Harry Potter, the Psychic Boss and the Laneways of Doom

Discussion in 'Australia and New Zealand' started by hippy, Feb 14, 2005.

  1. hippy

    hippy Guest

    Theo Bekkers wrote:
    >>How about a law that prevents the use of vehicles over a certain size,
    >>within a particular radius of the CBD? Exceptions could be made for
    >>commercial uses.

    >
    > Very difficult to do as the authorities would pick length as being the
    > obvious criteria. Ban anything over 5 metres and Land-Cruisers will stay,
    > Commodore wagons would be out.


    ARRRR!!! Again with the length!!!
    WHY would they pick length as the 'obvious' criteria?

    Actually, don't even bother answering that.. replying to you about this
    issue is like banging my head against a frickin' wall.

    >>Taxing 4wd's properly would be nice too. Basically, I'm in favour of
    >>anything that makes large 4wd's less attractive to buyers.

    >
    > I'm in favour of anybody being able to buy and drive any vehicle that is
    > legally defined as being for use on the roads. Including bicycles and
    > recumbents. I see no need to tax any passenger vehicle differently.


    Unless I'm mistaken it already happens.. "luxury car tax" anyone?

    > 4WDs are not a problem for me. I encounter road trains every day on my
    > commute. B-triples, B-doubles with an extra trailer, and heavy rigids (four
    > axle trucks) towing two trailers (14 axles, 52 wheels). This is on a one
    > lane each way "Highway". Their only limit is 36.4 metres in length.You think
    > I'm going to be bothered by a 5 metre two-axle Land-Cruiser? Pffft!


    4WDs aren't a problem for _you_ so lets ignore them.. sure.. no
    worries.. whatever! They're a problem for me!

    You encounter road trains.. where the hell do you live? No wonder you
    don't mind 4wd's, it sounds like you're living in the bush.
    When was the last time you visited a city?
    When was the last time you rode your bike in a city?
    If you only see two cars/trucks per hour, of course a frickin' 4wd isn't
    going to pose you much of a problem! I'm riding and driving around
    Melbourne - being able to see over and around cars is a MAJOR benefit to
    my safety! 4WD's DO NOT BELONG IN THE CITY!!

    hippy
     


  2. Theo Bekkers

    Theo Bekkers Guest

    Dave wrote:

    > fair enough.. tho probably heavy vehicles should be taxed more.. They
    > undeniably do more road damage.
    >
    > At anyrate they shouldnt be taxed less.. as they currently are


    Rego fees in WA are by weight. Currently $13.93 per annum per 100 kg or part
    thereof. Motorcycles are assumed to weigh less than 200kg if under 250cc,
    $27.87, less than 300 if over 250cc, $41.83.

    Theo
     
  3. Theo Bekkers

    Theo Bekkers Guest

    Resound wrote:
    >> I'm in favour of anybody being able to buy and drive any vehicle
    >> that is legally defined as being for use on the roads. Including
    >> bicycles and recumbents. I see no need to tax any passenger vehicle
    >> differently.

    >
    > Fair enough, but in that case, they should attract the sales tax
    > rates/stamp duty etc applicable to passenger vehicles rather than
    > commercial vehicles; which is how they're currently dealt with.


    Agreed. Aren't station wagons also classed as commercial?

    Theo
     
  4. Theo Bekkers

    Theo Bekkers Guest

    hippy wrote:
    > Theo Bekkers wrote:
    >> Very difficult to do as the authorities would pick length as being
    >> the obvious criteria. Ban anything over 5 metres and Land-Cruisers
    >> will stay, Commodore wagons would be out.


    > ARRRR!!! Again with the length!!!
    > WHY would they pick length as the 'obvious' criteria?
    >
    > Actually, don't even bother answering that.. replying to you about
    > this issue is like banging my head against a frickin' wall.


    It's your wall, go for it.:)

    You think some-one in government would make a rule to ban vehicles from the
    city if they're more than 1500mm high. I feel sorry for all those Getz
    drivers then. You think length is not an obvious criteria. Overlength
    (whatever that is) vehicles are banned from the CBD now.

    >> I'm in favour of anybody being able to buy and drive any vehicle
    >> that is legally defined as being for use on the roads. Including
    >> bicycles and recumbents. I see no need to tax any passenger vehicle
    >> differently.

    >
    > Unless I'm mistaken it already happens.. "luxury car tax" anyone?


    Luxury car tax is stupid IMHO and bears no relation to size, just cost. My
    son's C180 Merc attracted luxury car tax and it's smaller than a Camry.

    >> 4WDs are not a problem for me. I encounter road trains every day on
    >> my commute. B-triples, B-doubles with an extra trailer, and heavy
    >> rigids (four axle trucks) towing two trailers (14 axles, 52 wheels).
    >> This is on a one lane each way "Highway". Their only limit is 36.4
    >> metres in length.You think I'm going to be bothered by a 5 metre
    >> two-axle Land-Cruiser? Pffft!

    >
    > 4WDs aren't a problem for _you_ so lets ignore them.. sure.. no
    > worries.. whatever! They're a problem for me!


    Because of their height? That extra 80mm of height is a damn good reason to
    ban them. Hang on a bit. Cyclists are higher than most cars, and as high as
    some 4WDs. Lets ban them then.

    > You encounter road trains.. where the hell do you live? No wonder you
    > don't mind 4wd's, it sounds like you're living in the bush.
    > When was the last time you visited a city?
    > When was the last time you rode your bike in a city?
    > If you only see two cars/trucks per hour, of course a frickin' 4wd
    > isn't going to pose you much of a problem! I'm riding and driving
    > around Melbourne - being able to see over and around cars is a MAJOR
    > benefit to my safety! 4WD's DO NOT BELONG IN THE CITY!!


    Others have other opinions. I think that your statement, for reasons I've
    tried to explain in many posts, are irrational. 4WDs are shorter than some
    passenger cars, lower than many other vehicles.

    I live 55 kms from the Perth CBD and about half of my commute is on Gt
    northern Hwy. We have clay pits out our way and they transport it to Midland
    in 4 axle rigids with a 5 axle trailer. I think they run at least 100 per
    day. The same road also carries freight up North, mostly on the maximum size
    vehicle permitted. They outnumber the clay trucks by 4 to 1. I work in
    Inglewood, three kms north of the CBD and travel there three days a week. I
    tele-work from home the other two days. When I lived in the city (five years
    ago) I rode 15kms to work everyday, rain or shine. From here it is just too
    far. I ride the motorcycle or take the ute. Traffic on the highway is of
    such a density that mostly I never get to use high beam in winter when peak
    hour is dark.

    Cheers

    Theo
     
  5. Graeme

    Graeme Guest

    hippy <[email protected]> wrote in news:tOrTd.174173$K7.115022
    @news-server.bigpond.net.au:

    > You encounter road trains.. where the hell do you live? No wonder you
    > don't mind 4wd's, it sounds like you're living in the bush.
    > When was the last time you visited a city?


    When was the last time you visited Perth? I don't know about B-triples,
    but I certainly see B-doubles most days on my way into work and that is
    within the Perth metropolitan area. I've been overtaken on my bike on
    numerous occasions by B-doubles (I don't commute by bike) and once you get
    used to the initial "WTF was that!" reaction, they're no worse (probably
    better) to share the road with than most small cars.

    Graeme
     
  6. Resound

    Resound Guest

    "Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Resound wrote:
    > >> I'm in favour of anybody being able to buy and drive any vehicle
    > >> that is legally defined as being for use on the roads. Including
    > >> bicycles and recumbents. I see no need to tax any passenger vehicle
    > >> differently.

    > >
    > > Fair enough, but in that case, they should attract the sales tax
    > > rates/stamp duty etc applicable to passenger vehicles rather than
    > > commercial vehicles; which is how they're currently dealt with.

    >
    > Agreed. Aren't station wagons also classed as commercial?
    >
    > Theo
    >



    Nope. They're classed as passenger vehicles. Bear in mind that I'm
    approaching this from a Victorian, not West Australian perspective. A large
    number of the people in this group are from Melbourne. 4WD vehicles are
    taxed as commercial vehicles in order to give a tax break to farmers, but
    this has been rorted by manufacturers to sell them to urban customers
    cheaply. If they were sold with passenger vehicle tax rates, they'd be a LOT
    more expensive. Station wagons don't pose the issues that 4WD vehicles do in
    an urban environment as they don't obstruct vision very much more than an
    ordinary sedan, they don't suffer the dynamic penalties of a 4WD vehicle
    (they can stop before they hit you, or dodge you), and they have the same
    bumper height as other vehicles so they don't negate into side intrusion
    measures.

    Forget about length. It's not relevant to the discussion as it has precious
    little impact on other road users or emissions. Height is an issue because
    it UNNECCESSARILY restricts vision and alters bumper heights. Weight is an
    issue because it affects the ability of the vehicle to avoid collisions and
    makes those collisions more severe. I noticed that you mentioned the height
    of cyclists in another post. That, in itself, doesn't affect other road
    users as a cyclist is narrow enough the not obstruct the vision of motorists
    and they tend to stay off to one side. Cyclists do need that better vision
    to avoid motorists who seem to be incapable of noticing anything smaller
    than a car. 4WD vehicles restrict that vision as well.

    Forget about legimiately commercial vehicles such as trucks. As has been
    pointed out numerous times already, they HAVE to be that height in order to
    function. A vehicle used to transport, at most, a family and their bits and
    pieces does NOT need to be higher than a normal car to fulfill its function.
    Using a vehicle that large for that function is akin to someone sitting in
    front of you at an outdoors concert in a top hat and if you complain about
    them obstructing the view of the stage, explaining that they "need" that hat
    to keep the sun off their head. "What about that tall guy over there? You
    don't see people asking him to take his head off! *smug look*".

    What everyone else in this thread is trying to explain to you is that there
    are legimate uses for 4WD vehicles, but that urban commuting is not one of
    them. If you use that sort of vehicle for that sort of use it demonstrates a
    general lack of consideration for the broader community. There are many
    reprehensible types of behaviour that are legal but which are not legislated
    against because a) it restricts legimate activity and b) adults are expected
    to be able to regulate their own behaviour so as not to make pains in the
    arse of themselves. Of course there are always those few that positively
    enjoy making the lives of others miserable. I suspect that it's the only way
    that they can get others to pay attention to them.

    Apologies for length of post, but implying things doesn't seem to work with
    some people so I thought I'd get explicit.
     
  7. Dave

    Dave Guest

    Resound wrote:
    >
    > Nope. They're classed as passenger vehicles. Bear in mind that I'm
    > approaching this from a Victorian, not West Australian perspective. A large
    > number of the people in this group are from Melbourne. 4WD vehicles are
    > taxed as commercial vehicles in order to give a tax break to farmers, but
    > this has been rorted by manufacturers to sell them to urban customers
    > cheaply. If they were sold with passenger vehicle tax rates, they'd be a LOT
    > more expensive. Station wagons don't pose the issues that 4WD vehicles do in
    > an urban environment as they don't obstruct vision very much more than an
    > ordinary sedan, they don't suffer the dynamic penalties of a 4WD vehicle
    > (they can stop before they hit you, or dodge you), and they have the same
    > bumper height as other vehicles so they don't negate into side intrusion
    > measures.
    >
    > Forget about length. It's not relevant to the discussion as it has precious
    > little impact on other road users or emissions. Height is an issue because
    > it UNNECCESSARILY restricts vision and alters bumper heights. Weight is an
    > issue because it affects the ability of the vehicle to avoid collisions and
    > makes those collisions more severe. I noticed that you mentioned the height
    > of cyclists in another post. That, in itself, doesn't affect other road
    > users as a cyclist is narrow enough the not obstruct the vision of motorists
    > and they tend to stay off to one side. Cyclists do need that better vision
    > to avoid motorists who seem to be incapable of noticing anything smaller
    > than a car. 4WD vehicles restrict that vision as well.
    >
    > Forget about legimiately commercial vehicles such as trucks. As has been
    > pointed out numerous times already, they HAVE to be that height in order to
    > function. A vehicle used to transport, at most, a family and their bits and
    > pieces does NOT need to be higher than a normal car to fulfill its function.
    > Using a vehicle that large for that function is akin to someone sitting in
    > front of you at an outdoors concert in a top hat and if you complain about
    > them obstructing the view of the stage, explaining that they "need" that hat
    > to keep the sun off their head. "What about that tall guy over there? You
    > don't see people asking him to take his head off! *smug look*".
    >
    > What everyone else in this thread is trying to explain to you is that there
    > are legimate uses for 4WD vehicles, but that urban commuting is not one of
    > them. If you use that sort of vehicle for that sort of use it demonstrates a
    > general lack of consideration for the broader community. There are many
    > reprehensible types of behaviour that are legal but which are not legislated
    > against because a) it restricts legimate activity and b) adults are expected
    > to be able to regulate their own behaviour so as not to make pains in the
    > arse of themselves. Of course there are always those few that positively
    > enjoy making the lives of others miserable. I suspect that it's the only way
    > that they can get others to pay attention to them.
    >
    > Apologies for length of post, but implying things doesn't seem to work with
    > some people so I thought I'd get explicit.
    >
    >

    What a well reasoned post.

    Mine tend to be along the lines of most urban 4WD owners tend to be
    selfish prats.. which while it amounts to the same thing and is shorter
    cannot match the reasoning above

    Good effort

    Dave
     
  8. Resound

    Resound Guest

    "Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Resound wrote:
    > >
    > > Nope. They're classed as passenger vehicles. Bear in mind that I'm

    <snip huge rambling post >
    > >

    > What a well reasoned post.
    >
    > Mine tend to be along the lines of most urban 4WD owners tend to be
    > selfish prats.. which while it amounts to the same thing and is shorter
    > cannot match the reasoning above
    >
    > Good effort
    >
    > Dave


    You say the nicest things :)
     
  9. flyingdutch

    flyingdutch New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2004
    Messages:
    5,700
    Likes Received:
    0
    BTW, i think i read/heard somewhere recently that this dumb tax/subsidy is being phased out ove rthe next however-many years.

    Perhaps the day will come when one can roam with stinger missile in-hand/bar-mounted and cleanse the earth of 'mummy's little belcher'

    PS riding out form home this morning i came face-to-face with a fox in my street! He just looked at me, took off and then came out of the shrubbery again to take another look at the silly git on the bike
     
  10. TimC

    TimC Guest

    On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 at 10:10 GMT, flyingdutch (aka Bruce)
    was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
    > Perhaps the day will come when one can roam with stinger missile
    > in-hand/bar-mounted and cleanse the earth of 'mummy's little belcher'


    http://danenet.wicip.org/bcp/spike.html

    > PS riding out form home this morning i came face-to-face with a fox in
    > my street! He just looked at me, took off and then came out of the


    I've seen one near Burwood station twice.

    > shrubbery again to take another look at the silly git on the bike


    Then, when you have found the shrubbery, you must cut down the
    mightiest tree in the forest... with... a herring!

    --
    TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
    "The application did not fail successfully because of an error"
     
  11. HUMBUG

    HUMBUG Guest

    flyingdutch wrote:

    >
    > PS riding out form home this morning i came face-to-face with a fox in
    > my street! He just looked at me, took off and then came out of the
    > shrubbery again to take another look at the silly git on the bike


    For them wots familiar with Essendon..... A few weeks ago I was
    hurtling out of Brewster St. into Pascoe Vale Rd. ( left turn with the
    traffic cooperating for a nice change - the lights to Moreland Rd. were
    green too...:) ) sometime mid-arvo on a week day and VERY nearly hit a
    GOAT FFS. Bloody thing was just meandering across the road without a
    care in the world.

    --
    HUMBUG
     
  12. hippy

    hippy Guest

    Graeme wrote:
    >>You encounter road trains.. where the hell do you live? No wonder you
    >>don't mind 4wd's, it sounds like you're living in the bush.
    >>When was the last time you visited a city?

    >
    > When was the last time you visited Perth?


    Never been to WA.

    > I don't know about B-triples, but I certainly see B-doubles most days


    I didn't consider these road trains. I thought the definition of road
    trains was a truck with more than two trailers (i.e. larger than a
    B-double). I checked, and the definition of a 'road train' is actually
    a truck with a length >19m total. If that's the case, I often see "road
    trains" in Melbourne too.

    > on my way into work and that is
    > within the Perth metropolitan area. I've been overtaken on my bike on
    > numerous occasions by B-doubles (I don't commute by bike) and once you get
    > used to the initial "WTF was that!" reaction, they're no worse (probably
    > better) to share the road with than most small cars.


    My experience indicates trucks are much better at dealing with me than
    most drivers. They move over early and give me room.

    hippy
     
  13. >>>>> "hippy" == hippy <[email protected]> writes:

    hippy> My experience indicates trucks are much better at dealing
    hippy> with me than most drivers. They move over early and give me
    hippy> room.

    Agreed, although I did have two trucks in the space of five minutes
    travel behind me for thirty seconds honking their air horn last Tuesday.
    They gave me plenty of room when they did overtake, more than I'm used
    to truth to tell, but clearly they weren't happy. I was wearing a high
    viz vest, had the blinky rear light going so I'm lost as to what upset
    them.

    Maybe some shock jock was stoking anti-cyclist sentiment that morning?
    --
    Cheers
    Euan
     
  14. Graeme

    Graeme Guest

    hippy <[email protected]> wrote in news:fttUd.178054$K7.149130
    @news-server.bigpond.net.au:

    >
    > Never been to WA.


    You don't know what you're missing :)

    >> I don't know about B-triples, but I certainly see B-doubles most days

    >
    > I didn't consider these road trains. I thought the definition of road
    > trains was a truck with more than two trailers (i.e. larger than a
    > B-double).


    Fair enough, I'm a fairly recent import to Australia so I'm only getting
    over the "****! That's a big truck!" reaction to much of the transport over
    here. A quick Google showed a picture with the different types defined. My
    original thoughts still stand though, they are bloody big trucks even if
    they are "only" B-doubles :)

    Graeme
     
  15. In article <[email protected]>,
    hippy <[email protected]> wrote:

    > My experience indicates trucks are much better at dealing with me than
    > most drivers. They move over early and give me room.


    You just have to hope that any car tail-gating them notices...

    --
    Shane Stanley
     
  16. kim

    kim Guest

    Absent Husband wrote:
    > Why is it so hard to leave the car at home and catch public transport??
    > I'm sure some people see itas some sort of step down the social
    > hierarchy if they decide to get a bus/train...


    because parking in that part of the world at the train station is limited.
    there are only a small number of stations out there and car theft is high.
    parking the brisvegas cbd is ok and you get straight to your destination.
    public transport around brisbane by train is ok, but transfering to a bus
    blows your time out to double when you have to wait to transfer then deal
    with traffic. brisbane has large areas of the burbs that have no public
    transport at all[1]. its a car drivers town, or you don't keep your job =/

    you're right about the social heirachy thing. its a chicken and egg thing.
    without a decent public transport system, people wont use it. they won't
    build a better on until people start using it.

    brisbane city councils idea to fix the early AM (after midnight) transport
    issue is to make the taxi zones bigger and put in a "queue manager" to get
    folks into taxis faster... WTF?

    cheers,

    kim

    [1] and don't tell me one bus to the city in the morning and
    one bus home at 5pm is a public transport system.
     
  17. kim

    kim Guest

    Theo Bekkers wrote:
    > Shabby wrote:
    >>>Theo Bekkers wrote:
    >>>I don't quite get the 'pointless poluting status symbols' bit.

    >
    >>We could start on Conformodore drivers as well if you want Theo.

    >
    > It was the singling out 4WD's as 'pointless poluting status symbols' that
    > got my goat. I don't see 4WDs as being any more poluting than the average
    > Falcodore or blocking anyone's forward vision any more than a bus or a
    > delivery vehicle.


    I work in the Adelaide CBD. In the building I work in are several law firms and government departments.
    As one comes and goes in the lifts, one over hears things.

    The thing I often hear about is folks dissing or gloating about brand new vehicle etc...

    the thing that shits me to tears more than anything else is "mr X just buaght a new Prado for $75K!"
    "and its not even a Landcruiser!"

    everthing for these guys is about the vehicle as a "show pony".
    these guys are so soft, they take the car/prado/pajero to be washed on the weekends.
    pin stripe suits and all!! eeek!

    anyhow, theres a couple of stories about a guy on the way to a company lunch in the barossa,
    having to change a tire, but couldn't. his wife and 11 year old son did because they couldn't bear him crying ...

    these guys have no skills outside of paper pushing and wheeling and dealling on the phone.

    roll out a newer saner type of "pointless status symbol".

    cheers,

    kim
     
  18. kim

    kim Guest

    Theo Bekkers wrote:
    > Peter Signorini wrote:
    >>You don't seem to get the point about the need for the type of
    >>vehicle - delivery vans, trucks and buses are generally on the road
    >>to do a task that demands their size. In suburban Melbourne there's
    >>not much functional utility from a RAV4 that couldn't be handled by,
    >>say, a Toyota Corolla. And what about the fuel consumption and visual
    >>obstruction comparisons here?

    >
    >
    > In another post I pointed out that the RAV4 is a whopping 80 mm longer than
    > a Corolla. OK it is 215mm higher and, not to ignore, 90mm wider. Comparing
    > Toyota website specs the Top of the Wazza RAV4 gets 9.7 l/100 km whilst the
    > very frugal, also top of the line, Corolla manages 8.1. The cheapest manual
    > Corolla is the same length but uses only 7.7l/100 km. The cheapest RAV4 uses
    > 9.3 but, Oh my Gawd, is 315 mm shorter than the Corolla. Feel free to browse
    > away.


    the whole markeing image is for a half baked 4wd with no off road ability, expensive
    tires, crappy power steering, crappy aircon, crappy seats, aimed at young women.

    a friend of mine likened them to a boobtube, with the same level of support.

    its just another glorified handbag. but a bloody ugly one at that.
    but a boon for the RAA, chaning tyres has never been such a highly saught after skill.

    cheers,

    kim
     
  19. Absent Husband wrote:

    > Why is it so hard to leave the car at home and catch public transport??


    1) Getting to the the train station is usually a car trip in itself. It
    takes a special kind of person to see the 30 minutes walk to the station
    in the morning and 30 minutes walk home as really good to do.
    Perticularly in humind, wet or very hot weather, and then there is the
    need for a shower when you get to work.

    2) You need to be able to get parking at your local train station and
    just when they open enough parking for the locals, either a new suburb
    is opened nearby (up to 10kms away) and they all want parking, or people
    at other over crowded stations suddenly hear about the new car parking
    at your station (usually because the fat arse thick brained railway
    executives toot their trumpets and launch massive advertising to say so.

    OR

    B1 - having a clunker to ride to the train station turns out to be
    expensives in lock and chains and replacement seats, handlebars, not to
    mention tubes and puncture repairs.

    B2 - your state bicycle group without consulting local members who do
    ride their bicycles to the station, that the bicycle lockers are going
    to go at all the other train stations and state rail launches a campaign
    to chop off and remove all bicycle locked to railway fittings at all
    stations that don't have lockers.


    > I'm sure some people see itas some sort of step down the social
    > hierarchy if they decide to get a bus/train...


    And, you are finally on the platform, when

    3) State Rails starts cancelling not one, not two, but three peak hours
    trains in a row. And when a train finally turns up; Who said state rail
    no longer transport cattle?

    4) The train carraige is dirty, smelly and the air conditioning, if it
    works, respondes to the wind chill temperature outside the train.

    5) You suddenly find that the interconnecting bus at the other end are
    running late and out of timetable order, so you have a 30 minute wait
    for your bus.

    6, 7, & 8 are 5, 4, & 3 in reverse order for the train home.


    Oh, and did I mention the fact, that unless you work in the CBD, well
    you are screwed anyway because public transport is all focussed on the
    CBD.


    but, somehow, I now find that I managed all that for 20 years.
     
  20. hippy

    hippy Guest

    Terry Collins wrote:
    > 1) Getting to the the train station is usually a car trip in itself.


    a) Move closer to the station.

    > 2) You need to be able to get parking at your local train station


    Solved with a)

    > And, you are finally on the platform, when
    >
    > 3) State Rails starts cancelling not one, not two, but three peak hours
    > trains in a row. And when a train finally turns up; Who said state rail
    > no longer transport cattle?


    b) for book. Take one. Read it. iPod also highly recommended.
    <nerd> Currently listening to Chaostheorie by Thomas P. Heckmann, one of
    2020 songs, 16.5 days worth of music :D </nerd>

    > 4) The train carraige is dirty, smelly and the air conditioning, if it
    > works, respondes to the wind chill temperature outside the train.


    c) Sorry about that - it must've been the curry at lunch.
    My car doesn't have aircon.

    > 5) You suddenly find that the interconnecting bus at the other end are
    > running late and out of timetable order, so you have a 30 minute wait
    > for your bus.


    Solved with a)

    > Oh, and did I mention the fact, that unless you work in the CBD, well
    > you are screwed anyway because public transport is all focussed on the
    > CBD.


    Sadly, true. Move closer to work? :)

    > but, somehow, I now find that I managed all that for 20 years.


    Think of how much you helped good ol' planet earth!!

    hippy
    - kinda serious, kinda not (I didn't have a car or bike when I moved
    here so it HAD to be walking distance from a train station. I don't
    understand why more people don't do the same thing.)
     
Loading...
Loading...