Prev: ROT IN HELL GREEK FUCKWIT....
Next: Garage Night new video: Suspension overhaul starts with Dremelon a lathe
From: hippo on 4 Feb 2010 19:43
> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 11:02:57 GMT, "George W Frost"
> <georgewfrost(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>I'm waiting for someone to start a 3rd party that actually makes sense :)
> >> And what would such a party stand for? What would its major policies
> >> be?
> >More power to the motorcyclist and make every motorcyclist join an outlaw
> >club and wear a patch.
> >Rule # 3 to be instigated and maintained at all times
> Onya bike
How about, "if sporting a wooden leg and bearing a parrot?"
Posted at www.usenet.com.au
From: hippo on 4 Feb 2010 20:00
> Diogenes wrote:
> > Hoons are an elusive crowd. You target one area, they go to another.
> > Nothing seems to deter them anyway. They are irresponsible adrenalin
> > junkies with overblown egoes and reptilian brians. I can't see any
> > program that would be effective in dealing with them short of
> > something drakonian. So, unfortunately as is the case with so many
> > other things, the innocent get inconvenienced because of the guilty.
> > I've been in this newsgroup now for about 15 years and I have yet to
> > see the more rational motorcyclists come out and denounce the hoons
> > for spoiling it for the the rest. They whinge about the authorities
> > but they won't whinge about the hoons who brought it all upon us.
> > It's bullshit.
> Who exactly are the hoons you speak of? Until recently, when the laws
> changed regarding solid white lines down the centre of roads, it was
> perfectly legal to overtake a slower moving vehicle on a straight
> stretch of some roads at 100kph. To do the same at 105kph probably
> wouldn't have caused the police to give you a second glance.
> Now, with the stroke of a pen on some legislation, and a few road signs
> change from 100 to 80, the exact same behaviour might see you lose your
> license for a month, cop about $500 in fines and might even see you get
> your bike impounded with an additional $500 or so to get it released
> from impound. The police/govt/vicroads are not making the roads safer,
> they're merely manufacturing hoons.
> I know one road on the outskirts of Melbourne which in the past few
> years has had the road surface dramatically improved, had the sightlines
> on some corners improved, and has changed from a 100kph zone with
> overtaking allowed to a 60kph zone with no overtaking.
> '08 DL1000K8
Couldn't agree more. The marsh roads near my dad's place in the UK have
60MPH speed limits, down to 40 or 50MPH through most of the villages.
Overtaking is permitted, advisory signs are few, essential and accurate
and unless you draw attention to yourself (or you're daft enough to speed
through a camera zone), 70(ish)MPH won't *usually* see you stopped in the
Similar roads here have speed limits of 80Km/h or often less, probably 15
times more advisory signs and limited opportunites either to pass slower
moving traffic at even a legal speed or for said traffic to pull over and
allow safe passing.
If it's all in the name of safety, it's odd that our road stats, although
good by world standards, continue to be worse than those for the UK.
Posted at www.usenet.com.au
From: Marts on 5 Feb 2010 03:37
> It is part of the move to a uniform set of narional road rules.
Yep, and which still fall flat. For example, one of the new rules is that you
cannot make a U turn on an unbroken line. However, in NSW, unlike here, you
cannot make a U turn anywhere, unless it's signposted. Here, it's the opposite,
other than the white continuous line rule. ie. you can make a U turn whenever
you feel like it unless signposted otherwise.
I prefer the NSW approach. If someone has to turn around, then do so at the next
intersection and go around the block.
From: Nev.. on 5 Feb 2010 03:50
> Nev.. wrote:
>> G-S wrote:
>>> Nev.. wrote:
>>>> G-S wrote:
>>>>> Diogenes wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:01:32 +1100, G-S <geoff(a)castbus.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>> Diogenes wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Lowering the speed limit and altering the road marking laws to
>>>>>>>>> prohibit overtaking simply enables the enforcement effort to
>>>>>>>>> trap people who are riding in a sensible, and until recently,
>>>>>>>>> perfectly legal manner.
>>>>>>>> So you're saying that it's all an evil, antisocial plan to trap the
>>>>>>>> innocent whilst turning a blind eye to the guilty? You don't think
>>>>>>>> that's a bit of a skewed view of reality?
>>>>>>> I'm saying that the gumbiment see this lowering of speed limits
>>>>>>> as having the bonus effect of raising the amount of revenue their
>>>>>>> mobile tax gathering units (highway patrols) get from day
>>>>>>> dreaming car drivers (and the occasional motorcyclist).
>>>>>> Yes, it gives them more money with which to finance more active
>>>>>> traffic patrolling. Good innit? It's called economics". JL can
>>>>>> tell you all about it. ;-)
>>>>> If it was used for that I wouldn't have such a problem with it.
>>>>> If it was even used to fund general police services I wouldn't have
>>>>> a problem with it.
>>>>> But the revenue from fines goes mostly into general revenue where
>>>>> it's used for such diverse and useful things as excessive
>>>>> superannuation funds for pollies and golden plane tickets for
>>>>> retired pollies and their families and blowing their own horn in
>>>>> television adverts.
>>>> ..and schools, hospitals, services for the elderly. That stuff too.
>>>> '08 DL1000K8
>>> I pay for private education for our child (over $10k a year).
>>> My mother and my aunts weren't/aren't eligible for 'services for the
>>> elderly'. In fact my aunt recently had to pay $250000 for admission
>>> to a low care facility that is available to older people on benefits
>>> for free.
>>> I have private health care and so do all my family, I haven't used
>>> the public health system in over 20 years.
>>> 'That stuff too' is about as useful to me as what I said in the
>>> earlier post...
>> So you think that speeding fines should be used to pay for benefits
>> for you rather than to assist the lesser able in the community. Why
>> so? It's not your money. Why should you care what they spend it on?
>> Think yourself lucky. If others didn't pay 'voluntary tax' you'd have
>> to pay a compulsory tax.
> I already pay 'compulsory tax' though!
> I don't object to the government spending money on public projects and I
> don't object to them spending it on infrastructure and I don't object to
> them spending it to support those who've worked and paid tax during
> their working life. Nor do I object to them spending it upon the
> genuinely disabled and those genuinely unable to support themselves.
> I object (to various degrees) the government spending money upon those
> items I don't approve of.
> It isn't the amount of tax I pay that's the issue, I'd happily pay more
> if I had some control over where it was allocated. There are various
> taxation systems around the world that allow a certain percentage of tax
> paid to be directed towards certain areas. Something along those lines
> would be a start.
But the money you were referring to was specifically money which was
raised from traffic fines, so it's not your money. Why should you care?
It even saves you money. You should be hoping that the amount of
revenue added to consolidated revenue from other peoples fines increases
exponentially to the point where you no longer have to pay any taxes.
From: Nev.. on 5 Feb 2010 04:08
> On Feb 4, 3:26 pm, G-S <ge...(a)castbus.com.au> wrote:
>> Diogenes wrote:
>>> So where are we going with this? Disband all government agencies and
>>> hire private contractors? More activism to get the government to
>>> redirect the revenue? Or just whinging in newsgroups because it's oh
>>> so tendy? Where?
>> I'm waiting for someone to start a 3rd party that actually makes sense :)
> Our preferential voting system was specifically designed so as to make
> it almost impossible for any but the two major parties to be elected.
Anyone can get elected. They don't need to be in one of the two major
parties. Just because they almost always are is a function of voters
intention not a flaw with the voting system. The least voted against
candidate wins. You really can't respect the intent of all of the
voters much more than that.