I have only been able to find 2 links.
The first is rather technical, and is on page 50 of the report.
http://www.ornl.gov/adm/ldrd/FY2006/LDRD_FY2006.pdf

The second is less technical
http://www.ornl.gov/info/news/pulse/pulse_v198_05.pdf

In regard to your last post, this goes well beyond being a discrimination issue. It is fundamental to our system of justice that we have the right to a fair trial before being punished. The only exception to this is where our actions are an immediate threat to others. In this situation the Police and citizens must be permitted to intervene to prevent harm. The problem with the boy-racer law is the vagueness of the phrases “sustained loss of traction” and “exhibition of speed or acceleration” and the fact that a police officer will not be required to prove that the offence actually occurred until after the punishment has occurred. Because there are also demerit points involved some drivers have defended the charges and had them dismissed. The decision of the judges was different from that of the police officer and this is not at all unusual, in fact it is probably why we have seperate police and justice structures.
The only case reported in the media that I am aware of can be found at scoop.co.nz if you search google for “boy racer legislation” you’ll find it, and the parliamentary debate with Clayton Cosgrove’s introduction/explanation of the Bill. I find it is always useful to compare what was intended with what has actually happened if we don’t want to make the same mistakes again.

If, on the other hand, you consider that the right of citizens to drive cars shall not be infringed, then we had better abolish speed limits, drink drive regulations etc. No point in having laws you’re not allowed to enforce.

But I do object to being told that I, as a motorist, am a victim of discrimination. Speak for yourself mate.

The comment about discrimination was a general reference to BigBruv’s earlier comments. It is a fact that some basic human rights of motorists are being eroded or ignored, especially the right not to be deprived of life (by roading authorities amongst others) and the right of innocent until proved guilty (roadside impoundment is punishment before trial). What is happenning to motorists is the exact opposite of what is happening to homosexuals. A sane society shouldn’t be capable of correcting historic wrongs to one group whilst imposing new wrongs on another group.

The reference to TINA and traffic reduction was a badly worded attempt to avoid sounding like I was condemning all greens as motorphobic. Traffic reduction is definitely Green transport policy. (Perhaps somebody can provide Stuey with the link). Labour’s transport policy seems to be to use the transport fund to buy the support of coalition partners and reward Labour electorates, so their commitment to traffic reduction has simply been to increase funding for public transport. I suspect they see motorists as too much of a cash cow.

Christchucrh City has been following this policy for at least 15 years. Very little success on main roads but very good results on residential streets which really feel like they are beginning to belong to residents again. The point I really was trying to make originally is that even if an idea is good or partially good we should still be looking for even better ideas even if we have to look in unpleasant places or might have to admit we were wrong or stupid. We should never let an idealogy or prejudice stop us from looking at other ideas obectively. At least thats what Ive learnt being a systems analyst.

Everyone’s entitled to their views, however strange. Why don’t you form a political party?

But calling “motorists” a “group” that are discriminated against, is a rather weird way of looking at reality. Nearly everyone is a motorist at some time. “Motorism” is a behaviour, not an identity. If you identify with other people because they drive cars like you, then you should probably get out more. Join a club perhaps.