Road raging pillocks in Perth

Resound

"Theo Bekkers" <tbekkers@bekkers.com.au> wrote in message
news:47c5d6f3$1@news.bekkers.com.au...
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>> PeteSig wrote:
>
>>> 'Behaviour' is Joe Bloggs in his sick SS Commode doesn't give a rats
>>> about any crap cyclists and cuts them by close.
>
>> Yes, and how does behaviour change?
>>
>> Education and Enforcement. Education alone won't, Enforcement alone
>> won't.
>>
>> I don't think Education as in "don't do it, there's a good chap" will
>> make a difference. "Don't do it cos only pillocks do, plus you'll cop
>> several points and a whacking great fine" will.
>
> Do you believe we should educate children by beating them with a stick? If
> not, why should we educate adults that way?
>

Because when you educate children, you're educating a broad cross section of
the community. In this instance you're much more likely to be attempting to
educate the section of the community who are either to stupid or sociopathic
to have worked out how to share the road themselves. I find that most
drivers are courteous so the few who aren't are (I'm guessing) unlikely to
be amenable to polite requests. Hence the big stick. It's exactly the same
as for thinks like drink driving, excessive speeding and so on, in other
words, please don't do it and if you don't listen then we'll ask again. With
the big stick.

Resound

"Theo Bekkers" <tbekkers@bekkers.com.au> wrote in message
news:47c5d45f$1@news.bekkers.com.au...
> Terryc wrote:
>> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>>
>>> That will bring a few howls from the gallery. What bicycle
>>> infrastructure would sir like to buy? :-)
>>
>> Get a grip on reality Theo. Only because I already contribute heavily
>> to construction and maintenance of the existing road infrastrcture.
>> So, I fail to see why a proportion, say 5% for starters, ofthat
>> existing roads budget should not immediately be applied to building
>> new, high standard bicycle infrastructure.
>
> Hark, do I hear the gallery? Certainly money should be spent on both. What
> percentage do you think is realistic, and of what? You say 5% of the roads
> budget, but the road budget is not just for infrastucture, is it? Also the
> infrastructure we seem to get is some very nice, and some appalingly
> designed, paths which may make some people feel good about catering for
> cyclists, but in a lot of cases don't actually go anywhere. Certainly not
> from where you live to where you work. Where these paths interact with
> roads is so dangerous that many cyclists don't use the paths at all. I
> believe most of the money being spent on cycling infrastructure in Perth
> is not being utilised, allowing motorists to say, 'Look at those empty
> paths I paid for', and at the same time causing cyclists to say, 'Where's
> the safe route to work for me?'
>
> Are you asking for 5% of the money currently being spent on roads to be
> diverted to cycle infrastructure, or are you asking for 5% more money. If
> so, where will this 5% come from? Motorists maybe?
>
> Theo

Considering that more than 5% of money spent of roads comes from somewhere
other than that derived specifically from motorists, in other words, from
the public purse, why is that such a strange thing to ask for? I personally
use a car a great deal less than other people. Should I therefore pay less
in tax because I congest the road and cause wear and tear to it less? Should
I pay less tax because, as someone getting regular exercise I'm less likely
to burden the health system? Oh, How about me getting to pay less tax
because I'm not contributing to urban air pollution and the attendant
respiritory disorders? (oh and not a word about coal fired power stations, I
said URBAN air pollution...the stuff that's concentrated in urban areas,
specifically around arterial roads) In other words, if you're advocating a
user pays system, I want a substantial tax refund. Or possibly just a bit
more spent on cycling infrastructure. Call it 5% of what's currently spent
on roads. They can give the rest back to me later.

Graeme Dods

On Feb 28, 4:37 pm, "Theo Bekkers" <tbekk...@bekkers.com.au> wrote:
> Graeme Dods wrote:
> > Theo Bekkers wrote:
> >> How do you think they powered all those windmills? :-)
> > I didn't see any windmills, I think they'd all been blown over!
>
> There's only a few left for the tourists .

Now this method of windmill (ok, turbine) removal would certainly be a
tourist attraction. Rather expensive though - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3FZtmlHwcA

Graeme

Terryc

Theo Bekkers wrote:

> Do you believe we should educate children by beating them with a stick?

Beating, no, strikng yes.

Lesser of two evils. I've always believed that it taught them a few
concepts that their brain didn't yet understand. But once they
understood the concepts, you didn't need it anymore as there are other
methods of learning.

> If not, why should we educate adults that way?

Because some adults still haven't learnt those basic lessons.


Even though I was only caned a couple of times, I developped the same
attitude as G-S mentioned towards "authority". Grades were a different
matter/motivation.

Terryc

Theo Bekkers wrote:
< lotsof fat arsed car driver troll crap deleted.

> Are you asking for 5% of the money currently being spent on roads to be
> diverted to cycle infrastructure,

Yes. 5% of journeys to work are made by bicycle. There is a huge backlog
to catch up.

> If so, where will this 5% come from? Motorists maybe?

What an excellent idea. I have been subsidising them for decades. It is
time they started to pay the full cost of the road infrastructure they
demand. Triple to fuel levy would be a great idea, then we wil have
enough to fund the hospitals and services we need for all the damage the
that motor vehicles do. We can also remove all those tax lurks for
people who drive company cars. The ones that are not availabe to the
average PAYE tax payer.

If it is going to be user pays, then lets make sure it really is.

lemmiwinks.au@gmail.com

On Feb 29, 12:50 am, Graeme Dods <GraemeD...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 28, 4:37 pm, "Theo Bekkers" <tbekk...@bekkers.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Graeme Dods wrote:
> > > Theo Bekkers wrote:
> > >> How do you think they powered all those windmills? :-)
> > > I didn't see any windmills, I think they'd all been blown over!
>
> > There's only a few left for the tourists .
>
> Now this method of windmill (ok, turbine) removal would certainly be a
> tourist attraction. Rather expensive though -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3FZtmlHwcA
>
> Graeme

Holy crap! Perhaps the system to feather the blades failed as I can't
imagine they'd build something like that without some protection.

Theo Bekkers

lemmiwinks.au@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 29, 12:50 am, Graeme Dods <GraemeD...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Now this method of windmill (ok, turbine) removal would certainly be
>> a
>> tourist attraction. Rather expensive though
>> -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3FZtmlHwcA

> Holy crap! Perhaps the system to feather the blades failed as I can't
> imagine they'd build something like that without some protection.

My guess is that they knew the pitch control had failed, hence why the
camera was there.

Theo

Theo Bekkers

Terryc wrote:
> Theo Bekkers wrote:

>> Are you asking for 5% of the money currently being spent on roads to
>> be diverted to cycle infrastructure,

> Yes. 5% of journeys to work are made by bicycle. There is a huge
> backlog to catch up.

>> If so, where will this 5% come from? Motorists maybe?

> What an excellent idea. I have been subsidising them for decades. It
> is time they started to pay the full cost of the road infrastructure
> they demand. Triple to fuel levy would be a great idea, then we wil
> have enough to fund the hospitals and services we need for all the
> damage the that motor vehicles do. We can also remove all those tax
> lurks for people who drive company cars. The ones that are not
> availabe to the average PAYE tax payer.
>
> If it is going to be user pays, then lets make sure it really is.

The Dutch solution was that cyclists paid for cycling infrastructure.

I never suggested user pays. I asked whether we should divert roads money to
cycling or raise and additional tax. I can't see that you have answered
that.

There are, and will always be, infrastructure costs. We have to have roads,
someone has to pay for them. We have to have education, someone has to pay
for it. People without children or cars are not exempt, nor should they be.
A lot of the cycling infrastructure I have seen and used, is money wasted.
Paths going nowhere that nobody uses. OTOH, some paths are really useful,
such as the one from East Perth to Bayswater alongside East Pde and the
railway line. Most however are for recreational cyclists who are not really
going anywhere. You see lots of cars along the foreshore with bicycle racks
on the weekend. that seems a bit pointless to me, drive your car to where
you want to pose (oops, cycle). I think for recreational use, user pays may
be appropriate.

Theo

Theo Bekkers

Terryc wrote:
> Theo Bekkers wrote:

>> Do you believe we should educate children by beating them with a
>> stick?
>
> Beating, no, strikng yes.
>
> Lesser of two evils. I've always believed that it taught them a few
> concepts that their brain didn't yet understand. But once they
> understood the concepts, you didn't need it anymore as there are other
> methods of learning.

>> If not, why should we educate adults that way?

> Because some adults still haven't learnt those basic lessons.

> Even though I was only caned a couple of times, I developped the same
> attitude as G-S mentioned towards "authority". Grades were a
> different matter/motivation.

Same here. But you think adults won't react that way. They will see it as a
learning experience.

Theo

Theo Bekkers

Resound wrote:

> Considering that more than 5% of money spent of roads comes from
> somewhere other than that derived specifically from motorists, in
> other words, from the public purse, why is that such a strange thing
> to ask for? I personally use a car a great deal less than other
> people. Should I therefore pay less in tax because I congest the road
> and cause wear and tear to it less? Should I pay less tax because, as
> someone getting regular exercise I'm less likely to burden the health
> system? Oh, How about me getting to pay less tax because I'm not
> contributing to urban air pollution and the attendant respiritory
> disorders? (oh and not a word about coal fired power stations, I said
> URBAN air pollution...the stuff that's concentrated in urban areas,
> specifically around arterial roads) In other words, if you're
> advocating a user pays system, I want a substantial tax refund. Or
> possibly just a bit more spent on cycling infrastructure. Call it 5%
> of what's currently spent on roads. They can give the rest back to me
> later.

I just discovered that soem of my taxes are spent on educating children even
though my children haven't been in school for more than 20 years. How unfair
is that?

Theo

Theo Bekkers

Resound wrote:
> "Theo Bekkers" <tbekkers@bekkers.com.au> wrote

>> Do you believe we should educate children by beating them with a
>> stick? If not, why should we educate adults that way?

> Because when you educate children, you're educating a broad cross
> section of the community. In this instance you're much more likely to
> be attempting to educate the section of the community who are either
> to stupid or sociopathic to have worked out how to share the road
> themselves. I find that most drivers are courteous so the few who
> aren't are (I'm guessing) unlikely to be amenable to polite requests.
> Hence the big stick. It's exactly the same as for thinks like drink
> driving, excessive speeding and so on, in other words, please don't
> do it and if you don't listen then we'll ask again. With the big
> stick.

But weren't those stupid or sociopathic adults stupid or sociopathic
children. Why didn't we beat them with a stick then?

Theo

Graeme Dods

On Feb 29, 7:58 am, "Theo Bekkers" <tbekk...@bekkers.com.au> wrote:
> lemmiwinks...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Feb 29, 12:50 am, Graeme Dods <GraemeD...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Now this method of windmill (ok, turbine) removal would certainly be
> >> a
> >> tourist attraction. Rather expensive though
> >> -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3FZtmlHwcA
> > Holy crap! Perhaps the system to feather the blades failed as I can't
> > imagine they'd build something like that without some protection.
>
> My guess is that they knew the pitch control had failed, hence why the
> camera was there.

It was fairly recent (last week or so) and from what I've read the
feathering system failed and the back up braking system wasn't able to
stop the blades on its own. This was all during a storm, so they
obviously decided to retire to a safe distance and sit back and watch
the show. I know I would!

Graeme

brucef

On Feb 28, 6:28 am, "Theo Bekkers" <tbekk...@bekkers.com.au> wrote:
> Do you believe we should educate children by beating them with a stick? If
> not, why should we educate adults that way?

What is all this stuff about sticks? Have we started caning
recalcitrant motorists? I thought they just got fined.

Steve Ball

Theo Bekkers:

> Resound wrote:
>
>> Considering that more than 5% of money spent of roads comes from
>> somewhere other than that derived specifically from motorists, in
>> other words, from the public purse, why is that such a strange thing
>> to ask for? I personally use a car a great deal less than other
>> people. Should I therefore pay less in tax because I congest the road
>> and cause wear and tear to it less? Should I pay less tax because, as
>> someone getting regular exercise I'm less likely to burden the health
>> system? Oh, How about me getting to pay less tax because I'm not
>> contributing to urban air pollution and the attendant respiritory
>> disorders? (oh and not a word about coal fired power stations, I said
>> URBAN air pollution...the stuff that's concentrated in urban areas,
>> specifically around arterial roads) In other words, if you're
>> advocating a user pays system, I want a substantial tax refund. Or
>> possibly just a bit more spent on cycling infrastructure. Call it 5%
>> of what's currently spent on roads. They can give the rest back to me
>> later.
>
> I just discovered that soem of my taxes are spent on educating children even
> though my children haven't been in school for more than 20 years. How unfair
> is that?

I don't even _have_ any children!
--
Steve = : ^ )