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

To kill or not to kill.

Had an interesting discussion with a Muslim friend today about the ethics of killing. Could it ever be morally justifiable? Abrahamic scriptures, especially the old testament, are awash with murders and killings, some sanctioned by the prophets and assorted mouthpieces for god. Some killing is even mandatory. For example all Jews are instructed in the old Testament to kill everyone belonging to the 7 Canaanite tribes for example - Deut 20:17 , or to slaughter Amaleks, especially their children - Deut 25:19 . So accepting for a moment that these draconian instructions were written in times when tribal leaders had fewer options available to them with respect to managing miscreants and maintaining some sort of law and order, I suspect that most people today would agree that killing people is a bad thing and should not be condoned except under extraordinary circumstances. My friend and I then proceeded to try to list those circumstances. We started with self-defence or perhaps protecti...
1 comment
Read more

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

Defending the BBC against Trump - an idea that might turn the tables and amuse the nation.

So President Trump wants to sue the BBC for damages related to 'harm' he believes he experienced as a result of some biased editing by the BBC around his speeches before and during the Jan 6th 2021 attack on the US Capitol. The law suit is being raised in Florida since the statute of limitation for libel in the UK is 12 months but up to 2 years in Florida. Apparently Trump wants to sue our Beeb for over $1bn. This is typical of the widely ambitious law suits he's filed many times before, but if he wins, which he rarely does, courts tend to settle for far less. It's all part of his tactics to scare the opposition into settling out of court rather than drag out very expensive 'lawfare', as it's known. Far from being able to afford $1bn if he's successful, the BBC probably can't even afford to defend itself using American lawyers, let alone the best of them. But the BBC is much loved by the British people, who own it. Attacking our precious institution,...
Post a Comment
Read more