Auspol: Not with a bang but with a whisper

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Auspol: Not with a bang but with a whisper

cowboy beepboop: Feb 24, 2001

Jumpingmanjim posted:

http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/australia-cant-afford-to-burst-housing-bubble-as-wave-of-chinese-money-looms-20151001-gjysne.html

We're running out of interest rate cuts and China is clamping down on money leaving so I am not sure how the Government is going to keep the bubble going

# ¿ Oct 1, 2015 06:59

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 14:03

cowboy beepboop: Feb 24, 2001

Night Shade posted:

Are they still kicking around the idea of letting people buy homes to live in with super? That'll probably keep it going for a while.

That was a Hockey Special and I don't think we'll see it again

# ¿ Oct 1, 2015 07:33

cowboy beepboop: Feb 24, 2001

Amethyst posted:

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/compulsory-insurance-for-cyclists-nsw-government-considers-schemes-20151002-gjztv2.html

Australia is lame

Shine on Duncan Gay you crazy, country diamond. I like the SMH buried this on a Friday afternoon.

edit: even the strange people that inhabit the comment section think he's having a laugh, lol

cowboy beepboop fucked around with this message at 23:50 on Oct 2, 2015

# ¿ Oct 2, 2015 23:43

cowboy beepboop: Feb 24, 2001

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-po...023-gkgvq8.html

quote:

The debate over mandatory bicycle helmet laws is still stirring passions

They've been in place for 25 years but it seems Australia's mandatory bike helmet laws are still stoking passions and stirring controversy.

The helmet laws have emerged as the surprise focus of federal Parliament's so-called "nanny state" inquiry.

Set up by libertarian senator David Leyonhjelm, the inquiry is examining a wide array of laws and regulations that may be seen to unnecessarily impinge on people's freedoms.

"I thought the Sydney lock-out laws would be the big one," Senator Leyonhjelm said. "I didn't think we would get swamped by the helmets."

Australia was the first country to impose mandatory bike helmet laws in the early 1990s to prevent serious head injuries; very few other nations have followed suit. About half of the 400 submissions made to the inquiry so far focus on helmets, many of them from people who want the laws relaxed or scrapped.

Some complain about the inconvenience, saying many more people would use bikes � delivering increased health, traffic and environmental benefits � if helmets were not mandatory.

Others complain about a loss of civil liberties and the diversion of police resources to enforce helmet use. Still others complain about discomfort from sweating and ruined hairstyles.

One submission makes the point that a woman can legally smoke 40 cigarettes a day throughout a pregnancy.

"Yet after birth if the baby is put on the back of a pushbike without a helmet suddenly the concern for the child's health is paramount," it says.

The inquiry also heard from the mayor of Fremantle, Brad Pettitt, who says the most effective way to get people on to bikes would be to allow people to go helmet-free on cycle paths and low-speed roads.

One woman says she was a "conscientious objector" to the laws when they were first introduced because she believed them to be misguided. She was repeatedly fined but refused to pay and was eventually briefly jailed.

She subsequently gave up cycling altogether.

But a joint submission by the Australasian College of Road Safety, The Australian Injury Prevention Network and the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons says the evidence is clear and overwhelming that bike helmets reduce the risk of serious head injuries.

"Recent survey results support claims that the anti-helmet lobby is not a realistic or objective representation of the general public's point of view. Surveys suggest the overwhelming majority of Australians are supportive of our government's laws to regulate the wearing of bicycle helmets."

Kidsafe says helmet laws are of "critical importance" in the reduction of road trauma for children and do not impinge upon personal liberties.

Australian Bureau of Statistics data shows that 1.15 million people regularly cycle in Australia � about 6.2 per cent of the population.

Vicroads says Victoria's helmet laws resulted in a 16 per cent reduction in head injuries when they were introduced in 1990.

But a 2011 study by the Cycling Promotion Fund and the Heart Foundation did find 16.5 per cent of Australians were deterred from riding more often because they have to wear a helmet.

Newcastle academic Jai Cooper takes the laws very seriously indeed, saying the helmet laws reflect Australia's "velophobia" � the fear of cycling.

"The laws exemplify the application of Hobbesian notions of human nature and the control of an unruly population by a Leviathan state," he says. "Helmet laws are thus an easily visible means to panoptically control the cycling population."

Good. Hopefully idiot libertarian does something good by accident.

# ¿ Oct 25, 2015 07:27

cowboy beepboop: Feb 24, 2001

hooman posted:

This is the greatest thing I have ever seen.

Also comparing places in Australia to Copenhagen or New York is poo poo because we don't have that population density. I live in Perth. Even places that "aren't far" from the city are 20+km away. Having to wear a helmet isn't what stops people loving commuting by bicycle. lovely bicycle infrastructure and immense distances are.

I once had a race from my university to my home against one of my friends (who lived very near me), I cycled and he took public transport. He beat me there by 5 minutes. It was ~30km. Total travel time ~ 1 hr 30 mins. Helmet laws don't fix poo poo like that.

This is bullshit, because cycling participation dropped something like 30% after in the introduction of helmet laws.

Even in places where we do have the density we have poo poo infrastructure and a "can't do that here m8 it's not copenfuckinghagen". Can't take people's free parking away for queer greenie poo poo like bike lanes in this country.

# ¿ Oct 26, 2015 04:20

cowboy beepboop: Feb 24, 2001

Negligent posted:

Chooses where to live then complains about distance, a tale of suburbia by white Australia

"Ah but I have to drive to work, checkmate" is something I hear a lot

# ¿ Oct 26, 2015 04:21

cowboy beepboop: Feb 24, 2001

Kommando posted:

also where natural growth for various reasons happens the government is reluctant to resume land to build rail network. that sort of thing gets you kicked out of office next election, no matter how much it is needed.

Instead we plan intricate, huge tunnels under suburbia to avoid the issue entirely. The smart country.

# ¿ Oct 26, 2015 04:31

cowboy beepboop: Feb 24, 2001

Solemn Sloth posted:

australian city centres have no affordability problems no siree

Better release more farmland on the fringes, 80kms away, for even more low density suburbs to help inner city affordability. Oh no we can't justify public transport because the density is too low. Oh no we can't justify any density it's the wrong area and would upset the homeowners in the next suburb.

# ¿ Oct 26, 2015 04:34

cowboy beepboop: Feb 24, 2001

Don Dongington posted:

Also, while I agree that not everybody needs a 3x2 in the suburbs with a garden - but my partner and I and our two dogs sure as hell don't want to live in an apartment either.

"I'm a huge fan of apartment living as long I get to live on a big block with pets" is a common view and why we're in this situation.

Alternatively, what if apartments were the same size as houses and there was a sweet park 2 minutes away?

# ¿ Oct 26, 2015 05:09

cowboy beepboop: Feb 24, 2001

norp posted:

But then how would the developer fit 300 dwellings on an acre?

they'd still be able to fit 2-5 where before there was only one

# ¿ Oct 26, 2015 05:23

cowboy beepboop: Feb 24, 2001

Cartoon posted:

That's a blatant misrepresentation. Once all the infrastructure and cultural issues have been sorted out then commuting without a helmet becomes much less dangerous and more to the point helmet requirements aren't why so many people either do or do not ride bikes.
This is a much better representation of my views. Although as long as the medical community and statistics back me I'll still recommend that helmets be mandatory. The simultaneous points of fact:

The medical community says yes, if you fall off a bike without a helmet and hit your head you'll be worse off. But, that risk balanced against the health benefits from cycling regularly is totally worth it. Because you actually don't fall off your bike all that much. Really.

I agree though, we are stuck in a terrible loop with planning. Even the City of Sydney, a major proponent of bike lanes, totally allowed Green Square and now White Bay to be built totally car-centric and without bike lanes from day one.

# ¿ Oct 26, 2015 10:13

cowboy beepboop: Feb 24, 2001

Solemn Sloth posted:

put bollards up at every intersection overnight check mate car havers

word. this is exactly what the dutch do. eliminates rat runs as access roads become for access only, if you want to drive anywhere you have the hit the ring roads around the towns/cities.

# ¿ Oct 26, 2015 10:29

cowboy beepboop: Feb 24, 2001

lua posted:

I think the problem could be beyond bollards

Let's do nothing, then? Let's keep building our cities like country towns, forever.

# ¿ Oct 26, 2015 11:25

cowboy beepboop: Feb 24, 2001

Amethyst posted:

The actual truth about bicycles is that it's too late. Australia hosed it up and our culture and our cities are incompatible with commuting to work on a bike, unless you're happy to breathe fumes and endure an extremely unpleasant daily commute.

Yeah. Witness the howls and tears whenever people's free on-road parking is taken away for any reason, let alone a bicycle lane. It's only ever going to be a niche inner-city thing for at least a generation.

# ¿ Oct 27, 2015 05:49