Posts by Bart Janssen
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Big Friday Music: Counting…, in reply to Heather Gaye,
so there’s no gap between bands
At the change over, a giant finger comes down out of the sky to rotate the new band into place.
-
Why don't climate change deniers publish in the scientific literature. http://pocket.co/s2_HM
-
Hard News: Making it up on smacking, in reply to B Jones,
Blame the people who made the law, or read it and thought it meant they could thrash their kid with the household implement of their choice. Blame the juries who agreed with them.
I blame all them too. But I also blame the lawyers. I'm good at blame :). It's much easier to blame than to solve the actual problem.
Seriously everyone involved was responsible. Lawyers do not get a free pass because they were "just doing their job".
-
One thing about the law change and the associated restriction on assault on children is that it highlighted the difference between the law which is by necessity a fixed line which may not be crossed and the real world, which is a continuum of behaviours.
I do not believe smacking works, but I'm not a parent, it's difficult for me to be certain other than to read the literature. Even then I'm left in doubt because the literature is all about averages. There may indeed be individual cases where a smack (physically harmless but emotionally shocking) may help, even when we know on average it does not. I really don't know and I've seen parents so tired and worn out that maybe that's the only thing they can think of to do. But even then what I'm talking about is the mildest form of physical punishment.
At the other end are disgusting assaults on children that are barbaric in nature and horrific to any reasonable person.
And in between is a complete continuum of physical punishments and assaults.
None of the pro-smackers argue for the horrific assaults to be legal, but they all argue that their level of punishment is OK. Without ever really defining what that is.
Meanwhile there is the law. A fixed line. In the past that line allowed horrific assaults to occur. That needed to change.
Now we have a law that technically allows no physical punishment whatsoever. And within our current legal structure there have been very few prosecutions and only then when the police judged the physical punishment to be "unacceptable".
It seems to me to be working pretty well now. Much better than before.
I still don't know for certain whether any physical punishment is always bad but with the law this way around it's really easy for the police to deal with cases where it's really obviously bad.
And on a medical note any time you hit a child's head you risk concussion and brain damage so making the head an immediate "out-of-bounds" zone is a damn good idea.
-
Hard News: Making it up on smacking, in reply to Sacha,
Let’s stop calling what that law change was tackling ‘smacking’ shall we. That’s lazily repeating the spin of its opponents. Thrashing children with hunks of timber and suchlike is not a ‘smack’. It has always been child assault.
+1
I vote for "anti-assault-on-a-child-with-a-deadly-weapon-law"
Because far from being used a a method for social change as Graeme is so disingenuously asserting, Section 59 was repealed to stop assault on children with deadly weapons. The reason was that up until the law change there were lawyers who felt they served society well by arguing that their client should be protected from being thrown in jail by that Section of the law. I'm sure they slept well at night.
-
Hard News: Lowering the Stakes, in reply to 81stcolumn,
quite hostile to proposals that cyclists should take more responsibility
Rightly so. In NZ we take the attitude that the person with the gun is responsible for not shooting his/her mates while hunting.
Why then are drivers, who are also in charge of a lethal weapon, not asked to take responsibility.
-
Hard News: Lowering the Stakes, in reply to Gaz Tayler,
Thanks Gaz for the link. That article is long but a great read for anyone wearing a cycle helmet.
Personally I don't think we should have a helmet law, the stats are compelling.
But equally I strongly believe wearing a helmet is a hell of a good idea. That article made me think twice about how good my helmet might be, the answer almost certainly is - not very good at all.
And now I thinking I should find a MIPs or similar equipped helmet that actually provides some protection against concussion. But they look to be expensive especially in NZ.
-
Hard News: Lowering the Stakes, in reply to TracyMac,
they’ve maybe been doing half that speed
Even then, assuming 15 kph (which is really slow), waiting a full minute behind the pack will mean you travel 583m less than you would have had you been traveling 50 kph.
Your journey would be 42 seconds longer. That does assume you were planning to travel at 50 kph.
It really is seconds people are complaining about.
-
Hard News: Lowering the Stakes, in reply to Richard Stewart,
ride 2 or 3 abreast
Well they are allowed to ride two abreast.
If you are following such a pack ride they will almost certainly be doing 30-40 kph or more. In most places this is slightly less than the speed limit. In most cases driving behind them for a minute or more will delay your journey time by seconds.
And lets be really clear here, this claim is being used by drivers of large heavy metal objects as an excuse to behave in a way that creates a very real risk to the lives of the cyclists.
Yes it is inconsiderate, but also unlikely to put the driver's life at risk.
-
Hard News: Lowering the Stakes, in reply to Richard Stewart,
sweaty noggin
Dude the sweatiest part of my second hand bike is NOT going to be the helmet :).