Where the foxes caper unmolested, the government packs your school lunch and oh, my aching head….
Britain’s first ‘Safe Text’ street has been created complete with padded lampposts to protect millions of mobile phone users from getting hurt in street accidents while walking and texting.
Around one in ten careless Brits has suffered a “walk ‘n text” street injury in the past year through collisions with lampposts, bins and other pedestrians.
[…]
Given the apparent dangers of “unprotected text”, over a quarter of Brits – 27 per cent – are in favour of creating a ‘mobile motorway’ on Britain’s pavements.
Texters could follow a brightly coloured line, which which would act like a cycle lane, steering them away from obstacles.
I checked the date of the article twice. It appears to be the real deal.
Just as long as they don’t put barricades around open manholes personholes.
Man I hate socialism. Waht about old people on walkers will they have to be padded too so the text messages will not kill them when they walk into them?
aaahhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!
And we know their infrastructure wasn’t built yesterday.
Well, there is hope:
http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/news/story.html?id=69cfd8b1-56f5-4cea-ad04-961b3094387f
Instead of padding all the lamp posts, they should sell padded streetware for texters. They would look like Fat-PC-Guy in the Mac-PC ads.
England they even allow crinimals to break into a home and steal everything not nailed down and a person cant stop the crooks i mean this would never have happened under WINSTON CHURCHILL or MARGRET THATCHER i mean TONY BLAIR and the PARLAMENT OF WUSSIES is making a mess of GREAT BRITIAN
I no longer wonder why my grandparents (dad’s side) left Britain to head for Canada.
*
Mrs. Neo, as usual… gets to the crux of the matter…
“Does this mean that people who have unpadded
streets get to sue the government for failing ‘to
take care’ of them?”
*
Good to see you back Spurwing.
neo,
Yes, and I imagine extra taxes to cover it.
Ed Minchau, hahahahahahahahaha. lol ain’t good enough.
I second that. Welcome back my Avian friend.
Your pithy comments are an asset to this site.
Modern liberalism is the victory of symbolism over substance. Lorne Gunter, National Post Mar 03/08.
One of the best articles I have read in a long time, thank you Lorne.
I’m just loving how you partisan zombies are going straight to wagging your fingers at the “idiotic bureaucrats” who came up with this “socialist government policy,” when a moment’s deeper research would reveal this to be the (ill-conceived) brainchild of a private media company and a charity organization (the giant “118” splashed on the lamp post pad would be the first clue).
Aren’t you folks all about private enterprise and entrepreneurial creativity? Because alas, that’s what this moronic padding thing is all about — high-profile corporate marketing, not socialist nanny-ism.
These people really need to understand that Monty Python was a satirical comedy …. not a social engineering concept.
The UTOTY Olympiad….
Like This !
I. Sanderson has a point there. 118.com is apparently a directory-enquiries website, and their logo is on the pad pictured. So this little exercise might not be at public expense, after all.
But I note that the padding does constitute visual pollution and unwarranted intrusion of advertising into a public space. It sure does ugly up a nice ornamental iron lamp standard.
So I’d award the town council “moron points” for even permitting this.
Besides, there’s a better way to handle this problem. Simply equip each sidewalk obstacle with radar unit, and a cellular connection. A central computer could track all cellphone users. When a perambulating texter gets too close to an obstacle, he/she would trigger the radar, and the central computer would be able to identify the texter, and send him/her a text message: “Heads-up, stupid, you are about to walk into a lamp post!” After all, if the U.K. is a surveillance society, may as well get some practical use from the system.
Kindly send me 50 cents for each lamp post so equipped.
“I’m just loving how you partisan zombies…”
And there he goes, another Lefty defaulting to invective. Its like gravity, really. Three posts and the poo flinging starts.
You couldn’t have said “Hey its a private company!” right? Nooo.
The Phantom: And there he goes, another Lefty defaulting to invective. Its like gravity, really. Three posts and the poo flinging starts.
Meanwhile, on other recent threads, you’ve:
– referred to Robert McClelland (?) as “Rubert McDickslap”
– referred to Hugo Chavez as a “goblin”
– referred to the Liberal Party as “gutter dwelling Liberal slime molds”
– referred to Palestinians as “sons of beeatches”
– referred to Barack Obama as a “DemocRat”
– referred to “Lefties” as “dorks” and “Leftards”
– referred to animal rights activists as “morons”
But no doubt these don’t qualify as poo-flinging, right?
Also, I object to the characterization that I “defaulted” to invective. In actuality, I defaulted to facts (118.com, etc. etc.), and tossed in a bit of invective for my own amusement (and also to elicit a response; thanks for obliging =).
By comparison, those here who took Kate’s cue and immediately began slagging off the government were the ones who truly defaulted to invective, without any basis in fact. Have you no similar words of disapproval for those who referred to the “idiotic bureaucrats” in the UK?
If it were not for our founding fathers and the american revolution we would be floowing england into the same wussietard wacko place
I. Sanderson,
You can’t blame people for assuming it was a gov’t program. And you gotta admit, some of the comments here were pretty funny. Lighten up.
“But no doubt these don’t qualify as poo-flinging, right?”
They only qualify if there NOT true?
BTW, does the I. stand for idiot?
Just wondering.
Hey I.Sanderson – do you know how local councils work in Britain?
No-one can put up ANYTHING on lightposts (or other streetside objects) without council permission. This was still a council decision to APPROVE this nonsense.
Garbage cans are almost a thing of the past on most British streets because of recycling promotion or Bombs can be hidden in them (lots of garbage around now). But the same ‘type of’ bureaucrat who made that decision then approves large pads on lightposts.
So, yes – guilty, I over-reacted to who paid for the pads but council still wasted time approving it (and their time isn’t cheap). Also, the anger directed towards the stupidity part of it is still bang on.
So my overall point is still valid – councils have other real problems to solve but instead waste their time on nonsense and in doing so create a further impression of how off this planet they are.
Please explain to me how I am wrong here?
Frenchie77: So, yes – guilty, I over-reacted to who paid for the pads but council still wasted time approving it (and their time isn’t cheap).
You’re right that council had to approve the proposal. But council has no control over the proposals that cross their desk for approval. They’d have to spend just as much time rejecting it as approving it.
But this is a minor point.
So my overall point is still valid…
Way to shift the goalposts (lampposts?), Frenchie. Personally, I would have thought that your overall point was about bureaucrats wasting taxpayer money in an unaccountable fashion, based on your use of the phrases
– “idiotic bureaucrats”
– “who come up with this stuff”
– “cry and complain that they don’t have enough money”
– “this stupidity is almost never punished [by taxpayers]”
But, hey, what do I know? If you’re now saying that your outrage was in fact targeted at bureaucrats who waste their “time” on stupidity like this (and I agree it’s a silly stunt), then I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Please explain to me how I am wrong here?
Kate dangles her usual bait — “more government nannyism in the UK” — and everyone here takes it and gobbles it up without thought. Notice how the “UK is stoopid! Yeah! Yeah!” comments dried up shortly after it was pointed out that the padding project came from private sectors.
It’s a point of pride among SDA’ers that they don’t take biased news reports in the MSM at face value. So why do they do so when the presenter is Kate rather than a CBC anchor?
I. Sanderson said: “Meanwhile, on other recent threads, you’ve:
– referred to Robert McClelland (?) as “Rubert McDickslap”
– referred to Hugo Chavez as a “goblin”
– referred to the Liberal Party as “gutter dwelling Liberal slime molds”
– referred to Palestinians as “sons of beeatches”
– referred to Barack Obama as a “DemocRat”
– referred to “Lefties” as “dorks” and “Leftards”
– referred to animal rights activists as “morons””
That’s not invective dude, those are observable facts.
What’s your point?
Gee they didn’t print my comments that the UK is becoming a loony bin and people should flee befor the “PC police” send them for “re-education”
Guess I must have hit a nerve
I guess to protect them from falling over dustbins and hurting themselvers; helmets,knee, elbow,shin pads must be installed on ones body. But they should pay a licence fee of course to wear this saftey equipment that will be manditory
The Phantom: That’s not invective dude, those are observable facts.
And so we come to this, with The Phantom retreating to the intellectually vacuous position of “I’m right because I say so!”
I really should thank you. Your line does more to demonstrate to your SDA peers just how trite and irrelevant you are far better than I ever could.
I. Sanderson – Just what are you really on about here!
People think that this was a stupid idea, whether paid for by the state or not.
What is your point exactly, other than bashing SDAers. As I said, we jumped the gun and thought that the state paid for it. How exactly does that make my original comment ‘wrong’
I said …idiotic bureaucrats…:
a) cry and complain that they don’t have enough money to solve other real problems.
b) have protection from any real recourse by the taxpayer, this stupidity is almost never punished.
Some bureaucrat had to aprove this nonsense, either on their own or through a process. Knowing bureaucracy, there is a long, time-consuming process to get something approved. Whereas, rejection can occur immediately.
So, these same idiotic bureacrats thought it was worth their time (and hence money) to approve this when they have better things they could be doing – like planning how to save money, or planning real environmental measures, etc, etc…
They are fully within their right to reject stupid ideas at the initial stage. Don’t believe me: write up a motion to place large beer coolers with pink-bunnies on top of lamp-posts, just in case someone nearby runs dry and see how quickly that is rejected!
So, these idiotic bureaucrats that make these stupid decisions and approve this nonsense. These are also the same bureaucrats that cry and complain that they don’t have enough money to solve other real problems. Geez, I wonder why they don’t have enough money! Could it be because they are incompetent – after all approving an idea to place padding on lampposts isn’t exactly a mark of genius! No, I don’t expect them to be right all the time, but at least I expect common sense!!
So whether they waste money directly, or approve nonsense, these bureaucrats are almost never called to account for their stupidity. Probably the only time that happens is when a higher level bureaucrat or politician is caught being just as stupid and need a scapegoat.
Perhaps I am a little blinkered when it comes to how gov’t officials behave, but it’s not eaxctly like we’ve been getting good service lately is it??? Perhaps you haven’t been paying much attention to decisions coming from officials in the UK lately, I give you the benefit of the doubt. But before anyone rushes to defend them, you really should check out their track record 1st.
eh! ? ……..