Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Unwarranted risk, in reply to Graham Dunster,
It’s also very interesting to see how many are also against keeping the POAL facility in Auckland, rather suggesting it is moved out of the central city.
My immediate question is: move it where? As crap as they are, the only rail links worth the name on the Waitemata Harbour are in the CBD. Onehunga is out because of the Manukau Bar, and once they depart the City the other rail lines don't go anywhere near anything vaguely resembling a port.
Northland is out unless the rail link gets some hefty upgrading, including a third track duplicating the Western Line (at a price tag, I'm sure, north of a billion dollars once property acquisition is taken into account).If they think we can move all the freight by road, the price tag for route upgrades will be several billions and it'll be happening right at a time when oil is getting dramatically more expensive and we should be looking to reduce our dependence on it as a transportation energy source.
-
Hard News: Staying Alive, in reply to Sacha,
Mt Albert Rd at least has the defence of being a residential and business road. Tamaki Drive is barren of anything except cliffs, parking and beaches for most of its length, and the places where there are businesses and residences are, mostly, intersected by cross streets.
I happen to really like the idea of extending the Viaduct Harbour tram service (modernised to a proper light-rail service, though) through Britomart and all the way out to St Heliers, and making the room by removing the parking spaces. That’s not conducive to creating cycling lanes and, additionally, cycling lanes won’t provide alternative transport for people who wish to travel to the Bays. If we have to have one or the other, even as a cyclist I would rather that the space be sacrificed to public transport than to cycling, since we can always share the road, especially with what should be a fairly significant reduction in vehicle traffic with the arrival of a viable alternative to driving (buses along Tamaki Drive are pretty shit).
-
Hard News: Staying Alive, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
Using their much cheaper ($3.4 million) Microsoft (I assume) based in-house system
Nope, SAP, just like what's being used by the Council. That's part of the reason for the outrage at the cost: it's the same software, so spinning off another instance for use by the Council, or even sharing an instance, was always an option.
MS just don't play at that level. The real players are SAP, PeopleSoft, and Oracle. It just so happened that ARTA were using SAP, and that was turned into the SAP instance for Auckland Transport.
-
That we have shit public transport still doesn't give you a right to be in control of a lethal weapon, IMO. You could argue that farmers have a right to destroy vermin that threaten their livelihoods, too, but we wouldn't accept it as a justification for giving out firearms licences.
When you are being given the power to kill people, affirmative controls on your freedom to use that power are justified by the need to protect others.
-
Hard News: Staying Alive, in reply to merc,
The presence or absence of a codified constitution is irrelevant. The problem is that Parliament is supreme, and behaves like it. Unless a codified constitution changed that, nothing would be any different.
-
Hard News: Staying Alive, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
One could view driving a car as part of a right to free movement. After all, many people believe Internet access to be part of a right to free speech.
If you have absolutely no other way of getting around (you're confined to a wheelchair and live on a sheep station, for example), then yes, possibly. Most people, though, have options to walk, bicycle, catch a bus, etc.
The argument that Internet access is fundamental to free speech relates to the quantity of discourse and volume of information that is only accessible electronically. To be denied access is to be denied full participation. To be denied the legal mandate to drive a car is not the end of your right to freedom of movement, it's just an impediment that balances your right to movement against the rights of others to not be put in harm's way at the hands of a reckless or untrained individual.
ETA: The right to not be unduly denied freedom of movement is not abridged because the government won't let you drive a car. You're still free to travel at will, it's just a little bit harder.
-
Hard News: Staying Alive, in reply to Stewart,
I was just pointing out that there is a sub-section of society that scoffs at our ideas of civilised behaviour and cocks a proverbial snook at rules, licences and the like.
Yes, but there's also a section of society who would still not get a driver's licence if they were offered $100 and the licence on the spot if they showed up with proof of their identity. But we don't write our driving laws to pander to them, thankfully.
Most of the discussions around driver licensing/testing in this country revolve around language that treats it like a right. It's not, and it was heartening to see that message starting, albeit weakly, to break through during discussions about raising the driving age. If we can just keep it going, eventually we might start seeing people being retested every renewal and having their licences suspended on the spot if they fail. -
Hard News: Staying Alive, in reply to Stewart,
Are you scared enough yet?
No. And it's a bullshit argument against making it more difficult to exercise the legal privilege of controlling a lethal weapon. Driving is a privilege, and your argument pretty much predicates on it being a right. If you don't get a licence, you should expect automatic vehicle seizure and disposal, home detention, and a healthy fine. No soft options. We don't fuck about with people who break the law on firearms, so why do we pussy-foot about with people who break the law on vehicles? They're no less lethal, and infinitely more dangerous.
-
Hard News: Staying Alive, in reply to Maz,
Could we please start doing things right and not half-arsedly?
To be fair, the tests are now computerised and the order (of questions, and the answers within) is random. The “memorise the ‘practice’ scratchies” (there were 20 combinations in use by MOT/LTSA, and one could buy all of them from BP for about $40) option no longer exists. You do have to know the answers now.
I’ve advocated retesting with every renewal for a long time. In my previous involvement with the Fire Service, I was marking the theory component of a driving competition. All competitors were “brigade drivers” (meaning authorised to drive the big red trucks as emergency vehicles), and had to take the class 1 (car) and class 2 (light truck to 15,000kg) scratchy tests. Of about 25 drivers, fewer than half passed the class 1 and only three passed the class 2. That scared me, especially the guy who got the wrong answer for “What is the speed limit after passing this [accident] sign?”
We’re making it hard to get a licence, finally, but it’ll be three generations before everyone who got a licence under the various old, inadequate systems finally shuffles their way off the roads.
-
Hard News: Staying Alive, in reply to Grant McDougall,
So which are the actual safe / safe-ish roads regularly used by cyclists in Auckland ?
Puhinui Road west/east to/from the airport is pretty popular, because although it's mostly open road it's got big, wide shoulders. Likewise George Bolt Memorial Drive, which is the north/south airport road. I have never felt in the least bit endangered while riding those roads, despite the high speed limit. They also get some really great tail winds, and they're sealed to a high standard. I frequently exceed 40km/h on flat sections of George Bolt.