Wednesday, January 02, 2008
New year factoids
One of them an old year hangover. That is to say, where in the vegetable world can one find perfect spheres? Answer, the mistletoe plants, of which there are plenty, in the trees at Hampton Court. Some of them of impressive size, perhaps a couple of feet across.
The second concerns the nannies and their tame statisticians (of which I used to be one). It seems that for the purposes of gathering statistics, any road accident or incident in which any of those involved has had a drink, is recorded as an accident involving drink. So my running over a drunk who leaps out from behind a parked lorry counts. This is, of course, OK as far as it goes. But one then needs to be a touch careful about interpreting large increases in accidents involving drink as a reason for banning drink. One might spoil what is probably a good story - that many or most road accidents are caused by drivers who have had a drink - by overstatement.
I should also mention that I am mildy in favour of a zero alcohol rule for driving. An inconvenience for those who live in the country but most of us have reasonable access to pubs, buses and taxis, and a no alcohol rule is a much more straightforward to abide by and to enforce than a some alcohol rule.
I was reminded of this by driving behind a bus today which had one of those moving light signs that they have on railway stations - the thing that tells you where the next train is stopping, a string which is far too long to fit on the display all at once - incorporated into it's rear end in a panel perhaps two feet by one foot. At a time when the nannies are cranking up the penalties for all sort of in-car misdemeanours like using a mobile phone, talking to your partner, lighting up or having a sweet - bus companies are allowed to add in this dangerous way to the already huge amount of off-car clutter on today's roads - my point being that I find off-car clutter as distracting and thus potentially as dangerous as the on-car sort. And while we are on this vein are we sure that satnavs add to road safety? Is continually glancing at a small screen which one can only see (in my case) with difficulty, adding or subtracting to the chance of having an accident?
Having caught our fourth mouse in the series, in the garage, shortly after Christmas, the trap has now lain unsprung for several days. Maybe we have seen the mice off. On the other hand, the rat poison in the compost heap is still moving - although there are now none of the excavations that we had before. Maybe there are some more mice down there. So now, having spent £15 on rat poison, starting to think seriously about replacing our brick compost bin which is very easy to use (and also makes a very good boundary marker against encroachments by any pushy neighbours there might be in that corner) but very hard to make rodent proof, with a couple of green plastic jobs. Which might cost £100? If they have open bottoms - which I would have thought necessary for compost - are they still rat proof? Will they try to burrow in? How do you keep the compost wet enough if it is in, in effect, a plastic bag? Watch this space.
The second concerns the nannies and their tame statisticians (of which I used to be one). It seems that for the purposes of gathering statistics, any road accident or incident in which any of those involved has had a drink, is recorded as an accident involving drink. So my running over a drunk who leaps out from behind a parked lorry counts. This is, of course, OK as far as it goes. But one then needs to be a touch careful about interpreting large increases in accidents involving drink as a reason for banning drink. One might spoil what is probably a good story - that many or most road accidents are caused by drivers who have had a drink - by overstatement.
I should also mention that I am mildy in favour of a zero alcohol rule for driving. An inconvenience for those who live in the country but most of us have reasonable access to pubs, buses and taxis, and a no alcohol rule is a much more straightforward to abide by and to enforce than a some alcohol rule.
I was reminded of this by driving behind a bus today which had one of those moving light signs that they have on railway stations - the thing that tells you where the next train is stopping, a string which is far too long to fit on the display all at once - incorporated into it's rear end in a panel perhaps two feet by one foot. At a time when the nannies are cranking up the penalties for all sort of in-car misdemeanours like using a mobile phone, talking to your partner, lighting up or having a sweet - bus companies are allowed to add in this dangerous way to the already huge amount of off-car clutter on today's roads - my point being that I find off-car clutter as distracting and thus potentially as dangerous as the on-car sort. And while we are on this vein are we sure that satnavs add to road safety? Is continually glancing at a small screen which one can only see (in my case) with difficulty, adding or subtracting to the chance of having an accident?
Having caught our fourth mouse in the series, in the garage, shortly after Christmas, the trap has now lain unsprung for several days. Maybe we have seen the mice off. On the other hand, the rat poison in the compost heap is still moving - although there are now none of the excavations that we had before. Maybe there are some more mice down there. So now, having spent £15 on rat poison, starting to think seriously about replacing our brick compost bin which is very easy to use (and also makes a very good boundary marker against encroachments by any pushy neighbours there might be in that corner) but very hard to make rodent proof, with a couple of green plastic jobs. Which might cost £100? If they have open bottoms - which I would have thought necessary for compost - are they still rat proof? Will they try to burrow in? How do you keep the compost wet enough if it is in, in effect, a plastic bag? Watch this space.
# posted by Jim @ 7:58 AM 
