7 July 2003
Behind the times on speed humps
One does not, perhaps, expect Mundesley to be in the forefront of traffic management.
But it is particularly unfortunate that, at a time when one London borough is getting rid of all 1000 of its speed humps because they are ineffectual, damage vehicles and cause pain and deaths through their effect on emergency vehicles, Mundesley is about to instal them.
There is, of course, the usual consultation going on, but because the humps come as part of a bigger package containing one or two sensible suggestions to improve safety, no-one will be surprised if they get the nod.
And this will be rather sad because, although it is Norfolk County Council's fault, it is Mundesley that will be seen as out-of-touch and unimaginative. And it is Mundesley people who will suffer.
I am quite fond of Mundesley: it is where my baby grandson caught his first glimpse of the sea, among other things. I go there quite often, but this will not continue if the council instals speed humps and a 20mph limit – the other reactionary suggestion. I hope local traders are aware that many others will feel the same.
I wonder if the people at County Hall who seem so keen on 20mph limits are aware how slow 20mph is. There are undoubtedly parts of Mundesley where 20mph, or even less, would be a sensible speed, mainly because it is well nigh impossible to go faster at those points without hitting a wall. But this most certainly does not include the vast majority of the town, which the council wants to include.
Most Norfolk drivers do not need encouraging to go slowly. They already do, partly because they feel the main function of a car is to allow you to conduct conversations with your passenger, complete with hand gestures and eye-to-eye contact. They also do not seem to want to go anywhere very much. It is as if someone has placed them in the driver's seat and they have not yet discovered what is going on.
Other suggestions for Mundesley include improving the footway – much more of this would be a better plan – and narrowing the road so that it is easier to cross. Next step is presumably to get rid of the road so that you don't have to cross it at all.
The council calls its new version of humps “less noisy”, which is hardly reassuring. All the problems found in the borough of Barnet still apply. Only one question remains. Who is making money out of installing these monstrosities?
Weaving a tangled safety web
It is time the health-and-safety people, so active for so long in areas where they serve no useful purpose, looked into greenhouses.
A correspondent informs me that she carelessly entered her greenhouse without filling in the correct forms last week. As a result she walked into a cobweb and got bitten on the scalp by a small, angry-looking spider.
I thought at first that this might have been a health-and-safety official working under cover. But there is a good chance that it was in fact a genuine spider, especially as my correspondent's husband then performed a similar foolhardy greenhouse-entry mission and got bitten on the arm, “which swelled up like a balloon for several days”.
Not to be put off, she herself re-entered the greenhouse, walked into a cobweb again and was bitten on the eyelid by a spider. Was it the same spider? Pictures are circulating, I believe. Sadly the eyelid swelled up “like a red golf ball, very itchy and unpleasant-looking”.
I am not sure which is worse – a red golf ball or a balloon – but clearly these spiders have to be stopped.
I had been planning to campaign against health-and-safety mania, since I felt it posed a health-and-safety threat in the form of people dying of boredom when the phrase was mentioned. But now I see there is a valid role for these officious officials. I urge them to tackle the nearest greenhouse immediately.
Sense at last on speed limits
I am delighted to see that at least one political party sees sense on speed limits. The Tories have promised to increase the limit on motorways to 80mph when elected – a sensible and long overdue move, as any motorway driver will know.
They have also said they will get rid of the many misnamed “safety” cameras, retaining only those at obvious black spots. One hopes that, unlike certain speed camera promoters, they will not be afraid to say what the criteria for such black spots are. One hopes also that when elected – and realistic policies towards drivers will not do them any harm – the Tories will tackle extremely silly limits on other roads, like the 50mph recently installed on the Norwich-Wroxham road. I suspect that this was done purely to stop people using it as an alternative to the Norwich-North Walsham road, where the limits are almost legendary in their stupidity.
Such unrealistic limits simply convince poor drivers that they are good and turn good drivers into poor ones. If road safety were really the priority that highways authorities claim, they might spend some money teaching people how to use junctions instead.
Lost in space: where's the point?
Possibly as a result of my piece protesting about intrusive apostrophes in road signs on the Riverside development in Norwich, someone has taken the trouble to remove them. The apostrophes, not the signs.
This is gratifying, I suppose, but it would have been nice if they could have afforded new signs, since the adjusted versions contain an odd-looking space in the middle of a word as a result. Clearly this is felt to be good enough for the locals, who presumably don't have punctuation as a top priority. Perhaps they can't see the point.
Feud for thought
Norfolk explorer Richard “Volcano” Meek, who has been dormant recently, has been pondering the implications of a possible price-cutting war between Kentucky Fried Chicken, Macdonalds, Little Chef and Burger King. Would this, he wonders, be a fast feud?