New Gambling Laws

"Won't work" has become the new black. Carbon tax? Won't work, says the Coalition. Plain cigarette packaging? Won't work, say retailers and the tobacco industry. Poker machine reforms? Won't work, says the gambling industry. No proof is required; it's enough to stare into the camera, look earnest and say forcefully, "It. Won't. Work."

The above is the first paragraph of a great piece on the drum today. I have often posted pieces on this blog by experts etc. about various topics that are currently effecting Australia. This time is similar and it's about the new gambling laws being brought in by the government. This guy is definitely an expert. Not unbiased but definitely an expert. Tom Cummings is a former problem gambler who has turned his attention to gambling reform and the industry in general.

My favourite part though is his description of the genesis of his addiction.

But something clicked inside my head the very first time I played the pokies. It was the start of years of addiction, years in which I pissed away close to $100,000 and destroyed the trust of everyone I knew. I was a poker machine addict, and no matter my intentions, I simply could not stop playing. Suicide became an option I seriously contemplated, and it took discovery, exposure and the loss of everything I had to finally force my hand and give me the ability to step away. Yet while I was playing the pokies, I wasn't gambling on anything else... and in the years since I stopped, no other form of gambling has interested me. It wasn't about the gambling; it was about the pokies and nothing more.

Tom gives a first hand account of what pokie addiction is like and how he thinks the new laws will affect pokie addiction. It is a very illuminating piece of writing and well worth a read considering the current advertising campaign from Clubs Australia.

Climate Doubt

Below I have embedded a great video on how doubt has been created, where none really exists, about climate change.

DOUBT from The Climate Reality Project on Vimeo.

Italian Disgrace

A Quick warning this post might get a bit sweary right at the end!

Perusing the ABC website I found a story about Italian scientists being charged with Manslaughter. It caught my interest and I clicked on the link expecting to see a story about scientists who had been trialling a dodgy drug and people had died.

What I found however was a story about a panel of 6 Geologists. WHAT? How did Geologists cause people to die? The First paragraph explained it all it out to me:

"A group of Italian scientists have gone on trial accused of manslaughter over the 2009 L'Aquila earthquake that killed more than 300 people."

No... Actually wait that doesn't really explain it at all. What these scientists Caused the Earthquake through ill advised geology experiments? Lets see what the rest of the story had to say:

"Prosecutors allege the defendants gave a falsely reassuring statement before the quake and say residents around L'Aquila should have been warned to flee their homes in the days before the quake..... The defendants were members of a panel that had met six days before the April 6 quake to assess risks after hundreds of tremors had shaken the medieval city in Italy's mountainous Abruzzo region. At that meeting, a committee analysed data from the low-magnitude tremors and determined the activity was not a prelude to a major earthquake. The experts had made it clear that it was not possible to predict whether a stronger quake would occur but had recommended stricter enforcement of anti-seismic measures, particularly regarding building construction."

So the scientists analysed the data and failed to predict and earthquake so they are charged with Manslaughter. Just Like everyone else in Italy they failed to predict the earthquake. Just like every person ever to have lived so far they failed to predict an earthquake. They did mention in their statement that " it was not possible to predict whether a stronger quake would occur" and the recommended that "stricter enforcement of anti-seismic measures, particularly regarding building construction".

Vincenzo Vittorini, a doctor who founded the association "309 Martyrs" and lost his wife and daughter in the disaster, said: "No-one expected to be told the exact time of the quake. We just wanted to be warned that we were sitting on a bomb". Wait just a fucking second. Earlier in the story it mentioned that the scientist had assessed the risks after HUNDREDS of minor earthquakes. How can you not know your "sitting on a bomb" when you can feel the Ticking through your ass? You live in an earthquake zone plan for it and build or renovate your house accordingly. Don't be a Cockhead and try and ruin someone else's life just because you FAILED to look after yours. I live in a Cyclone area and I have planned extensively for cyclones including an evacuation plan for the bigger ones. Now you will not know that a earthquake is coming, BECAUSE NO-ONE CAN PREDICT AN EARTHQUAKE, but you can still have an evacuation plan in your house and have designed safe areas in your house where you will survive if the house falls apart.

In an open letter sent to Italian president Giorgio Napolitano, more than 5,000 scientists said the defendants essentially face criminal charges for failing to predict quakes, even though this remains technically impossible. I would like to see Scientists and people from all over the world sign a petition in support of these poor guys being victimised by the Italian government.

It's not just about bike lanes

The Following article by Jan Garrard was published over on the ABC website.

It has long been recognised that urban planning and transport policies in Australia encourage car use and discourage cycling and walking. But what has been less well-recognised is that our road safety policies and practices are also car-oriented. This is arguably a more serious bias, because it results in unacceptably high levels of death and serious injury among unprotected road users such as cyclists.

Australia prides itself on having achieved a relatively low traffic crash fatality rate of 6.8 fatalities per 100,000 population. World's best practice (3.8 fatalities per 100,000 population) is not that far away, and we aspire to achieve it. But Australia's overall fatality rate hides an inconvenient truth - our cyclist fatality and serious injury rates are several times higher than world's best practice, and increasing. 

Cycling accounts for about one per cent of daily trips in Australia, but cyclists comprise two per cent of road transport fatalities and 15 per cent of serious injuries. Serious injury rates for cyclists are increasing as bicycle use increases (by 47 per cent from 2000 to 2007), while for most other road users rates are steady or declining. The relative risk of injury per kilometre travelled is several times higher for a cyclist than for a person in a car.

Improving cycling safety is a key factor for increasing everyday cycling, particularly for the 'missing' cyclists in Australia: women, children, adolescent girls and older adults. It is also important to recognise that perceived safety is as important as actual safety. Most people don't know the relative risk of injury for a bike trip compared to a car trip, but they know how it feels, and cycling in Australia feels risky. 

Cycling safety and cycling prevalence go hand in hand. Not only does the Netherlands have one of the highest rates of cycling in the developed world (27 per cent of daily trips are by bicycle), it also has the lowest cyclist injury rate (1.4 per 10 million kilometres cycled). These figures highlight the potential for a win-win-win-etc scenario. More cycling trips mean more health; cleaner air; less traffic congestion; and more liveable cities; and, if we get it right, fewer road traffic injuries. Achieving high levels of safe cycling begins with acknowledging that cycling is a legitimate form of transport. In Australia we begrudgingly tolerate cyclists on our roads, but the high-cycling countries of Western Europe actually prioritise cycling over driving for the numerous short to medium-distance trips that are a part of daily life. 

The implication of accepting cyclists as legitimate road users is that people who ride bicycles have a right to complete their journey safely. Citizens in high-cycling countries are protected by road safety systems that acknowledge that the greatest risk to cyclists comes from motor vehicles and the way they are driven. The protection is multi-faceted - safe cycling infrastructure is complemented by ethical, moral and legal environments that protect vulnerable road users. In several European countries, the higher standards of duty-of-care for more vulnerable road users include the legal responsibility for car drivers to avoid collisions with cyclists and pedestrians. In these countries the onus is on drivers to prove no-fault when in collisions with pedestrians and cyclists. 

"I just didn't see her", "He came from no-where", or "It was raining/foggy/dark/glary" are not legitimate excuses for colliding with people on bikes or on foot. A driver is expected to anticipate the presence of cyclists and pedestrians on the road, and take action to avoid injuring them. In contrast, drivers in Australia, the USA and UK are far less likely to be held accountable for injuring cyclists and pedestrians, including when the driver clearly is at fault. An analysis of pedestrian and cyclist fatalities in New York City found that most pedestrian and cyclist deaths were caused by dangerous driving (90 per cent), but few of the drivers responsible (26 per cent) received summonses for traffic violations. No comparable analysis has been conducted in Australia, but numerous instances have been reported that demonstrate a similar social and legal tolerance of the harm caused by drivers to cyclists and pedestrians.

The flip side of our reluctance to hold drivers responsible for injuring cyclists and pedestrians is our predilection to blame cyclists themselves. In a classic case of victim-blaming, cyclists are said to be "asking for trouble" by putting themselves in harm's way by cycling on public roads. The implication is that it is cyclists who should avoid hazardous drivers - not the other way around. Australia's National Cycling Strategy (pdf) aims to double cycling by the year 2016. Achieving this target will require investing in good cycling infrastructure. But constructing bike paths and lanes is not an effective stand-alone strategy for achieving high levels of safe cycling. We also need to invest in 'soft infrastructure' in the form of driver and cyclist education and training, and equitable (and equitably enforced) road rules. High levels of safe cycling are underpinned by a culture of respect for the rights of all road users to a safe and comfortable journey regardless of whether their vehicle of choice is a car or a bicycle.

The route to high levels of safer cycling is well-developed, clearly sign-posted, and not particularly difficult, it's simply that it can feel a little alien to a nation whose personal mobility is so all-pervasively car-oriented.