Order of the Bath

A has-been Tory politician has come up with this daft idea to relieve road congestion. News must be slow today; this is why I think it is silly.

In order to work it would require a dedicated left lane on the roads leading up to the junction. Without that, no traffic would move anyway.

If such a lane does exist then a suitable filter can be put in place if it would be effective and after taking into account pedestrians and the path of cross flowing traffic. This facility already exists. If they need a “proceed with caution” indication then there is a flashing amber filter arrow available.

The example cited of the USA where it is available (except it is “Right turn on Red” of course)  is not a good one. Roads are generally wider allowing for dedicated lanes and in cities it is often overruled with “No Right turn on Red” signs which confuse visitors and add to the proliferation of street furniture. The benefit is due to the majority of light signals having a fixed cycle rather than traffic sensing. I have also noticed that it has the potential to trigger road-rage if the driver at the front doesn’t move either because they are in the wrong lane or is unaware of the facility.

Non-intuitive rights of way should be removed not added in the interests of safety. The prime example is the “Prioritaire á droit” which has all but gone in France, thank goodness.

The proposal was raised in parliament in 1997 when Glenda Jackson gave a well thought out reply to the proposal.

Of course this is only fiction but I would not be surprised if there is not a deal of truth in there. If the blog or even the web is still around by then we will see. The only definite flaw I can see is the suggestion that the Police will use email in 2013.

When I was a teenager I used to read everything and anything I could lay my hands on—I still do to some extent, time permitting. One of the books I read was about the Peter Principle which has proved very useful in the subsequent years. From memory it says something like “every manager will be promoted to their own level of incompetence.”

What this is saying is that a good employee will be promoted to a more responsible job until, at some point they can no longer do it. The net result is that you have a business that is a mixture of rising stars and incompetent old hands. It takes a perceptive person and a flexible company to recognise this situation and allow them to back off to a much more rewarding position that they can do well. I recognised this very early and backed out of all management as I soon discovered that I was useless.

A similar principle can be coined about government in general. I don’t mean about politicians; the Peter Principle works fine for them and should be applied, but about general regulating bodies. This can be worded thus

“People can be regulated to their own level of disobedience.”

I will call it “The Gotcha Principle.” You can make rules and regulations controlling the lives of people as much as you like but there comes a point, different for each person, where they will say “b####r it, I can’t be bothered any more,” and ignore them.

It is not just a New Labour thing. I thought about it today in relation to the copyright licence we have in church for the reproduction of songs for worship. It seems that we are supposed to put the licence number on every page and also check that each song is covered from an ever changing catalogue. I suspect, without accusing anyone, that somewhere along the line someone has said “what a stupid load of fuss and bother” and ignored it. That point, and in those circumstances, was their own level of disobedience.

In extreme cases it applies to things like speed cameras and parking regulations. I know that I am a generally safe driver and try to keep to the limits set and park in safe places but, like everyone, I slip occasionally. These will not be dangerous situations; as I said, I am as safe as I can be, no longer a reckless youth. But, if the authorities get to the point of monitoring our every move and stamp down on every infringement, then I am likely to ignore them, even if it may mean that I can no longer drive. Perhaps that is their intention—to clear the roads.

Rambling off the point a bit further, these are examples of over regulating the law abiding citizens because the outlaw will always ignore all the regulations. What is it to them to lose their driving licence, they didn’t have one in the first place, nor road tax nor insurance.

It takes perception and a strong mind by those in power to realise this and stop trying to regulate the lives of everyone in the pretence that they are improving society.

It would be helpful for our general education if our broadcasters were instructed to pronounce foreign place and personal names correctly. I am sure that the “São” of São Paulo is not supposed to rhyme with “cow”. My little understanding of Portuguese says that it should be somewhere between “son” and “song”.

Millions in Britain today must have had their own Groundhog Day shock when, at twenty to seven, the lady on Radio 4 read the summary of today’s papers. Those who were awake, like me, were even more awake by the time she had finished without a faltering word. They sounded very familiar; nay! identical to yesterday; even the same cartoons were described dead-pan. And indeed they were identical as John Humph apologised a few minutes later. But that raises a question—were they recorded or read from a script? I’m sure I could watch the web-cam and find out, but I don’t think I want to know. I always thought that, though they may be not ad-libed, that she at least wrote them herself. This episode will have to join the blunder clips.

Of course I was lucky that I was wide awake today having heard the great news that the Tasmanian miners were safe and up to grass. Now we could get back to teaching them how to pronounce Launceston properly, but most of the English don’t know either.