Alcohol and cannabis are huge impairments, and when you overlay them on any driver the outcomes are going to be worse.
Unless, that is, your main aim is to reduce the number of bad drivers on the road and are prepared to accept collateral damage. (playing the fool of course)
I think we could increase the depth of driver education and testing and improve the overall standard of competence, our driving licences are as easy to get as a cold in this country.
Of course alcohol and drugs impair all kinds of things, that's why we do it, add to that incompetent drivers and you have the situation we find ourselves in now.
And what about the severity of the accidents in which stoned drivers are involved? Are we talking injury?
Shouldn't really be factored in, an accident is always due to somebody not paying attention or pushing the limits of either their skill or the design capability of their vehicle. I have to disagree with George...
Rarely is bad driving people who are pushing those limits deliberately.
Unfortunately this is more often than not the case (I do know his point was about deliberately taking drugs or drinking alcohol but even they don't say "I'm going to get out of it so I can have a car accident"
Police are doing something about it though, they are repainting their cars and reducing their tolerance The reduced tolerance to over limit drivers, reduced from 10% to 5% seems to be working but I have to question its legality. At present the accuracy of speedometers for a vehicle are "within 10%" so it could be an interesting case if you could argue that your "speedo" said 100 but the cops say 110, what would be the outcome of that?.
If the tests are relevant to driving, is it possible that people who suck at that sober shouldn’t be driving even when sober?
Indeed. Also the Sausage argument. I wonder if the correlation of the number accident involving alcohol, or drugs for that matter, is more to do with the fact that so many people drink and drive, because we are a nation of drinkers lets face it. Many people I know who say they are against drinking and driving actually still do it, its just that they drink less when driving plus the fact that they don’t go out much.
I drive a lot 1000+ Ks a week sometimes and the biggest problem I see on the roads is just bad, inattentive and selfish driving, not using mirrors (apart from applying make-up or just checking how good you look) and that old chestnut “I have the right of way so fk you”
the costs of additional infrastructure should be paid for by the developers, who benefit from it.
And, like I said, pass it on to the home buyer. You really think developers, out of the kindness of their hearts, actually cough up the cash?. The whole point of Govt. paying the upfront cost was to help make building new homes more effectively and cheaply without the horrendous cost of infrastructure. The way the system works at the moment is that somebody who wants to develop land often find themselves having to stump up money that could be better spent on better quality housing. Not holding my breath there though.
underpricing water is regressive.
Water falls from the sky, others collect it and charge for it. The infrastructure that reticulates is just another way of making us have to pay for our survival.
. Who wins there?.
I guess we could get “Mum and Dad” investors to take the risk and profit but I sincerely hope National will lose the next election regardless of how many people with two first names they can recruit to their sick power play.
closest current network
I can see where the confusion comes from but....
We are, or should be, looking at a country we all want to live in, not just Aucklanders or those with the ability to have the wherewithal to live there. What ever happened to the egalitarian principals this country was founded on?
It is the responsibility of central Govt. to do that in my humble opinion.
If you just happen, through right if inheritance, own a bit of land that could be developed then why should the onus be on you to provide infrastructure that will be to the benefit of society at large? I suppose you could just run a sewage pipe to the nearest river but that is so Canterbury farmer attitude for the likes of the majority.
We have a Govt. for a reason, this is one of the major reasons..
Who pays to build any new water and sewage lines across the region, not just within a subdivision to which development levies may apply?
TLDR? Central Govt. Spread the load, works for all not just the privileged.
If Watercare could inflate their prices for all their customers then they could reduce them for developers, sure. How that’s good for anyone else is unclear.
Not quite sure what you mean by “inflate”. The true cost of Watercare’s services do not include infrastructure costs other than maintenance. Building the infrastructure for a new development had fallen to the developer, who then passes that cost onto the new building owners and that cost is reflected in the resale price too. There is this money being charged onto the buyers of property and only the initial part of that goes to Watercare.
As the price of property is tied to demand then it makes sense to decrease the burden of that demand by increasing supply by making it cheaper to subdivide and construct by Govt. paying for infrastructure.
And that, is good for everyone.
Sure, those evil developers don’t have to spend that extra fistful of dollars but they also won’t have to reap them back in higher house prices.
On another point… As usual this Government has tried to solve the problem by decreasing demand from the unworthy poor.
As I said earlier, the problem in affordability is also exacerbated by a low wage economy, something that this Govt. sees as a good thing.
Courtesy of obedient choirboys fantasising about ‘freedom’.
Or obedient protestants running with the "work ethic", turning us from Human Beings to Human Doings.
had to step away from the keyboard.I think I’ll just stay away from it, actually.
I know how you feel.