Posts by James Liddell
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
SoloFather4Justice (Waipukurau)
Typical lefty feminist media. Ian Wishart broke this story about Einsteins nanny state PC gone mad equation months before the election and did it get picked up no! at least the herald could of given an attrabution to him but did they do that of course not. NZ newspapers are just indoctranated left feminist propaganda machines. where are all the REAL investigative journalists. we need more courageous people like Mr Wishart.
-
For as yet unspecified offences.
Good to know that I'm not the only one concerned that this policy development process is completely f*cked up. Hey let's start with a punishment, and work backwards to find an offence to fit it...
-
Teenagers genuinely do need to engage in risky behaviour, it's probably even genetically wired in and probably for good reason, since societies need individuals willing to take risks.
Research shows that risky behaviour probably is genetically hard-wired in, as there appear to be evolutionary antecedents for delinquency, particularly in non-human primates and rats. (See this study for a good example.) And it does probably serve some maturation purpose in terms of differentiating / breaking away from the familial group. (Good for genetic diversity in a species.)
Thankfully, only about 5% of delinquents will become persistent offenders.
-
You could say that under 25s can't drive vehicles over a certain engine size (but what about all the little cars with medium engines but massive power/weight ratios that racers like?)
Which is why legislation could also target power output / power to weight ratios. It wouldn't be that difficult to come up with some policy options around this.
but then would that mean a 20 year old couldn't drive dad's v8 home when dad's had a few too many whiskeys? It's fiddly, legally speaking.
Yes, that would be the case, and it's not at all legally fiddly. It does, of course, require dad to take some responsibility and make sure that he doesn't get inebriated enough to be over the limit. Or take a taxi.
...that didn't prevent a fifteen year old me and my three mates badly side-swiping a parked car in my Morris 1100 because we too busy looking at a group of girls from Sacred Heart, who had obligingly hitched their skirts up the minute they got out of school...
Heh; that beats my crash stories.
Surely there's a substantial difference between careless driving such as that (we all get distracted, and accidents happen) and intentionally driving quickly / dragging or pouring diesel on the road. The latter being inherently much more dangerous.
But, more importantly, how did the girls react to your drivin' skillz?
-
James, you are a big wuss.
Heh. Part wimp, part pussy. Perhaps. But I was thinking more of an intellectual elitist snob who masks with utter disdain his fear of things he doesn't understand. ;-)
See you Friday.
Which reminds me, I'd better book my flights!
-
At the end of the day it is just young people with too much money and not enough sense. The best way to stop boy racers then is to hit them in the pocket - with compulsory third party insurance which is so high for modified vehicles driven by teens that they can't afford it.
Too much money or too money finance companies willing to give them credit? One can only hope that the credit crunch / crisis / <insert generic economic catastrophe euphemism> will result in quite a few of the cars / modifications being repossessed.
And as for third party insurance, I think Matthew's right on the money (if you'll excuse the pun). The chance that the little buggers would actually pay for compulsory insurance is slim given the contempt they've shown for other measures designed to thwart them, let alone general road laws.
But they're not vermin, they're people.
Granted, but idiotic people who have no regard for my personal safety in public places. Or my ability to get a decent sleep when I get home on Friday or Saturday night.
Like I said, in a free country you can't stop youths being complete idiots. Let’s face it - if we could have afforded a rice paper rocket when we were 16 we would have been off in a squeal of tyres and big puff pile of blue smoke as well.
Not me, Tom. I've never 'got' the whole driving fast and dangerously thing and wanting a flash car. I just don't understand it. Never have.
With age comes maturity, and these kids will grow up. We should all stop our baby boomer moral panic over boy racers, and do want wise adults should do - make them PAY WITH REAL MONEY for the pleasures.
I live in Mt Vic, a block up from Kent Terrace - a notorious strip for drag racing in Wellington. I genuinely fear for my safety sometimes when crossing the road at a pedestrian crossing on a Friday or Saturday evening.
I think calling this moral panic is a little facetious. These are immature people in charge of powerful machines with the ability to seriously harm or kill me and you.
Personally, I'd like to see a maximum engine size (or HP or KW output) for individuals under 25 enshrined in legislation.
/end curmudgeonly rant.
-
the problem is that Police officers actually need serious, reality-based advocacy and O'Connor isn't bringing the A-game, IMO.
You're entirely right, Craig. And, as you noted above, Police officers keep on re-electing him. (Google tells me he's the longest serving Pres in the Association's history.) So I'm assuming the majority of the membership likes the way he operates.
-
But I'm so damn sick of listening to O'Connor going off like an unmedicated Garth McVicar.
I've somehow conditioned myself to tune out O'Connor and McVicar. (It really lowers the blood pressure.)
But, and this is what really annoys me, why do journalists have to seek comment from Mike Sabin every bloody time P is mentioned? Are they getting kickbacks for promoting his business?
-
Which seems to have had little impact on the way most local licensing decisions are still made.
It isn't law yet; it's still only a Bill!
And there are some interesting new provisions which allow territorial authorities to make, in consultation with their community, legally enforceable local alcohol plans. Local licensing decisions will then have to be made in accordance with the local plan.
-
@ Rich
The evidence is very clear... the best way to reduce alcohol related harm is to reduce the number of outlets selling alcohol in a community.
Got references?
This study used an ecologic design based on data from 1990 to 1994 gathered from forensic, vital statistic, census, law enforcement and liquor licensing agencies to assess the relationship between liquor outlet density and alcohol-related health outcomes in New Mexico. Linear regression models show that suicide, alcohol-related crash, and alcohol-related crash fatality (adjusted for age, sex, and minority status) are significantly associated with liquor outlet density. Data also show that, compared with the first tertile, suicide and alcohol-related crash rates increase about 50% and the alcohol-related crash fatality rate two-fold with the third tertile of liquor outlet density. Greater availability of liquor outlets is associated with higher rates of suicide, alcohol-related crash, and alcohol-related crash fatality.
"The strong longitudinal relationship between outlet density and violence greatly strengthens the evidence base that density of alcohol outlets in a suburb is a driver of violence, making liquor licensing and planning regulations legitimate areas for public-health interventions," said Livingston.
But a veritable drop in the ocean of the studies available, and just what I picked off a very quick google search. Most of the studies will only be available on proprietary academic databases.I was working in the office of one of the Ministers responsible for this during the policy development process. Officials provided very compelling evidence, well backed up with references to studies, that outlet density is an extremely important determinant of the welfare of a community. I am currently in Auckland (still on holiday) and without access to my old files so can't give you the studies referenced by officials. But believe me, it was a very robust and evidence-based policy process.