24 September 2007

on 24 September 2007 at 05:00

Norfolk way of handling a crisis

If you were wondering where all the police in North Norfolk were last Sunday afternoon, I can tell you. They were guarding me.

That may be slightly misleading. But I was with a group of North Walsham people, about 100-strong, gathered in a field, and there was a hefty police presence - including a dozen vehicles, which surprised me. I didn’t know they had that many. I should hasten to add that I was completely innocent on this occasion.

My wife and I had been visiting friends who have lived in North Walsham for about 100 years, relatively speaking, when we were asked by a fireman to evacuate the house. Fortunately we had just had a cup of tea.

After checking that he was really a fireman and his engine was not a cunningly constructed fake, we retired to the nearby football club and its hastily opened pavilion. Fortunately the weekend weather was unaccountably warm and sunny. Meanwhile, the police and fire service attempted to remove a man from a gas-filled house a couple of streets away.

The spectre of North Walsham losing dozens of houses to an explosion never seemed real, but then I suppose it never does, right up to when the explosion happens. In this case the police operation was successful, sanity was restored and after a couple of hours we were allowed back into the house – from where we made a quick exit to the safety of Norwich.

Two things struck me about the whole incident: the quiet good humour of the community and the relaxed attitude of the police, several of whom were known to the locals.

There were a couple of riot shields disappearing in the direction of the gas-filled house, but in our field all was calm – no barriers, no rough handling of people who got too close, no officiousness. You could actually talk to officers as if they were human beings, as indeed they seemed to be.

All in all, a very rural Norfolk way of handling of something that could have turned nasty in so many different ways.

Courtesy is the answer on the road

Pointing out the supposed shortcomings of other drivers is a hazardous undertaking, since no-one is perfect - not even me. Well, not all the time. So instead of continuing the ongoing dispute about lorries, white vans, dual carriageways, lily, rosemary and the jack of hearts, I shall pass on the wise counsel of a reader, who tells me: “When I learnt to drive, I was always being told to be courteous towards other drivers.

“In fact there used to be something in the Highway Code about driving with courtesy. It really doesn't take up much of your time - just a bit of thought.” She asks us to imagine what the roads would be like if everyone drove with courtesy:

• There would be no tailgating
• Parents wouldn't park close to school entrances
• Everyone would indicate
• No-one (not even disabled drivers) would park on double yellow lines
• No-one would park in disabled spaces when not entitled to
• No-one would hog the middle lane
• Slow drivers (tractors, HGVs, cars towing caravans or horse boxes) would pull over on country roads to allow the “tail” to get past
• “Thou shalt not pass” would be a thing of the past
• Everyone would acknowledge every act of consideration
• Everyone would keep to their own side of the road, particularly on bends.

She concludes: “We'd all get there just as quickly, and probably in a better temper!” I’m still trying, but I’m not quite sure I can imagine it yet.

Dog walker with a difference

There was no tremendous response to my suggestion last time that it might be possible for people to go for a walk without dogs, but one gentleman from the east of the county came up with something quite unexpected.

His name is Bob, and he tells me that he once worked for a coal delivery firm whose boss was a dog lover.

“He raced greyhounds,” said Bob. “I don't think he ever beat one, as I am sure we would have heard. But being an entrepreneurial type of a person, he got his chief engineer to construct a dog-exercising machine.

“This was done very secretively and in scientifically cleaned laboratory conditions. When the day came to try out this machine, a large crowd was assembled, slightly in awe and ever so bemused by the sight of what was being brought out into the open.

“The dog was led out and placed on the machine with all due pomp and circumcision. The machine was switched on, there was a shower of sparks from the motor - the belt going backwards with said dog attached.

“The dog flew off in a northerly direction and headed towards Hickling.”

This sounds to me an admirable device. It is a pity no-one had the foresight to put it into full-scale production.

Slow progress into the new millennium

It has recently become clear why anti-car campaign group Transport 2000 was always in favour of slow driving. It is in fact a very slow-moving organisation. Noticing that its name was going to become pretty embarrassing in the new millennium, it decided eight years ago to change it. But no-one could agree on what the new name should be. So nothing happened, and things went quiet.

Eventually, however, they did agree to set up a sub-group, which also turned out to be slow-moving. It took 18 months to agree that the group should now be called Campaign for Better Transport.

Not surprising, I suppose, when you have to cope with all those speed cameras and road humps. One point in their favour, though: they didn’t call in a consultant. Unless of course they did, but he hasn’t arrived yet.

Road safety policy in the wrong box

The justification for speed cameras has been called into question after the Government at last admitted that its casualty calculations had been flawed, resulting in wrong conclusions being drawn about cameras’ effectiveness – or lack of it.

The Met’s former head of traffic confessed: “We have put our entire road safety programme into a box marked speed cameras.” And one road safety expert said it meant the so-called speeding problem did not exist.

Maybe now we can tackle what really causes road accidents – and get a few speed limits back up to realistic and safer levels.

10 September 2007

on 10 September 2007 at 05:00

Lorry responses at different speeds

Four weeks ago I made a small complaint about the way many heavy lorries behaved on dual carriageways.

I observed that they signalled and pulled out without any regard to what was coming up behind and then took an eternity to pass the HGV in front, thus dangerously disrupting traffic.

As I might have anticipated, I received quite a response from readers. Amusingly, the quickest of them shot in at speed from car-driving supporters of my views, while the complaints from the heavy lorry drivers took a bit longer to reach me – presumably hampered by speed limiters of some kind.

More than one person, in fact, pointed out in defence of HGV drivers that their engines were speed-limited, which prevented them overtaking more quickly. Fair enough. But surely they are aware of this, which means they know very well that it will take ages to overtake - so they must be being deliberately obstructive.

There is still a way round it: the lorry being overtaken could easily slow down slightly to allow the overtaker to get past. Instead, the intention invariably seems to be to make it as hard as possible – in some cases forcing the frustrated overtaker, after three or four miles of blockading the outside lane, to drop back.

But no-one likes being overtaken, do they? One lorry enthusiast seemed to feel that it was OK to block cars because they were exceeding the speed limit. But the self- appointed speed-limit-enforcer is to my mind one of the most dangerous characters on the road, whatever he or she drives. “They shall not pass” is a killer attitude. Literally.

I had a great deal of sympathy, though, with one lorry driver who wrote to me, no doubt representative of very many others. He pointed out the commercial pressure that lorry drivers were under - ”nearly all subject to time-sensitive deliveries…they receive abuse and wait for hours to get unloaded, hence they have to go like hell to play catch-up”. He blames “rich developers and greedy investors”, with a resultant emphasis on quantity instead of quality. I would not want to argue with that. The menace to road safety does not even have to be on the road.

Nor would I want to restrict my criticism of inconsiderate driving to lorry drivers. Drivers of cars and vans (especially white ones) have been quick to follow suit. On journeys to and from Scotland in the past month I saw countless drivers of all vehicles who seem to think that as long as they indicate, they can pull out, and it is up to the driver behind to make room.

This is kamikaze driving. How about a national campaign to expose it?

Mystery animals slow down traffic

Still on the lookout for strange road signs, I was much taken by one I came across on two different motorways recently. It flashed from one of those huge LCD displays that give warning of temporary hazards: “Animals on the road.”

It certainly made people slow down – largely, I think, because of the uncertainty as to the nature of the animals. What were we being faced with? Escaped hippopotami? Horses? A couple of coypu and a stray squirrel?

In the end, of course, no animal was visible. I could picture the sign-operator gurgling with delight and trying to think of something even more bizarre to slow down traffic. “Birds crossing sky”, for instance.

I am happy to report that my favourite Scottish road sign is still there: “No double white lines in centre of road.” But it has been superseded in pointlessness by one on the M6 toll: “This sign not in use.” Almost as good as the legendary “Do not throw stones at this sign”.

BBC steps back from climate bandwagon

I was delighted to see that the BBC has decided not to jump full-square on the global warming bandwagon. It has dropped plans to broadcast Planet Relief, described as a TV special on climate change, following comments by senior editorial staff that it was not the BBC’s job to save the planet or to lead opinion on the subject.

This is a refreshing stance at a time when so many parts of the media have abandoned all pretext of objectivity. Whatever climate change enthusiasts may say, there is still a great deal of work to do on establishing how our climate is changed, and even more on predicting its future. Those who prepared for a really, really hot summer this year will know what I mean.

The sole function of conclusions in this area is apparently to be leapt to, but awkward data keep cropping up. The only UK September heatwaves (over 90F) in the twentieth century occurred in 1906, 1911, 1919, 1926, 1929 and 1949, and there have been none this century, according to expert Philip Eden. Wait for it…

It's OK to walk without a dog

Having incurred the wrath of lorry drivers, I’ve decided to go the whole hog and annoy a completely new group of people by backing the move to ban dog-walking in wildlife conservation areas.

Apparently dog-walking causes a dramatic drop in the number of birds, even if the pets are kept on a lead.

As a big bird enthusiast (I know what you’re thinking) I would like to see all dog- walking banned everywhere, but this is not a popular position to take. After all, dog-walkers now have those delightful little transparent plastic bags in which to carry round their pets’ poo so that we don’t have to tread in it.

Aesthetically, however, this is not much of an improvement. I sometimes think I would rather it were on the ground.

But dogs have to be walked, don’t they? If so, I prefer it to be done in private. Up and down the stairs is good, or round and round the patio.

I suspect that the real reason people own dogs is to give themselves an excuse to go for a walk.

I have good news for them: it is perfectly OK to go for a walk on your own. If enough of us do it, we won’t be mistaken for flashers, cruisers or potential rapists and it will become a socially accepted practice. Then there will be no need for dogs at all.