Car stats
Some interesting graphs from MfE website.Â
Vehicles per 1000 people in NZ is increasing:
Cars per 1000 people now up to 620.”Today, 92 percent of trips are by car. One-third of all car rides cover less than two kilometres, and two-thirds are shorter than 5 kilometres.”
Average engine size is increasing:
But at least air lead levels are dropping
Bookmark to:
July 26th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
peterquixote Says:
July 26th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
looks bad for yous fwwog becaus the next mayor of christchurch gonna open up roads,
my opinion is this,
Bob Parker will be the next Mayor of Christchurch,
and I see him as mayor elect.
so all green people and all people of energy, I urge that you should meet him now and make good things for your city and your region.
It is good that we have a leader.
end this farcical pretence from the 2021 thing,
Leave a Reply
July 26th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Hmmm.
We see car engine size is going up, and overall vehicle numbers/population is up. But I wonder how much vehicle types are changing as well. A single person on a 125cc scooter is polluting a lot less than a single person in a 2500cc car - and a car less than a truck.
I see fewer motorbikes on the roads these days, and the ones I do see tend to be much bigger. I see more vans and trucks.
Partly that’s due to our society’s current fetish with safety too - me, her and the two kids can only take one friend with us in our little car because you’re not allowed to put four kids in the back of a normal car these days. This fetish is pushing many parents I know to buy a van, or a people-mover. (and don’t get me started on travel to-from school - the number of people who cluck disapprovingly over our 5-year-old eldest walking the 200 metres home from school on her own is astonishing - what the hell are we teaching this younger generation by not letting them walk home on their own?).
July 26th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
When our kids start school over the next few years, they will be walking 1km to school (with an adult … there are a few too many roads which need crossing for them to go alone). On rainy days, I’ll let them go on the bus.
Its obscene the number of parents who drive their kids even shorter distances than 1 km to school. Furthermore, look at the horrific accidents which happen when kids get hit by cars near schools (especially by 4WD vehicles).
July 27th, 2007 at 12:51 am
icehawk, the number of registered motorcycles has fallen 50% in the last 20 years. The number of motorcycle injuries has fallen by two-thirds and deaths have fallen by three-quarters, and youth motorcycle deaths have fallen by over 90%.
In those 20 years the shift away from motorcycles has saved more than 1600 lives, including over 900 teens. The different rates of improvement for driver deaths and passenger deaths over the last 20 years suggests that approximately 200 teens passenger deaths may have resulted from this shift from motorcycles to cars.
Rather a successful fetish!
July 27th, 2007 at 12:55 am
What did National do to stop the number of cars per person from increasing during the 1990s? Youth rates or employment contracts?
And what has Labour done to restart the process? Spend more on PT? Hike intertest rates again and again and again? Send the dollar soaring?
July 27th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Kevyn said: What did National do to stop the number of cars per person from increasing during the 1990s? Youth rates or employment contracts?
High unemployment and freezing the minimum wage would have had an effect too. Sustainability through Austerity! Hardly a winning election slogan.
July 27th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
toad said “Sustainability through Austerity! Hardly a winning election slogan.” But definitely a successful strategy.
Car ownership fell or plateaud during the great depression, WWII and the Suez crisis but curiously not during the Muldoon stagflation. But oil imports did fall during each of these periods.
July 28th, 2007 at 8:49 am
So is it Green party policy to limit the amount of cars/vehicles a person can own?
If so it is somewhat surprising, you are the party that did not want state intervention to stop snake oil “herbal” cures yet you support sate intervention in all other areas…thats hardly consistent
July 30th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
BB asked: So is it Green party policy to limit the amount of cars/vehicles a person can own?
No, it is not, BB. What’s more, you KNOW it’s not.
July 31st, 2007 at 4:00 am
Frog, Why no comment on Annette Kings anouncement that all of the petrol tax will go into the Land Transport Fund from July next year.
And here is the ONLY reason it has to happen next July
2004/05 LTF revenue $b1.2 expenditure $b1.2
2005/06 LTF revenue $b1.35 expenditure $b1.25
2006/07 LTF revenue $b1.5 expenditure $b1.3
2007/08 LTF est. revenue $b1.55 expenditure $b2.0
2008/09 LTF est revenue $b1.6 max possible expenditure $b1.6
Interesting how not one single journo noticed that hundreds of millions of dollars of the “governments” record spending on land transport was actually recorded in LTNZ’s NLTP as “unallocated” for the last two years. Essentially this is the revenue from the 5c tax increase which LTNZ couldn’t spend because the government changed the rules on funding major projects so LTNZ has to actually have the cash in the bank.
And how come nobody in Caucus noticed that if the whole accumulated “unallocated” amount was spent this financial year their would have to be a reduction in land transport spending in next year’s budget to stay within LTNZs actual annual revenue.
Tut tut Michael, you c**ked up that election bribe in a pretty impressive fashion. No wonder you’ve had to copy Sid Holland’s back flip on needing all that petrol tax money for health and education.
July 31st, 2007 at 7:33 am
Toad
“BB asked: So is it Green party policy to limit the amount of cars/vehicles a person can own?
No, it is not, BB. What’s more, you KNOW it’s not.”
Thats just the problem Toad, I do not know what your policy is and I would suggest that the voting public do not know either.
While I am here I have to ask you why there is no comment fropm the Greens on the lastest child abuse case?, you told us that section 59 would put an end to child abuse.
Why not be brave and tell us what the real problem is?
July 31st, 2007 at 9:33 am
once again..you are ‘full of it..!’..b.b..
nobody ever claimed repealing section 59 would be a magic wand/bullet that would end child abuse..
as you well know..!
it was only a (small) step to try to end the horrific culture of family violence in this country..
and what is the real problem..?
the real problem is the mindset that parents ‘own’ their children..
and are not just their guardians/protectors/nurturers..
and of course..the animal abuse/child abuse connection is strong..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 31st, 2007 at 10:49 am
>>it was only a (small) step
It was a complete waste of time, effort and money when the enormous problem of child abuse amongst Maori continues.
The left were too cowardly to target this group directly.
July 31st, 2007 at 11:45 am
BB said: Thats just the problem Toad, I do not know what your policy is and I would suggest that the voting public do not know either.
Why don’t you just take a look at http://www.greens.org.nz/docs/policy/. That links to all the policy summaries, and from them you can link to the detailed policies. No excuse, BB - I’ve suggested you go there before.
You’ll find there’s nothing there about how many cars people should own. That’s a side issue (although more cars owned means more cars produced, with the obvious carbon footprint implications of the production process).
But the main issue is not the number of cars, but how often we use them and what we use them for. Many of them take one person to work and back home again each day with consequent CO2 and other pollutant emissions. Many of these would not have to be on the road more than one or two days a week if public transport could get people where they want when they want reliably and speedily at a cost that is no more than using a private car.
July 31st, 2007 at 11:59 am
BB said: you told us that section 59 would put an end to child abuse
I did not, and nor did anyone else in the Greens. It is just one measure, along with many others, that are needed to reduce child abuse. Sue Bradford outlined some of the other measures required in this media release this morning.
July 31st, 2007 at 12:12 pm
BB asked: So is it Green party policy to limit the amount of cars/vehicles a person can own?
No it is not BB, but it is a good idea, thanks for the suggestion.
July 31st, 2007 at 12:13 pm
>>media release
Insufferable.
“…As a result, our legal system no longer mandates child beating,â€? Ms Bradford says.”
It never did!
July 31st, 2007 at 12:17 pm
>>Increasing funding to tangata whenua
No way.
The cause of the problem is cultural attitudes to violence amongst Maori, and the lifestyle choice provided by the DPB.
Michael Laws is way ahead on this issue. The left keep trotting out the same apologists nonsense that got us into this mess in the first place.
July 31st, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Sensible Sentencing Trust ranks MPs
July 30th, 2007
The Sensible Sentencing Trust advocates for longer sentences for repeat violent criminals. It’s website includes a database of MPs and an assessment of how sympathetic each MP is to their goals and policies. Only 42 of the MPs are assessed, but still interesting to look at how the SST assesses each MP. Their ratings, in order from lowest to highest are:
Very Low
* Turia, Tariana
Low
* Turei, Metira
Likely Low
* Anderton, Jim
* Bradford, Sue
* Locke, Keith
* Tanczos, Nandor
* Wilson, Margaret
Low to Middling
* Barker, Rick
* Cosgrove, Clayton
* Fairbrother, Russell
* Hartley, Ann
* Pettis, Jill
Middling
* Clark, Helen
Moderate
* Goff, Phil
* Key, John
* Worth, Richard
Fairly High
* Williamson, Maurice
Medium High
* Borrows, Chester
* Brownlee, Gerry
* Carter, John
* Goudie, Sandra
High
* Brash, Don
* Brown, Peter
* Clarkson, Bob
* Copeland, Gordon
* Donnelly, Brian
* Dunne, Peter
* English, Bill
* Hide, Rodney
* Mapp, Wayne
* Paraone, Pita
* Peters, Winston
* Roy, Heather
* Ryall, Tonu
* Smith, Nick
* Stewart, Barbara
* Tremain, Chris
* Turner, Judy
* Woolerton, Doug
Very High
* Collins, Judith
* Mark, Ron
* Wong, Pansy
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/
July 31st, 2007 at 12:34 pm
I can imagine a machine that asks us to think of solutions that will solve (or minimise) the child abuse problem. A screen shows the Rotorua house in question and the machine responds by placing the toddler in or out of the house and in or out of harms way. Sue Bradfords waffling has the child up on the roof (in my estimation).
jh
July 31st, 2007 at 12:42 pm
jh said: Sensible Sentencing Trust ranks MPs
JH, while I applaud the objective of the Sensible Sentencing Trust in trying to reduce violent offending, I just don’t think they are very, well, sensible.
Does anyone seriously think that an angry and dysfunctional parent about to bash his or her child is going to think “Perhaps I shouldn’t do this, because I might go to jail for 5 years rather than the 6 months I got last time”?
July 31st, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Does anyone seriously think that an angry and dysfunctional parent about to bash his or her child is going to think “Oh, didn’t Sue Bradford put through an anti-smacking bill? I’d better stop…â€?
July 31st, 2007 at 1:09 pm
More funding for Maori?… that must be a joke.. right?
July 31st, 2007 at 1:17 pm
BB & PEL - the media release actually said: “Increasing funding to tangata whenua and community sector groups which support families in trouble, and which educate parents about alternatives to violence, including the SKIP programme”.
It is funding to the groups that support families in trouble, including Maori ones, that she’s proposing to increase.
Anyway, it’s fine to have a go at Sue Bradford’s proposals, but what I’m hearing from you is all criticism and no constructive proposals. What would YOU do to reduce child abuse? And don’t just say longer sentences - that may deal with abusers after the event, but doesn’t stop them from abusing in the first place.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:55 pm
>>What would YOU do to reduce child abuse?
Restructure the DPB to remove breeding incentive. Directly target the demographic causing the problem, as Michael Laws suggests.
July 31st, 2007 at 2:02 pm
the funding need referred to bb..is for the community programs/initiatives cited by pita sharples..
that are doing such good work..but receive no financial support..not even the most minimal..
so..pel wants selective sterilisations..?
or just guaranteed poverty/hardship for sole parents..and the other poorest..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 31st, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Guaranteed poverty - what a joke. Go to Thailand, or Africa, then come back and tell me about “poverty” in New Zealand.
The rationale for the DPB is that the extra money goes towards supporting the child. But in these cases, the extra money ends up anywhere but.
Instead, pay the basic unemployment benefit to the mother, and use a computer-tracked card system for the child to ensure adequate food, shelter and education payments.
A child may reduce your opportunities and create financial burden?
Welcome to reality.
July 31st, 2007 at 2:16 pm
PEL
“The cause of the problem is cultural attitudes to violence amongst Maori…”
You’re too smart to play the race card, mate. We often disagree on a lot of issues, but your defense of your opinions still reveal an intelligence and fair mindedness that I respect.
Porcupine says it far better than I would be able to. From kiwiblog.
“…on a true continuous ethnicity scale (100% ethnicity) Maori may be a bit over-represented but it would pale by comparison to the real demographic that most of these people fall into.”
- intergenerational crime and violence
- intergenerational welfare dependence
- multiple kids to multiple partners
- birth father long gone
- long criminal record often going back to pre-teen years
- indicating they have been let off and excused numerous times by namby pamby judges, social workers and other feeders at this growth industry’s trough.”
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/07/all_women_to_be_questioned.html#comm ents
“When you take out the violence and drugs, two-thirds of the reason is heart disease. Is that bad diet? No, says Wilkinson, it is mainly stress, the stress of living at the bottom of the pecking order, on the lowest rung, the stress of disrespect and lack of esteem. Bad nutrition does less harm than depression.”
http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/politicsphilosophyandsociety/0,612 1,1538844,00.html
We’re paying the price of successive governments running this country into the ground.
They’ve run down our education system. “Bums on seats” tertiary funding? 26 million to pay for advertising in one year. Then the government had to give the universities the same amount in funding to make up for the shortfall.
They’ve run down our health system. More managers than hospital beds? Begun in the 90s by Ruth Richardson and her deluded attempts at bringing “competition” into the public sector by splitting it up into “CHEs” and getting private sector managers who know nothing about health to run them.
They’ve run down our industry by “privatising” it and flogging it off to corporate raiders (that they employed to advise them on the value of the assets that those guys ended up buying!) who then went into an orgy of asset stripping and ran them into the ground, which ended up costing the Mum and Dad investors and as well as taxpayers BILLIONS. Air New Zealand, BNZ, and Tranzrail etc etc. This along with the 1987 sharemarket crash destroyed New Zealanders’ confidance in the share market, which opened New Zealand companies to be taken over by overseas interests as they’re far less risk averse. Long Term Capital Management? George Soros? That along with our high taxes have left us with an overvalued housing market and a populace with high household debt.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4146580a13.html
We’re far more vulnerable to the ups and downs in the global marketplace. Remember the 90s recession?
July 31st, 2007 at 2:19 pm
PEL
“The cause of the problem is cultural attitudes to violence amongst Maori…”
You’re too smart to play the race card, mate. We often disagree on a lot of issues, but your defense of your opinions still reveal an intelligence and fair mindedness that I respect.
Porcupine says it far better than I would be able to. From kiwiblog.
“…on a true continuous ethnicity scale (100% ethnicity) Maori may be a bit over-represented but it would pale by comparison to the real demographic that most of these people fall into.”
- intergenerational crime and violence
- intergenerational welfare dependence
- multiple kids to multiple partners
- birth father long gone
- long criminal record often going back to pre-teen years
- indicating they have been let off and excused numerous times by namby pamby judges, social workers and other feeders at this growth industry’s trough.”
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/07/all_women_to_be_questioned.html#comm ents
“When you take out the violence and drugs, two-thirds of the reason is heart disease. Is that bad diet? No, says Wilkinson, it is mainly stress, the stress of living at the bottom of the pecking order, on the lowest rung, the stress of disrespect and lack of esteem. Bad nutrition does less harm than depression.”
http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/politicsphilosophyandsociety/0,612 1,1538844,00.html
July 31st, 2007 at 2:25 pm
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/rich-man-poor-man-divide-me rely-breeds-seething-society-of-discontent-1043469.html
“It is up to the State to control inflation. But it has absolved itself of that responsibility. Worse still, it seems to be hoping that hundreds of thousands of immigrants will do the trick, by expanding the labour force and keeping wages down. The hardworking Poles and Lithuanians probably don’t realise that they are the Irish Government’s only anti-inflation strategy. However, the exclusive tactic of using poor people from Silesia can only go so far before it starts to anger those Irish people whose wages are falling as a result.”
Hmm. Sounds familiar.
July 31st, 2007 at 2:25 pm
>>You’re too smart to play the race card, mate
Got Maori in my family, mate.
I agree with the rest, but I do wonder why you’re so quick to dismiss the cultural aspect? If there is a Maori culture, and I believe there is, is it possible there are parts of that culture that influence behavior in a negative way?
What is it about Japanese culture that leads to a high suicide rate?
July 31st, 2007 at 3:36 pm
PEL.
“Got Maori in my family, mate.”
So have I.
“I agree with the rest, but I do wonder why you’re so quick to dismiss the cultural aspect?”
Because “violence” against children within the Maori culture is no more prevalent than it is in European culture. Spare the rod, spoil the child and all that.
I don’t know the true traditional Maori methods of disciplining their kids beyond the Maori Party’s starry eyed nostalgia for the past before colonisation where everthing and everyone was better. Without knowing that it is or isn’t part of Maori culture or not, theres little point in debating it.
“What is it about Japanese culture that leads to a high suicide rate?”
For one thing the Japanese, as a far more homogenous society, have been able to retain their traditional culture pretty much intact, with the added benefit of not being the minority ethnic group in their own land being dominated by a culture that is filled with certainty of their inherent superiority. White mans burden? The same can’t be said for Maori.
http://www.teacherswork.ac.nz/reviews/still_being_punished.html
The high incidence of suicide of Japanese, I’d put down to the fact with their high population and land density there is an extreme level of competition within schools and industry which is a huge burden for individuals to bear and is compounded by there cultural aversion to losing prestige or respect (face) amoungst their peers or family.
http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/face/
July 31st, 2007 at 3:41 pm
We’re pretty much paying for successive governments running our country into the ground.
Perhaps this reveals more insight as to the true extent of violence against women and children within the Maor culture. Or lack of it.
http://www.waikato.ac.nz/law/wlr/1994/article6-mikaere.html
July 31st, 2007 at 4:12 pm
PEL
Instead, pay the basic unemployment benefit to the mother, and use a computer-tracked card system for the child to ensure adequate food, shelter and education payments.
Good solutions. Certainly better than this.
“All women entering New Zealand public hospitals will be questioned about whether they or their children have been victims of family violence - even if they are merely seeking treatment for an ingrown toenail.”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10454827 &pnum=0
July 31st, 2007 at 4:33 pm
>>Because “violence� against children within the Maori culture is no more prevalent than it is in European culture.
Five times higher.
This isn’t the case with PI families, who share some of the problems you outline, in particular displacement and poverty.
>>Good solutions. Certainly better than this.
Yah, pathetic eh.
Wonder if they’ll ask Helen if she goes in to have her wisdom teeth out?
July 31st, 2007 at 4:41 pm
pel said..
“..Guaranteed poverty - what a joke. Go to Thailand, or Africa, then come back and tell me about “povertyâ€? in New Zealand..”
so p.e.l…orphans starving and begging in the streets is the benchmark we..as a society/country..should work towards..eh..?
you spout this cr*p..
then expect anyone to take anything else you say seriously..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 31st, 2007 at 5:40 pm
I do *so* wish to be taken as seriously as you are, Phil.
After all, I’m not the one suggesting there will be “guaranteed poverty” if we try to ensure money actually gets spent on food for the kids, as opposed to P for the parent.
July 31st, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Toad
You asked what I would do, I am more than happy to tell you.
First of all Maori need to accept that it is their problem and at the same time admit that they (Maori) cannot fix the problem, I am sick and tired of being told that this is a problem for us all when that is plainly not the case, 15% of our population commit 60% of the child abuse cases, supposed poverty is not a reason as we all know that Pacific Island child abuse is almost non existent.
Cultural sensitivity and political correctness need to be bull dozed aside, more often than not “cultural sensitivity” is an excuse for crime or anti social behaviour anyway so that will be no great loss.
Maori need to ask the rest of New Zealand for help, there must be no terms and conditions placed on this help, the rest of NZ can fix this problem but there must be no concern given to cultural sensitivity
The govt need to deal with this in a rough and ruthless way, as Michael Laws suggests the social agencies could identify the next Lillybing today, it is only the PC nature of Maori issues that stops them doing so.
The social agencies need to go into these homes today and take the kids away, any mother or father convicted of an offense against children should have all future children (and current children ) removed, parents would have to prove that they are suitable before they got their kids back
Money is not the answer, we (the tax payer) have poured millions into Maori and Maori issues yet nothing changes, frankly the claim that Maori are affected by issues of the past is ridiculous, the govt need to tell Maori that this will not be tolerated any longer.
I have no doubt that welfare dependency and drugs are also a major part of this problem, until the govt make these people work for their benefit nothing will change, there must be hash and extremely long sentences for drug possession and manufacture.
Face it Toad, the left wing hand wringers have had 20 years to deal with this problem and nothing has changed, if we leave it to Maori then nothing will change, if we leave it to the Maori party nothing will change, the problem could be cured almost overnight but…………….. nothing will be done about it.
The clock is ticking, somewhere out there another Maori child is being beaten and abused and in three months time we will all be up in arms again
July 31st, 2007 at 6:20 pm
This is what I call prevalence of violence against children within a culture.
The prevalence of violence within an ethnic group is not the same as prevalence of violence within a culture. If its not mandated by tradition and handed down by elders its got nothing to do with culture.
This is a good example of a cultural tradition of violence against children.
“When asked what they have been punished for in their childhood the parents and grandparents gave consistent responses indicating that disobedience and defiance were the cardinal sins of their youth, and all but one of the adults interviewed said that they were beaten for such offences. Many mentioned being showered with pebbles or “back-handed”, while most emphasised the severity of the punishments they received, being beaten with belts, sticks, brooms, sandals, boots, fists. But most believed that this was the most effective way to teach children proper behaviour and that it was a necessary part of their upbringing.”
http://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/publications/msd/journal/issue06/spj6 -pacific-islands.doc
July 31st, 2007 at 6:51 pm
BB
…supposed poverty is not a reason as we all know that Pacific Island child abuse is almost non existent.
see above.
“…The social agencies need to go into these homes today and take the kids away, any mother or father convicted of an offense against children should have all future children (and current children ) removed, parents would have to prove that they are suitable before they got their kids back.”
CYFS have done a great job for the kids in their care up til now haven’t they? Passing kids from one foster home to another doesn’t exactly engeander a sense of security or confidance in a child does it?
I have no doubt that welfare dependency and drugs are also a major part of this problem.
Hmm didn’t need welfare back in the days before the neoliberal reforms did we? A man could support his family on one wage without the wife having to go off to work as well. No need for 20 hours free childcare back in those days.
“The Destitute Persons Act 1910 and the Domestic Proceedings Act 1968 created a statutory means by which a woman could seek a maintenance order against the father of her children.”
This could more easily be enforced if there was full employment giving everyone decent wages, whether they’re “skilled” or “unskilled”. If government also topped up poor wages making it more attractive to work it would no doubt save the government /tax payer a lot of money and grief in the long run.
http://www.amat.org.nz/history1.htm
“Money is not the answer, we (the tax payer) have poured millions into Maori and Maori issues yet nothing changes.”
Its because its been spent in the wrong place BB. On these neo-tribal capitalist organisations like the Tainui “Trust” Boards. Money gets concentrated in the hands of the elites for it to be trickled down to the masses. Sounds familiar?
A good analysis of the issue can be found here.
http://www.anewnz.org.nz/paper_comments.asp?paperid=92
July 31st, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Sleepy
You (and many like you) are part of the problem, even on an issue such as this you cannot put aside your political affiliations, YOUR way has not worked, YOUR way always involves giving these losers money for doing nothing or handing out millions in tax payer finds to ease your social conscience, YOUR way can not comprehend anything being done that would cure this problem in one generation.
Yes there would be a generation (one) of kids raised in foster homes, are you seriously suggesting that staying with their parents or “extended families ” is a good idea?
You can insert all sorts of links from Govt departments, they are the cause of the problem, as soon as you get academics and do gooders out of the way we might be able to fix this problem
Now please go and wring your hands somewhere else, the rest of us have children to save.
July 31st, 2007 at 8:08 pm
BB.
I don’t have any political affiliations. I’m a liberal from the English Radical school. I’m not into ideology or dogma. Theres no political party that truely reflects my beliefs. Perhaps if Rodney Hide overhauls the ACT party as he says he intends to and distances itself from its past association with the corporate sharks.
“YOUR way always involves giving these losers money for doing nothing…..
Where did I say that I want losers to be given money for doing nothing? I don’t have a social conscience.
Its not MY way. If the Labour and National governments, hadn’t f**ked our country up in the 80s and 90s we wouldn’t have this problem.
““are you seriously suggesting that staying with their parents or “extended families â€? is a good idea?
Depends on the individual cases. You shouldn’t tar all extended families that are related to child abusers merely, because extended family were implicated in the recent case.
“You can insert all sorts of links from Govt departments,”
Nothing to do with government departments. Maybe if you actually read what I actually said and the related article maybe you’d change your mind.
“Now please go and wring your hands somewhere else, the rest of us have children to save.”
Na mate. I actually live in Rotorua, applied for a job as a youth support worker before the whole thing happened so hopefully I’ll be one of the troops on the ground so to speak. Not to mention my brother is a cop around here so hopefully we’ll be able to collaborate in order to do whatever we can to break this cycle of violence.
July 31st, 2007 at 8:53 pm
Sleepy you disagree with me so I won’t listen to what you say na na na na na na na na I’m not listening and by the way you clearly are a communist and the people of New Zealand won’t stand for it.
July 31st, 2007 at 10:45 pm
# toad Says:
July 31st, 2007 at 12:42 pm
jh said: Sensible Sentencing Trust ranks MPs
JH, while I applaud the objective of the Sensible Sentencing Trust in trying to reduce violent offending, I just don’t think they are very, well, sensible.
Does anyone seriously think that an angry and dysfunctional parent about to bash his or her child is going to think “Perhaps I shouldn’t do this, because I might go to jail for 5 years rather than the 6 months I got last time�?
””””””””””””””””””””””””
Sir Geofrey Palmer decided (in his infinite wisdom) that prison shouldn’t be for punishment.
THE ONLY INDEPENDENT FILM EVER SHOT INSIDE A JAPANESE PRISON.
Each prison’s system is the implacable reflection of the society that produces it. France, country that wrote the human right’s principles, is deploring its prisons. But how a « successful » prison would look like? What type of society would it be the symptom? Today jail seems to be the most, if not the only, morally acceptable social punishment for the developed countries. And it is maybe in Japan that we might find the most elaborate and « successful » carceral system. Very harsh in it application, and almost never investigated by foreign observers, how does it justify it self to the Japanese citizen, and to the rest of the world? How could other culture and societies accept it? The Fuchu prison is detaining around 500 foreign inmates. How do they cope to the extremely strict rules of the prison? Two French citizens, one still inside jail, the other already released, are telling their experiment and their feeling about this system.
http://www.documen.tv/asset/Japan_form_inside_film.html
jh
July 31st, 2007 at 10:49 pm
I was watching a DVD tonight contested streets. It said that in Copenhagen (or Holland, itself?) 1/3 cycle to work; 1/3 take public transport and 1/3rd drive their car.
http://www.contestedstreets.com/
jh
July 31st, 2007 at 11:02 pm
But, surprisingly, Arnett, home in Omaha, Neb., says he prefers Japan’s legal system to ours. Why? “Because it’s fair,� he says. “The never tried to trick me, even in interrogation. They were always trustworthy. 1 could have got five years and they gave me two. The Americans who were helping them wanted me to get 20. The guards at Fuchu were hard, but they never messed with you unless there was a reason. You didn’t have to worry about the other prisoners coming after you, either. And the laws of Japan are for everybody. That’s the main thing. The laws in this country depend on how much you can pay. I’d rather live under a hard system that’s fair.�
)
[but Amnesty International are trying to…..(you know….
http://www.jameswebb.com/articles/parade/japanprison.htm
jh
August 1st, 2007 at 6:46 am
Sleepy
Your post in reply on confirms my first comment, until you put side your political affiliations nothing will change.
For your information the Labour govt of the 80’s and the Nat’s of the early 90’s were the best thing that ever happened to this country, the people who should be held up for ridicule are the late David Lange and the equally gutless Jim Boldger, if these two weak men had the political balls to continue with the reforms of Douglas and Richardson we would not have a welfare and child abuse problem now.
August 1st, 2007 at 10:48 am
BB
For your information the Labour govt of the 80’s and the Nat’s of the early 90’s were the best thing that ever happened to this country, the people who should be held up for ridicule are the late David Lange and the equally gutless Jim Boldger, if these two weak men had the political balls to continue with the reforms of Douglas and Richardson we would not have a welfare and child abuse problem now.
Riiight.
They stuffed up privatisations in the 90s. Tranzrail, Air New Zealand, Telecom, BNZ etc etc.
They stuff up the so-called health sector reforms in which a deluded and retarded expectation that “efficiency” and “competition” in the public sector would result from splitting it up into CHES and employing private sector managers who know nothing about health, resulting in our current administrative bloat. No different than the British NHS. Oh you want us to copy the US who pays TWICE per capita what we pay for healthcare for worse health outcomes?
They stuffed up the education system. “Bums on seats” tertiary funding, which has resulted in worthless qualifications , degenerated education, and a workforce that is struggling under extremely high student debt.
They stuffed up industry training by scrapping the apprenticeship scheme, leading to our current skills shortage and the need to lure immigrants to our shores, as a result has driven up the prices on housing and putting extra strain on our underfunded infrastructure.
Flogged off our infrastructure to overseas interests resulting in the current exorbidant prices we pay for the chronically underinvested utilities that we used to own.
Stuffed up the sale of the “electronic spectrum” in the early 90s and in the process becoming the laughing stock of the developed world. Only rivaled in incompetence by the inept deregulation of California’s electricity infrastructure.
Yep we’ve become a banana republic thanks to those misguided and deluded ideologues.
August 1st, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Sleepy - that’s an interesting post but…. it could be improved for those of us who weren’t here… like - who is the “they” you’re referring to?
Thanks
BJ
August 1st, 2007 at 1:23 pm
THEY are the deluded neoliberal ideologues from the National Party that BB so admires. Admittadly the worst of the lot (Ruth Richardson) got booted out by Bolger as she was becoming a political embarrassment and liability.
Thank goodness that she wasn’t able to continue her “reforms” as God only knows the state that this country would be in if she were able to.
Unfortunately the higher ranks of the Nats look eerily similar to that in the bad old days.
For a perspective on the era read this. Its long, but well worth reading.
http://www.eastonbh.ac.nz/?p=652
August 1st, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Well… it looks like the electrics won’t save us so easily after all… battery tech and resources look to be lagging the demand curve by a good decade or so…
http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2007/03/a123systems_lii.html
Compressed-Air cars seem more viable… but will Tata let us build ‘em here?
respectfully
BJ
August 1st, 2007 at 3:50 pm
There is more than enough lithium.
Onwards….
August 1st, 2007 at 4:49 pm
bjchip.
Do you reckon that it would be possible to retrofit the current fleet of cars with those air compressor engines? I’d hate to think about the amount of energy/oil, water, and other resources that it would require to replace the world’s 800,000,000 vehicles (is that just cars or including freight trucks etc)?
August 1st, 2007 at 10:06 pm
PEL
As the link says in part, it is the 16th most abundant element on the planet… so yeah, there is “enough”. The immensity of the task itself, to replace petrol with batteries in much of the transport sector, is daunting. The possibility that the demand will outstrip the supply greatly for a long time - in political-economic terms - more than a week or so
shouldn’t be so lightly discounted.
In this I do trust that the market will eventually correct itself, it always does, but the other alternative I pointed at has a lot to offer in terms of simplicity.
Sleepy-
I wouldn’t expect to replace all the cars at once… and I think PEL is correct that we aren’t going to “run out” of Lithium for Lithium Ion batteries. I just don’t think we will be able to extract it and make the batteries fast enough and economically enough to prevent breakdowns of our society.
The first use of the air cars would be as city cars, or station cars, to do the commuting. Replacing that use first would be the first step, and a big step, in weaning people from their big V-8 engines. The impetus will come from petrol and diesel prices being pushed into orbit, but there has to be a way for the demand for transportation to be satisfied and despite PEL’s confidence I anticipate a break in that market before Li battery production can possibly match the demand.
The thing is that manufacture of a Li battery for a vehicle is tech intense. Economically we’d have to import them. The Tata or some variant could be built here in its entirety. Nothing in it that necessitates the sort of industrial investment that the electrics demand.
respectfully
BJ
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:14 am
BJ, It would be cheaper and quicker to move the entire population to within 25 minutes walking or cycling distance of wherever they travel to each day.
This is going to happen anyway when peak oil prevents people from living 25 minutes driving distance from where they work or shop or go to school. The traditional notions of elite or desirable suburbs will disappear quite quickly as the paradigm of close proximity to services takes over. I think we will see a new property boom as people begin moving closer to where they work in order to maintain their current travel times using other modes of transport.
The impact on Wellington and Auckland could be very negative because of their history of ribbon development. But in Christchurch, Hamilton and other cities and towns with concentric development the multitude of outer-urban shopping centres and business parks means most work places are within easy cycling distance of existing suburbs. Hence a very large proportion of the populations in these centres can adapt to the post peak oil economy by simply swapping their house for a similar one on the other side of town.
This will buy the time needed to convert the vehicle fleet to newer fuel sources.
The only potential spanner in the works is whether the half of the population who don’t live in Wellington or Auckland will be dragged down by the collapse of the property markets in those two centers.
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:15 am
>>This is going to happen anyway
Why?
Cars don’t need petrol. They can be powered by a variety of sources. If the oil ramps down, other sources will ramp up.
>>dragged down by the collapse of the property markets in those two centers
Hilarious.
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:55 am
People think along the line that goldminers in the past lacked technology to get the gold out. That’s true but the machines developed are devices to convert fossil fuels to work. Without fossil fuels they are big hunks of metal…. Perhaps you could think of technology as a catalyst that allows one resource to change the state of another?
jh
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:58 am
Kevyn
One problem with such a utopian (dystopian) dispersal model is that it casts the workforce in cement…. and destroys all cities, or you intended to also include use of mass-transit. I will assume that you do intend to include mass transit
The second problem is that you cannot easily build cities in concentric circles in many places. The ports of Auckland and Wellington are where they are because of ships and shipping and have grown where they are because of those things. You can’t dictate where a good deepwater port is, or its surrounding topography.
Change your job and move house? What if your partner works somewhere else? Does constant moving from one house to the next help a family or hurt it? There are social costs to your solution that were not accepted in those countries and cities that HAVE concentric development. Cities are concentrations of people… and are necessary if you are to be able to support the arts and culture and cultural diversions. In terms of business they are important to providing the workforce needed. If your business requires scarce and diverse skills you need a bigger population to select from in order to satisfy those needs. The radius of a 25 minute walk doesn’t cut it. Scattered business parks incur BUSINESS related transit costs and leave the business dependent on smaller populations to provide skilled labor.
Concentric development works if you develop the mass-transit accordingly. The car is not necessary if some of the trains run in circles too.
The inclusion of mass transit makes some problems in Wellington disappear (more bike lockers would be needed at the train stations). However, walking and riding for 25 minutes in a whole-gale or a blizzard is poor preparation for the working day.
It is not IMHO, easier to abandon and demolish existing houses and suburbs than to provide cheap commuter transport. How much does it cost to move house in NZ. My last move was from LA so I haven’t got a comparable. Anyone?
Not moving house every time my job changes is a GOOD thing. Giving business a way to concentrate the talent it needs to do the job is a GOOD thing. City Centers which are dense enough to support the performing arts are a GOOD thing. Sudden massive economic dislocation and alterations to the property landscape are NOT a good thing. That change has to happen slower. We need a bridge technology and I don’t think electric is it…. and I don’t think everyone moving house avoids massive dislocations to the economy. It is a symptom, not a treatment.
respectfully
BJ
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:31 am
How about blogging on property rights Frog. I realise that idealists who tincker like a sorcerers apprentice do a lot of damage, (to which the twentieth century can bear witness), I feel however that if we are approaching peak oil and therefore will be facing hard facts about growth (ie that there are limits, we face static economy with permanent haves and permanent have nots
In addition I wonder about home ownership. I own my own house in an older suburb. The houses are dogs from the 1950’s (unfortunaetly) 
[they are shockers actually… they would build an L here and just to be different mirror image an L next door.. it didn’t matter about orientation to the sun…] Due to housing demand they are infilling and using the Real Estate industry to interpret it all in a positive light………..I would like to see the whole area bowled and rebuilt on a New Urbanist plan…. If property was “owned” on a tiered system like a high country lease.. the local government could ensure that cities are built to the best principles… Of course there are a few assumptions there…. but food for thought.
From time to time you could have a green book review (something beneath a lot of issues) such as Shoveling Fuel for a Runaway Train
http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=sJjtgu7g1B0C&dq=shoveling+fuel++for +a+runaway+train&pg=PP1&ots=FHzjRwBVX5&sig=oQ-ZH1V1S183DjSOz62aGDLof-Q &prev=http://www.google.co.nz/search%3Fsource%3Dig%26hl%3Den%26q%3Dsho veling%2Bfuel%2B%2Bfor%2Ba%2Brunaway%2Btrain%26btnG%3DGoogle%2BSearch% 26meta%3D&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:20 pm
BJ, walking or riding in a gale for 25 minutes to work is not actually bad preparation for a working day, provided you have showers and a change of clothes at work. I used to regularly ride to work from Strathmore in Wellington to Kelburn, which took about 25 minutes. In fact, I’m sure the exercise prepares you for a good working day much better than if you drive the car (I know from experience, having used both forms of transport to get to work). The key is to have cycle friendly work places which include:
1) Secure bike storage
2) Showers
3) Lockers for staff to store clothes etc in (big enough that you can hang ironed clothes in them without the clothes getting crumpled).
It is also nice to have a kitchen where you can cook breakfast etc, because of extreme hunger upon reaching work
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:47 pm
PEL says: “Cars don’t need petrol. They can be powered by a variety of sources. If the oil ramps down, other sources will ramp up.”
The thing is, no other energy source has the energy density, EROEI, ease of transport and just plain cheapness of petrol (cheaper than milk, cheaper than water). So no other fuel will be able to replace petrol, at as cheap a price and at as large a scale. So transport will become much more expensive real soon now, and this will have a dramatic effect on where people are able to live and work.
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:34 pm
I agree that there’s nothing like a walk or ride to prepare for a day in an office, though rather than showers or lockers, I reckon the key is getting rid of pointless dress standards in favour of traditional Kiwi norms (if it’s good enough for tramping, it’s good enough for the office - and vice versa), validating a reasonable degree of natural smellyness and encouraging enjoyment of weather.
Cyclists also need to stop wearing ‘cycle clothing’ which makes biking appear a sports activity for specialists and enthusiasts, rather than an everyday transport option.
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:57 pm
>>no other energy source has the energy density, EROEI, ease of transport and just plain cheapness of petrol
How about electricity?
How about the Tesla and other alternative powered vehicles? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Motors
(Less than 2 cents per mile)
I get the sense reading this thread that there’s a strong desire to eliminate cars, just because some people really hate cars.
While we can power a car in a cost effective manner, and we certainly can, then people will continue to drive cars.
August 2nd, 2007 at 6:49 pm
PeterExitsLeft: whilst alternative forms of powering cars have been around for a very long time (electricity, ethanol etc), the issue is that nothing is as good, and as cheap as fossil fuels for powering cars. There are drawbacks with all the other fuels, e.g battery capacity (small range), production of ethanol using food crops to name just a few.
If there was a better or cheaper alternative, you can be sure it would have displaced petrol by now. This is not to say that new technology won’t come up with a solution, it just hasn’t yet. I simply don’t buy the conspiracy theories concerning electric cars (for example). The reason we aren’t driving electric cars right now is much more mundane, and is to do with engineering
limitations.
If we had to change to alternative transportation overnight, I think our best bet would be the tried and tested alternatives like public transport, bicycles, walking etc. We do not need to rely on technology coming up with a solution, although it would be nice if it did.
August 2nd, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Samieula
Ahmmm..what do you think powers public transport?
August 2nd, 2007 at 7:27 pm
>>This is not to say that new technology won’t come up with a solution, it just hasn’t yet.
Yes it has.
Over 200 miles per charge, at 2 cents a mile. teslamotors.com/index.php
All that is required now is scale, which will happen if oil rises significantly in price.
I don’t dismiss public transport. I used to take the Tube when I lived in London. I like the tube.
But the prediction of the demise of the car based on the notion oil is running out is ridiculous.
August 3rd, 2007 at 1:57 am
PEL,
I admire your optimism. Even Japan will need 10 years to replace it’s vehicle fleet. Add the typical production lead times and you’re talking one awfully long ramp.
Horseless carriages “don’t need petrol. They can be powered by a variety of sources.” Yep, many of the early ones used steam or electricity. Many of the pre-horseless carriarge carriages used real horsepower. If oil ramps down too fast too soon that may be the only production ready alternative we will have. Let’s hope not.
Hillarious? I am surprised that as a successful property investor you haven’t done a risk assessment for the specific markets you are in. In the case of peak oil that risk would have to include businesses relocating to less car dependent centres and populations shifting from motorway suburbs to railway suburbs or CBD/industrial fringe housing. Peak oil is unlikely to affect Wellington’s status as the government capital or Auckland’s status as the corporate capital but it is likely to affect Auckland’s status as the import distribution capital.
August 3rd, 2007 at 3:51 am
Bj, I did have my mind on the New Zealand context when I wrote that. Of course the secret to the 20th century success of New York, London and Paris was using mass transit to connect their existing walking communities into super-cities. ;-} Of course smaller cities and large towns should bring back their streetcars or trams since they run on electricity. Also, I was focusing on the daily commute where PT is already heavily utilised. The time and money needed to increase PT capacity to meet current commuter behaviour would be a challenge even if we had decades to prepare. They are going to be insurmountable barriers once we hit peak oil.
I was thinking that peak oil will occur within 10 years and will impact as abruptly as the oil embargoes of the 1970s, but this time the shortages will be permanent. That suggests a very very short period in which to adjust. Far too short for any solution that relies on complete vehicle fleet replacement or substantial modification.
It is the time crunch that limits our options. PT and new engine technology will eventually provide solutions, as will changes in urban planning. It just wont happen in time. I’m not suggesting tha government should forcefully relocate workers but simply that this is an option that workers will adopt out of necessity.
“Change your job and move house?” Nope, just one or the other, not both together.
“Does constant moving from one house to the next help a family or hurt it?” Maybe we’re from different worlds. Most people I know aren’t constantly changing jobs, and most of them change houses much more often than they change jobs.
“How much does it cost to move house in NZ?” If you’re only moving across town it should only cost as much as a U-haul trailer and a few beers for your mates.
Peak oil is going to give us “Sudden massive economic dislocation”. Minimising the transport disruptions in a cost effective timely way will help lessen the economic impact so that we will be better able to invest in longer term solutions. If enough people find living close to where they work is better than what they had before then there might not even be a need to invest in a replacement for the car. I used the phrase “swapping their house for a similar one on the other side of town” very deliberately. Actual swapping rather than selling cuts out the real estate agent commissions which is the biggest cost apart from lawyers fees.
Whilst I was focusing on how to rapidly respond once the s**t has already hit the fan, the general concept was inspired by the WellUrban blog’s discussion of the Johnsonville town centre redevelopment plan and this old article on urban design as a part solution to climate change:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13918832.600-city-planners-again st-global-warming–rethinking-the-designof-towns-and-cities-could-help- to-restrain-the-spiralling-growth-of-trafficand-cut-emissions-of-carbo n-dioxide-.html
I do think everyone moving house reduces massive dislocations to the economy. It is an effective treatment to the “disease” of car dependence. PT and electric cars only treat the symptoms, congestion and air pollution.
They don’t treat the root causes of car dependence, cheap oil = cheap fast transport = no cost to urban sprawl. Getting rid of cheap oil puts us back where we were 100 years ago. Trams and terraced housing, local shops and CBDs, and mixed housing and light industry. But we do have the options of using telephones and the internet, high speed trains and videoconferencing and videorobotics to replace much of our car travel. A retrun to horse and buggy housing without actually having to go back to horses and buggies.
August 3rd, 2007 at 4:06 am
samiuela,
The factory where I work provides
1) Secure bike storage
2) Showers
3) Lockers for staff to store clothes etc in (big enough that you can hang ironed clothes in them without the clothes getting crumpled).
4) a kitchen where you can cook breakfast etc,
The factory across the road, owned by Ngai Tahu, goes a step further and provides a creche. Our factory makes do with changing shifts at 3.30pm so mum and dad can both work and share looking after the kids. 2) & 3) seem to be standard in “wet” or “dirty” factories. It will probably take the shock of peak oil to make it “cost-effective” to get these facilities provided at every workplace.
August 3rd, 2007 at 10:30 am
Kevyn
I disagree with your time frames. It is possible there will be a gap while the market corrects, but we have no way of knowing, really. Peak Oil keeps getting it wrong, and we’ve got new energy sources and applications coming on stream.
>>Hillarious? I am surprised that as a successful property investor you haven’t done a risk assessment for the specific markets you are in.
I can’t speak for the Auckland market, but I know the Wellington market reasonably well. I agree about centralised property, but for slightly different reasons. It’s partly to do with accessibility. People can use their cars, but *choose* not to, because of congestion, parking fees, etc.
I don’t buy property out in the far flung suburbs (no defensive position). Built-up satellites and central only.
Wellington is a port and the seat of government. It is compact. It is reasonable well served by public transport now (could be ramped up significantly, if necessary). It could get along fine with less cars.
The same couldn’t be said for many regional cities.
August 3rd, 2007 at 10:23 pm
This is an “I Want” society, and we don’t seem to know when to stop. MAD magazine pointed this out years ago, sorry to say.
When is enough, enough??? We must be sad sorry people to let the marketing industry have us believe we need all this crap.
aladin
August 4th, 2007 at 2:01 am
PEL, The first prediction was reasonably accurate, USA would peak by 1970. This was an easier prediction because the US was more honest about it known reserves than many other countries, the peak was only 17 years into the future so major changes to growth trends or extraction technologies were unlikely.
The Global peak was predicted by the end of the century. The overestimates of reserves from the middle east seem to have been balanced out by underestimates by the Soviets. The much longer time frame has allowed new trends to emerge, thanks to the pill and OPEC, which didn’t even exist when the first “predictions” were made. Really these are probability assessments or scenario models using extant trends as the starting point. The further you push into the future the less reliable they become.
The USA projection was actually about 10% short. Add that to the global projection takes us to 2005, but I think certainty reduces with the square of time (a la the intensity/distance relationship in physics) therefore 2021 is a possible maximum. More recent extimates use more recent trends but are still hampered by some very dodgy oil reserve estimates.
I suspect that most regional cities (and former cities) haven’t grown all that much bigger in the 50 years that the motorcar has dominated urban planning. This “backwardness” may turn out to be a blessing in disguise.
Of course, predicting the future is easier with hindsight. So we are both going to be wrong on some points and kinda right on others.
August 4th, 2007 at 8:25 am
PEL
Tesla may someday produce cars, and I am hopeful that they do, but Lotus and Lithium-Ion batteries are not solutions for station cars and commuting vehicles in the numbers this country (or any other) is going to need. Not anytime soon. We would have to import the battery packs wholesale. We could build them here eventually, but the Li-Ion drawback for transport use is basically the $20K per battery pack and availability here. The price WILL come down and the tech has fewer drawbacks than other battery tech… but even the Li-Ion in the Tesla packs only the equivalent of 8 liters of petrol and it takes 3 hours to recharge. Long trips will be slow until the rapid charging tech reaches some maturity and gets integrated.
Think has a better model for us thanks
http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/31/think-hoping-to-deliver-web-enabled -electric-car/
- and it uses a Tesla designed battery pack BTW.
However, availability here depends on importing batteries. Until and unless we set up production here. Which, given our market is quite unlikely… and which in a global crunch or the imho more likely inexorable grinding decrease of petrol availability with corresponding increases in price… the demand elsewhere will raise the prices for such things phenomenally.
In Other Words, the Tesla BATTERY pack company (the spin off) would be a fair prospective investment in the mid term. Until the Chinese knock-offs appear anyway.
The point is about the bridge technology. The Tata uses compressed air and manages the commute vehicle niche quite nicely thanks, it can be “filled up” in seconds from any facility that can has room for a compressor and a storage tank, or using the on board compressor, in a couple of hours overnight. The model suits us better. The compressed air tank is likely to remain far cheaper and easier to build than the Li-Ion packs for the next 5-10 years. The investment required is smaller per vehicle.
Without the battery pack to hold it down though, it may have a problem in a high wind.
respectfully
BJ
August 4th, 2007 at 8:37 am
here’s the car for you BJ, the only problem they are having is the curry smell.
http://www.revaindia.com/index_revai.htm
jh
August 4th, 2007 at 8:58 am
I have a workmate who is in “no doubt at all that they will find alternatives…” Some genius will have a eureka moment connect the dots and there will be something completely out of the box.. A lot of people still believe in the water engine (just ad tap water and go) > the inventor was “bought out by the oil companies”…
Basically no alternative is doing that well as far as I can see (except the bicycle).
I have often wondered how a system of covered cycle lanes would work…maybe with turning aerophiles to push the wind in a certain direction. [The idea isn’t very advanced at this stage]
jh
August 4th, 2007 at 11:01 am
bjchip
You’re right about the long trips, but I’m guessing most trips will be well within the range of the Tesla. Then put it on charge overnight.
If those cars were available here, I’d buy one tomorrow.
How quickly can they ramp up the volume? I don’t know. However, I don’t think the oil will just shut off with a weeks notice. It may not shut off at all.
The time frames will be interesting….
BTW: I like public transport. I also love cars. I think there is enough happening with the tech to leave one optimistic.
August 4th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
PEL
Driving a Tesla to the station or even on a commute into town will not make much more sense than using a Ferrari for the same trip. … and I would love to have one… (or the Ferrari), and I know I won’t. I don’t drive for fun anymore… I drive kids to places they need to go, I drive to the store.
No more pocket rockets, no more 100MPH commuting.
(BMW 2002, Mitsubishi Mirage Turbo, Nissan Sentra SE-R)…
Now I drive a small family van.. and it’s crowded.
I really miss playing with my car.
respectfully
BJ
August 4th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
I’ve been following the development of electric cars for over 30 years. The objections to electric cars have always been psychological masquerading as technical.
For instance “electric cars have a limited range”. True but consider Russell’s original post: “One-third of all car rides cover less than two kilometres, and two-thirds are shorter than 5 kilometres.â€?
Ipto facto an eletric car with a range of 10km would satisfy two-thirds of our needs.
Then there is the complaint that electric cars are slow and cumbersome. So were the Model T, the Morris Minor, the beetle and the Mini. That didn’t stop them selling by the millions did it? Or being hot rodded.
“You try towing a boat with one of them and see how far you get” Again, the same complaint can be levelled at the bambina and the mini. That’s one reason why we have Hertz, Avis and Rent-A-Dent.
It wasn’t fancy technology that made Honda more popular than Harley-Davidson. It was the clever advertising slogan “You meet the nicest people on a Honda” Volkswagon succeeded in America with “It’s A Lemon!”. Both companies succeded by combining clever, practical engineering with clever marketing and innovative distribution. And that’s what’s been lacking with electric cars to date. Oh, and they were cheap enough to appeal to the youth market.