|
gay picnic defence posted:I do think they should be given care, we should just take steps to ensure it isn't needed for unnecessary poo poo like getting hurt while drunk. Fair enough, I can agree with that. I just don't think lockout laws are the answer. I believe it'll just shift the problem down the road.
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 07:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 00:10 |
|
|
Zenithe posted:any studies been done regarding violence before/after lockout laws? Yes quote:
And there is this guy saying that there isn't any evidence the violence has moved to Newton: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-10/crime-statistician-refutes-bairds-sydney-assault-figures/7154804
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 07:28
|
|
|
gay picnic defence posted:Yes Well will you look at that. I wonder if it'll hold.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 07:30
|
|
|
Violence has gone down but number of people in the area has gone down more so its actaully statistically more dangerous to be there cause the assaults per person has gone up. Lockout laws are going to make people drink at house parties where there are no bouncers and less cops further away.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 07:32
|
|
|
Laserface posted:Also BB if you agree with GPS speed governing you better also agree with GPS tracking because loving lmao if you think that isnt going to be the primary use of such a system. gently caress dude if you think I'm not down with GPS monitoring then you're forgetting what a rigid authoritarian I am. I don't know what you thought I meant when I said "I'm a Stalinist" like ten billion times or what I was doing when I repeatedly tried to educate people about how the so-called "Holodomor" was a famine and not an act of genocide. I'm easily the most "far-left" authoritarian here. Do I think the current regime should have GPS info on people's movements in cars? Not without radical shifts in transparency and a purging of the corrupt from the institutions that would have access to this data. Do I agree that a proper leftist government should have such info? Absolutely, and with the same protocols engaged, but to a lesser degree. Laserface posted:We are a nation of whingers. we dont want other people doing/having/getting anything we dont do/have/get. If they do, we want them punished. Listen, I ride motorbikes, I walk places, and I own two cars. I don't speed because it's the loving wrong thing to do and has adverse affects both on other peoples attention and the flow of traffic. I indicate well ahead of time and do two shoulder checks before I merge lanes because it's the right thing to do, and it prevents anybody getting hurt. I indicate at least 20 meters before I turn a corner, or up to a hundred meters if at a speed that makes that more effective. If everybody obeyed these three safe driving practices, there would be nearly no loving crashes, and the rate of motorcycle accidents would be the same as cars. But next to nobody does these basic things. Since people can obviously not be trusted to do them, then we need to implement technologies to enforce them. Other things I'd like to prevent from being possible: tail-gating, loud exhausts and the removal of baffles from bikes. BlitzkriegOfColour fucked around with this message at 07:36 on Feb 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 07:33
|
|
|
Yesss... embrace the tankie inside you...
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 07:35
|
|
|
I'm easily the most "authoritarian" leftish type here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 07:36
|
|
|
I too am into BDSM
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 07:37
|
|
|
I only like the right side of my body tied up and beaten.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 07:38
|
|
|
gay picnic defence posted:You just need to look at the medical statistics for Friday and Saturday nights to see that there is a problem. Why should we fork out money to patch the stupid fuckers up just so they can go and get munted again next weekend? Look at the statistics over time you fool. Our culture of violence may still exist, but it's slowly going away.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 07:39
|
|
|
Endman posted:Well will you look at that. I wonder if it'll hold. No idea. But when I see stuff like this: quote:Director of trauma at St Vincent's Hospital Associate Professor Tony Grabs said the lockout laws had had a profound impact on the number of people being injured by alcohol-fuelled violence. Lockout laws in their current form seem like a bit of a blunt instrument but I'm sure if they were applied to only affect large venues and any smaller venues that have ongoing problems with violent patrons (i.e. pubs that for whatever reason attract fuckwits) you could have a nice nightlife and reduce violence.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 07:40
|
|
|
BlitzkriegOfColour posted:Look at the statistics over time you fool. Our culture of violence may still exist, but it's slowly going away. It is, but lockout laws apparently accelerated the decline. A Saucy Bratwurst posted:Violence has gone down but number of people in the area has gone down more so its actaully statistically more dangerous to be there cause the assaults per person has gone up. Is there a source for this?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 07:41
|
|
|
gay picnic defence posted:No idea. But when I see stuff like this: Director of Trauma at St Vincent's says one thing, I'd love to see what the Director of Trauma at RPA has to say in response.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 07:43
|
|
|
BlitzkriegOfColour posted:Director of Trauma at St Vincent's says one thing, I'd love to see what the Director of Trauma at RPA has to say in response. Given the controversy of these laws, I'm sure if he/she had something to say on the matter people would be all over it it like a drowning man clutching straws.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 07:49
|
|
|
my stepdads beer posted:The follow up was people got used to it all and accidents and speed increased back to where they were before the changes. source? BlitzkriegOfColour posted:gently caress dude if you think I'm not down with GPS monitoring then you're forgetting what a rigid authoritarian I am. I don't know what you thought I meant when I said "I'm a Stalinist" like ten billion times or what I was doing when I repeatedly tried to educate people about how the so-called "Holodomor" was a famine and not an act of genocide. I too do these things. Despite what you probably think, Im a safe driver. What I see the most is just inattentive drivers - lane wandering, no blinkers, bad parking, phone users and other moronic poo poo. Speeding at a level that is dangerous to others (which in my opinion is probably 10% over whatever the posted limit is) is usually pretty uncommon until you hit motorways. People sitting in the right lane doing the speed limit and then idiots doing 130+ diving into the middle/left lanes to overtake them. Both people are doing dumb things. Loud pipes save lives though. Bike or car, if you can be heard people will look for you. the second I hear a motorbike Im checking my blind spots for them. To a degree anyway. Harleys sound like garbage and are just straight up too loud. EDIT: I guess my argument is make people responsible for their actions. No you shouldnt speed, its against the law and dangerous to you and others around you. That doesnt mean that cars shouldnt be able to go fast - it means you should be educated enough to understand the danger in doing so and that is in itself deterrent enough to not do it (along with fines, license suspension, jail time, etc). A nanny state raises children. Laserface fucked around with this message at 07:55 on Feb 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 07:51
|
|
|
gay picnic defence posted:Given the controversy of these laws, I'm sure if he/she had something to say on the matter people would be all over it it like a drowning man clutching straws. You mean these lolly-gagging pissfarters on social media and going to rallies? They're mostly incompetent as gently caress, wouldn't know how to contact somebody like that in the first place, or even think to do so in order to counter the official narrative. In any case, absence of evidence doesn't imply evidence of absence.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 07:52
|
|
|
Laserface posted:Loud pipes save lives though. Bike or car, if you can be heard people will look for you. the second I hear a motorbike Im checking my blind spots for them. To a degree anyway. Harleys sound like garbage and are just straight up too loud. Statistics say people who remove their baffles actually have more accidents than those who leave them attached. Didn't you learn that at your rider training course, on like, day one?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 07:54
|
|
|
BlitzkriegOfColour posted:You mean these lolly-gagging pissfarters on social media and going to rallies? They're mostly incompetent as gently caress, wouldn't know how to contact somebody like that in the first place, or even think to do so in order to counter the official narrative. Then maybe an intellectual like yourself should contact them for a comment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 07:57
|
|
|
Maybe dash cameras should be mandatory.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 07:57
|
|
|
BlitzkriegOfColour posted:Statistics say people who remove their baffles actually have more accidents than those who leave them attached. Didn't you learn that at your rider training course, on like, day one? I dont ride a motorbike. I think a fairer analysis of that information is that 'people who remove their baffles are more likely to be the type of person who rides bikes dangerously' rather than 'removing baffles = accident' My car is loud (legally) and I dont have issues with people in carparks wandering aimlessly in front of me. I drove my girlfriends car through a shared zone the other night and about 20 clueless people turned around surprised to see a car slowly creeping behind them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 08:00
|
|
|
I wonder why people so worried about jobs lost from lockout laws forget to mention the reduction in work for doctors and nurses. These people worked hard to get where they are surely we should do our best to keep them in work too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 08:08
|
|
|
gay picnic defence posted:No idea. But when I see stuff like this: No loving dork who goes to a "nice place" where you can "sit down" and "actually have a conversation" is going out after 2am. The whole point is to be out with loud noises and fun drugs for as long as possible. And the way to keep this and also reduce violence is..... Encourage more and varied nightlife, with reliable frequent travel options. Also, BB, if you really were a hard-left blackfella you'd be anarcho-syndicalist. Yes, thank you Stalin, for letting me sleep on the floor of the homestead, teach me how to be a good person~
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 08:15
|
|
|
thatfatkid posted:Seems about right. Is that Peter Dutton in the middle?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 08:16
|
|
|
Laserface posted:
I'm not trying to be shitlord, but how do you feel this argument interacts with the right to own guns? Do you see the arguments as similar, except cars serve a purpose that is beyond "kill people" whereas automatic weapons don't? Should we limit the danger cars pose like we limit the danger guns pose by restricting the rate at which guns reload and cars travel? The only danger I can see with speed limited cars is it can make it more difficult to overtake on 2 lane country roads by having a hard max speed meaning that if you want to pass someone who is going 5km/hr below the speed limit you're only going to be able to do it very slowly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 08:21
|
|
|
Laserface posted:My car is loud (legally) and I dont have issues with people in carparks wandering aimlessly in front of me. I drove my girlfriends car through a shared zone the other night and about 20 clueless people turned around surprised to see a car slowly creeping behind them. So you're saying you use your loud car to intimidate people in to giving way to you. In places like carparks and shared zones where you should be giving way to them. Cool.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 08:23
|
|
|
hooman posted:I'm not trying to be shitlord, but how do you feel this argument interacts with the right to own guns? And good luck doing that to a full length road train.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 08:23
|
|
|
Will source the lockout law thing being poo poo when i grt home but i think that friendlyjordies youtuber talks about it in his most recent video and im oretty sure he sources his stuff if you are really keen. my stepdads beer posted:So you're saying you use your loud car to intimidate people in to giving way to you. In places like carparks and shared zones where you should be giving way to them. Cool. Jesus christ. Does the sound of an idling car make you poo poo your pants? How could someone hearing your car and therefore being less likely to randomly stroll in front of it possibly be a bad thing?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 08:29
|
|
|
Well that didn't take too long.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 08:29
|
|
|
asio posted:No loving dork who goes to a "nice place" where you can "sit down" and "actually have a conversation" is going out after 2am. The whole point is to be out with loud noises and fun drugs for as long as possible. And the way to keep this and also reduce violence is..... People cause the problems, not the variety of venues or availability of transport. If you want to reduce violence you need to address the people that are root cause and one of those is discouraging violent drunks from coming to the city and assaulting people. Changing our culture of violence might be an option but I struggle to think of many examples of an ingrained facet of national culture being changed and it would certainly take a while if attempted.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 08:31
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:Well that didn't take too long. lmao
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 08:31
|
|
|
my stepdads beer posted:So you're saying you use your loud car to intimidate people in to giving way to you. In places like carparks and shared zones where you should be giving way to them. Cool. No but great job making a bunch of assumptions! Cockhead. I give way to pedestrians. My point is that some cars can be so quiet a pedestrian who is on their phone or doing other stupid poo poo may not notice. Pedestrians are just as responsible for their safety as I am as a driver. It's not like I'm sitting there revving and acting like an impatient rear end in a top hat, I'm driving like I would any other car. Are you saying that it isn't sensible to be aware of your surroundings and actively removing yourself from the path of a vehicle? Have you ever attended any kind of OHS training? Are you capable of feeding yourself? I refuse to believe that someone can be as stupid as to suggest that right of way means you can throw caution to the wind and put your safety in someone else's hands. If so, please walk onto the M2. hooman posted:I'm not trying to be shitlord, but how do you feel this argument interacts with the right to own guns? I have fired guns, enjoyed firing guns, but I do not have a need or desire to own guns. If you're referring to our gun laws, I feel like they are pretty spot on, maybe too soft. the ease at which a friend of mine acquired a handgun was pretty distressing. I feel (like most things) that gun control can be improved with further restrictions on WHO, not WHAT. Its the operator, not the object thats the problem. be it drugs, cars, guns, whatever. Dont make responsible people stop enjoying things responsibly because a few people dont know how to be adults. Laserface fucked around with this message at 08:49 on Feb 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 08:35
|
|
|
Laserface posted:No but great job making a bunch of assumptions! Cockhead. If it's a shared zone then they shouldn't need to get out of the path of the vehicle. It's your responsibility so that you don't hit them while they go about their business. Think of it as a mall you're allowed to drive down, it's not your place to be there but pedestrians are kind enough to share it with you. Be nice to them. Maybe get out and walk yourself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 08:39
|
|
|
http://www.theage.com.au/business/consumer-affairs/gocar-to-take-on-uber-taxi-industry-in-australia-20160222-gn017i.html Between this and Uber, I'd say the taxi industry is properly hosed
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 08:48
|
|
|
Birb Katter posted:If it's a shared zone then they shouldn't need to get out of the path of the vehicle. It's your responsibility so that you don't hit them while they go about their business. Think of it as a mall you're allowed to drive down, it's not your place to be there but pedestrians are kind enough to share it with you. Be nice to them. Maybe get out and walk yourself. no, they dont. but I think you'll find most people do because its easier for them to continue walking 3 feet to the left of where they are than a car trying to shuffle over the same distance in a cramped inner-city street.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 08:51
|
|
|
Birb Katter posted:If it's a shared zone then they shouldn't need to get out of the path of the vehicle. It's your responsibility so that you don't hit them while they go about their business. Think of it as a mall you're allowed to drive down, it's not your place to be there but pedestrians are kind enough to share it with you. Be nice to them. Maybe get out and walk yourself. Hmm maybe being in a carpark implies you are about to get out and walk or just did that. Its absolutely not the cars fault if a distracted idiot walks out in front of them. Saying a carpark is not a place for cars is actually retarded Is it the cars fault if someone walks out onto a zebra crossing on a road without looking and gets hit cause the car couldnt physically stop in time?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 08:54
|
|
|
A Saucy Bratwurst posted:Hmm maybe being in a carpark implies you are about to get out and walk or just did that. Its absolutely not the cars fault if a distracted idiot walks out in front of them. Saying a carpark is not a place for cars is actually retarded The car really shouldn't have been near a pedestrian crossing if they didn't want to run someone over.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 08:57
|
|
|
A Saucy Bratwurst posted:Hmm maybe being in a carpark implies you are about to get out and walk or just did that. Its absolutely not the cars fault if a distracted idiot walks out in front of them. Saying a carpark is not a place for cars is actually retarded Legally yes. When you're approaching a zebra crossing and there are people near enough that they can jump in front of your car, you should have stopped.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 08:58
|
|
|
A Saucy Bratwurst posted:Is it the cars fault if someone walks out onto a zebra crossing on a road without looking and gets hit cause the car couldnt physically stop in time?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 08:58
|
|
|
It is absolutely not the car drivers fault someone jumps out in front of their car. E: Ok yes it's legally their fault if they fail to slow down to a reasonably safe speed at all approaching the zebra crossing but provided they slow down, if someone doesn't look and gets hit despite the driver driving safely, it's 100% their fault. Even if the driver doesn't slow down when they approach the crossing, it's still realistically the pedestrians fault they got hit. There's a reason you are taught from the age of 3 to look both ways. Still though, lol at the guy who gets intimidated by someone with a non silent exhaust idling around a carpark. underage at the vape shop fucked around with this message at 09:09 on Feb 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 09:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 00:10 |
|
|
A Saucy Bratwurst posted:It is absolutely not the car drivers fault someone jumps out in front of their car. They really shouldn't have been driving there, it's a pedestrian crossing, people cross their all the time. If they didn't want to hit someone they should have gone driving somewhere that is for cars. They were just asking for it by driving that way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 09:05
|
|