Nev.. wrote:
> G-S wrote:
>> Nev.. wrote:
>>> G-S wrote:
>>>> Diogenes wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:01:32 +1100, G-S <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Diogenes wrote:
>>>>>>>> Lowering the speed limit and altering the road marking laws to
>>>>>>>> prohibit overtaking simply enables the enforcement effort to
>>>>>>>> trap people who are riding in a sensible, and until recently,
>>>>>>>> perfectly legal manner.
>>>>>>> So you're saying that it's all an evil, antisocial plan to trap the
>>>>>>> innocent whilst turning a blind eye to the guilty? You don't think
>>>>>>> that's a bit of a skewed view of reality?
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm saying that the gumbiment see this lowering of speed limits as
>>>>>> having the bonus effect of raising the amount of revenue their
>>>>>> mobile tax gathering units (highway patrols) get from day dreaming
>>>>>> car drivers (and the occasional motorcyclist).
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, it gives them more money with which to finance more active
>>>>> traffic patrolling. Good innit? It's called economics". JL can
>>>>> tell you all about it. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If it was used for that I wouldn't have such a problem with it.
>>>>
>>>> If it was even used to fund general police services I wouldn't have
>>>> a problem with it.
>>>>
>>>> But the revenue from fines goes mostly into general revenue where
>>>> it's used for such diverse and useful things as excessive
>>>> superannuation funds for pollies and golden plane tickets for
>>>> retired pollies and their families and blowing their own horn in
>>>> television adverts.
>>>
>>> ..and schools, hospitals, services for the elderly. That stuff too.
>>>
>>> Nev..
>>> '08 DL1000K8
>>
>> I pay for private education for our child (over $10k a year).
>>
>> My mother and my aunts weren't/aren't eligible for 'services for the
>> elderly'. In fact my aunt recently had to pay $250000 for admission
>> to a low care facility that is available to older people on benefits
>> for free.
>>
>> I have private health care and so do all my family, I haven't used the
>> public health system in over 20 years.
>>
>> 'That stuff too' is about as useful to me as what I said in the
>> earlier post...
>
> So you think that speeding fines should be used to pay for benefits for
> you rather than to assist the lesser able in the community. Why so?
> It's not your money. Why should you care what they spend it on? Think
> yourself lucky. If others didn't pay 'voluntary tax' you'd have to pay
> a compulsory tax.
>

I already pay 'compulsory tax' though!

I don't object to the government spending money on public projects and I
don't object to them spending it on infrastructure and I don't object to
them spending it to support those who've worked and paid tax during
their working life. Nor do I object to them spending it upon the
genuinely disabled and those genuinely unable to support themselves.

I object (to various degrees) the government spending money upon those
items I don't approve of.

It isn't the amount of tax I pay that's the issue, I'd happily pay more
if I had some control over where it was allocated. There are various
taxation systems around the world that allow a certain percentage of tax
paid to be directed towards certain areas. Something along those lines
would be a start.


G-S

"Diogenes" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 18:26:29 +1100, G-S <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Diogenes wrote:
>>> On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 22:07:44 +1100, G-S <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Diogenes wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:01:32 +1100, G-S <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Diogenes wrote:
>>>>>>>> Lowering the speed limit and altering the road marking laws to
>>>>>>>> prohibit
>>>>>>>> overtaking simply enables the enforcement effort to trap people who
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> riding in a sensible, and until recently, perfectly legal manner.
>>>>>>> So you're saying that it's all an evil, antisocial plan to trap the
>>>>>>> innocent whilst turning a blind eye to the guilty? You don't think
>>>>>>> that's a bit of a skewed view of reality?
>>>>>> I'm saying that the gumbiment see this lowering of speed limits as
>>>>>> having the bonus effect of raising the amount of revenue their mobile
>>>>>> tax gathering units (highway patrols) get from day dreaming car
>>>>>> drivers
>>>>>> (and the occasional motorcyclist).
>>>>> Yes, it gives them more money with which to finance more active
>>>>> traffic patrolling. Good innit? It's called economics". JL can
>>>>> tell you all about it. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>> If it was used for that I wouldn't have such a problem with it.
>>>>
>>>> If it was even used to fund general police services I wouldn't have a
>>>> problem with it.
>>>>
>>>> But the revenue from fines goes mostly into general revenue where it's
>>>> used for such diverse and useful things as excessive superannuation
>>>> funds for pollies and golden plane tickets for retired pollies and
>>>> their
>>>> families and blowing their own horn in television adverts.
>>>
>>> So where are we going with this? Disband all government agencies and
>>> hire private contractors? More activism to get the government to
>>> redirect the revenue? Or just whinging in newsgroups because it's oh
>>> so tendy? Where?
>
>>I'm waiting for someone to start a 3rd party that actually makes sense
>
> And what would such a party stand for? What would its major policies
> be?
>

More power to the motorcyclist and make every motorcyclist join an outlaw
club and wear a patch.

Rule # 3 to be instigated and maintained at all times

> =================
>
> Onya bike
>
> Gerry

> The problem is, hoons are hardly going to be operating in the (newly
> illegal) 80-100 range.

Their victims would probably benefit from the improved maneuverability
and braking from a lower speed limit, though.

--
Chris

Diogenes wrote:
>
> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 11:02:57 GMT, "George W Frost"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
> >>>I'm waiting for someone to start a 3rd party that actually makes sense
> >>
> >> And what would such a party stand for? What would its major policies
> >> be?
>
> >More power to the motorcyclist and make every motorcyclist join an outlaw
> >club and wear a patch.
>
> >Rule # 3 to be instigated and maintained at all times
>
> Pass.
>
> =================
>
> Onya bike
>
> Gerry
>
>

How about, "if sporting a wooden leg and bearing a parrot?"

--
Posted at www.usenet.com.au

theo wrote:
>
> On Feb 3, 2:12?pm, Kevin Gleeson <kevinglee...@imagine-it.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> > Define hoon.
> >
> > You using the police definition?
> > (Madbiker, you are not allowed to read this OK?)
> >
> > I rarely rode my bike without hitting 200+ km/h while living in South
> > Arm. But in built up areas I would not go more than maybe 10 k's over
> > the speed limit. I don't condone my behaviour, but I think that me out
> > on a remote country road on a bike capable of handling it easy is more
> > responsible than an idiot doing insane **** around housing areas with
> > pedestrian and kids running across roads.
> >
> > The downside of my argument is you can't make rules for different
> > people in different areas in different situations.
> >
> > But yeah, I'm a hoon. Just a careful one. Hey I'm still alive.
> >
> > Still want to see that magic 300 km/h on the speedo though. Only
> > managed 285 before wussing out on Tas west coast.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Good Lord Kevin. I can count the number of times I've nudged 200 on
> the fingers of one hand.
>
> Theo
>
>

I hope you only do that *afterwards* though

--
Posted at www.usenet.com.au

Nev.. wrote:
>
> Diogenes wrote:
>
> > Hoons are an elusive crowd. You target one area, they go to another.
> > Nothing seems to deter them anyway. They are irresponsible adrenalin
> > junkies with overblown egoes and reptilian brians. I can't see any
> > program that would be effective in dealing with them short of
> > something drakonian. So, unfortunately as is the case with so many
> > other things, the innocent get inconvenienced because of the guilty.
> >
> > I've been in this newsgroup now for about 15 years and I have yet to
> > see the more rational motorcyclists come out and denounce the hoons
> > for spoiling it for the the rest. They whinge about the authorities
> > but they won't whinge about the hoons who brought it all upon us.
> > It's bullshit.
>
> Who exactly are the hoons you speak of? Until recently, when the laws
> changed regarding solid white lines down the centre of roads, it was
> perfectly legal to overtake a slower moving vehicle on a straight
> stretch of some roads at 100kph. To do the same at 105kph probably
> wouldn't have caused the police to give you a second glance.
>
> Now, with the stroke of a pen on some legislation, and a few road signs
> change from 100 to 80, the exact same behaviour might see you lose your
> license for a month, cop about $500 in fines and might even see you get
> your bike impounded with an additional $500 or so to get it released
> from impound. The police/govt/vicroads are not making the roads safer,
> they're merely manufacturing hoons.
>
> I know one road on the outskirts of Melbourne which in the past few
> years has had the road surface dramatically improved, had the sightlines
> on some corners improved, and has changed from a 100kph zone with
> overtaking allowed to a 60kph zone with no overtaking.
>
> Nev..
> '08 DL1000K8
>
>

Couldn't agree more. The marsh roads near my dad's place in the UK have
60MPH speed limits, down to 40 or 50MPH through most of the villages.
Overtaking is permitted, advisory signs are few, essential and accurate
and unless you draw attention to yourself (or you're daft enough to speed
through a camera zone), 70(ish)MPH won't *usually* see you stopped in the
60 areas.

Similar roads here have speed limits of 80Km/h or often less, probably 15
times more advisory signs and limited opportunites either to pass slower
moving traffic at even a legal speed or for said traffic to pull over and
allow safe passing.

If it's all in the name of safety, it's odd that our road stats, although
good by world standards, continue to be worse than those for the UK.

--
Posted at www.usenet.com.au

theo wrote:
>
> On Feb 3, 2:12?pm, Kevin Gleeson <kevinglee...@imagine-it.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> > Define hoon.
> >
> > You using the police definition?
> > (Madbiker, you are not allowed to read this OK?)
> >
> > I rarely rode my bike without hitting 200+ km/h while living in South
> > Arm. But in built up areas I would not go more than maybe 10 k's over
> > the speed limit. I don't condone my behaviour, but I think that me out
> > on a remote country road on a bike capable of handling it easy is more
> > responsible than an idiot doing insane **** around housing areas with
> > pedestrian and kids running across roads.
> >
> > The downside of my argument is you can't make rules for different
> > people in different areas in different situations.
> >
> > But yeah, I'm a hoon. Just a careful one. Hey I'm still alive.
> >
> > Still want to see that magic 300 km/h on the speedo though. Only
> > managed 285 before wussing out on Tas west coast.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Good Lord Kevin. I can count the number of times I've nudged 200 on
> the fingers of one hand.
>
> Theo

Ya gotta try harder :-P

OK, so I'm an adrenaline junkie.

Ahh back in the days where they would let us do low flying training.
120 knots and having to lift up over sheep. Now _that's_ fun!

Nev.. wrote:
> G-S wrote:
>> Nev.. wrote:
>>> G-S wrote:
>>>> Nev.. wrote:
>>>>> G-S wrote:
>>>>>> Diogenes wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:01:32 +1100, G-S <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Diogenes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Lowering the speed limit and altering the road marking laws to
>>>>>>>>>> prohibit overtaking simply enables the enforcement effort to
>>>>>>>>>> trap people who are riding in a sensible, and until recently,
>>>>>>>>>> perfectly legal manner.
>>>>>>>>> So you're saying that it's all an evil, antisocial plan to trap
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> innocent whilst turning a blind eye to the guilty? You don't
>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>> that's a bit of a skewed view of reality?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm saying that the gumbiment see this lowering of speed limits
>>>>>>>> as having the bonus effect of raising the amount of revenue
>>>>>>>> their mobile tax gathering units (highway patrols) get from day
>>>>>>>> dreaming car drivers (and the occasional motorcyclist).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, it gives them more money with which to finance more active
>>>>>>> traffic patrolling. Good innit? It's called economics". JL can
>>>>>>> tell you all about it. ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If it was used for that I wouldn't have such a problem with it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If it was even used to fund general police services I wouldn't
>>>>>> have a problem with it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But the revenue from fines goes mostly into general revenue where
>>>>>> it's used for such diverse and useful things as excessive
>>>>>> superannuation funds for pollies and golden plane tickets for
>>>>>> retired pollies and their families and blowing their own horn in
>>>>>> television adverts.
>>>>>
>>>>> ..and schools, hospitals, services for the elderly. That stuff too.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nev..
>>>>> '08 DL1000K8
>>>>
>>>> I pay for private education for our child (over $10k a year).
>>>>
>>>> My mother and my aunts weren't/aren't eligible for 'services for the
>>>> elderly'. In fact my aunt recently had to pay $250000 for admission
>>>> to a low care facility that is available to older people on benefits
>>>> for free.
>>>>
>>>> I have private health care and so do all my family, I haven't used
>>>> the public health system in over 20 years.
>>>>
>>>> 'That stuff too' is about as useful to me as what I said in the
>>>> earlier post...
>>>
>>> So you think that speeding fines should be used to pay for benefits
>>> for you rather than to assist the lesser able in the community. Why
>>> so? It's not your money. Why should you care what they spend it on?
>>> Think yourself lucky. If others didn't pay 'voluntary tax' you'd
>>> have to pay a compulsory tax.
>>>
>>
>> I already pay 'compulsory tax' though!
>>
>> I don't object to the government spending money on public projects and
>> I don't object to them spending it on infrastructure and I don't
>> object to them spending it to support those who've worked and paid tax
>> during their working life. Nor do I object to them spending it upon
>> the genuinely disabled and those genuinely unable to support themselves.
>>
>> I object (to various degrees) the government spending money upon those
>> items I don't approve of.
>>
>> It isn't the amount of tax I pay that's the issue, I'd happily pay
>> more if I had some control over where it was allocated. There are
>> various taxation systems around the world that allow a certain
>> percentage of tax paid to be directed towards certain areas.
>> Something along those lines would be a start.
>
> But the money you were referring to was specifically money which was
> raised from traffic fines, so it's not your money. Why should you care?

Because I don't like to see the gumbiment wasting money?
(yah I know... that's a real pie ion the sky dream)

> It even saves you money. You should be hoping that the amount of
> revenue added to consolidated revenue from other peoples fines increases
> exponentially to the point where you no longer have to pay any taxes.

Except that it sets a bad precedent. If the government start to rely
too heavily on 'tax' earned from road laws breaches then eventually
people will adjust their behavior so that they don't get booked as much.

That's actually happened, so what does the government do?

They make the limits lower and the acceptable margins of mistake lower.

But the thing is... carried to it's logical conclusion we'll all end up
faced with uniform very low speed limits and uniform very high fines
that even with the most care we will still end up breaking occasionally
by accident.

That doesn't sound like a desirable outcome to me...


G-S

Nev.. wrote:
>
.. The least voted against
> candidate wins. You really can't respect the intent of all of the
> voters much more than that.
>

In the house of representatives that's probably the case, but in the
senate preference deals and 1 box above the line voting can see
candidates that are much less popular (both in the voted for and voted
against senses of the term) elected.

I can't remember the exact numbers but a fundie got elected to the
senate last election with something like 50 or 60 thousand votes and a
green candidate with several hundred thousand votes standing against him
didn't get elected.

That's an artificial distortion...


G-S

Nev.. wrote:
> G-S wrote:
>> Diogenes wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> And what proposals can you offer the gummint?
>>
>> I don't believe it's my job to 'offer proposals' to the gummint.
>
> What about NASA ?
>
> Nev..
> '08 DL1000K8

I suggested they Need Another Seven Astronauts ages back!


G-S