Do you know what the most pointless piece of road safety advice is? Drive to the conditions.

I get it and it’s well-meaning. But it’s pointless. A waste of breath. Because some people are incapable of doing it.

And it would seem from some of the reports in the past 24 hours about those two buses which went off the road yesterday on the Twizel-Tekapo highway after hitting black ice, that perhaps the drivers of those buses knew nothing about how you should be driving in sub-zero temperatures.

So they either didn’t know how to drive to the conditions - or just didn’t care.

This isn’t a one-off, either, by the way, and, I reckon the time has come for us to stop mucking around with this “drive to the conditions” nonsense and do one of two things.

We either follow the lead of some European countries and make winter tyres mandatory on all vehicles. Or, as soon as we know temperatures are going to be sub-zero where there’s a state highway, we close the road. We don’t wait around until the road is frozen over and it’s too late.

I see the guy in charge of the bus company involved in yesterday’s crashes is disputing any suggestion that they were going too fast. He would say that, though, wouldn’t he?

It’s not like he’s going to come out and say ‘oh yeah, those muppets I pay to drive my buses have got no idea about driving to the conditions’.

So, instead of relying on some bus company owner in Auckland, I’m going to give more credence to the eyewitness account of a chap by the name of Tony McClelland, who was on the road at the time. I bet he isn’t buying what the bus company guy is saying, either.

He was driving from Christchurch to Omarama. And he’s been in the news saying that the road conditions on that highway yesterday morning were the worst he’s ever seen.

He hit black ice himself near Tekapo Airport, nearly lost control of his van and almost ended up in a ditch. So he called the police and asked them to close the road.

Here’s a quote from what he’s saying: “You're looking at minus-5, minus-4 degrees, foggy conditions - that State Highway should have been closed. No doubt and it wasn't. There's just a big black sign up by the airfield saying 'dangerous conditions, black ice'. That's how people die."

Thankfully, no one did die. One person has serious injuries and two others have moderate injuries. And thank goodness those buses ended-up where they did - off the road and not in the middle of it.

But back to Tony McLelland. Once he’d called the cops, asking them to close the road, he thought about turning back but decided to press-on. But he stuck to 60kph. And it wasn’t long after that that he saw these two buses “flying out of the fog”. That’s what he’s saying.

And here’s how he describes what he saw. "They were not doing 60. They were not doing 80. They were doing at least 100, probably a little bit more."

And he obviously drives that road quite a bit, because he says it’s not uncommon to see drivers hoofing along at 100 kph during winter, when there’s black ice on the road.

But this sort of nutbar driving happens everywhere. Less than two weeks ago, police caught a driver doing 134 kph in icy, foggy conditions on the road to Aoraki/Mt Cook - with the whole family on board.

This was on State Highway 80. It was around minus-3.

The day after that, the police came out with a warning, saying the number of people driving at “horrendous” speeds in winter conditions is appalling.

Over a two-week period, 26 people had been caught doing speeds over 120 kph in icy conditions.

So what happened yesterday isn’t an isolated one-off. It’s happening on an all-too-regular basis and just telling people to “drive to the conditions” is worthy, but lame.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Even as a scooter rider, I think these motorcyclists who are kicking up a fuss about their ACC levies going through the roof don’t have a leg to stand on.

It’s quite possible too that the motorbike guys will think that someone who rides a 2-stroke Vespa isn’t even a real motorcyclist.

And they’re free to think that, but even though the ACC levy is going to increase by almost 80% over the next three years, you won’t find me running off to the Human Rights Commission.

I’m not joking there either, because that’s exactly what Motorcycle Advocacy Group New Zealand has done.

So here are the numbers: in three years’ time the ACC levy for anyone who registers a motorbike will be $532. At the moment, it’s $297. So, yes, a truckload more money. It’s an increase of nearly 80%.

And the motorbike people think they’re being unfairly targeted when you consider that the ACC levy for car drivers in that same three-year time period is going to go from $42 a year to $64 for drivers of petrol cars. For EV drivers, the levy will go from $42 a year to $122 a year.

So the motorbike people have lodged a complaint with the Human Rights Commission, saying it isn’t fair that they’ll be paying more than $800 a year when car drivers will only be paying a maximum of $122 a year.

They say it would be much fairer if everyone just paid a flat rate of $140, but I disagree.

In their complaint to the Human Rights Commission, they say that as a minority group of New Zealand citizens, motorcyclists are being unfairly singled-out and the increases will particularly affect people on low incomes who rely on motorbikes as an affordable form of transport.

Here’s a quote from their submission: “Although motorcyclists only account for only 0.26 percent of all ACC accident claims, they bear a disproportionately high financial burden.”

So you look at that stat, and it could be very easy to think that they have a good point. If so few ACC claims are being made by motorcyclists, why are they paying way more than other people on the road? But it’s not about the number of crashes - it’s about the severity of the injuries.

For me, it comes down to the fact that —when you’re on the road on two wheels— you are at so much more risk. And I don’t have a stat to back this up but I bet you that when a motorcyclist is involved in a crash, chances are they require a lot more medical care than someone in a car.

That’s what ACC itself says too – it says the cost to the country of motorcycle accidents is extremely expensive.

This is because of the kinds of injuries someone can get if they’re on a motorbike and get involved in a crash.

And, unfortunately, a lot of the time those crashes aren’t caused by the motorcyclists themselves, they’re caused by muppets in cars and other vehicles.

If you’ve ever ridden a motorbike or a scooter, you’ll know how key it is to make sure that other drivers have seen you. Example: when you’re heading down the road on your motorbike and there’s a car approaching an intersection on your left.

You can never be sure they’ve seen you unless you catch their eye. I do it every time, try to make sure I catch their eye. Always have. Because, quite often, what I find is that the car driver at the intersection is actually looking beyond you.

They’re looking out for larger vehicles and they can completely miss you.

Not that us motorbike and scooter riders are completely innocent, either. I don’t know how many times I’ve given into the temptation —when traffic’s at a standstill— to undertake, and ride through the space to the left of the built-up traffic.

I don’t know how many times I’ve said to myself I’m never doing that again and I have done it again.

Nevertheless, riding a motorbike or a motor scooter is not compulsory. It is a choice. It is a choice that motorcyclists make knowing full well that riding on two-wheels is way riskier than riding on two wheels.

And, because we acknowledge that risk, we also need to accept that if we come to grief, chances are we’re going to need more support from the health system.

And, because of that, we have no reason to complain about paying higher ACC levies than other road users.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A regular weekly contributor to the show up until last year, Gerry Brownlee is finishing his first full year as Speaker of the House.

Brownlee joined John MacDonald to reflect on his year amid the continuing drama in Parliament.

He says has been a very democratic year in the chamber.

When elected to the position this time last year, Brownlee said it was his job to protect MPs rights to speak freely.

He says he feels he's done this job well, ensuring debate in the house was well facilitated.

Brownlee says he's been particularly liberal in allowing MPs to express themselves –particularly in a parliament where there is a balanced opposition and Government.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

When Finance Minister Nicola Willis said “I have delivered” yesterday —after announcing the Government’s so-called plan for the Cook Strait ferries— what she really meant was: “I’ve had a gutsful of this lot fighting over it and I’m out.”

She was throwing her arms in the air because she’s had enough of NZ First and ACT squabbling over what should happen with the ferries, and so she went to the Prime Minister and said, “I’m done”. She said to Christopher Luxon, “if Winston thinks he can do better, then let him do it”.

And, as of yesterday, he is apparently going to do it in his new role as Minister of Rail.

That’s my theory on how things have played out behind the scenes in the lead-up to yesterday, but the evidence is there.

Because it’s obvious, isn’t it, that there’s been a spat in Cabinet. Which is why they’ve managed to do absolutely nothing over the past 12 months.

They’ve been squabbling over whether they should get ferries capable of transporting trains. And they’ve been squabbling over whether the ferry service should continue to be a government-run thing or whether it should be handed over to the private sector, which is what David Seymour wants.

He thinks Bluebridge runs a pretty good operation, so why couldn't another private operator do the same?

But, either way, I reckon even died-in-the-wool National supporters can’t deny that this ferry thing has turned into a real cluster, and what happened yesterday was a circus.

And everyone sitting around that Cabinet table should be hanging their heads in shame.

The big negotiators. The big talkers. It’s come to nothing and it’s going to be the second half of next year before we have any idea what’s going to happen, and 2029 before we see any new ferries. And that’s probably being pretty optimistic.

It was Winston Peters who got the iRex project underway in the first place when he was in government with Labour between 2017 and 2020.

On Newstalk this morning he admitted that he’s even embarrassed by how it’s all played out, but he's the guy who's going to fix, apparently.

There was no information forthcoming yesterday about the trains being capable of carrying trains or not. Nothing about the cost. And Winston Peters wasn’t budging on that when he spoke on radio today, either.

"Help is on its way," is all he would say.

All this bravado a year after Nicola Willis pulled the plug on the iRex project, saying it had gone way over budget and she was going to come up with a cheaper alternative.

Remember her banging on about getting a Toyota Corolla inter-island ferry service, instead of the Ferrari service she said the iRex project had become?

Well, it was all talk. We don’t even have a Toyota Corolla. We’ve got a Hillman Hunter - and that’s being kind to the clapped out ferries that are servicing Cook Strait at the moment. It’s also being unkind to Hillman Hunters.

And we will be using the Hillman Hunters until at least 2029 because of the Government's inaction.

What a circus.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A firm answer from Christchurch's mayor on whether the Cathedral restoration levy should go into reducing a rates increase.

Households have paid $6.52 each year since 2018.

Halswell councillor Andrei Moore wants it used to help a reduce a 8.4% rates increase, while the rebuild is indefinitely paused.

Mayor Phil Mauger told John MacDonald he believes the money should stay where it is.

He says interest will accrue and be ready for when the Cathedral restoration continues.

People can submit feedback on the draft annual plan in February.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I have never had a problem with greyhound racing so you’re not going to hear me singing the Government’s praises for banning the sport.

But I am scratching my head. Because there are so many things about this move by the coalition that just don’t make sense to me.

On one hand, the Government wants more people working, but it’s happy to see about 1,000 private sector jobs go down the gurgler within two years.

It wants to grow the economy, but it’s happy to say goodbye to the $160 million the sport generates every year.

The Government wants to rescue the greyhounds, but it’s happy for livestock to be stuck in a crate and shipped overseas.

Not to mention the fact that horse racing and rodeos are fine, but dogs chasing a lure around the racetrack is a no-no.

Here’s another one: the Government wants to rescue the dogs, but is happy to spend less on school lunches.

See what I mean? It makes absolutely no sense to me. And that’s not just because I’ve never been concerned about greyhound racing.

What this is, is a left-field move by a right-leaning government which I thought Winston Peters did a pretty good job of announcing yesterday. Considering he’s like me and doesn’t seem to have much of a problem with the sport.

Here’s what he said to a select committee earlier this year: "Dogs love racing. Just like horses. Three o'clock in the morning, everybody's quiet and they're out there having a race in the paddock.

"So before we rush off, there are certain instinctive things that animals like, and one of them they will do whether you're going to organise the race or not."

So with so many unanswered questions, this is when the conspiracy theories start to emerge. Especially when you consider that the greyhound racing people themselves had just one hour’s notice before yesterday’s announcement.

So here are a couple of my theories: Winston Peters has done a deal with Cabinet to get more government money pumped into the horse racing industry, in exchange for banning dog racing.

The only potential fly in the ointment with that theory is that some people think this greyhound thing is the so-called thin edge of the wedge and horse racing will be next on the chopping block.

But as long as Winston Peters is breathing, I don’t think we’ll see that happening. And that could be a long time because Winston is the Keith Richards of New Zealand politics, isn’t he?

Another theory of mine as to why this all came so quickly and out of the blue, is that the Government wanted something to keep the greenies happy when it looks like its new ferries aren’t going to be capable of carrying trains.

That might be stretching it a bit, but see what I mean? When a government does something like this, which doesn’t really marry-up to its general way of thinking, we all start to wonder what’s really behind it.

The reaction so far has been at both ends of the spectrum, as you would expect. The greyhound racing people say they are devastated. The SPCA people say they’re ecstatic.

Edward Rennell is chief executive of Greyhound Racing New Zealand. He got the phone call 45 minutes before yesterday’s announcement.

He says the greyhound racing of today is different to the greyhound racing of yesterday.

Yes, 13 dogs died last race season from injuries, but, according to the saving animals people themselves, more racing horses die each year.

And yes, greyhounds probably do have a much more comfortable life when they’re re-homed with humans than they do when they’re racing.

But their animals for goodness sake. And I can’t help feeling that the Government has taken its eye off the ball with this decision.

Especially a government that bangs-on all the time about dealing with the cost-of-living crisis, growing the economy, getting more people into work and sorting out the education system.

It makes absolutely no sense to me.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Surely this is the final straw for Gloriavale. Or, more to the point, surely it’s the final straw for the Government.

Because it is absolutely shameful that it still exists.

This final straw, by the way, is the Court of Appeal ruling announced yesterday that the BNZ has every right to close the community’s bank accounts. For the simple reason that it doesn’t want to do business with them anymore.

And good on the Court of Appeal. More to the point, good on BNZ, which could turn out to be the outfit which does the most for those poor sods stuck there.

It will probably also force the hand of all those businesses on the West Coast that have been quite happy to turn a blind eye, as long as they get to do business with them and make a crust.

Because aside from being a place where kids are treated like slaves, where women are treated like sex slaves and lord knows what else, it is also a large business. A large financial entity which includes two trusts and 13 companies.

And there are many people who have done alright out of Gloriavale. They’ve made money servicing their property and everything else that needs doing at a place like that.

But for how much longer? The lawyer representing the people who have escaped the place and who took Gloriavale to court for ripping them off with all the crazy work hours is saying today that Gloriavale should be shut down.

He’s putting responsibility for that on the Government.

I would like nothing more than for that to happen, but I’m not sure whether the Government actually has any powers to do that.

But either way, this has to be one of this country’s greatest embarrassments. That, for years now, concerns about Gloriavale have been raised and —aside from the odd court case where creeps who have committed sex crimes have been hauled before the courts— Gloriavale’s been allowed to just keep on keeping-on.

What happened, which led to yesterday’s ruling, is BNZ told Gloriavale that it wanted to close all of its accounts – citing its human rights policy.

Gloriavale said ‘you can’t do that’, claiming that if they lost their bank accounts, their whole future would be in jeopardy. So they took the bank to the High Court and managed to get an interim injunction which forced BNZ to keep the accounts open.

The idea was that there would be a hearing down the track to decide whether BNZ would be in breach of its contract with Gloriavale if it closed the accounts.

But the BNZ wasn't going to sit around and wait for that to happen, and it went to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal considered the case and released its finding yesterday that BNZ has every right to choose who it does and doesn’t do business with.

The fact that it has a human rights policy makes it pretty clear, I reckon. Although I bet there will be some people going through BNZ’s list of other clients to see if it’s following its human rights policy to the letter and isn't just singling-out Gloriavale.

But I wouldn’t even care if the BNZ was singling-out Gloriavale because that place needs to go. And if shutting down its bank accounts is one way to force it out of existence, then bring it on.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.