Driving distraction

I'm not surprised at the ban on using handheld mobile phones while driving.

It is politically popular with older drivers, and undoubtedly there are people who can't drive while talking on the phone.

Although I recall discussions with the then Land Transport Safety Authority a few years ago which confirmed that far more accidents at the time happened while people fiddled with the car stereo. Changing radio stations and fumbling about for CDs (and before that cassettes), was a bigger distraction because it involved a fairly short burst of activity and frustration.

There are other distractions while you drive. Talking to other passengers, controlling children, pretty girls on the side of the road as you drive by. All of these can contribute to a driver failing to take care.

However isn't THAT the issue? The philosophical belief that when people cause an accident, it isn't them to blame per se, but because they did something they shouldn't have. Why is it easier to produce a rule to ban something, than to focus on people who drive dangerously and cause an accident?

Is it because it is easier for the Police, who can treat talking on the cellphone as the reason to prosecute, rather than negligent driving?

Or is it because of ACC? ACC remember removes your civil liability from being to blame for causing personal injury by accident to anyone else (although not property damage). Indeed your ACC levies for owning a car (equivalent to accident insurance) don't vary if you have a good or bad driving record. So perhaps opening THAT up to competition, so bad drivers pay far more for accident insurance, and good ones pay less, might make a modest difference?

You see, I by and large don't give a damn if stupid people cause accidents damaging their car and themselves. The state has better things to do that protect people from themselves. I do care about such people taking me or others with them. That is where rights to drive should be removed and penalties imposed.

It would be simpler though, if roads were privately owned. Road owners wouldn't want accidents to be common. Accidents generate blockages and cause congestion, making it less attractive to use the roads. Accidents can damage road property or property of adjoining road owners, which could see the road owner liable for letting idiots use its property in a way that could reasonably endanger the neighbours. Other road users may feel the same way. So the incentives to have a safe road are quite high, much like airlines which know a bad safety record is devastating to revenue. Korean Air was aware of this in 1999 and made radical changes, because non-Koreans would deliberately avoid the airline due to safety concerns.

However, selling roads may be a step too far for this government - but changing the incentives around ACC, and encouraging the Police to do their job (enforce dangerous drivers not victimless offences) would help. Dangerous driving causing death, injury or damage should subject people to prosecution and removal of their driving licence for any period from 6 months to life. Dangerous driving recklessly endangering people or their property should mean fines commensurate to a disincentive to stop. Driving in a way that poses a slightly higher risk than otherwise (and is no different from other behaviours that are legal) shouldn't.

Otherwise, the next road safety initiative will be to ensure all good looking women (and men) dress to cover themselves up when they walk adjacent to any road.

Why bother with PPPs?

You see I have friends who can't wait for this - they would make a fortune screwing public servants of money to do something none of them really understand. The key to getting the best value out of them is simply letting the private sector build something and charge people for using it, and bear the risks of overspending, poor customer service and lack of demand for the service - like the Melbourne Citylink toll motorway - a great success, because the private consortium that designed it, chose the route, bought the properties, built it and now operate it - were allowed to do so, albeit with enormous contracts and a legal framework to keep (excessive) oversight. In that case the road exists because the owners borrowed to pay for it, and use tolls to pay back the debt. You wont find too many PPPs quite that elegant.

PPPs make sense when governments want to hide borrowing they make. PPPs probably make sense in developing countries when they want to build infrastructure and don't have legal frameworks to readily allow private investment to be securely made. However, I am not convinced they are better than privatisation OR the state sector contracting out activities it isn't any good at.

Bill English is keen on public-private partnerships, the privatisation you have when you want to privatise profits and socialise the risks.

He waxes lyrically about how much it is done in Australia. Music to the ears of management consultants, lawyers and the big 4 accountancy firms all keen to have a slice of the expensive pies involved in setting them up. You see, precious few public servants have a clue about what to do, so a lot of your money would be expended on consultants to help them out. Given I know some of the people who would do this, it is pretty clear to me that the you better have a good reason to spend such horrendous amounts of money trying to match clever people in the private sector out to milk profits and minimise risks.

English lists sectors he clearly approves of being involved in PPPs. Lets go through them:
- Roads: Well quite simply there aren’t enough road projects in New Zealand big enough to be worthy of the transaction costs involved in a PPP. Far better would be to allow private companies to design, build, own, operate and toll roads with little government involvement at all, except interconnecting with existing roads. For example, the Auckland Harbour Bridge and the approaches from the Central Motorway Junction to as far north as Constellation Drive, could be sold – lock stock and barrel, it could have included the Victoria Park Tunnel project and the right to toll (and either refund road taxes spent using the road or pro-rata the payments to the company). THAT would have made a lot of sense and be a model for the rest of the country.
- Rail: Look it isn’t profitable. Unless you’re going to sell the freight business off, then this is just paying the private sector to manage a black hole. A PPP would be worse than the status quo.
- Water: Why not privatise? It has been successful in England, and has addressed serious deficits of core infrastructure. Besides, this is a local authority function. Private providers would encourage water conservation, because they would seek to maximise returns by charging what the market could bear.
- Energy: Given it is partially privately owned, why even think of a PPP? Contact Energy works, so lets just privatise the other three SOEs and Transpower.
- Defence: A core role of the state. Why would you allow anyone to profit from supplying property and managing national security? What happens if that PPP provider is sold to a foreign owner with hostile intent? Certainly you may contract the private sector to manage property or assist in advice, but supplying infrastructure?
- Hospitals: Again, why not just let private companies supply hospital capacity that you buy services from? Why sign up to a monopoly provider to guarantee its returns?
- Schools: As with hospitals.
- Prisons: As with defence. Management contracts and advice are all very well, but having the private sector responsible for incarceration has always worried me.
- Radio networks: Why own these at all? Radio New Zealand can hardly be privately run as a PPP given it makes little revenue, so why not just privatise it and let people pay for it voluntarily?

With that, and his ever bright and political popular ideas of a capital gains tax and reintroducing the land tax that Ruth Richardson abolished, is it any wonder that Bill English is starting to look like the Finance Minister we might have got had Labour been re-elected?

Don't give to Tearfund

Because it wastes your money hiring an intellectual minnow called Sara Shaw. She works for Tearfund (a Christian poverty relief charity) as "Policy Officer - Climate Change". I am sure that its money could be better spent hiring someone who can actually do some serious work in the developing world, rather than lead statist political causes.

She recently wrote this nonsense criticising the New Zealand Government's policy on climate change:

"Poor people, already being hit hard by climate change, have once again been disappointed by another developed country taking a weak and self-interested approach"

Hit hard by climate change how? No evidence, just part of the zeitgeist promoted by Shaw that climate change is happening, real and the poor are suffering because of it. Secondly, she claims to speak on behalf of poor people. Funny that, not being one herself, or even a member of parliament for any country. Thirdly, she criticises taking a "self interested approach", which of course poor people never do - they are always willing to sacrifice their lives for the greater good.

This follows from her earlier banality and economic illiteracy in promoting the faith based idea that by penalising "non-Green industries" and subsidising "Green ones", everyone wins. Not a shred of evidence or economics, just faith.

She presumably thinks she does great work to "save the world" and "help the poor", when she isn't doing a concrete piece of positive work in developing countries, for education, health or to improve infrastructure.

If she really gave a damn she'd be pushing for the European Union to abolish its Common Agricultural Policy, eliminate agricultural export subsidies, eliminate barriers to importation of agricultural products into the EU, and abolish domestic subsidies. That would make an enormous difference to farmers in developing countries, but no - she worries about climate change - a distraction from doing real good for people who are impoverished. She could campaign loudly and vigorously for good governance, the end to the corrupt kleptocracies that plague Africa and don't protect private property rights or have independent judiciaries.

However no, Shaw would much rather finger point, pontificate and preach, blaming the developed countries, and suffer the poor, ever patronaged, people in the developing world. She is chasing the ever illusion, the idea that destroying wealth creating industries will help the poor, and taking money from those who create wealth and give it to those who don't helps them too. There are undoubtedly charities that help impoverished people without being distracted by Green politics and agendas of economic illiteracy, big government and finger pointing rather than evidence.

Tearfund isn't one of them.

Bullshit on right and left

Right wing bullshit

Well known is the inane bullshit promoted by some on the conservative right that Barack Obama's birth certificate is fake or not original or something of the like. It is a very sad sign of the Republican Party that too many of its own kind will latch onto this rather than argue the very valid points about Obama's policies. Arguing against his socialised healthcare and his "spend it up large and hope" big government economy boosting policy seems too hard. I am no supporter of Obama, but I am quite convinced that he was born in Hawaii. Those continuing to ride on this bandwagon will look crazier as time goes on, and show how little they truly have in cogent arguments against the man. It is like "we can't say he's no good because he's black, so we'll say he's not American instead". Mindless, conspiratorial rubbish. In fact, it is the sort of thing that should cost the anti-business, pro-big government halfwit, Lou Dobbs, his job at CNN. Dobbs has long campaigned against free trade, foreign investment, globalisation and conspired against China's economic success. I also guess none of these wingnuts wishes the constitution would be different to allow Arnold Schwarzenegger to stand for the Presidency?

Left wing bullshit

On the left is a New Zealand blog that prides itself on being fair, honest and open. No Right Turn is a blog I usually disagree with, but does make some well researched points from time to time. However, to characterise the stupid referendum on smacking (stupid because of the wording) as "New Zealand is voting on whether it should be legal for parents to punch children in the face or hit them in the head with a piece of concrete" is an outright lie.

That was never legal before, and is not legal now, and indeed despite the poorly worded referendum, smacking is NOT punching or hitting the head with concrete. However, it does show how some on the left use language to distort and lie, to get their own way. To demonise their opponents as grossly violent child abusers, rather than average parents who use mild smacking as correction.

Bear in mind I despise smacking, I despise corporal punishment altogether and wish it would never be used - I also despise criminalising those who use it mildly. It is NOT for the state to say that using force against children is wrong. It isn't. It is sometimes in their best interests to protect them (or others) from danger. Which is why I don't have a strong view on how to vote in that referendum. I don't believe smacking is "good parental correction", but I also don't believe it should be a criminal offence, unless it is repeated and physically damaging. I do not endorse the current law, but I equally do not endorse the view by many that smacking is a "good" thing.

So do I vote to endorse smacking, or do I vote to endorse an interfering state criminalising behaviour I don't think should be criminalised? Or do I abstain?

In that same article he cites a New York Times article that is quite disconcerting, about how some disabled children have been physically punished. That indeed is disturbing, but then to say "Just another example of what a cruel and barbaric place the US is". Of course, it really is, a barbaric place that millions try to flee, so much crueler than New Zealand, where all children are raised by loving parents who would never abuse their kids.

Funny how he has never ever blogged about the gulags that keep children as slave labourers in North Korea. He wouldn't, of course, endorse that at all, but why do these Nazi style concentration camps, with summary executions, rampant torture, incarcerating entire families from elderly to babies as political prisoners, NOT get the same passionate attention as does the torture of Islamists in Guantanamo Bay?

Imagine if the political left actually starting protesting on a grand scale about this atrocity. Oh what government does the North Korean regime condemn the most? The USA - guess they are not all that bad then, right?

Nanny State UK - stop wasting food!

Never content with letting people make their own choices, waste food and money if circumstances allow it, the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is calling for supermarkets to cease " 2 for 1 " deals that it says encourage people to buy more food than they need.

At what point do people in the UK tell these vile little finger pointers to royally fuck off and mind their own business?

Apparently it costs the average household £420 a year in food that it throws out. To which I say, so bloody what? How many households buy clothes they rarely wear? How many people buy a book they never read? In other words, who the hell made the state the guardian of waste like some sort of lemon sucking protestant ascetic during the war?

The Times reports "Households throw away 4.1 million tonnes of food each year that could have been eaten if it had been managed better, according to Wrap, the Government’s waste watchdog". Waste watchdog? Hardly, Wrap IS a waste - it is a waste of something people DON'T choose to spend money on and throw away, their own money.

Furthermore, the state continues to treat people as idiots and they respond in kind "Defra and the Food Standards Agency are also preparing new guidance to reduce confusion about date labels on food. Wrap research found that millions of people did not know the difference between “sell-by” and “use-by” dates". So bloody what? So there are people who are either illiterate or stupid. It's THEIR problem, it isn't everyone else's.

Fortunately, the retail sector has some courage and will resist the moves:

"The British Retail Consortium said it would resist attempts to restrict bogofs. “Retailers know their customers better and should be allowed to decide what’s the best policy,” a spokesman said. People who took home more than they could eat should give it to family and friends, he added."

You might hope that a Tory government would reverse the endless screed of "do what we say" parenting by the bloated state here in the UK - but with Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne already saying there will "have to be tax increases" to cover the budget deficit, I hold precious little hope. The party of Margaret Thatcher is long gone.