Near miss.

A beautiful day today. Must be about 22c, not a cloud in the sky and a cool, light breeze blowing. The ride to work was joyful.
However, just past the hume hwy in Yagoona (I think) I rode through an intersection. The light turned orange as I did. Some dumb-arse in a silver Commodore stationwagon didn't see me coming (the metallic blue bike with its headlight on and the guy with the fluoro yellow jacket riding it must blend into the scenery) and turned right. Turned right right in front of me. I was doing about 70-80klm/h and I pulled up less than a foot away from his rear passenger door.
During this, he didn't speed up to get out of the way, he didn't slow down. After the event, he didn't stop. I genuinely don't think he knew the event happened at all.

Wow! Sex on a stick.

The new Triumph Daytona 675

I;ve not been a rider for very long. It will be a year in November. However, because I've a NSW license and over 30, i've been able to get whatever I damned well want for about 9 months.

At present, i'm riding the rather wonderful little Suzuki GS500. A Melbourne mate has a Daytona 600, and for a supersports, its pretty damned liveable from day-to-day. The riding position isn't severe as, say, a Honda CBR600.

One thing i've noticed is that I'm not so keen on 4 cylinder bikes. They are too smooth, too sewing machine. Twins are great, but they don't produce the power like a 4. A triple.... a perfect compromise?

Lets look at the Daytona 675. Its all new. Its quite narrow, being 11cms narrower than the Daytona 600/650. Its small even by Honda & Kawasaki supersports standards.

125ps @ 12,500
72Nm @ 11,750

Good numbers. The other good number is better when its small: weight. Dry, Triumph claim 165kgs. A fair bit lighter than its predecessor.
Suzuki's GSX-600R holds 120ps
Kawasaki Ninja 600 ZX-6R (i'm not including the ZX-6RR cos that doesn't comply with supersports sizes being a 636cc 4 cylinder)
123ps @ 14,000
67Nm @ 14,000

Basically, the new Daytona is right up there in terms of outright power and torque. What you'd naturally expect, and what some of the early reports back up is that torque thoughtout the powerband is a revelation for supersports class bikes.

Looks are always going to be subjective. I reckon the new Daytona looks the business front-on, loosing some of the wonderful shapes and lines on the tank from the last model. Frankly, I liked most of the previous Daytona look except for the whole smiling bumble-bee thang it had up front.
Many claim the new Daytona looks a lot like the Kawasaki, and i agree to a point. There are only so many bits of plastic to play with on a bike to set it out from the crowd. It would be rather difficult NOT to have some styling queues from of the 4 Jap manufacturers.

Ok, figures... looks. What about the ride?


Early rides in MotorCycle USA and Aussie Motorcycle News(not online) suggest that it's pretty damned good by any measure. So far, so good. Sadly, I'll have to wait til proper testing is done on the bike itself, and back-to-back with the competition.

Basically, if Triumph can manage the ease-of-use that the previous Daytona 600/650 had with the mumbo and handling to keep up with the Jap 4, then i'm down for one.
The worst this is having to wait til March '06.

To the Sydney Morning Herald, 22/9/05

letters@smh.com.au

Subject: Attract young to Trades with reduced wages
Dear Editor,

Situation:A trade skills shortage
Goal: Attract more people to the trades.

Howard solution: Reduce wages in trades.

In the alternate universe Howard lives in, this makes perfect sense.
In the real world, apprentice wages are pretty close to the bone already. The first few years are that of financial hardships and long hours both at work and at TAFE. It takes a committed and mature individual to look past this period. The tempation for a young adult to take a higher paying McJob that doesn't require hours at TAFE must be extremely strong. The trades already have a high dropout rate as it is, reducing their incomes isn't going to help.

In Howard's alternate universe where the market solves every policy ineptitude, consumer prices for trade services will be lower and Australia will be more competitive on the global market.
In the real world, less supply of a necessary service pushes the price up. If a trade isn't attractive to enter, who will do the electrics? Who will repair the car? Who will engineer our next product to export overseas?


Irrespective of these logical arguements, do we want an Australia that encourages such a gap in wealth? Do we really want to pay that little bit less for a service knowing the individual providing that service cannot afford to buy a home or give their children a decent education? I don't.

(My sig removed)

State-Sponsored Terrorism, yet again

From news.com.au:

"Four tanks invaded the area. A tank cannon struck a room where a policeman was praying," said policeman Abbas Hassan, standing next to mangled cars outside the police station and jail that he said were crushed by British military vehicles.

"This is terrorism. All we had was rifles."

'nuff said.

More details on 'State-Sponsored Terrorism'

CNN says:

The official said two unknown gunmen in full Arabic dress began firing on civilians in central Basra, wounding several, including a traffic police officer. There were no fatalities, the official said.

So... it wasn't just opening fire on police. It was opening fire on civilians.

Yet, ironically, British Defense Ministry Secretary John Reid says:

He said British forces "remain committed to helping the Iraqi government for as long as they judge that a coalition presence is necessary to provide security.

Reid appears to imply that British forces will help the Iraqi govt against... British forces.

State-sponsored Terrorism

British soldiers being arrested by Iraqi police have been freed in a ram-raid by British forces.
Here is a link to Yahoo News

So.. let me get this straight:

Iraqi Police, the representatives of the law in the now freedom-enjoying sovereign state of Iraq approached 2 suspects who then open fire on the police.

The suspects opened fire on police (and based on some other reports, civilians) who, once detained, admitted to being British soldiers, despite their civilian, arab dress.

The suspects refused to offer information about their mission and were detailed in an Iraqi jail.

Whilst, one presumes, 'enquiries' were being made, up to 6 tanks basically ram-raided the jail freeing the suspects. During this raid, riots occurred between the local civilian population and the British force. Apparently dozens of Iraqi prisoners escaped during the raid and susequent confusion.

Let us remove the fact that 'British soldiers' were involved:

• We have a couple of possible terrorist suspects who have initiated violence against police. Depending on sources, they may have been caught in the act of actually firing into a civilian population.
• These terrorist suspects were clearly not being open about who they were.
• These terrorist suspects refused to offer information about their mission, and which organisation initiated it, which may have been mitigating.
• They have been detained, from what i can gather, legally.
• Armed militant supporters have actually attacked the prison, destroying property and freeing the detainees.
• Armed militant supporters have rioted with local civilians, creating a massive disturbance.
• Armed militant supporters have (inadvertantly) freed dozens of potentially dangerous criminals.

In any state, under just about any laws excluding those of the jungle, this is nothing but a terrorist act. It is nothing but a militant act against the state.

The only difference between Hamas, the IRA, Basque militants, Tamil Tigers or any other organisation which does commit terrorist acts against the rule of law is this is state-sponsored by the British Govt and British army.

So... are we any better?

BC

I've been reading a number of posts on one of my favourite American blogs, DailyKos here and here and they are discussing a great deal about Bush's falling poll numbers.

My understanding of the American political system is at best vague. However, I do understand that there is a 2 term limit on a presidency. Bush is in his 2nd term, and irrespective of how good or bad he is, he can't run for a 3rd term (I bet Costello wishes Australia had such a system right now...).

From now on in, Bush shouldn't really need to give a damn about polls at all. Who cares? If he leaves office with a 30% approval rate, will it affect his ability to continue to be President? No. It won't. Whether he leaves with an approval rating of 99% or 10% won't make one whiff of difference.

I dare say no-one but the most vehement Repug could say that Bush is a good president. Now, he doesn't even NEED to be a good president. He can be as inarticulate, ignorant and vacationing as he wants. In fact, the more of a clown Bush looks, the more acceptable Dick 'Fuck off' Cheney looks....

Bush now has a mandate to fuck up whatever he wants and the next govt will have to clean it up, or ignore it hoping the subsequent govt will have to clean it up.

BC

Well, i've been shunting between Melbourne and Sydney of late and seem to have missed much of the Latham spill-your-guts extravaganza.... So until I have a clue what i'm talking about, i won't comment.

To be filed in "Only in America"

These eleven congressmen, Republican conservatives all, just voted against the $51 billion package ( H. R. 3673) for the victims of Hurricane Katrina. Horrible human beings, all.

Signing off on the $80-odd billion for Iraq? No Problemo!
Look after you're own after one of the world's worst disasters? pfffft! as if.

The full article lists each of the 11 Repug congressmen

Read the Dailykos article here.

Prices for petrol in Aus have hit as high as $1.48 a litre. The average is about $1.40. Whilst it all sounds very scary, in some regards I think its time that we caught up with the rest of the world.
We have some of the cheapest petrol on the planet.
Our national fleet, on average, is one of the largest in terms of engine capacity, and one of the least economical. In fact, our fleet economy in 2003 is identical to that in 1963.
Many other countries have additional taxes and tariffs on larger capacity vehicles. We do not. In fact, it could be argued that we have a reverse scenario: Large 4wds do not attract as much tax as a family sedan.

• Germany's tax components increase with engine capacity
• UK has a tax reduction for cars under 1200cc
• Italy has a threshold at 2000cc
• Japan has the 'kei-jidosha' class of up to 660cc

There are numerous other nations with similar rules.

In the 70's, the average Holden Kingswood 3.3l 6 cylinder had a paltry 100kW (140hp) and it was considered a 'staple'. People pulled caravans and travelled the continent with them. Even the high-performance V8s of the day had less power than the current Commodore's 190kWs.
Most 2-2.5 litre-class cars such as Camrys, Sonatas, Accords, Mazda 6s all have more power than an early 1980s Commodore 6, which was similar in size.
If a car of a certain size and power is considered a 'norm' why is the modern equivalent not considered that norm?
The 'norm' appears to more revolve around the number of cylinders, than its size.

While the 'family six' is still considered a staple driving diet, it has in fact increased in dimensions and power significantly.

So whats happening here? Are we simply consuming cheap petrol and hang the consequences? Do we have an addiction to horsepower?

Most likely the answer is yes. Increases in the efficiency of cars has not lead to a smaller capacitied, fuel efficient 'norm', it has allowed the 'norm' to increase in size and horsepower instead.

Personally, I'd like to see a capacity-based tax applied. It would have to be introduced over a span of a decade, slowly reducing the average capacity from near 4.0litres down to 3.0litres.
Perhaps some relief for small cars under 1.5 litres instead of relief for large 4wds...

Well, this is my very first entry into, what i hope will be, a regular way to discuss what is going on in the world.
Initially, i wanted to try and keep the range of topics down, but stuff it. Its my blog and i'll say what i want to.

A bit about me: I'm (seemingly) a freelance IT consultant. I'm bouncing between Sydney at Melbourne, Australia and i have a wonderful girlfriend, laptop and a motorbike. I also have a 31 year old sports car, but I think i've actually passed that phase in life.

My politics are left-leaning centrist. I've got a theory which needs a bit more evidence that right-wing conservatives (in particular the 'neocon') are unevolved, but more of that particular idea later.

Another one of my theories is that the US empire is on a cusp of either being a sole superpower in a Roman empire kinda way or in its twilight, and about to fall in a generation like the Roman empire. Again, more of this later.