...and if someone is drunk enough to be in the target audience, he may well become so absorbed in reading the sign that he'll forget to keep his balance and meet a squishy death at the hands (wheels?) of a train.
That might present a problem if there is a mix of carriages that have different door positions. How about a guardrail along the length of the platform that'd retract downwards when the train stopped?
How about don't spend any more taxpayer money on doors or windows or guardrails and let nature run its course? Once the stew bum contingent of public transit riders is eliminated the problem will cease to exist. And if new generations of stew bums continue to "take the plunge" the biggest expenditure should be on a shovel, mop, and garden hose for each station.
R.Ramos: It refers to English Socialism, the system that ruled Oceania in Orwell's novel 1984. I use it as the label for the modern tendency of Western states to act like totalitarians.
I recently went up to London; some of the stations on the Underground do have doors along the platform that only open when the tube stopped. Somehow they manage to get the train to stop at exactly the right point; it's easier since all the carriages are the same size, but I never did work out how they did it.
@Neil:
Your approach is probably a sensible one, if a bit heartless. I think this sign is a bit silly, though; I'm sure that even if you were drunk, you'd know not to go near the bit where the train goes through unless it's safe.
Speaking of intoxicants, I'd like to know what David's opinion on drugs policy is if that's not too much to ask. I get the idea that you're dead against the banning of stuff like alcohol and nicotine; what's your policy on things like MDMA, cocaine and cannabis use?
Good question about drugs. I'm deeply suspicious about legalising cannabis because the move to do so generally involves a raft of ulterior motives that are rather like the attempts to loosen up the obscenity laws that resulted in legal protections for pornography, and none for literature.
As for harder drugs, I'm dead against them because they involve an entirely more dangerous level of mind altering and addiction that their use involves the negation of free will. Their destructive qualities are such that innocent people suffer as well as the user.
All that being said, I also recognise that society has to show a degree of laxity even in things that it rightly condemns if battling the the sins of the Libertine aren't to give way to those of the Puritan.
The nanny state warning sign for the conscientious falling-down drunk.
8 comments:
...and if someone is drunk enough to be in the target audience, he may well become so absorbed in reading the sign that he'll forget to keep his balance and meet a squishy death at the hands (wheels?) of a train.
Why are there exposed platforms at all?
It's like having open elevator shafts.
The technology exists to have DOORs that open when the train is present.
That might present a problem if there is a mix of carriages that have different door positions. How about a guardrail along the length of the platform that'd retract downwards when the train stopped?
How about don't spend any more taxpayer money on doors or windows or guardrails and let nature run its course?
Once the stew bum contingent of public transit riders is eliminated the problem will cease to exist. And if new generations of stew bums continue to "take the plunge" the biggest expenditure should be on a shovel, mop, and garden hose for each station.
Mr. Zondy can you remind me what Ingsoc means?
R.Ramos: It refers to English Socialism, the system that ruled Oceania in Orwell's novel 1984. I use it as the label for the modern tendency of Western states to act like totalitarians.
@Gauss/jayessell
I recently went up to London; some of the stations on the Underground do have doors along the platform that only open when the tube stopped. Somehow they manage to get the train to stop at exactly the right point; it's easier since all the carriages are the same size, but I never did work out how they did it.
@Neil:
Your approach is probably a sensible one, if a bit heartless. I think this sign is a bit silly, though; I'm sure that even if you were drunk, you'd know not to go near the bit where the train goes through unless it's safe.
Speaking of intoxicants, I'd like to know what David's opinion on drugs policy is if that's not too much to ask. I get the idea that you're dead against the banning of stuff like alcohol and nicotine; what's your policy on things like MDMA, cocaine and cannabis use?
Good question about drugs. I'm deeply suspicious about legalising cannabis because the move to do so generally involves a raft of ulterior motives that are rather like the attempts to loosen up the obscenity laws that resulted in legal protections for pornography, and none for literature.
As for harder drugs, I'm dead against them because they involve an entirely more dangerous level of mind altering and addiction that their use involves the negation of free will. Their destructive qualities are such that innocent people suffer as well as the user.
All that being said, I also recognise that society has to show a degree of laxity even in things that it rightly condemns if battling the the sins of the Libertine aren't to give way to those of the Puritan.
Post a Comment