Walk to School Day 2011 - success or farce?

In case it is not 100% clear, the blue 4WD is parked next to parked cars illegally, with the champagne car deciding to do the same.

This is on a Friday afternoon school run at a local primary school.

TODAY is national Walk to School Day and, as the name suggests, the idea is for parents to get their primary school aged children outside to get some fresh air, get some exercise and walk to school. Did your kids walk to school today? Or for those childless folk like me, did you encounter a flood of walkers this morning in your travels?

The Pedestrian Council of Australia (PCA) started Walk to School Day twelve years ago to help promotes the message "active kids are healthy kids" and asks parents to walk all or part of the way to school with their children to start healthy habits from a young age. Some of the functions the PCA is concerned with are the continual improvement of pedestrian safety, amenity and access, and the promotion of walking as a legitimate transport mode and an important, healthy, social activity.

In the later years of primary school I rode my bike to school and in high school I walked so the idea that there needs to be an advertised “walk to school” day seems sad to me – but also a sign of the times (we are all so time poor and reliant on our cars now). Then again my family didn’t own a car so really there was no alternative for me.  

There are of course many different circumstances preventing children from walking or riding to school regularly. However Deakin University found that less than half of all primary school children who live within 15 minutes of their school actually walk to school. They also found that 75% of those kids who are driven to school WANT to walk to school. Hmmm...

Walk to school day makes me ponder two things. One – the dire parking situation at schools. Two – why are teenagers exempt from this day?

Parking at schools

I have done the school run (drop off and pick up) a few times recently with my sister for my two nieces. While the mornings are busy, the afternoons are absolutely ridiculous. “Wow” and a head shake in disbelief, is really the only way to describe the influx of cars, parking or stopping illegally, causing a litany of various traffic hazards. No doubt some of these parents who drive their kids to school and pick them up would claim to do so for the child’s safety – then park 3 cars deep over a two laned road.

Recently an article in the Sunshine Coast Daily argued that schools need more parking as the current situation is dangerous.

The parking problems listed are no doubt apparent at most schools (especially primary schools) around Australia:

-      limited parking spaces for parents dropping off or picking up their kids

-      drivers stopping in no-parking areas

-      drivers staying too long in the drop-off zone

Naturally, debate raged amongst readers, although most comments seemed to be in favour of parents not driving their children (a feat easier said than done perhaps). However one reader argued that it is not safe to let your kids walk or ride to school because of the “amount of paedophiles” around, and quoted the Daniel Morcombe case as an example. The reader also quoted “crazy drivers” as a risk to their child’s safety (ironic perhaps, my opinion is above). One thing is for certain here – a life lived in fear is not a life lived. Statistically a child is more likely to be in a car accident, with a family member driving then have an encounter with stranger danger.

Teenagers?

As mentioned above, Walk to School ay is directed at children to encourage a healthy lifestyle and healthy habits at a young age. Still, shouldn’t it be open to all school age children including teenagers? Is it ever to late to foster healthy habits? Or are teenagers left out under the assumption that they are more likely to walk to school?

On my morning walk I have been privy to some interesting behaviour. I witness cars banked up at the bus stop for both pick up and drop off. Now I don’t know how far these cars are travelling to and from said bus stop – they may in fact be too far away for the child to walk.  However I have even witnessed one parent drive their two children up their street (which is a steep incline), drop the kids at the top, then do a U-turn and head back home. While I acknowledge the street is steep, and would be a pain to walk up every day, what lesson is this teaching these children? The street would not be 100 metres in total, so even though it is steep, it is not a mammoth walk.

What are your thoughts on Walk to School Day?



Wearing a bra but still playing with Barbie

THE adultisation* or sexualisation of children is not a new talking point in the media. Sexy ads, raunchy video clips, children’s beauty products and clothing have all copped flack in the past.  The one that always riles me up, however, is children’s padded bras. Yes, padded. Yes, I am serious!

A friend of the family, aged 12, was sporting a padded bra recently. Feeling uncomfortable asking her myself, I asked a family member if my suspicions were correct and they confirmed yes. Apparently she always wears them now. It wasn’t half obvious – I didn’t even need to look hard. No 12 year old has perfectly round and pert breasts.

I had breasts at 12, but they were more like a stack of fried eggs than breasts. Still, I was wearing bras but normally just sports bras. I remember padding my bra once with scrunchies, walking around sticking my chest out and feeling attractive and mature. I also remember my mum seeing me do so, going berserk, and confiscating the scrunchies (oh the horror!). I don’t think this was the start of my body confidence issues but, despite always being well-endowed I have never loved my body. Maybe this was the start of my issues here?

I also don’t remember bras being cool or interesting – they were seen as adult. Even training bras were something I kept private and thought were secret. Training bras now are revered amongst girls as young as 8 as being a cool fashion accessory. I know kids who can’t get through Kmart or Target without drooling over the bonds training bra and matching sets, much like me walking past a shoe store.

 Children’s bras have great rewards lingerie and underwear makers and retailers. The concept is to obtain brand awareness and loyalty young to ensure more profits from each consumer over a longer period of time.  Is this necessary? For retailers and underwear makers – yes. Are the bras necessary? Training bras....um...maybe??? But padded bras – surely not!

By allowing children to have padded bras are we starting body confidence issues early? Also, why would you provide your child with an item of clothing that draw attention away from their face? THEY ARE A CHILD! I’m not going to go down the path of writing about how padded bras (sexualisation of a minor) may encourage paedophilia besides suggesting you think about the possibility.

The potential positives about training bras and padded bras are twofold:

1.       Girls who do develop early won’t feel as awkward and isolated as they may have in the past (and may not incur as much bullying) if all girls their age are wearing bras also.

2.       Girls who develop late may not feel as upset, stressed or anxious as others will not know they are late bloomers if they are wearing training or padded bras.  

Despite the positive I still find a young girl wearing a padded bra highly disturbing and wrong.

What do you think about bras for young girls?

*not a real word but widely used when discussing this issue



Pre-mix spirits drinkers rejoice

Media coverage of the AERF report on Channel 7's The Morning Show

WAR has again been waged, but the question this time is who will really benefit?

Woolworths and Coles are slashing alcohol prices on pre-mix spirits, such as Bundaberg Rum and cola and Jim Beam and cola cans. The major supermarkets have been at war with their prices for bread, milk, eggs, chicken and even laundry detergent, using slogans along the lines of "because everyone needs milk./bread/eggs/etc." Does everyone need alcohol? What next - cigarette prices slashed?

According to media reports, the alcohol price war started a week ago, right around the time a report, commissioned by the Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation Foundation (AERF) found that more than four million Australian's drink to get drunk. About half of those surveyed said they get drunk at least once a week. Thanks to the supermarket giants, these people will now have more money to fund their efforts providing their indulgence is pre-mixed spirits.

Why would the supermarkets choose alcohol as their next price war?

AERF chief executive Michael Thorn said that over the past decade Australia's problem with alcohol had got worse.

"There's been an increase in violence, an increase in hospitalisations. There's an ongoing indigenous despair and rising community costs conservatively put at $36 billion a year," he said in Canberra, April 14.

Lowering prices on alcohol cannot possibly help the situation. Thorn said aggressive marketing of alcohol by both producers and retailers tells a sorry tale for Australians. He called for a minimum price on alcohol because there is clear evidence that price influences consumption.

Won’t anyone think of the children? The alcohol war is also likely to raise concerns regarding the fact that pre-mixed “alcopop” drinks are a source of major concern in relation to young and under age binge drinking by health campaigners.

It is easy to point the finger at who is responsible for alcohol issues in society Government? Retailers? Individuals? The real issue is that Woolworths' and Coles' actions cannot possibly help. One thing is for sure, discounting pre-mixes just in time for the Easter/Anzac Day long weekend is sure to boost profits - not that they needed the help considering the extra grocery expenditure that will take place also.

For the record, Woolworths own and operate Woolworths Liquor, BWS, Dan Murphy's and Langton bottle shops. Coles own and operate 1st Choice, Liquorland and Vintage Cellars bottle shops.  

Is discounting pre-mixed spirits a good thing or a bad thing?

Do you REALLY know the road rules?

SIX weeks ago I pitched a story to a local, community website about Queensland road rules and the apparent lack of understanding around them. I figured that with all the crazy, ignorant and arrogant drivers I see making stupid, careless mistakes there must be a story in it.

No matter who I have ever spoken to, drivers young and old, male and female, on L's, P's or Opens, all get pretty worked up and have multiple stories to tell about bad, inconsiderate and law breaking drivers.

Well The Courier Mail has just published a story on the matter after the Queensland Police Service launched a quiz to test drivers' knowledge of the road rules. For those of you playing at home I recommend you take the test – it’s only 10 questions and may be an eye-opener. You can take the test online here.

I found the comments under the story as important and interesting as the story itself. The main thing I took away from the story was that I have been indicating wrong on roundabout. Before you start throwing verbal darts at me, let me explain.

I took my driving test and obtained my license January 2010, with a perfect score. I was definitely NOT marked down for incorrect indicators. In my test I went through three roundabouts, two of which involved exiting via the second exit. I was under the impression that the rule was as follows: 
As you enter a roundabout, unless you are taking the first immediate left exit you must indicate right first. Then, just before reaching your exit, indicate left to let other drivers know you are leaving the roundabout.

I was taught this by my driving instructor and by family and friends who had lost points in their examination in previous years for NOT doing this. Furthermore, the assessor watched me do this on two of the three roundabouts and did not mark me down. This confirmed to me that it was definitely the correct roundabout procedure.

WRONG! I have been indicating incorrectly for over a year thanks to an ill-informed driving instructor, an ill-informed driving assessor and ill-informed advice of friends and family. Imagine all the drivers who thought I was a jerk!

I guess I can take solace in the fact that I’ve never wondered if it’s okay to drive barefoot (it is in Australia, but not in New Zealand). I might just do a quick re-visit of the road rules in general to be safe though.

So are you as good of a driver as you think? Take the test and load your results/comments here!

P.S. I scored 9/10

Don't diss Double Down

OKAY so it might not be the poster item for healthy living but all the hype around KFC's Double Down "burger" is a bit excessive. Yes, it's high in kilojoules. Yes it's high in fat. Yes it's nutritional worth is low to non-existent. But it's fast food - why is anyone surprised? Order a burger or sub from any other take-away chain and you risk consuming the same (or more) amount of fat and kilojoules.  

Despite all the publicity, many will be un-deterred to try the Double Down. Chicken, bacon, cheese and barbeque sauce lovers will see this as mouth-watering temptation. Those who criticise the "burger" will no doubt still wonder if it is as delicious as it is being advertised to be.

Worst case scenario all the publicity has ensured a much higher public awareness of the Double Down. KFC need not waste any money on advertising their product; the national media has already covered that.

Food for thought (excuse the pun): have you eaten a Wicked Wings Snack Box at KFC? Marketed towards teenagers as a quick and easy snack, not meal, it will cost you 2242 kilojoules (kj) and 30.4g of fat.

Eaten a McDonalds Grand Angus? Marketed as a fancy take-away alternative, this burger, with the expected burger inclusions of lettuce, tomato and onion, will add 2630kj and 33.2g fat to your daily dietary intake. The Mighty Angus is worse with 2870kj and 35.7g fat.

Fancy a Wagyu Beef and Tomato Relish sub from Subway? It’s not going to help you or your waistline. If you're a mayonnaise fan too and add 30mL to the Wagyu Beef sub (because who doesn't add mayo to their sub??) you're facing 2298kj and 28.6 g fat.

Examples could be given for Hungry Jack's/Burger King, local take-away Works Burgers and other fast food but you get the point.

The Original fillet Double Down bun-less burger is packed with 1939kj and 22.3g fat. However the Zinger version of the Double Down is 2515kj and 35.7g fat. Yes, fatalicious. Order an Ultimate Burger Meal instead and your meal will cost you up to 5083kj and 61.9g fat before you even take a sip of your drink. Makes you wonder if the Double Down (sans any sides) may be the better option in this case.

When you order fatty take-out you expect a kilojoule and fat laden meal. The real issue with nutritionally void food like those mentioned is that they offer no benefit to the eater besides the fullness felt after consumption. This fullness is often fleeting once all the sugar and fat wears off, leaving consumers to look for further fulfilment elsewhere. But like speeding and risking the consequences of a fine or worse, we run the consequences of weight gain, lack of fullness and sometimes feeling/being ill when we eat fatty fast foods like the Double Down.

So knowing all this, my friends and I are headed to KFC for lunch and yes, Double Down is on our menu. You can find us at the gym tonight working off our lunch - estimated work-out time is three hours.

Fines, friends and fraud

LARA Bingle has landed herself in strife, admitting to taking demerit points for her friends in a radio interview. She later recanted via Twitter saying the comment was said "in sarcasm" but the New South Wales Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) are investigating regardless. Worst case scenario could see Bingle face court for fraud charges and receive up to two months jail for each offence.

The RTA's investigation was reportedly started after a member of public called in and told of Bingle's confession in the interview. Yes, Lara Bingle was dobbed on. This begs the question:

 

Would the busy-body who dobbed on Bingle have made a call to the RTA if a non-celebrity/everyday Aussie happened to confess to taking their friends demerit points?

Furthermore, who doesn't know someone who has taken points for their friends or family?

Talk-back radio today will no doubt be filled with debate over whether it is right/wrong to take your friends points or if you have ever taken the blame for something you didn't do and so on. Safe bet would be no one who calls in will face the repercussions of their actions though.

Maybe the lesson here is a reminder to think before you speak, especially if you've been naughty.



What do you think? Did Lara do the wrong thing?
.

Who does size matter to?

MAKING news today is an unverified report of world penis size. Seriously.

It's debatable whether the bigger issue is the publishing of an unverified study or the fact that world penis size could possibly bear any importance to anyone.

The study breaks down their "findings" into two bar graphs: penis size per country and penis size per race.

Surprise, surprise, the findings highlight the age-old racial stereotypes that "black" is biggest and our "East Asian" cousins are the least endowed.

The study uses two methods of measurement - measured penises and self-reported penis sizes. No surprises the self-reported measurements came in at least an inch longer than the measured results for all the study respondents.

Surely you don't have to be too smart to work out what a fraud this study is. Along the top of the page states:

"This website provide (sic) statistical information offered by trusted research centers and reports worldwide."

Who are the trusted research centres? My assumption is the “trusted reports” are the list of academic references to books and articles on the site (much like is required at university when doing an essay). 

The website has no other studies and does not explain how the study was completed. Nor does it outline the purpose/scope of the study or what findings they expected to find. It does, however, outline  there were 800 subjects (not exactly a statistically significant amount for a global study) and the study was completed in New York City.


There are numerous countries missing from this "global" study (shall I assume these men merely have a stub?) which casts further doubt on the validity of the subjects actually measured.

Of what significance is this study to society?  In all likelihood the study is probably a poorly attempted school or university assignment. Whatever it is, my thoughts are it must be a slow news day for “staff writers” at news.com.au?

Do men really care how their length stacks up against the rest of the world?

Why would women care at all?