SA Labor losing the plot

[Psyber]

Sometimes it's not a bad idea to have some idea of the legislation before you start calling the end of the world.
*Firstly, Psyber is quite correct. (don't quote me as your new signature, Psyber )
Secondly, it doesn't apply, as far as I know, to sites other than newspaper blog sites), by extending the existing laws to those sites.
Thirdly, as Gozu pointed out, it was passed with both parties support, after consultation with the State Electoral Commission.
Fourthly, good to see Southee not going over the top for a change
**Lastly, if it ever applied to this forum, I wouldn't comply.

* Awww.. I thought quoting it in big bold letters at the start of our every exchange would do..
** A bit like my attitude the open road speed limits?..

[redandblack]

Not quite like your attitude to speed limits, mate.

If I didn't comply with this law, nobody is in danger of being injured or killed.

[Psyber]

Not quite like your attitude to speed limits, mate.
If I didn't comply with this law, nobody is in danger of being injured or killed.

Of course, I knew you would say that and I agree up to a point, if one looks at it as a generality.
However I contend "nobody is in danger of being injured or killed" when I drive at my assessment of a safe speed...

[Sojourner]

Maybe what the State Government could do is select some of the old housing trust areas that they wish to decommision and build some type of fence around them and then those that wish to make political comments could be placed to live there in an internment style camp situation so that they could be kept an eye on in case they are likely to cause any problematic behaviour for the government. No doubt buses could easily be organised to take the same people to local workhouses to complete any paid work required by the government....

[redandblack]

Drawing a long bow there, Sojourner

[fish]

However I contend "nobody is in danger of being injured or killed" when I drive at my assessment of a safe speed...

Psyber - you and other road users are constantly at risk when you are travelling at speed and moreso when you exceed the speed limit.

Surely you don't think that you are invincible or incapable of inflicting injury to yourself and others whilst on the road?

[Psyber]

However I contend "nobody is in danger of being injured or killed" when I drive at my assessment of a safe speed...

Psyber - you and other road users are constantly at risk when you are travelling at speed and more so when you exceed the speed limit.
Surely you don't think that you are invincible or incapable of inflicting injury to yourself and others whilst on the road?

I'm not at all invincible or invulnerable, fish, but I am a very well trained driver in very safe and well maintained vehicles and have good vision and, importantly, concentration and focus.
As I said in another thread, I have had one accident in 48 years that was in any way speed related, and even then nobody was hurt - just my car was bent a little on a sign post on a traffic free road.
[There were unexpected mechanical factors in that one, 18 years ago, too, that I was not aware of as risks then, but am now.]

However, as I have said before, too, I accept that the law is framed for the average driver, and vehicle, and if I choose to flex it a bit I must accept, too, that I pay the fine if caught.
I don't agree that any speed is automatically dangerous just because it is moderately above an arbitrary number chosen for the statutes..
It is more complex than that.

[redandblack]

It is more complex, Psyber, and you're not absolved by saying you'll pay the relevant penalties.

Nobody gives a stuff whether you pay any fines, but they do care about having you on the road near them.

They worry about your mind-set and they worry about your compacent feeling of superiority.

A 'P' plater mentality in an expensive car.

[smac]

However I contend "nobody is in danger of being injured or killed" when I drive at my assessment of a safe speed...

Psyber - you and other road users are constantly at risk when you are travelling at speed and more so when you exceed the speed limit.
Surely you don't think that you are invincible or incapable of inflicting injury to yourself and others whilst on the road?

I'm not at all invincible or invulnerable, fish, but I am a very well trained driver in very safe and well maintained vehicles and have good vision and, importantly, concentration and focus.
As I said in another thread, I have had one accident in 48 years that was in any way speed related, and even then nobody was hurt - just my car was bent a little on a sign post on a traffic free road.
[There were unexpected mechanical factors in that one, 18 years ago, too, that I was not aware of as risks then, but am now.]

However, as I have said before, too, I accept that the law is framed for the average driver, and vehicle, and if I choose to flex it a bit I must accept, too, that I pay the fine if caught.
I don't agree that any speed is automatically dangerous just because it is moderately above an arbitrary number chosen for the statutes..
It is more complex than that.

How are you certain there are not more factors you are unaware of? How can you also be certain that there are no risks of mechanical problems with your car? You can't be, therefore you can't disregard the speed limits.

[Jimmy_041]

Good to see the Mods stay on topic

[Wedgie]

Good to see the Mods stay on topic

[redandblack]

Good to see the Mods stay on topic

Glad you think so

I was nearly going to warn Psyber for straying off-topic, but we're all friends on here

[Psyber]

How are you certain there are not more factors you are unaware of? How can you also be certain that there are no risks of mechanical problems with your car? You can't be, therefore you can't disregard the speed limits.

I'm not promoting doing 180 or 200 kph in currently 100 kph or 110 kph roads.
In fact I've said I often don't reach 100 on some roads where it is legal, but in my view unsafe.
I'm arguing that around 125ish would be more reasonable limit on open roads and freeways set at 110 kph limits now, unless conditions were bad on the day.
There would need to be tolerance for occasionally doing a little more, for a short distance after passing something, to get back on to the correct side of the road well before the next bend.

I won't comment further on this, here, R&B it is well off topic - I thought brief clarification was reasonable.

[Gozu]

"How a political luddite got smashed in cyberspace":

"Mick is probably at home in his vest oiling the Malvern Star and yearning for simpler times. Those times are as gone as his silly electoral amendment, but hopefully his point about civility is something that will endure."

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/how ... &link=text

[mick]

A government in disarray? http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/08/2812703.htm

[redandblack]

A government in disarray? http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/08/2812703.htm

Disarray?

Clutching at straws, mick

[dedja]

A government in disarray? http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/08/2812703.htm

Thorndon Park is just down the road from me and I have no issue with the proposal. The council CEO is a friend and I'd suggest he'll be spewing that negotiations for the potential deal have been sabotaged by politics (both sides).

My question would be why did the SM write such an emotive piece rather than state the facts? Looks like they have turned big time against the Govt.

Shame really that it ends this way.

[Jimmy_041]

Isobel Redmond announces Liberal stormwater treatment plan

Lauren Novak
AdelaideNow February 08, 2010 12:29PM

WETLANDS at Parafield Airport would be the first to purify stormwater to a standard which could be added to the city's drinking supplies under a Liberal government.

Opposition Leader Isobel Redmond today announced that her party would install treatment plants at 13 wetland sites across Adelaide to "polish" captured stormwater to a drinkable standard if it wins next month's state election.

The first site, at Parafield Airport, would cost $3 million and produce about 2.5 billion litres of water a year.The green energy-powered water purification technology filters and disinfects stormwater and is used internationally, including in Berlin, Germany.Salisbury Council water expert Colin Pitman said the finished product would be "as good, if not better" than current drinking supplies.

Ms Redmond demonstrated her faith in the process by drinking a sample batch of Salisbury wetlands water processed using the new technology."The purification plants are the only cost effective way of bringing harvested stormwater to drinkable standards utilising existing water distribution pipes," she said.Ms Redmond said the water would complement desalinated water supplies.

But Environment Minister Jay Weatherill said the CSIRO was still conducting tests on the safety of using stormwater for drinking and it was still three years before that research would be completed.

``We are not going to do it,'' he said.

``We will never do it. We are looking at how stormwater can be used for other purposes.

``We are not going to have people drinking road run-off.''

``You don't introduce contaminants into your drinking water lightly,'' he said.

Wonder how long before Labor release a similar plan

The attached Poll showed:

Results: Treated stormwater

Would you drink treated stormwater?
Yes 79.5% (384 votes)
No 20.5% (99 votes)
Total votes: 483

So, I am guessing with that sort of response, the Labor mirror policy will be released within the next 4 weeks ( I dont believe these polls either, but Labor run scared on anything that looks like hurting them stay in power)

[dedja]

If we can treat and filter the shite that comes from the Murray, we can manage stormwater as a source of potable water.

I suggest that my old friends at SA Water are being gagged in this 'debate'.

Colin Pitman should be snapped up immediately by the State Govt. as a strategic consultant for stormwater management statewide.

[Jimmy_041]

He's a really good one:

Treasurer Kevin Foley accuses Liberal Party of underestimating cost of major infrastructure projects
Tory Shepherd From: AdelaideNow February 18, 2010 1:10PM

TREASURER Kevin Foley has accused the Liberal Party of a shoddy approach to costing their major projects.

He released Government analyses of Liberal infrastructure projects, and says they prove the Opposition has vastly underestimated the cost of the Southern Expressway, a Royal Adelaide Hospital rebuild, and their city stadium.

Mr Foley says WT Partnership - a company used by the Liberal Party to cost their major projects including a Royal Adelaide Hospital rebuild - has no experience in the health arena.

The State Government itself has used WT Partnership for several projects.

The Opposition this afternoon defended its costing and the role of WT Partnership.

"The Liberal Party has every confidence in its costings done by WT Partnership. They are one of the world's largest project costing companies and have worked on numerous major hospital developments," shadow treasurer Steven Griffiths said.

"The Treasurer's credibility is now in serious doubt after his extraordinary attack on this company."

Mr Foley also raised the question of trust, and said Opposition Leader Isobel Redmond could not be trusted to run the state. He highlighted a comment Ms Redmond made on radio yesterday, saying she was not in charge of her timetable.

"If she is not in charge of her own destiny how can she possibly be in charge of South Australia's?" he asked.

"Ms Redmond is not ready."

State Government documents say it is "not clear" how the proposed City West developments will fit into the precinct, and estimate the Liberals' plans will cost up to $3.77 billion.

Health Department documents identify several issues with the Liberals' RAH rebuild proposal and estimate it would cost almost $2 billion.

See: http://www.wtpartnership.com/index.cfm?l=en&c=&p=21aaa8f6-6029-469e-bf60-5ae403682b08&s=&serviceid=1&sectorid=9&countryid=

You are a complete f***wit Foley