How about regulating all social media to be healthy for all ages to use? The social media corporations should lose freedom, not the citizens. (IMO)
Maybe replacing Australia with their new paymasters in China makes more sense?
idk, there's RedStar OS, but no Kangaroo OS (tbf few countries have their own distro)
When I was young and dumb, i crashed into someone while driving recklessly. Constabulary offered me a driver education course as an alternative to punishment. Fwiw, it was an excellent course. I'd recommend it to any private driver.
I agree that there's such a thing as "national character" and that, although limited, it can offer insight.
It's problematic when you take it as gospel, and exclude visible facts. That's cheap and lazy.
Let's take a tangent: Britain's colonial past included racist mores. It's certain that racism is still part of life here today. However, in this dishonourable leadership board, we are nowhere near the top today. You can use "bananas thrown at black players per minute of professional football" as a proxy metric.
My point being, yes, history informs the present, but no, you cannot look at a time period and assume it tells you everything about a nation. Nations, like people, change.
Let us examine the elephant that you're studiously ignoring:
- capital punishment is now, in practical terms, outlawed (technically, hanging is still a possible sentence for treason, but that's obviously because it's never been worth parliament's time to debate). - the prison service does a number of things that indicate some level of commitment to rehabilitation - judges and magistrates have sentencing guidelines that are in line with other western european nations - custodial sentences are rare for non-violent crimes - "first offence" is a mitigating factor in sentencing - debtor's prison is a distant memory
The judicial and policing regime today looks nothing like the regime in which you could be transported for stealing food, and in which punishment involved forced labour and in which abuse by the guards was a desired feature.
The reason for the change is the will of the people. We did not have change imposed on us. We, over time, decided that we weren't going to hang and transport into penal servitude any more. We elected Robert Peel, repeatedly, who reformed the police most excellently. I'm fucking proud of Peel. Look him up.
You don't have a leg to stand on. I doubt you have a leg anywhere in your home. You eat off a board on the floor because your table doesn't have a leg. You travel in circles because you don't have an outbound or a return leg. Your children play with just "o" and when you pass they will receive your acy. You are totally unequipped to discuss islation.
Apologies to the usual address, please.
Oí mate, do you have a loicense for that bantz.
Britain is a police state, your extended screed sounds like you’re still tying to convince yourself otherwise.
Which is also why IT business are required to hold expensive insurance policies, without which they can't approach clients, and which is also why the big four consulting firms have become so popular amongst the senior management: «it is not my fault, they are the ones who did it».
She'll be right, mate.
I think it's rated as the worlds second most litigious country. If you can think of it there is probably a law and a fine for it.
Always feels the government is riding the public far too much. The government is arrogant and corrupt.
Also the recent issue with Qantas Chairman's Lounge. A privilege tier that is invite only, and gets exclusive lounge and upgrades ahead of the most loyal paying customers, reserved for people of influence, including the Prime Minister. Qantas had prevented competition from flying routes to Australia to keep their margins high. I wonder how that anti-competitive practice went without issue? I guess because all politicians and people of material influence are getting free upgrades on the backs off those high margins and actual paying customers.
If speeding cameras were being used to track and spy on people then that would be a serious problem, but if they're just being very effective at catching speeders, that seems fine? Speeding is a major safety problem, and one of the main problems with speeding is that enforcement is so sparse, drivers are tempted to speed knowing that they usually get away with it.
Like I feel like the standard for traffic cameras is they should be temporary installations used in an investigation to figure out why so many people speed or run red lights or something. And yep, they do eventually figure out interesting tricks.
This one's dumb, but an observation I noticed lately is lots of intersections will change to all red and then light the pedestrian walk light before they change the car light to green. Why? Probably to lower the amount of people crossing the street getting hit by someone turning right in their car. Neat trick.
That is exactly the reason, you can find plenty of studies on it!
These things in isolation, to me, can seem minor, but when combined, it feels a little like death by a thousand cuts.
No actually, the town I went to college in installed cameras at 3 intersections and was able to get rid of them at 2 after figuring out solutions.
And honestly, a LOT of red light runs are stupid silly ones where, for example, the green left turn arrow lights up first! Then the person next to them goes without realizing that straight traffic has a red light. i see that all the time.
Dunno, just a guess. My city started doing this pattern a few years ago and I am very curious about the research backing it up. It does make me feel “safer” crossing streets at busy intersections. But I’d be curious what the actual rationale says about it.
Fines are even more lucrative relative to the extent that speeding is actually a problem.
Australia has an average "top speed" of 100km/h (110km/h in certain states) - whereas many other countries, with varying degrees of better or worse infrastructure, have average "top speed" of 130km/h - and yet have similar traffic fatalities.
Turkey: 130km/h (and fairly poor infrastructure compared to europe): 6.7 fatalities per 100k France: 130km/h (most people drive at ~145 on highways - only 1 point if you hit a radar) - 5 fatalities per 100k Australia: 100km/h - 4.5 fatalities per 100k
It can't just be speed, otherwise other 'similar' countries would be orders of magnitude above Australia.
It's not just speed.
The standards of driving in Australia is terrible. There's an aggressive attitude, tail gating, no lane discipline, if someone is going way under the speed limit, you come to an overtaking lane, go to over take they'll speed up as "you are not passing me" etc. If you watch "Dash Cam Owners Australia" on YouTube half the incidents are avoidable but because "It's my right of way" or "I'm in the right" the driver will drive straight in to the incident rather than give way and avoid ignoring being “dead right” is still dead.
I've driven/ridden in countries with terrible roads, no real rules, and to the average person looks like chaos but it seems to just work. The difference is non of these countries are aggressive drivers.
When I moved to Australia I used to think the low national speed limits were silly. Now I think it'd be carnage if they are increased given the Australian driving standards.
I also think the same formula holds for shipping companies, cellphone carriers, and airlines. All airlines suck, all cellphone providers suck and all shipping companies suck too. Oh and banks too.
Some countries require much more training, have higher standards of vehicle maintenance, and have other cultural differences.
Did you know [1] that Germany, land of unlimited-speed-limit autobahns, has 3.7 road deaths per 100,000 inhabitants and 4.2 deaths per billion vehicle-km?
While the USA has 12.9 road deaths per 100,000 inhabitants and 6.9 deaths per billion vehicle-km?
Australia, with 4.5 road deaths per 100,000 inhabitants and 4.9 deaths per billion vehicle-km is in between.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...
I’ve driven the world most dangerous roads that’s my thing. Often you wouldn’t even call them roads.
I felt more safe on a goat track with a coach coming the other way and sheer drop at the side of the road or highway with cows in the middle of the road and chaos traffic than Australia. Even 150mph down the Autobahn felt safer than 110kmh on an Australian highway.
Every car journey in Australia I play a game, spot the potential accident ahead as someone nearly crashes or does something stupid.
Watch dash cam owners Australia, half of it’s avoidable but the driver drives straight in to it rather than defensively avoid putting themselves in a dangerous situation
It’s absolutely an attitude/cultural issue. They have a lengthy process to get a license however I notice there’s a preference of parents teaching their bad habits vs professional driver training.
I wouldn't say Australia is fine but it is almost in a different ballpark. The frustrating thing here, in the US, is the ambivalence.
I think this is common in many places where a significant portion of the population lives in low density areas (eg: American, Australian and Canadian suburbs.) Outside of major city centers it is very difficult to live without a car, so states and provinces choose to set a very low bar for acquiring and keeping a driver's license.
The speed limit is already 130km/h in Northern Territory anyway.
Putting cameras in places where people are likely to speed so you can get more money would be directly correlated with being most impactful at reducing speeding. Another free market win in my mind.
On the other hand, if your aim is to maximise revenue, then project success means issuing as many tickets as possible. Installing clear speed limit signage? More profitable if we don't. Making the cameras clearly visible, so people can slow down in good time? More profitable if we don't. And if there's a wide, safe freeway with great visibility and no history of accidents? Well, that's going to be a profitable place for cameras, as people will feel safe going fast.
Possibly a hangover from the early days of European settlement, when the majority of settlers were convicts who needed keeping an eye on and dealing with with a firm hand.