22 April 2002
Gullibility test better than code
Parish councillors are understandably upset that the Government wants to foist more paperwork on them in the form of a code of conduct.
This of course simply brings them into line, because the Government, being of a dictatorial persuasion, would like anyone and everything to be transparent – open and empty, without content and without intelligence, but with plenty of targets and preferably on a bus.
Parish councils are not yet like that, and councillors even less so, give or take the odd newt. Their powers are very limited, and it is hard to believe that a code of conduct would make much real difference – especially as most parishes have a very detailed knowledge of their councillors’ interests. Word of mouth is a wonderful thing.
However, given certain parish councillors’ compulsion to push for unrealistic speed limits and bizarre traffic mismanagement, it would be interesting to see how many of them are closet members of anti-car groups like Transport 2000. So a more limited code of conduct would be useful, possibly involving a gullibility test.
One of the more recent statements from Transport 2000 made it clear that the group is against bypasses and the widening of trunk roads.
This means, presumably, that it is in favour of residents in unbypassed towns and villages suffering from heavy goods vehicles rattling past their houses (perhaps with the additional thump and pollution of scattered road humps), and in favour of the increased danger to pedestrians inevitable in such a scenario.
Presumably it is also in favour of keeping up the road casualty rates, since wider roads and dual carriageways are intrinsically safer.
Despite emotional media coverage of anti-bypass campaigns involving hole-digging, tree-climbing and beetle-saving, bypasses are desirable in almost every respect.
Recent research on the effect of the Newbury bypass – so vigorously opposed by “environmental” groups – shows that it has been widely beneficial. Journey times, and therefore congestion, have been reduced; there is much less traffic in the town; and even wildlife is prospering.
Good roads are no threat to the environment: the sprawl of housing estates into green fields is a much bigger worry.
Go west if you must, but north is easier
Complaints about the lack of east-west internal flights from Norwich International airport are only the tip of the travel iceberg.
The truth is much more sinister: there is a conspiracy to prevent people travelling east-west at all.
Even in Norfolk this can be clearly seen. Any number of roads go south-north, but how many go east-west? The north Norfolk coast road, which is a joke, and the A47, where obvious needs for dualling have been consistently rebuffed.
You can get to north Norfolk easily enough by train, but try getting to Dereham, Swaffham or King’s Lynn. All right, you can get to Yarmouth, but where do you go from there?
This is not simply an East Anglian phenomenon: nationwide, all the best roads go north, and so do most rail lines. It is easy enough to get to Liverpool from Norwich, but Coventry is a real problem.
Further north, there is unreasoned opposition to making the A66 a viable, safe route.
Why should this be so? New research reveals that travel east-west is much harder because it is going “against the grain” and can result in headaches. East-west roads and rail tracks cost more to build because of the increased sickness among constructors, and the fact that the land “lies” north-south.
In Norfolk, anchor – the stabilising mineral that keeps towns and villages in place – is always found in a north-south configuration, and something similar may be true elsewhere.
Further research was needed, said researchers, enclosing an invoice.
Norfolk takes a shot at the impossible
Apparently Norfolk is going to be in the forefront of a project to halt global warming. While we’re at it, we might as well have a go at reconfiguring the solar system, cooling down the sun, raising the dead and walking on water.
The earth’s climate has warmed and cooled throughout history, and no amount of compliance with any protocol is going to make a difference. Even admirers of Kyoto will admit that any effect would be minimal, and that’s probably a wild exaggeration.
While residents of Cutting Edge, Norfolk, should be happy to care for the environment in reasonable ways, such as recycling and avoidance of waste, they should beware of people trying to place restrictions on their freedom for no sound reason.
Governments love global warming because it enables them to make money and to place petty restrictions on their citizens. When a company is required to rebuild a window to comply with a prediction that will probably never be fulfilled, it is vital that someone sees through it.
This road is dangerous, so let’s talk
The A140 between Norwich and Ipswich is one of the county’s most dangerous roads, but it will be all right soon, because Suffolk County Council has launched a consultation exercise.
I’m not sure exactly who will be consulted, but I am sure of one thing: it won’t be me. And I’m pretty sure it won’t be you either.
Regular users of the road will have their own views of what causes so many accidents. One factor is undoubtedly the number of difficult junctions; another is the fact that the road is not suited to the amount of traffic using it.
The council, after consulting, will decide that the problem is speed. I agree. Because of the inappropriate speed limits and the lack of overtaking opportunities, what happens is a string of vehicles travelling too slowly, their drivers gradually losing the ability to concentrate. The result: too-slow reactions to someone braking for a junction, or frustration resulting in a risky overtaking manoeuvre.
So of course Suffolk County Council will slow everyone down even more, just as they have already done when you approach the A14 and emerge from a particularly slow stretch on to a dual carriageway. This, amazingly, has a new speed limit of 50mph – and, of course, a camera. Because it is just the spot where you will catch someone.
Pointless, irritating, but worst of all dangerous. The county’s obsession with reduced speed limits has already resulted in an appalling statistic: in 2000 there were 58 deaths on Suffolk’s roads; by the end of September 2001 there were 102.
![[Photo] Swan](/articles/images/020422swan.jpg)
I suggested last time that Norfolk Wildlife Trust might have closed a short-cut alleyway next to its Norwich headquarters to protect something nesting there.
A photograph just received by this page more or less proves this to be the case. It shows Trust staff with the bird in question, which I am told is cygnus cartheftus, a type of swan I had not previously encountered. It may be related to the Pondhenge goose or the Wymondham duck.
I would certainly not want to meet it in a dark alley. The Trust is to be congratulated on protecting the public.