Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

N/A | National Time to face the truth about speed camera propaganda

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by smee, Aug 15, 2012.

  1. From Boris Mihailovic in this weeks AMCN - and Dougz from facebook thanks Boris for telling it like it is!
    Have a good read you beige cardigan wearing chardy sipping toadying sycophants, you know this is aimed directly at you.
    For the rest this is stuff we already know.
    Please note this thread is NOT a Boris bashing thread, it is discussing the article ONLY. If any Boris bashing occurs then the posts will be removed. STAY ON TOPIC PLEASE

    • Like Like x 30
  2. Leading by example, good lad.
    • Like Like x 1
  3. lol Chefie you idiot :p
  4. I read it elsewhere and I have to say a warm gooey sensation was felt. He nailed it.

    That's true too.
  5. You sound surprised, could just be the italics
  6. I would like to see some studies that are not given out by the propagandists regarding this statement made in the article
    does anyone know where we can find them?
  7. Razor-sharp as usual, he's cut it to the bone and laid it open for the world to see.
    And if you don't believe what you see, well...
  8. Well written, but lacking as much evidence as the opponent, in an argumentative sense.

    Needs to list peer reviewed data if arguing against non-peer reviewed data.

    Apart from that, pretty much on the money.
    • Like Like x 3
  9. ^^ What dsyfer said.
  10. Some might call it a quaintly written editorial.
    Others,a flowery opinion piece.
    A nice read nethertheless.
  11. Dolt. You can disagree with the article, no problems. The thread is about the article, NOT ABOUT BORIS... see the difference?

    Last comment on this topic. Please discuss the article. Desist posting about the thread construction, the thread purpose or personal commentary on Boris.
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Not hard to find:
    Here's one.
    And another.
    • Like Like x 1
  13. You're sharp so I'll fill you in, your post was about the author and not the article so therefore redundant as per the T&C's in the OP (that means terms & conditions in the original post).

    In simple speak it means if you have nothing to say 'on topic' then say nothing.

  14. A brilliant article telling it like it is...at least one person in the media has the balls to call it as they see it.

    Of course the ostriches will still claim you have nothing to fear if you do no wrong](*,)
  15. It's rather disappointing that this wasn't written in 2003/4 when Motor mag, Morley, Cadogan and Taylor in particular, were belting on about speed cameras were being used as a criminal racket. Better late than never I guess.

    It's called being a useful idiot, also known as a tool.

    I suspect some people will write this off as another boris-the-wanker rant. Which is a shame.
  16. Interesting read.

    Sooooo.......is RC on 'olidays then?
  17. Picked it up today. Splendid reading.
  18. What is ridiculous is that the states with the highest policing have the worst improvements in road toll.

    There were 287 people who died on Victorian roads in 2011. This is 8 percent fewer than the five year average figure from 2006 to 2010,


    But the same statistic for the whole of Australia is 13% reduction.


    So basically, the road toll would be lower with less of the policing that we see in Victoria.
    • Like Like x 1
  19. I applaud the intent of the article. I think there are a couple of problems with the execution, and a major problem with the premise.

    Execution first. As was already mentioned, the article doesn't cite anything. Supporters of speed cameras are quoted in broad statements, as are the proclamations by the governments that speed cameras save lives. Then overseas studies that disprove these claims are mentioned in the same broad terms.

    I think it would be more... rigorous, I suppose... to cite a press release where the govt says "studies prove", and then cite the studies that disprove it. That said, it would break the narrative flow of an editorial piece, so I won't say it would be *better* to do so. It just isn't that sort of mag. But it would have made the argument more watertight.

    Premise-wise, I think that he's blaming the government for pulling the wool over our eyes, whereas I think that we are the problem to begin with. We have blamed politicians for not making our roads safer. We have blamed them for not making cars safer. We have basically said we are too stupid, too whiney and too litigious to take responsibility for our own actions, so we will blame you for the bad decisions that we or other people make. The government is just fighting back; and worse still, we have handed them the high moral ground. "Do something about the road toll" we said. So now they can roll out lower speed limits, mandatory hi-vis, a 100 year waiting list before you can sit the test for your motorcycle Ls, and anyone who argues against it is against saving lives.

    I confess I'm a bit of a racist. I don't like it about myself but it's true - there's not much about Americans that I admire. But I wish we had one tenth of the passion they have about issues like this. Imagine if Obama tried to implement the gun laws that Howard did - the poor bastard would be assassinated! But we seem to just lie back and think of England because it's all about saving lives.

    A good friend I work with is Dutch. He loves working with aussies. He said to me "working with Australians is easy. You just tell them what you want to do, and then tell them if you can't do it, that someone's children will get hurt. They fold every time."

    So I think that the article could have been strengthened in a couple of ways. Citation of sources and specific examples of the government lie would be good. But I think the big challenge is to reclaim the moral high ground, and while this article hasn't really done that convincingly, it's a bloody good start.
    • Like Like x 2
  20. Honestly, if it started citing journals and articles and research it would have been boring to read, would seem to intellectual and most of all, wouldn't be Boris.