Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Media3: Bad News for the Force, in reply to Sacha,
I was wondering how many industries have public awards as recognition, rather than just reflecting gratitude in pay packets?
Any of the emergency services, for starters. Various time-in-service milestones are rewarded with medals, handed out at boozy parties.
-
Hard News: Media3: Bad News for the Force, in reply to Chris Waugh,
All of which I would’ve deleted.
Not unreasonably. But that wasn't the argument.
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to Juha Saarinen,
Killing someone on a bike doesn’t carry much in terms of sanctions.
Killing anyone through the use of a motor vehicle doesn't carry much in terms of sanctions unless you manage to do it with such clear intent that they can do you for murder. If you're pissed out of your gourd, people try to stop you, you drive, and you kill someone, you're only on the hook for a maximum of five years of sub-standard government housing courtesy of dangerous driving causing death. Get lucky and they might only pursue careless driving which is a maximum of six months.
Brother's ex's brother was bicycling home, got killed by a car. Driver went to trial, got found guilty. Came to an arrangement with the family, but was not facing any jail time even without the arrangement because it was just not such clearly bad driving that the minuscule jail penalty could be justified. As a country we don't treat bad driving that results in death as being as serious as we would a less-egregious breach of some other social standard that had the same result (like, say, punching someone once and them tripping over and hitting their head).
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to BenWilson,
Ask yourself the same question, but replace “ground” with “dashboard” or “windscreen”
Seatbelt. Replace above with "B-pillar" and you've suddenly encountered the offside T-bone's dirty little secret. Curtain airbags aren't just a gimmick for the sake of marketing.
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to BenWilson,
the introduction of helmets corresponded to a massive decline in cycle usage here and in many other places, and that low numbers cycling is a major risk factor, it’s really silly to make mandatory yet another thing that will stop people getting on bikes.
Bollocks. Introduction of mandatory helmets coincided with massive changes to vehicle availability: abolition of import quotas, huge introduction of cheap Japanese imports. There was also a significant rise in "stranger danger" terror leading to parents driving their children to school rather than having them walk or bicycle. When bicycling isn't a regular activity when you're a child, it's certainly not going to be one when you're a teenager or an adult. Toss in that a car could be purchased on the earnings from a part-time job, and you were going to see a perfect storm against riding bicycles. The helmet law might have been the final nail for a few waverers, but when people still have to get around and public transport became even less effective and affordable during National's reign (courtesy of which Auckland's public transport is still fucked) I'm going to call bullshit on your assertion that it was all down to the helmet law that suddenly people stopped riding bicycles.
What I will agree is that the decline in cyclist numbers makes it more dangerous to be a cyclist. Evidence from the UK that wearing hi-viz in situations of good visibility is, at best, no better than wearing ordinary clothing (and may be worse) also reveals that drivers who aren't expecting to see (motor)cyclists may quite literally not see them. Their brains don't compute the foreign object. More cyclists means it's more expected to see them.
-
Hard News: Media3: Bad News for the Force, in reply to Robyn Gallagher,
“the awards had become a two-horse race between TVNZ and TV3”. O RLY? Because from 1970 to 1989 the New Zealand television awards were a one-horse race, involving only TVNZ
Stop with the facts, Robyn, they have no place in our modern media environment (no offence to our host)!
-
Hard News: Media3: Bad News for the Force, in reply to Sacha,
Of course they won't. But as I said just above, Emma didn't particularly object to the guy who wants to douse the cops in petrol and set them alight. Her objection to this specific post was that she read it as advocating domestic violence, which is not what it did if one reads it in accordance to standard rules of interpreting punctuation. It was quite well punctuated, too, which suggests the author had a very precise interpretation in mind.
-
Hard News: Media3: Bad News for the Force, in reply to Chris Waugh,
Still advocating violence.
Yes, but so were some of the other posts. Emma's gut call was based on it advocating domestic violence, which it did not do. If we pull it because it advocates violence then the one where the author wants to immolate police officers is also out. The one calling for violent resistance is pretty borderline, too.
-
Hard News: Media3: Bad News for the Force, in reply to Emma Hart,
"I hope your mothers get this done to them."
Read it very carefully. "I hope your mothers get this done to them by Other SCUMBAGS with badges."
-
Hard News: Media3: Bad News for the Force, in reply to Sacha,
It does both
Nope. Read it very carefully. It says the author hopes the thugs’ womenfolk get subjected to the same treatment at the hands of other badge-wearing jackbooted thugs, and then goes on to suppose that said womenfolk get that treatment at the hands of these jackbooted thugs when those thugs get home.