From: Nev.. on
G-S wrote:
> 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)>
>>>>>>>> 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...

That might indeed be the case, if it was a major income stream for
consolidated revenue, which it isn't.

If i were you I'd be asking why the government is wasting your money on
a royal commission into last years bushfires, and case managers to
manage bushfire victims, total expenditure over $110,000,000 of your
taxpayer money over and above the $300,000,000 of donated money already
distributed to them.

'08 DL1000K8
From: hippo on
F Murtz wrote:
> Marts wrote:
> > Nev.. wrote...
> >
> >> 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
> > 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
> > other than the white continuous line rule. ie. you can make a U turn
> > 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.
> >
> In nsw you can make a u turn anywhere except
> �where there is a NO U-TURN sign.
> �Across any single unbroken (continuous) line or double centre lines,
> whether or
> not one line is broken.
> � At traffic lights unless you see a U-TURN PERMITTED sign at the
> intersection.
> �On motorways.

Wot 'e said - and of course, one way streets :)

Posted at
From: G-S on
Nev.. wrote:
> 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.

I'm for proportional voting and against preferential voting.

So I'd like to see a government with proportional voting and without
preferences, because preferences distort the result so that the largest
proportion of voters chosen representative doesn't get elected.

I'm also against small regions being used to elect members, I'd rather
see state based numbers used. That way minor parties who have (as an
example) 10% of the vote end up with 10% of the seats.

In the current system a 3rd party can get well over 10% of the vote and
not win a single seat in the lower house.

That also seems an artificial distortion to me.


From: G-S on
Nev.. wrote:

> If i were you I'd be asking why the government is wasting your money on
> a royal commission into last years bushfires,

I did in fact ask that very question in another thread a while back.

I'm allowed more than one question aren't I? :)

From: G-S on
> The same roads which more rational, non-adrenalin addicted
> motorcyclists avoided on weekends because of the distinct possibility
> of being taken out by a hoon.

I don't avoid them! I used to enjoy those roads.

I consider the small risk of being taken out of a hoon as part of the
risk of riding a motorbike.