The trucking lobby

Written By: - Date published: 11:58 am, July 23rd, 2012 - 115 comments
Categories: humour, transport - Tags:

115 comments on “The trucking lobby”

  1. marsman 1

    Steven Joyce TAKE NOTE!!!

  2. jack 2

    Joyce is too arrogant to consider this. Bit hypocritical of Key when he signed on to an ETS scheme and puts billions into roads. But then again, he wants to sell our precious assets to buy more assets to bring in less income… Key is becoming more of a dick head each day.

  3. mike 3

    Here in little New Zealand we know them well. They grew up in ugly houses, went to ugly schools, have ugly accents and equally ugly ideas. They left school at fifteen to drive trucks and to prove you can be ignorant and a millionaire. Through cunning, bullying and general ugliness they rose up through the trucking business to own their own. Now they run our country. And Steven Joyce is their bum boy. What a hoot!

    • Kotahi Tāne Huna 3.1

      That seems a little prejudical to me.

      If “the left” in general described my occupation in those terms I’d probably vote for Steven Joyce too. Yuck! Now I need a shower.

  4. Mighty Kites 4

    The ignorance shown in the few comments on this thread highlight the lack of understanding of trucking’s role in NZ. And as for Mike, my Dad runs a small trucking business but is certainly not a millionaire, so hows about you get your head out of your ass and start living in the real world

    • Te Reo Putake 4.1

      Actually Kites, your dad may well be a millionaire, on paper at least. If his small trucking business has an office, a yard and a few trucks, that’s probably nudging a mil’s worth of assets. Ok, it’s probably more the banks asset, rather than your old fella’s but you get my drift.

    • Colonial Viper 4.2

      Please explain – what exactly is trucking’s role in NZ? And what will happen to trucking when trains once again become the favoured mode of long distance transport?

  5. trucker 5

    No fuel duty applies in New Zealand.

    “Transporting goods by road is a terrible idea”……and the alternative is?

    • Kotahi Tāne Huna 5.1

      To transport them mostly by rail.

    • felix 5.2

      No fuel duty?

      Sweet, that’s going to save me heaps.

    • felix 5.3

      Comment no. 5, there it is.

      Road freight is subsidised to the tune of almost half. From memory, the industry pays for 55% of the cost of doing business on the roads – the rest is subsidised by all of us.

      Rail on the other hand pays 90% of it’s own way. So which is “not contestable”?

  6. trucker 6

    @ viper

    what is the role of trucking in NZ?

    Think of it another way. What would happen to NZ if all the trucks stopped? Tomorrow.

    NZ would stop within days.

    Things like food, office supplies, toilet paper, petrol, parts, tyres, ets etc are delivered by truck. Every day seven days a week so consumers can consume.

    Look at the stuff around you, and it all got carried at some stage of its life, and often many times, by truck

    Like it or not Trucks carry out essential services in NZ and no amount of dogma can replace the task they do.

    • Kotahi Tāne Huna 6.1

      And truck drivers are at risk from predatory employment practices just like any other workers.
      Natural constituency much?

    • Colonial Viper 6.2

      Think of it another way. What would happen to NZ if all the trucks stopped? Tomorrow.

      NZ would stop within days.

      If 10% of all trucks stopped tomorrow that would be fine.
      If another 10% of the remaining trucks stopped a year from now, that would be fine.
      If another 10% of the remaining trucks stopped a year after that, that would be fine.

      Seems fine to me. Rail and short distance courier services would pick up the slack easy.

    • Draco T Bastard 6.3

      Like it or not Trucks carry out essential services in NZ and no amount of dogma can replace the task they do.

      But that doesn’t mean that they should and the fact that trucks are less efficient than trains or ships isn’t dogma. As they are the least efficient form of transport they should be off the road except where they’re the only viable option.

  7. trucker 7

    @ kotahi

    please tell me which railway line goes to your local supermarket

    • felix 7.1

      You’re so right. Rail doesn’t go to the supermarket therefore there’s no point using rail at all.

      You’re pretty smart. This is going to be enlightening.

    • Kotahi Tāne Huna 7.2

      Trains deliver goods to stations, trucks deliver them locally, alleviating the need for long-distance deliveries?

    • Rob 7.3

      haha , good call. Felix proabably thinks it will solved by the auckland rail loop.

      • Colonial Viper 7.3.1

        Or be prepared to walk 10 minutes each way. Would do a lot of people a world of good.

  8. trucker 8

    @ felix

    no duty on diesel.

    There is on petrol, but petrol is not used by trucks

    • felix 8.1

      Good thing there’s no other mechanism to balance that out, eh?

      Hey trucker, if you’re just going to write single sentences about tiny fragments of information as if none of it were connected and nothing impacts on anything else, then this is going to take a really long time.

      Now I’m sick in bed so that doesn’t bother me too much, but it’s going to get very fucking dull for anyone else reading the thread, so please try to string a few of your brilliant thoughts together into a coherent narrative rather than spitting out irrelevant semifactoids which require endless unpacking.

      Ok?

      And while you’re at it, use the reply button under the comment you want to reply to.

    • Te Reo Putake 8.2

      No duty on diesel? That rather blithely ignores road user charges doesn’t it? But then, I’m not sure what point you were trying to make anyway.

    • McFlock 8.3

      True dat.
               
      diesel vehicles are taxed according to odometer readings. Although the substitution of one for the other in DM’s most enjoyable rant makes little difference. 
       

  9. tracey 9

    Trucks have their place but that place is not everywhere… Including the fast lane on a motorway or the passing lane on the open road.

  10. trucker 10

    @ felix

    I’m not sick in bed, I’m sick at work.

    I’ll answer how I choose , but thanks for the advice..

    None of the comments warranted more than a sentence in my opinion.

    • Kotahi Tāne Huna 10.1

      Sorry to hear you’re working sick.

      Now, about those long-distance routes – you think rail can play a part in reducing the need for them or what?

    • McFlock 10.2

      That’d be a twofer, then: screwing up the scan of the thread here and infecting your colleagues there.

  11. prism 11

    Hey felix Good health! I’ve got a doozy cold at present – it’s going round. And it might be a good idea to question yon trucker if he is actually trying to drive and text? I hope not, but it seems that truckers are great and can do everything.

  12. trucker 12

    @ te reo

    Road user charges are not duty.

    That is why duty is called duty, and road user charges are called road user charges

    @ tracey

    No ones place is everywhere.

    I agree re fast lane. But as we don’t have the same rules as the UK, then we don’t have a fast lane. The outside lane is free for any person to drive in at the speed they choose, irresepctive of vehicle type, trucks included.

    Trucks need to pass as well don’t they?

  13. Colonial Viper 13

    No need to argue with trucker really. His industry is over in 15 years.

  14. trucker 14

    @ kotahi

    Rail has a place in the transport system without doubt.

    Around 10% of long haul freight is contestible by rail, maybe as high as 20%

    The rest isn’t.That leave 80-90%.

    Rail do a good job of contesting that which they can.

    It is not a truck v rail argument.

    It is reality.

    KiwiRail contests for market share exceptionally well in world terms

    • felix 14.1

      Oh neat, are we pretending we don’t know why it’s not “contestible”, trucker?

  15. trucker 15

    @ viper

    The man on the video was talking about duty.

    That is a whole lot different to what we have here.

    RUC is a totally different thing.

    “His industry is over in 15 years.”

    I’ll wait patiently for 2027 to see if we are over.

    In the meantime I’ll get on moving goods so people can eat.

    • felix 16.1

      Oh sorry trucker, I thought your rule was that if two taxes have slightly different titles and mechanisms we all pretend they’re completely unrelated.

      I take it from your links that you’re now acknowledging the obvious: that all the aforementioned levies, excise duties, and charges are just ways for the state to charge road users for, er, using roads.

      See what I mean about taking the long stupid way to get to a point, trucker?

  16. trucker 17

    @ felix

    “Oh neat, are we pretending we don’t know why it’s not “contestible”, trucker?”

    I know why it’s not contestible.

    It will be when the train pulls up at the local dairy to deliver a carton of icecream.

    Until then it’s not contestible.

    Reality decides, not theory.

    • Colonial Viper 17.1

      The reality is that long haul logistics is going back to trains and coastal ships. Trucks and other methods can continue to do the last mile.

    • felix 17.2

      Trucker why are you pretending we didn’t already have this convo? Rail is most efficient from city to city, trucks to distribute thereafter.

  17. felix 18

    I wonder how much longer and how many more pointless distractions it’ll take before Trucker gets around to addressing the issue that the thread is actually about.

    Anything to avoid it so far.

  18. trucker 19

    I did, back in post 5.

    The rest of the video is about conditions which don’t apply in NZ, presented by someone who holds a quaint notion that victorian times still apply.

    That idea, along with the empire, has gone.

    • felix 19.1

      Actually the topic is subsidisation, genius.

      Your industry is profitable only because the rest of us subsidise the cost of the infrastructure it requires.

    • Te Reo Putake 19.2

      No, you didn’t address the video at all, except for spotting that road user taxes in the UK aren’t called the same thing in NZ. Well done for that. Now, would you like to have a crack at the substance of what David Mitchell is saying?
       
      ps. see that button with ‘reply’ on it? Try using that, it helps the conversation flow. Cheers.

  19. trucker 20

    @ te reo.,

    you may have time to look through lots of posts looking for bits added to each one. I work, I don’t.

    Much easier to look at the bottom.

    The subsidisation theory has been discredited and has been discussed on here many times. If you don’t want to accept it, nothing I say will make you.

    You can believe as you choose.

    I just deliver the food you eat.

    • Te Reo Putake 20.1

      Ok, up to you, but it marks you as a bit of a numpty if you have to scroll past the reply button to reply at the foot of the page. Not to mention it shows a lack of respect for other readers, but then if your preference is to ”look at the bottom”, I guess it should be no surprise your comments are a bunch of arse.

    • felix 20.2

      “I just deliver the food you eat.”

      You happen to, due to the way the subsidies are currently structured. More accurate to say we all pay your wages for delivering whatever you’re delivering.

      You seem a bit blinkered though, as if what you do is intrinsically more valuable than what anyone else does and none of us could possibly get by without you. That’s the nature of specialisation, nothing to do with the awesomeness of driving a truck.

      Apply the same logic to some other useful jobs and let me know how special you feel.

    • tracey 20.3

      you work, but not as a truck driver today?

    • Draco T Bastard 20.4

      You can believe as you choose.

      It’s not a question of belief but a question of fact. You haven’t managed a single fact yet.

    • You’ve talked about this discrediting thing before – are you still relying on the report prepared by Ports of Aucklands hero, Tony Gibson, as your proof? Or have you dug up something better? If so, let’s see it.

  20. King Kong 21

    Nice to know that if you are a group in society that works hard and provides a service but doesn’t vote universally for the left, it is open season for hate speech and attacks on your livelihood.

    Cuddle a dole bludger but let a truckie starve.

    It shouldn’t any longer but it always suprises me how fucking dumb you guys are.

    • Kotahi Tāne Huna 21.1

      Have to concur with the sentiment if not the way it’s expressed.

      Vilifying truckies is easy.

      Those Container Drivers.

      • felix 21.1.1

        Who’s vilifying? I see one comment near the top from someone I’ve never seen before.

        Any others?

    • tracey 21.2

      did you note the irony in your post once you hit submit?

    • Rob 21.3

      Yep ,exactly King Kong , this is how this shit reads.

      • felix 21.3.1

        Yep, criticising the way an industry is subsidised is an attack on someone’s livelyhood.

        So that’s that. No more discussion of any govt policy or settings that have any effect on anything in the economy, eh Rob?

  21. tracey 22

    Is the truck industry like farmers, somehow immune from criticism while their industry has the ears and minds of politicians through strong lobbying? People here are suggesting their is a better way forward than building more roads. Some are more colourful in their expression than others. Repeating the line who will deliver your food and pretending the argument is no trucks at all is churlish. No industry should be immune from criticism or examibation. As for victorian references, roads and trucks are so edwardian. As for the empire and victorian times being past, our pm is positively royalist and hankering for his knighthood…

    • Rob 22.1

      Yeah whatever Tracey, I am just watching our delivery trucks leave our manufacturing plant now for overnight delivery.

      • felix 22.1.1

        Well I guess that’s that then. Trucks exist, no further discussion required.

        • Kotahi Tāne Huna 22.1.1.1

          No. Truck drivers are workers like any others, and their work conditions have probably been affected just as much by Rogernomics as any others. There are issues worthy of genuine discussion and analysis here – it may be that the roading budget is a subsidy, for example, but would it not also help keep food prices down?

          I dunno, the thread has an element of left wing dog whistle? Got no axe to grind for delivery workers, but…

          “Speed for their wages, those container drivers…”

          • Draco T Bastard 22.1.1.1.1

            …it may be that the roading budget is a subsidy, for example, but would it not also help keep food prices down?

            And puts the price somewhere else while using limited, non-renewable resources that don’t need to be used. Not such a great idea.

            • Kotahi Tāne Huna 22.1.1.1.1.1

              Assumptions galore there. If it isn’t a subsidy the point is moot.

              “grey port with customs bastards”

              Someone’s gotta do it.

          • fender 22.1.1.1.2

            “c*mmunists are just part part time workers….”

            “RO-RO roll on roll off…”

          • Tracey 22.1.1.1.3

            I haven’t seen this as an attack on truck drivers or their work ethic. I understood it to be a discussion about whether we could divert more long haul freight to rail and thereby get more trucks off the roads. Of course that course of action would result in truck driving job losses but that is not because people are anti the drivers. Some of those defending the status quo based the defence on us just being grateful we have food tonight because of them.

            • McFlock 22.1.1.1.3.1

              I understood it to be a discussion about whether we could divert more long haul freight to rail and thereby get more trucks off the roads. Of course that course of action would result in truck driving job losses but that is not because people are anti the drivers. 

              Isn’t that similar to the “lump of labour” fallacy that people bring up? Yes, there’d be less long-haul truckers, but there’d be more railhead:customer transport in smaller trucks. Just less damage to the roads, and fewer emissions.

              • felix

                Exactly, meaning more flexible, customised, nimble and agile transport solutions at each end.

        • Tracey 22.1.1.2

          You don’t need discussion or evidence when you have the truck lobby! I hadn’t realised quite how precious some truck drivers are. I bet they don’t have a single opinion on law and order, education or the like because they dont want to insult teachers, police, lawyers, judges, principals…

  22. tracey 23

    Post at 339 is for king kong

  23. trucker 24

    Interesting approach folks.

    I dare to question, and get insulted for my efforts.

    I’ve been called ugly, uneducated, ignorant, a bully, poorly spoken, ill thinking, a numpty, disrespectful, and probably more.

    And you know what…….I care not a jot.

    In my business we are used to dealing with all sorts of people.

    You can be sure though, that Felix will not go hungry because of the work ethic of the transport industry.

    • Colonial Viper 24.1

      Taking the higher moral ground? I lol’d

      A high reliance on heavy trucks as part of NZ’s logistics network exists today. That can be changed within 10 years. And 10 years after that, it will change anyway, whether we plan it or not.

    • felix 24.2

      What have you questioned exactly?

      Glad you’ve come around to admitting that it’s “transport” that’s important rather than just “trucking” though. That’s a 180 degree turn around on what you’ve been bleating all day.

      Now you just need to apply that to everyone else’s job and you’ll be well on your way to recognising that you live in a society.

    • prism 24.3

      trucker – What a saint. Almost as good as a house surgeon at work most of 24 hours with littlev rest trying to help very sick people. Or perhaps truckers are better than that on the hierarchy of specialness. I bet you have your own good money or borrowed invested in your business, or truck, or truck business. Of course you are concerned about your livelihood.

    • Tracey 24.4

      Actually most of the insults for questioning have come from those supporting the truck industry staying the way it is. You sir, have not been questioned, your industry has (insofar as it could be transferred to rail).

      So, if anyone questions the education system they are (which is an almost daily occurrence in this country ), they are insulting all teachers? Have you ever done this? So some people think that long haul trucking is better diverted where possible onto rail and that makes them anti you?

  24. trucker 25

    @ viper

    I wouldn’t be so arrogant as to presume I had a higher moral ground. Thanks for considering that I had morals, to be able to elevate them higher. It was time for a complement, albeit a backhanded one.

    I’ll wait patiently for your change in 10 years, or is it 20 now?

    Without a doubt there will be as many changes ahead as there were in the past.

    • Colonial Viper 25.1

      Of course you claimed to have the higher moral ground. You know we can just scroll up and read your earlier post, right? Using the mouse?

      But you try and deny it. Therefore you are dishonest too.

      I’ll wait patiently for your change in 10 years, or is it 20 now?

      Yeah its already all over, modern complex logistics just haven’t stopped twitching yet.

    • Te Reo Putake 25.2

      Still can’t find the reply button, eh? Are you sure you should be employed in an industry where navigation is a valued skill?

  25. trucker 26

    @ viper,

    I missed you calling me stupid.

    That’s what you get when you tuck bits away in the middle.

    I’ll let those who know me judge my degree of stupidity. I certainly wouldn’t presume to make such a disparaging comment about someone in the same manner.

    • Colonial Viper 26.1

      Did you say you weren’t going to take the higher moral ground? So not stupid, but dishonest.

      @ viper,

      I missed you calling me stupid.

      That’s because I didn’t, you idiot.

      • Te Reo Putake 26.1.1

        Hur hur, trucker’s also been called “… ugly, uneducated, ignorant, a bully, poorly spoken, ill thinking, a numpty, disrespectful, and probably more.”
         
        But not here though (apart from numpty, which was mine). So, I’m guessing trucker is either an asshat on other blogs as well or he got a brutally truthful text from his mum.

  26. trucker 27

    @viper

    ” @ viper,

    I missed you calling me stupid.

    That’s because I didn’t, you idiot.”

    “See what I mean about taking the long stupid way to get to a point, trucker?”

    so now I am stupid and an idiot. And an asshat.

    That’s enough fishing for the day. Thanks for the sport.

    • Colonial Viper 27.1

      You lied trucker, and you were found out. Run along now please.

      • McFlock 27.1.1

        Just to clarify:
        not content with being incapable of mastering the arcane intricacies of the “reply” link, trucker now attributes sentences to the wrong person and  hopes nobody will notice? Or has a massive comprehension fail and still thinks they’re  mentally competent? 
           
        Must be the fatigue of their job. Better check their log book. 

  27. felix 28

    lolz.

    ‘I’ve only been saying stupid things all day so you’ll call me stupid, and eventually you did, so I win’

    Possibly the worst trool ever. Fucking moron.

  28. trucker 29

    I am amazed at the bile and hate that is hurled at someone who dares to have a contrary view to the frequent posters on here.

    This post is titled “humour”.

    I would not like to hazard a guess how bad a serious post would get.

    I can now add liar, troll and moron to the list of insults dealt out by brave keyboard warriors.

    Any of those insults issued in a bar room conversation would lead to a correction process that would be rather unpleasant to the accuser I suspect.

    I have no intention of rebutting your spurious arguments, as people who matter already have. Clearly you don’t matter.

    Dealing with people who cannot deal fairly with both sides of an argument is somewhat pointless. Equally so is dealing with people who resort to insults when they lack the ability to mount and sustain a serious argument.

    Vipers are venom-filled by nature, and felix was just a pussy. I guess I shouldn’t have been suprised.

    • felix 29.1

      Brilliant.

      So to your list of excellent efforts I can now add a “would waste you in the pub” and a “could easily rebut but I don’t want to”, with a side helping of “when I insult people it’s different to when they insult me”.

      It’s like your arguments just get smarter and more credible with every keystroke. Can’t wait to see what else you’ll come up with.

    • Hey trucker, last time I recall you turning up here and trying to argue the virtue of trucking, the proof you offered was a reported by Ports of Auckland’s Tony Gibson. And it was shown to be seriously flawed
      This time you’ve offered even less. In terms of your pub analogy, you have provided all the fight of the bloke who has drunk himself into a stupor and is sprawled uselessly across the bar. It doesn’t matter how many names you are called, how coarse they are and how many time they are repeated, you are completely incapable.

    • prism 29.3

      Trucker
      Are you capable of having a reasoned discussion about anything? And not where people discuss important matters with their fists, and only those I hope.

      I have no intention of rebutting your spurious arguments, as people who matter already have. Clearly you don’t matter. (We don’t matter because we don’t belong to the trucking lobby which is bigger and more determined than we are, so we can get stu..ed. This means you can’t rebut, won’t think and rebut, do not want to face facts that would disturb your satisfactory lifestyle.)

      Dealing with people who cannot deal fairly with both sides of an argument is somewhat pointless. Equally so is dealing with people who resort to insults when they lack the ability to mount and sustain a serious argument.(People here get impatient with twits who pretend to have a thought but can’t place it in a real context).

  29. Tracey 30

    ****Irony alert***

    “Dealing with people who cannot deal fairly with both sides of an argument is somewhat pointless. Equally so is dealing with people who resort to insults when they lack the ability to mount and sustain a serious argument.”

  30. trucker 31

    @ armchair critic

    I am not aware of any report by Ports of Auckland’s Tony Gibson in relation to road transport. I presume that what you are referring to is the Surface Transport Costs study, which had nothing to do with Ports of Auckland, but has been proven inaccurate.

    @ tracey

    thank you for refreshing my knowledge of English.

    I can’t find any insults that I have made about posters here, but can find the reverse.

    • Tracey 31.1

      But then as you said before, you don’t read back over previous posts you go straight to the bottom.

      • felix 31.1.1

        ‘Course he doesn’t. Got no time to do that, he said. Too busy working, he said.

        Except when looking for something to take offence at, then he’s got all the time in the world for scrolling up and down through the myriad threads that he started and which wouldn’t be a problem if he’d just use the fucking reply button like any other human being.

        But he’s special, and all his thoughts deserve a brand new thread of their own, and silly ideas like fitting in with a society or being considerate to those he interacts with don’t apply to trucker, because, as he likes to remind us, he delivers plastic crap to the Warehouse and we’d all starve without it.

    • Kotahi Tāne Huna 31.2

      OK, now we know which study you aren’t relying on. Any chance of a link to one or more that you are?

      The NZTA study I referenced above notes that:

      Freight Management has its own specificities, but the principles of rectifying market distortions through land use policies, direct pricing and infrastructure investment and management remain the same. In general, freight management strategies recognise that heavy vehicle travel is likely to continue to grow in spite of higher fuel prices.

      Regarding those “market distortions, the report says:

      transport and land use planning have also contributed to a number of substantial market distortions that encourage vehicle use well beyond that which is economically optimal. In other words, New Zealand’s transport and land use resources have been managed and priced in ways that directly undermine economic and energy efficiency. This relates not only to negative externalities, such as air pollution, but also to direct costs that are not usually paid by road users…

      I dunno, but that sort of has the whiff of subsidy.

  31. trucker 32

    @kotahi

    largely agree with the first paragraph.

    the second needs stuff to support the statements. There is no doubt that trucks do not pay all of the roading costs. They only use 7% of the road resource and pay 55% of the costs. Cars use 93% of the resource. You could equally make an argument that trucks subsidise cars. Rail uses 100% of the rail resource and pays 80% of the costs (according to a poster above). Someone else must be paying the other 20%. That could be a subsidy.

    Arguments can be made, depending on which side of the spectrum you sit that subsidies exist in all cases. That they are not taken seriously by this government and were not by the previous Labour government puts the situation into perspective.

    It is a bit like the research that quotes x amount of people died in NZ because of pollution. If you read the stuff a bit harder it says that “deaths are influenced by” and “may have died prematurely”. All are relevant to some degree, but hardly specific. That research was based on samples atken off shore and reformatted to suit NZ conditions. They make a good discussion point, but are not definitive.

    • felix 32.1

      Cite for those numbers please.

      And ffs, do it here in this thread rather than starting a new one.

    • vto 32.2

      Gidday mr trucker,

      Have just glanced above at all the arguments and sticks and stones… Would like to ignore all of that and concentrate on this base premise that you seem to operate on …

      “what is the role of trucking in NZ?

      Think of it another way. What would happen to NZ if all the trucks stopped? Tomorrow.

      NZ would stop within days.

      Things like food, office supplies, toilet paper, petrol, parts, tyres, ets etc are delivered by truck. Every day seven days a week so consumers can consume.

      Look at the stuff around you, and it all got carried at some stage of its life, and often many times, by truck

      Like it or not Trucks carry out essential services in NZ and no amount of dogma can replace the task they do.”

      This is a complete and utter balderdash argument. It is the argument that the biggest fool in the land, ex-Fed Farmers head Don Nicolson, used to make. He used to argue “you lot should recognise our higher value because without food all you useless non-farmers would die”. Seriously. That was the level of his argument.

      So lets have a look at this base premise of yours and apply it further.

      Tell me, what would happen to NZ if;

      1. All the doctors and nurses stopped overnight? A: Lots of instantly dead people.

      2. All the wharfies stopped overnight? A: nothing for you to deliver.

      3. All the builders hadn’t built houses? A: all you truckers would shiver to death in the cold.

      4. All the school teachers hadn’t taught? A: You lot wouldn’t be able to read roadsigns, delivery notes, get a drivers licence, etc.

      5. All the mums stopped having babies? A: You wouldn’t even exist.

      You see trucker? Everyone can play that game. It is pathetic and it indicates a paucity of understanding and an inability to put up a good and coherent argument to support your cause.

      In order to gain credibility you should drop that approach. Just like Don Nicolson and his approach got thrown out from Fed Farmers, so too will anyone else with that brainless foundation approach.

      (and for humour purposes – if trucking stopped dead, I doubt too many would die, we would just go back to the days before trucks. But then I guess you would be the donkey driver and make the same claim…. sheesh…)

    • Kotahi Tāne Huna 32.3

      “the second needs stuff to support the statements.”

      So read the report – the supporting material is all there. Still waiting for yours.

      PS: vto: nice one 🙂

  32. trucker 33

    @vto

    I agree with you completely.

    Losing any of those professions or groups would be destabilising to our society. And there are lots more like them. The fabric of our society is interdependant on all sorts of interreactive components.

    It doesn’t diminsh the need for any or all of them.

    Running horses and carts is no where near as effective as current trucks. And the amount of pollution created by lots of horses is way beyond anything that we currently have.

    • Colonial Viper 33.1

      you missed vto’s point: that your line of reasoning is shit and not very special at all.

      And the amount of pollution created by lots of horses is way beyond anything that we currently have.

      I lol’d

    • fender 33.2

      Yes those carnivorous horses produce the most disgusting manure. I only like the vegetarian horses but they are so few in number now. I blame the meat eating horses for the steak and cheese pie shortage.

      Bring back the vegetarian horse I say, their manure was wonderful for the garden.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts