It’s clear that the election circus is well underway in NZ, with doors being knocked, babies being kissed and roadsides being littered with signs, however, with clean car, ute tax, potholes, petrol prices and now speed signs, I can’t help but feel that this time around the parties are trying to woo my car not me – and that’s why it’s this week’s Tarmac Tuesday Tantrum.
As part of the regular ‘Ford vs Holden at Bathurst race’ it’s that time again when Kiwi’s need to choose a leader and so the debates and political standings begin. However, this race seems a little more basic to me, and somehow aimed at my car.
For instance, I hear that one of the parties is going to spend $30m to ‘reverse’ the widespread speed reductions that their opposing party spent squillions on research saying that lower speed was the right thing to do. Now (regardless of the economical impact of slower moving freight, the frustrations, and my preference for going faster), either it’s better to go slower or not – what does the ‘impartial’ research prove? Seesaw governing achieves zero (not road to zero!)
And while on the matter of speed, why does the same stretch of road need to have multiple speed limits, 100km/h down to 80km/h (conveniently next to a speed camera) and then back up to 100km/h. Sure there are ‘high crash rates’ areas (how many is ‘high’), but is ‘speed’ the only culprit? maybe the road is at fault? (surface, camber, corner…).
Plus, surely modern day vehicles (fitted with clever traction control, lane keep assists, and a whole heap of other driver and safety aids), should be able to drive along a straight section of tarmac at 100km/h – especially if that tarmac has SH lettering in front of it and 2-3 LANES!
The pot-hole hot potato makes my blood boil too. A certain portion of rates are supposed to keep the town/city streets in good health aren’t they? Also, the ROAD TAX, what does that pay for? (Often the answer is right there in front of you). My car is in good health (according to the WOF) so why isn’t the road below it good too? Too expensive to maintain? Then maybe find a more cost effective solution, or up the cost of ROAD TAX (not advocating this of course) or if it’s a safety issue… I think you get the point. Don’t just throw another road cone and lower speed sign at it.
Petrol prices are a bit of a poser, a fair chunk of it is tax (or so I’m led to believe), baring in mind where we are on the globe, we don’t make our own fuel and are pushing like crazy to ‘go electric’, are we not destined to continue to have price hikes at the pump – REGARDLESS of whom is in charge.
And while talking about charge, our thrust to go emissions-free by tomorrow seems extreme (especially down to NZ’s actual impact on the environment globally – there’s only a small team of 5 million), but regardless of this, lower emissions is evidently the right thing so should we be flip-flopping on this too?
Politicians do in fact canvas on a multitude of topics and yet the low hanging fruit of ‘what car/powertrain I drive or my thoughts on transport’ seems to be taking a more centre stage for me right now – top tip, maybe the polling station should be at the gas station this year.
Anyway, I’ll leave you with this final thought, for those that are as cynical about politicians as me, they’re not really accountable for what they say now anyway are they? Many of the subjects they peacock about now become too hard or hidden under the floor mat once in power – and then the political circus seesaw will begin again.
One Response
Now this was a proper Tarmac tantrum! I can’t help but feel that a lot of this argy-bargy would have been solved by a little something called democracy where people cast a vote on speed limit changes etc but that won’t catch on.