Posts by Christopher Dempsey
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: European Horror Stories, in reply to Idiot Savant,
There's a context to this. the last time the Germans ran the Greek economy, they looted the place so thoroughly that 300,000 Greeks starved to death.
Explains quite a bit, thanks.
I say this after living in Quebec, where car licence plates have the words 'Je me souviens' imprinted on it (below in small font). This means "I remember", and directly references the Battle on the Plains of Abraham, in Quebec City, in 1759, where the French were defeated by the English. That is, I remember a battle that took place some 253 years ago.
Traumatic events for populations persist in people's memories.
-
The sentence on that Wikipedia article that poleaxed me was:
For example, between 1935 and 1975, 63,000 people were sterilised on eugenic grounds in Sweden
1975. In Sweden? Wow. I mean, just….wow.
Female to male transgenders are forcibly sterilised today in Sweden.
-
Hard News: This Is Not A Complicated Issue, in reply to Hilary Stace,
She was taught oralism in the UK - ie to lip read and speak. Most NZers were also taught that way until only about 20 years ago (to the extent of being punished for signing).
I was taught 'oralism' i.e. being taught how to speak. Fortunately my hearing ability is such that with Hearing Aids I can pretty much 'hear' most speech so I can match up the sounds heard with the sounds I needed to produce.
This movement was, I think, deliberately aimed at integrating the 'deaf' with the hearing society on hearing society's terms, i.e. being made to speak. Consequently, my first language is oral, not sign. Cause if I had a choice I would have learnt sign as well.
-
On the other hand what the have the Greens been doing about getting a proper set up for their member, I don't think it should come out of the monies they get from Government Services but surely they might have pushed for their new member to be able to participate before now
Based on my experience as elected representative, albeit as a minor lowly tin god, I can tell you that as an ER, you are subject to bureaucrats who will tell you that they will supply you with what you need. Which is probably what happened here.
The Greens are not at fault here as they would have been told, relax, we are sorting it out. In general, any ER tends to get given the tools needed to do the job. If the ER is your stock standard straight white bloke then the tools are pretty standard. Any deviation from that stock standard ER, then those to give out the tools tend to get a bit frustrated, and the rules/system needs changing. Cue Lockwood spouting nonsense...
because (yes) I think the real teachable moment here is what unthinking ableist privilege looks like and how little forethought could have avoided it. Since the Parliamentary Services Commission’s entire reason for existence is to “advise the Speaker about the services to be provided to the House of Representatives and to members of Parliament” I think they can all be fairly asked why Mathers was failed so badly.
Quite. The silver lining in all this is the fact that any other differently-abled person that is elected to Parliament won't have to face the same problems as Mojo Mathers here.
-
Wearing elected rep hat:
the database of speed limits has to be kept strictly up to date.
True job: a poor soul in Auckland Transport spent a good whack of time compiling the speed limit database for every road in the Auckland Council area. That’s 14,000 lines in an excel spreadsheet. Reason? Auckland Transport uniquely have bylaw making ability, including setting speed limits.
That was Joyce’s aim in changing regional transport authority arrangements to force more explicit obedience to the Government Policy Statement (GPS) which shifts funding priority from things like cycleways and potholes to building new highways.
In a recent briefing from Auckland Transport I explicitly bought up the fact that the GPS directed NZTA where to spend the money – quite extreme nanny statist-ism (and ironic for being introduced by the previous Labour Govt). The officers of course could not comment (being apolitical), however one wingnut politician said that Auckland Transport had to shape its program to the GPS, as NZTA will fund projects.
I countered that we (as in Auckland) were independent from Wellington (the Govt), and could shape our program however we liked. Cue smiles and nods from officers. The cost to this is that NZTA won’t fund stuff like oh, a Central Rail Link, cause you know, it’s not a Joyce-ian Mi-Way or the Hi-Way project.
Doffing said hat.
And (tongue in cheek), when push comes to shove, politicians will get petrol to move around; everyone else can use shanks ponies.
-
Wearing my elected rep hat I’ll make the following comments:
Jane Bishop’s death is not by any ordinary use of the word an accident. The danger was identified four years previously. By all accounts, any number of regular users of that road regarded it as a notoriously life threatening spot. Yet nothing was done, until a life was lost. Only then the council acted, removing two car parks within days of her death – betraying that their corporate knowledge was aware all along where the danger was. Why isn’t the council in the dock? Why hadn’t they acted earlier? Was it just they were to incompetent or complacent or lazy or stupid (or all of them) to do their fucking job properly? These questions won’t get to be asked in a public forum now. The fact of the matter is this woman is dead, the poor bugger who was the immediate cause is considerably out of pocket for legal expenses and no one in charge of traffic design and management is going to be held accountable. If there was ever a poster child for restoring the right for people to sue under certain circumstances, this is it. Even worse in my mind, no systematic public investigation into the reasons for and causes leading up to her death has been conducted. No lessons have really been learnt, beyond a pathetic “try harder next time”.
Correct. Auckland City Council knew about that particular pinch point, but chose not to do anything about it. It is entirely disingenuous of the previous Chair of the Auckland City Council Transport Committee 2007-2010 to say that this particular corner where Bishop died was one of many pinch points along Tamaki Drive: there was only one, pointed out by Cycle Action Auckland.
I would like to clarify. Auckland City Council knew about this danger spot, and did not do anything about it.
The Super City came into existence on Nov 1, 2010. Bishop died on Nov. 17th. Auckland Transport, the CCO set up by the local government reform in Auckland region, removed the parking at this pinch point four days after Ms Bishop died.
This tells us something; politics had a large part to do with Ms Bishops death. A particular kind of politics that has no regard for cyclists refused to do anything in the period leading up to her death.
When roads were transferred from the control of politicians (i.e. from the control of the Chair of the Transport Committee) to a CCO, politics left the picture (at least temporarily). The CCO was able to act quickly and without political interference.
Auckland Transport in acting so quickly in removing the danger at this pinch point demonstrated the power it had to act, and demonstrated the degree to which politicians interfered with situations of known risk.
It is the actions of Auckland Transport that indicate that it should be the Auckland City Council who should be in the dock, not Mr Becker.
In Auckland, the greatest distance of cycleway in the last few years has been made by NZTA, which is obliged to build new cycleway alongside new motorway.
Not obliged strictly speaking, but the BCRs are so awesome that they are obliged morally speaking to build them where they can. We are dependent on the good will of NZTA who have been very impressive at least in Auckland in actively seeking to build cycleways on their land (the Northwestern Cycleway is actually on NZTA land, and a wee change to regs had to be put in place to allow bicycles on motorways).
I am very grateful to NZTA in Auckland for building the Northwestern Cycleway, and very grateful that they are committed to extending this cycleway around the Central Motorway Junction (Spaghetti Junction), along Grafton Gully down to Beach Rd, with a spur to Wellesley Street. This will be built sometime in the next year or so.
Ditto taking up the whole lane on every two-laner, such as P-Road here in Auckland. There isn’t room for a bike and a car in most lanes, so being all passive and sitting on the left is just inviting trouble.
The speed limit on P-Rd is 40kph. The traffic situation along here has worsened noticeably in the past few years or so. I would advise cyclists along here to take the whole lane for the horrible parts of P-Rd if you like (or the entire length of it if you like!) It is probable that you will be going at 40kph anyway, and there are several dangerous spots along this stretch of road (the intersection with Richmond Rd, and going south at Williamson Ave) that demand you take the whole lane. I’ve found traffic to be generally tolerant of you taking the whole lane where needed along here.
Roads do need to be renewed from time to time, and it would be great if better cycling facilities were automatically incorporated.
I have, along with others such as Pippa Coom, have been arguing that engineers should as a matter of course incorporate cycle features in renewal works. There has been a noticeable shift in attitude towards doing so, but we have some way to go here. Nevertheless, it is becoming more common to see cycling features incorporated into renewal designs. It’s not a matter of policy yet, but given time, will be.
Auckland’s Wellesley Street extension to connect with motorway ramps is a classic example where no provision was made for walkers or cyclists to use the route to efficiently connect the education precinct and cbd with the Domain, hospital and routes to Newmarket and beyond.
This is still a perennial issue, and is currently the subject of lobbying by various people to get someone to provide pedestrian/cycle links here. It is probable that with the new cycle link from the Northwestern Cycle way through Grafton Gully that NZTA will rework this part of the traffic network to provide pedestrian/cycle links.
Doffing said hat.
Speaking personally,
Where the pedestrian crossings jut into the road, I take center, because there simply isn’t room for a car and me,
After a horrid fright in my early days of cycling where a car passed me while I was hugging the left hand side of these kinds of crossing and I observed the 10cm or so gap between us, I take the whole lane at these kinds of crossings. There simply isn’t room for both a car and me, and my life is more important than a driver saving 5 secs.
I should note that I do most of my cycling in and around Auckland CBD, and surrounding fringe suburbs where I have discovered that drivers tend to be very tolerant of cyclists, probably because there is a density of cyclists here to compared with other parts of Auckland. I suspect that my cycling behaviour would need to be different if I started cycling say, south past Newmarket.
-
Capture: Roamin' Holiday, in reply to JacksonP,
My parents live on the other side of the harbour. It's an amazing harbour and I am blessed to have known it.
-
Looks like Ohope - down near the end of the peninsula by the golf course.
-
Hard News: Nobody wanted #EQNZ for Christmas, in reply to Christopher Dempsey,
the risk of the less astute among us (there are some)
Apologies - I did not mean to cast aspirations upon you all. I was recalling the time when an interloper from a strange political party criticised my comments. He claimed that he was a regular PAS person. Though it must be said I haven't seen him around these parts lately.
-
Hard News: Nobody wanted #EQNZ for Christmas, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
But can councils set a pay policy for non-CEO staff, such as a wage freeze or floor?(as shareholders in a private company have the ability to).
Popping elected rep hat on...
No worries!
In answer to your question, No, they can't. Non-CEO staff are employed by the CEO, and it is the CEO (along with senior management) that sets the pay policy for non-CEO staff.
Council (being a body of elected members) can only set the conditions and pay for the single employee it has - the CEO.
Council could theoretically make it a part of a CEO's performance conditions that Non-CEO staff pay be increased annually by 14%. The CEO could do such a thing, but equally is entitled to argue that such performance standard is unworkable. In reality, Council's very rarely interfere in non-CEO staffing arrangement and conditions.
Doffing said hat...
You must be getting hat-hair, Christopher! ;-)
I must engage in such exercise to clearly indicate that the comments made while wearing my elected rep hat are clearly different from my own personal comments, and that generally, my comments made while wearing such hat relates to my function as an elected representative, at your service. :)
If I do not distinguish between personal and public persona's then I run the risk of the less astute among us (there are some) conflating the two and thinking that World War Three has been launched, or something similar.