Posts by George Darroch
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
From a public health perspective, I think cycle helmets are a disaster. Minimal private protection, giving others the impression that the cyclist is then "safe". This misperception of safety is fatal, and people are killed on a regular basis because of it.
-
Commuting in your normal clothes should be easily possible for most cyclists; I always used to enjoy watching what the Dutch could carry on their way to work. Best thing I saw was a double-bass.
I think here the infrastructure (to bring things back on topic somewhat) and the culture of drivers (which again can be helped by infrastructure, public political support, and socialisation) is crucial. If riders are expected to be part of traffic, by necessity they usually ride quite fast. I do this, partly from need, partly from enjoyment, but it's not for everybody, and not even for me all of the time.
-
People who cycle longer distances for exercise and recreation aren’t wearing it to annoy you, just as people who wear running shoes to go jogging aren’t trying to frighten off people who are running to catch a bus.
That's true. But imagine if shoe stores only sold running shoes, hiking boots, and cheap ballet flats, and were reluctant to stock calf-length boots because 'they won't sell'.
-
Via Joshua Arbury's wonderful Transportblog. An inspiring video on the world's cities, innovative thinking, and climate.
-
Re the shower/change facilities at workplaces – how do people usually make this work? As in, how do you get your corporate worky clothes to said facilities – drive once a week or something?
The wonderful site Copenhagenize is worth refering to here. I urge anyone and everyone in this thread to refer to it as a reference. Its sister site Copenhagen Cycle Chic does important work too, demonstrating how normal, well attired people cycle to work, play, and everything else. Focusing entirely on commuters, and making things seem like a sweat inducing race - well, that's a problem.
In places where cycling is normal, you don't wear lycra. Lycra is for people who want to minimise air resistance and sweat heavily. If it's cold, you wear your jacket (the same one that you would wear if you were walking), if it's slightly warmer, your jumper, a shirt, a t-shirt, and so on. There's no "normal clothing"/"cycling clothing" divide. People simply wear their normal clothing while cycling. This works, even in cities with slopes
-
To be more positive and constructive, retailers need to be sat down, told what's going to happen, and invited to participate. I'm sure those who did decide to stock the right stuff would be rewarded with sales.
-
Which is where the Dutch system comes in - Those bikes in Amsterdam are certainly not state of the art, but they are sturdy and practical in being able carry loads (be it children or shopping), and of course the Dutch don't feel the need to dress in lycra otr in anything special while riding (changing in and out of work clothes is one of the discouraging things about cycling to work)
Which is where the thing could just as easily fall apart. Bicycle retailers in New Zealand and Australia generally have very fixed ideas about what bicycles they want to sell - ones they themselves, and their enthusiast friends - want to ride. They almost refuse to stock decent bikes for casual riders (bastardised mountainbikes that really aren't sit-up optimised at all are as far as they go. Similarly, nice coats and jackets, chain guards, fenders, and other accessories. Bikes are sold with a whole bunch of necessary things as after-market add-ons, rather than as part of the package. How would you feel if you bought a new car, and then had to shop for windscreen wipers, a horn, and lights?
The greatest enemies of popular cycling are those who wear lycra.
-
Well, McCully has come out swinging, labelling Adams a failur on the basis that the Auditor General's reviews of NZAID were "scathing" and that "changes were made to avoid pouring money into "poverty subsidisation" programmes."
Having just read the 2008 review (with, as you would expect, a narrow focus on financial accountability), it asks for a greater commitment to monitoring and evaluation. This can be a good thing, insomuch as it increases the effectiveness of aid. It can also put further constraints on the resources of the agency as more is spent on Wellingtonians monitoring instead of Fijians etc implementing, and put constraints on the recipients as intensive or narrowly construed reporting requirements hamper aid delivery efforts. There is a balance to be struck, and the AGO have asked that it be moved a little. It is generally complimentary of NZAID's work.
Having written funding applications for an Indonesian health organisation to be submitted to international agencies, I know just how hard it is for either party - even when you have a very clear idea before the fact where every dollar will be spent there is still a lot of uncertainty. On a small project it is almost a full time job.
-
Why, it's just NZ's Transparency Intl rating.
That's probably safe. Transparency International's rankings aren't based on any hard science, but rely on asking businessmen how corrupt they think a country is. It's almost axiomatic that the style of friends and favours corruption practiced in New Zealand isn't seen as such.
-
Thanks Terence, disturbing. You're very right to emphasise that aid is not about what you have to give, it is about what is needed. The classic example is t-shirts being sent off, when there's sufficient clothing and all you're doing is putting out of business the local garment manufacture and retail industries. Similarly, seeing that NZ agricultural productivity is high, and Afghanistan agricultural productivity is low, sending over a particular technology or solution and then imposing it on a community is going to have costs - they may have to divert energy away from other more pressing concerns, or it may require capital which they don't have or would rather spend on other things. People want high-tech silver bullets, and this isn't entirely an outsider problem; the Gates Foundation has been criticised for focusing on high tech interventions and diverting aid spending away from proven simple solutions. Few people (Greg Mortensen aside) ever went wrong building schools and hospitals.
The other major problem with NZAID's new approach is that it undermeasures success. If you set up a community health team in a village, and have trained volunteers or staff teach about sanitation and communicable diseases, and install sanitation systems, then you're going to reduce the burden of disease and increase the productivity and quality of life of those villagers. At the very least you're going to see less people die. The problem is that these don't show up on the GDP figures, as either they are paid poorly and their labour is undervalued (thus, causing a small 'insignificant' increase in GDP) or they're outside the cash economy entirely (causing no measured GDP increase at all). Nevermind that they've just seen radical improvements in their lives and you're helping achieve a number of the Millenium Development Goals.
A narrowly economic growth focused program is going to concentrate economic growth areas and existing business and wealth on in the belief that a trickle down effect and rising inequality will lift all boats. The evidence to suggest that this works is, charitably, not all that great. Increased inequality frequently destroys social cohesion and increases corruption, and makes a country poorer. I'm not saying that this will happen - it could be that helping a plantation export more means more jobs and greater weath in the community - but it needs to be considered. Unfortunately, this experiment is occurring without any consideration of 'pointy headed desk-jockeys'.