Yarra Ranges is Stuffed for Motorbikes
in [Aussie Motorcycles]
|
Prev: ROT IN HELL GREEK FUCKWIT....
Next: Garage Night new video: Suspension overhaul starts with Dremelon a lathe
From: G-S on 5 Feb 2010 06:44 Nev.. wrote: > G-S wrote: >> 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. >>>>> >>>>> Nev.. >>>>> '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? Because I don't like to see the gumbiment wasting money? (yah I know... that's a real pie ion the sky dream) > 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. Except that it sets a bad precedent. If the government start to rely too heavily on 'tax' earned from road laws breaches then eventually people will adjust their behavior so that they don't get booked as much. That's actually happened, so what does the government do? They make the limits lower and the acceptable margins of mistake lower. But the thing is... carried to it's logical conclusion we'll all end up faced with uniform very low speed limits and uniform very high fines that even with the most care we will still end up breaking occasionally by accident. That doesn't sound like a desirable outcome to me... G-S
From: G-S on 5 Feb 2010 06:47 Nev.. wrote: > .. The least voted against > candidate wins. You really can't respect the intent of all of the > voters much more than that. > In the house of representatives that's probably the case, but in the senate preference deals and 1 box above the line voting can see candidates that are much less popular (both in the voted for and voted against senses of the term) elected. I can't remember the exact numbers but a fundie got elected to the senate last election with something like 50 or 60 thousand votes and a green candidate with several hundred thousand votes standing against him didn't get elected. That's an artificial distortion... G-S
From: G-S on 5 Feb 2010 06:47 Nev.. wrote: > G-S wrote: >> Diogenes wrote: >> >>> >>> And what proposals can you offer the gummint? >> >> I don't believe it's my job to 'offer proposals' to the gummint. > > What about NASA ? :) > > Nev.. > '08 DL1000K8 I suggested they Need Another Seven Astronauts ages back! G-S
From: Kevin Gleeson on 5 Feb 2010 07:23 On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 20:43:17 +1100, "Nev.." <idiot(a)mindless.com> wrote: >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. > >That doesn't make sense. If the hoons are already breaking the law, >what benefit is there (in terms of catching or deterring these hoons) in >making draconian changes to the laws, or the application of the laws, >except for the purpose of shifting the goalposts which by definition >creates more 'hoons' without any behaviour change? That was my point back earlier. I've been a hoon by govt definition since I was 17. Those laws would not have changed my attitude back then and won't really now. I will be more particular where I do silly things though. As long as I am the only one that can get hurt, I will still do it. Yes, there is a cost to the community if I do this, but the world can be a dangerous place. I don't like the nanny state. I will conform as much as I can, but if I want to do something that may kill me, then I prefer that than dying by someone else killing me. I'd prefer neither, but you don't really get a choice.
From: Nev.. on 5 Feb 2010 07:31
G-S wrote: > Nev.. wrote: > > > .. The least voted against >> candidate wins. You really can't respect the intent of all of the >> voters much more than that. >> > > In the house of representatives that's probably the case, but in the > senate preference deals and 1 box above the line voting can see > candidates that are much less popular (both in the voted for and voted > against senses of the term) elected. > > I can't remember the exact numbers but a fundie got elected to the > senate last election with something like 50 or 60 thousand votes and a > green candidate with several hundred thousand votes standing against him > didn't get elected. > > That's an artificial distortion... I'm quite confused now, because in this very thread when Theo said "I'm for proportional voting" you said "Yah me too..." and proportional voting is indeed the method of voting which the Senate uses, and yet now you seem to think that this is a bad thing. Please explain. Nev.. '08 DL1000K8 |