|
Cartoon posted:Be the change you want to see in AusPol! giving way to people who walk out in front of you is not possible and is different to giving way to people already there hth
|
# ? Feb 22, 2016 11:36 |
|
|
# ? May 14, 2024 03:26 |
|
Ahhh they ol baby at the hospital gag My 2 bits: whilst I do think it's sad its also necessary there can't be acceptions to the rules nor can the family be allowed to stay otherwise our generosity will be exploited and before long all the illegals will be doing it in an attempt to gain citizenship we already have an overburdened health system that can't support the native population properly what's it going to be like if our hospital beds are full of deliberatley mistreated babies? for the greater good its better she goes back detention centres are hardly 'prisons' they have it better then what we do they have on-site doctors specialists hospitals buffet meals all for free, they are hardly prisoners they are free to return to their country of origin at anytime You know my views on immigration so I'll skip over that part The thought I would like to leave hanging is why is the left making such a big deal about 1 baby going back to naru to be reunited with her parents (why should we be splitting up families btw?) But are silent about the 1200 babies children mums and dads who died at sea under the previous labor government? Is mistreatment of refugees only convient to be bought into the public eye under a lnp govt?
|
# ? Feb 22, 2016 11:39 |
|
Hey you know how sometimes you have to give way to other cars? Sometimes you also have to give way to pedestrians. Even though pedestrians generally aren't as cool as cars you're still supposed to let them go before you. Even if it'd end up with them 'walking into your car' or their car T-Boning you or whatever you're still supposed to give way.
|
# ? Feb 22, 2016 11:51 |
|
you don't understand cartoon, the pedestrians just launch themselves at my car, I try to drive at a reasonable 14km over but they hide behind trees for chrissakes
|
# ? Feb 22, 2016 11:53 |
|
Birdstrike posted:you don't understand cartoon, the pedestrians just launch themselves at my car, I try to drive at a reasonable 14km over but they hide behind trees for chrissakes Are you in Russia by any chance?
|
# ? Feb 22, 2016 11:57 |
|
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. Except that most human beings arent beep boop robots that just blindly jump out into a crossing and there is a mutual understanding (as motorists are often also pedestrians at times, and vice versa) that when approaching a crossing you should still look to the right before embarking on what is a potentially lethal adventure. I was taught that at school - was anyone else? Im not anti pedestrian or anti cyclist but you guys are super anti-car and the mental gymnastics you're going through to make the argument that cars=evil pedestrians=angelic beings is hilarious.
|
# ? Feb 22, 2016 12:07 |
|
Solemn Sloth posted:http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/22/chris-uhlmann-should-mind-his-language-on-cultural-marxism
|
# ? Feb 22, 2016 12:09 |
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:Are you in Russia by any chance? no I'm just always rushin'
|
# ? Feb 22, 2016 12:10 |
|
I'm only anti-car because they've ruined our cities permanently, though. It's not personal.
|
# ? Feb 22, 2016 12:10 |
|
Wow, QandA is actually not a complete shitfest tonight.
|
# ? Feb 22, 2016 12:15 |
|
Laserface posted:Except that most human beings arent beep boop robots that just blindly jump out into a crossing and there is a mutual understanding (as motorists are often also pedestrians at times, and vice versa) that when approaching a crossing you should still look to the right before embarking on what is a potentially lethal adventure. I was taught that at school - was anyone else? And yet some people will just walk into a crossing without looking. Guess what? Tough poo poo, you have to make sure you don't hit them. How are you guys approaching pedestrian crossings that this is a major problem? Most of the time they're built in spots specifically so that drivers can see people getting ready to go across. This isn't a "cars are bad" stance, it's a, "you guys must be loving poo poo drivers" stance.
|
# ? Feb 22, 2016 12:21 |
Brisbane Goonmeet Sunday 28th 6pm Little Singapore, Market Square Sunnybank Not the city. This is in the suburbs. non piking Brisgoons suggested it last month. Jizzmaster will be up.
|
|
# ? Feb 22, 2016 12:23 |
|
Hmm yes maybe its me that is the idiot and not the shut in that shits himself when he hears a non corolla behind him in a carpark. people are dumb like you dudes have said but having a loud exhaust that is actually audible by pedestrians means you are a loony limiter bashing neutral round the carpark hey.
|
# ? Feb 22, 2016 12:28 |
|
A Saucy Bratwurst posted:loony limiter bashing neutral round the carpark hey. Only maccas carparks and only after 11pm. WhiskeyWhiskers posted:And yet some people will just walk into a crossing without looking. Guess what? Tough poo poo, you have to make sure you don't hit them. I do stop for them! I am very yielding to pedestrians. It is dumb and stupid to stroll out into the street without looking, pedestrian crossing or not. you are literally putting your life in the hands of a total stranger who might not actually be paying attention at all. Taking personal responsibility by pausing for .5 of a second to check the car approaching the crossing has acknowledged you is a really smart thing to do! what the gently caress! Laserface fucked around with this message at 13:05 on Feb 22, 2016 |
# ? Feb 22, 2016 13:00 |
|
People were asking about the Cuneen / ICAC thing a few pages back. Here's a summary from last week of the events leading up to now, and here's one from Justinian from today about the latest events. Also spoilers for the next season of Rake I guess.
|
# ? Feb 22, 2016 13:01 |
|
A Saucy Bratwurst posted:giving way to people who walk out in front of you is not possible and is different to giving way to people already there hth You're supposed to come to a near stop at all of the above situations anyway. I walk in front of cars all the time in these instances and have survived 30+ years. Are you from Perth? I've heard Perth drivers do not understand road rules very well.
|
# ? Feb 22, 2016 13:01 |
|
Dont wanna turn this into chat, but I will just confirm that in Perth, pedestrians always seem to wait at intersections and I got caught out by this when I moved to Melbourne. Yes I was obviously ignorant of the law but I guess in Perth it just became second nature for a pedestrian to wait for a car and the oposite in Melbourne. Either way I am a terrible driver and think any form of mechanical transport should be outright banned so I can feel safe when I never leave my house. Also helmets mandatory for everyone 24/7, bike or no bike.
|
# ? Feb 22, 2016 13:13 |
|
Goffer posted:You're supposed to come to a near stop at all of the above situations anyway. I walk in front of cars all the time in these instances and have survived 30+ years. Can confirm that Perth drivers generally will not stop for pedestrians where drivers in Adl/Syd/Melb do. That includes at zebra crossings, give ways, and regular intersections.
|
# ? Feb 22, 2016 13:22 |
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkrcj8L7gf0
|
# ? Feb 22, 2016 13:28 |
|
Goffer posted:You're supposed to come to a near stop at all of the above situations anyway. I walk in front of cars all the time in these instances and have survived 30+ years. Why the gently caress would you be proud of walking infront of a moving car. You are an actual moron who somehow hasn't being natural selectioned for 30+ years
|
# ? Feb 22, 2016 13:31 |
|
Anidav, you're not Lottery of Babylon so you might want to source your quotes or at least put it in quotes otherwise people might form an (even) lower opinion of you! Fake edit: I think you're alright though, your heart seems to be in the right place, and you're much more politically knowledgeable than I was at your age Also I should be able to make this Brisgoon meet up, unless my friend announces her housewarming party for Sunday which I think unlikely.
|
# ? Feb 22, 2016 13:35 |
|
stop
|
# ? Feb 22, 2016 13:45 |
|
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..... Anarchism is for babbies. And syndicalism is babby's first anarchism. Paul Robeson spoke very highly of Stalin's USSR and the treatment he received there, saying it was infinitely better than the USA (which made the Yanks decide to revoke his passport). I don't know why you think Stalin's Russia was racist? The people sent to gulags were sent there because they collaborated with Nazis, not because they were people of colour. Race relations only fell to poo poo in the USSR once that filthy revisionist Kruschev came to power. hooman posted:I'm not trying to be shitlord, but how do you feel this argument interacts with the right to own guns? I'm pretty sure you could just be patient. Wen a man shouts, u must learn 2 whispr
|
# ? Feb 22, 2016 13:45 |
|
My quotes come from Facebook comments
|
# ? Feb 22, 2016 13:50 |
|
Anidav posted:My quotes come from Facebook comments I figured news.com.au
|
# ? Feb 22, 2016 13:56 |
|
BlitzkriegOfColour posted:I don't know why you think Stalin's Russia was racist? The people sent to gulags were sent there because they collaborated with Nazis, not because they were people of colour. Or because they were men who had sex with men. 5 years hard labour.
|
# ? Feb 22, 2016 13:57 |
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:Or because they were men who had sex with men. 5 years hard labour. in all senses of the word
|
# ? Feb 22, 2016 13:58 |
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:Or because they were men who had sex with men. 5 years hard labour. Hanging, in the UK and Australia, for the same crime. Stalin was a progressive, given the context of the times - just loving deal with it already.
|
# ? Feb 22, 2016 14:01 |
|
Could have sworn that Stalin started going rough on the Jews just a few years after the end of the great patriotic war.
|
# ? Feb 22, 2016 14:44 |
|
Endman posted: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. They are not THE answer to all alcohol related problems. They are a modest regulation that according to the Medical Journal of Australia has resulted in a: quote:32%–40% drop in assaults across the CBD Entertainment Precinct, and... no increase in the number of assaults in neighbouring police command areas during the 12 months after the changes. There was also: quote:a significant reduction in the number of alcohol-related serious injury and trauma presentations to the emergency department in the 12 months after the introduction of the new liquor regulations. This change was seen throughout the week, but was especially marked at weekends. https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2015/203/9/presentations-alcohol-related-serious-injury-major-sydney-trauma-hospital-after All these loving cry babies complaining that they can't buy a drink after 3am. Big loving deal. You can't mow the lawn at 3am on a Sunday either. That does not mean your freedoms are under attack. KingEup fucked around with this message at 15:27 on Feb 22, 2016 |
# ? Feb 22, 2016 15:23 |
|
xPanda posted:Could have sworn that Stalin started going rough on the Jews just a few years after the end of the great patriotic war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93Russia_relations#The_Soviet_period quote:From late 1944, Joseph Stalin adopted a pro-Zionist foreign policy, apparently believing that the new country would be socialist and would speed the decline of British influence in the Middle East.[2] Accordingly, in November 1947, the Soviet Union, together with the other Soviet bloc countries voted in favor of the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine,[3] which paved the way for the creation of the State of Israel. On May 17, 1948, three days after Israel declared its independence, the Soviet Union officially granted de jure recognition of Israel,[4] becoming only the second country to recognise the Jewish state (preceded only by the United States' de facto recognition) and the first country to grant Israel de jure recognition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_Soviet_Union quote:The 1917 Russian Revolution overthrew a centuries-old regime of official antisemitism in the Russian Empire.[1] Sure there was some poo poo with Leon Trotsky, but that dirtbag was selling state secrets to the USA. e: lol Golda Meir was a piece of crap BlitzkriegOfColour fucked around with this message at 15:35 on Feb 22, 2016 |
# ? Feb 22, 2016 15:31 |
|
BlitzkriegOfColour posted:I'm pretty sure you could just be patient. I don't disagree, just trying to find counterarguments to the thesis that speed limiters in cars at 110kph is probably a good policy.
|
# ? Feb 22, 2016 15:50 |
|
KingEup posted:They are not THE answer to all alcohol related problems. They are a modest regulation that according to the Medical Journal of Australia has resulted in a: What kind of argument is that? There's a lot of stuff you can't do at 3am, but drinking is definitely not one of them. A lot of people revel until the early hours of the morning. People do it all over the world. It's not really a positive statistic that assaults are down when across the board there are less people in these locations overall. The data doesn't back it up.
|
# ? Feb 22, 2016 16:00 |
hooman posted:I don't disagree, just trying to find counterarguments to the thesis that speed limiters in cars at 110kph is probably a good policy. We appear to have settled on 100 kilometres per hour as the upper limit to travelling speed when as vehicle technology improves we should be seeing an improvement to safety and safe operation of vehicles at high speed. additionally fuel consumption can be engineered to be lowest at high speed, with aerodynamics and dynamic engine management for cruising. One would hope that that over time freeway speeds might rise so people can get around faster. I recall some European Nations (Switzerland in my experience) have raised speed limits to 120 and 130 km per hour. limiting cars to 110 would further instill this arbitrary speed limit over a very long time. And i speculate would discourage research into car efficiency and safety at speed.
|
|
# ? Feb 22, 2016 16:03 |
|
Kommando posted:We appear to have settled on 100 kilometres per hour as the upper limit to travelling speed when as vehicle technology improves we should be seeing an improvement to safety and safe operation of vehicles at high speed. I only chose that limit because that is the current maximum for the state I live in. I'm totally open to having a discussion about what "safe" speeds are, or about what reasonable maximum speeds are. I'm trying to get an understanding of the rationalisation behind why cars are made to be able to go faster than that. The authoritarian megahitler that I am. hooman fucked around with this message at 16:16 on Feb 22, 2016 |
# ? Feb 22, 2016 16:13 |
|
redweird posted:It's not really a positive statistic that assaults are down when across the board there are less people in these locations overall. The data doesn't back it up. What kind of loving bizarro world logic is this. Pretend there are 10 assaults on Saturday night in King X and 10000 people go through the area prior to the lock out laws. After the lockout laws only 5000 people go through Kings X and there are 6 assaults. That is less assault. 4 people who would've been injured are not being injured. redweird posted:What kind of argument is that? There's a lot of stuff you can't do at 3am, but drinking is definitely not one of them. A lot of people revel until the early hours of the morning. People do it all over the world. Regulating the sale of psychoactive drugs like alcohol is a good thing. Just because something is legal doesn't mean you can do it wherever you want whenever you want. KingEup fucked around with this message at 16:31 on Feb 22, 2016 |
# ? Feb 22, 2016 16:22 |
|
KingEup posted:What kind of loving bizarro world logic is this. if you implement a mandatory curfew which prevents people from entering kings cross after seven assaults are at zero from then on, the system works
|
# ? Feb 22, 2016 16:26 |
|
I don't understand relative numbers in this situation could someone use an analogy? For instance, mandatory helmet laws and their effects regarding rider numbers and injury rates.
|
# ? Feb 22, 2016 16:34 |
|
Seagull posted:if you implement a mandatory curfew which prevents people from entering kings cross after seven assaults are at zero from then on, the system works Except that's a totally unrealistic and unenforceable policy choice which would cost a fortune. Meanwhile for a modest change to liquor laws you get a 32%–40% drop in assaults and large decrease in hospital presentations. At some point you will get diminishing returns. I would be open to trialling a 12:30 lockout to test the hypothesis.
|
# ? Feb 22, 2016 16:43 |
|
|
# ? May 14, 2024 03:26 |
|
redweird posted:What kind of argument is that? There's a lot of stuff you can't do at 3am, but drinking is definitely not one of them. A lot of people revel until the early hours of the morning. People do it all over the world. Actually it is a positive unless you can demonstrate those assaults are still happening but elsewhere.
|
# ? Feb 22, 2016 16:53 |