Posts by Bart Janssen
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to JackElder,
movement draws the eye more than a static garment – so in terms of visibility, we might be better to concentrate on encouraging people to wear retro-reflective ankle bands or wrist bands.
I have a really strong memory of being a passenger in Mum's car at night and really really not seeing the cycle in front of us. What we did see were the two reflectors on the pedals. Those moving reflectors saved that person's life.
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to BlairMacca,
Oh you have misunderstood, I mean I can't see why people complain about Having to wear a helmet, completely agree that they are lifesavers, it seems stupid NOT to wear one
So this is a complicated issue. There is no doubt that in some accidents a cycle helmet can prevent head injury. Note head injury... not brain injury. Cycle helmets are NOT the same as full face motercycle helmets they simply do not provide the same impact cushioning and hence do not protect the brain nearly as much. In addition because they cause the top of the head to bulge there is some concern that impacts on the helmet cause the head to rotate in a very unusual way and may do some harm. Again unlike full face motercycle helmets.
All that said if you are riding fast, a cycle helmet is probably a good idea. But it is not as compelling a case as for motercycle helmets.
If you are riding slowly, e.g. taking a communal bike a kilometer along dedicated cycleways in the city centre (like real cities have) then a helmet is unlikely to make much of a difference to your own personal safety.
It get's more confusing, aside from the increase in safety from having more cyclists on the roads, it's been shown that drivers will give you more space if you are NOT wearing a helmet.
Without any doubt wearing a cycle helmet will reduce the damge to your head if you fall and hit your head. But how much they actually improve your safety on a bike is less straightforward.
Personally I'd change the law to say it is illegal to SELL a bike without a helmet. If people want to use it they will. You could do the same for a Hi vis jacket.
And note as someone who grew up always wearing a cycle helmet it just feels unnatural for me to ride without one.
-
Hard News: The Wogistan form book, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
his only real crime embarrasing Winston
Seriously, is that even possible?
-
Hard News: The Wogistan form book, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
knives were very much on the no-fly list
As we left Damscus - having bought a damascus steel sword (replica of course) - we were amused by the airport sign that explicity forbade carrying swords on the plane.
-
Hard News: The Wogistan form book, in reply to Paul Campbell,
it’s sort of the NZ First party line
If you were completely cynical about the NZ1st party you might suggest this actually is the party line and the reason he didn't get a bollocking is because he said something Winston knew would get votes. Perhaps even he was told to say something outrageously racist so Winston could get some more prime time coverage - which he did.
Of course I wouldn't be that cynical.
-
Hard News: The Next Act, in reply to Russell Brown,
Holmes was blind to many things, including, quite often, himself. But neatly portraying him as a neoliberal icon, I think, misses the mark.
+1
Apart from the very real problem we have of only hearing/reading/seeing a public persona I feel like we are looking only for the things that reinforce our prejudice of the man. He was after all human with all the faults we have. He did however, do some very good things in his life, I'm not normally one to forgive and forget but perhaps less focus on the bad is in order.
-
Hard News: The Next Act, in reply to linger,
a-Paul-ing pundits
Holmes as that cheeky dead guy
forming with Henry, Lhaws, and their ilk
the fraternity of uppity nigglers.Much as I appreciate the humour here - I feel we are stepping into the arena of those we are condeming for their failed humour.
-
Played computer games in the morning, went to Kings to get a few herbs, which my beloved planted, watched cricket while kneading pasta dough, rode the stationary bike while reading Peter F Hamilton, ate dinner and watched Chuck.
Basically it was a Saturday.
Waitangi day strikes me as charming and odd. It's an important day in the history of NZ but it seems nobody really knows what they want to do with it. Do we want to protest about the harm and inequalities that exist in our society or celebrate a treaty that made a genuine attempt at harmony. And in a society that is increasingly diverse and increasingly proud of the diversity is the focus on only two groups a good or bad thing.
In the end it seems easiest to set aside the big questions, have a BBQ and enjoy the sunshine ... and maybe that's not a bad thing either.
-
Hard News: The Next Act, in reply to Russell Brown,
If you can’t do the job without being a bully or an arse then you shouldn’t be doing the job.
+1
It’s not quite that simple.
Nothing ever is. But you seem to be suggesting that the job, by it’s nature, cannot be done by a person that does not devolve into being a bullying arse, at least some of the time. I’m pretty sure you don’t think all successful broadcasters behave that way which suggests that it is possible to do the job and retain some measure of decency.
I’m not specifically targetting Holmes or anyone in particular and I really do appreciate the job is unusual by its nature and stressfull. But equally managers of those people should be aware of that fact and if someone goes beyond reasonable behaviour then the solution is to talk with them educate them and if necessary give them a rest or another job. It is not appropriate to say “it’s OK mate just par for the course”.
Society doesn’t and shouldn’t have to accept that kind of behaviour.
But if it is simply not possible to do that job without being a bullying arse then the job should not exist. We should not create jobs that lead to people behaving like that, and good managers recognise that. Or another way of putting it, if the manager recognises that a person is being put under too much strain by working mornings and nights then they simply shouldn’t employ them to do that. But I strongly suspect that Holmes’ managers were vastly more concerned with the ratings then Holmes himself.
ETA oh and yeah bullying is pretty much a trigger for me I know, sorry :)
-
It feels really strange to even think of criticising Seven Sharp. It was their first day!
To judge them on this performance would be like canning Firefly halfway through the first season, think of what we would have missed out if we'd never seen the episode with Wash and the donkey, or found out why Jayne really loves grenades so much, we'd never have seen what happened when the Alliance finally ...
It's an ensemble cast and crew, they just take time to bed in. It may turn out to be crap but you just can't make that judgement until they've had time to learn how to really perform together.
As for the news they present, it will also take time for them to figure out what kind of news and stories work with this team.