a train every eight minutes when the airport opened, then cut it back to 15 minutes at the height of Sars. Passenger numbers are now back, maybe double those at the opening, but the service is still one train every 12 minutes. And it has been HK$100 a ride since the HK$70 promotion offer ended. What a rip-off, when visitors have to pay HK$100 and then are forced to stand all the way to town. It also takes more than the advertised 23 minutes for the trip most of the time. And talking about MTR rip-offs on the airport railway, the bus companies are no better. When local people complained about the expensive fares, bus companies said they could take the E routes, which are cheaper than the A routes. But trying taking an E bus in Wong Tai Sin in the morning. To ensure a seat, one has to pay double for an A bus, not E. Asia's world city? Fast becoming Asia's third-world city! S. Poon, Taikoo Shing
