https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/swarbrick-apologises-after-accusing-pm-of-demonstrable-lie-says-she-did-so-at-earliest-convenience/ar-AA1lOsLA?ocid=winp1taskbar&cvid=936428eef3084351b900fac0481f063e&ei=10
So maybe there is a thread of decency in the greens, when forced on them. >Pity some commentators here and elsewhere cannot also be so fair.
On Thu, 21 Dec 2023 20:24:10 -0000 (UTC), TonyAs I pointed out to you in another thread, is it poor memory or just another part of your nastiness?
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/swarbrick-apologises-after-accusing-pm-of-demonstrable-lie-says-she-did-so-at-earliest-convenience/ar-AA1lOsLA?ocid=winp1taskbar&cvid=936428eef3084351b900fac0481f063e&ei=10
So maybe there is a thread of decency in the greens, when forced on them. >>Pity some commentators here and elsewhere cannot also be so fair.
It is called following the rules, Tony
- her initial statement wasNo proven.
correct
, but the rules of parliament prohibit calling another member aYeah, yeah ,yeah - we all know that, it is not the rest of us that needs childish lessons.
liar. I suspect that if she had said that the statement was totally
untrue it would have passed with little comment; it would have been a
correct statement, but probably does not infringe house rules.
What itArrant nonsense.
did do however is give publicity to the inherent deception behind
statements from this government in general and from CLuxon in
particular.
On Thu, 21 Dec 2023 20:24:10 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/swarbrick-apologises-after-accusing-pm-of-demonstrable-lie-says-she-did-so-at-earliest-convenience/ar-AA1lOsLA?ocid=winp1taskbar&cvid=936428eef3084351b900fac0481f063e&ei=10
So maybe there is a thread of decency in the greens, when forced on them. >>Pity some commentators here and elsewhere cannot also be so fair.
It is called following the rules, Tony - her initial statement was
correct, but the rules of parliament prohibit calling another member a
liar.
https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/swarbrick-apologises-after-accusing-pm-of-demonstrable-lie-says-she-did-so-at-earliest-convenience/ar-AA1lOsLA?ocid=winp1taskbar&cvid=936428eef3084351b900fac0481f063e&ei=10
So maybe there is a thread of decency in the greens, when forced on them. >Pity some commentators here and elsewhere cannot also be so fair.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350433126/speed-limit-reductions-reversing-back-2019-transport-minister-says
Removal of idiotic restrictions.
Focussing on alcohol, drugs and excessive speed is the answer, not limiting >people to nonsensical speeds.
On Fri, 27 Sep 2024 23:15:10 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350433126/speed-limit-reductions-reversing-back-2019-transport-minister-says
Removal of idiotic restrictions.
Focussing on alcohol, drugs and excessive speed is the answer, not limiting >>people to nonsensical speeds.
The press release has more detail:
https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/government-delivers-sensible-approach-speed-limits
It does mention 1 July 2025 as the effective date that speed limit, so
we have to endure the new speed limits for at least this long.
On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 10:17:19 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>That is an implied lie. Labour were the ones that imposed a single solution, National are cancelling that authoritarian nonsense.
wrote:
On Fri, 27 Sep 2024 23:15:10 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Removal of idiotic restrictions.https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350433126/speed-limit-reductions-reversing-back-2019-transport-minister-says
Focussing on alcohol, drugs and excessive speed is the answer, not limiting >>>people to nonsensical speeds.
The press release has more detail:
https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/government-delivers-sensible-approach-speed-limits
It does mention 1 July 2025 as the effective date that speed limit, so
we have to endure the new speed limits for at least this long.
I suspect they have been told that they are heading for a long line of >vehement disagreement on the grounds of safety in local areas. I know
where i live the Council had very good consultation, and that a lower
limit has not only made getting to and from a primary school much
safer, the local shops are also doing better as it is easier to get in
and out of parking spaces. Another primary school not that far away
does not need the same reduction in speed limits as they don't have
the same issues; National's single solution for everyone has not gone
down well. Putting in a delay gives the opportunity to back down
quietly and find out what local businesses really want . . .
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 10:17:19 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:That is an implied lie. Labour were the ones that imposed a single solution, National are cancelling that authoritarian nonsense.
On Fri, 27 Sep 2024 23:15:10 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Removal of idiotic restrictions.https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350433126/speed-limit-reductions-reversing-back-2019-transport-minister-says
Focussing on alcohol, drugs and excessive speed is the answer, not limiting >>>>people to nonsensical speeds.
The press release has more detail:
https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/government-delivers-sensible-approach-speed-limits
It does mention 1 July 2025 as the effective date that speed limit, so
we have to endure the new speed limits for at least this long.
I suspect they have been told that they are heading for a long line of >>vehement disagreement on the grounds of safety in local areas. I know
where i live the Council had very good consultation, and that a lower
limit has not only made getting to and from a primary school much
safer, the local shops are also doing better as it is easier to get in
and out of parking spaces. Another primary school not that far away
does not need the same reduction in speed limits as they don't have
the same issues; National's single solution for everyone has not gone
down well. Putting in a delay gives the opportunity to back down
quietly and find out what local businesses really want . . .
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/top/536632/govt-s-cuts-to-contractor-and-consultant-spending-ahead-of-schedule
May there be more cuts in this awful waste.
On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 19:44:03 -0000 (UTC), TonySo you agree that they are doing a good job, well done for a change.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/top/536632/govt-s-cuts-to-contractor-and-consultant-spending-ahead-of-schedule
May there be more cuts in this awful waste.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/what-you-need-to-know/531083/despite-job-cuts-cost-of-public-service-still-growing-what-you-need-to-know
Seymour is doing his bit - 4 months work promised to sort out whether
a hairdresser can give clients a cup of coffee - anything for a few
minutes on tellie - right?
On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 19:44:03 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/top/536632/govt-s-cuts-to-contractor-and-consultant-spending-ahead-of-schedule
May there be more cuts in this awful waste.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/what-you-need-to-know/531083/despite-job-cuts-cost-of-public-service-still-growing-what-you-need-to-know
Seymour is doing his bit - 4 months work promised to sort out whether
a hairdresser can give clients a cup of coffee - anything for a few
minutes on tellie - Right!?
On 2024-12-14, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Trends and graphs are beyond Rich's comprehension. He prefers very short words and pretty pictures.
On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 19:44:03 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
May there be more cuts in this awful waste.https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/top/536632/govt-s-cuts-to-contractor-and-consultant-spending-ahead-of-schedule
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/what-you-need-to-know/531083/despite-job-cuts-cost-of-public-service-still-growing-what-you-need-to-know
Seymour is doing his bit - 4 months work promised to sort out whether
a hairdresser can give clients a cup of coffee - anything for a few
minutes on tellie - Right!?
Notice gentle readers that Rich has discovered a new favourite word,
Seymour.
However the big news is that graph. Note the up surges when Labour was in >power compared to National coalition.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360562873/live-speed-limits-government-sights
A triumph for common sense.
Labour says (according to the article) -
"while they're not opposed to driving at higher speeds, they're concerned about
the potential for more deaths on the roads as a result of speed limit increases
unveiled by the Government."
Somebody should teach them linguistic logic. The statement makes no sense. They
are either opposed or not!
The Greens change history as usual (or try to).
The blanket reduction in speeds by the last government was done without evidence, so why should the removal of that politically driven decision have to
have evidence? Two faced from the Green watermelon party.
Concentrate on the bad behaviour and not shoot from the Marxist hip.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360562873/live-speed-limits-government-sights
A triumph for common sense.
Labour says (according to the article) -
"while they're not opposed to driving at higher speeds, they're concerned about
the potential for more deaths on the roads as a result of speed limit increases
unveiled by the Government."
Somebody should teach them linguistic logic. The statement makes no sense. They
are either opposed or not!
The Greens change history as usual (or try to).
The blanket reduction in speeds by the last government was done without evidence, so why should the removal of that politically driven decision have to
have evidence? Two faced from the Green watermelon party.
Concentrate on the bad behaviour and not shoot from the Marxist hip.
On 2025-01-29, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Absolutely, and that is part of the new rules. Of course speed near schools should be kept low, Labour refused to see that was all that was needed because it was a political decision based on political dogma by that government. Absolutely no science was used by them.
A triumph for common sense.https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360562873/live-speed-limits-government-sights
Labour says (according to the article) -
"while they're not opposed to driving at higher speeds, they're concerned >>about
the potential for more deaths on the roads as a result of speed limit >>increases
unveiled by the Government."
Somebody should teach them linguistic logic. The statement makes no sense. >>They
are either opposed or not!
The Greens change history as usual (or try to).
The blanket reduction in speeds by the last government was done without
evidence, so why should the removal of that politically driven decision have >>to
have evidence? Two faced from the Green watermelon party.
Concentrate on the bad behaviour and not shoot from the Marxist hip.
The corolation between speed and deaths only applies under certain >conditions.
Poor (unsafe) driving will trump any speed reductions, if and only iff the >speed limits are ignored.
What is needed is a idea planted into the driving culture is that as soon as >you get behind the wheel and drive you are in a machine capabale of killing >and serious injury.
Worksafe. In one situation the boss said that he could lay down the law and >read the riot act but it was only the work team who had the power to have
one of their crew mates dead by the time he got back to the office.
I am totally with the proposal to have a lower speed limit out side schools >during pick up and drop off children do the darnest things followed closely >by their parents. It is a rush "hour".
Finally, remember the Drunk no Drive campagain? Something along similar
lines for speed would be a good starter.
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Under what conditions is there no correlation?
On 2025-01-29, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
A triumph for common sense.https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360562873/live-speed-limits-government-sights
Labour says (according to the article) -
"while they're not opposed to driving at higher speeds, they're concerned >>>about
the potential for more deaths on the roads as a result of speed limit >>>increases
unveiled by the Government."
Somebody should teach them linguistic logic. The statement makes no sense. >>>They
are either opposed or not!
The Greens change history as usual (or try to).
The blanket reduction in speeds by the last government was done without
evidence, so why should the removal of that politically driven decision have
to
have evidence? Two faced from the Green watermelon party.
Concentrate on the bad behaviour and not shoot from the Marxist hip.
The corolation between speed and deaths only applies under certain >>conditions.
Absolutely, and that is part of the new rules.
Poor (unsafe) driving will trump any speed reductions, if and only iff the >>speed limits are ignored.
What is needed is a idea planted into the driving culture is that as soon as >>you get behind the wheel and drive you are in a machine capabale of killing >>and serious injury.
Worksafe. In one situation the boss said that he could lay down the law and >>read the riot act but it was only the work team who had the power to have >>one of their crew mates dead by the time he got back to the office.
I am totally with the proposal to have a lower speed limit out side schools >>during pick up and drop off children do the darnest things followed closely >>by their parents. It is a rush "hour".
should be kept low, Labour refused to see that was all that was needed because >it was a political decision based on political dogma by that government. >Absolutely no science was used by them.Rubbish - the NZTA were asked by government to determine safe speeds
Finally, remember the Drunk no Drive campagain? Something along similar >>lines for speed would be a good starter.
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 03:52:19 -0000 (UTC), TonyIf you want to talk with Gordon, answer hime and stop being cowardly.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Under what conditions is there no correlation?
On 2025-01-29, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
A triumph for common sense.https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360562873/live-speed-limits-government-sights
Labour says (according to the article) -
"while they're not opposed to driving at higher speeds, they're concerned >>>>about
the potential for more deaths on the roads as a result of speed limit >>>>increases
unveiled by the Government."
Somebody should teach them linguistic logic. The statement makes no sense. >>>>They
are either opposed or not!
The Greens change history as usual (or try to).
The blanket reduction in speeds by the last government was done without >>>> evidence, so why should the removal of that politically driven decision >>>>have
to
have evidence? Two faced from the Green watermelon party.
Concentrate on the bad behaviour and not shoot from the Marxist hip.
The corolation between speed and deaths only applies under certain >>>conditions.
Your memory is as faulty as your integrity - I did no such thing.Absolutely, and that is part of the new rules.
Poor (unsafe) driving will trump any speed reductions, if and only iff the >>>speed limits are ignored.
What is needed is a idea planted into the driving culture is that as soon as >>>you get behind the wheel and drive you are in a machine capabale of killing >>>and serious injury.
Worksafe. In one situation the boss said that he could lay down the law and >>>read the riot act but it was only the work team who had the power to have >>>one of their crew mates dead by the time he got back to the office.
I am totally with the proposal to have a lower speed limit out side schools >>>during pick up and drop off children do the darnest things followed closely >>>by their parents. It is a rush "hour".
Lower speed rules near schools were encouraged under the last
government, but from memory you argued strongly against them, Tony -
even when you learned that in most cases local residents views wereWhy do you have to lie?
sought and considered.
Wrong, rubbish and lies.should be kept low, Labour refused to see that was all that was needed >>becauseRubbish - the NZTA were asked by government to determine safe speeds
it was a political decision based on political dogma by that government. >>Absolutely no science was used by them.
for a lot of roads, and those roads where changes were indicated were >consulted with local communities. The changes now have been made by
decree with no further consultation - but in some cases there will be
some consultation, and that does include the Wairarapa change. In that
case part of the reason the community wanted a lower speed was because
the road was going through a lot of maintenance / improvement work,
including replacing traffic lights with a large roundabout in one
place. In a few places locals wanted lower speed limits because of the
effect of higher speeds with exits to farms being near corners etc. A
higher speed was also seen by locals as increasing the contrast with
each small town along the way, and faster speeds were also seen as
being too often ineffective because trucks with a lower limit anyway
were seeing average speeds around 90 anyway.
Finally, remember the Drunk no Drive campagain? Something along similar >>>lines for speed would be a good starter.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I did you twonk. I do not expect that Gordon will be confused.
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 03:52:19 -0000 (UTC), TonyIf you want to talk with Gordon, answer hime and stop being cowardly.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Under what conditions is there no correlation?
On 2025-01-29, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
A triumph for common sense.https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360562873/live-speed-limits-government-sights
Labour says (according to the article) -
"while they're not opposed to driving at higher speeds, they're concerned >>>>>about
the potential for more deaths on the roads as a result of speed limit >>>>>increases
unveiled by the Government."
Somebody should teach them linguistic logic. The statement makes no sense.
They
are either opposed or not!
The Greens change history as usual (or try to).
The blanket reduction in speeds by the last government was done without >>>>> evidence, so why should the removal of that politically driven decision >>>>>have
to
have evidence? Two faced from the Green watermelon party.
Concentrate on the bad behaviour and not shoot from the Marxist hip.
The corolation between speed and deaths only applies under certain >>>>conditions.
As I wrote my comment I was listening to discussion on Radio NewYour memory is as faulty as your integrity - I did no such thing.Absolutely, and that is part of the new rules.
Poor (unsafe) driving will trump any speed reductions, if and only iff the >>>>speed limits are ignored.
What is needed is a idea planted into the driving culture is that as soon as
you get behind the wheel and drive you are in a machine capabale of killing >>>>and serious injury.
Worksafe. In one situation the boss said that he could lay down the law and >>>>read the riot act but it was only the work team who had the power to have >>>>one of their crew mates dead by the time he got back to the office.
I am totally with the proposal to have a lower speed limit out side schools >>>>during pick up and drop off children do the darnest things followed closely >>>>by their parents. It is a rush "hour".
Lower speed rules near schools were encouraged under the last
government, but from memory you argued strongly against them, Tony -
even when you learned that in most cases local residents views wereWhy do you have to lie?
sought and considered.
I doubt you would recognise science if you tripped over it - you areWrong, rubbish and lies.
should be kept low, Labour refused to see that was all that was needed >>>becauseRubbish - the NZTA were asked by government to determine safe speeds
it was a political decision based on political dogma by that government. >>>Absolutely no science was used by them.
for a lot of roads, and those roads where changes were indicated were >>consulted with local communities. The changes now have been made by
decree with no further consultation - but in some cases there will be
some consultation, and that does include the Wairarapa change. In that
case part of the reason the community wanted a lower speed was because
the road was going through a lot of maintenance / improvement work, >>including replacing traffic lights with a large roundabout in one
place. In a few places locals wanted lower speed limits because of the >>effect of higher speeds with exits to farms being near corners etc. A >>higher speed was also seen by locals as increasing the contrast with
each small town along the way, and faster speeds were also seen as
being too often ineffective because trucks with a lower limit anyway
were seeing average speeds around 90 anyway.
No science was used.
Finally, remember the Drunk no Drive campagain? Something along similar >>>>lines for speed would be a good starter.
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 05:32:41 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I did you twonk. I do not expect that Gordon will be confused.
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 03:52:19 -0000 (UTC), TonyIf you want to talk with Gordon, answer hime and stop being cowardly.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Under what conditions is there no correlation?
On 2025-01-29, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
The corolation between speed and deaths only applies under certain >>>>>conditions.A triumph for common sense.https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360562873/live-speed-limits-government-sights
Labour says (according to the article) -
"while they're not opposed to driving at higher speeds, they're >>>>>>concerned
about
the potential for more deaths on the roads as a result of speed limit >>>>>>increases
unveiled by the Government."
Somebody should teach them linguistic logic. The statement makes no >>>>>>sense.
They
are either opposed or not!
The Greens change history as usual (or try to).
The blanket reduction in speeds by the last government was done without >>>>>> evidence, so why should the removal of that politically driven decision >>>>>>have
to
have evidence? Two faced from the Green watermelon party.
Concentrate on the bad behaviour and not shoot from the Marxist hip. >>>>>
Except that is untrue, why do you lie?As I wrote my comment I was listening to discussion on Radio NewYour memory is as faulty as your integrity - I did no such thing.Absolutely, and that is part of the new rules.
Poor (unsafe) driving will trump any speed reductions, if and only iff the >>>>>speed limits are ignored.
What is needed is a idea planted into the driving culture is that as soon >>>>>as
you get behind the wheel and drive you are in a machine capabale of killing
and serious injury.
Worksafe. In one situation the boss said that he could lay down the law and
read the riot act but it was only the work team who had the power to have >>>>>one of their crew mates dead by the time he got back to the office.
I am totally with the proposal to have a lower speed limit out side schools
during pick up and drop off children do the darnest things followed closely
by their parents. It is a rush "hour".
Lower speed rules near schools were encouraged under the last
government, but from memory you argued strongly against them, Tony -
even when you learned that in most cases local residents views were >>>sought and considered.Why do you have to lie?
Zealand where a person that had been involved talked about the
extensive consultation that occurred; in my local area I was asked for >comment before decisions were made.
My degrees say otherwise - I am correct. You have provided zero evidence of any science that was used - TWONK!!!I doubt you would recognise science if you tripped over it - you areWrong, rubbish and lies.
should be kept low, Labour refused to see that was all that was needed >>>>becauseRubbish - the NZTA were asked by government to determine safe speeds
it was a political decision based on political dogma by that government. >>>>Absolutely no science was used by them.
for a lot of roads, and those roads where changes were indicated were >>>consulted with local communities. The changes now have been made by >>>decree with no further consultation - but in some cases there will be >>>some consultation, and that does include the Wairarapa change. In that >>>case part of the reason the community wanted a lower speed was because >>>the road was going through a lot of maintenance / improvement work, >>>including replacing traffic lights with a large roundabout in one
place. In a few places locals wanted lower speed limits because of the >>>effect of higher speeds with exits to farms being near corners etc. A >>>higher speed was also seen by locals as increasing the contrast with
each small town along the way, and faster speeds were also seen as
being too often ineffective because trucks with a lower limit anyway
were seeing average speeds around 90 anyway.
No science was used.
wrong.
Finally, remember the Drunk no Drive campagain? Something along similar >>>>>lines for speed would be a good starter.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 05:32:41 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I did you twonk. I do not expect that Gordon will be confused.
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 03:52:19 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:If you want to talk with Gordon, answer hime and stop being cowardly.
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Under what conditions is there no correlation?
On 2025-01-29, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
The corolation between speed and deaths only applies under certain >>>>>>conditions.A triumph for common sense.https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360562873/live-speed-limits-government-sights
Labour says (according to the article) -
"while they're not opposed to driving at higher speeds, they're >>>>>>>concerned
about
the potential for more deaths on the roads as a result of speed limit >>>>>>>increases
unveiled by the Government."
Somebody should teach them linguistic logic. The statement makes no >>>>>>>sense.
They
are either opposed or not!
The Greens change history as usual (or try to).
The blanket reduction in speeds by the last government was done without >>>>>>> evidence, so why should the removal of that politically driven decision >>>>>>>have
to
have evidence? Two faced from the Green watermelon party.
Concentrate on the bad behaviour and not shoot from the Marxist hip. >>>>>>
You are now officially senile - you TWONK - you replied to me not Gordon. No, I was writing to all readers of nz.general, and as is obvious,more specifically to whoever posted "The corolation between speed and
No lies, you are just ignorant - perhaps more accuratelyExcept that is untrue, why do you lie?As I wrote my comment I was listening to discussion on Radio NewWhy do you have to lie?Absolutely, and that is part of the new rules.
Poor (unsafe) driving will trump any speed reductions, if and only iff the
speed limits are ignored.
What is needed is a idea planted into the driving culture is that as soon >>>>>>as
you get behind the wheel and drive you are in a machine capabale of killing
and serious injury.
Worksafe. In one situation the boss said that he could lay down the law and
read the riot act but it was only the work team who had the power to have >>>>>>one of their crew mates dead by the time he got back to the office. >>>>>>
I am totally with the proposal to have a lower speed limit out side schools
during pick up and drop off children do the darnest things followed closely
by their parents. It is a rush "hour".
Lower speed rules near schools were encouraged under the last >>>>government, but from memory you argued strongly against them, Tony - >>>Your memory is as faulty as your integrity - I did no such thing.
even when you learned that in most cases local residents views were >>>>sought and considered.
Zealand where a person that had been involved talked about the
extensive consultation that occurred; in my local area I was asked for >>comment before decisions were made.
So you like being called a twonk so much you have adopted it forMy degrees say otherwise - I am correct. You have provided zero evidence of any
I doubt you would recognise science if you tripped over it - you areWrong, rubbish and lies.
should be kept low, Labour refused to see that was all that was needed >>>>>becauseRubbish - the NZTA were asked by government to determine safe speeds >>>>for a lot of roads, and those roads where changes were indicated were >>>>consulted with local communities. The changes now have been made by >>>>decree with no further consultation - but in some cases there will be >>>>some consultation, and that does include the Wairarapa change. In that >>>>case part of the reason the community wanted a lower speed was because >>>>the road was going through a lot of maintenance / improvement work, >>>>including replacing traffic lights with a large roundabout in one >>>>place. In a few places locals wanted lower speed limits because of the >>>>effect of higher speeds with exits to farms being near corners etc. A >>>>higher speed was also seen by locals as increasing the contrast with >>>>each small town along the way, and faster speeds were also seen as >>>>being too often ineffective because trucks with a lower limit anyway >>>>were seeing average speeds around 90 anyway.
it was a political decision based on political dogma by that government. >>>>>Absolutely no science was used by them.
No science was used.
wrong.
science that was used - TWONK!!!
It has been a factor in the scientific assessments - a drunk driver is
Finally, remember the Drunk no Drive campagain? Something along similar >>>>>>lines for speed would be a good starter.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:What part of "No, I was writing to all readers of nz.general" did you
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 07:39:42 -0000 (UTC), TonyWho posted that? It was not me and yet you posted a direct reply to me.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:No, I was writing to all readers of nz.general, and as is obvious,
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 05:32:41 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 03:52:19 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:If you want to talk with Gordon, answer hime and stop being cowardly. >>>>I did you twonk. I do not expect that Gordon will be confused.
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Under what conditions is there no correlation?
On 2025-01-29, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
The corolation between speed and deaths only applies under certain >>>>>>>>conditions.A triumph for common sense.https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360562873/live-speed-limits-government-sights
Labour says (according to the article) -
"while they're not opposed to driving at higher speeds, they're >>>>>>>>>concerned
about
the potential for more deaths on the roads as a result of speed limit >>>>>>>>>increases
unveiled by the Government."
Somebody should teach them linguistic logic. The statement makes no >>>>>>>>>sense.
They
are either opposed or not!
The Greens change history as usual (or try to).
The blanket reduction in speeds by the last government was done >>>>>>>>>without
evidence, so why should the removal of that politically driven >>>>>>>>>decision
have
to
have evidence? Two faced from the Green watermelon party.
Concentrate on the bad behaviour and not shoot from the Marxist hip. >>>>>>>>
You are now officially senile - you TWONK - you replied to me not Gordon.
more specifically to whoever posted "The corolation between speed and >>deaths only applies under certain conditions."
You are deliberately doing that in a cowardly way.
At best you are dumb at worst you are senile.
No lies, you are just ignorant - perhaps more accurately
Except that is untrue, why do you lie?As I wrote my comment I was listening to discussion on Radio New >>>>Zealand where a person that had been involved talked about the >>>>extensive consultation that occurred; in my local area I was asked for >>>>comment before decisions were made.Why do you have to lie?Absolutely, and that is part of the new rules.
Poor (unsafe) driving will trump any speed reductions, if and only iff >>>>>>>>the
speed limits are ignored.
What is needed is a idea planted into the driving culture is that as >>>>>>>>soon
as
you get behind the wheel and drive you are in a machine capabale of >>>>>>>>killing
and serious injury.
Worksafe. In one situation the boss said that he could lay down the law >>>>>>>>and
read the riot act but it was only the work team who had the power to have
one of their crew mates dead by the time he got back to the office. >>>>>>>>
I am totally with the proposal to have a lower speed limit out side >>>>>>>>schools
during pick up and drop off children do the darnest things followed >>>>>>>>closely
by their parents. It is a rush "hour".
Lower speed rules near schools were encouraged under the last >>>>>>government, but from memory you argued strongly against them, Tony - >>>>>Your memory is as faulty as your integrity - I did no such thing. >>>>>>even when you learned that in most cases local residents views were >>>>>>sought and considered.
pathologically ignorant . . .
So you like being called a twonk so much you have adopted it forMy degrees say otherwise - I am correct. You have provided zero evidence of >>>any
I doubt you would recognise science if you tripped over it - you are >>>>wrong.Wrong, rubbish and lies.
should be kept low, Labour refused to see that was all that was needed >>>>>>>becauseRubbish - the NZTA were asked by government to determine safe speeds >>>>>>for a lot of roads, and those roads where changes were indicated were >>>>>>consulted with local communities. The changes now have been made by >>>>>>decree with no further consultation - but in some cases there will be >>>>>>some consultation, and that does include the Wairarapa change. In that >>>>>>case part of the reason the community wanted a lower speed was because >>>>>>the road was going through a lot of maintenance / improvement work, >>>>>>including replacing traffic lights with a large roundabout in one >>>>>>place. In a few places locals wanted lower speed limits because of the >>>>>>effect of higher speeds with exits to farms being near corners etc. A >>>>>>higher speed was also seen by locals as increasing the contrast with >>>>>>each small town along the way, and faster speeds were also seen as >>>>>>being too often ineffective because trucks with a lower limit anyway >>>>>>were seeing average speeds around 90 anyway.
it was a political decision based on political dogma by that government. >>>>>>>Absolutely no science was used by them.
No science was used.
science that was used - TWONK!!!
yourself - perhaps you need to read a bit more mainstream media . . .
It has been a factor in the scientific assessments - a drunk driver is
Finally, remember the Drunk no Drive campagain? Something along similar >>>>>>>>lines for speed would be a good starter.
much more likely to be injured if there is a combination of drunk and >>speeding. Speed is a major factor for about 30% of all deaths. The >>combination of drugs, alcohol, traffic penalties, speed limits are all >>connected - it is being discussed on RNZ now - try listening to RNZ at >>10:26 on 29 January . . . (and productivity savings are not
necessarily linked to time savings).
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Listen to Morning Report this morning: https://www.rnz.co.nz/radio
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 07:39:42 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo - you lied.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:No, I was writing to all readers of nz.general, and as is obvious,
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 05:32:41 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 03:52:19 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:If you want to talk with Gordon, answer hime and stop being cowardly. >>>>I did you twonk. I do not expect that Gordon will be confused.
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Under what conditions is there no correlation?
On 2025-01-29, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
The corolation between speed and deaths only applies under certain >>>>>>>>conditions.A triumph for common sense.https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360562873/live-speed-limits-government-sights
Labour says (according to the article) -
"while they're not opposed to driving at higher speeds, they're >>>>>>>>>concerned
about
the potential for more deaths on the roads as a result of speed limit >>>>>>>>>increases
unveiled by the Government."
Somebody should teach them linguistic logic. The statement makes no >>>>>>>>>sense.
They
are either opposed or not!
The Greens change history as usual (or try to).
The blanket reduction in speeds by the last government was done >>>>>>>>>without
evidence, so why should the removal of that politically driven >>>>>>>>>decision
have
to
have evidence? Two faced from the Green watermelon party.
Concentrate on the bad behaviour and not shoot from the Marxist hip. >>>>>>>>
You are now officially senile - you TWONK - you replied to me not Gordon.
more specifically to whoever posted "The corolation between speed and >>deaths only applies under certain conditions."
No lies, you are just ignorant - perhaps more accurately
Except that is untrue, why do you lie?As I wrote my comment I was listening to discussion on Radio New >>>>Zealand where a person that had been involved talked about the >>>>extensive consultation that occurred; in my local area I was asked for >>>>comment before decisions were made.Why do you have to lie?Absolutely, and that is part of the new rules.
Poor (unsafe) driving will trump any speed reductions, if and only iff >>>>>>>>the
speed limits are ignored.
What is needed is a idea planted into the driving culture is that as >>>>>>>>soon
as
you get behind the wheel and drive you are in a machine capabale of >>>>>>>>killing
and serious injury.
Worksafe. In one situation the boss said that he could lay down the law >>>>>>>>and
read the riot act but it was only the work team who had the power to have
one of their crew mates dead by the time he got back to the office. >>>>>>>>
I am totally with the proposal to have a lower speed limit out side >>>>>>>>schools
during pick up and drop off children do the darnest things followed >>>>>>>>closely
by their parents. It is a rush "hour".
Lower speed rules near schools were encouraged under the last >>>>>>government, but from memory you argued strongly against them, Tony - >>>>>Your memory is as faulty as your integrity - I did no such thing. >>>>>>even when you learned that in most cases local residents views were >>>>>>sought and considered.
pathologically ignorant . . .
Wow, you childish twonk. No science was used and you have never provided any - >you are a real twit. (senility will eventually lull you into a sense of peace. >>
So you like being called a twonk so much you have adopted it forMy degrees say otherwise - I am correct. You have provided zero evidence of >>>any
I doubt you would recognise science if you tripped over it - you are >>>>wrong.Wrong, rubbish and lies.
should be kept low, Labour refused to see that was all that was needed >>>>>>>becauseRubbish - the NZTA were asked by government to determine safe speeds >>>>>>for a lot of roads, and those roads where changes were indicated were >>>>>>consulted with local communities. The changes now have been made by >>>>>>decree with no further consultation - but in some cases there will be >>>>>>some consultation, and that does include the Wairarapa change. In that >>>>>>case part of the reason the community wanted a lower speed was because >>>>>>the road was going through a lot of maintenance / improvement work, >>>>>>including replacing traffic lights with a large roundabout in one >>>>>>place. In a few places locals wanted lower speed limits because of the >>>>>>effect of higher speeds with exits to farms being near corners etc. A >>>>>>higher speed was also seen by locals as increasing the contrast with >>>>>>each small town along the way, and faster speeds were also seen as >>>>>>being too often ineffective because trucks with a lower limit anyway >>>>>>were seeing average speeds around 90 anyway.
it was a political decision based on political dogma by that government. >>>>>>>Absolutely no science was used by them.
No science was used.
science that was used - TWONK!!!
yourself - perhaps you need to read a bit more mainstream media . . .
No science used and you have provided none.It has been a factor in the scientific assessments - a drunk driver is
Finally, remember the Drunk no Drive campagain? Something along similar >>>>>>>>lines for speed would be a good starter.
much more likely to be injured if there is a combination of drunk and >>speeding. Speed is a major factor for about 30% of all deaths. The >>combination of drugs, alcohol, traffic penalties, speed limits are all >>connected - it is being discussed on RNZ now - try listening to RNZ at >>10:26 on 29 January . . . (and productivity savings are not
necessarily linked to time savings).
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 19:18:51 -0000 (UTC), TonyTry this: https://www.greaterauckland.org.nz/2025/01/30/some-questions-for-the-government-on-speed-limit-increases/
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Listen to Morning Report this morning: https://www.rnz.co.nz/radio
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 07:39:42 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo - you lied.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:No, I was writing to all readers of nz.general, and as is obvious,
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 05:32:41 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 03:52:19 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:If you want to talk with Gordon, answer hime and stop being cowardly. >>>>>I did you twonk. I do not expect that Gordon will be confused.
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Under what conditions is there no correlation?
On 2025-01-29, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
The corolation between speed and deaths only applies under certain >>>>>>>>>conditions.A triumph for common sense.https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360562873/live-speed-limits-government-sights
Labour says (according to the article) -
"while they're not opposed to driving at higher speeds, they're >>>>>>>>>>concerned
about
the potential for more deaths on the roads as a result of speed limit
increases
unveiled by the Government."
Somebody should teach them linguistic logic. The statement makes no >>>>>>>>>>sense.
They
are either opposed or not!
The Greens change history as usual (or try to).
The blanket reduction in speeds by the last government was done >>>>>>>>>>without
evidence, so why should the removal of that politically driven >>>>>>>>>>decision
have
to
have evidence? Two faced from the Green watermelon party.
Concentrate on the bad behaviour and not shoot from the Marxist hip. >>>>>>>>>
You are now officially senile - you TWONK - you replied to me not Gordon.
more specifically to whoever posted "The corolation between speed and >>>deaths only applies under certain conditions."
No lies, you are just ignorant - perhaps more accurately
Except that is untrue, why do you lie?As I wrote my comment I was listening to discussion on Radio New >>>>>Zealand where a person that had been involved talked about the >>>>>extensive consultation that occurred; in my local area I was asked for >>>>>comment before decisions were made.Why do you have to lie?Absolutely, and that is part of the new rules.
Poor (unsafe) driving will trump any speed reductions, if and only iff >>>>>>>>>the
speed limits are ignored.
What is needed is a idea planted into the driving culture is that as >>>>>>>>>soon
as
you get behind the wheel and drive you are in a machine capabale of >>>>>>>>>killing
and serious injury.
Worksafe. In one situation the boss said that he could lay down the law
and
read the riot act but it was only the work team who had the power to have
one of their crew mates dead by the time he got back to the office. >>>>>>>>>
I am totally with the proposal to have a lower speed limit out side >>>>>>>>>schools
during pick up and drop off children do the darnest things followed >>>>>>>>>closely
by their parents. It is a rush "hour".
Lower speed rules near schools were encouraged under the last >>>>>>>government, but from memory you argued strongly against them, Tony - >>>>>>Your memory is as faulty as your integrity - I did no such thing. >>>>>>>even when you learned that in most cases local residents views were >>>>>>>sought and considered.
pathologically ignorant . . .
Wow, you childish twonk. No science was used and you have never provided any -
So you like being called a twonk so much you have adopted it forMy degrees say otherwise - I am correct. You have provided zero evidence of >>>>any
I doubt you would recognise science if you tripped over it - you are >>>>>wrong.Wrong, rubbish and lies.
should be kept low, Labour refused to see that was all that was needed >>>>>>>>becauseRubbish - the NZTA were asked by government to determine safe speeds >>>>>>>for a lot of roads, and those roads where changes were indicated were >>>>>>>consulted with local communities. The changes now have been made by >>>>>>>decree with no further consultation - but in some cases there will be >>>>>>>some consultation, and that does include the Wairarapa change. In that >>>>>>>case part of the reason the community wanted a lower speed was because >>>>>>>the road was going through a lot of maintenance / improvement work, >>>>>>>including replacing traffic lights with a large roundabout in one >>>>>>>place. In a few places locals wanted lower speed limits because of the >>>>>>>effect of higher speeds with exits to farms being near corners etc. A >>>>>>>higher speed was also seen by locals as increasing the contrast with >>>>>>>each small town along the way, and faster speeds were also seen as >>>>>>>being too often ineffective because trucks with a lower limit anyway >>>>>>>were seeing average speeds around 90 anyway.
it was a political decision based on political dogma by that government.
Absolutely no science was used by them.
No science was used.
science that was used - TWONK!!!
yourself - perhaps you need to read a bit more mainstream media . . .
you are a real twit. (senility will eventually lull you into a sense of peace.
No science used and you have provided none.
It has been a factor in the scientific assessments - a drunk driver is >>>much more likely to be injured if there is a combination of drunk and >>>speeding. Speed is a major factor for about 30% of all deaths. The >>>combination of drugs, alcohol, traffic penalties, speed limits are all >>>connected - it is being discussed on RNZ now - try listening to RNZ at >>>10:26 on 29 January . . . (and productivity savings are not
Finally, remember the Drunk no Drive campagain? Something along similar
lines for speed would be a good starter.
necessarily linked to time savings).
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 07:39:42 -0000 (UTC), TonyWho posted that? It was not me and yet you posted a direct reply to me.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:more specifically to whoever posted "The corolation between speed and
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 05:32:41 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I did you twonk. I do not expect that Gordon will be confused.
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 03:52:19 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:If you want to talk with Gordon, answer hime and stop being cowardly.
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Under what conditions is there no correlation?
On 2025-01-29, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
The corolation between speed and deaths only applies under certain >>>>>>>conditions.A triumph for common sense.https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360562873/live-speed-limits-government-sights
Labour says (according to the article) -
"while they're not opposed to driving at higher speeds, they're >>>>>>>>concerned
about
the potential for more deaths on the roads as a result of speed limit >>>>>>>>increases
unveiled by the Government."
Somebody should teach them linguistic logic. The statement makes no >>>>>>>>sense.
They
are either opposed or not!
The Greens change history as usual (or try to).
The blanket reduction in speeds by the last government was done >>>>>>>>without
evidence, so why should the removal of that politically driven >>>>>>>>decision
have
to
have evidence? Two faced from the Green watermelon party.
Concentrate on the bad behaviour and not shoot from the Marxist hip. >>>>>>>
You are now officially senile - you TWONK - you replied to me not Gordon. >No, I was writing to all readers of nz.general, and as is obvious,
deaths only applies under certain conditions."
No lies, you are just ignorant - perhaps more accurately
Except that is untrue, why do you lie?As I wrote my comment I was listening to discussion on Radio NewWhy do you have to lie?Absolutely, and that is part of the new rules.
Poor (unsafe) driving will trump any speed reductions, if and only iff >>>>>>>the
speed limits are ignored.
What is needed is a idea planted into the driving culture is that as >>>>>>>soon
as
you get behind the wheel and drive you are in a machine capabale of >>>>>>>killing
and serious injury.
Worksafe. In one situation the boss said that he could lay down the law >>>>>>>and
read the riot act but it was only the work team who had the power to have
one of their crew mates dead by the time he got back to the office. >>>>>>>
I am totally with the proposal to have a lower speed limit out side >>>>>>>schools
during pick up and drop off children do the darnest things followed >>>>>>>closely
by their parents. It is a rush "hour".
Lower speed rules near schools were encouraged under the last >>>>>government, but from memory you argued strongly against them, Tony - >>>>Your memory is as faulty as your integrity - I did no such thing.
even when you learned that in most cases local residents views were >>>>>sought and considered.
Zealand where a person that had been involved talked about the
extensive consultation that occurred; in my local area I was asked for >>>comment before decisions were made.
pathologically ignorant . . .
So you like being called a twonk so much you have adopted it forMy degrees say otherwise - I am correct. You have provided zero evidence of >>any
I doubt you would recognise science if you tripped over it - you are >>>wrong.Wrong, rubbish and lies.
should be kept low, Labour refused to see that was all that was needed >>>>>>becauseRubbish - the NZTA were asked by government to determine safe speeds >>>>>for a lot of roads, and those roads where changes were indicated were >>>>>consulted with local communities. The changes now have been made by >>>>>decree with no further consultation - but in some cases there will be >>>>>some consultation, and that does include the Wairarapa change. In that >>>>>case part of the reason the community wanted a lower speed was because >>>>>the road was going through a lot of maintenance / improvement work, >>>>>including replacing traffic lights with a large roundabout in one >>>>>place. In a few places locals wanted lower speed limits because of the >>>>>effect of higher speeds with exits to farms being near corners etc. A >>>>>higher speed was also seen by locals as increasing the contrast with >>>>>each small town along the way, and faster speeds were also seen as >>>>>being too often ineffective because trucks with a lower limit anyway >>>>>were seeing average speeds around 90 anyway.
it was a political decision based on political dogma by that government. >>>>>>Absolutely no science was used by them.
No science was used.
science that was used - TWONK!!!
yourself - perhaps you need to read a bit more mainstream media . . .
It has been a factor in the scientific assessments - a drunk driver is
Finally, remember the Drunk no Drive campagain? Something along similar >>>>>>>lines for speed would be a good starter.
much more likely to be injured if there is a combination of drunk and >speeding. Speed is a major factor for about 30% of all deaths. The >combination of drugs, alcohol, traffic penalties, speed limits are all >connected - it is being discussed on RNZ now - try listening to RNZ at
10:26 on 29 January . . . (and productivity savings are not
necessarily linked to time savings).
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 07:39:42 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo - you lied.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:more specifically to whoever posted "The corolation between speed and
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 05:32:41 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I did you twonk. I do not expect that Gordon will be confused.
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 03:52:19 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:If you want to talk with Gordon, answer hime and stop being cowardly.
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Under what conditions is there no correlation?
On 2025-01-29, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
The corolation between speed and deaths only applies under certain >>>>>>>conditions.A triumph for common sense.https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360562873/live-speed-limits-government-sights
Labour says (according to the article) -
"while they're not opposed to driving at higher speeds, they're >>>>>>>>concerned
about
the potential for more deaths on the roads as a result of speed limit >>>>>>>>increases
unveiled by the Government."
Somebody should teach them linguistic logic. The statement makes no >>>>>>>>sense.
They
are either opposed or not!
The Greens change history as usual (or try to).
The blanket reduction in speeds by the last government was done >>>>>>>>without
evidence, so why should the removal of that politically driven >>>>>>>>decision
have
to
have evidence? Two faced from the Green watermelon party.
Concentrate on the bad behaviour and not shoot from the Marxist hip. >>>>>>>
You are now officially senile - you TWONK - you replied to me not Gordon. >No, I was writing to all readers of nz.general, and as is obvious,
deaths only applies under certain conditions."
No lies, you are just ignorant - perhaps more accurately
Except that is untrue, why do you lie?As I wrote my comment I was listening to discussion on Radio NewWhy do you have to lie?Absolutely, and that is part of the new rules.
Poor (unsafe) driving will trump any speed reductions, if and only iff >>>>>>>the
speed limits are ignored.
What is needed is a idea planted into the driving culture is that as >>>>>>>soon
as
you get behind the wheel and drive you are in a machine capabale of >>>>>>>killing
and serious injury.
Worksafe. In one situation the boss said that he could lay down the law >>>>>>>and
read the riot act but it was only the work team who had the power to have
one of their crew mates dead by the time he got back to the office. >>>>>>>
I am totally with the proposal to have a lower speed limit out side >>>>>>>schools
during pick up and drop off children do the darnest things followed >>>>>>>closely
by their parents. It is a rush "hour".
Lower speed rules near schools were encouraged under the last >>>>>government, but from memory you argued strongly against them, Tony - >>>>Your memory is as faulty as your integrity - I did no such thing.
even when you learned that in most cases local residents views were >>>>>sought and considered.
Zealand where a person that had been involved talked about the
extensive consultation that occurred; in my local area I was asked for >>>comment before decisions were made.
pathologically ignorant . . .
Wow, you childish twonk. No science was used and you have never provided any - you are a real twit. (senility will eventually lull you into a sense of peace.So you like being called a twonk so much you have adopted it forMy degrees say otherwise - I am correct. You have provided zero evidence of >>any
I doubt you would recognise science if you tripped over it - you are >>>wrong.Wrong, rubbish and lies.
should be kept low, Labour refused to see that was all that was needed >>>>>>becauseRubbish - the NZTA were asked by government to determine safe speeds >>>>>for a lot of roads, and those roads where changes were indicated were >>>>>consulted with local communities. The changes now have been made by >>>>>decree with no further consultation - but in some cases there will be >>>>>some consultation, and that does include the Wairarapa change. In that >>>>>case part of the reason the community wanted a lower speed was because >>>>>the road was going through a lot of maintenance / improvement work, >>>>>including replacing traffic lights with a large roundabout in one >>>>>place. In a few places locals wanted lower speed limits because of the >>>>>effect of higher speeds with exits to farms being near corners etc. A >>>>>higher speed was also seen by locals as increasing the contrast with >>>>>each small town along the way, and faster speeds were also seen as >>>>>being too often ineffective because trucks with a lower limit anyway >>>>>were seeing average speeds around 90 anyway.
it was a political decision based on political dogma by that government. >>>>>>Absolutely no science was used by them.
No science was used.
science that was used - TWONK!!!
yourself - perhaps you need to read a bit more mainstream media . . .
No science used and you have provided none.It has been a factor in the scientific assessments - a drunk driver is
Finally, remember the Drunk no Drive campagain? Something along similar >>>>>>>lines for speed would be a good starter.
much more likely to be injured if there is a combination of drunk and >speeding. Speed is a major factor for about 30% of all deaths. The >combination of drugs, alcohol, traffic penalties, speed limits are all >connected - it is being discussed on RNZ now - try listening to RNZ at
10:26 on 29 January . . . (and productivity savings are not
necessarily linked to time savings).
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 19:16:33 -0000 (UTC), TonyAll of it. You were doing nothing of the sort, you were replying directly to me. That is very simple, just like you.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:What part of "No, I was writing to all readers of nz.general" did you
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 07:39:42 -0000 (UTC), TonyWho posted that? It was not me and yet you posted a direct reply to me.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:No, I was writing to all readers of nz.general, and as is obvious,
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 05:32:41 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 03:52:19 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:If you want to talk with Gordon, answer hime and stop being cowardly. >>>>>I did you twonk. I do not expect that Gordon will be confused.
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Under what conditions is there no correlation?
On 2025-01-29, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
The corolation between speed and deaths only applies under certain >>>>>>>>>conditions.A triumph for common sense.https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360562873/live-speed-limits-government-sights
Labour says (according to the article) -
"while they're not opposed to driving at higher speeds, they're >>>>>>>>>>concerned
about
the potential for more deaths on the roads as a result of speed >>>>>>>>>>limit
increases
unveiled by the Government."
Somebody should teach them linguistic logic. The statement makes no >>>>>>>>>>sense.
They
are either opposed or not!
The Greens change history as usual (or try to).
The blanket reduction in speeds by the last government was done >>>>>>>>>>without
evidence, so why should the removal of that politically driven >>>>>>>>>>decision
have
to
have evidence? Two faced from the Green watermelon party.
Concentrate on the bad behaviour and not shoot from the Marxist hip. >>>>>>>>>
You are now officially senile - you TWONK - you replied to me not >>>>Gordon.
more specifically to whoever posted "The corolation between speed and >>>deaths only applies under certain conditions."
not understand, Tony?
You are deliberately doing that in a cowardly way.
At best you are dumb at worst you are senile.
No lies, you are just ignorant - perhaps more accurately
Except that is untrue, why do you lie?As I wrote my comment I was listening to discussion on Radio New >>>>>Zealand where a person that had been involved talked about the >>>>>extensive consultation that occurred; in my local area I was asked for >>>>>comment before decisions were made.Why do you have to lie?Absolutely, and that is part of the new rules.
Poor (unsafe) driving will trump any speed reductions, if and only iff >>>>>>>>>the
speed limits are ignored.
What is needed is a idea planted into the driving culture is that as >>>>>>>>>soon
as
you get behind the wheel and drive you are in a machine capabale of >>>>>>>>>killing
and serious injury.
Worksafe. In one situation the boss said that he could lay down the >>>>>>>>>law
and
read the riot act but it was only the work team who had the power to >>>>>>>>>have
one of their crew mates dead by the time he got back to the office. >>>>>>>>>
I am totally with the proposal to have a lower speed limit out side >>>>>>>>>schools
during pick up and drop off children do the darnest things followed >>>>>>>>>closely
by their parents. It is a rush "hour".
Lower speed rules near schools were encouraged under the last >>>>>>>government, but from memory you argued strongly against them, Tony - >>>>>>Your memory is as faulty as your integrity - I did no such thing. >>>>>>>even when you learned that in most cases local residents views were >>>>>>>sought and considered.
pathologically ignorant . . .
So you like being called a twonk so much you have adopted it forMy degrees say otherwise - I am correct. You have provided zero evidence of >>>>any
I doubt you would recognise science if you tripped over it - you are >>>>>wrong.Wrong, rubbish and lies.
should be kept low, Labour refused to see that was all that was needed >>>>>>>>becauseRubbish - the NZTA were asked by government to determine safe speeds >>>>>>>for a lot of roads, and those roads where changes were indicated were >>>>>>>consulted with local communities. The changes now have been made by >>>>>>>decree with no further consultation - but in some cases there will be >>>>>>>some consultation, and that does include the Wairarapa change. In that >>>>>>>case part of the reason the community wanted a lower speed was because >>>>>>>the road was going through a lot of maintenance / improvement work, >>>>>>>including replacing traffic lights with a large roundabout in one >>>>>>>place. In a few places locals wanted lower speed limits because of the >>>>>>>effect of higher speeds with exits to farms being near corners etc. A >>>>>>>higher speed was also seen by locals as increasing the contrast with >>>>>>>each small town along the way, and faster speeds were also seen as >>>>>>>being too often ineffective because trucks with a lower limit anyway >>>>>>>were seeing average speeds around 90 anyway.
it was a political decision based on political dogma by that >>>>>>>>government.
Absolutely no science was used by them.
No science was used.
science that was used - TWONK!!!
yourself - perhaps you need to read a bit more mainstream media . . .
It has been a factor in the scientific assessments - a drunk driver is >>>much more likely to be injured if there is a combination of drunk and >>>speeding. Speed is a major factor for about 30% of all deaths. The >>>combination of drugs, alcohol, traffic penalties, speed limits are all >>>connected - it is being discussed on RNZ now - try listening to RNZ at >>>10:26 on 29 January . . . (and productivity savings are not
Finally, remember the Drunk no Drive campagain? Something along similar
lines for speed would be a good starter.
necessarily linked to time savings).
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 08:46:49 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>Still no science - do provide some and stop the wittering and simpering to your matsers.
wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 19:18:51 -0000 (UTC), TonyTry this: >https://www.greaterauckland.org.nz/2025/01/30/some-questions-for-the-government-on-speed-limit-increases/
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Listen to Morning Report this morning: https://www.rnz.co.nz/radio
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 07:39:42 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:No - you lied.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:No, I was writing to all readers of nz.general, and as is obvious,
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 05:32:41 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 03:52:19 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:If you want to talk with Gordon, answer hime and stop being cowardly. >>>>>>I did you twonk. I do not expect that Gordon will be confused.
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Under what conditions is there no correlation?
On 2025-01-29, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
A triumph for common sense.https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360562873/live-speed-limits-government-sights
Labour says (according to the article) -
"while they're not opposed to driving at higher speeds, they're >>>>>>>>>>>concerned
about
the potential for more deaths on the roads as a result of speed >>>>>>>>>>>limit
increases
unveiled by the Government."
Somebody should teach them linguistic logic. The statement makes no >>>>>>>>>>>sense.
They
are either opposed or not!
The Greens change history as usual (or try to).
The blanket reduction in speeds by the last government was done >>>>>>>>>>>without
evidence, so why should the removal of that politically driven >>>>>>>>>>>decision
have
to
have evidence? Two faced from the Green watermelon party. >>>>>>>>>>> Concentrate on the bad behaviour and not shoot from the Marxist hip.
The corolation between speed and deaths only applies under certain >>>>>>>>>>conditions.
You are now officially senile - you TWONK - you replied to me not >>>>>Gordon.
more specifically to whoever posted "The corolation between speed and >>>>deaths only applies under certain conditions."
No lies, you are just ignorant - perhaps more accurately
Except that is untrue, why do you lie?As I wrote my comment I was listening to discussion on Radio New >>>>>>Zealand where a person that had been involved talked about the >>>>>>extensive consultation that occurred; in my local area I was asked for >>>>>>comment before decisions were made.Why do you have to lie?Absolutely, and that is part of the new rules.
Poor (unsafe) driving will trump any speed reductions, if and only >>>>>>>>>>iff
the
speed limits are ignored.
What is needed is a idea planted into the driving culture is that as >>>>>>>>>>soon
as
you get behind the wheel and drive you are in a machine capabale of >>>>>>>>>>killing
and serious injury.
Worksafe. In one situation the boss said that he could lay down the >>>>>>>>>>law
and
read the riot act but it was only the work team who had the power to >>>>>>>>>>have
one of their crew mates dead by the time he got back to the office. >>>>>>>>>>
I am totally with the proposal to have a lower speed limit out side >>>>>>>>>>schools
during pick up and drop off children do the darnest things followed >>>>>>>>>>closely
by their parents. It is a rush "hour".
Lower speed rules near schools were encouraged under the last >>>>>>>>government, but from memory you argued strongly against them, Tony - >>>>>>>Your memory is as faulty as your integrity - I did no such thing. >>>>>>>>even when you learned that in most cases local residents views were >>>>>>>>sought and considered.
pathologically ignorant . . .
you are a real twit. (senility will eventually lull you into a sense of >>>peace.
So you like being called a twonk so much you have adopted it for >>>>yourself - perhaps you need to read a bit more mainstream media . . . >>>Wow, you childish twonk. No science was used and you have never provided any >>>-My degrees say otherwise - I am correct. You have provided zero evidence >>>>>of
I doubt you would recognise science if you tripped over it - you are >>>>>>wrong.Wrong, rubbish and lies.
should be kept low, Labour refused to see that was all that was needed >>>>>>>>>becauseRubbish - the NZTA were asked by government to determine safe speeds >>>>>>>>for a lot of roads, and those roads where changes were indicated were >>>>>>>>consulted with local communities. The changes now have been made by >>>>>>>>decree with no further consultation - but in some cases there will be >>>>>>>>some consultation, and that does include the Wairarapa change. In that >>>>>>>>case part of the reason the community wanted a lower speed was because >>>>>>>>the road was going through a lot of maintenance / improvement work, >>>>>>>>including replacing traffic lights with a large roundabout in one >>>>>>>>place. In a few places locals wanted lower speed limits because of the >>>>>>>>effect of higher speeds with exits to farms being near corners etc. A >>>>>>>>higher speed was also seen by locals as increasing the contrast with >>>>>>>>each small town along the way, and faster speeds were also seen as >>>>>>>>being too often ineffective because trucks with a lower limit anyway >>>>>>>>were seeing average speeds around 90 anyway.
it was a political decision based on political dogma by that >>>>>>>>>government.
Absolutely no science was used by them.
No science was used.
any
science that was used - TWONK!!!
No science used and you have provided none.
It has been a factor in the scientific assessments - a drunk driver is >>>>much more likely to be injured if there is a combination of drunk and >>>>speeding. Speed is a major factor for about 30% of all deaths. The >>>>combination of drugs, alcohol, traffic penalties, speed limits are all >>>>connected - it is being discussed on RNZ now - try listening to RNZ at >>>>10:26 on 29 January . . . (and productivity savings are not
Finally, remember the Drunk no Drive campagain? Something along >>>>>>>>>>similar
lines for speed would be a good starter.
necessarily linked to time savings).
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360792427/government-pays-almost-150-million-cancel-new-ferries-contract
Versus the 3 to 4 billion dollars the last government wanted to spend. Good to >see a government using common sense occasionally.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 20:46:52 |
| Calls: | 10,390 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,977 |