|
We live in a lowest common denominator society, where everyone is assumed to be as thick as two planks, sorry, in need of further training.
Instead of making the incompetent strive to be better at whatever they do, we set the bar as low as possible, hence signs stating the bleeding obvious, such as try your brakes.
|
We live in a lowest common denominator society, where everyone is assumed to be as thick as two planks, sorry, in need of further training.
Instead of making the incompetent strive to be better at whatever they do, we set the bar as low as possible, hence signs stating the bleeding obvious, such as try your brakes.
When designing something like road signage you do have to design it for the lowest common denominator - makes sense to it that way as you need to make everything as clear and simple as possible. Something like a reminder to try your brakes after driving through a Ford is hardly a new thing either. Those signs have been around for years.
|
|
|
We live in a lowest common denominator society, where everyone is assumed to be as thick as two planks, sorry, in need of further training.
Instead of making the incompetent strive to be better at whatever they do, we set the bar as low as possible, hence signs stating the bleeding obvious, such as try your brakes.
Its because we have so many idiots that often its cheaper to put up a sign than to (at the taxpayer's expense) keep fixing a problem caused by the idiots not doing something that most people would do because its the sensible thing to do.
Sometimes I think (only momentarily) we should, like driving licences, have to be able to obtain a licence to procreate, to skim off all those with no common sense.
|
|
<< Sometimes I think (only momentarily) we should, like driving licences, have to be able to obtain a licence to procreate, to skim off all those with no common sense. >>
Hmm. How many drive unlicensed? And how much more enjoyable is it to procreate than to drive?
|
|
For the second time in as many days, I ask ... is it just me miising the point ... or is a pointless topic to pursue? I mean, how many of these signs are there in the country to worry about? They're not exactly on every street corner, are they?
I see them occasionally on rural roads just past the site of fords and the like. What's the problem? Isn't it just a sign advising people to check their brakes just in case (a) water might have got in to the brakes and caused a temporary impairment of performance ... and (b) the occasional person might have overlooked the precaution of checking them if they did get wet.
The authorities put all sorts of warnings and advice notices up ... why home in on this one in particular?
Or am I just getting increasingly old and grumpy?
|
The authorities put all sorts of warnings and advice notices up ... why home in on this one in particular?
Someone just wanting something to moan about I think!
|
|
|
|
Its because we have so many idiots that often its cheaper to put up a sign than to (at the taxpayer's expense) keep fixing a problem caused by the idiots not doing something that most people would do because its the sensible thing to do.
Sometimes I think (only momentarily) we should, like driving licences, have to be able to obtain a licence to procreate, to skim off all those with no common sense.
So would you get rid of all warning signs on the road? Why have them if they are not required?
|
Its because we have so many idiots that often its cheaper to put up a sign than to (at the taxpayer's expense) keep fixing a problem caused by the idiots not doing something that most people would do because its the sensible thing to do.
Sometimes I think (only momentarily) we should, like driving licences, have to be able to obtain a licence to procreate, to skim off all those with no common sense.
So would you get rid of all warning signs on the road? Why have them if they are not required?
No, I wouldn't get rid of all of the roadsigns - that would be stupid, nor was I calling for that, if you read what I wrote correctly. I do, however, think there are too many road signs thesedays, which often confuse drivers and often obscure one another, as well as making many areas look horrible.
Most of it, as has been said, is this stupid, very risk averse 'heath and safety' culture that pervades national and local government. You imagine how much it costs to design, make and install all the signage (including the engineer to say what goes where, etc) and then multiply that by the number of signs on the road today, especially on non-motorway roads.
That adds up to a substantial sum of money that could easily be saved if the powers-that-be actually made decisions using common sense and had a legal duty not to spend our money so unwisely, pretending its 'all about safety', when an increasing amount adds no value in that area, and locally to me (on another thread), some areas are CRYING OUT for money to be spent on making junctions safer, when the politicians say there's no money to spend on them, apart from, yep, you've guess it, a couple of new signs here and there.
[facepalm]
|
|
Risk adverse health and safety? Would that not mean they would pay to fix the junction rather than just put a sign up if the health and safety is so important?
You then say they pretend about health and safety...does that mean the health and safety culture actually does not exist?
|
Risk adverse health and safety? Would that not mean they would pay to fix the junction rather than just put a sign up if the health and safety is so important?
You then say they pretend about health and safety...does that mean the health and safety culture actually does not exist?
The "Helth and Safety culture" seems in many cases to be driven more by fear of being sued than actual safety improvements (example - why are safety helmets so commonly worn where there is no realistcic likelihood of them protecting the head from anything?).
The H and S executive frequently denies they have issued guidance to justify some over-the-top practice when questioned about it.
|
example - why are safety helmets so commonly worn where there is no realistcic likelihood of them protecting the head from anything?).
I think of safety helmets as being worn by builders, roofers, miners, sewer workers...seems like a sensible precaution to wear one in those industries.
If you ever look as any official H&S guidelines they are always pretty sensible, logical and dare I say it full of common sense. A lot of people criticsise them without knowing anything about them.
|
|
<< If you ever look as any official H&S guidelines they are always pretty sensible, logical and dare I say it full of common sense. A lot of people criticsise them without knowing anything about them. >>
Yes, I'm sure the guidelines are pretty commonsensical. It's often the foolish way they are interpreted and/or implemented that can be so daft, often losing sight of whatever risk the guideline may be trying to mitigate. It becomes a regulation which must be blindly followed, whether or not that makes sense.
|
|
|
example - why are safety helmets so commonly worn where there is no realistcic likelihood of them protecting the head from anything?).
I think of safety helmets as being worn by builders, roofers, miners, sewer workers...seems like a sensible precaution to wear one in those industries.
If you ever look as any official H&S guidelines they are always pretty sensible, logical and dare I say it full of common sense. A lot of people criticsise them without knowing anything about them.
I'm in a good position to judge how well health and safety works as I've worked as an engineer in the Construction Industry for 18 years, often dealing with public sector organisations that virtue signal in the name of health and safety instead of doing practical solutions to problems, often because they don't have the talent to know what is a good idea, but just as often because they and/or their political 'masters' have spent vast sums of money on many small scale, virtue - signalling works such as those previously described.
The road improvements I was talking about would likely cost over £1M, but if done right would save many lives over decades, and also huge amounts of money lost by traffic delays and the significant effects of the accidents themselves, also freeing up the Police and other emergency services to do other useful work.
|
|
|
example - why are safety helmets so commonly worn where there is no realistcic likelihood of them protecting the head from anything?).
I think of safety helmets as being worn by builders, roofers, miners, sewer workers...seems like a sensible precaution to wear one in those industries.
If you ever look as any official H&S guidelines they are always pretty sensible, logical and dare I say it full of common sense. A lot of people criticsise them without knowing anything about them.
Perfect instance reported in today's Telegraph: A headmistress in Surrey wants a 100 year old sweet chestnut tree removing because chestnuts might fall and injure children. The local council voted down a Tree Preservation Order.
God help these snowflakes if there is ever a really dangerous occurence, wrapping kids in cotton wool is a poor preparation for survival.
|
|
You think tha's bad? My local restaurant was shut down by health and safety because the chef hadn't conducted a full and proper whisk assessment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
