Skip to main content

Bloody nanny state

I live in a small village off the A3 in Surrey UK which is a dual carriageway that runs from London to the South coast. About 300 yards North of the slip-road from our village is a lane in the wide central reservation (what Americans call a ramp) enabling you to slow down and wait for a gap to turn right across the opposite carriageways into a side road. That side road leads to our neighbour village and local train station. The only other way to reach that village (together with a couple of local schools, 3 doctors surgeries, post office, pubs, shops etc) is by heading several miles further North past the village, then take a slip road off the A3 up to a very busy roundabout (which cars join very fast from the right, meaning you take your chances leaping onto it), over a bridge crossing the A3 to another roundabout, down to 2 traffic lights (slow ones at that) and then back to where you would have been at least 10 minutes earlier if you'd taken the shortcut.

Some total twat on the council decided that it was dangerous for cars to cross the A3, despite the fact there's a sign 200 yards before this crossing point that says 'Caution, Pedestrians Crossing'! There was a public hearing about closing this facility and 85 locals objected. None supported the closure.... but still the idiots decided it was too dangerous and that it must be closed off. We now have massive road works - forget red cones - heavy steel barriers on both carriageways "too protect the workmen", several diggers and vast amount of public money being spent on something that a) is not dangerous, but if it is for you, STOP DRIVING - ITS YOU WHO IS DANGEROUS, NOT THE ROAD, b) makes all our journeys a lot longer with additional risks thanks to several extra roundabouts and traffic lights, not to mention extra pollution, and c) is expensive and disruptive for everyone during the rebuilding of that section of the road.

They've also put speed cameras there - on both sides!.... thought... wouldn't that have been a better solution to help us cross the opposite carriageway traffic instead of preventing us from doing it?

I've got the perfect solution. Don't spend all that money. Take dangerous and incompetent drivers off the road. Save even more money by making the nanny-state-pratt who thought this one up, redundant.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Thanks for taking an interest.

Popular posts from this blog

Phillips screws - yes I'm angry about them too

Don't get me wrong. They're a brilliant invention to assist automation and prevent screwdrivers from slipping off screw heads - damaging furniture, paintwork and fingers in the process. Interestingly they weren't invented by Mr Phillips at all, but by a John P Thompson who sold Mr P the idea after failing to commercialise it. Mr P, on the otherhand, quickly succeeded where Mr T had failed. Incredible isn't it. You don't just need a good idea, you need a great salesman and, more importantly, perfect timing to make a success out of something new. Actually, it would seem, he did two clever things (apart from buying the rights). He gave the invention to GM to trial. No-brainer #1. After it was adopted by the great GM, instead of trying to become their sole supplier of Phillips screws, he sold licenses to every other screw manufacturer in the world. A little of a lot is worth a great deal more than a lot of a little + vulnerability (watch out Apple!). My gromble is abo
7 comments
Read more

Would we pay more for their stuff?

I'm confused. Brexiters argue the Germans, Italians and French will still want to sell us their cars, so continued free trade with the UK is in their best interests. But we'll have to negotiate this (with an EU unwilling to make leaving easy) by threatening to make their cars more expensive for British people to buy. We'll do this because WE need to make imports more expensive to try to restore our balance of payments. Are Brits prepared to pay more for their Audis, Fiats and Renaults in order to make British cars more appealing, or do Brexiters want to pay more in order to punish them for taxing our insurance and banking products? Either way, imports will cost more. While in the EU, we buy their cars because we like the choice and don't want our own government to tax them. Indeed it would be better for British car manufacturing if we went back to the good old days of being encouraged to buy cheaper British cars (made by foreign owned factories). Is that what Brexite
Post a Comment
Read more

Addictions. Porn, Drugs, Alcohol and Sex. Don't prevent it, make it safer.

In 1926 New York, during Prohibition, 1,200 people were poisoned by whiskey containing small quantities of wood alcohol (methanol). Around 400 died, the rest were blinded. The methanol they drank was in the moonshine they had bought illegally. In fact it had been added by law to industrial ethanol in order to make it undrinkable. Prohibition existed to protect everyone from the 'evils of the demon drink'. However, people still wanted to enjoy alcohol. So bootleggers bought cheap industrial alcohol and attempted to distill it to remove the impurities the state had added, but the process wasn't regulated. The state was inadvertently responsible for the suffering - although it was easy for them to blame the bootleggers and to justify escalating the war. This didn't stop the bootleggers. In fact it forced them to become more violent to protect their operations, and even less cautious about their production standards. Volumes of illicit alcohol, and therefore proportionat
Post a Comment
Read more