LDP releases draft policy on motorcycles

I didn't know they existed until I googled for a political party - say
no to the nanny state!

------

The Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) believes those who choose to use
motorcycles and scooters should not be discouraged by government
policies.

The use of motorcycles and scooters is a matter of individual choice.
So long as nobody else is likely to be involuntarily harmed by that
choice, it is not appropriate for the government to interfere in it.

Motorcycles and scooters represent an economical, convenient and
environmentally favourable means of transport that also places fewer
demands on roads and other infrastructure.

The LDP will implement the following measures:

1. Ensure that specific facilities for motorcycles and scooters are
included in public parking.

2. Reduce taxes, tolls and other charges on motorcycles and scooters
to no greater than a quarter that of cars.

3. Allow motorcycles and scooters to use public transport corridors
such as bus lanes.

4. Permit motorcycles and scooters to filter between lanes of slow
moving traffic.

5. Create refuge areas for motorcycles and scooters in front of cars
waiting at intersections, as found in some Asian countries, to
facilitate faster traffic flow.

6. Ensure motorcycle and scooter safety is given the same priority as
car safety in road design and construction.

7. Encourage voluntary adoption of European CE standards of safety
clothing for motorcyclists, accompanied by accurate labelling.

8. Remove obstacles to the establishment of readily accessible rider
training courses at moderate cost.

9. Remove any requirement for front number plates.

10. Novice riders will be permitted to travel up to the posted speed
limit, to reduce any obstruction they create and to reduce potential
for intimidation and danger to themselves.

These measures are additional to the LDP’s policy on traffic laws,
which includes:

11. Set speed limits at, or slightly above, the 85th percentile. This
would result in an increase of 10-30 km/h in the limit on roads where
drivers felt it was safe to travel at such speeds, while perhaps
leading to reductions on less safe roads.

12. Give low priority to enforcement of any traffic laws intended to
protect road users from themselves while having no impact on innocent
victims.

 

You might want to take a look at the rest of their policies before you
get too much wood thinking about them.

They include:

Privatisation of "ABC, SBS, Australia Post, Medibank Private,
electricity generation corporations, and bus, ferry and rail services."

"The LDP would not restrict nuclear energy or uranium mining in Australia".

and

"The LDP acknowledges that there is scientific evidence to indicate a
trend towards global warming and the possibility that humans may be
partly responsible. However, it does not consider governments have the
competence to address the problem and looks to market responses
instead". Oh yeah baby - "market responses" will fix it all.

I think I liked Bovination's definition of them the best
http://bovination.com/cbs/ldp.jsp.

N/

(Proud Capitalist Socialist Greenie)

 

I did look and I like most of them.

They generally relate to the ideal of small government - the less
government meddling in private affairs the better.

I don't agree with the global warming position (I think it's happening
because of human activity) but if they accept that it is happening the
market based response would basically be the same as Rudd's "carbon
pollution reduction scheme" (emissions trading baby!)

While they wouldn't restrict nuclear energy or uranium mining, they
wouldn't promote it either. So it'd need to be commercially viable
first, and the only way that would happen is under an emissions
trading scheme.


And as a tax accountant I reckon their tax policy could put me out of
a job (that's a good thing, by the way)

 

You haven't quite worked out this voting thing yet, have you?

Moike

 

You quote that like it's a bad thing !

Hmmm you seem a little confused sir, socialist and capitalist are
technically mutually exclusive methinks.

NB there's actually a difference between social libertarianism and
economic libertarianism - one is about freedom to be, the other is
capitalism "red in tooth and claw", Ayn Rand's world writ large (and ugly).

The above are economic libertarian stances. Social libertarianism would
be "ride a bike if you want, don't wear a helmet if you want, take drugs
if you want; just as long as you don't harm anyone else, go for your life"

JL
Social libertarian. But also an Economics grad and hence complete
sceptic about both socialism and capitalism - neither work well, they're
just better than the alternatives The best system is a little from
column a and a little from column b

 

Possibly technically mutually exclusive (perhaps) but practised every
day here.

N

 

Voting is Rockit science.

Theo

 

rockit wrote...

It shouldn't. Not if you filled out the ballot properly.

 

Nigel Allen wrote...

Most of the above has already happened or is happening at state level. And AP
and Medibank have always in the the privatisators' sights.

It's just a matter of time. Give this current government time and a couple of
decent budget deficits if it proves to be anything more than a single term
government, and watch the firesales.

Nothing wrong with that. As long as a regulatory/statutory body is set up to
oversee and regulate the industry it won't be a problem.

 

For possibly the first (and probably the last), Bob Brown
has a point. Queensland isn't very much of a democracy by
legal or electoral standards in my view. It's more of an
example of what not to do, if anything.


GB, perfectly nice place 'n' all, don't get me wrong, they
just don't have a system of government that's worth a damn.