Cartoon posted:

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:


"The gently caress?" you say


Oh come on!


loving bipod hitlers!


Which leads me to question exactly what band of cornflake box a certain person got their license from.

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

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.


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.

Solemn Sloth posted:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/22/chris-uhlmann-should-mind-his-language-on-cultural-marxism

Jumpingmanjim posted:

Are you in Russia by any chance?

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?

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.

A Saucy Bratwurst posted:

loony limiter bashing neutral round the carpark hey.

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.

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.

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

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.

Are you from Perth? I've heard Perth drivers do not understand road rules very well.

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.

Are you from Perth? I've heard Perth drivers do not understand road rules very well.

A Saucy Bratwurst posted:

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.....

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~

hooman 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.

Anidav posted:

My quotes come from Facebook comments

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.

WhiskeyWhiskers posted:

Or because they were men who had sex with men. 5 years hard labour.

WhiskeyWhiskers posted:

Or because they were men who had sex with men. 5 years hard labour.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Golda Meir was appointed Israel's minister plenipotentiary to the Soviet Union, with her term beginning on 2 September 1948 and ending in March, 1949.[5] During her brief stint in the USSR, Meir attended Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur services at the Moscow Choral Synagogue.[6]
In addition to the diplomatic support, arms from Czechoslovakia, part of the Soviet bloc, were crucial to Israel in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. During the war, the Soviet Union supported Israel when it was attacked by Arab countries that opposed the 1947 United Nations General Assembly resolution for the partition of Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state.

quote:

The 1917 Russian Revolution overthrew a centuries-old regime of official antisemitism in the Russian Empire.[1]

...Information campaigns against antisemitism were conducted in the Red Army and in the workplaces, and a provision forbidding the incitement of propaganda against any ethnicity became part of Soviet law, with Stalin stating that:
“ National and racial chauvinism is a vestige of the misanthropic customs characteristic of the period of cannibalism. Anti-semitism, as an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the most dangerous vestige of cannibalism.
Anti-semitism is of advantage to the exploiters as a lightning conductor that deflects the blows aimed by the working people at capitalism. Anti-semitism is dangerous for the working people as being a false path that leads them off the right road and lands them in the jungle. Hence Communists, as consistent internationalists, cannot but be irreconcilable, sworn enemies of anti-semitism. In the U.S.S.R. anti-semitism is punishable with the utmost severity of the law as a phenomenon deeply hostile to the Soviet system. Under U.S.S.R. law active anti-semites are liable to the death penalty.[12]

BlitzkriegOfColour posted:

I'm pretty sure you could just be patient.

Wen a man shouts, u must learn 2 whispr

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:


There was also:


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.

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.

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.
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.

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.

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.

KingEup posted:

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.

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

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.

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.