Thursday, March 19, 2009
The Girl who Silenced the world for 5 mins
She addressed a UN Meeting on issue of environment....man - she rocks...It is humbling to hear her speak.. I don't care if she wrote the speech or not - its beautifully crafted and delivered in an incredible way. I only hope that the people in that room listened to her message.
and I hope she becomes head of state in Canada.. perhaps there is hope for the world if more kids are like her....
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Homebirth In Australia ILLEGAL in 2010
The guts of this is that there has been a Maternity Services Review Report in Australia and it has recommendations which suggest Home Birthing (with an independent midwife) will be illegal from mid 2010 onwards.
Freebirthing (no midwife) and those birthing on the side of the highway because the funding has been taken out of rural hospitals and maternity services will not be charged.......but that is another rant all together...
The main issue surrounds the requirement for all midwives to have professional indemnity insurance to be able to register to practice, unfortunately NO insurance company offers PI insurance to midwives in private practice, so they will not be able to register to attend births at home.
Please consider joining the facebook group and writing to every member in the parliment.... and PLEASE look ( and sign) at this important petition:
"Save Private Midwifery and homebirth choices"
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/australianhomebirth?e
FACEBOOK
articles on it are:
NINE MSN
The Australian
Homebirth Ban
I cannot put it any clearer than two activitists who have written the following letters - so many thanks Bruce Teakle and Sarah Langford - I have copy and pasted your emails and plonked them right here... thank you for your words and passion - I really couldn't have said it any better....
Sarah says ( amongst other things...)
The latest maternity services review in Australia is removing the rights of Australian women by refusing to publically fund home births, thus restricting the availability of home birth to many Australian families. Further the review proposes to force independent midwives to be part of a national registration scheme. This registration will include mandatory professional indemnity insurance for all midwives, the alternative is to practice midwifery unlawfully.
In order for midwives to access professional indemnity insurance they must work within a "collaborative team", however no definition of "collaborative team" has been provided in the review. It is possible that "collaborative team" could mean not working independently (as many homebirth midwives do) in which case insurance would not be available to these midwives and their decision to attend homebirths could lead to prosecution and incarceration.
Witch hunts anyone??? will we also burn them at the stake??? ( ahh - thats me - Sarah didn't write that)
Of particular concern is the fact that the review clearly states that the recommendations regarding home birth were made based on presumptions of risk. The relevant medical evidence attesting to the safety of home birth were not considered when making these recommendations.
Ultimately this maternity services review has lead to The Australian Government furthering obstetricians' monopoly over maternity care and has prioritised the obstetric model of maternity care over the midwifery model, despite the fact that the midwifery model is the safer model for the majority of women. By further empowering the already powerful players in Australia's maternity system, The Australian Government has aggressively restricted the rights and freedoms of birthing women. Perplexing behaviour for a government committed to raising the national birth rate!
The review is little more than cultural propaganda which discriminates against midwives in private practice and families who wish to birth at home and therefore infringes upon the human rights of Australian citizens. Activists around the world will not stand for this!
The Maternity Services Review Report: no more homebirth?
Bruce Teakle 8 March 2008
The recently released report of the Federal Maternity Services Review proposes some promising reforms. It could, if implemented in the most positive spirit, bring huge breakthroughs in many areas of maternity care.
The Report recommends improving women’s access to midwifery care and information about pregnancy and birth. It proposes culturally appropriate care for indigenous women, better support for women in pregnancy and postnatally, and more collaborative relationships between caregivers.
Its ultimate goal for Australian mothers is “safe, high-quality and accessible care based on informed choice” (page iii).
Australia has waited a long time for the reforms proposed in the Review. However, there is a dark side to the Report.
The Report proposes an end to women’s access to midwifery care for homebirth, except possibly within state-run services. If the Report’s recommendations are followed, homebirth midwifery could become illegal in 2010 with the introduction of National Registration of health caregivers.
The full Report can be downloaded from this website:
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/maternityservicesreview
Below are some key points, with quotes from the Report, to help women who want to lobby for their right to access safe, legal homebirth in Australia:
1. Women choosing homebirth are a trivial minority:
A strong point is made of the small number of homebirths which occur in Australia:
P16: shows a graph of declining numbers of homebirths in Australia from 1991 to 2006.
P16: “Homebirths account for a very small number of births in Australia. In 2005, homebirth accounted for 0.22 per cent of all births in Australia,28 compared with 2.7 per cent in England and Wales,29 2.5 per cent in New Zealand,30 and 0.6 per cent in the United States.” 31
P20: “New Zealand maternity data for 2004 found that, while 4.5 per cent of mothers had planned a homebirth, only 2.5 per cent actually experienced a homebirth.”
The reasons for the small Australian numbers are not explored, in particular the great difficulty most Australian women have accessing information or care for homebirth.
No comparison is made with other minority choices, such as caesarean section on request, and there is certainly no consideration of banning these choices.
The Reviewers acknowledge the high number of individual submissions from women who desired greater access and funding for homebirth. Despite this, it appears the Reviewers have been more responsive to the input of those who want to control women’s choices.
2. Homebirth will not be retained as a choice for women:
The Report is very clear that it does not support reforms which increase or fund women’s access to homebirth:
Pp20-21: “In recognising that, at the current time in Australia, homebirthing is a sensitive and controversial issue, the Review Team has formed the view that the relationship between maternity health care professionals is not such as to support homebirth as a mainstream Commonwealth-funded option (at least in the short term). The Review also considers that moving prematurely to a mainstream private model of care incorporating homebirthing risks polarising the professions rather than allowing the expansion of collaborative approaches to improving choice and services for Australian women and their babies.”
P21: “While acknowledging it is a preference for some women, the Review Team does not propose Commonwealth funding of homebirths as a mainstream option for maternity care at this time. It is also likely that professional indemnity cover support for a Commonwealth- funded model that includes a homebirth setting would be limited, at least in the short term. It is likely that insurers will be less inclined to provide indemnity cover for private homebirths and, if they did provide cover, the premium costs would be very high. Indemnity issues for midwife care more broadly are considered in Chapter 6.2.”
The Report proposes Commonwealth support for Medicare and indemnity insurance for midwives, but only working in non-homebirth practice. Midwives working outside these restrictions would not be able to legally practice, due to impending reforms:
P53: “For privately practising midwives, it is not currently a requirement in most jurisdictions to have professional indemnity cover in place before registration is granted. However, this situation is expected to change under the proposed new National Registration and Accreditation Scheme.”
The consequence of all this is that homebirth practice by private midwives (most homebirth care) would not be insured, and would be illegal under national registration laws, scheduled to take effect in July 2010.
State-run homebirth services (currently operating in NT, NSW, SA, and WA) might also be forced to close, if non-homebirth maternity services attract Commonwealth funding (through Medicare for midwives) but homebirth services do not.
3. Scientific evidence does not inform the recommendations regarding homebirth:
Although some reference is made to scientific evidence on some issues in the report, no reference is made to evidence regarding the outcomes of homebirth. It appears that medical opposition alone informs the Review’s position:
P21: “The Review also considers that moving prematurely to a mainstream private model of care incorporating homebirthing risks polarising the professions rather than allowing the expansion of collaborative approaches to improving choice and services for Australian women and their babies.”
4. The safety of women birthing without a caregiver can be overlooked
P21: “Of concern to the Review Team is the number of submissions and other evidence that suggests a small number of Australian women are choosing homebirths without the support of an appropriately trained health professional. Accordingly, as with any other maternity care model, the Review Team considers that appropriate standards, monitoring and evaluation should be integral components of any service involving homebirth.”
Women choosing to birth at home without a trained caregiver will not be helped by “standards, monitoring and evaluation”, because they are outside the system. The Review Team appear not to understand that these women are within neither a “maternity care model”, nor a “service involving homebirth”.
Maternity Coalition’s experience is that most women birthing at home without a trained caregiver do so because they are unable to access midwifery care at home, and unwilling to use hospital-based services. It is frequently a choice made in desperation. The way to help these women is to provide them access to a high standard of midwifery care in their preferred venue.
The Reviewers overlook the likelihood that the loss of homebirth midwifery care will push more women into unattended homebirth. This would ensure an absence of standards, monitoring or evaluation of any homebirth outcomes.
5. Medical extremists will become more cooperative if they are given a veto on women’s choices
The proposed reason for preventing homebirth midwifery is that it “risks polarising the professions”. The implied strategy seems to be for Government to restrict midwifery practice, against scientific evidence, against the principle of women’s informed choice and against the safety of determined homebirthing women. The presumed intention – for less collaborative doctors to become more respectful of the evidence, principles of informed choice, and women’s perspectives on safety; seems a highly unlikely outcome. The Reviewers reinforce a subordinate position for midwives relative to doctors by proposing to restrict midwifery practice in line with the prejudices of less collaborative doctors. This undermines the relationships they hope to enhance.
The Government must make it clear that the needs, interests and autonomy of women come first. Healthcare policy and services should not be corrupted by the prejudices of health care professions, which prosper on taxpayer funds.
Fear or leadership?
The Minister, Nicola Roxon, is aware that significant modernisations of the healthcare system have historically been met with protest, threats, and predictions of disaster by extreme medical voices. Reforms of Australia’s maternity care system will always provoke this sort of reaction. Those reforms include normalising midwives’ access to public funding and insurance, and women’s access to options including homebirth.
It appears that the Reviewers have conceded to fear of extreme medical voices, over the interests of women. Hopefully the Minister, who is directly accountable to women, will be braver.
Speak out now!
The Review Report has been prepared by Department of Health staff, to advise the Minister for Health, Nicola Roxon. The Minister will decide which of the Department’s advice she will take. If there is enough community outcry about the proposed loss of homebirth, the Minister may decide to act in the interests of choice.
Every Australian has a Federal Member of Parliament (MP), whose job is to represent their interests. Every person who cares about maintaining homebirth choice should contact their Federal MP, preferrably by both letter and with a personal visit.
To find contact info for your MP:
Go to http://apps.aec.gov.au/esearch/ and enter your locality in the “Search Federal Electorates” window.
In the next window, click on the name of your electorate for more information.
On the electorate page, click on “profile and map”.
For contact info for your MP (“Current Member Details”), click on the “Parliament of Australia Website” link.
Write to your MP and tell them how important it is to you that women can choose homebirth. Ask them to contact the Minister for Health on your behalf. Recognise the good sides of the Review, and expect them to help you.
Meet with your MP. Phone their electorate office and ask for an appointment, to talk about the Federal Maternity Review. Take some friends from the same electorate. Tell them why women should have choice.
Your MP is expecting a letter or visit from a mother, not a professor. Tell them why birth and choice are so important to you. Talk about scientific evidence or policy processes if you want, but you are the expert about your own story.
Image via Wikipedia
Freebirthing (no midwife) and those birthing on the side of the highway because the funding has been taken out of rural hospitals and maternity services will not be charged.......but that is another rant all together...
The main issue surrounds the requirement for all midwives to have professional indemnity insurance to be able to register to practice, unfortunately NO insurance company offers PI insurance to midwives in private practice, so they will not be able to register to attend births at home.
Please consider joining the facebook group and writing to every member in the parliment.... and PLEASE look ( and sign) at this important petition:
"Save Private Midwifery and homebirth choices"
http://www.ipetitions.com/
articles on it are:
NINE MSN
The Australian
Homebirth Ban
I cannot put it any clearer than two activitists who have written the following letters - so many thanks Bruce Teakle and Sarah Langford - I have copy and pasted your emails and plonked them right here... thank you for your words and passion - I really couldn't have said it any better....
Sarah says ( amongst other things...)
The latest maternity services review in Australia is removing the rights of Australian women by refusing to publically fund home births, thus restricting the availability of home birth to many Australian families. Further the review proposes to force independent midwives to be part of a national registration scheme. This registration will include mandatory professional indemnity insurance for all midwives, the alternative is to practice midwifery unlawfully.
In order for midwives to access professional indemnity insurance they must work within a "collaborative team", however no definition of "collaborative team" has been provided in the review. It is possible that "collaborative team" could mean not working independently (as many homebirth midwives do) in which case insurance would not be available to these midwives and their decision to attend homebirths could lead to prosecution and incarceration.
Witch hunts anyone??? will we also burn them at the stake??? ( ahh - thats me - Sarah didn't write that)
Of particular concern is the fact that the review clearly states that the recommendations regarding home birth were made based on presumptions of risk. The relevant medical evidence attesting to the safety of home birth were not considered when making these recommendations.
Ultimately this maternity services review has lead to The Australian Government furthering obstetricians' monopoly over maternity care and has prioritised the obstetric model of maternity care over the midwifery model, despite the fact that the midwifery model is the safer model for the majority of women. By further empowering the already powerful players in Australia's maternity system, The Australian Government has aggressively restricted the rights and freedoms of birthing women. Perplexing behaviour for a government committed to raising the national birth rate!
The review is little more than cultural propaganda which discriminates against midwives in private practice and families who wish to birth at home and therefore infringes upon the human rights of Australian citizens. Activists around the world will not stand for this!
The Maternity Services Review Report: no more homebirth?
Bruce Teakle 8 March 2008
The recently released report of the Federal Maternity Services Review proposes some promising reforms. It could, if implemented in the most positive spirit, bring huge breakthroughs in many areas of maternity care.
The Report recommends improving women’s access to midwifery care and information about pregnancy and birth. It proposes culturally appropriate care for indigenous women, better support for women in pregnancy and postnatally, and more collaborative relationships between caregivers.
Its ultimate goal for Australian mothers is “safe, high-quality and accessible care based on informed choice” (page iii).
Australia has waited a long time for the reforms proposed in the Review. However, there is a dark side to the Report.
The Report proposes an end to women’s access to midwifery care for homebirth, except possibly within state-run services. If the Report’s recommendations are followed, homebirth midwifery could become illegal in 2010 with the introduction of National Registration of health caregivers.
The full Report can be downloaded from this website:
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/maternityservicesreview
Below are some key points, with quotes from the Report, to help women who want to lobby for their right to access safe, legal homebirth in Australia:
1. Women choosing homebirth are a trivial minority:
A strong point is made of the small number of homebirths which occur in Australia:
P16: shows a graph of declining numbers of homebirths in Australia from 1991 to 2006.
P16: “Homebirths account for a very small number of births in Australia. In 2005, homebirth accounted for 0.22 per cent of all births in Australia,28 compared with 2.7 per cent in England and Wales,29 2.5 per cent in New Zealand,30 and 0.6 per cent in the United States.” 31
P20: “New Zealand maternity data for 2004 found that, while 4.5 per cent of mothers had planned a homebirth, only 2.5 per cent actually experienced a homebirth.”
The reasons for the small Australian numbers are not explored, in particular the great difficulty most Australian women have accessing information or care for homebirth.
No comparison is made with other minority choices, such as caesarean section on request, and there is certainly no consideration of banning these choices.
The Reviewers acknowledge the high number of individual submissions from women who desired greater access and funding for homebirth. Despite this, it appears the Reviewers have been more responsive to the input of those who want to control women’s choices.
2. Homebirth will not be retained as a choice for women:
The Report is very clear that it does not support reforms which increase or fund women’s access to homebirth:
Pp20-21: “In recognising that, at the current time in Australia, homebirthing is a sensitive and controversial issue, the Review Team has formed the view that the relationship between maternity health care professionals is not such as to support homebirth as a mainstream Commonwealth-funded option (at least in the short term). The Review also considers that moving prematurely to a mainstream private model of care incorporating homebirthing risks polarising the professions rather than allowing the expansion of collaborative approaches to improving choice and services for Australian women and their babies.”
P21: “While acknowledging it is a preference for some women, the Review Team does not propose Commonwealth funding of homebirths as a mainstream option for maternity care at this time. It is also likely that professional indemnity cover support for a Commonwealth- funded model that includes a homebirth setting would be limited, at least in the short term. It is likely that insurers will be less inclined to provide indemnity cover for private homebirths and, if they did provide cover, the premium costs would be very high. Indemnity issues for midwife care more broadly are considered in Chapter 6.2.”
The Report proposes Commonwealth support for Medicare and indemnity insurance for midwives, but only working in non-homebirth practice. Midwives working outside these restrictions would not be able to legally practice, due to impending reforms:
P53: “For privately practising midwives, it is not currently a requirement in most jurisdictions to have professional indemnity cover in place before registration is granted. However, this situation is expected to change under the proposed new National Registration and Accreditation Scheme.”
The consequence of all this is that homebirth practice by private midwives (most homebirth care) would not be insured, and would be illegal under national registration laws, scheduled to take effect in July 2010.
State-run homebirth services (currently operating in NT, NSW, SA, and WA) might also be forced to close, if non-homebirth maternity services attract Commonwealth funding (through Medicare for midwives) but homebirth services do not.
3. Scientific evidence does not inform the recommendations regarding homebirth:
Although some reference is made to scientific evidence on some issues in the report, no reference is made to evidence regarding the outcomes of homebirth. It appears that medical opposition alone informs the Review’s position:
P21: “The Review also considers that moving prematurely to a mainstream private model of care incorporating homebirthing risks polarising the professions rather than allowing the expansion of collaborative approaches to improving choice and services for Australian women and their babies.”
4. The safety of women birthing without a caregiver can be overlooked
P21: “Of concern to the Review Team is the number of submissions and other evidence that suggests a small number of Australian women are choosing homebirths without the support of an appropriately trained health professional. Accordingly, as with any other maternity care model, the Review Team considers that appropriate standards, monitoring and evaluation should be integral components of any service involving homebirth.”
Women choosing to birth at home without a trained caregiver will not be helped by “standards, monitoring and evaluation”, because they are outside the system. The Review Team appear not to understand that these women are within neither a “maternity care model”, nor a “service involving homebirth”.
Maternity Coalition’s experience is that most women birthing at home without a trained caregiver do so because they are unable to access midwifery care at home, and unwilling to use hospital-based services. It is frequently a choice made in desperation. The way to help these women is to provide them access to a high standard of midwifery care in their preferred venue.
The Reviewers overlook the likelihood that the loss of homebirth midwifery care will push more women into unattended homebirth. This would ensure an absence of standards, monitoring or evaluation of any homebirth outcomes.
5. Medical extremists will become more cooperative if they are given a veto on women’s choices
The proposed reason for preventing homebirth midwifery is that it “risks polarising the professions”. The implied strategy seems to be for Government to restrict midwifery practice, against scientific evidence, against the principle of women’s informed choice and against the safety of determined homebirthing women. The presumed intention – for less collaborative doctors to become more respectful of the evidence, principles of informed choice, and women’s perspectives on safety; seems a highly unlikely outcome. The Reviewers reinforce a subordinate position for midwives relative to doctors by proposing to restrict midwifery practice in line with the prejudices of less collaborative doctors. This undermines the relationships they hope to enhance.
The Government must make it clear that the needs, interests and autonomy of women come first. Healthcare policy and services should not be corrupted by the prejudices of health care professions, which prosper on taxpayer funds.
Fear or leadership?
The Minister, Nicola Roxon, is aware that significant modernisations of the healthcare system have historically been met with protest, threats, and predictions of disaster by extreme medical voices. Reforms of Australia’s maternity care system will always provoke this sort of reaction. Those reforms include normalising midwives’ access to public funding and insurance, and women’s access to options including homebirth.
It appears that the Reviewers have conceded to fear of extreme medical voices, over the interests of women. Hopefully the Minister, who is directly accountable to women, will be braver.
Speak out now!
The Review Report has been prepared by Department of Health staff, to advise the Minister for Health, Nicola Roxon. The Minister will decide which of the Department’s advice she will take. If there is enough community outcry about the proposed loss of homebirth, the Minister may decide to act in the interests of choice.
Every Australian has a Federal Member of Parliament (MP), whose job is to represent their interests. Every person who cares about maintaining homebirth choice should contact their Federal MP, preferrably by both letter and with a personal visit.
To find contact info for your MP:
Go to http://apps.aec.gov.au/esearch/ and enter your locality in the “Search Federal Electorates” window.
In the next window, click on the name of your electorate for more information.
On the electorate page, click on “profile and map”.
For contact info for your MP (“Current Member Details”), click on the “Parliament of Australia Website” link.
Write to your MP and tell them how important it is to you that women can choose homebirth. Ask them to contact the Minister for Health on your behalf. Recognise the good sides of the Review, and expect them to help you.
Meet with your MP. Phone their electorate office and ask for an appointment, to talk about the Federal Maternity Review. Take some friends from the same electorate. Tell them why women should have choice.
Your MP is expecting a letter or visit from a mother, not a professor. Tell them why birth and choice are so important to you. Talk about scientific evidence or policy processes if you want, but you are the expert about your own story.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Why I hate motorways
There are few things that I can truly say I don’t appreciate. Most of life’s little annoyances I can handle if not with grace, with a certain stoic fortitude. But I’ve decided that I hate the traffic on the gateway motorway. Every Wednesday I travel from Ipswich to Sandgate to teach, along with just about every car that has rolled off a production line since Henry Ford decided pushbikes weren’t his thing.
We head north in a sick mechanical parody of wildebeests crossing a river, all converged nose to tail going nowhere fast while the more assertive ones make horn noises and jostle for position. We travel on a road optimistically marked 90 at around the speed of a pre toddling toddler creating long lines of blinking red stop lights and smokey exhausts.
But this I can handle, its part of city life nowadays and peak hour traffic is a fact of life. What I detest, passionately, is the return trip.
One would think that once the majority of the cars had reached their destinations and traffic density drops to a mere fraction of the herd, one would be able to enjoy the motoring sensation of moving forward at a reasonable speed; of seeing the needle pass 60 and in a way that justifies owning a vehicle that can travel faster than you can walk.
But it is not to be. Roadworks spring up along with signs, heavy machinery and lots of flashing lights. Clogging the road and turning the whole motorway into a strobed nightmare of delay and frustration.
First they close one lane, backing up traffic and forcing us to merge (careful to avoid being trampled by trucks) as we pass some bloke whose job appears to be to wave an illuminated cone up and down. Then they close the other lane and we all move to the other side, again testing the skill and tactical competence of my fellow motorists.
Now as I was conducting this mechanical gumby ballet two things occurred to me, firstly, that when I’d travelled this road a few hours earlier it had seemed in perfectly functional condition. I should know, as at the speed we’d been moving I got a long look indeed. The second thing that struck me was that while I was passing signs and hundreds of plastic witches hats, utes with flashing arrows and police cars with their lights on, I didn’t seem to be passing anyone who was actually doing anything to the road. There’s a certain oxymoron to the term “road work” when no ones actually repairing the road. I considered perhaps they meant the road was working, but again this wasn’t the case as all the activity and bother had it functioning somewhere between a parking lot and a spruiker for panel beaters.
Its frustrating. And my frustration wasn’t helped by their signs, apart from the odd speed sign suggesting that in the distant past this tarmac torment actually facilitated travel there are ones such “please drive carefully” and “end roadwork.” The latter I can only imagine is probably needed since it wasn’t like I could detect anything happening. It had no beginning, no middle and no end, at least as far as the “work” part was concerned. And all brightly illuminated with flood lights and generators to remove any lingering doubt that there was a purpose to it.
But the one that really got me riled was the large billboard that read “speed kills”! Steam started coming out my ears, I started ranting “how would you possibly know that, were moving at speed where if your theory was correct driving a hearse out here would raise the dead” I mean didn’t their bloody parents teach them not to play in traffic! Mine did. And now I know why. Clearly if you don’t beat this habit early in life people move on to clog highways dressed in “high visibility” fashion disasters and hardhats. I passed a long line of large machines, looking somewhere between a combine harvester and a mining truck, all doing nothing. A lone tetra-bloke stood waving his cone in an up and down in a gesture that looked a little too similar to sexual self abuse to be taken in good grace.
I’m not sure if he was being self descriptive of it was aimed at us, their hapless motoring prey!
Then they closed both lanes! Yep they detoured (derived from the latin dēterrēre meaning to prevent or hinder) us off the highway and into the darkened mess of eagle farm. Here we struggled around more high visability light wankers and a mass of signs with helpful information such as “Detour” (just in case some of us thought our bloody homes had moved in the time it was taking us to reach them. Continental drift was certainly occurring at a similar speed I’m sure.) At one stage I was passing boats!
But by far the worse part, the bit that really got to me was on rejoining the motorway I passed five signs, two police cars and five large industrial road machines without seeing any anything happening. I was starting to look for any sign that this wasn’t some sick joke when I saw him. Dayglow sloth man! Clad in a retina assaulting yellow jumpsuit he leant against the guard rail. This bastard wasn’t even supporting his own body weight! And from the look of it he was serenading the shovel he had lovingly crooked in his arm. As my car slowly crawled past at the legally enforced parody of speed he made no detectable movement at all. If it wasn’t for the odd blink and movement of his lips he could have been a mannequin. I actually entertained running the bastard over, just to see if he would move, but I suspect there are laws against that. How else could his particular blend of lethargy and sloth have been successfully passed down through the generations.
At this point the sheer idiocy of the whole situation became blindingly apparent. Whats the point of repairing a road if were all going to spend time moving along it at 40? People can run faster than that! I mean you can navigate a goat track at that speed, if they aren’t going to let us move any faster than it doesn’t matter what the road surface is like! I think I’m going to write to the gateway motor corporation and ask for my money back. Damned if I see why I should pay toll to use a motorway when it doesn’t function as one. And maybe to the mains roads department. Those little sighs that warn of upcoming sign holders (???) should be changed from alert stick men briskly brandishing signs to something more recognizably related to reality. Turn the sign upside down, have the stick man leaning on it and scratching his bum! At least we’d know what to expect@!
We head north in a sick mechanical parody of wildebeests crossing a river, all converged nose to tail going nowhere fast while the more assertive ones make horn noises and jostle for position. We travel on a road optimistically marked 90 at around the speed of a pre toddling toddler creating long lines of blinking red stop lights and smokey exhausts.
But this I can handle, its part of city life nowadays and peak hour traffic is a fact of life. What I detest, passionately, is the return trip.
One would think that once the majority of the cars had reached their destinations and traffic density drops to a mere fraction of the herd, one would be able to enjoy the motoring sensation of moving forward at a reasonable speed; of seeing the needle pass 60 and in a way that justifies owning a vehicle that can travel faster than you can walk.
But it is not to be. Roadworks spring up along with signs, heavy machinery and lots of flashing lights. Clogging the road and turning the whole motorway into a strobed nightmare of delay and frustration.
First they close one lane, backing up traffic and forcing us to merge (careful to avoid being trampled by trucks) as we pass some bloke whose job appears to be to wave an illuminated cone up and down. Then they close the other lane and we all move to the other side, again testing the skill and tactical competence of my fellow motorists.
Now as I was conducting this mechanical gumby ballet two things occurred to me, firstly, that when I’d travelled this road a few hours earlier it had seemed in perfectly functional condition. I should know, as at the speed we’d been moving I got a long look indeed. The second thing that struck me was that while I was passing signs and hundreds of plastic witches hats, utes with flashing arrows and police cars with their lights on, I didn’t seem to be passing anyone who was actually doing anything to the road. There’s a certain oxymoron to the term “road work” when no ones actually repairing the road. I considered perhaps they meant the road was working, but again this wasn’t the case as all the activity and bother had it functioning somewhere between a parking lot and a spruiker for panel beaters.
Its frustrating. And my frustration wasn’t helped by their signs, apart from the odd speed sign suggesting that in the distant past this tarmac torment actually facilitated travel there are ones such “please drive carefully” and “end roadwork.” The latter I can only imagine is probably needed since it wasn’t like I could detect anything happening. It had no beginning, no middle and no end, at least as far as the “work” part was concerned. And all brightly illuminated with flood lights and generators to remove any lingering doubt that there was a purpose to it.
But the one that really got me riled was the large billboard that read “speed kills”! Steam started coming out my ears, I started ranting “how would you possibly know that, were moving at speed where if your theory was correct driving a hearse out here would raise the dead” I mean didn’t their bloody parents teach them not to play in traffic! Mine did. And now I know why. Clearly if you don’t beat this habit early in life people move on to clog highways dressed in “high visibility” fashion disasters and hardhats. I passed a long line of large machines, looking somewhere between a combine harvester and a mining truck, all doing nothing. A lone tetra-bloke stood waving his cone in an up and down in a gesture that looked a little too similar to sexual self abuse to be taken in good grace.
I’m not sure if he was being self descriptive of it was aimed at us, their hapless motoring prey!
Then they closed both lanes! Yep they detoured (derived from the latin dēterrēre meaning to prevent or hinder) us off the highway and into the darkened mess of eagle farm. Here we struggled around more high visability light wankers and a mass of signs with helpful information such as “Detour” (just in case some of us thought our bloody homes had moved in the time it was taking us to reach them. Continental drift was certainly occurring at a similar speed I’m sure.) At one stage I was passing boats!
But by far the worse part, the bit that really got to me was on rejoining the motorway I passed five signs, two police cars and five large industrial road machines without seeing any anything happening. I was starting to look for any sign that this wasn’t some sick joke when I saw him. Dayglow sloth man! Clad in a retina assaulting yellow jumpsuit he leant against the guard rail. This bastard wasn’t even supporting his own body weight! And from the look of it he was serenading the shovel he had lovingly crooked in his arm. As my car slowly crawled past at the legally enforced parody of speed he made no detectable movement at all. If it wasn’t for the odd blink and movement of his lips he could have been a mannequin. I actually entertained running the bastard over, just to see if he would move, but I suspect there are laws against that. How else could his particular blend of lethargy and sloth have been successfully passed down through the generations.
At this point the sheer idiocy of the whole situation became blindingly apparent. Whats the point of repairing a road if were all going to spend time moving along it at 40? People can run faster than that! I mean you can navigate a goat track at that speed, if they aren’t going to let us move any faster than it doesn’t matter what the road surface is like! I think I’m going to write to the gateway motor corporation and ask for my money back. Damned if I see why I should pay toll to use a motorway when it doesn’t function as one. And maybe to the mains roads department. Those little sighs that warn of upcoming sign holders (???) should be changed from alert stick men briskly brandishing signs to something more recognizably related to reality. Turn the sign upside down, have the stick man leaning on it and scratching his bum! At least we’d know what to expect@!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)