Our chauffeured children are a problem we can't ignore

[g-boaf]

So I assume those are traffic lights you wouldn't have to stop at if you were in a car?

There is a section where I ride on the road in preference to using a parallel separated bike path because the 500m can take up to 8 minutes on the bike path as each of the 4 bicycle lights only turns green for 6 seconds every 2 minutes. Despite cyclists outnumbering motor vehicles on the road you get a green for ~1 minute 20 & thus get a green wave where cyclists get a red wave

Likewise, there was one cyclist crossing on my commute where you had to wait 8 minutes for the lights to change, because it was determind that stopping 6 lanes of cars on a major arterial road was too much of an inconvenience for motorists, just to let a pesky cyclist get to the other side and continue their trip. That 8 minutes represented 10% of the total trip time from home to the office, or in terms of distance covered I would be 4km down the road before the lights changed.

8 minutes!? Wow - that must be a record - where was that? I'm not going to complain about my delays at all.

I can guess the road Bruce is mentioning, I know it well - but I must admit when I worked in the CBD I never ever rode along there, always Parramatta Road all the way into the CBD. I missed a heck of a lot of Operation Pedro stings as well.

[Thoglette]

mainstream media pushing an entitlement mentality

Whose? Murdoch's and Stoke's have both been pushing for "small government" for the past 30 years. All those "dole cheats" and awful “taxed nots” sucking on the public teat we hear about daily.

do you want a public transport system that runs at a perpetual loss for the next 50 years

Remind me again : how much profit does the road system return to the public purse? (Not to private equity).

Please include in your calculations the cost of hospital beds filled by accident victims and (as you point out) the opportunity cost of land use choices for parking and multilane freeways.

Further, govt expenditure has outgrown revenue. Basically, Australia is borrowing from future revenue AND selling assets to fund its lifestyle.

Yes, we've flogged off (or soon will) all the revenue generating government monopolies and price-setting assets (e.g. CBA, council housing) to the altar of neoliberal economics.
But Gov't activity as a percentage of GDP has remained sullenly stuck in the low twenties since 1990

Tax receipts have been a problem. Yet we keep giving ourselves tax cuts and loopholes And the big earners (like Gorgon or BHP or Apple) haven't generated anything like the revenue they were expected to. Then we might talk about the banks.

Finally, there's no requirement for the Feds to balance the budget. They can print money as long as they like. The RBA board might get a little cranky at the inflation that could result if they get carried away

and elites of all colors mask the mess with population and credit growth.

Plenty of "elites*" (and that's a dog-whistle term these days so I'm not quite sure who you refer to) have been saying for decades that GDP-as-KPI and unconstrained lending based on housing "value growth" are breaking our economy. But you will have to step beyond the media duopoly, at least to Aunty, if not beyond.

e.g. CSIRO MEASURING PROGRESS: IS LIFE GETTING BETTER? 1998 or London School of Economics economist Richard Layard in 2005

[queequeg]

There is a section where I ride on the road in preference to using a parallel separated bike path because the 500m can take up to 8 minutes on the bike path as each of the 4 bicycle lights only turns green for 6 seconds every 2 minutes. Despite cyclists outnumbering motor vehicles on the road you get a green for ~1 minute 20 & thus get a green wave where cyclists get a red wave

Likewise, there was one cyclist crossing on my commute where you had to wait 8 minutes for the lights to change, because it was determind that stopping 6 lanes of cars on a major arterial road was too much of an inconvenience for motorists, just to let a pesky cyclist get to the other side and continue their trip. That 8 minutes represented 10% of the total trip time from home to the office, or in terms of distance covered I would be 4km down the road before the lights changed.

8 minutes!? Wow - that must be a record - where was that? I'm not going to complain about my delays at all.

I can guess the road Bruce is mentioning, I know it well - but I must admit when I worked in the CBD I never ever rode along there, always Parramatta Road all the way into the CBD. I missed a heck of a lot of Operation Pedro stings as well.

It was on the M2 Detour, crossing Pennant Hills Rd from the Roselea Community Centre (https://www.google.com/maps/(AT)-33.764180 ... 312!8i6656) to access Murray Farm Rd.

It was always the worst part of the trip, and I stopped using the crossing and instead used the footpath and going straight up Pennant Hills Rd to Castle Hill Rd instead of following the detour.

[Comedian]

Another angle to this debate is the average length of commute/ride by Copenhagen people.
The majority do not ride carbon bikes, nor commute longer than 10km.

BTW, I'd love to get back to the days when kids could walk/cycle to school rather than being shuttled by Toorak tractors with poor visibility by multi-tasking time pressed mothers. But the first step to that in Sydney is to stop with ever growing population density and concentration of jobs in central Sydney. And that's not going to happen in my lifetime.

I just don't understand the argument. Sure sydney is a big city - but the problem is we're exercising our right to send our kids to schools long distances away because the parents think they will get a better education.. or whatever. A primary factor in deciding school should be proximity to where you live.

My kids go to a high school four k away and ride. The people a couple doors down have elected to send their kids to the gap which is probably 20-30 minutes drive each way from our place. They sent them there because it's free and the kids do well. It's a choice - but they have committed to spend 2 hours in the car a day for the next 9 years..

[Mububban]

My kids go to a high school four k away and ride. The people a couple doors down have elected to send their kids to the gap which is probably 20-30 minutes drive each way from our place. They sent them there because it's free and the kids do well. It's a choice - but they have committed to spend 2 hours in the car a day for the next 9 years..

We live 900m from the local school. My kids are 8 and 10. My wife drives them to and from school most days. Some days she'll walk them one trip and drive the other. It's a rare day that she'll walk them there AND back home.
We live in a nice neighbourhood with no big hills or major intersections for them to cross at this age. My wife gets a lot of migraines, but the biggest factor in her driving is her lack of desire to do anything else.

The kids WANT to ride or scoot or walk, but they get overruled by my wife. No amount of suggesting or encouraging her will change that, as I'm out the door for work an hour before they go to school.

She also never lets them play up on the street unless I'm there to watch them, let alone ride around the neighbourhood unsupervised like we did at that age. So I believe modern parenting would largely ignore better city design because of the overprotective mindset so many parents have...or are married to...

[boyracer]

^^
Same here.
We live inner 'burbs, 2km from CBD. I let the older kids ride round with their friends ( just not to cross major roads), ride or walk them to their school 1 km away whenever i get the chance. Like you i am out the door ( on the bike ) an hour before them. I ride to all playdates and parties with them. We joke that Mum is allergic to exercise. She says it's not safe around the schools at drop off...

[human909]

It's a choice - but they have committed to spend 2 hours in the car a day for the next 9 years..

Exactly. THIS and so MUCH of this.

(I've got into arguments about this before on this forum saying that we don't have a choice. Costs, housing etc.... We have to drive! Yet I meet many people around me who manage just fine with limited or zero car use. Singles living below the poverty line, couples on minimum wage or not much more, etc....)

[Comedian]

My kids go to a high school four k away and ride. The people a couple doors down have elected to send their kids to the gap which is probably 20-30 minutes drive each way from our place. They sent them there because it's free and the kids do well. It's a choice - but they have committed to spend 2 hours in the car a day for the next 9 years..

We live 900m from the local school. My kids are 8 and 10. My wife drives them to and from school most days. Some days she'll walk them one trip and drive the other. It's a rare day that she'll walk them there AND back home.
We live in a nice neighbourhood with no big hills or major intersections for them to cross at this age. My wife gets a lot of migraines, but the biggest factor in her driving is her lack of desire to do anything else.

The kids WANT to ride or scoot or walk, but they get overruled by my wife. No amount of suggesting or encouraging her will change that, as I'm out the door for work an hour before they go to school.

She also never lets them play up on the street unless I'm there to watch them, let alone ride around the neighbourhood unsupervised like we did at that age. So I believe modern parenting would largely ignore better city design because of the overprotective mindset so many parents have...or are married to...

My wife ran the active travel program at the primary school. 90% of kids live within 1k but on average only 10% of them arrived by active travel.

I 100% agree that the largest single factor to why kids get driven is parental laziness. Remember that most of the parents of today were driven to school themselves. It takes very little longer to drive than to walk/cycle these short distances - but then the parent would have to walk/cycle and they are just too lazy.

So, as a society. We've got to ensure that making good choices is the easiest way. Perhaps school catchments, perhaps having no dropoffs with several hundred metres of school.. etc. It has to be policy driven because the system is broken, and many of the impediments exist because it's broken. IE there are no footpaths or crossings because everyone drives - yet they weren't needed when the area was built because people just walked on the road because it was safe.

[CKinnard]

I just don't understand the argument. Sure sydney is a big city - but the problem is we're exercising our right to send our kids to schools long distances away because the parents think they will get a better education.. or whatever. A primary factor in deciding school should be proximity to where you live.

My kids go to a high school four k away and ride. The people a couple doors down have elected to send their kids to the gap which is probably 20-30 minutes drive each way from our place. They sent them there because it's free and the kids do well. It's a choice - but they have committed to spend 2 hours in the car a day for the next 9 years..

The problem isn't explained by your near neighbors' choice (though you might ask them why the local State schools don't have the same outcomes as The Gap).

2/3's of kids are driven to school according to this (btw, only 1/3 attend private schools)
https://www.smh.com.au/healthcare/twoth ... 0m6y2.html

It's not just infrastructure trailing population growth, and welfare and health care for lifestyle choices eating a progressively higher % of tax revenue, it's perception of safety re traffic and menace, especially so for girls.
Bigger cities more densely populated, with people of varying (often menacing) values, and greater unemployment = perception less safe.

And various groups with great sway over government and mainstream media tell us the world really is unsafe for females. i.e.
The National Union of Students reports
- 72% of female tertiary students have experienced harassment, sexual assault, or violence on campuses.
- 14% of female students have experienced rape or attempted rape.
You think broadcasting these kind of stats doesn't influence public perception of safety in public?
And Australian universities are world leaders in demonizing the 'white patriarchy'.
This stuff certainly influences legislators and the courts re the risk posed by men.

[terryc]

The ABC are painfully light on investigative facts in this day and age.
..........................

The ABC must have some brains that can make all the above fit whatever their narrative is.

It isn't actually written by the ABC but comes from this site

https://theconversation.com/au

And yes, The convo has become information light over the years. They've almost shrunk to click bait, so thery match the ABc level of reporting well.

[CKinnard]

mainstream media pushing an entitlement mentality

Whose? Murdoch's and Stoke's have both been pushing for "small government" for the past 30 years. All those "dole cheats" and awful “taxed nots” sucking on the public teat we hear about daily.

do you want a public transport system that runs at a perpetual loss for the next 50 years

Remind me again : how much profit does the road system return to the public purse? (Not to private equity).

Please include in your calculations the cost of hospital beds filled by accident victims and (as you point out) the opportunity cost of land use choices for parking and multilane freeways.

Further, govt expenditure has outgrown revenue. Basically, Australia is borrowing from future revenue AND selling assets to fund its lifestyle.

Yes, we've flogged off (or soon will) all the revenue generating government monopolies and price-setting assets (e.g. CBA, council housing) to the altar of neoliberal economics.
But Gov't activity as a percentage of GDP has remained sullenly stuck in the low twenties since 1990

Tax receipts have been a problem. Yet we keep giving ourselves tax cuts and loopholes And the big earners (like Gorgon or BHP or Apple) haven't generated anything like the revenue they were expected to. Then we might talk about the banks.

Finally, there's no requirement for the Feds to balance the budget. They can print money as long as they like. The RBA board might get a little cranky at the inflation that could result if they get carried away

and elites of all colors mask the mess with population and credit growth.

Plenty of "elites*" (and that's a dog-whistle term these days so I'm not quite sure who you refer to) have been saying for decades that GDP-as-KPI and unconstrained lending based on housing "value growth" are breaking our economy. But you will have to step beyond the media duopoly, at least to Aunty, if not beyond.

e.g. CSIRO MEASURING PROGRESS: IS LIFE GETTING BETTER? 1998 or London School of Economics economist Richard Layard in 2005

MSM entitlement agitprop : Fairfax, Guardian, and Public broadcasters
They and you would benefit from comprehending the growing rate of chronic disease among the working aged, the ageing population, and the rate of underemployment.
How about the trend of tax revenue as a % of GDP, apportioned to welfare and health care.
And what % of health care goes to diseases of lifestyle choice versus your accident victims?
Don't depend on Aunty to dig that deep.


Compare and contrast the road system VS trains and buses
- operational costs and depreciation allowance for new stock.
- union and State govt corruption within Qld Rail and NSW RailCorp
- industrial action and dirty tricks by unions (start with Qld Rail....my gf is a train driver)
- Victorian State govt incompetency running Melbourne trains, so they sub contract to MTM (nice way to demonize capitalists and sanitize the State gubmint).

why all the corruption and incompetency? it's a given when services run at an operational loss and are dependent on a shriveled tax teat.


Federal Govt expenditure (% of GDP) is no longer in the low 20s, try 26+%
https://www.budget.gov.au/2016-17/conte ... iew-13.htm
But All govt expenditure exposes the accounting trickery, and that's at a rapidly growing all time high of 36.6% GDP.
https://tradingeconomics.com/australia/ ... ing-to-gdp


Tax receipts are a problem globally, and happy smiley advocates of open borders and higher taxes have to wake up to that.
Google's Australian sales are paid to Google in Singapore (smart business move by them which more than halves their tax liabilities, because Singapore's company tax rate is 15% vs our 30%)
Even Denmark and Sweden have sub 25% company tax.
So the Australian entitlement mentality is a disease that global competition from other govts is happy to euthanize.


The Feds haven't got open slather on national debt. Tax revenue has to service the debt, which means it cannot then be spent on infrastructure. It's just a way to kick a can down the road.
As national debt increases, eventually banks can't refinance their foreign wholesale funds at expected rates, and the RBA cash rate becomes even more irrelevant than today. They have to move their rates in accord with deregulated banking forces. Household debt gets pushed higher, and the blind wake up to find their real quality of life is going backwards.

Yeah GDP is a smoke and mirrors....GNI is a little better.
But ever greater reliance on private and public credit is a serious indicator a country is deluded about its productivity and lifestyle expectations....but big gubmint prefers deluded citizenry.

[human909]

I'm not sure how that rant fits in...

But it is certainly deluded to think that motor cars are a more efficient transport system for city commuters than mass transit. Of course if you build roads for free then it does make mass transit far less competitive. Sydney had one of the larger tram networks in the world. In the end one of the arguments against it was the congestion it caused for the motor car. A profitable and efficient system was ripped up, NMRA was one of those in favour.

[CKinnard]

I'm not sure how that rant fits in...

But it is certainly deluded to think that motor cars are a more efficient transport system for city commuters than mass transit. Of course if you build roads for free then it does make mass transit far less competitive. Sydney had one of the larger tram networks in the world. In the end one of the arguments against it was the congestion it caused for the motor car. A profitable and efficient system was ripped up, NMRA was one of those in favour.

So all that matters re commuting is efficiency......
You don't rate safety? Lucky Aunty and Fairfax do.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-10/ ... fe/8792626
https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/psos-on- ... rls4t.html
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/out ... 6da9a08159

https://www.google.com.au/search?lr=&q= ... x+assaults

[fat and old]

I'm not sure how that rant fits in...

Of course if you build roads for free then it does make mass transit far less competitive. Sydney had one of the larger tram networks in the world. In the end one of the arguments against it was the congestion it caused for the motor car. A profitable and efficient system was ripped up, NMRA was one of those in favour.

I bought the block of land my last house was built on; new estate. I've built my share of sub-divisions. I can assure you that roads are neither built nor maintained "for free". Now, after a few years, a bus route appeared in my street. That was great, but if anyone got anything for "free"" it was the public transport system. The road was not intended nor designed for buses (and in fact had to be modified at two roundabouts at our...the residents of that council...cost) and as such has deteriorated much quicker than other roads in the little pocket we live in. Council saw fit to install speed humps as we had hoon issues at one point. Due to the buses these had to be a "bus freindly" design. I don't begrudge the system here mind you, it's very nice to have a bus stop 200m away.

[human909]

You don't rate safety? Lucky Aunty and Fairfax do.

You comparing the safety of mass transit to our road system is quite laughable.

I can assure you that roads are neither built nor maintained "for free".

Their use is free. Sorry if that point, escaped you. I would have thought it obvious that roads cost money to build. There is just no direct cost to their users.

I can't say I've ever received a bill in the mail for the building and maintenance of the public roads I use EVER. I could use the road 16hours or I could walk on a footpath for 30minutes a day. My taxes and rates would be the same.

The point, if it really needs to be spelled out, is the tragedy of the commons effect of road use. Its not exactly a novel concept. And I'm sure I've pointed it out to you before.

[Mububban]

2/3's of kids are driven to school according to this (btw, only 1/3 attend private schools)
https://www.smh.com.au/healthcare/twoth ... 0m6y2.html

It's not just infrastructure trailing population growth, and welfare and health care for lifestyle choices eating a progressively higher % of tax revenue, it's perception of safety re traffic and menace, especially so for girls.
Bigger cities more densely populated, with people of varying (often menacing) values, and greater unemployment = perception less safe.

And various groups with great sway over government and mainstream media tell us the world really is unsafe for females. i.e.
The National Union of Students reports
- 72% of female tertiary students have experienced harassment, sexual assault, or violence on campuses.
- 14% of female students have experienced rape or attempted rape.
You think broadcasting these kind of stats doesn't influence public perception of safety in public?
And Australian universities are world leaders in demonizing the 'white patriarchy'.
This stuff certainly influences legislators and the courts re the risk posed by men.

I work at an all girls private school (non teaching role). Roughly 400 in junior school, roughly 1000 in senior school.
The bike racks usually contain ~6 bikes in junior school, and maximum 15-20 in senior school. Daily average would be ~12.

It is located near a busy highway, but I believe there's an underpass to cross safely. But even I get nervous riding home during "peak 4WD time".

No excuses for my kids school, except parental laziness in many cases. The worst one I've seen was when walking the kids to school (which I always do if I've got time off work). We walk past a parent loading her kids into the Landcruiser, and she's 350m from the school as the crow flies if they walk through the park they're right next to, and down the quiet back street that leads straight to the school gate. But on road, she's got to go all the way around the block to exit her cul-de-sac and get to school. She pulls up at the same time as we do, on foot.
I figure maybe she's got to go straight to work after kid drop off. Nope. When I'm walking home, I see her pull back into her driveway and go back inside.

Sigh.

[Mububban]

I 100% agree that the largest single factor to why kids get driven is parental laziness. Remember that most of the parents of today were driven to school themselves. It takes very little longer to drive than to walk/cycle these short distances - but then the parent would have to walk/cycle and they are just too lazy.

So, as a society. We've got to ensure that making good choices is the easiest way. Perhaps school catchments, perhaps having no dropoffs with several hundred metres of school.. etc. It has to be policy driven because the system is broken, and many of the impediments exist because it's broken. IE there are no footpaths or crossings because everyone drives - yet they weren't needed when the area was built because people just walked on the road because it was safe.

That comic is spot on. Don't think I'll bother showing it to my wife though. I have to sleep some time...

She and I were born late 70s so we walked or rode to school. To me it's normal from a young age as I was walked (with mum) up to about year 3, then from year 4 onwards she went back to work so I walked or rode myself to and from school, and so did my mates. I used to look forward to the walk home with me and my 4 besties, splitting off one by one as we went home. Those times reinforced the friendship we still enjoy today.

I kind of hoped my house would always have my kids' friends over to play like I did. I was always at someone's house or they were at mine, and we were always made to feel welcome too. We got to know each other's parents, and I'm still genuinely fond of my mate's parents. But that just doesn't seem to happen nowadays, and only time will tell the long term individual and societal impact that will have (but I don't think it will be positive).

[Thoglette]

But ever greater reliance on private and public credit is a serious indicator a country is deluded about its productivity and lifestyle expectations....but big gubmint prefers deluded citizenry.

While agree with your observation of symptoms, (indeed I've been saying as much for 20 years), the analysis leaves a lot to be desired.

Hint: follow the money, starting with the funding for the actors in "big gubmit" and the revolving doors they pass through once they leave.

However, in spending some time last night to find links to reference materials (e.g. the size of "government" and it's composition) it became clear that wikipedia has developed a very short memory (even for something internet based - e.g. Austraian Govt Debt only goes back 15 years) and the commercial press may have developed a form of minitrue. Not only were old articles 404'ing (e.g. SMH article on MHLs (which might be expected as sites re arrange and that one's now here) but some I couldn't find at all. I'm sure they're out there, somewhere. Perhaps on page 40 of the search listings. (But I'll get a good example before carrying this line of argument further. Right now it just something that smells funny).

There's also some very smelly data: e.g. someone claiming World Bank data showed that the Australian Govt was only 10% of the GDP in '64. When at the time it still held the CBA, the PMG, Aust post and almost all utilities and transport assets. Plus all hospitals and schools.

As such, it's quite plausible to form a view that our government is historically "big", despite the privitisation of just about everything and the fall in tax receipts.

Certainly, as the current Banking enquiry; the ongoing power debacle; along with the mess that is/was centre link; is showing that economic rationalisation, even when carried out in good faith, can lead to (unintended) consequences that may be significantly worse than the original situation.

[Comedian]

You don't rate safety? Lucky Aunty and Fairfax do.

You comparing the safety of mass transit to our road system is quite laughable.

I can assure you that roads are neither built nor maintained "for free".

Their use is free. Sorry if that point, escaped you. I would have thought it obvious that roads cost money to build. There is just no direct cost to their users.

I can't say I've ever received a bill in the mail for the building and maintenance of the public roads I use EVER. I could use the road 16hours or I could walk on a footpath for 30minutes a day. My taxes and rates would be the same.

The point, if it really needs to be spelled out, is the tragedy of the commons effect of road use. Its not exactly a novel concept. And I'm sure I've pointed it out to you before.

More tellingly - I can store my private property on a road indefinitely as long as it's registered. Boat, caravan, some of the family cars. All good as much road space as I need indefinitely and all free. Roadspace, bitumen etc etc...

[fat and old]

I can assure you that roads are neither built nor maintained "for free".

Their use is free. Sorry if that point, escaped you. I would have thought it obvious that roads cost money to build. There is just no direct cost to their users.

I can't say I've ever received a bill in the mail for the building and maintenance of the public roads I use EVER. I could use the road 16hours or I could walk on a footpath for 30minutes a day. My taxes and rates would be the same.

The point, if it really needs to be spelled out, is the tragedy of the commons effect of road use. Its not exactly a novel concept. And I'm sure I've pointed it out to you before.

oops, forgot to post lol

I didn't say that the system was fair, just pointed out the cost side. My apologies for not following more closely. In may haste to disagree with you, I missed your intended meaning

Of course if you build roads for free USE then it does make mass transit far less competitive

my addition

But don't get too cocky, you know as well as I that their is a component of your rates that goes towards local road maintenance. As for storage, many councils are now prohibiting anyone anywhere anything parking. It's on the way out.

Yeah, the system sucks. So show me a better system. Allow for people like me that WILL NOT carry a 700kg compressor on their bike around the state.

[human909]

Yeah, the system sucks.

I can't. Because I'm not even arguing the system sucks. There is plenty of sense in a network of public roads, just ask the Romans.

The reason why I raised those points was in the context of mass transit being uneconomic and needing to be subsidised.

So show me a better system.

Congestion taxing and countless other systems that discourage motor vehicle usage. Those who REALLY need to used motor vehicles continue to use them those who don't choose the alternatives. There is a reason why Dutch driver are the happiest in the world.

[CKinnard]

You don't rate safety? Lucky Aunty and Fairfax do.

You comparing the safety of mass transit to our road system is quite laughable.

So in your head, females' views regarding public transport safety are laughable?
Sounds a lot like white patriarchy.

[CKinnard]

No excuses for my kids school, except parental laziness in many cases.

Sigh.

Not having a go at you personally, but I think it is a little intellectually convenient to presume it is parental laziness.


1.
I've seen a lot of kids after school in clinic, and many have very full extracurricular schedules they are shuttled to/from, many of them involving physical activity. It would be great if schools offered more after school activities but most don't.

The world is more competitive than it was 40 years ago. Savvy parents feel that, and want to give their kids every opportunity to compete via additional activities. If they are being shuttled by a stay at home or part time Mum to various events, that's their choice.
People are more time pressed these days. If kids are going to utilize their time more constructively via school pickup, then I can accept that.

2.
Families are smaller, both parents work, or there's only one parent, families move house more often than 40 years ago, people are just more stressed and fatigued...so there is less neighborly social interaction. When I was at primary school, there were at least 30 kids within 300 meters, and we'd always walk in groups to school 2km away...and that was from 7yo. I desperately wanted a bike, but my mum said 'too dangerous'....and this was on the fringe of Brisbane 30k out. When I look back, my mother's attitude about bicycles marked the beginning of the excessive feminization of child rearing. Fear overruled 'can do' attitude, and it has been getting worse since the 70s.

Nevertheless, I remember vividly one day walking to school by myself when about 10yo. I was only 100 meters away, when a car pulled up beside me, and the driver, a wild eyed laborer looking guy in his 20s, asked me for directions to a street that was vaguely familiar. To cut to the chase, he asked me if I could get in the car and show him where it was.
I had the sense if I got in the car, I was getting into a cage with a pack of hungry wolves, so gave a sterling response that started the cogs turning in his head long enough for me to run off as I said 'see ya'.
So as rare as these things are, like bicycle/motor vehicle collisions, you only need one.


Once again not aimed at you M, there's a lot of opinion being expressed in this thread more common to cognitive challenges on the autism spectrum.
That's why surveys are important. It helps the cognitively and socially deprived to understand their universe isn't the center of everyone else's.

[Thoglette]

So in your head, females' views regarding public transport safety are laughable?
Sounds a lot like white patriarchy.

Now blaming assault on their clothing choices is patriachical. As is suggesting that they would be safer staying at home.

Both lines are analogous to arguments leveled at cyclists and their "responsibility" for their safety.

Undoubtably there are risks in simply being a female in a public or semi-public place. Some of which beggar prevention by late intervention (e.g. this example). And being in a car isn't proof against assault, as any yarpie will tell you.

In short, the safety problem isn't a public transport problem, it's a societal problem.

Even taking issues presented by the current culture of toxic masculinity; broken mental health services; poor PT services and lack of policing into account your comments on PT safety are and remain laughable. As PT is still an order or two of magnitude less likely to kill you or put you into hospital than the private motor vehicle. Regardless of gender or skin colour.

[CKinnard]

While agree with your observation of symptoms, (indeed I've been saying as much for 20 years), the analysis leaves a lot to be desired.

Hint: follow the money, starting with the funding for the actors in "big gubmit" and the revolving doors they pass through once they leave.

However, in spending some time last night to find links to reference materials (e.g. the size of "government" and it's composition) it became clear that wikipedia has developed a very short memory (even for something internet based - e.g. Austraian Govt Debt only goes back 15 years) and the commercial press may have developed a form of minitrue. Not only were old articles 404'ing (e.g. SMH article on MHLs (which might be expected as sites re arrange and that one's now here) but some I couldn't find at all. I'm sure they're out there, somewhere. Perhaps on page 40 of the search listings. (But I'll get a good example before carrying this line of argument further. Right now it just something that smells funny).

There's also some very smelly data: e.g. someone claiming World Bank data showed that the Australian Govt was only 10% of the GDP in '64. When at the time it still held the CBA, the PMG, Aust post and almost all utilities and transport assets. Plus all hospitals and schools.

As such, it's quite plausible to form a view that our government is historically "big", despite the privitisation of just about everything and the fall in tax receipts.

Certainly, as the current Banking enquiry; the ongoing power debacle; along with the mess that is/was centre link; is showing that economic rationalisation, even when carried out in good faith, can lead to (unintended) consequences that may be significantly worse than the original situation.

In a previous life, I was involved with a property developer ($130M in projects at any one time) who contracted me to distill quality economic and finance advisories and forecast data, for guiding them and their sophisticated investors on understanding the noughties boom. After some years getting familiar with these, I realized explanations required to better understand and predict what was happening domestically and internationally required original analysis....and I ended up spending a lot of time head down in ABS xls, using VBA to extract and merge data to illustrate relationships between things the mainstream media never thought of.

The frustrating thing I came to realize is the ABS is a political animal, and data collected and treatment is known to change.
i.e. 40 years ago, house price movements were understood in terms of full time average wage multiplies. Today, it's average household income (which usually is more than one wage).
I'd no sooner get code pulling data on the fly to update dynamic charts, only to have it break 4 mths later when the ABS yet again changed their data series/urls/whatever. A lot of changes were made in the 80s, so it typically not easy to build time analyses that include data prior to then. Further, ABS methodologies have changed over the decades, which makes direct comparisons over time impossible without understanding the changes.

Anyway, the take home is very few people comprehend the macro economy and what drives it. And even fewer understand what credit is, how it is controlled, and the dangers associated with it. And that's why GFC came out of nowhere. The RBA had no idea, nor Treasury, nor the Big 4.... but a few US sources I followed did (the world's biggest bond investor, Pimco). The noughties property inflation opened my eyes to how precarious and deluded the elites who think they control and understand this stuff are. And how complicit they are in playing with fire, no matter the consequences to Joe Citizen. Banking absolutely needs serious investigation, and property tax law needs to be overhauled. All of this does impact standard of living and infrastructure provision more than most comprehend. Also migration and its economic benefit/cost also needs to be confronted without all the PC hyperbole and data fudging by the usual suspects with vested interest.