|
A Saucy Bratwurst posted:It is absolutely not the car drivers fault someone jumps out in front of their car. You have to look at the entire crossing. It absolutely is the driver's fault if they hit someone on a zebra crossing. quote:AUSTRALIAN ROAD RULES - REG 81 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_reg/arr210/s81.html WhiskeyWhiskers fucked around with this message at 09:11 on Feb 22, 2016 |
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 09:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 19:04 |
|
|
It seems to me that some posters in this thread just loath the idea of cars and a night out on the town.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 09:10
|
|
|
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 No, it's the drivers fault.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 09:11
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:You have to look at the entire crossing. It absolutely is the driver's fault if they hit someone on a zebra crossing. A Saucy Bratwurst posted: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.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 09:13
|
|
|
I have it on good authority all you need to do at a pedestrian crossing is just keep powering through and then give the 'my bad' wave to the pedestrian. They'll get out of your way because you're in a 1 tonne battering ram that is loaded with liquid explosives. No way they'll win.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 09:17
|
|
|
Not only racist, but how the gently caress is that a Kanye get up? Like there's no way I'd look at that and think oh that's Kanye..
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 09:19
|
|
|
Ket posted:Not only racist, but how the gently caress is that a Kanye get up? Like there's no way I'd look at that and think oh that's Kanye.. It an homage not an accurate representation. Please don't blackface shame, this is a safe space.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 09:19
|
|
|
Ket posted:Not only racist, but how the gently caress is that a Kanye get up? Like there's no way I'd look at that and think oh that's Kanye.. I guess it's supposed to look like his fashion line? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 09:22
|
|
|
gay picnic defence posted: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. http://www.citymetric.com/skylines/kings-cross-sydney-and-how-urban-planning-can-reduce-drunken-violence-1730 Uh sorry but venues and transport actually are great areas to focus on improving if you want to reduce violence. You want to open a camp for reeducation or do you want a society that actually functions? If your late-night partygoer is in a well lit/accessed area populated with plenty of different people and things happening, with an easy and affordable way to get home, you've basically removed most of what causes violence. "Some drunk thug" might turn up and try and start something, but is it going to happen in the (considerable) line at the cab rank outside x and y, or on Brunswick st mall with the markets in full swing?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 09:25
|
|
|
"We must secure the existence of our roads and a future for white cars."
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 09:27
|
|
|
A Saucy Bratwurst posted:if someone doesn't look and gets hit despite the driver driving safely, it's 100% their fault. No, this is utter crap. If the driver is driving safely near a pedestrian crossing, they can't hit anyone. This is the definition of driving safely near a pedestrian crossing - not hitting pedestrians. quote:Even if the driver doesn't slow down when they approach the crossing, it's still realistically the pedestrians fault they got hit. No. Since this seems to be a difficult concept, let's use small words to lay out the logic. The word "Pedestrian" means a person who is walking on their feet. The word "Crossing" means a place where things go across other things So a "Pedestrian Crossing" on a road is a place where people walk on their feet and go across the road. This means that a person driving on the road can think in their mind that there will be people walking on their feet across the road at the "Pedestrian Crossing" at any time. Lots of "Pedestrian Crossings" are at schools and shopping centres. Lots of them have lots of kids or old people who walk on them. Kids and old people sometimes don't think very fast in their minds about being careful. So a person driving on the road should always be ready for people to walk across the road, even without looking, when they are near a "Pedestrian Crossing". This is why "Pedestrian Crossings" are made in our world. I hope that this has helped you to know how a "Pedestrian Crossing" works better.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 09:28
|
|
|
Recognising that no car commits suicide voluntarily, the Manifesto exposes the pedestrian-cyclist tribe which now rules over the once automotive countries and which denies the automotive race not only automotive countries, but automotive schools, automotive neighbourhoods, automotive organisations and everything necessary for survival as a biological and cultural entity. Let it be understood that the term ‘pedestrian crossing’ is only a euphemism for road genocide. The inevitable result of shared spaces is a percentage of drivers becoming cyclists each year, leading to extinction, as has happened to the automotive race in numerous areas in the past. As the automotive remnant is submerged in a tidal wave of five billion pedestrians, they will become an extinct species in a relatively short time. This genocide is being accomplished by deliberate design.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 09:36
|
|
|
So the only way to get a DD is to call it the day after the Budget is released, which causes all sorts of problems with supply so either the budget gets released a week early (and signals the election is ON) or a Liberal PM has issues with supply. Part of me thinks they'll do the DD because they know they have no good ideas to use before August comes, so might as well make some stuff up for a Budget out of nowhere and pray for the best before the Public can see that the Wizard has no clothes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 09:37
|
|
|
I have issues with an intersection near my work. Turning vehicles often seem to forget to give way to pedestrians crossing the street. When a car does give way I've sometimes heard beeps from cars behind it. I've asked City of Perth to either introduce Turning arrow signals with a button sensor or at the very least one of those "Turning vehicles must give way to pedestrians" signs but so far no response. People just don't know when the gently caress to give way in WA, I have no idea why.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 09:39
|
|
|
Can we not start with this gimmick again? Please?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 09:40
|
|
|
SadisTech posted:No, this is utter crap. If the driver is driving safely near a pedestrian crossing, they can't hit anyone. This is the definition of driving safely near a pedestrian crossing - not hitting pedestrians. So you are saying because people can't think for themselves, its everyone elses fault when they get killed? This isn't how the world works hth
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 09:43
|
|
|
Comstar posted:So the only way to get a DD is to call it the day after the Budget is released, which causes all sorts of problems with supply so either the budget gets released a week early (and signals the election is ON) or a Liberal PM has issues with supply. Yup (to the first part). I have trouble seeing such a risk-averse government taking the plunge with a DD that would incorporate a new senate voting system.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 09:44
|
|
|
MonoAus posted:Can we not start with this gimmick again? Please? It's actually the best gimmick, and might be the thing to save everyone from this awful 'debate'
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 09:44
|
|
|
MonoAus posted:Can we not start with this gimmick again? Please? "Because the beauty of the White Aryan car must not perish from the earth." 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 09:44
|
|
|
A Saucy Bratwurst posted:So you are saying because people can't think for themselves, its everyone elses fault when they get killed? This isn't how the world works hth I think they're saying you need to learn to drive
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 09:46
|
|
|
First Dog:
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 09:46
|
|
|
Comstar posted:So the only way to get a DD is to call it the day after the Budget is released, which causes all sorts of problems with supply so either the budget gets released a week early (and signals the election is ON) or a Liberal PM has issues with supply. This has been the Liberals plans for the last two election year opposition budget replies so I see no sense in breaking from tradition.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 09:47
|
|
|
A Saucy Bratwurst posted:So you are saying because people can't think for themselves, its everyone elses fault when they get killed? This isn't how the world works hth trolling, or dumbshit to end all dumbshits. Either way, may I recommend 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 09:51
|
|
|
Birb Katter posted:"Because the beauty of the White Aryan car must not perish from the earth." Fully clothed gimmicks like this one are ok I guess. Knorth posted:It's actually the best gimmick 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 09:52
|
|
|
I think you'll find that Pavel is the only good thing both in this thread, and australian politics as a whole
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 10:00
|
|
|
Is it really that unlikely that Pell raped some boys?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 10:04
|
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:Is it really that unlikely that Pell raped some boys? Saw the front page of, I think it was the hun today, with him saying he might never come back to Australia. you tell me
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 10:05
|
|
|
tithin posted:Saw the front page of, I think it was the hun today, with him saying he might never come back to Australia. Its his health. Prison is terrible for the health of pedophiles.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 10:10
|
|
|
I found a gif of Scott Morrison complaining about labor's proposed negative gearing changes
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 10:23
|
|
|
I swear Auspol gets dumber every month
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 10:34
|
|
|
Knorth posted:It's actually the best gimmick, and might be the thing to save everyone from this awful 'debate' Are there any pictures of him with a sausage sandwich though?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 10:48
|
|
|
Birb Katter posted:Called it. asha to be taken from community care to Nauru. The old bait and switch. called it
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 10:50
|
|
|
kirbysuperstar posted:Are there any pictures of him with a sausage sandwich though? Depending on your definition of sausage, sandwich, and sausage sandwich
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 10:51
|
|
|
kirbysuperstar posted:Are there any pictures of him with a sausage sandwich though? "A cyclist doesn't change his spots just because you bring him in from the cyclepath and try to housebreak him and turn him into a driver. He may learn to sheathe his cleats in order to beg air from the servo, and you may teach him to wear a helmet, but it doesn't pay to forget that he'll always be what he was born: a wild animal." 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 10:53
|
|
|
Birdstrike posted:I swear Auspol gets dumber every month
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 10:58
|
|
|
On Saturday, the Australian published a column by the ABC’s political editor, Chris Uhlmann. In it, Uhlmann repeated a disturbing theory about the origins of 20th century social change. It’s one that appears to have firmly lodged itself in the minds of many conservative Australian journalists. It begins in its familiar way with the Italian Marxist, Antonio Gramsci, who, after realising that open calls to revolution were falling on deaf ears in the west, argued that Marxists, in Uhlmann’s words, should seek the “commanding heights of the bureaucracy, universities and the media”, and “scrub the landscape clean of Western values”. Then, we are told, “neo-Marxists … built critical theory as a vehicle for change and began the deconstruction of the West.” At this point, Uhlmann’s retelling of the tale embraces darker, more vivid and disturbing imagery: Frankfurt School academics fleeing Adolf Hitler’s Germany transmitted the intellectual virus to the US and set about systematically destroying the culture of the society that gave them sanctuary. Not just a vector of intellectual infection, and not just ungrateful parasites who sought to destroy their hosts, these academics were, on this account, determined to use the freedoms America afforded them in order to destroy it. America’s freedom of speech was its achilles heel. Critical theorists were given university pulpits and a constitutionally ordained right to preach, grinding its foundation stones to dust. Since 1933 they have been hellbent on destroying the village to save it. In the work of a late Frankfurt School theorist, Herbert Marcuse, “developed a plan for reversing the polarity of freedom”. In Uhlmann’s view, Marcuse singlehandedly redefined the nature of tolerance in a way that advantages the left. “It is now considered tolerant to demand silence from nonconformists,” Uhlmann wrote. This tale of decades of Marxist subversion was rolled out by Uhlmann to explain why some people had taken issue with him on Twitter. He attracted criticism because he stuck up for Tony Abbott’s decision to address the Christian far-right group, the Alliance Defending Freedom. He claims that some unnamed Twitter users – including journalists – disagreed with this, and claimed that Abbott had no right to speak to a reactionary group. Had he named anyone, the truth of his assertions could be checked. Personally, I only saw people – including me – arguing that while Abbott has the right to speak to whomever he chooses, he should expect his engagements to attract scrutiny. A little criticism and disagreement – the only thing that Uhlmann has really had to endure – was all it took for him to reach for the theory of “cultural Marxism”, whose details he repeats without giving it its title. As the US hate-watch group, the Southern Poverty Law Centre (SPLC) puts it, this “theory posits that a tiny group of Jewish philosophers who fled Germany in the 1930s and set up shop at Columbia University in New York City devised an unorthodox form of ‘Marxism’ that took aim at American society’s culture, rather than its economic system”. The “cultural Marxism” theory was developed towards the end of the cold war to open up a new front against the left: the culture war against a supposed “political correctness”. The SPLC describes the theory as “bizarre”, because it is. The Frankfurt School once in the US were primarily focused on the origins of far right authoritarianism, not the subversion of the US. Any critique of American values they made – for example in the work of Theodore Adorno – was on the basis of a lament for the decline of traditional European high culture in the face of post-war commercial culture. Anyone who thinks otherwise has likely not read their work. And anyone who looks at the global contemporary capitalist order would find it hard to believe that we are living under a Marxist hegemony. The decline of traditional values is a result of the relentlessly transformative nature of capitalism itself, not the work of a small group of emigre Marxists who are little read now even among academics. In 2002, when they first reported on it, the SPLC called it “the newest intellectual bugaboo on the radical right”, but worried about “signs that this bizarre theory is catching on in the mainstream”. It’s still popular on the far right – increasingly so. Everyone from white nationalists to militant antifeminists on “the redpill right” still relies on it as an explanatory theory of history. The notion was central to the thought of Anders Breivik, who massacred young social democrats in Norway. But the SPLC were right to predict its penetration of mainstream conservatism. The sclerotic inhabitants of the Australian’s op-ed page appear to have a particular affinity with this line of thought. Before Uhlmann, Kevin Donnelly and Nick Cater also gave potted versions of the story. (I noted the latter instance in an earlier column.) The SPLC worried about this happening, because it may lend respectability to a narrative that “in its most virulent form, (it is) an antisemitic theory that identifies Jews in general and several Jewish intellectuals in particular as nefarious, communistic destroyers.” The far right thinkers who popularised the story of cultural Marxism from the late 1980s were not above peddling it to political antisemites. Paul Weyrich who, along with William S Lind, promoted this theory at the Free Congress Foundation from the late 1980s onward, was known to propound in speeches to Holocaust-deniers. Not everyone who critiques cultural Marxism is an antisemite and there’s no suggestion being made here that Uhlmann himself is antisemitic. But in the context of this history, his metaphors of infection and internal subversion are exceptionally poorly chosen. He should have been more careful with his metaphors and should have not got himself entangled in a theory that the right – mainstream and extreme – are increasingly happy to use to paint themselves as history’s victims. We might remember what made Uhlmann so incensed: criticism of him, and some further, vaguely drawn, and uncited criticisms of Abbott. When the response to such disagreement is a hysterical repetition of a shibboleth of far right thinking, who is betraying our journalistic and civic values?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 11:04
|
|
|
I suppose it is a great reflection of our relatively peaceful society, that this toxic waste of posts is what people wish to talk about in this thread quite often. It is proportionate to the understanding that boredom is an indication of a balanced life, meaning if you are bored it is because you have no more vital tasks to fulfil. Nonetheless, these last few (hundred) pages have really been something else, and that something else is 60% garbage trash.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 11:06
|
|
|
Birb Katter posted:"A cyclist doesn't change his spots just because you bring him in from the cyclepath and try to housebreak him and turn him into a driver. He may learn to sheathe his cleats in order to beg air from the servo, and you may teach him to wear a helmet, but it doesn't pay to forget that he'll always be what he was born: a wild animal." God bless you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 11:13
|
|
|
Be the change you want to see in AusPol! It may astonish some here to learn that motorists are also supposed to yield for pedestrians: quote:A STOP sign or a stop line means you must give way to all vehicles travelling in, entering or approaching the intersection, whether vehicles are turning left or right, or going straight ahead. "The gently caress?" you say quote:‘GIVE WAY’ signs and ‘GIVE WAY’ lines (broken line) are used at intersections to control traffic. When you come to a GIVE WAY sign you must slow down and prepare to stop if necessary. Oh come on! quote:At T intersections the vehicle travelling on the road that ends must give way to any pedestrians crossing or vehicles travelling on the road that continues unless otherwise signposted. loving bipod hitlers! quote:Right turns Which leads me to question exactly what band of cornflake box a certain person got their license from.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 11:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 19:04 |
|
|
^^ Love your work --- One for the Anidavs A Bloody Cyclist posted:Lawrence Springborg acknowledges 'discussions' about his leadership position among MPs
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 11:29
|
|