I am concerned for the mental health of the pillock at Suffolk County Council who thought it would be a good idea to put "No Footway" signs up in the sleepy village of Mickfield.
Mickfield really is sleepy. It's just a crossroads, really. There's no shop, no pub, just a public telephone and twenty or thirty houses. It's not on a main road; it's not even on a "B" road. As I say, it's as sleepy and insignificant as a hundred other hamlets in Suffolk. Very few of them have "footways" - there's usually just the road, then the hedge. That's normal in the country, isn't it? Mickfield certainly doesn't have one.
So why exactly did our Official County Council Pillock think he'd erect a damn great sign at the entrance to the village saying "No Footway for ¾ mile", complete with a red triangle on top? We know there's no footway. The road's fairly straight and visibility is good - we can see there's no footway. And since almost no small villages in the area have footways, we weren't expecting one in Mickfield. So why do we need to be told this?
And why "¾ mile"? Is it perhaps because it's ¾ mile from the sign to the crossroads in the centre of the village? But there's no footway on the road going out of the village again, either - so shouldn't it say "1½ miles"? In fact, on that particular road I shouldn't think you're going to meet a footway until you hit Diss some 10 miles further north. So why doesn't it say "No Footway for 10 miles"?
If our pillock truly believes that it's essential for people entering Mickfield to know there's no footway, why hasn't he seen fit to issue the same warning elsewhere? If it's as important as all that, why doesn't every road entering Suffolk carry a warning "No Footway for 30 miles"?
And what exactly am I supposed to do when I'm driving through Mickfield and see this sign? Drive in the middle of the road so as to leave a space in the gutter for people to walk? Be extra careful in case I come upon a pedestrian? Does that mean I can afford to be less careful in all the other villages where there are also no footways but no signs? Am I supposed to avoid killing Mickfield pedestrians, whereas pedestrians in nearby Wetheringsett are fair game and can be mown down with impunity?
And if we need to be told something as obvious as this, why stop short? Why not warn us of other perfectly obvious things - why aren't there signs at intervals warning us "Other cars may be using this road"? Or "Caution - road may be wet in rainy weather", or "Drive with care - wildlife about"?
And anyway what is a "footway"? Do they mean the pavement? In that case, what's wrong with saying "pavement"?
There's far too much of this unnecessary and patronising signage lately. There's a place called Allwood Green on the B1113 in Suffolk which has no speed limits and almost no houses, but it does, for some reason, have rumble strips either side of it. And to reinforce the message,there's a sign saying "Rumble Strips". Now that's really useful. Without those signs I might think I'd just run over a weasel or something.
Aren't rumble strips supposed to be a sign all by themselves? A sort of unwritten, non-visual sign? So why do they need a sign warning us about them? Whatever next - every sign with its own advance warning sign to make sure we don't miss out? Hundreds of little triangular jobs lining the road carrying the slogan "Speed Limit Sign ahead".
And then you could have even smaller ones saying "'Speed Limit Sign ahead' sign ahead" ….
either on this site or on the World Wide Web.
This site created and maintained by PlainSite