- April 2, 2017 at 1:27 pm #1612332
arandarMemberMember since: November 23, 2009
I think the best policy is honesty.
I think making sure our kids know what’s right, what’s wrong, what legal and what’s not and know that every action has a reaction – a consequence if you like – is the most helpful thing we can do for them.
That and being there for them, giving them our attention, listening, answering and asking questions, rarely judging, sharing our own skills and life’s lessons learned without lecturing, letting them make mistakes, letting them learn from.
One of the problems for today’s children is that when they’re very young they (the urban middle class progeny of middle class parents) are protected from almost all possible harms.
Later, when they reach their teens and enter the risk taking period of their lives, they seem not to understand consequences and their parents seem to protect them from them too.
Eg. The boys from the private school rowing team who played up on route to the Mardi Cup. The whole team was penalised. Unfair. The whole team went home. The boys parents were lawyers and threatened legal action.
Ditto the girls who rented my friends’ house for a weekend, had a party after promising they would not, and trashed it doing $000s worth of damage. No apologies from any of the parents, no offers to clean up, no compensation, and the insurance company will be going the girl who signed the rental but I’m guessing her ‘friends’ are going to get away without consequence.
I’d have handled it quite differently if they’d been my kids and I can’t understand how any parent thinks protecting their kids from their own stupidity is going to help them grow into responsible adults.
🌊Arandar🏄🏽♀️April 2, 2017 at 5:36 pm #1612382
don021MemberMember since: May 15, 2012
Interesting you mention fuel economy Ted E, my car is rated at 7.2 litres/100Km. yet with my short runs I measured it over many hundreds and it gave 11.9 L/100. This is because on short runs the automatic choke does not fully open, so fuel consumption is way up. I thought modern technology would have overcome this expensive consumption.April 6, 2017 at 9:38 pm #1613147
My Dad was very systematic about recording all costs for his car and on winters nights analysed the information. It helped him know if things were getting out of kilter, and our cars then needed more maintenance than they do now. We used to crank the cars during the witner and especially in frosty weather (to prolong battery life). Tyres were run for many years and after the war retreading was a great life extender, the 1938 tyres on a Ford 10 were still going wehn I bought it off him in 1963.
I continued that process with my vehicles and still do. It’s a good way of raising topics with the grandchildren as they use the car when they come from Aus or home from the USA and I insist they enter all the information such as when they checked the tyres. This shows what can be achieved by driving smoooothly and it shows up when they use it fro a month if they do not get something like my usual performance. (Spread sheets make the information so much more fun.)
I don’t see any of the Grandchildren doing that in their vehicles but it helps them appreciate the actual costs/km, that it’s not just fuel that has to be paid for. So when they were looking for cars for themselves they thought about the running costs for the first year as well as the likely maintenance costs that come from high mileage second hand vehicles.
TedE - Papakura -May 11, 2017 at 9:37 pm #1618787
Kids shouldn’t have to cope with speeding cars around schools. We’ll make 30 km/h the speed limit outside city schools and create safer streets so more Kiwi kids can walk, bike and scoot safety to school: https://www.greens.org.nz/policy/smarter-economy/safe-school #RoadSafetyWeek #SlowDown
Last Mondays “Fair Go” was not a fair representation of the situation and there needs to be a better portrayal of the Public transport plans and ideals. Here is a reasoned argument regarding the status of Park and ride facilities. https://www.greaterauckland.org.nz/…/park-and-ride-not-rea…/
Park and Ride facilities need to be designed so that pedestrians do not need to walk inordintqte distances through parked vehicles to access the Arterial Public Trnsport (eg Tqknini)
In my opinion once the park and ride facility is overflowing there needs to b a charge impose on the parking space. The charges need to escalate the longer space is occupied and also the base charges need to be set so that about 15% are available at any time during the working day. Once the parking charges reach a certain predetermined level then panning should have been prepared sot that the park and ride is moved to a new venue (eg Papakura should think in terms of Park and ride station at say Clevedon and Te Hihi so that the bus routes to the station become busways to feed the Southern line).
Busways need to be established so that they are 24hour 7days a week so that only buses can travel in them and maintain schedules.
Further it is wrong for Central Government to say the Electric cars can travel in buslanes, (a busway is for buses).
TedE - Papakura -May 19, 2017 at 9:56 pm #1620241
I didn’t realise until the recent Mental Health debate that so many people were killing themselves. It’s even more than the numbers we are killing on the roads.
But we still should not accept that our transport system is killing one person per day.
It is up to each of us to keep this matter before our young [people and to be safe ourselves on the roads. We should not allow ourselves to be sucked into the aggressive driving habits that surround us.
TedE - Papakura -May 22, 2017 at 10:00 am #1620487
I wonder how much of the road toll is caused by frustration.
There is much talk of the congestion in Auckland and how to increase the supply of road to reduce it.
It seems to me that if we provided good Public Transport then we sho7uld be able to reduce the number of cars on the road and that should increase the level of safety and frustration.
As a Public Transport user I find that the travel experience is very relaxing compared with driving.
with the recent changes to the system it means that most people now live with8in 500metres of a Public Transport route. They are working on the ride fare structure so that the fare is for the whole journey regardless of the modes used on the way and so that should make travel costs less.
Many of those who drive to their job are finding parking to be a real problem and further frustraion and I think that there are better wasy to approach that than more parking buildings. It is apparent that in San Fracisco they are trialling the differential approach to parking charges to ensure that short term parking is available for the business customer and this is how they are approaching it:
MPS: Please tell us a little bit about SFpark and smart parking systems.
D Shoud: In 2011, San Francisco adopted SFpark, a pricing program that aims to solve the problems created by charging too much or too little for curb parking. In seven pilot zones across the city, with a total of 7,000 curb spaces, San Francisco installed sensors that report the occupancy of curb space on every block and parking meters that charge variable prices according to location and time of day. The meters were also the first in San Francisco to accept payment by credit cards, and this convenience provided good publicity for SFpark.
SFpark adjusts parking prices every six weeks in response to the average parking occupancy during the previous six weeks. If the occupancy rate on a block is higher than 80 percent during a time period (such as from noon to 3 pm), the hourly price of parking increases by 25 cents. If the occupancy rate is below 60 percent, the hourly price of parking decreases by 25 cents. Consider the resulting prices of curb parking on a weekday at Fisherman’s Wharf, a popular tourist and retail destination, after almost two years of price adjustments.
Before SFpark began in August 2011, the price for a space was $3 an hour at all times. With SFpark, each block can have different prices during three periods of the day—before noon, from noon to 3 pm, and after 3 pm. By May 2012, most prices had decreased in the morning hours. Some prices increased between noon and 3 pm—the busiest time of day—and most prices declined after 3 pm. Prices changed every six weeks, never by more than 25 cents per hour.
SFpark based these price adjustments purely on observed occupancy. City planners cannot reliably predict the right price for parking on every block at every time of day, but they can use a simple trial-and-error process to adjust prices in response to past occupancy rates. The only way to tell whether the price is right is to look at the results. Here is the link to a short article that explains how Sfpark has worked.
TedE - Papakura -May 22, 2017 at 4:09 pm #1620558
don021MemberMember since: May 15, 2012
When I started work so many years ago in Auckland I travelled by tram, services and routes were very convenient with never very far to walk. Then trams vanished when cars became easier to buy, replaced in some places by buses. I took to a bike because the buses did not provide convenient travel. I believe if buses ran the same routes as trams did they would be more popular.May 31, 2017 at 5:04 pm #1622297
So far this year there have been 152 killed on our toads. Last year in the same period we killed 139 in the same period. Is this acceptable?
TedE - Papakura -June 7, 2017 at 11:57 am #1623363
Earlier in this post we had some respond that it was not acceptable that any should be killed on our roads. Some have made suggestions as to what we can do about it. It would seem that we are not able to come to a conclusion that this really needs to change and so far only the Green’s seem to ahve a plan to reduce the road toll.
We really need to address this as a problem.
TedE - Papakura -July 6, 2017 at 10:33 pm #1629804
To the end of June there have been 186 people killed on our roads!
Is this NZ the way you want it?
TedE - Papakura -
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.