« The Past Few Days | Main | Rain »
August 17, 2007
And Another Thing...
It turns out I posted prematurely on the hot indignation I feel in response to England's signs. Here are a few more offenders that have caught my eye in recent days:
I was wandering through a pub to find the restroom when I came upon this sign, which in America, might have been written "Don't Sit on Posts." We would have written these words in bold, black, strident capital letters against a white background and would have surrounded them with a bold red band to indicate that we meant business. The sign might have been triangular, to connote an air of warning.
Instead, we get this:
Now I understand the importance of politeness, but I would argue this sign goes too far. We don't need the whole story of why we are not to sit on the posts, just that we're not supposed to sit there. Further, if the bit about the two beer gardens was important enough to mention at all, why is it buried down there beneath the long-winded "post" rationalization (if you will forgive me) instead of set apart with bold or italics or some wild font appropriate to a new stream of thought.
Continuing...
As we plotted our course through the canals, we were intrigued by the "obstruction" mentioned on the map in one place. No more description of said "obstruction" was provided, but it was clear that we were to be on the lookout, that we not collide with it. Our minds were filled with vivid images of what the obstruction might be. Did a bridge collapse into the canal, depositing tons of dangerous stones beneath the surface? Did an ancient oak, impossible to remove, block part of the waterway?
We reached the appointed location to find...
...this. Which looks to me like something out of Super Mario Brothers. My question is this, though I was much amused by the yellow triangular exclamation point (very American, by the definition I offered above), why not just remove whatever unnamed menace lurks below the surface. Why is this cheerful declamation of the obstacle a superior option to removing it. I mean, the thing has been there long enough to be listed on our rather dated canal guide.
Further, I would suggest that one of the roles of signage is to communicate essential information while preserving people's confidence in the viability of the roadway, canal, etc. Therefore, I question the motives of this sign, the role of which is surely to alert heavy trucks that a particular bridge might be best avoided.
Might not, if you were a British trucker, say, have no interest in driving across a bridge described as "weak", even if you knew your truck to be below the designated maximum weight?
I cannot argue with the message of this sign, but wonder about whether it is necessary. I mean, would you go near that thing?
And then we return to the subject of dogs and the fact that the English ones must have champion GI tracts. The number of landmines we encounter walking along these canals is nothing short of astonishing. Thus, I can sympathize with the pervasive campaign to stamp out "fouling." But I can also understand the confusion of the dog owners, if signs like this are posted in the parks.
Is it just me, or does the logic here imply that the "serious health hazard", already underway, will be disrupted by the cessation of "fouling". Talk about mixed messages.
If you're not willing to follow me down this path of argument, will you at least accept that this sign is not going to solve the problem either?
I mean, what is going on in that drawing? The implied message seems to be that if you carry a jug behind your dog, and aim very carefully, perhaps we can solve this "fouling" problem once and for all.
Fine, I can accept this, but argue then that there should be an accompanying sign extolling the virtues of handwashing.
I'll leave you with an advertisement that needs no supplemental commentary.
We leave this land Sunday morning. If I make it out alive, I'll count my blessings.
Posted by bogenamp at August 17, 2007 03:31 AM