No because the data shows that those measures provide a net public health gain

Seriously do some reading around this because what you want, mandatory helmet laws, are clearly a public health negative

Ah but that made their donors happy

Burn more petrol and we'll donate more

Will twerk for votes

Also, that headline 🙄

There, I fixed it.

And yeah I know you know that

That is the point

Rates are progressive taxation (the rich pay more)

User-pays is regressive (the poor pay more - because they HAVE to use the services)

Are you going to deny ACC to Rugby players as well or Netball or walkers who trip or drivers who aren't wearing a 3 point harness

I wear a helmet when cycling

But the data shows, at a public health level, helmet laws are bad so I want the law gone

Working as intended

Making the rich charter school owners richer at taxpayers expense

BTW this is exactly what happened last time

LoL at that rate they will be able to provide safe water OR sewage removal but not both

Not to mention they lobbied for the displacement of multiple small businesses that were supplying high quality lunches prior

The meal provider, Compass Group, came and gathered up the "evidence" ... er sorry ... I mean "meals"

That would solve the second harbour crossing problem

Are suggesting the North Shore is an acceptable loss?

That's the idea

You could also use a barrier layer, that black or silver layer that goes into building foundations but if you're trying for low impact then just putting the wood on blocks is ok and will last 5-10 years especially if you can give it a coat of paint