Religion in schools to go God-free
Well, this will give some other poor 'wretched'* sod a class full of kids to explain something to.
Religious instruction in schools is a no-brainer - why not? I don't see a problem with it and I don't see why others should either. There has never been a block to the Humanist agenda and I can confidently predict few parents and children will see the need for it. There will be an initial glut and then it will fade away when all the class does is have a quiet chat about the golden rule every week.
Again, I don't have a problem with it. First, it shuts up the enthusiast atheist mob who've read The God Delusion and bought into its viciousness and uncouth approach to atheism. Kids don't have to do RE anyway unless they sign up for it at a Christian school. (having said that, you can get out of it at Carey! Disgraceful.) Second, it will give the fundies who give any religion a bad name the chance to pipe up and create a few column inches.
Why is this good? All these sorts of triumphant stories do is provoke people to think about the issues. The twitter-sphere was full of triumphant tripe like this:
Spread the good news
as though this is the coming of reason. What these people don't realise is that it won't make a lick of difference.
Enthusiast atheists, like the goose above, like to think that once someone is told there is no God, they just automatically believe it. If they don't they're stupid. Kinda easy logic isn't it? There's no wriggle room there. Like, oh, there could be a God and he might be the one that Christians, Muslims or Jews worship. They also don't know the difference between the Gods of those religions (oh, no, that would be ignorant of them to learn) and prefer to either think that if there is a God, they'll 'slip in the side door' or if God is one of the above, they prefer Hell. It's all a metaphor anyway.
Which sort of brings me to something interesting Jeremy Clarkson wrote.
The BBC's letting loonies gag me with mink knickers.
Basically, what Clarkson is saying, is that you're not allowed to say anything anymore because there's always someone calling for your immediate execution:
'You could give me any subject matter: paving stones, cabbages, your next-door neighbour, dogs – anything that took your fancy – and I bet that after half an hour on the phone I could come up with someone who was prepared to be cross about it. If it got their name in the papers.'
'The problem is simple. If you say, in public, that you would not shoot a bear or you would not support an attack on Iraq or you would not buy a Range Rover because of climate change, you are offending nobody. Because you are saying, “I will not do something.” But if you say you would do something, like shoot a bear, then someone in an attic with a website and a silly acronym for their micro-organisation (membership: three) will jump on your case and not let go'
The world is full of these morons and unfortunately enthusiast atheism is on that bandwagon: "I do not believe therefore I cannot offend."
It's oafish, simplistic and mind-numbingly dull. Yes, I'm a Christian but believe everybody is entitled to their belief or disbelief. The New Atheists (who are just old atheists with bad tempers) seem to think they are saving the world when in fact they are reducing discourse to childish rabble-rousing and insults, using emotive terms like 'child abuse' to attract dullards and halfwits to their cause. And they cause themselves 'the smarts.'
* The goose who runs the Australian Council for the Defence of Goverment Schools' called RE teachers 'wretched.' Halfwit. Learn more about this cretinous little group here: ADOGS. Great website.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Deveney Watch, December 11
You either love her or loathe her
Oh, poor widdle Caffy Waffy. All these terrible readers who dare disagree with her. But guess what? No point - she doesn't read fan or flame mail because she's just little bit more self-important than I'd dare imagine.
I am genuine when I say that I think she has her heart in the right place. It's just that it's really obvious she is completely screwed up and has disappeared up her own, and by her admission, well-used fundament. She cheerfully admits to what many would consider failings and is so anti-marriage one wonders whether the father of her children has his stopwatch set for the end of it all. I have something to scare you with, Miss D - you're married whether you've signed the paper or not.
I actually don't love or loathe the woman, I do agree with her and disagree with her in equal measure, sometimes in the same column. I resent that there are better, more thoughtful writers out there with a wider variety of topics and infinitely more interesting takes on it. She is so black and white but does not accept the same attitudes from others. And is so stupidly arrogant as not to bother listening to those who opine about her. She sees no reason to defend herself, I suppose, but then again, some of the things she says are indefensible.
Take, for instance, her assertion that women who take their husbands names are either deepy insecure, deeply conservative or deeply stupid. Right. For the record, I encouraged my wife not to take my last name, not that she ever had any intention of doing so, but the fact remains, she criticises people's choices but won't listen to those who may criticise hers - because, in her little world, they're wrong.
Newsflash for you, Cath - you're in the same boat as Andrew Bolt. Ignorant and pig-headed in equal degrees, just from opposite ends of the political spectrum. Why The Age feels the need to promote you (complete with girly picture to replace the oddly unflattering one they usually use) and defend you from your detractors is anyone's guess. They wouldn't do the same thing for the equally crazy Miranda Devine in Fairfax's northern outpost.
Oh, poor widdle Caffy Waffy. All these terrible readers who dare disagree with her. But guess what? No point - she doesn't read fan or flame mail because she's just little bit more self-important than I'd dare imagine.
I am genuine when I say that I think she has her heart in the right place. It's just that it's really obvious she is completely screwed up and has disappeared up her own, and by her admission, well-used fundament. She cheerfully admits to what many would consider failings and is so anti-marriage one wonders whether the father of her children has his stopwatch set for the end of it all. I have something to scare you with, Miss D - you're married whether you've signed the paper or not.
I actually don't love or loathe the woman, I do agree with her and disagree with her in equal measure, sometimes in the same column. I resent that there are better, more thoughtful writers out there with a wider variety of topics and infinitely more interesting takes on it. She is so black and white but does not accept the same attitudes from others. And is so stupidly arrogant as not to bother listening to those who opine about her. She sees no reason to defend herself, I suppose, but then again, some of the things she says are indefensible.
Take, for instance, her assertion that women who take their husbands names are either deepy insecure, deeply conservative or deeply stupid. Right. For the record, I encouraged my wife not to take my last name, not that she ever had any intention of doing so, but the fact remains, she criticises people's choices but won't listen to those who may criticise hers - because, in her little world, they're wrong.
Newsflash for you, Cath - you're in the same boat as Andrew Bolt. Ignorant and pig-headed in equal degrees, just from opposite ends of the political spectrum. Why The Age feels the need to promote you (complete with girly picture to replace the oddly unflattering one they usually use) and defend you from your detractors is anyone's guess. They wouldn't do the same thing for the equally crazy Miranda Devine in Fairfax's northern outpost.
Monday, December 08, 2008
Michael Pascoe Has A Point
Mergers are for suckers
The merger in particular question is the QANTAS - BA merger. Why the hell anyone, apart from Dixo-Joy and other 'advising' parties thinks this is a good idea is a mystery. BA is in desperate straits, negotiating with a far more suitable partner in Spain's Iberia Airways and a hulking great airline unable to turn a buck because it operates in a highly-competitive and mature aviation market. One that is deregulated to within an inch of its life and now dominated by RyanAir and easyJet-style low-cost carriers.
BA also has had its trans-Atlantic lunch comprehensively cut by Branson's Virgin Atlantic and its long-haul Asian routes are better served by lower-cost-base 'premium' carriers like Singapore, Cathay and now Emirates. Oh, they're in debt to their eyeballs, have billions in unfunded pensions and a fleet that resembles Noah's Ark. It is bereft of the cachet of flag carrier as Virgin, again, have managed to white-ant them out of that position. Anyone who has flown BA would also know how unutterably dull the experience is, but that's purely a personal thing.
Qantas, on the other hand, despite a disastrous year of morale-sapping bungles and mishaps, is in rude health. Dixon has cut costs to the bone because, well, frankly, he's a jerk, and bullied his staff into submission by threatening to take jobs overseas while taking home $12m and flying first class everywhere. His reign will be marked by a) his Henny Penny sky-is-falling routine before announcing a mammoth profit and b) his wild attempts to make millions of dollars through the failed leveraged buy-out last year. Oh and c) - the fact the airline is in decline with regards to standards, but that's always for the next bunny, Joyce, to deal with.
The airline still pretty much owns the trans-Pacific West Coast USA routes and also has a strangehold on the domestic, medium and long-haul routes via Jetstar and the main brand. The only fly in Qantas' trans-Pacific ointment is the Virgin Blue-backed V Australia (no longer owned in any part by Branson, sadly) which was to have launched by now but won't get in the air until around March when Boeing get around to delivering a few cheap-to-run 777s. The main victim of V Australia will be the risible United Airlines, who ironically are fed by Virgin Blue for the domestic routes. Oh and Airbus and Boeing haven't the faintest idea how to deliver a plane on time.
What's in it for Qantas shareholders? Nothing. Nothing at all. Actually, worse than nothing - BA will drag down Qantas shares as the new entity shoulders the debt and mismanagement of the bigger, fatter, slower-moving brother. No doubt there is some scary frequent flyer liabilities hidden in the BA business as well as significant cost problems in its home market. The only thing good that could come out of it is a platform from which to launch Jetstar Europe. But that's about it. The amount of money a Jetstar would have to make in that market would be astronomical to even cover the liability that is today's British Airways.
BA shareholders won't win either for all the same reasons. Yeah, they might make a penny or two in the short term but BA will drag the entity down and destroy two airlines instead of one. I can't see either government wanting to help too much if that happened. There will be significant resistance from Qantas shareholders, too. The most obvious suitors for Qantas are Air NZ (won't happen), Singapore Airlines (mmm...maybe....) and Cathay Pacific (uncertain...). Anything but BA, an airline mired in a market far away from the realities and opportunities of South East Asia and carrying an incompetent, inflexible structure that can't adapt to the new realities of aviation in the twenty-first century. Qantas aren't perfect either, but at least they're not doing as bad a job as BA.
All they have to do now is stop their planes from looking like they're going to fall out of the sky at any minute, restore customer service and staff morale and things look very bright for a BA-less Qantas.
The competitive concerns are null and void because there's a legal cartel in effect between Qantas and BA because they code-share on the bulk of seats and charge the same.
The merger in particular question is the QANTAS - BA merger. Why the hell anyone, apart from Dixo-Joy and other 'advising' parties thinks this is a good idea is a mystery. BA is in desperate straits, negotiating with a far more suitable partner in Spain's Iberia Airways and a hulking great airline unable to turn a buck because it operates in a highly-competitive and mature aviation market. One that is deregulated to within an inch of its life and now dominated by RyanAir and easyJet-style low-cost carriers.
BA also has had its trans-Atlantic lunch comprehensively cut by Branson's Virgin Atlantic and its long-haul Asian routes are better served by lower-cost-base 'premium' carriers like Singapore, Cathay and now Emirates. Oh, they're in debt to their eyeballs, have billions in unfunded pensions and a fleet that resembles Noah's Ark. It is bereft of the cachet of flag carrier as Virgin, again, have managed to white-ant them out of that position. Anyone who has flown BA would also know how unutterably dull the experience is, but that's purely a personal thing.
Qantas, on the other hand, despite a disastrous year of morale-sapping bungles and mishaps, is in rude health. Dixon has cut costs to the bone because, well, frankly, he's a jerk, and bullied his staff into submission by threatening to take jobs overseas while taking home $12m and flying first class everywhere. His reign will be marked by a) his Henny Penny sky-is-falling routine before announcing a mammoth profit and b) his wild attempts to make millions of dollars through the failed leveraged buy-out last year. Oh and c) - the fact the airline is in decline with regards to standards, but that's always for the next bunny, Joyce, to deal with.
The airline still pretty much owns the trans-Pacific West Coast USA routes and also has a strangehold on the domestic, medium and long-haul routes via Jetstar and the main brand. The only fly in Qantas' trans-Pacific ointment is the Virgin Blue-backed V Australia (no longer owned in any part by Branson, sadly) which was to have launched by now but won't get in the air until around March when Boeing get around to delivering a few cheap-to-run 777s. The main victim of V Australia will be the risible United Airlines, who ironically are fed by Virgin Blue for the domestic routes. Oh and Airbus and Boeing haven't the faintest idea how to deliver a plane on time.
What's in it for Qantas shareholders? Nothing. Nothing at all. Actually, worse than nothing - BA will drag down Qantas shares as the new entity shoulders the debt and mismanagement of the bigger, fatter, slower-moving brother. No doubt there is some scary frequent flyer liabilities hidden in the BA business as well as significant cost problems in its home market. The only thing good that could come out of it is a platform from which to launch Jetstar Europe. But that's about it. The amount of money a Jetstar would have to make in that market would be astronomical to even cover the liability that is today's British Airways.
BA shareholders won't win either for all the same reasons. Yeah, they might make a penny or two in the short term but BA will drag the entity down and destroy two airlines instead of one. I can't see either government wanting to help too much if that happened. There will be significant resistance from Qantas shareholders, too. The most obvious suitors for Qantas are Air NZ (won't happen), Singapore Airlines (mmm...maybe....) and Cathay Pacific (uncertain...). Anything but BA, an airline mired in a market far away from the realities and opportunities of South East Asia and carrying an incompetent, inflexible structure that can't adapt to the new realities of aviation in the twenty-first century. Qantas aren't perfect either, but at least they're not doing as bad a job as BA.
All they have to do now is stop their planes from looking like they're going to fall out of the sky at any minute, restore customer service and staff morale and things look very bright for a BA-less Qantas.
The competitive concerns are null and void because there's a legal cartel in effect between Qantas and BA because they code-share on the bulk of seats and charge the same.
Melbourne's Fourth (Labor) Transport Blueprint
So here we are.
Is This Our Future?
Uncle John Brumby who is a self-styled action man has commissioned a bunch of reports. Woo-hoo!
The plan is, basically, a let-down. Two of Melbourne's most psycho roads, Hoddle Street and Alexandra Parade/Princes Street, both fed by the overloaded Eastern Freeway, will be left untouched. Hoddle Street gets a study, which will cost $5m, to decide if under/overpasses are viable. Fat chance. They won't do it because they don't have the nuts. Why? The biggest piece of the Eddington plan was the tunnel from the end of the Eastern Freeway that would go under the city and end up in the West.
It gets worse. All they've got for the Eastern suburbs is - drum roll, please, because this is awesome - more buses. So anyone coming down the Eastern Freeway has no hope for trains or light rail for the next forty years, basically.
The government (and the bovine media) are hailing this as a transport revolution. It's nothing. It's not even treading water. The initial stage of the metro will stop at Domain Road. Domain Road! The bulk of passengers need to keep going down to the Dandenong Road interchange.
The Maribyrnong tunnel is actually a bloody good idea a long time coming, I will applaud that. But the rest? Vapour. Three more years of this (at least) and if Brumby is booted out on his arse, the axe will fall immediately.
There won't be the money available to do the metro anyway, so kiss it goodbye. Private public partnerships should be dead if they aren't already because nobody is going to extend the credit to make it all happen after the series of disasters in Australia, the only bright spot being Citylink.
Is This Our Future?
Uncle John Brumby who is a self-styled action man has commissioned a bunch of reports. Woo-hoo!
The plan is, basically, a let-down. Two of Melbourne's most psycho roads, Hoddle Street and Alexandra Parade/Princes Street, both fed by the overloaded Eastern Freeway, will be left untouched. Hoddle Street gets a study, which will cost $5m, to decide if under/overpasses are viable. Fat chance. They won't do it because they don't have the nuts. Why? The biggest piece of the Eddington plan was the tunnel from the end of the Eastern Freeway that would go under the city and end up in the West.
It gets worse. All they've got for the Eastern suburbs is - drum roll, please, because this is awesome - more buses. So anyone coming down the Eastern Freeway has no hope for trains or light rail for the next forty years, basically.
The government (and the bovine media) are hailing this as a transport revolution. It's nothing. It's not even treading water. The initial stage of the metro will stop at Domain Road. Domain Road! The bulk of passengers need to keep going down to the Dandenong Road interchange.
The Maribyrnong tunnel is actually a bloody good idea a long time coming, I will applaud that. But the rest? Vapour. Three more years of this (at least) and if Brumby is booted out on his arse, the axe will fall immediately.
There won't be the money available to do the metro anyway, so kiss it goodbye. Private public partnerships should be dead if they aren't already because nobody is going to extend the credit to make it all happen after the series of disasters in Australia, the only bright spot being Citylink.
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
Deveney Watch
This week it's article number one, as detailed below:
Robert Doyle is mayor...so what's the punchline?
'The Liberal Party leadership handover from Robert to Ted was the Born to Rule dream-team; White and Whiter; 100% charisma-free, idea-resistant and void of all traces of originality or your MCC membership back!'
'I was thrilled to hear a middle-aged, middle-class rich bloke in a suit won the mayoral bling. There just aren't enough of them in highly paid ceremonial roles that consist of hand-shaking, ribbon-cutting and posing for photographs with visiting local dignitaries.'
Again, don't get me wrong. I agree with her. But we've heard it all before.
Some racial stereotyping, referring to John So in the Melbourne ads:
'It was like a confused Asian businessman being led around Melbourne by his translator. As Livinia spoke on his behalf, John So looked like he just wanted to hit the casino, play golf and buy opals'
The punchline, Cath, is that you need some new ideas to talk about.
Oh, I forgot, your article about Sexpo was completely devoid of feminist bluster or indeed any commentary on its basic failure to treat humans as humans. Why? Sexpo is supporting the objectification of women and men through the medium of sex. Women are reduced to tits and orifices that will accept penises and other objects and faces on which to splash semen.
Oh, that's right, we're just animals in clothes and attacking Sexpo for that reason (you just complained it was unsexy) would give lie to your piece from last year. Unless the Mayor of Mt Isa says anything, of course, in which case, you change your story.
Robert Doyle is mayor...so what's the punchline?
'The Liberal Party leadership handover from Robert to Ted was the Born to Rule dream-team; White and Whiter; 100% charisma-free, idea-resistant and void of all traces of originality or your MCC membership back!'
'I was thrilled to hear a middle-aged, middle-class rich bloke in a suit won the mayoral bling. There just aren't enough of them in highly paid ceremonial roles that consist of hand-shaking, ribbon-cutting and posing for photographs with visiting local dignitaries.'
Again, don't get me wrong. I agree with her. But we've heard it all before.
Some racial stereotyping, referring to John So in the Melbourne ads:
'It was like a confused Asian businessman being led around Melbourne by his translator. As Livinia spoke on his behalf, John So looked like he just wanted to hit the casino, play golf and buy opals'
The punchline, Cath, is that you need some new ideas to talk about.
Oh, I forgot, your article about Sexpo was completely devoid of feminist bluster or indeed any commentary on its basic failure to treat humans as humans. Why? Sexpo is supporting the objectification of women and men through the medium of sex. Women are reduced to tits and orifices that will accept penises and other objects and faces on which to splash semen.
Oh, that's right, we're just animals in clothes and attacking Sexpo for that reason (you just complained it was unsexy) would give lie to your piece from last year. Unless the Mayor of Mt Isa says anything, of course, in which case, you change your story.
Melbourne Is Not Going Anywhere
City transport plan revealed
I should have put the word plan in inverted commas because, after reading this, there isn't a plan. Anything big (Uncle Rod's road tunnel) and the St Kilda Road metro are 'years away.'
Translation: anything big isn't happening on John Brumby's watch. We've had a ton of these 'transport blueprints' and none of them have achieved a single improvement in Melbourne's public transport. Vacillation is the order of the day, as are stupendously expensive consultant reports which the government, as though compelled by legislation to do so, routinely ignores, whatever the report says.
All Brumby is doing is shifting an already-promised 2016 start for the South Morang extension, bringing it to 2010 (huzzah, sort of), commissioning more 'detailed studies' (see above) and suggesting he might maybe one day do Uncle Rod's tunnel and the metro line. Contingent on...?
Yes, Federal funding. Another translation for you: 'We've pissed the good times up against the wall for the last 15 years, wasting money on the Commonwealth Games and other pointless, money-losing sporting events so now we need your money.'
Uncle Kev's response will be short and sharp: 'Get stuffed.' Good, too, this government deserves a thorough bollocking at the next state election (2010...shock!)
Of course there's more roads in there, as though that will fix things but there isn't any more than about $1.2bn in actual commitments, out of about $20bn worth of announcements. Chairman Mao would be proud of this sort of talking down to the people. He really would.
I should have put the word plan in inverted commas because, after reading this, there isn't a plan. Anything big (Uncle Rod's road tunnel) and the St Kilda Road metro are 'years away.'
Translation: anything big isn't happening on John Brumby's watch. We've had a ton of these 'transport blueprints' and none of them have achieved a single improvement in Melbourne's public transport. Vacillation is the order of the day, as are stupendously expensive consultant reports which the government, as though compelled by legislation to do so, routinely ignores, whatever the report says.
All Brumby is doing is shifting an already-promised 2016 start for the South Morang extension, bringing it to 2010 (huzzah, sort of), commissioning more 'detailed studies' (see above) and suggesting he might maybe one day do Uncle Rod's tunnel and the metro line. Contingent on...?
Yes, Federal funding. Another translation for you: 'We've pissed the good times up against the wall for the last 15 years, wasting money on the Commonwealth Games and other pointless, money-losing sporting events so now we need your money.'
Uncle Kev's response will be short and sharp: 'Get stuffed.' Good, too, this government deserves a thorough bollocking at the next state election (2010...shock!)
Of course there's more roads in there, as though that will fix things but there isn't any more than about $1.2bn in actual commitments, out of about $20bn worth of announcements. Chairman Mao would be proud of this sort of talking down to the people. He really would.
Monday, December 01, 2008
This Is Not Going To Work
Sydney bike plan: shared pavements
Normally, this is where I'd rub my hands with evil glee but sadly, a lot of people are going to get very, very badly hurt.
I'm wondering how councils get so full of bike-loving idiots. Not car-hating specifically, not pedestrian-hating, but bike-loving. The country's councils appeared to be filled with lunatics who think that bicycles must at all times be subject to extra care and attention while pedestrians, motorists and public transport can go hang. Here's some choice quotes:
'At least 12 cyclists have been hit by cars or trucks on College Street between 2003 and 2007.'
Awful. How many of them were the fault of the cyclists? No figures, of course, it must have been the car's fault.
'A council spokesman said the shared pathways would not have a painted line to separate bikes from pedestrians.'
Perfect. So whoever is biggest and fastest gets right of way. So bikes win.
'Cyclists would be encouraged to keep to the left, whether they were travelling north or south'
Bwahahaha. Yeah, right. Pedestrians won't keep right, bikes won't keep left. Someone is on the crack cocaine and has been smoking it like a cigarette.
'"The general rule is to keep to the left. It will slow all the traffic down and everyone will mingle at the same speed. There won't be a line on the ground so it will take a bit of understanding from everyone involved."'
Bzzt. Enough people are idiots, on the phone, distracted or all three. That includes people on bikes.
Here's my favourite:
'Councillor John McInerney, chair of the council's traffic committee, called for riders to stick to a 10kmh speed limit on the shared path.'
Fat chance
'"Of course, there will always be the odd rogue cyclist or even the rogue pedestrian..."'
....who will actually stick to the rules.
'"But we want to mirror the European experience."'
Which would be what exactly? Europe's a big place. I believe heaps of cyclists are killed in Poland. In Europe they are kept off the footpaths on ludicriously wide bike lanes.
Harold Scruby started well:
'"I think we should offer $1000 prize money to the first person to see a cyclist doing 10kmh."'
I second that.
'"The long term outcome will be that many pedestrians will be seriously injured and some will be killed."'
Steady on. The really fast riders will stay on the road causing their usual mayhem.
But seriously folks. They can't be serious. Bicyclists need to be separated from pedestrians and cars for everybody's safety. Cyclists have this apoplexy they reserve for loss of momentum that is commonly referred to as road rage when it's a driver that carries on like that. This is moronic, dangerous and a waste of money. Since when do pedestrians walk at 10km/h? A brisk walk, something the average Aussie fatty can't manage, is 6km/h. Mingling? More like mangling.
Here's the best one from the bike side:
'Alex Unwin from Bicycle NSW said increased cycling would increase "the levels of community health ... while addressing the great issue of our times, global warming."'
Like they're the only solution. Halfwit.
Normally, this is where I'd rub my hands with evil glee but sadly, a lot of people are going to get very, very badly hurt.
I'm wondering how councils get so full of bike-loving idiots. Not car-hating specifically, not pedestrian-hating, but bike-loving. The country's councils appeared to be filled with lunatics who think that bicycles must at all times be subject to extra care and attention while pedestrians, motorists and public transport can go hang. Here's some choice quotes:
'At least 12 cyclists have been hit by cars or trucks on College Street between 2003 and 2007.'
Awful. How many of them were the fault of the cyclists? No figures, of course, it must have been the car's fault.
'A council spokesman said the shared pathways would not have a painted line to separate bikes from pedestrians.'
Perfect. So whoever is biggest and fastest gets right of way. So bikes win.
'Cyclists would be encouraged to keep to the left, whether they were travelling north or south'
Bwahahaha. Yeah, right. Pedestrians won't keep right, bikes won't keep left. Someone is on the crack cocaine and has been smoking it like a cigarette.
'"The general rule is to keep to the left. It will slow all the traffic down and everyone will mingle at the same speed. There won't be a line on the ground so it will take a bit of understanding from everyone involved."'
Bzzt. Enough people are idiots, on the phone, distracted or all three. That includes people on bikes.
Here's my favourite:
'Councillor John McInerney, chair of the council's traffic committee, called for riders to stick to a 10kmh speed limit on the shared path.'
Fat chance
'"Of course, there will always be the odd rogue cyclist or even the rogue pedestrian..."'
....who will actually stick to the rules.
'"But we want to mirror the European experience."'
Which would be what exactly? Europe's a big place. I believe heaps of cyclists are killed in Poland. In Europe they are kept off the footpaths on ludicriously wide bike lanes.
Harold Scruby started well:
'"I think we should offer $1000 prize money to the first person to see a cyclist doing 10kmh."'
I second that.
'"The long term outcome will be that many pedestrians will be seriously injured and some will be killed."'
Steady on. The really fast riders will stay on the road causing their usual mayhem.
But seriously folks. They can't be serious. Bicyclists need to be separated from pedestrians and cars for everybody's safety. Cyclists have this apoplexy they reserve for loss of momentum that is commonly referred to as road rage when it's a driver that carries on like that. This is moronic, dangerous and a waste of money. Since when do pedestrians walk at 10km/h? A brisk walk, something the average Aussie fatty can't manage, is 6km/h. Mingling? More like mangling.
Here's the best one from the bike side:
'Alex Unwin from Bicycle NSW said increased cycling would increase "the levels of community health ... while addressing the great issue of our times, global warming."'
Like they're the only solution. Halfwit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)