Island Life: Burn fat, not oil
117 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last
-
Just out of interest to anyone who was there, what was the ratio of walkers to cyclists ?
About half and half, I'd say. This photo would be a good sample of helmet to no-helmet ratio.
I really lament the polarising and the aggro. If cycles were provided their own separate space, every last source of the friction would vanish.
-
-
I really lament the polarising and the aggro.
At least some of it comes from car drivers who cannot abide being overtaken by cyclists while they're stuck in traffic. I once had a friend arguing with me as to the legality of cyclists passing stationary cars up the left. The Road Code is actually silent on the matter, but given the exhortations for cyclists to keep left it seems silly to then complain if they take it to the logical conclusion.
Yes, cyclists can be somewhat blase about following the law. However, given the significant lack of courtesy displayed by many drivers that's hardly surprising. If drivers expect cyclists to obey every intersection we encounter, maybe they should stop running red lights, failing to indicate, and generally acting like caged douches!
Can't remember if it was here that I saw it pointed out, but most adult cyclists are also motorists. It's just a shame that most motorists aren't also cyclists.
-
Yes but marathon runners will behave a lot differently than a bunch of protesters who aren't supposed to be there. Marathon runners are trying to get across it as quick as possible. Protesters might try and climb things, put up flags, have kids doing who knows what.
Particularly given that it sounds like the protest organisers didn't have marshals. You'll get one protester who thinks that they need to walk along the top of the median barrier to make their point, no one tells them to get down, oops they fall over while doing a wee "I'm walking on the harbour bridge" dance, whammo.
Too cautious is not necessarily a bad thing.
This was a very middle class walk over the bridge. VERY middle class. The chance of madness such as you describe was limited.
Just out of interest to anyone who was there, what was the ratio of walkers to cyclists ? The pictures I've see don't have a large number of cyclists in them.
Large numbers of 'weekend warriors' were there, who, for all intents and purposes, are solid middle class professional blokes and blokettes who work in the City (how else to afford that $5000 bike?) that vote National (as people who work in the City do by and large). I know that's a very sweeping generalisation, but on my observation and experience, I think it's pretty accurate.
The ratio would be around 50% as David says.
-
Large numbers of 'weekend warriors' were there, who, for all intents and purposes, are solid middle class professional blokes and blokettes who work in the City (how else to afford that $5000 bike?)
I joked at the protest that we were probably surrounded by two cycleways' worth of hardware, which got a general chuckle from the surrounding roadies.
-
I didn't see the tv report, but Paul Henry's antipathy is partly because he is really keen on cars and has a dislike & no respect for other forms of transport.
Not that that makes him a dickhead...
-
Close Up is going to have a story on the disruption. Not that I hold out much hope for some penetrating analysis.
That really was a complete waste of ten minutes of my life. Paul Henry was predictably awful. But the get across spokesman didn't seem very well prepared - the first question 'what gives you the right to break the law and disrupt people's days' wasn't dealt with well at all.
This was a very middle class walk over the bridge. VERY middle class. The chance of madness such as you describe was limited.
Given that apparently the protest organisers couldn't stop the people from going onto the bridge, their ability to stop them doing something stupid while on it = about nil.
Relying on 100% good behaviour 100% of the time from a bunch of people that you've got riled up as part of your protest will only work 99% of the time at best.
-
Paul Henry isn't a journalist so why the hell does he get to front something like Close Up?
Spouting your own opinion, shutting down the other side and giving free run to those who you agree with is not even close to journalism. -
But the get across spokesman didn't seem very well prepared - the first question 'what gives you the right to break the law and disrupt people's days' wasn't dealt with well at all.
Borrowing one of David Bain's jumpers wasn't the best idea either.
-
<quote>Borrowing one of David Bain's jumpers wasn't the best idea either.</quote.
Hehe! That was the first thing my girlfriend said as well.
-
Given that apparently the protest organisers couldn't stop the people from going onto the bridge, their ability to stop them doing something stupid while on it = about nil.
Point taken, but I would offer that the middle class tend to be very, err strident about things from time to time, so no, no amount of Wayne McDonald's saying No was going to stop the rising tide of middle class resentment and sense of entitlement to that bridge.
And I say it again, this was a middle class walk over the bridge. The potential for stupid acts was there, but middle class behaviour militates against it to a large degree (astonishingly so). The 'riling' up was of an extremely middle class nature; 'we'll just ask politely', 'we are not here to cause trouble', 'burn fat not oil' etc... so it wasn't at all 'militant'.
Just a very large bunch of middle NZ wanting to walk on the bridge. Heaven help anyone standing in the way - they got swept aside, including the very middle class organisers.
Paul Henry isn't a journalist so why the hell does he get to front something like Close Up?
Spouting your own opinion, shutting down the other side and giving free run to those who you agree with is not even close to journalism.At the risk of doing a Craig, now that we've established that Paul Henry is a prat, wanker, mysogenic, pseudo-journalist, and general all round effing prick, could we save the bandwidth and concentrate on researching email addresses of the producers of Close Up, emailing them and complaining? Emaling advertisers also works.
I did it over the moustache comments. The more complaints, the more likely he'll be removed.
-
...the get across spokesman didn't seem very well prepared - the first question 'what gives you the right to break the law and disrupt people's days' wasn't dealt with well at all.
I cringed. Graeme Knowles was a bit hopeless. Not once did he say that getacross didn't want to disrupt traffic, and had planned for it months ago. It was NZTA that turned it into a four lane blockage.
Bevan Woodward was much more impressive during his interview on Morning Report.
-
Bridge marchers may face fines, charges
yeah, right.
police would be looking at video footage and officers' reports to identify law-breakers
Ah, well I'm alright then. The video evidence will clearly show that I spent the first 10 metres walking backwards with my hands upraised and calling out "Stop! Stop! this is illegal, I urge you to stop!". Sadly I was swept along by the mass and my efforts were hopeless. I refer you also m'lud to the archives of PAS where in 2008 I spoke out against the cycleway...
-
I have contact with the first gang of miscreant cyclists that appear to have triggered the walkover. Many of them were practising what to say in the event of being arrested. They expected to be arrested and accepted that the arrest was an important part of the issue.
-
From a Hurben Baynes on your views:
If I worked for LTSA & I had received such a threatening email like he sent to staff, I would have made sure that he saw me there & the union would have been involved, how dare he threaten staff with what they can do in their own private time ?
Anyone know anything more about this?
-
Wow that is interesting, were I a journalist......
-
Last week in an email McDonald reminded staff of "who your employer is, their decision and your conditions of conduct as an employee of the NZTA just in case you have the slightest thought about taking part in any protest involving the harbour bridge and breaking the law. Please just quietly erase that thought."
-
Terry, the short version is that NZTA reminded staff that they're expected to adhere to certain codes of conduct. As are all employees of any organisation, though not always formally-defined conditions. In the case of NZTA, breaking the law and carrying out actions that directly contravene the position of your employer is generally a no-go area and won't be supported by the employment PTB as anything other than a breach of your obligations. Freedom of expression doesn't include the freedom to break employment conditions without repercussions.
-
Thanks Matthew. Sounds like the perfect defence for John Demanjuk. Slightly exaggerating of course.
Hyperbole aside I do understand where NZTA is coming from. However it does raise the issue as to why McDonald felt compelled to "remind" staff. Could it be that he was facing dissent and decided to issue a 'no bellyaching' injunction?
-
A TVNZ staffer told me the moustache complaints were most ever receieved on any topic by TVNZ. Anymore of those and Mr. Henry will be looking for new employment. So complaining about him works.
I don't care very much about cycling/walking over the bridge - or rather, I would quite like to be able to walk over the bridge but it isn't something I'll protest over. But I wonder about this McDonald fellow. He comes across as a complete egotist and a bit of a wanker. If the telly is any guide (and it usually isn't) anyone with half a brain would have known his responses to the crowd were inflamatory. indeed, he seemed to enjoy goading the crowd with his arbitrary exercise of veto. I surprrised the police didn't tell him to STFU.
-
I would imagine that he knew that his attitude was unpopular with a sufficiently-sized section of the public that, even if he had no specific knowledge of internal dissent, he had to realise that the odds were on people within NZTA disagreeing with the position taken regarding the walkway/cycleway.
There's also a difference between telling people that they'll face employment consequences for taking part in an illegal activity that's directly aimed at their employer and telling people that they're not allowed to disagree with their employer's policies. The article read very much as it being the former, not the latter. -
NZTA just in case you have the slightest thought about taking part in any protest involving the harbour bridge and breaking the law. Please just quietly erase that thought.
This is quite ambiguous, clearly he should be encouraging his employees to avoid breaking the law. But I think that joining a protest is less clear cut, particularly in the context of a goverment office whose remit is defined more broadly elsewhere.
Perhaps most fun, is that the syntax suggests protesting and breaking the law are the same thing. Intentional or not ?
-
Yeah it is somewhat ambiguous, and he'd have difficulty defending any employment decision that rested solely on a person's presence at the rally. But that doesn't mean that he actually intended it to refer to anything less than taking part in an unauthorised bridge crossing.
-
not that he's predictable or anything...
Loving the 180-degree about-face in the middle of the article where he says that the cyclists should have been allowed ont he bridge anyway. Gives him a chance to rail against 'faceless bureaucrats'. Nothing like an old, familiar jumper to keep the cold out on these cold winter days, eh, Grandad?
-
not that he's predictable or anything...
I'm guessing this means I won't be getting a prize for this?
The about-face you've quoted is necessary for George to make his desired connection between lawless hippies and the spineless and quite possibly Labour-friendly bureaucrats who Let It Come To This. I think he just treats external reality as inspiration for a creative voyage through his own little world.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.