Monday Moan 50

Does traffic have to be like this?

I had to go into London a couple of times last week and on both occasions decided to drive as the places I was visiting and the times of travel made driving a sensible option.  OK, we all know that travelling by road in any city is a slow process and so we build this into our planning.  But does it have to be as bad and as frustrating as it was last week?

 

London is full of bus lanes which squeeze the rest of the traffic into single lanes mostly, since the roads themselves have not changed much since they were first built.  London is also full of buses at all times of the day, seemingly irrespective of whether anybody wants to travel on them. So, you can easily have a large number of buses all trying to negotiate a narrow road, all of them carrying perhaps no more than one or two passengers.  Some scope there for efficiency savings you’d think.  The buses, of course, can’t wait for the one in front to stop and pick up or drop off their small number of passengers when they reach a stop, so they then push their way out into the already congested lane in which the rest of us have been crammed.

 

Bus lanes are also frequently blocked by cars or other vehicles parked in them – once the drivers have ascertained that there are no cameras at that point.  But the key reason why bus lanes seem to be a cause of congestion and chaos is the huge number of delivery vans that are stopped in them at all hours of the day, causing the buses to come out to get round them. 

 

No doubt all these vans are there legitimately, but why do they have to make their deliveries during the busiest times of the day?  Maybe Boris Johnson could think about requiring all deliveries to be made outside of the busy periods – say, between 22.00 and 06.00?  Lots of issues with that, of course, but someone needs to think a little bit creatively about this or the city (and others like it) will grind to a halt.

 

 

Weather forecasting – not a precise science?

With all the improvements in technology we now have an expectation that the weather forecasts will be pretty accurate, where years ago we took them all with a huge pinch of salt.  However, experience tells us that the forecasts are not always accurate, and they will most likely be inaccurate when you make the mistake of relying upon them.  So, you plan your day out on the basis that the forecasters all agree that it will be sunny and warm, 25C in the city with not a cloud in sight.  You dress and pack your bag accordingly and set out. 

 

It is only after you have gone far enough from home that it would make no sense to return that the darkening sky sets off a small alarm bell inside your head, which gets louder as the sky becomes darker and the temperature not only fails to head up towards the promised 25C but actually starts to fall below the 19C it was showing.  That alarm bell goes into overdrive and becomes deafening as the heavens open, rain falls all around you and the temperature plummets still further.  It’s no use bemoaning your lack of rainwear or anything remotely resembling warm clothing – more fool you for having believed the forecasters and trusted in both their expertise and in the British weather.  It’s summer in London – what else would you expect apart from rain, wind and cloud?  The fact that most other parts of the country are basking in sunshine and high temperatures is of little consolation.  No, the consolation is that at some stage later in the year the sun will come out, it will be warm and we will forget the misery of what has gone before.  I hope.

 

Is the public really concerned?

Much angst amongst sections of the media and some politicians about the ‘revelation’ that the security services are monitoring communications as a key part of their battle against terrorism.  Not sure why this has come up yet again and why anybody should be particularly exercised about it.

 

This time the ‘whistleblower’ is one Edward Snowden, who has decided that he knows best what is legal and what is right.  He is worried about surveillance and doesn’t want everything he says and does monitored.  Perhaps he should have kept quiet about all this and not drawn attention to himself then?

 

Douglas Alexander, Labour Shadow Foreign Secretary, appeared on the television over weekend proclaiming that the matter was a major public concern and he wanted a Government statement.  Interesting.  My straw poll amongst members of the public revealed no great concern about this – in fact no concern about it at all.  Quite the opposite in fact.  The great British public seems to expect its security services to be doing all that they can to monitor potential terrorists, and prevent them being able to put into effect any actions designed to kill and maim people in the name of whatever cause it is that espouse. Moreover, they seem to be irritated by politicians and media people who want to tell us how worried we should be about Government getting on with its job of protecting us and our way of life.

 

Something of a disconnect here, don’t you think?

 

 

Lobbying – throw enough dirt and some of it is bound to stick

This seems to be the current approach of The Sunday Times in its ‘investigation’ (or ‘deception designed to extract something potentially incriminating’) of Tim Yeo – the latest in a line of politicians they seem to have been targeting recently.  Pretend to be someone you are not, invent a wholly ficticious scenario designed to interest the victim, talk to them for hours and then publish a highly selective and most likely non-representative extract from that conversation with no idea of context. 

 

This time it’s not clear what misdemeanours are being alleged, but lots of current buzzwords are being bandied around, including ‘lobbying’, ‘cash’, ‘outside business interests’, 'influence’ etc.  Some people seem to be surprised that Yeo appears to have talked to or maybe coached his business colleague about how to approach a forthcoming appearance before a Select Committee.   

 

Amazing revelation that one, that somebody actually thought about what he might say before an important event and even took advice on it from somebody with experience.  I am astonished – not that this was done, of course, but that anybody should think this worthy or mention and, potentially, an example of wrongdoing. 

 

Wonder if anybody ever advised the reporters involved on any aspects of their work, perhaps about their approaches to their job interviews, or writing their CVs, or maybe on how to operate their secret cameras whilst spinning a series of lies over the dinner table?