Posts by George Darroch
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
That would be the private member's bill from a Green MP for which both major parties, and , indeed, most of Parliament, voted. You'd think a political reporter might know that.
Why lets the facts get in the way of the chosen narrative. Once the debate is framed in a particular way, media discourse tends to follow it pretty closely - either endorsing or contesting the point, but rarely discussing the merits of other ways of considering the issues.
-
National if caught out can claim that the law is unclear and badly written. In this case they can point to it infringing upon previously accepted electoral advertising practice - making the law seem unfair.
Its a brilliant tactic, and they've played it well. It allows them to put Labour on the defensive, arguing about things that aren't important, rather than what Labour has achieved, and what National plans to do. How long they can continue with this cynical game, I don't know, but I reckon they can continue on to the election without media recrimination. At the very least they've got a free pass from the Herald on this that I don't see running out anytime soon.
-
I suspect that if National do know what they're doing, they've decided it's worth it. And I suspect they're right; given how the major newsmedia have played electoral finance issues so far, the damage to Labour would invariably be greater, and in this equation that's all that matters.
And then they'll claim something like "a great victory for democracy".
-
Yeah, the cyclist uses about 1/20th the energy (approx 500 kcal/hr from memory). If those calories come from grain fed beef or chicken, the numbers aren't necessarily on the side of the cyclist. Vegetarians and vegans can afford to be smug, the rest not so.
-
everything else on the road is a danger to him [the cyclist]
Absolutely. We simply take cars for granted as part of the landscape without even questioning if they're the right thing for the job. Even if there was no risk of collision, every vehicle would still be causing harm to every pedestrian and cyclist through the toxic concoction that comes from the exhaust pipe. Large diesels are the worst, I've been led to believe.
It's not an either/or situation. Cars or bicycles. But we need to optimise our transport system so that the alternative that offers the best result in a given situation is available and practical, and that harms are minimised.
-
Slarty, in my experience, driving at anything less than the speed limit causes a considerable number of other drivers to seem to want to kill me (with no correlation to the size of their vehicle). It's a worthwhile proposition, and perhaps with increasing fuel costs it'll become more culturally acceptable.
-
Today's xkcd is strangely relevant.
-
My bicycle weighs ~12 kg, and has a fuel rating of 0.0 litres/100km.
-
Andrew, absolutely. The problem is bad transport decisions, of which consumers are only a part. SUVs are just a part of the problem, and are an easy scapegoat.
The answer isn't to ban SUVs. It's both more complicated and simple than that. Things like encouraging people to have their children walk and cycle to school, use (improved) public transport services, drive less, and be properly informed about the costs of their vehicle. Rather than whacking a tax on SUVs, a rebate to people who buy bicycles (Denmark gives a rather hefty one so people can buy something nice they'll actually ride) which will save costs to themselves and society.
And remove the helmet laws while we're at it to. They cause more harm than good.
-
probably kinder to the environment than an old, poorly maintained jap import
That's a pretty shaky place to start off from. An SUV driver will be considering station wagons and sedans of comparable age and condition. Unless you can demonstrate that an SUV is markedly cheaper than a lighter vehicle of the same age. They aren't yet.