Has a copy of the Rules of the Road flopped through your letterbox yet? I'm asking because, apparently, all 1.76 million earmarked for distribution were due to land by the end of last month, writes Kilian Doyle
I opened mine with some trepidation. This could be awful.
First impressions were surprisingly positive. Simple design. Riddled with Plain English. It may surprise some of you, but I'm a fan of de aul' plain English. So far so good.
It didn't take long for second impressions to kick in.
You'd think they'd have spell-checked it before publication, wouldn't you? For example, inside the back cover, it warns that the list of all road signs is "indicitative". Eh? I Googled it. "Did you mean indicative?" Google asked me, a tad mockingly, I felt. I did. But did they?
I've also sent out a search party to look for all the missing apostrophes. It should be back some time in 2011.
Elsewhere, Iarnród Éireann is listed as a weather service. I take it we can expect to see Thomas the Tank Engine warning us of incoming fog and inclement conditions after the Six O'Clock News in the near future.
And what's this on the cover? Can someone please explain to me why our Government, with more spare cash than a stadium full of Manchester businessmen, has to be sponsored by the Irish Insurance Federation?
Are we to believe this august body, tired of spending every waking hour lying on a big pile of banknotes worrying about the safety of Irish motorists, has decided to perform a grand act of altruism - the likes of which we haven't seen since the backside fell out of poor Bertie's britches all those years ago - and pay for the delivery of the books out of the goodness of its heart?
Or could it be that the IIF thinks if everyone follows the rules, they'll have to shell out less in claims?
Methinks the €2 million the IIF spent on the project is wasted anyway. For how many people who don't have an upcoming theory test will actually bother reading the book? It's hundreds of pages long, for God's sake. I'm a busy man. I don't do longwinded. Give it to me short, sharp and snappy and I'll be on my way. Abiding by all the rules, naturally.
Which brings me to my major gripe. It's not strictly the rules of the road at all, is it? The whole thing is separated into things one "must" do, and things one "should" do. I'm no lawyer, but I know "must" means you can get busted for doing or not doing something, whereas "should" means you can't be busted.
Don't mean to be splitting hairs, but doesn't this mean calling it a set of rules is a bit of a cod? Surely the use of "should" implies certain aspects of driving are open to interpretation? Hardly the impression they wished to convey, one assumes. May I suggest dividing it into two separate books: the Rules of the Road and the Whatever You're Having Yerself of the Road, perhaps?
Back in March, former - no cheering down the back, please, a bit of decorum if you will - transport minister Martin Cullen said the ROTR was "painless self-education" for all. Painless? I take it he didn't read the chapter on tailgating. Inane catchphrases pierce my heart like acid-dipped daggers at the best of times. So imagine how I winced when I read this: "Only a fool breaks the two second rule."
Apparently we're supposed to chant this mantra incessantly as we drive, like obsessive-compulsive monks, to stop ourselves from ploughing into the chap in front. Are they serious? Really?
Tell you what, Martin. I'll do it if you do. I'll be needing proof first though. A video of your every motorised move, clearly showing you constantly warbling this guff, to the usual address please (What's that you say? Don't put it on Youtube? Who, me? What do you take me for, man? You may hereby consider me deeply hurt).