Xcf456

Totally, the party that claims to be all about freedom of choice is shutting down choice of transport options

Well the trial one is just most of the way up Brooklyn hill, and the proposed one would expand it to connect it to other ones according to the article.

It also talks about upgrades to what's there already - at the moment its just part of the existing roadway blocked off with plastic bollards and those curb segment things bolted to the surface. It could be referring to something like what they're doing on Thorndon Quay, where the cycle lane is actually going to be grade separated from the roadway at the level of the footpath, not sure.

Its a shame it's not going ahead because a connected up network is what's really needed for cycling to be a safe enough option for many people.

Yet...? 😬

Oh yeah for sure there is, but whether structurally, institutionally we'll actually do that in a proactive way, I'm not so sure. Dairy farms carry quite a lot of debt so their business models are pretty locked in to an extent.

I wonder when they say sugar as a feedstock, do they mean like sugarcane or is it any sort of crop given everything we eat breaks down into sugars in the end. I wish these articles would link the reports theyre reporting on..

I think if this becomes a reality we are entirely fucked, much as we were in the 1880s when wool prices collapsed and a decade of economic depression followed.

There were a whole bunch of incredibly large land holdings up to their eyeballs in debt that kind of just hobbled on for a while, but not able to actually adapt. Ultimately, the government implemented the land tax to break them up to make way for more productive activities on smaller farms. I see a few parallels here.

I think there's some truth to this but at the same time Labour had a horrible string of this sort of thing this time last year, as did National across 2020/2021. ACT is a rolling dumpster fire at all times. That speaks to some of the pressure not being unique to the Greens.

Of course there's a special sort of nastiness that comes out when its the Greens because they profess to hold principles, and of course when they slip, that's worse than just not trying at all. NZ hates a 'try hard' after all.

Exactly, they push and push and push in bad faith then turn around and do this performative shock and outrage when shes finally snapped by the sounds of it. Now they're doing the classic drip feed of stories from every anti-transport dinosaur to heap even more pressure on. Guarantee the Taxpayers Union will be helping to coordinate this, again

The estimated cost of that is nearly 10 times what transmission Gully cost, and it'd be certainly more than that in practice. Ridiculous amounts of money, just shift some of the peak capacity.

Yeah it is. And bus lanes. You can at least get everywhere in a car on the existing road network, can't say the same about other modes. There are huge gaps in coverage.

Doubling down on road infrastructure for cars without alternatives is monstrously expensive and only ends up making traffic even worse in the long run.

Being an advocate for genuine transport options in this country would drive anyone mad imo, I don't know how they do it for years on end.

The most basic infrastructure to enable public and active transport is continually challenged, subject to predatory delay and actual sabotage (tacks thrown on cycle paths, including this one).

Wellington seems particularly terrible for this, a city of nimbys and vested interests that want nothing to change, ever, because they already got theirs. But it doesn't really work because every year things decay a little more, the traffic gets worse and so on.

Yeah I can see the intent of it and I think it does have merit, but access to the courts is expensive and therefore inequitable so it is open to 'lawfare' or abuse by powerful people, so you can have a chilling effect on media.

They'll print about JAG because they don't see a risk of being taken for defamation I suppose? Perhaps if she threatened it it might be a different story. But again I guess they'll weigh up their defence as part of it. This is a lot of what lawyers employed by media agencies do I guess.

Nah that's not enough apparently

What if the publisher just reporting what someone else said?

The rule is: whoever reports it is liable for it. Even if it’s from an apparently reputable and knowledgeable source, such as the police. The publisher has to prove the truth of the sting of the article, remember. That’s what the readers or viewers will take it to mean. It’s not enough for the publisher to prove that it has reported the accusation accurately. It must be able to prove that the accusation itself is true.

What if the publisher writes “alleged”?

This is just a fancy way of saying “I’m reporting what someone else has said” – so the same answer applies. Sprinkling a story with the word “alleged” or “rumoured” doesn’t insulate the publisher from a defamation lawsuit. The publisher is still passing on someone else’s allegation or gossip.

https://www.medialawjournal.co.nz/?page_id=273