Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I had the misfortune of seeing some of Sunday morning's presser, and was rather infuriated by the inanity of the questions. Asking Knowles, who has made it very clear that he's running this one strictly by the numbers, what his gut feel was about when a rescue would take place.
I'm also getting irritated (trying to avoid a Craig-like burst of profanity that must be redacted) by the implications that the rescuers are a bunch of sissies. That they should be charging in because, damnit, there are men trapped in there! Cue slow-mo of clusters of ruggedly-handsome men, festooned with BA cylinders and other paraphernalia, pickaxes over one shoulder, chiselled jaws set firmly, striding purposefully toward the mine entrance. That's how it happens, right?
I've said it before, "Emergency services personnel have it drummed into them again, and again, and again, ad nauseum, that they’re zero use to anyone if they get themselves seriously injured or killed." This will be forefront in the mind of Supt. Knowles as he directs this operation: the people in there are in there. The people out here are out here. If it goes wrong, and the men (and they are all men. Mines rescue is not much of an equal-opportunities game) who're out here today end up trapped in there tomorrow, that's more people who need rescuing (or, heaven forfend, burying) to no purpose in getting out the guys who're already in there. I'd certainly love to know what's going through Knowles' mind when he hears this shit, and he's doing an admirable job of not strangling some of the twatcocks who're pretending to be journalists.ETA: Craig, zing on "heaven forfend". Hive mind much?
-
Hard News: I'm not a "f***ing cyclist".…, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,
Sofie, that campaign's been going on for a while. I used to get a bit of a giggle from cycling along behind buses that had those signs on them.
-
Hard News: I'm not a "f***ing cyclist".…, in reply to giovanni tiso,
Liability here is by normal apportionment, and still the motor vehicle driver is largely or entirely at fault in 75% of collisions between motor vehicles and bicycles. If liability were assumed to lie with the motor vehicle driver I imagine that the figure would be well over 90%, because most cyclists aren’t, contrary to apparently common belief, possessed of a strong suicidal streak. [ETA: unlike the one in your example]
-
Hard News: I'm not a "f***ing cyclist".…, in reply to Bryan Dods,
Road tax is meant to capture damage to the road. Bicycles don't cause any.
For ACC, I say, again, the vast majority of cyclists also own cars. So they pay ACC levies on registration. They mostly also have jobs, and a study of members of cycling clubs will show that most members are of higher socio-economic status. So they're paying ACC earner's levies too. And you still want more ACC levies because car drivers are incapable of sharing the road? Do you want kids to pay ACC levies for cycling to school, too?
-
Hard News: I'm not a "f***ing cyclist".…, in reply to Bryan Dods,
Exercise from riding a motorcycle? Really? I'd like to see you argue the cardio benefits of being a motorcyclist with a doctor sometime!
Motorcyclists are at fault in multi-vehicle collisions far more frequently than cyclists. They also kill themselves all on their own, which cyclists don't (in the period I saw stats for there wasn't a single fatality where a bicycle was the only vehicle). Adding up the multi-vehicle and single-vehicle stats for motorcyclists resulted in, from memory, about 46% of dead motorcyclists wearing a majority or all of the liability for their death.
-
Hard News: I'm not a "f***ing cyclist".…, in reply to Bart Janssen,
Absolutely agree. I got my full licence at 17, having passed the laughably-easy test to get my restricted precisely nine months before (yay for optional defensive driving courses, for which you get a reward!). Had I not gone on to get a class 2 licence (through the Fire Service, taught by an instructor who also teaches fire fighters how to be urgent response drivers and thus taught to a very high standard) I would have been very likely to have never been tested behind the wheel again, unless there’s a law change I desperately want, for the next 61 years! As it is it’ll only be 54 years. That’s ridiculous.
An example I like to give of how pathetic our licensing system truly is is this: every year there’re driving competitions around the country to test the skills of volunteer fire fighters. It’s all done off-road, in carparks and industrial lots, and tests their ability with controlling fire appliances around awkward obstacles and the like. Part of the testing is the theory tests for getting a class 2, being the theory scratchies (as it was then) for both classes 1 and 2. In one memorable year, about 90% of the contestants would’ve failed the theory for their class 2 licence, and only one person passed the class 1 theory. These are people who are responsible for driving trucks as urgent traffic. Does that scare you? It sure as hell scared me!
-
Hard News: I'm not a "f***ing cyclist".…, in reply to Bryan Dods,
Bryan, many cyclists are also motorists. All the recreational/club cyclists I know also own cars. We're all employed, mostly in jobs that pay higher-than-median wages. All of us pay ACC levies, at least twice over. The whole point of the ACC earner's levy is so that we don't have to pay a levy for being cyclists.
Cycling also has health benefits, both for the rider in terms of exercise and for the wider population in terms of reduced pollution where the riding is done in place of motorised travel. So how about we call it quits on the ACC thing?As far as crash fault goes, NZTA says that 75% of serious/fatal car-v-cyclist crashes are primarily or entirely the fault of the car driver. If cyclists are really as awful as car drivers and their apologists make out the figure should be closer to 50:50. That it's not says that car drivers have a lot to answer for.
-
Hard News: I'm not a "f***ing cyclist".…, in reply to Rosie,
The slow driver may not be at fault, but they are definitely a cause. They're also likely breaking the law by failing to "allow impeded traffic to pass".
Expecting perfect judgement from humans is a big ask, so instead we expect people to drive with courtesy. That means not trundling along at 70, hogging the lane, when you have space to pull to the left and allow people to pass safely. If you don't recognise that you hogging the lane may well cause others to do silly things then you're just as unworthy of holding a licence as they.
-
I'll also, for safety reasons, trying make my way right to the front when there's a queue at lights, and take off as quickly as I'm able, just to get clear of a situation where motorists are taking off without paying attention.
I'm quite unashamed to admit to going through red lights across the tops of T intersections or around left-hand corners. I feel much, much safer moving than stationary, and you've just identified a likely reason. I don't go right through the middle of intersections against a red because that's just begging for trouble, but where I don't have to move away from the kerb I see no reason to increase the danger to myself when I'm not increasing the danger to anyone else.
-
Hard News: Moving targets, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry either. Or just re-read it with a mouth full of coffee so I can blow it all over the screen.
I would ask if the man has no shame, but rhetorical questions are just so, well, rhetorical.