Let's ban vans! (22 Aug, 2017)

Have your say on today's Aardvark Daily column

Let's ban vans! (22 Aug, 2017)

Postby aardvark_admin » Tue Aug 22, 2017 10:03 am

This column is archived at: http://aardvark.co.nz/daily/2017/0822.shtml

Won't someone think of the children???

Surely something as proven-dangerous as a van, especially when in the hands of terrorists, must be banned.

If we don't ban them then surely we should fit some kind of hi-tech kill-switch that would allow any law-enforcement officer to disable and stop a rogue van driven by terrorists, with the flick of a switch.

These are the suggestions that many people propose for the *PERCEIVED* drone problem -- but recreational multirotor drones have never killed anyone, anywhere in the Western world -- so what's going on?

And wouldn't you know it, after I bested them in a very public way, the SWDC has moved to update their bylaws to specifically ban drones from parks, reserves and all public places -- but you will be allowed to ride a 50cc scooter in those places.

WTF?

Tell me that this isn't a very nasty personal vendetta being exercised by a few bitter and twisted individuals who are prepared to throw the community's rights out the window just to indulge their own agendas.
aardvark_admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2596
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 2:10 pm

Re: Let's ban vans! (22 Aug, 2017)

Postby hagfish » Tue Aug 22, 2017 10:36 am

With your intro about the danger of vans (pedos! Terrorists!) I thought your analogy was going to be banning encryption (pedos! Terrorists!). Whenever I hear those terms as a justification for anything, I replace it with the phrase, 'just-because-shaddup', or 'you-wouldn't-understand-shaddup'. I always assume that behind the 'pedos'n'terrorists' trope, there's some shadowy lobby group making deals and donations. It's easier to bear than the idea that our elected talent actually believe this tripe. Maybe they're waiting for a few shadowy donations, and all this red tape will just...go away :mrgreen:
hagfish
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 10:28 am

Re: Let's ban vans! (22 Aug, 2017)

Postby phill » Tue Aug 22, 2017 12:14 pm

hmm
maybe its the name that is the problem

everyone knows a drone is the lazy cowardly male wondering around the hive eating what it pleases and occasionally getting called on to do some matrimonial duties
( does the beekeeper face charges for intentionally releasing a queen to attract drones in a public place ..people regularly die from angry bees )

or its that long intoned note that never stops till you feel like screaming

or those huge satellite controlled spy bombers that the us uses to change leaders in terrorist cells ( and any small children handy to the cleansing )


there is no real reason a recreational flying vehicle of whatever configuration should be called a drone

so .. im promoting a new name for them

lets call them butterflies
what harm could a butterfly do .. ( well ok maybe a cyclone some months after it has flown through a certain point notwithstanding )
they have about the same proven public danger

and if thats its new name thats what it legally is for the purposes of identification

so four driven flying surfaces and four driven flying surfaces should quite logically share the same name

butterflies away
User avatar
phill
 
Posts: 1147
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2014 8:31 pm

Re: Let's ban vans! (22 Aug, 2017)

Postby par_annoyed » Tue Aug 22, 2017 12:17 pm

A van is a weapon. A car is a weapon. A plane is a weapon. Yes, even a drone is a weapon - it's only a matter of time.....
A firearm is a weapon. A lump of wood is a weapon. A stone is a weapon.
A saw is a weapon. A screwdriver is a weapon. A penknife is a weapon. A hammer is a weapon. A fist is a weapon. A foot is a weapon.
If you come from Glasgow, your head is a weapon.
What they all have in common is the person wielding it, safely or not.

If the van and truck attacks do get more common, then pedestrian areas will simply have to get concrete bollards. But then the buggers will probably find something else.
Thinking it's something we can stop by banning things is stupid and ridiculous - we need to address WHY these people think this way.
Unfortunately that's bloody hard work, and leads partly back to yesterday's discussion ....
par_annoyed
 
Posts: 523
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 8:03 am

Re: Let's ban vans! (22 Aug, 2017)

Postby GSVNoFixedAbode » Tue Aug 22, 2017 1:13 pm

phill wrote:what harm could a butterfly do .. ( well ok maybe a cyclone some months after it has flown through a certain point notwithstanding )

:lol:
GSVNoFixedAbode
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 8:53 am

Re: Let's ban vans! (22 Aug, 2017)

Postby Muscular Jam » Tue Aug 22, 2017 1:55 pm

Image
Muscular Jam
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2017 4:09 pm

Re: Let's ban vans! (22 Aug, 2017)

Postby roygbiv » Tue Aug 22, 2017 3:45 pm

Not wanting to split hairs or be pedantic . . . . BUT. With reference to your quoted bylaws clause 6.1.1(j) if you successfully applied for a permit then you could operate aforementioned devices "recklessly or in a manner which may intimidate, be dangerous or cause a nuisance to persons in the public place or damage the public place" :roll:

If I lived in Tokeroa I would apply for one just to see what happens.
User avatar
roygbiv
 
Posts: 149
Joined: Wed May 21, 2014 9:28 pm

Re: Let's ban vans! (22 Aug, 2017)

Postby Kiwiiano » Tue Aug 22, 2017 5:03 pm

Re the vans: I was in Barcelona & the south of France a month or so ago and I'm sure I saw the logical protection against that form of terrorism. Robust concrete or steel bollards at regular intervals in the centre of footpaths and along the edge nearest the road. It would have been hard for any vehicle to drive more than a few metres without cannoning into one. I suppose the major objection, apart from the cost of lining zillions of kms of roads with them, would be the much higher casualty rate caused by folk engrossed on FaceBook tripping over them, but that is a self-inflicted injury. And if one 'weapon' is neutralised, they'll just think of something different. One thought that occurred to me when driving through a tunnel was the effect at rush hour of a van with multiple cans of petrol on board being detonated close to the exit portal. All the vehicles behind it would be toast. <Shudder!!>
~ Kiwiiano
“I'm right 98% of the time, so who gives a damn about the other 3%?"
User avatar
Kiwiiano
 
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 5:36 pm

Re: Let's ban vans! (22 Aug, 2017)

Postby Screw » Wed Aug 23, 2017 12:06 am

Yup Kiwi.

We will need to ban cars too because of what happened in Charlotteville a few days ago.
Screw
 
Posts: 1243
Joined: Tue May 13, 2014 3:52 pm

Re: Let's ban vans! (22 Aug, 2017)

Postby Malcolm » Wed Aug 23, 2017 8:38 am

Kiwiiano wrote:Re the vans: I was in Barcelona & the south of France a month or so ago and I'm sure I saw the logical protection against that form of terrorism. Robust concrete or steel bollards at regular intervals in the centre of footpaths and along the edge nearest the road. It would have been hard for any vehicle to drive more than a few metres without cannoning into one. I suppose the major objection, apart from the cost of lining zillions of kms of roads with them, would be the much higher casualty rate caused by folk engrossed on FaceBook tripping over them, but that is a self-inflicted injury. And if one 'weapon' is neutralised, they'll just think of something different. One thought that occurred to me when driving through a tunnel was the effect at rush hour of a van with multiple cans of petrol on board being detonated close to the exit portal. All the vehicles behind it would be toast. <Shudder!!>


I think I saw a bad movie about that one. Except I think it was two trucks, one at each end.
Malcolm
 
Posts: 189
Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 9:43 am

Next

Return to Today's column

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest

cron