Matters of moment, August 1991

Browse pages
Current page

1

Current page

2

Current page

3

Current page

4

Current page

5

Current page

6

Current page

7

Current page

8

Current page

9

Current page

10

Current page

11

Current page

12

Current page

13

Current page

14

Current page

15

Current page

16

Current page

17

Current page

18

Current page

19

Current page

20

Current page

21

Current page

22

Current page

23

Current page

24

Current page

25

Current page

26

Current page

27

Current page

28

Current page

29

Current page

30

Current page

31

Current page

32

Current page

33

Current page

34

Current page

35

Current page

36

Current page

37

Current page

38

Current page

39

Current page

40

Current page

41

Current page

42

Current page

43

Current page

44

Current page

45

Current page

46

Current page

47

Current page

48

Current page

49

Current page

50

Current page

51

Current page

52

Current page

53

Current page

54

Current page

55

Current page

56

Current page

57

Current page

58

Current page

59

Current page

60

Current page

61

Current page

62

Current page

63

Current page

64

Current page

65

Current page

66

Current page

67

Current page

68

Current page

69

Current page

70

Current page

71

Current page

72

Current page

73

Current page

74

Current page

75

Current page

76

Current page

77

Current page

78

Current page

79

Current page

80

Current page

81

Current page

82

Current page

83

Current page

84

Signitis

Signs are everywhere now — beside and on the roads, on hoardings, in shops and in garages. It seems a long time since motorists challenged them as disfiguring the environment and The Autocar even dared to criticise the AA’s “yellow peril” roadside signs.

Cars themselves, once objects of respect, suffer likewise, with high prices paid for personalised number plates and much snobbishness attached to having the latest registration prefix. Back windows are all too often used to display “clever” signs, with young farmers proclaiming they do it in wellies, others informing us that “If you can read this you are too — close,” often in such small type that even those with 100% eyesight can hardly read the message, and there are the more obscure ones, such as “Care — child in car” (does this mean we must not overtake?) and seen on a Volvo 740 recently, “Caution — Show-dog in transit,” (a pit bull-terrier, perhaps?) (Readers may care to collect others for us.)

We have moved on a long way from the days when many owners raised great objection to the suggestion that their vehicles should be numbered. When, in 1903, it was thought that acceptance of numbering might be a means of getting higher speed-limits, gentlemen still did not take kindly to having to display numbers on their cars. When Brooklands opened for racing in 1907, ordinary cars had long been numbered, the competitors thought it undignified to have their racing cars so treated, so instead they were identified by jockeys’ “silks” regardless of the fact that jockeys were then the poor employees of wealthy race-horse owners and that the gents in their coloured silks must have looked pretty ludicrous, anyway.

Now all that has changed and cars are burdened with dangling-dollies, those stupid stickers, go-quicker stripes, rally lamps and so on — which is perhaps better than them being relegated to the non-status of mere utilitarian objects. From thoughts of signitis it is but a short step to signs of silliness. For example, there is this curious suggestion that drivers applying to take the driving test should have to understand not only the Highway Code but also take a First Aid Test. Good grief! In how many cases would this assist accident casualties? Most would-be new drivers find it difficult enough to answer Highway Code questions, let alone have to bother about fibulas and tibias. Do you know in what average distance a car can be pulled-up on a wet or a dry road from X-mph? If you do or do not, does it make any difference to the way in which you drive? However, proposed double tests could be a blessing, in as much as the fewer who manage to pass the Driving Test, the fewer cars there will be on our clogged-up roads.

Then there are the suggestions that the slower vintage cars using the Motorways should have extra bright rear lamps and carry day-glow boards, in view of recent sad accidents to two A7s, run into by faster traffic. But surely the lighting required by the existing regulations are sufficient? It is the driver who fails to calculate closing distance who is to be blamed for a collision, a case of misused speed and faulty judgement; although if individual users of cars cruising at 35 to 45 mph feel safer day-glowed, that is up to them! Better, perhaps, not to use Motorways after dark.

There are signs that the BBC TV is reverting to its former “all-balls” view of sport, judging by the eternal cricket, endless tennis and interminable golf-matches it broadcasts, while neglecting decent coverage of Le Mans and returning to cricket on the morning after the French Grand Prix, with no mention of the win by a British driver, Nigel Mansell. The stars of other sporting action are discussed, interviewed, seen receiving their trophies, etc. F1 racing is put on at odd hours, the French GP being dependent that afternoon on how long the Wimbledon tennis finals took, and when a Grand Prix ends there is just a moment with the victorious drivers seen on the podium and it is all over. The huge crowds who watched the French and British Grands Prix should convince the BBC of the popularity of motor racing. Could you please, Anne Robinson, draw the attention of those whom you call “them upstairs” to this unwarranted situation?

On a happier note, there are signs that manufacturers of the kind of cars you and I drive are using competition successes to publicise their products, Peugeot, Ford and Mazda for instance, which can only be good for the sport which I assume you prefer, or find equally enjoyable, to the “all-balls” sort. — WB