One morning last winter there were 127 accidents on untreated roads in Flintshire.
When, as a Councillor, I chastised the highways folks, they said people should drive according to the conditions. Simplistic rubbish.
Where we are, there are hills in every direction so we cannot get to work without descending hills. If they are not treated, the alternatives are either risk a crash or take a day off work.
But what if a doctor or fireman or ambulance chappie who might have saved a life can't get to work because the council are too involved in saving money?
It is all the more irritating when we pass the council depot and see huge mounds of grit just sitting there.
They should be obliged by law to keep the roads clear, no matter what some out of touch judge says. Their only excuse can be when temperatures are so low that even salt will not work.
By the way, I read some time ago that judges are often not the sharpest knives in the box. A top silk can earn ten times as much as a judge and I have seen it written - though of course I have no way on knowing if it is true -that some of them only do it for the pension!! Probably total lies, of course.
|
I don't think it is simplistic rubbish. They manage in countries a lot hillier and colder than ours, without using salt. True, we don't get it very often, which makes changing tyres/studs etc a bit awkward, but then we ought to know by now we can't rely on the state for much.
Interestingly, if you fly to lapland to see Father Christmas, they land the plane on snow, but don't have studded tyres, as far as I could see. If they had, how would they land at Gatwick?
|
> I don't think it is simplistic rubbish. They manage in
> countries a lot hillier and colder than ours, without using
> salt.
They don't salt the roads in the Chilean Andes, although they certainly do send snow-ploughs down them.
|
|
|
Dave N wrote:
>
> I don't think it is simplistic rubbish. They manage in
> countries a lot hillier and colder than ours, without using
> salt. True, we don't get it very often, which makes changing
> tyres/studs etc a bit awkward, but then we ought to know by
> now we can't rely on the state for much.
>
> Interestingly, if you fly to lapland to see Father Christmas,
> they land the plane on snow, but don't have studded tyres, as
> far as I could see. If they had, how would they land at
> Gatwick?
Another oversimplification...
Most of the force used to slow a landing jet aircraft comes from
reverse thrust, with the wheel brakes used at lower speeds.
Provided the surface is smooth and there is sufficient runway length available, there should be no problem bringing a jet
aircraft to a halt.
|
|
|
|
> of course I have no way on knowing if it is true -that some
> of them only do it for the pension!! Probably total lies,
> of course.
Sadly not. That and social standing.
|
|
|
|
Again, the obsessed motorist thinks only of being able to drive his car. Ignoring the question of whether salt damages the thing (they are pretty salt-proof nowadays) it seems that cost of salting is no object, and how many people ask where the salt goes (which it does soon after being thrown on the road). It probably runs off into a ditch/stream and turns 'fresh' water brackish. Is anyone bothered about the wildlife?
|
|
|
|
