Posts by Martin Lindberg
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to BenWilson,
‘zero tolerance’ may be a form of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.
True, but laws are aspirational in the sense that they aspire to change a behaviour that is a problem. One reason that the limit is effectively zero in Sweden is that drunk driving was a big problem. I can only guess that the same goes for the other countries with a zero limit.
-
I guess the 0.08% limit could be seen in context with the limits in the rest of Europe. Only the U.K. has a limit that high.
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to BenWilson,
Where does safety end, really? Licenses? Kevlar elbow, ankle and kneepads? Reinforced jackets?
I have friends who simply will not put a helmet on their toddler who is learning to walk. I should report them to the authorities.
-
I'm not too worried about driver education. Some people will always be terrible drivers regardless of training. Better roads with separated cycle-lanes is really the only thing that will make a significant difference to cycling safety.
-
If you have a spare 15 minutes you might want to take a look at this video of Copenhagen's bicycle ambassador discussing helmets and why he won't use one.
I'll save my breath by just saying that I fully agree with him. Sure, cycling in NZ is unfortunately not the same as cycling in Denmark (or Sweden or The Netherlands), but his basic argument still stands.
Also, no-one will take away the right to wear a helmet or hi-viz for those of you who feel that you really need them.
-
Hard News: The Wogistan form book, in reply to BenWilson,
As security-guru Bruce Schneier said:
"Counterterrorism in the airport is a show designed to make people feel better," he said. "Only two things have made flying safer: the reinforcement of cockpit doors, and the fact that passengers know now to resist hijackers."
I pretty much agree with that.
-
Hard News: The Wogistan form book, in reply to BlairMacca,
I find it funny that this much outrage isn’t expressed by the general public on a weekly basis whenever Micheal Laws column is published in the SST.
Michael Laws is a professional moron - not an MP.
-
Hard News: The Wogistan form book, in reply to Russell Brown,
Prosser’s remaining there besmirches his party, the House and the nation.
But does he really besmirch ( love that word ) his party? I would say that he represents his party quite well.
-
Legal Beagle: A four-year parliamentary term?, in reply to BenWilson,
And for the people to reject the change they have to reject the entire government?
Well, apparently a change can also be dismissed by a popular vote (i.e. referendum) coinciding with the election.
-
Legal Beagle: A four-year parliamentary term?, in reply to BenWilson,
This was not done by referendum, so far as I can tell.
No referendum, but as it was a change to the constitution (or the closest thing Sweden has to a constitution - fundamental law) it required:
To amend or to make a revision of a fundamental law, the Parliament needs to approve the changes twice in two successive terms, with a general election having been held in between. The change can be dismissed but not formally approved by a popular vote coinciding with such a general election, although this option has never been used. If the people do not dismiss a change, it still has to be ratified by the newly elected Parliament.
