Why do we as individuals, institutions and society swing too far in one direction, only to reactively swing excessively the other way? The present over-the-top reactions to the rash of road cones raised this thought.
Road cones featured in Civis’ second column in April last year. Unnecessary disruption, cost and waste were all lamented — inconvenience and expenses the public ultimately bears one way or another.
Surely, motorists should bear some common sense responsibility so long as road workers, pedestrians and other road users are not endangered? The conclusion last April was that, as in so much else, the matter comes down to balance.
Thus, Civis read with dismay in the Otago Daily Times last week about attacks and abuse towards road workers. Further media reports this week included accounts of a road worker held up by a nail gun, sledgehammer intimidation and another worker being run over.
It is scarcely believable that motorists could behave so atrociously, that violence and aggression lurk so near the surface.
The ODT also reported on Wednesday on disturbing behaviour from impatient motorists speeding through crash sites, ignoring directions and endangering the safety of firefighters. They already have enough to contend with. One firefighter at a Caversham crash in February was even abused and almost dragged from a fire truck.
Fire and Emergency New Zealand Otago group manager Bobby Lamont was worried it was only a matter of time before one of his firefighters was injured.
Road workers warrant both safety on the job and respect. Even if stationed unnecessarily, they remain innocent parties undertaking assigned tasks.
It is not as if such reactions are novel. In 2022, 85 serious incidents and injuries were reported at road sites.
Reactions appear heightened at present as anti-cone impetus surges and a government "hotline" (via email) to report alleged overuse of cones revs up.
Authorities restored balance somewhat to road site safety and motorist frustrations last year, thanks to site-specific arrangements rather than "highly" prescriptive rules. Additional temporary lane configurations helped, reducing reliance on stop-go operators in place for weeks on end.
Bureaucrats help justify their roles by enacting and enforcing a plethora of rules. The traffic management industry also has a vested interest in plenty of protection.
However, in the interests of that balance, Civis acknowledges that cones often provide a relatively cheap and efficient means to "direct and protect" those "up a pole or down a hole".
Civis is concerned that, in the public’s mind at least, we are in danger of swinging too far the other way in opposition to the orange blighters. Cones have become too convenient a symbol for frustration with road works and delays. Politicians, meanwhile, exploit public sentiment for political advantage.
Surely, everyone recognises the need for road works as well as the mammoth task of renewing water and sewage pipes. Still, anti-cone hysteria has been understandably fuelled by delays in post-job cleanups, some long overdue.
A sweep around Auckland in a "use it or remove" campaign collected about 2500 cones lying around. That would be one for almost every student flat in Dunedin.
Although the backlash against cones has grown, Civis’ pendulum has swung somewhat back towards a middle-of-the-road position.
★★★
And now back to those amusing or poignant children’s remarks, this time with a notably 2020s flavour. A 5-year-old and a 3-year-old were watching a nature programme when a cub died.
"Why are you crying?" asked the 3-year-old.
"I’ve got feelings, you know," the 5-year-old said.
Would children of earlier generations have said that?
