Editor,I fully support heavy measures for destruction of city infrastructure. My reasons; drivers who end up destroying these things are in five categories: (a) over speeding ( b) not licensed (c) under the influence of alcohol (d) reckless driving, especially concentrating more on the mobile phone than the road. (e) Perhaps some few have eye sight problems or drive while tired and dose off.  The first four categories account for the biggest number of these accidents. I have no sympathy with them.The value of a palm tree or street light is much more than the value of the tree or the pole and the bulb up there; when you destroy it, you tamper with a whole network, you tamper with our hard earned/restored beauty, you revolt public conscience.The whole Agaciro concept is tested to its extreme when someone fills up his human tank with alcohol, fills up their car with fuel and then starts a journey when they are 70 per cent insane.Generally, knocking down static objects while driving is recklessness. It is considered 99 per cent avoidable.The value of these things is much more than the 1 and the 15 million being charged now; far more. What I urge city authorities to do is sit down and cost all the variables, I am sure one palm tree will go for 10 million and the street light for 20 million, if damages are included. Also become bold and defend these strong measures, punitive costs and exemplary damages even in courts. My humble advice to Insurers is please do not insure this risk or determine specific premiums for it. It will become even more complicated a risk when exemplary damages are assessed.It’s not about the Kigali City Council; it’s about all of us, insurers included. The writing is on the wall; motorists just don’t knock our hard earned/restored beauty because they represent our Agaciro. If you knock it pay through the nose so that others may learn the lesson.(Responses to the story titled "Insurers protest City infrastructure compensation” The New Times – September 3)Frank, Kigali

-----------------------------------------------------

Editor,Allow me to provoke some thought. Consider the following situations: 1 Drunk driving, 2.Reckless driving3.Overspeeding 4.Driving tired. (a)Are they time bombs or accidents just waiting to happen? (b) If a crash is traceable to these causes should we call that an accident, i.e. technically speaking is it a situation that has happened without anyone intending it to happen? (c) if you are dosing on and off while driving, if you are over speeding, if you are drunk and driving, if you are generally negligent and reckless as you drive, isn’t it very probable that you might cause or fail to avoid a collision? (d) Can we infer intention from your conduct therefore, that is, although you did not sit to plan a collision you nevertheless intentionally conducted yourself in a manner likely to result in one? Let’s debate those issues, please.George, UK