Posts by Isaac Freeman

Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First

  • Hard News: I'm not a "f***ing cyclist".…,

    I am a cyclist. I had a learner driver’s licence once, but it expired a decade ago. I seldom take the bus. So hopefully I can say this without being taken for a rabid motorist: some people on bicycles are idiots. Not suicidal idiots, not idiots who deserve to be injured, just idiots.

    It should not need to be said that traffic lights apply to cyclists. So do stop signs and give way laws. So does the rule about not passing on the left. Basically, if it’s possible to obey a law, it applies to you.

    It is illegal to ride on the footpath unless you are a postie or a child. This is a sensible law for the protection of pedestrians, some of whom are elderly and some of whom are blind. It is a law that applies to cyclists.

    It is likewise illegal to ride without a helmet. This means you actually put it on your head and do it up. It is not a magical talisman that protects you when you hang it on your handlebars. This law may be imperfect, but it still applies to cyclists. If it helps, consider your helmet a patriotic display of pride in your country’s public health system.

    When you weave in and out of parked cars, you are not providing a convenience for drivers, you are just confusing them. Ride in a straight line, far enough out to be safe from unexpected doors. If you get in someone’s way it is because they don’t have room to pass you safely. This is not your problem unless you are a road engineer.

    When you are on a shared path, you sometimes have to slow down. Some pedestrians are fools, and don’t have enough common sense to keep left. Some of them will be startled to see a bicycle, even though there are signs explaining that this is a possibility. Assume that they are foreigners, it’s easier that way.

    When you’re going to change lanes, you indicate. When you’re going to turn, you indicate. Just because motorists don’t do it, doesn’t mean it isn’t the law. It applies to cyclists, just do it.

    Hardly anybody is actually trying to kill you. Thus, your main safety concern is making sure that nobody kills you by accident. Your two main strategies are being visible and being predictable. These are more important than being convenient. If anyone sounds a horn at you, this means they are aware of your presence, and you have succeeded.

    You are legally permitted to give a thank-you wave after you have held people up. This is a good idea, because some drivers are idiots and require your help to conceive of the notion that you might have an agenda other than personal animosity. Fostering this notion is a gift to other cyclists.

    Christchurch • Since Feb 2007 • 134 posts Report Reply

  • Up Front: Absence of Malice,

    Do you mind if I ask why? That sounds weird, I know, but... did it not occur? Was it out of fear? Did you just never really want to?

    I never bunked. Never got a detention either. In my case I suspect it all comes down to having a loving father who happened to be a teacher, sometimes at the same small town schools in which I was a student. He deliberately avoided teaching my class, but my own teachers would occasionally come round in the weekend, and I'd sometimes be brought along to staff parties and such.

    The upshot was that I've never developed a particularly strong sense of Authority as a collective force opposed to my freedom. To this day, I tend to assume that teachers, cops, bureaucrats, politicians and so forth are all real people doing their jobs, and I instinctively sympathise with them if I feel people are being unfair to them. I walked away from more than one student protest because somebody started hurling personal abuse at a cop.

    So I never saw much personal mileage in sneaking out of school, because I didn't see much joy in making extra paperwork for a teacher. If I got bored, I talked too much or interrupted the class with jokes, until my Dad pointed out that this was also making life difficult for my teachers, because managing a whole class was more work than I realised. Eventually I learned to draw comics, which worked for most teachers because it was quiet enough, and I wasn't falling behind. I likewise avoided detentions by being smart enough to shut up on the second or third warning that I was too noisy.

    I guess I see a certain amount of disobedience as a positive, and I do worry about kids who will be 'good' even when the rule they're obeying doesn't make any sense.

    I don't think there's any inherent virtue in disobedience or obedience. You can disobey authorities who actually have your best interests in mind, and you can obey ones who don't. The important thing is to try and understand why the rules are the way they are, beyond whether they happen to be convenient for you.

    Good schools teach that with sensible rules and teachers who can tell you which one you broke and what you need to do about it, and will listen if it turns out they've misunderstood something. Failing schools are full of arbitrary rules and punishments, and teachers who apply them without common sense. Most of our schools are pretty good.

    Christchurch • Since Feb 2007 • 134 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: Compromise,

    The Prime Minister's office could have thought of it months ago.

    I rather assumed that this is precisely what happened. If they'd actually brought out the amendment months ago, their political enemies would have had time to point out that its entirely redundant. Better to save it until the last minute for maximum confusion.

    Christchurch • Since Feb 2007 • 134 posts Report Reply

  • Southerly: Great moments in Prime…,

    Firstly, opposition parties will use any long-term energy plan -- however sensible -- as a stick to beat government.

    I think that depends on how seriously you pursue the goal. If the plan is big enough, you actually go ahead with it, and it doesn't fail spectacularly in the early stages, you can put your opposition in a position where the stakes are too high for them to close the whole thing down.

    For example, National would never have introduced the Cullen Fund, and I'm sure they'd like to remove it, but at this point it would be too politically risky. Likewise with the anti-nuclear policy. In fact, pretty much everything the Fourth Labour Government did would fall into this category: do it large enough and fast enough and it can't be easily undone.

    Unfortunately, it seems to have stretched the limits of this government's capabilities to articulate what their goal might be. It seems pretty doubtful that any coherent action will be forthcoming.

    Christchurch • Since Feb 2007 • 134 posts Report Reply

Last ←Newer Page 1 10 11 12 13 14 Older→ First