Young teenage bitches send bus driver to hospital

The NZ Herald reports in the weekend, 15 brats aged 12 to 15 refuse to get off a Christchurch bus and so bash a driver so much he has severe bruising and may have a spinal injury. How fucking evil is that? This is NOT the world of Anthony Burgess’s Clockwork Orange – but what can you do?
.
Apparently the brats wouldn’t get off the bus at the end of the route, so he drove to the depot for help in evicting them (remember Christchurch ratepayers, you subsidise the discount fares they pay). The evil pack, led by several young girls (oh those oppressed underage girls) attacked the driver and a second driver who came to his aid – then St Johns Ambulance paramedics WAITED till the evil entities ran off before treating the severely beaten second driver.
.
Where are the Police? Why can’t St Johns Ambulance or the bus driver have pepper spray to attack these little scumbags? Yes, I know their parents would press charges and Cindy Kiro would be saying "we don't understand these young adults" blech.
.
Most of the article in Stuff goes on about security for the bus driver and the Labour Department is investigating.
.
Sorry??? It isn’t the bus company’s fault that some parents are irresponsible and some young people are like crap on someone’s shoe. Fortunately there is a Police investigation, though the Police were clearly not on hand on the night.

.
The moral equivalent left would say they are children, victims of circumstances and need help, not punishment. The conservative right would say the little bastards need prison - I say both.

.

If they are found, lock them up for a while - make them clean buses, make them earn enough to pay the hospital expenses and compensation for this driver - make them recompense for their despicable behaviour. Then look at their homes, see what trash lets 12 year olds go out till midnight - see what trash doesn't care. See if you can get the brats to show genuine remorse and move on.
.
They are fucking evil – at what point do young teenagers think it is ok to bash a man up and send him to hospital for nothing other than doing his job? It makes me so angry that I hope the lot of them cram into a crapped out car and drive off the road somewhere and kill themselves -think how much force these girls must have used to send the man to hospital with possible spinal injuries. Instead, their loving mummies and daddies have them tucked in bed, listening to their ipods and knowing that the loving state thinks they are children - and are protected.
.
Why does this happen? Is it parents who think parenting means 12 year olds can go out till midnight on the town or are allowed to play such evil filth as Grand Theft Auto for entertainment?
.
Why isn’t this a national scandal? Why should Leopard Coachlines feel it has to consider dropping late night bus services because of this?
.
Arm the drivers, one way or another, and install video cameras – and don’t weep when your little Charlene comes home with her little slutty face covered in pepper spray because she attacked a bus driver.

.

You probably wont notice anyway since you're either out or in your room out of your mind on P while having an orgy with Wayne and your mate Cherise, since you don't know where you're little bitch daughter is - got the picture why she behaves like that?

Watch out Vodafone you're next...

Following on from unbundling Telecom’s local loop, the NZ Herald reports Helen Clark has announced that the “rules of the game” for mobile telephony have to change. The government has already changed the regulatory environment, purportedly to allow competition, by requiring Telecom and Vodafone to allowing roaming across their networks for customers of any new operator that builds a network with at least 5% coverage of the population.
.
It did this after the Telecommunications Bill had been through Select Committee, because its mates who it sold spectrum to at a discount (Maori company, Hautaki Ltd, which got a discount to quieten a ridiculous treaty claim for mobile phone spectrum) partnered up with Econet wireless (a Zimbabwean cellphone company – not affiliated with Mugabe) and argued they couldn’t build a mobile phone network that provided nationwide coverage economically.
.
Econet was set to start a pilot cellphone network in April, but nothing has been seen. Every year it promises something soon and doesn’t deliver.
.
So you see, the government has already given new mobile entrants access to the encumbent’s networks, but that probably wont be good enough. Clark is concerned that there hasn’t been much resale of the mobile phone networks (although Telstra Clear has a resale deal with Vodafone that matched it selling Vodafone its GSM spectrum), that co-siting of cellphone transmitters has not happened and new entrants are “unable” to use their competitors’ property.
.
Funny that, it is called property. When I build something I own it, and I will decide what I do with it.
.
So who is this big mean company that Helen is talking about?
.
Let me talk about a company that in 1998 bought the mobile phone business of BellSouth New Zealand. BellSouth started by buying the radio spectrum in an open tender for a GSM cellular network in 1990, as did Telstra (which subsequently sold its network to Vodafone). From 1993 till 1998 it built a mobile phone network from scratch, while Telecom had a monopoly on mobile phone services. By 1998, BellSouth had taken about 20% share of that business and had not marketed text messaging. From 1998 Vodafone invested $2 billion in developing its cellular network and roughly doubled the number of cellsites that BellSouth had installed.
.
When BellSouth ran the business, it moaned to the Minister regularly, claiming it needed number portability and for interconnection with Telecom to be regulated. Vodafone took a different approach – it built its network so it would be reliable and provide good coverage, it started selling text messaging (Telecom ultimately had to build text messaging into its CDMA network to enable it to compete) and prepay mobile. In other words, it grew the market and didn’t moan about its competitor. As a result, cellphone penetration in New Zealand soared to reach the levels of most other OECD countries.
.
As much as the left moans about Telecom’s privatisation seeing its profits go offshore, Vodafone brought capital onshore. $2 billion that the state was never going to put in, and Telecom ultimately had to respond – and reduced its prices, developed a new digital network to phase out its two older networks. Telecom built the first 3G mobile network and Vodafone has followed. There is competition in mobile services.
.
So are mobile phone prices in New Zealand more expensive than elsewhere? In some cases, yes they are. Why? Well, for starters there are less customers so less competition, far easier to build six mobile networks in the UK than in NZ. That competitive pressure is unlikely to happen in NZ. Secondly, councils have used the RMA to make it much harder to install new cellsite – although Telecom and Vodafone do continue to expand slowly. Some of this is driven by Green hysteria about the health effects of cellphone towers (which are nonsense – nobody asks for radio station transmitter masts to be pulled down and they have operated for over half a century). Overseas, there has also been an enormous writedown of investments in mobile telephony, as major operators spent a fortune acquiring 3G mobile spectrum from governments. The networks they are left with are priced cheaply to attract customers and because they are now substantially devalued.
.
There could be a third mobile network in NZ and I do not mean Econet. Econet should sell up and let someone who wants to invest in a proper network get on with it. TelstraClear could still do it, but it is a moocher if ever there was one. So the arguments about natural monopoly do not exist, there is an ability to enter the market for mobile telephony. The government should stop talking about incentives that stop the construction of a new network.

Grumpy Helen

.

Oh for fuck's sake Helen, can't you do better than sound like a grumpy old lady?

.

Rodney Hide blogs on Helen Clark's comment to Newstalk ZB about Dancing with the Stars calling her the "Minister of Fun".

She "cannot abide dancing" and hasn't the time to watch Rodney "make a fool of himself on television".

.

Goodness me no - can't have a Prime Minister having fun, or being generous enough of spirit to give a fellow MP credit for giving it a go.

.

As Hide says:

"The PM should lighten up. Have some fun. She would be the better for it. So too would the country. "

.

Things Helen Clark doesn't enjoy:

- Dancing;

- Television (except BBC World);

and ...

New York Times thinks Bolivian nationalisation isn't!

.
George Reisman has blogged about the New York Times article by William Power that claims that Bolivia’s nationalisation of the gas industry isn’t really nationalisation at all. “Bolivia is just struggling for a way to make markets work.” says Powers. Nothing like confiscating 51% of a private company to make markets work.
.
No doubt Matt Robson, former Progressive MP – who supports Hugo Chavez, another great confiscator and bully, and warmed to Cuba, would agree. How many Green MPs agree?

Auckland road pricing

I know a bit about this, and have taken some time to figure out my response. This is lengthy so here goes...

.

PC has been the main commentator on this that I have seen in the blogosphere. I’ve been devouring the reports and have read some of it (and have been aware of much of it for some time), and it deserves some careful consideration.
.
You see on the one hand the concept of road pricing by time of day makes sense. This is because roads, like any other service, get congested when demand exceeds supply. In other industries, telecommunications, airlines, hotels, rental cars, vegetables, when demand is high the price goes up – meaning the provider does well with revenue (and can afford to cross subsidise the quiet times, make a profit or invest in more capacity to allow suppressed demand to be served), and when demand is low compared to supply, the price goes down (better to get some users than to have assets lying underutilised).
.
Roads are priced currently – but it does not really vary between vehicles. Yes you pay a bit more in congested traffic through petrol, but that barely has an effect on demand. Yes, heavier vehicles pay more per kilometre than lighter ones (road user charges work well in reflecting average maintenance costs), but that also does not affect times of peak demand.
.
The appropriate response is for current charges to be replaced with variable ones:

.
For example, instead of paying petrol tax, you’d pay a per kilometre charge. At peak times you’d pay a premium, like you do buying an airfare from Auckland to Wellington at 7.30am on a Monday morning – but just as you get a seat for that price on the plane, you’d get to drive in relatively free flowing traffic. In between peaks you might pay roughly what you pay now, but as you are paying directly for the road, you might think twice about your journeys distance, but you’d also demand good service from the road provider. On a quite Sunday morning you’d pay very little, as the roads are empty and the road provider would be encouraging demand – you’d pay much less than you do now.
.
Imagine if all airfares Wellington-Auckland were the same, the planes flying in the middle of the day and on Saturdays would be a lot quieter, because the fares would be double – and at 7.30am on a Monday, the airport would be jammed with businesspeople queuing up hoping for a seat, hoping someone didn’t turn up for their (relatively) cheap ticket. Sounds familiar?
.
With road pricing you wouldn’t pay rates for local roads, which should knock about 10-15% off your average Auckland rates bill – or 40-60% off your average rural rates bill. That would be paid for out of road pricing.
.
You wouldn’t subsidise public transport either – you see peak travel would cost more by car, making public transport inherently more competitive, and buses wouldn’t be caught in big traffic jams. People might start working different hours, or they might work at home once a day. You see it is a tremendous cost to build roads and railway lines and buses and trains that mostly only get used for short periods – unless the people using them pay for that cost, it is being subsidised.
.
OK, so what does that have to do with the proposals in the Ministry of Transport report?
.
A little. See the technology exists to do what I described, but the option was rejected in the report in favour of simpler technology that is well proven in Singapore, Stockholm and toll roads in many countries. The other point is that the proposed schemes in the report are designed to do two things:
.
1. Reduce congestion (through marginally pricing the road higher at the morning peak); and
2. Raise extra revenue for transport projects.
.
The first goal is laudable, but it does raise the question as to what should be done with the extra money. If it is to be spent on transport projects, it should be roads – and the $1 billion + Avondale extension of SH20 and the Victoria Park tunnel (widening of the northern motorway) should be at the top of the list, but much of what I have heard is all about rail. Efficient road pricing will make public transport more efficient and competitive, because it makes peak car commuting more expensive and frees the roads up for buses to operate more quickly.
.
However, it is just as legitimate to consider pricing to replace the current forms of pricing – petrol tax and council rates. I believe there probably is enough money available if all of the petrol tax revenue collected is dedicated to roading nationwide and allocated efficiently, and then replaced with road pricing collecting the same amount. Then as traffic grows road price revenue grows, if it declines, then so does revenue – as it should. Less traffic means less need to build new capacity, and less wear and tear (to a point).
.
The schemes proposed are a broad range:
.
Parking tax (the Greens wanted this, and it would be a regulatory nightmare. Imagine the council inspecting all private property to see who had a car park that should be taxed). Cheap to implement, not very effective and helps deter retail.
.
Motorway only tolls - shifts lots of traffic to local streets, making congestion worse. Transit might wonder if tolling the Western ring route will create similar problems.
.
Cordon/Area charges – creates boundary issues and many roads within the proposed cordon/area are not congested and shouldn’t be subject to additional tax.
.
You see, Auckland is not London, or Stockholm, or Rome or Singapore. It is a low density car oriented city with a rather weak CBD – around 12% of Auckland’s employment is in the CBD, far far less than those cities with cordon/area charges for congestion pricing. The risk for Auckland is it looks like the consultants have taken the overseas approaches and applied them to Auckland, instead of looking at Auckland’s problems and designed an approach to resolve them. The only cordon Auckland could conceivably have that might be fair is for the CBD only, boundary including Grafton Gully and SH1 – and I know that this wouldn’t reduce traffic enough to make it worthwhile, while helping kill off CBD based businesses even more.
.
Low density cities don’t need cordon charging, they don’t need high density public transport like rail and they don’t need to be forced by planners into being high density cities.
.
Auckland isn’t being eaten up by cars, they are its red blood cells. Less than 5% of Auckland trips are by public transport, although it comprises over 25% of trips to the central business district.
.
Unlike PC, I think road pricing is a solution – but not in the way it has been designed and not being operated by any central or local government agencies. There is a big risk that this report and its response will kill off serious consideration of road pricing in Auckland for many years, given the current central and local government politicians, that isn't such a bad thing - but they can both change.

.

Road pricing first and foremost should not be about collecting more money, but by charging for roads in a more efficient way than at present. Once you do that, the money gets spent on maintenance and road improvements that motorists want – it may or may not include a second harbour crossing (that will depend on whether people are prepared to pay for it), it may or may not include a Western ring road – and funnily enough, it wont include a more frequent train service to Henderson. The company running the trains would decide that based on fare revenue.
.
Perhaps the best submission I have seen so far on this is from the Business Roundtable. It is a pdf file here.
.
The Business Roundtable summarises the key points well:
.
“Congestion is a manifestation of the problem known as the tragedy of the
commons – the overuse of a public resource that arises from inadequately
defined property rights. The potential costs to a community of road congestion
are enormous. In the extreme form of gridlock, road congestion potentially
removes all the benefits a community might hope to derive from its past
investments in roads.”
.
“We consider that a serious impediment to the adoption of more efficient billing
technologies is motorists' justifiable suspicion of the motives of the revenue-raising
authorities. By putting revenue generation ahead of efficient pricing and proposing
such inefficient ways of spending this revenue, the ARPES will surely heighten this
resistance and thereby make it harder to introduce changes. The authorities
therefore also need to revisit governance issues in order to find better ways of
convincing motorists that their money will not be squandered for the benefit of
fringe or minority interests.”
.
“Subsidies for buses and trains create a conflict of interest for organisations that are
also making road capacity investment decisions. Congestion charges eliminate the
weak argument for subsidising buses and trains in order to ease congestion.
Instead ARPES proposes to use such charges to increase such subsidies. The
flaws in this thinking are also reflected in the Land Transport Management Act and
need to be remedied. Public transport can only make a small contribution to
Auckland passenger transport needs and a minimal one to the needs of the freight
industry. There is a risk of highly uneconomic public transport investments being
made, at a cost of wasted capital and lower regional and national economic growth.”

.

Road pricing is a solution, but as long as local authorities run local roads and Transit New Zealand acts as a bureaucracy to serve political whims, rather than to serve the demands of customers, then there is nobody competent to implement it. The ARPES report does not analyse where Auckland's congestion problems are and designs a solution, but takes possible solutions and models them on top of the network. What was done was what was asked - but if there is to be a next stage, it needs to be looked at the other way, and for there to be acknowledgement that it is far more complicated than just putting a cordon around a part of the isthmus.