Driving in Australia - what I've learned

Driving in Australia - What I've learnt

Driving in Australia is incredible fun. And frustrating! The drive into work each morning is always different. The variations in driving ability seems dependant on a number of factors. When it rains, the speed of driving is reduced to about 20kph. If it's dry and then rains, watch out for the emergency braking as drivers slow their vehicle from 100kph to 20kph and white knuckles appear on the steering wheel and boggle eyes appear to be intently scanning the road ahead. This drop in speed appears to be mandatory in Victoria, and more so during rush hour.

Bends in the road are another hazard for Australian drivers. There appears to be few Australian who can take corners at speed and remain on the road. The "G" force of going round a corner can be extraordinary for the Australian driver and therefore will slow sufficiently so as to have as close to zero "G" force occurring. Again watch for the emergency braking as a corner can creep up on an unsuspecting driver and jump out in surprise causing near panic and with brake lights and squealing of tyres as the cars disparately try to slow down in time.

The Australian considers driving to be a casual pastime. He is also competitive. This tension shows itself as the Australian driver must be in front no matter what he is driving, be it a 10 year old ute nicknamed puffing billy for obvious reasons or the latest Holden Commodore SS, and will "swing" from inside lane to outside lane in a graceful and nonchalant manner as if it is their right to change lanes because they have the indicator flashing. Once there, they will take stock of their amazing achievement and promptly slow down by about 10 - 15kph.

It would appear that the use of indictors is purely optional and the use of them is mainly used when you feel the other driver wouldn't instinctively know that you are about to change lanes. The only other time is if you are driving a BMW X5, Range Rover Vogue or similar high end car and you indicate to show that you have the right to cut other drivers up.

Moving away from lights. This is never and I repeat, never done the instant the light turns green. What the green light really means is that its time to put the car into gear, lift your foot off the brake, change radio stations, finish putting on your lipstick (morning rush hour only) and time it so you pull away just before the lights turn amber and then red - you really don't want that guy behind you tailgating you for another 5 kms now do you.

In Victoria, "on ramp lights" have been introduced to control the level of traffic entering the freeways. In principle this works well for the freeway. All the roads around become gridlocked at times, but the freeways, they just keep on movin'! In the morning rush hour however the red lights and "one vehicle per green light" appears to be advisory as you'll observe multiple cars go through on a green and some keep going on a red too.

Hoons are a particular breed of Australian driver (I use the word "driver" in a very loose and liberal way here) as they are renowned for making their cars sound like squealing pigs running down a lane. They seem to get great joy from this. I can only presume that it is something left over from the farming days and they miss the cute little pink animals. Hoons also seem to have a fixation with street lamps as every so often you hear about a car colliding with one. Maybe they don't like the light as most of their maneuvering is done at night anyway.

So, all in all, it can be a very different driving experience in Australia compared to other countries.

Drive safe!

Politics: Career or Vocation?

 In the wake of recent behaviour of governments and politicians, the idea of a vocational politician came to mind. If memory serves me well, the first politicians were vocational. Would it work now.

  Some people have been expressing the thought of an elitist government, with the politicians behaving in the said elitist manner. This sort of behaviour really doesn't enamour the politician to the public, the public just doesn't like the elitist attitude. Who do they think they are? They don't 'own' me! I'm not their slave! They weren't voted in to do this - they lied! If I had their income, I too would be able to afford to pay tax! And other such expressions abound.

  I think that if the politician had the median wage (as opposed to the average wage or what they actually earn), their policies would be wildly different. Would there be tax breaks for the rich? Would they understand that for the economy to grow there has to be money flow. For money to be spent, people have to have money! And what is the difference between the rich and poor spending habits? Do the rich spend more, generally? It would appear that the main difference between the rich and poor spending habits is that both spend about the same through the week, but the rich save more. So to give tax breaks, especially on savings, so to encourage saving is all well and good, but to put it out of the reach of the poor is disingenuous at best and outrageously Machiavellian at worst. Keep the poor poor and they wont trouble you! The French aristocrats of 1798 thought this and look at what happened there, the people revolted! "Ah, but we've moved on from those times, we are far more civilised and we have democracy" - maybe, but you haven't moved on from the French aristocrats!

 What's wrong with our current system? We have democracy and the vote after all! Ah yes, the cornucopia of the modern civilised world - democracy and the vote! "If they (the voters) don't like what we have done, they can vote on it in the next election" - but by then the damage is done and whoever is voted in doesn't have the balls to undo it! Is the system broken? Well, it actually depends on how you look at the system. For the rich and those in power, probably not, for everyone else, probably yes! Notice the phrase "in power". This is partly the problem. Attitude. Politicians are "in power" to "serve" those who voted for them. Do they serve their constituencies or their party? Are they in politics to serve the voters or themselves? Has the power gone to their heads? When a person has a lot of power (and with that great power comes great responsibility), paranoia can set in and so they start to shore up that power, they become elitist.

  Lets have a look at where the modern system started from. Democracy started two and a half thousand years ago in Greece. There was an area that ran democracy in its truest form and there was peace and joy throughout the land! Their neighbours were so jealous, they invaded and destroyed all that was built up and enslaved the inhabitants. What was this democracy? In its simplest form, distribution/dissemination of power. The city was run by the people for the people. Sure it had its problems, but it worked. There was a general set of laws and regulations, but there was also local regulation run by the locals for the locals because they knew the area best. And it worked - for many years. In this system there was also accountability.

  Now-a-days, the laws are made by people who live miles away and have no real idea of how life is, and are not accountable - ah but we can be voted out - but, as said before, not until the damage is done! Aristocrats! The decision makers live in a world far away from those they govern and are so out of touch it would be laughable if it wasn't so sad and serious. This is more of a feudal system rather than democracy. If the politicians were paid a median wage, so they experienced what some of the poorest have to put up with, then may be, just may be, their policies might be different and favour the poorer in society, and they may not crave to power they've now come accustomed to.

  Is this an altruistic dream? Not really! All this crap evolved out of and through greed and selfishness of those without a conscience and whose moral fibre is nowhere to be seen.

  The mark one democracy wouldn't be acceptable today. Its principles would be acceptable to the majority of the populace but probably not to those in power. It would take a strong man (or woman) to recognise we're living in a feudalistic system and to bring back democracy in a more acceptable and equitable form.

photo credit: Sam Ilić via photopin cc

Climate Change, what change?

Climate change is an interesting subject. It can stir up the emotions and passions on both sides of the argument. I am writing this looking out across the River Yarra in Melbourne, Australia and wondering what will happen to this area. I live a few 10's of kilometres from here and I know our home is a hundred or so meters above sea level so i should be alright if the scientists are right. But really that isn't what I should be thinking.
 
Is there really climate change? Yes there is climate change. There has always been climate change since God made the earth! I think the question should be not "is there climate change?" but "what effect is man having on climate change?". There has been some evidence that man isn't having the effect some scientists are saying. It's what I call the volcano theory. There have been and are still volcanoes erupting, and putting more pollution into the atmosphere in one blast than man has since the industrial revolution! I still don't think it is a good idea to continue polluting the earth the way we are irrespective of whether or not it is causing climate change. I look at it something like a smoker, in that when a smoker smokes, they don't immediately feel the detrimental effect smoking is having. Over a period of time however, the damage builds up until such a time as the smoker falls over. This is what we are doing to the planet.

 What can be done? It appears that the current "carbon trading" leave it to the market isn't working, and is probably doomed to fail. Why? Because of the capitalistic greed of big business. It's just too expensive. It cuts into profits and share dividends. Not until we change our view of business, money, and how we live will the pollution problem start to be resolved. Will it be too late? Unlikely! If you look at nature like a large field or woodland you will observe that there will be some species of animal or plant that will become dominant, when it becomes too dominant the food source becomes scarce or a disease hits hard and the dominant falls away, leaving room for others to grow. After a period of time an equilibrium will ensue. Sometimes there will be an outside influence, like a long winter, which upsets the equilibrium, but given time, the balance comes back, sitting within natural variations. The planet is like a large field or woodland, and man being the dominant species looks to have an unsettled future!

 Leave it to nature then? No! There needs to be intervention. The pollution industries know something has to be done and they don't want to pay for their irresponsible behaviour, but pay someone will! I would suggest that the pricing to the every day consumer be regulated and pollution be banned within a time frame. Make the industry change out of their profits and capital not by putting up prices, or once again it'll be the ordinary worker that pays for the change and the fat cats at the top carry on as if nothing is going on.

photo credit: Bryce Bradford via photopin cc