You know it makes sense

America does not want gun control.

Gun satire

This much is obvious. The right to bear arms is enshrined for ever in the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and as such can never be changed. The word “Amendment” does not mean that the Constitution can be amended. Keeping and using deadly hardware is a Right, and is as important as other Rights such as freedom of religion, speech, and the press; fair trial; no cruel and unusual punishments; liquor outlawed; liquor legalised.

Motor vehicles are also items that are potentially deadly hardware, yet these have to be registered and insured, and the driver has to have passed a test of competence and have a licence. But driving a motor vehicle is a privilege that has to be earned through passing a test; keeping and bearing arms is a right that shall not be infringed. Any and all American citizens are allowed to have guns.

The bit about a well-regulated militia is largely irrelevant, coming into play only during a general mobilisation of true patriots against an oppressive regime.

If the government takes away everyone’s guns, it is obvious that the next step will be such an oppressive regime and the consequent re-education, internment, and eventually death camps. Just like in Britain and Australia.

So when The Man, as personified by the uniform and “License and registration please” stops a true patriot who is going about his lawful business, the correct response must surely not be to declare that “I have a permit and yes I am armed” but to use that weapon to avoid being dragged off to a death camp.

Control through the law obviously cannot work because criminals, pretty much by definition, do not abide by the law. And anyway, criminals who are American citizens retain their right to bear arms. It is a right; not a privilege, remember? The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Witness how the hundreds of people at the recent Las Vegas massacre so effectively took down the lone shooter. See how good guys with guns effectively prevented mass shootings in cinemas, schools, and churches. And the police, now not part of the oppressive regime, are always glad of valuable assistance from this impromptu well-regulated militia and can easily tell the difference between civilian bad guys with AR-15s and civilian good guys with AR-15s.

There is no way a criminal will rob someone when he knows that the victim is armed. That is why robbery never happens in the USA. Whereas over the Pond, unarmed citizens are mown down by the thousands by the armed criminal masses; something the unarmed police are powerless to prevent.

One final thought. The ease of access to firearms of many types makes successful suicide more likely than with pills. But gun suicides don’t count towards the firearm death toll. Neither do deadly shootings involving criminals shooting other criminals. Nor extrajudicial executions by the police for apparently reaching for a weapon, or running away, or being shot after being arrested, or having a tail-light out, or looking at me in a funny way. So the actual number of firearm deaths, in which otherwise law-abiding citizens shoot people, is tiny; no cause for alarm, and certainly no reason for legislation.

]}:-{>

Handbasket

In the latest of a series of supposedly offhand comments made by Lord Dampnut that are designed to divert attention away from  matters of State, it would appear that he advocates prisoner abuse: "When you guys put somebody in the car and you're protecting their head, ... you can take the hand away, okay?"

That is to say, Lord Dampnut advocates the physical abuse of restrained suspects who are, according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, entitled to a fair trial, and who are presumed innocent until proven guilty^{(Article 11(1))}.

But then, this is the same Lord Dampnut who advocates that terrorist suspects undergo torture "...a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding", which is in explicit violation of UDHR Article 5.

This from the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. When the supposed Good Guys are doing this, whatever will the world come to?

]}:-{>

Caprine Confusion

The Goat admits that he is nonplussed. The new UAE federal traffic rules were announced on about 29th June 2017 for implementation from 1st July. Some penalties have been increased; others have been decreased; the maximum legal window tint has been increased from 30% to 50%.

But here is where the confusion appears.

It has been normal custom and practice in the UAE to allow a 20km/h over the posted limit. Logical and not unreasonable, given instrument inaccuracy and the known fact that nobody NEVER sneaks, even inadvertently, over the posted maximum. And we are assured that this situation will prevail.  

 

And yet the new list includes a fine of Dh300 for exceeding the posted limit by not more than 20km/h.  

 

So is exceeding the posted limit by say 10km/h a punishable offence or not?

The Goat was surprised and annoyed to receive a speeding ticket earlier in 2017 for doing less than 110km/h in a 100km/h zone. In Fahrenheit, the Goat got busted for doing less than 68mph in a 62mph zone.Incidentally, just past the first 100km/h sign after a long, long stretch of 120km/h highway.

 

This is in accordance with the old Law 183, but is still well inside Dubai's tolerance level. But it's Sharjah; not Dubai.

 

The Goat suspects that these federal rules apply, but because Dubai is Special, Dubai chooses to ignore speeding less than 20km/h over the limit. Other emirates, it would seem, are not as tolerant.

The Goat also observes 1279 fines on the first day. Obviously this count does not include the speed and red-light cameras because the results from these take a few days to come through the process. Moreover, he suspects that most would have been offences under previous laws. But the fact the we see punitive action rather than compliance rather suggests that the system will take a while to become effective.

Or perhaps the novelty will wear off after a few days or weeks, and we will be back to the highway anarchy that we all know and love.

It is gratifying to the Goat to note that, at last, traffic laws pertaining to the American system of having a STOP sign on school buses have now become official. 

 

Compliance and enforcement? Remain to be seen; last time the Goat stopped behind a school bus with its STOP sign out he was hooted at and verbally abused by a nasty man in a large black-windowed Tahoe.

And finally, Law 155. Transporting inflammable ale is right out.

The complete list, should anyone be interested, is here.

]}:-{>

D*ckhead Day

In a fight between a Patrol and a Sunny
 there can be only one victor.

One is perhaps given to wonder if there’s been a rash of New Year’s resolutions to drive extra badly this year.

First, we note that Qatar Police have introduced some new ‘no messing around’ rules, including a QAR1000 fine for undertaking and penalty points for speeding. You collect 15 of these and get a bicycle. Therefore undertaking is definitely a huge no-no.

I encountered the first d*ckhead at about 0615. On a two-lane dual carriageway with a 120km/h speed limit and no other traffic around, he was bumbling along in the left-hand lane at 80km/h. As coming up behind him and flashing headlights counts as aggressive and offensive driving I couldn’t do that, and I couldn’t whiz past on the inside. After about ten minutes, the driver of the pick-up finished his Facebook post, glanced in his mirror and at last moved over to let me past. Then he moved back into the left lane.

Now, normal procedure when waiting to turn left on a local road, I thought, is to wait in the middle of the road with the left signal flashing, wait for a gap in the oncoming traffic, and then make the turn. Apparently not. At about 0635 I had to stand on my brakes when a rickety Yaris suddenly turned left at full speed right in front of me. Just as well I was doing only the 40km/h speed limit and there was nobody behind me. Indicators? What are those?

Now 0930, and I was on my way up Al Shamal Road to a meeting. This expressway is four lanes in each direction and has a 120km/h speed limit. In the usual way the right-hand lane was empty because only inferior drivers lacking in the trouser department drive there. The second lane was full of water tankers and labourers’ buses. Lane 3 had a variety of cars and pickups generally trundling along at 110 to 120km/h, and there was me in my Nissan Sunny. Small Nissans receive zero respect from those magnificent men in their ginormous SUVs, and generally speaking I use the left-hand lane to overtake, getting the hell out of it as soon as is safely possible.

Enter the Chevrolet Avalanche, a humungous pickup with a 5.3 litre V8 engine and a nut holding the wheel. I was in the middle of an overtake and right up at the speed limit (which is rigidly enforced by cameras every few hundred metres) when I saw him, but he came up so fast I could neither accelerate nor slow down before being tailgated at about six inches. Flash Flash Flash. Hitting the gas under these circumstances is futile in a Sunny. The Avalanche swung into Lane 3, spotted the car I was overtaking, and hit his anchors. Then he was back, undertaking me before I had chance to move out of his way, cutting in front of me so that I have no idea how the vehicles didn’t hit. Then, as anticipated, I was treated to a brake test.

The next tailgater (d*ckhead number four in three hours if anyone’s keeping score) was about five kilometres further up the same road. This one was piloting a shiny new Nissan Patrol. He didn’t even bother slowing down, choosing instead to overtake me on the left-hand breakdown lane. Alas, the hard shoulder is narrow, a Nissan Patrol is wide, and I couldn’t move over because of the stream of slower cars to my right when the driver ran out of talent.

After stopping he leapt from his car and demanded first in Arabic and then is good English why I’d rammed him and not moved over. When I said “Overtaking. Hard shoulder forbidden” he got all bent outta shape in the manner of varous pieces of Nissan hardware.

Enter my passengers. Both eyewitnesses, and both Arabic native speakers. The Patrol pilot very quickly decided that it was his fault, and in due course we ended up at the police station. There were discussions in Arabic, and I was given my copy of the police report, also entirely in Arabic. I got one of my colleagues to tell me exactly what it said. I’m not daft.

At this juncture I learned that the Patrol was covered only by third-party insurance. Not only was the owner going to be hours and hours late for his meeting, but he was due to incur a massive amount of expense. Driving on the hard shoulder is a serious offence.

And so to the car rental office to replace my Sunny.

“This police report says it’s your fault,” I was told. “Says here.”

“It most certainly does not. You imagine I can’t read Arabic? It actually says here…” and I proceeded to parrot what my colleague had told me.

“No, no, Mr Mohammed. You are to blame. It says so on the form.”

“It does indeed say that Mr Mohammed is to blame. But do I look like Mr Mohammed, with a Nissan Patrol? Or is it more likely that I’m the other party; one Mr G. Goat, driving a rental Sunny hired to him by your own good selves?”

Clearly an attempt to extort my insurance deductible, their pathetic attempt at subterfuge was exposed. “Now apologise!”

I decided to return to Cloud City and hide from society for the rest of the day. I have just been disturbed by Room Service. Someone ordered a Turkish coffee and gave my room number instead of theirs.

]}:-{>

Cupid stunt

Photo: 7DAYS

Pictured is "one of 'tens' of 'worrying' images received by Dubai Police on a daily basis".

According to today's 7DAYS front page, it's irresponsible recklessness that is the traffic offence du jour, and we are all to be appropriately outraged. Of course; the biker in the pic isn't wearing boots, gloves, a jacket, and presumably no armour in his trousers. If he falls off, he may live to regret it. Notwithstanding his behaviour, I think the guy in the pic is a bit of a dickhead.

But biking attire isn't the point. Reckless driving by motorcyclists in general is. Apparently, the police have been confiscating bikes at a rate of about eight a week in Dubai so far this year, and Daddy simply pays the fine so that Offspring can continue on his headlong trip off the bike on to the ground or maybe six feet under it.

These guys are giving all bikers a bad name, and from a personal point of view, I don't need to get tarred with the same brush, just because I happen to ride a motorcycle.

But how about getting the level of two-wheeled lawlessness into perspective?

'Tens of worrying images'. Not dozens, scores, or hundreds. Assuming for a moment that Dubai police would have said 'hundreds' if they'd received more than 101 pictures, then 'tens' means no more than 99. Last May, 7DAYS reported how two million traffic offences had been recorded in Dubai in the first four months of 2013. That's around 16,500 offences per day.

'Worrying' images constitute less than 0.6% of the total reported traffic offences. I think it's the remaining 99.4% that should be worried about.

]}:-{>

Video kills the way of the car

The rise of the portable and affordable high-definition video camera has produced video blogs, uncountable numbers on YouTube of videos featuring Russians running out of talent, and copious potential material for the purveyors of law and order. It’s this last point that I want to address here.

Dubai Police actually promotes a campaign that is imaginatively called “We Are All Police,” with a couple of contact telephone numbers: 800 4353 and 800 7000 since you ask. You’re welcome. The basic idea is that you pick up your phone and report an alleged offence, and the police will follow it up. Getting twenty calls all with variations on a theme of “Black Land Cruiser with this registration number driving at speed up the breakdown lane” might produce some police action. However, using a hand-held mobile phone while driving is illegal, so a lot of these witnessed offences presumably go unreported.

Anyway, my business proposal is to combine We Are All Police with a GoPro (or similar) camera. I’m sure many drivers spend their days wondering why there’s never a police officer around when someone displays a monumental lack of regard for safety or the law, and my proposal is to do something about it. Publishing a video on YouTube of someone publicly assaulting a van driver is illegal, and the material should, we are told, be handed to the police. So here’s the plan.

In essence, I ride my motorbike around Dubai with a GoPro camera stuck to my helmet, and I record the registration number of each vehicle along with the offence being committed, all in the same take. Dubai police get a copy of the video, and I receive 50% of the fine as payment. I estimate that I could clear several hundred dirhams a day just going about my daily business and only noting mobile phone use. Dubai police receive the other 50% with little effort beyond entering the data on the RTA’s database. Imagine how much cash I could make if it were my day job…:-

Selected traffic offences: 

Reckless driving                   (AED 2000 and 24 black points),

Mobile phone use                   (AED 200 and 4 black points),
Not wearing a seat belt            (AED 400 and 4 black points),
Inappropriate use of hardstrip     (AED 600 and 6 black points),

Tailgating                         (AED 400 and 4 black points),

Running a red light                (AED 800 and 12 black points),
Stopping on a pedestrian  crossing (AED 500).(I could make a packet every Friday just by taking a GoPro down to outside the mosque on my local street corner!)

The benefits are obvious, from an income stream for Muggins for doing little more than riding his motorbike, but go on to improved driver behaviour and consequent reduction in collisions once the idea that any motorcyclist out there might be a police deputy, in much the same way that wearing a POLITE fluorescent tabard might. Then drivers might actually notice motorcycles, which would be of further benefit in the area of motorcycle safety. Oh, and I’d get to feel as if I was getting back at some of the knuckle-dragging morons who have inexplicably been allowed control of a motor vehicle.

What of gainsayers who say that “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”? How about I only report offences that I never commit? And yes, I would undertake police training if I were required to demonstrate some level of competence on two wheels.

And what of resentful motorists who take it into their pretty little heads to run bikers off the road, much as what happens already? Would you risk it if there were a reasonable probability of the incident being caught on video and used in your prosecution? No, I didn’t think so.

]}:-{>

It's good to be polite

Genuine British Police Officer

Confession, they say, is good for the soul.  Back in the 1980s I owned a plain white Ford Cortina. I also worked for a local authority, and the job required that I made frequent trips to construction sites in all weathers. So I got into the habit of throwing my bright fluorescent yellow jacket on whenever I drove the car. This was fine, right up until the day came when I was pulled over by the Kent Constabulary for both “Driving at 29mph in a 30mph zone” and “Resembling a Police Officer.”

I confess: I was indeed driving at 29mph. What speed would you have done when being tailed by a traffic cop in a 30mph zone? As for the other allegation, there was absolutely nothing that made me look like a traffic cop in an unmarked car beyond driving a plain white Ford and wearing a bright yellow jacket.

But I had wondered why the Porsches that came up behind me on motorways at enormous speed seemed suddenly to notice that they were accidentally exceeding 70mph, slammed on their brakes, and tucked in behind my Cortina at a sensible and law-abiding 69mph. It also now occurred to me why, when my car alarm accidentally malfunctioned while I was driving through Loughborough, the traffic parted like the Red Sea in front of a multitude of Israelites. Something to do with flashing headlights and an earsplitting  Bee-Doh-Bee-Doh klaxon. I’d bought the alarm secondhand, and didn’t know about the wire that should have been connected to prevent the thing going off when the engine was running.

Moving forward in time now, and I note that over the past 35 years, precious little has improved in the Department of Motorcycle Conspicuity. I have tried the Dayglo Derek approach; my current bike has 110 watts of unswitchoffable headlights; I’ve put reflective tape on the bodywork. Yet all seems to no avail. Motorbikes, because they’re smaller than Land Cruisers, are utterly invisible.

An ordinary fluorescent jacket with retroreflective stripes isn’t effective. Actually it is. It increases conspicuity by an astonishing margin, but other motorists apparently don’t give a shit. “They look, but they don’t see,” a grizzled old motorcycling instructor once told me.

Absolutely completely different from,
and definitely unlike, a Police uniform

But now, a supplier of safety gear in the UK has come up with a genius solution. Highvisibility.uk.com started with equestrian gear – Dayglo for horses. They’ve now branched into motorcycle safety gear. The crucial difference between this new stuff and previous is some clever text on the back: “POLITE NOTICE – THINK BIKE” 

Funny how a small word that resembles at first glance the possibility of being prosecuted for a moving traffic offence is so much more effective than acres upon acres of Dayglo. And in the UK at least, it’s legal.

Dubai motorcycle cop

It’s pointless buying one of these tabards for use in Dubai. The desired effect wouldn’t happen here because the Plod looks significantly different.

However, there remains talk of Dubai Police adopting the black Kawasaki 1400GTR as weapon of choice, and if they do I’ll accidentally have a bike that looks exactly like theirs.

]}:-{>

Blinkin' winkers

Hey, if I had indicators like this
I'd use them as much as possible!

Dubai Police have recently announced a week-long campaign to encourage indicator use. According to the front page of last Monday’s 7DAYS newspaper, the majority of motorists do not use indicators when changing lanes, which resulted in one in four of the deaths on Dubai’s roads last year. According to the head of Dubai Traffic Police, indicators are perceived by the yoof as only for old people. Western drivers, however, do use their indicators; this is part of their culture. 

Er, no. Culture is related to art, music, dance, literature. How people behave when they get behind the wheel isn’t cultural. It’s all down to education and enforcement. Although, as the roads resemble a battle zone at times, it seems only appropriate that so many motorists appear to be cultured enough to have read Sun Tzu’s The Art of War:

•  “All warfare is based on deception.”
•  “Mystify, mislead, and surprise the enemy.”
•  “The whole secret lies in confusing the enemy, so that he cannot fathom our real intent.”

And the idea that we are at war on the highway seems to be the prevailing attitude. Just try to indicate before changing lanes, and inevitably that gap you were planning to move into will vanish. We give away our tactical advantage if we show anyone else what we’re planning to do.

For crying out loud, people, this is not Death Race 2000.

However, getting everyone to indicate isn’t going to solve the original road safety problem. “He changed lanes without signalling” becomes “He signalled and then changed lanes, heedless of the fact that someone was in the way.” Wednesday’s 7DAYS ran a story of a fatal crash, in which the victim was hit “by a driver who changed lanes without looking or indicating.” How would the outcome have changed if the driver had indicated, yet moved anyway? Not by very much, I suspect.

Indicators, the current road safety panacea du jour, actually do not provide a divine right to change lanes or turn. Irrespective of flashing lights or any other signals, we can only move into an empty space.

Sun Tzu again: “Be where your enemy is not.”

]}:-{>

Shhh! It's Sharjah

Sharjah’s new year resolution is to prevent public disturbance after 10pm. Huzzah! Residents will be able to sleep at night and not be kept awake by traffic noise. And how, exactly, is Sharjah Police going to achieve this laudable aim? By banning all motorcycles and bicycles from main roads after 10pm. This is, apparently, part of a Sharjah Police initiative for a safe winter in the emirate. The news article in Khaleej Times headlines with the two-wheeler curfew and then rambles on about safe places to go camping, and to ensure that people “…wear decent dresses that will ensure their security,” whatever that’s supposed to mean.

It seems that the new law is a sledgehammer-to-crack-a-nut over-reaction to Da Boyz impressing young ladies over at Khalid Lagoon. There’s nothing quite as effective as a 130dB exhaust and some smoking tyres to make yourself Attractive To Ladies. Hence the Sharjah-wide ban on such immorality. Cars are evidently morally upstanding, or else less attractive to the fine ladies of Sharjah.

The ban on bicycles seems to be the resurrection of a previous edict from Sharjah government back in 2006. The novelty of enforcing this ban wore off after a couple of weeks, so there’s little reason for believing that things will be significantly different this time.

Why noise abatement should affect pedal cycles in any way, and how any of this business is related to camping and wearing decent dresses is a mystery. I guess the paper chose to throw all the “and while we’re on the subject of Sharjah…” stories into the same article.

While researching material for this post, I did discover that banning motorcycles is not without precedent. In August 2013, Brent Council in North London introduced a similar scheme to address problems of motorcycle hooliganism near the Ace Café.

From the comments: ‘Motorcycle Action Group Chairman John Mitchell added: “This traffic order is a blunt instrument that flies in the face of natural justice and represents the kind of social profiling that would not be tolerated in other contexts.” ’ Such as, for example, banning football fans from Wembley Stadium (also in the London Borough of Brent) in case hooliganism might otherwise break out.

Back to Sharjah, has anyone actually considered the practical effects of an emirate-wide ban on motorbikes? Evidently not Amira Agarib over at Khaleej Times who seem to have regurgitated press releases without so much as asking, “But, Brigadier, what if…?”

A biker who lives in Sharjah has got to be home before 10pm, presumably. When is he allowed out again? Midnight? 4am? 6am?

Does the curfew seriously apply only to main roads? Perhaps after a riotous night out on Buhairah Corniche smoking shisha and eating shawarmas, we can sneak back to other emirates on the back streets. Yes, those back streets that weave between residential tower blocks in Al Khan and Abu Shagara.

Actually, the emirate of Sharjah is a big place. According to Khaleej Times, his bike ban applies to all main roads throughout the emirate, so expect to be nicked as you head along the Emirates Road from Dubai to Ras Al Khaimah. Don’t plan on returning from Fujairah after an evening of drinking coffee next to the Gulf of Oman. Will there be huge traffic signs on the Emirates Road, warning bikers not to enter Sharjah at night?

Meanwhile, what about four-wheeled hooligans revving their V8s in the middle of the night until the valves bounce? There have been tales of vehicles being confiscated for precisely this offence, but I wonder why only two wheelers have now been singled out for pre-emptive action. No, we do not all have stupidly loud exhausts, and most of us have enough common decency to keep the noise and speed down in urban areas.

Here’s a thought: How about the police pulling over and ticketing everyone who’s making an antisocial racket, and leave the law-abiding majority alone?

Finally, spare a thought for those residents who will now not receive timely delivery of their take-away food. If the delivery boys can’t operate after 10pm, which the new law says they can’t, late night snacks won’t be possible, the general health of Sharjah’s population will improve, and everyone except KFC and Pizza Hut will be happy.

]}:-{>

Got to stop

All UAE school buses have for the past couple of years been yellow, in the style of North American school buses, even Toyota Hiace minibuses. 

Some ravening bureaucrat decreed that the four-way hazards and brake lights should flash whenever the brakes were applied, which was a ludicrous idea because you couldn’t tell if a braking bus was slowing to enter a bus stop or to turn left or right. Thankfully, this ridiculousness seems to have been addressed, and the flashing lights that come on with the brakes are now additional to the normal brake lights and indicators.

Something else borrowed from North America is the swing-out STOP sign. Whenever a school bus stops and the door is opened to let passengers on or off, a red, octagonal STOP sign swings out and red lights flash. As far as I can ascertain from the internet and my American friends and family, when the sign is deployed, it’s illegal to pass the bus. On a single carriageway, that’s in both directions. The basic idea is that children can cross the road to and from a school bus without being hit by cars overtaking the bus.

I was going to have a rant about this a couple of years ago, but decided not to because it seems the legality of and penalty for passing one of these bus-mounted STOP signs depends on which US state you’re in.

The inevitable tragedy recently happened. Reported in 7DAYS, it seems a seventeen-year-old got off her school bus in Dibba Fujairah and was hit by a car. What a senseless waste. My understanding from the newspaper story, inferred from the bus driver being detained and questioned by the police, is that the bus was at the roadside when the collision occurred. Did the student cross the road when the STOP sign was deployed? The newspaper doesn’t say. 

Here is the problem. It’s very easy for the police and the courts to come down on the driver who hit a pedestrian crossing the road with a “You passed a school bus showing its STOP sign. That is forbidden. You are culpable.” But where is the requirement to stop enshrined in law? Certainly I’ve never seen it written. Is it a legal requirement in the UAE to stop behind one of these buses? My personal experience of stopping on Street 71 in Mirdif when the school bus deploys its STOP sign is that I get hooted at by the driver tailgating me, and everyone else razzes past the bus in the fast lane.

Legal issues aside, what possesses someone to hurtle past a stopped school bus or ice-cream van? These are both child magnets. Not UAE law, but the UK Highway Code (Rule 209) says to: “Drive carefully and slowly when passing a stationary bus showing a ‘School Bus’ sign,” and Rule 206 includes the note that “…children are more interested in ice cream than traffic…”

We’re back to the same old mantra that I’ve talked about before. Local highway authorities cherry-pick ideas from international design standards, and similarly cherry-pick the rules for road users. Drivers from any of 150 or more different nationalities apply their own versions of what is right (and what they can get away with), or have learned from driving instructors who apply their own opinions from their own training and experience. And no, it isn’t “obvious” that you don’t cross an unbroken centreline, that parking is forbidden on double yellow lines, or you’re not allowed to drive on the breakdown lane. Normal custom and practice, perhaps, but unless It Is Written, it isn’t the Law.

What is desperately needed is a federal rule book; a Highway Code, if you will. With all the rules written down and publicly available, there’s much less scope for wild interpretation. And no, printing up a list of traffic offences in the local paper does not constitute publishing a Highway Code.

]}:-{>

It's a knockout

'Brockian Ultra-Cricket is a curious game which involves suddenly hitting people for no readily apparent reason and then running away. "Let's be blunt, it's a nasty game," says The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.'

Indeed it is. A very nasty game. And now there are news reports of such bestial activity being dubbed 'Knockout,' the object of which is to render some random passer-by unconscious with a single punch. A suitable victim seems to be old, frail, female, weak. Cowardly attacks aren't generally made on WWE wrestlers or nightclub bouncers. I’ve seen video footage of such alleged attacks: one member of a gang leaps out from behind his mates and sucker punches some unsuspecting member of the public, and the gang wanders off.

Knockout differs from 'Happy Slapping,'  in which, according to the Urban Dictionary, "...chavs ambush an innocent passer-by, and beat them up while one of the gang videos the whole episode on their mobile phone. The video is kept as a trophy and passed round the class at school." Multiple attackers; sustained attack.

The Urban Dictionary also notes of Happy Slapping that, "In America we call this practice assault and I do believe you would get shot with a gun if you tried it."

There is a story circulating on social media regarding Knockout that a victim shot and killed two of a gang when she was assaulted. It gets a lot of, "The punks deserved it" comments on forums, but the story seems to be a work of fiction or wishful thinking. This is not to say that deadly retailiation to a Knockout assault hasn't or won't occur. One day, a victim will pull out a firearm and render the entire gang dead or injured. Or he’ll fail to fall over and there’ll be a frenzied street brawl. It’s only a matter of time.

I pulled the picture at the top of this post from a Facebook post. At a hypothetical level I concur with the sentiment, “Don’t mess with me, or I’ll use deadly force,” but in the Real World things are a lot more complicated.

My concern is how the courts would deal with such a reaction. The initial blow is straightforward Felonious Assault, there’s an obvious aggressor, and there’s a clear victim. Hopefully, CCTV images will bring the perps to justice. But any less-than-instant reaction by the victim is, unfortunately, difficult to justify on the grounds of self-defence. It’s impractical and obviously illegal to be proactively violent towards every gang of youths. It’s difficult to react immediately in the split-second of a single-blow attack. And reacting afterwards isn’t self defence, but revenge.

When the aggressor and his gang walk away, there’s no follow-up violence or explicit threat. So a wronged victim who shoots his assailant (presumably in the back) becomes the new aggressor. Perhaps a solution is to get the gang member responsible to turn around, plug him in his chest and forehead, and then claim to the police that he was coming back to inflict more violence. Good luck with trying that when you're dazed following a knockout blow.

In 2008 in High Wycombe, UK, a British businessman Munir Hussain and his family were threatened in their home by a gang of intruders. Hussain chased, Walid Salem, one of the intruders from the house and, 'about four Asian men,' according to eyewitnesses, beat Salem with a cricket bat and other implements. The court sentenced Munir Hussain to 30 months in prison for the assault on someone who had, it was claimed in court, threatened to kill the Hussain family in their own home. English law treats Salem’s leaving the house and his subsequent beating as separate incidents. He was no longer an immediate threat to Hussain’s family. The whole case is more complex that my summary. I suggest the References section at the bottom of the Wikipedia article.

I bring up this case to illustrate possible legal consequences of actions by the victim.

My feelings on the subject aren’t entirely theoretical. Many years ago I was walking home from the pub with a few friends. When they nipped into the Chinese takeaway, about four or five local yobs beat me to a pulp. They wanted a fight, which I wouldn’t give them. Mercifully, no weapons were involved.

I realised that to fight back would have the police show up and arrest us all, and there’d unprovable claims on both sides about who started it. I absolutely refused to fight back (but believe me, I so wanted to), and called off my friends when they emerged from the Chinese. Thus when the police eventually did turn up, the deserving mob was arrested, charged, and subsequently sent down for Grievous Bodily Harm, Actual Bodily Harm, and Criminal Damage.

]}:-{>

Doing the splits

I am not going to be an apologist for the motorcycle buffoons who scream through tiny gaps in traffic, removing mirrors in the process, nor those who zip along the white line at R17 when the main traffic streams are doing close to the posted speed limit. Neither will I defend high-speed zig-zagging across multiple highway lanes by anyone, not just bikers. My point is limited to the well-known motorcycling practice of filtering between queues of cars.

In this discourse, I'm treating 'filtering' as riding a motorbike between queues of stationary cars; 'lane splitting' is a similar thing, but the cars are actually moving.

Whether the practice is legal or not depends on where in the world you are. It's legal in California, but nowhere else in the USA as far as I know. Filtering and lane splitting are both legal in the UK and mainland Europe. In the UAE, where the legality of most things on the road seems to be decided ad hoc, it's apparently not allowed in Abu Dhabi, but may or may not be permissible in Dubai. Not that this stops most motorcyclists from doing it anyway.

The UK's Highway Code (Rule 88) includes the phrase: 'Additionally, when filtering in slow-moving traffic, take care and keep your speed low.' OK, I know that this rule is specific to the UK.

The definition of 'low' speed in this context is a grey area. Personally, I slow to a crawl so I can stop if the taxi driver in front of me suddenly opens his door to spit in the road. Random door opening seems less likely when traffic is moving, but sudden lane changes become more likely. Hence 'take care'. Various highways experts and driver pressure groups have opinions published on the internet and elsewhere, but the consensus seems to be not to lane split at more than 30mph above the prevailing traffic speed. This seems on the high side to me.

From a motorcyclist's point of view, it's only reasonable to move to the front of a traffic queue and be away with the green light, rather than to sit in temperatures in the forties Celsius with the engine blowing more hot air on his legs. Cars, at least, usually have air conditioning. This option should always be available on normal roads where a car is typically 1.8m wide in a 3.6m traffic lane. At roadworks, for example, traffic lane widths may be reduced, and my monstrous 101cm wide bike won't fit through the gap. I have to queue and watch the pizzas speed past me.

The advantages of allowing filtering and lane splitting don't stop with preventing bikers from getting hot legs. From their perspective, not getting stuck in traffic queues speeds their journeys and they're presumably not late for their appointments. This alone should make motorcycling an attractive proposition for commuting. A modal switch from cars to motorbikes offers advantages for everyone else on the road:

• When traffic is moving freely, a motorbike takes up pretty much the same amount of road as a car. That is one whole lane width, plus a gap in front and a gap behind. As congestion develops, the bike moves into its own narrow lane between queues of crawling cars and the space the biker was occupying becomes available for a car. The bike essentially disappears from the traffic volume.

• There's a safety issue. A bike is invisible in the middle of a traffic lane behind a bus or truck, and it's to everyone's advantage if the biker moves to one side so that the machine is visible in the mirrors of the vehicle in front. Moving to the side is also likely to reduce the chance of the bike being rear-ended.

• A motorbike, even one with a big engine, usually uses less fuel than a car. It uses a lot less than a car of comparable performance. Although motorcycle exhaust emissions are dirtier than those of modern, cat-converted car exhausts, it is fundamental that if you burn less, you pollute less. If you're not sitting in a traffic jam for half an hour, you're not polluting for 30 minutes at zero miles per gallon.

• Having arrived at his destination, perhaps his office, our hypothetical biker can park his machine in a much smaller space than a car. You can get three or four large motorbikes into one car space, and if the bike's parked in an alley or on a hardstanding where cars can't go, it's taking up no car spaces at all.

You can achieve these last two by car sharing. Four commuters in one car take up only one parking space, and quadruple the effective gas mileage. But you lose convenience and flexibility in travel arrangements.

Whether lane splitting is legal where you ride or drive, it isn't the job of car drivers to act as unpaid Traffic Policemen. Bikers are familiar with the scenario in which a driver sees a bike riding up the gap between queued cars. He becomes envious and resentful, and deliberately moves his car to block the biker's path. The biker simply rides around the other side of the car. If he's of the rude and vulgar type, the biker might choose to hurl abuse at, or to flip off the car driver for being a selfish pillock (which I cannot condone, but it happens). The car driver takes offence, having been rebuked for driving like an arse, and thinks, "Bikers are all ignorant, knuckle-dragging morons. QED."

Motorcyclists are, by and large, not knuckle-dragging morons. We are people, going about our daily lives the same as everyone else. Don't be envious if motorbikes pass you in a traffic jam. Just imagine how much worse that queue would be if each biker were driving a car.

]}:-{>

Alibi

File picture: Gulf News

The Goat made a series of wrong decisions the other evening, starting with choosing the old coast road back to Dubai from Dreamland Aquapark in Umm Al Quwain with a fully loaded car. Roadworks directed him into the depths of Ajman where, after an evening of being cut off by other motorists, being forced to make a number of emergency stops, and being directed in unexpected directions owing to the almost total absence of road markings and advance direction signs, he ended up in the wrong lane and was pulled over and given a ticket by a motorcycle cop.

Oh, joy. Oh, delight. Insert appropriate profanities under one’s breath here.

A couple of days later, the Goat received an SMS detailing the traffic offence, with details of how to pay the fine by going along to the Ministry of the Interior website. This, it would seem, is where all traffic fines end up, except for offences committed in Dubai. Certainly, there’s nothing on the Dubai RTA website, where the Goat's driving record is shown as pure as fresh-driven snow.

The Goat found the offence listed on the MOI website and paid his fine. He was both fascinated and appalled to learn of another offence, apparently committed in Abu Dhabi in 2011. 

The trouble is, the Goat didn’t import his car from Qatar and register it in Dubai until 2012.

The Goat doesn't give two hoots that it’s “only” AED300. He will not be accused of something he didn’t do without fighting it. He phoned the MOI, and was led a long and merry dance to the tune of “This is the wrong number. You need to call this different number” until he’d gone full circle and ended up at Criminal Investigation twice. Here, the very nice officer apologised, and even asked for forgiveness on behalf of the ill-informing multitude.

Dubai RTA subsequently led the Goat another merry dance. Eventually, having arrived at Vehicle Licencing in the RTA headquarters on Marrakech Street, he obtained a letter to take to Abu Dhabi Traffic Police. His request was met with a cheery, “Ah yes, someone else’s fine against your vehicle? We get lots of those. No problem; we’ll give you a letter.”

What had happened is that the previous owner of the Goat’s licence plate committed some traffic offence in Abu Dhabi. Then the plate got recycled without first clearing all fines. This, in turn, was because Dubai RTA doesn’t have access to the centralised federal traffic offence database and gaily undertakes registration renewals seemingly only checking its own traffic fines database. There are two systems: Dubai has one, and All The Other Emirates have the other.

It was easy for the RTA to identify who owned the plate when the offence was committed, and the RTA’s letter simply asks Abu Dhabi Police to transfer the fine to the guilty party. How irritating that the Goat has to do all the running around, getting himself freed from a fine for an offence that he couldn’t possibly have committed. They can’t sort this out in Dubai because of the two separate databases.

Here then is the story of how to deal with Phantom Fines in Dubai. Go to RTA HQ (Block C, Floor 2, Vehicle Licensing) and they’ll either deal with it, provide a letter to get Another Emirate to deal with it, or (if you can’t absolutely prove it wasn’t you even if your car was up on blocks without a gearbox on the day in question) tell you to cough up.

Oh, and don’t pay the fine and subsequently attempt to get your money back. Goods once sold will not be taken back, and no requests for refunds will be entertained.

]}:-{>

No pictures!

Tarmac Tantrum

It's been well documented, first in the UAE media and then internationally, that the way to deal with a minor hit-and-run traffic collision is not to hunt down and assault the other driver.

In this recent case, it seems that the Indian van driver nudged an Emirati's Toyota Land Cruiser and failed to stop and await the police. The Emirati chased the Indian and stopped him; I would have done the same, as would many drivers, I suspect. But then the Emirati set about assaulting the Indian. Common assault in a public place in front of eye-witnesses. (Believe me, I was tempted to rearrange someone's face with a tyre iron following his attempt to kill me with a blunt instrument (a GMC truck), but I value my liberty too much and instead awaited the arrival of the Law.)

Anyway, back to the recent case. One of these witnesses had a video camera, and he caught the assault on video and then chose to post it on YouTube, from where it proliferated. Despite the YouTube video being taken down, the images are now on the internet until the end of time. This in itself is worth remembering: if you upload something on to the internet it'll be there for ever.

It seems that in the UAE, it is against the law to photograph someone without their permission. It is also possible to defame someone by telling the truth, as Alexander observed over on Fake Plastic Souks.

My dictionary defines 'defame' as "attack the good name or reputation of, as by uttering or publishing maliciously or falsely anything injurious..." I suppose "publishing maliciously anything injurious" is what this amateur videographer seems to have done; I had always thought that "publishing falsely" was the critical bit. Merriam-Webster says that defamation is the same as slander, and that is definitely "...utterance of false charges." I think I'll leave the courts to sort out this one.

EDITED 30 JULY: According to The National, all charges against the Emirati and the Indian videographer have been dropped. The Emirati was fired from his job over the incident.

And then something occurred to me. If it's illegal to photograph me without my permission, even if I'm committing a criminal act, and post the pictures on the internet, then in principle all traffic cameras are illegal. If you go to the Dubai Police website and type in your (or anyone else's) car registration number, up will pop all outstanding traffic offences complete with a link to a nice picture of the offending vehicle's licence plate.

If I gave implicit permission to be photographed if I exceeded the speed limit or ran a red light when I took to the road, then surely all of us give our permission to be photographed when we enter a public place.

I'm not the only one this has occurred to. The Arabian Business website ran an article on 20th July that suggests that the law may be changed to decriminalise taking pictures of illegal activity. But if you catch an illegal act on camera, you have to submit the images to Dubai Police. Uploading to YouTube remains mamnua'a.

]}:-{>

Poor Driving Takes Its Toll

So ran yesterday's headline in the UAE's 7DAYS newspaper. I don't suppose anyone is in the least bit surprised by this revelation, nor by the fact revealed in the sub-headline: "Motorists not leaving space and drivers darting out into traffic among the two million offences recorded in 2013"

Maybe the magnitude of the problem comes as a surprise. Two million in four months? That's six million a year, and says nothing of the additional legions of drivers who, according to anecdotal evidence, do it with impunity. I wonder how many of the quoted two million involved a camera?

But there are some interesting comparisons to be made. I have a published dead tree edition of Dubai Road and Transport Authority's Traffic Accident Facts in Dubai 2005.

As the 2013 figures are incomplete, I've assumed in my assessment that the number of crashes may be trebled to represent a full year. I've also considered only four types of crash, and only those that resulted in death or injury, because that's all that were reported in 7DAYS.

• Total number of crashes has increased by around 30%. This stands to reason. Since 2005 there has been an increase in UAE population, car ownership, and traffic congestion despite new roads having been constructed and opened. I guess most crashes actually occur in town where the number of new roads is minimal.

• Crashes involving red light violations decreased from 19% to 15%. I suspect that this is within the bounds of statistical error. If it isn't, perhaps the increased use of red light cameras has had a small effect, reducing the number of amber gamblers and drivers who run red lights.

• There's been a huge drop in speed-related crashes from 35% to 13%. I would attribute this to the widespread use of enforcement cameras; there's one every 1000m along the main Dubai to Abu Dhabi highway between Jebel Ali and Ghantoot, for example. But a more congested traffic network will also tend to keep vehicle speeds down. I don't like speed cameras (what motorist does?) but I concede their effectiveness.

• Crashes involving 'not leaving space' increased from 21% to 29%. I assume that this is the term used to describe tailgating and the crash that inevitably results when a vehicle ahead unexpectedly slows down. Given the combination of increased congestion and speed cameras, what's likely to happen? I reckon some impatient late-for-work will drive extra close to the car in front in a futile attempt to travel faster than everyone in all five lanes. And as all drivers lack Jedi reflexes, when something does go wrong up ahead - road works, puncture, breakdown - there is a coming together. Someone did it to me outside Arabian Ranches, and it's frightening.

• Sudden joining of roads without waiting for oncoming traffic to pass has risen from 25% to 43%. I thing this is a way to describe not stopping at Stop or Give Way lines. Happens to me all the time when I'm on my invisible motorbike. But I suspect the rise is related again to increased congestion and tailgating. Given an absence of sensible gaps in the traffic, you can either wait at the Give Way line until the end of time or shove into an inappropriately small gap. 

The last two items above may be direct consequences of the third item. Effective speed enforcement along with congestion drags speeds down to below the posted limit, but these factors increase incidences of tailgating and merging collisions.

What's to be done about it? Education and enforcement, that's what. Speed cameras are a quick (and lucrative) fix for the speed problem, even though the majority of crashes are not attributable to inappropriate speed, and even fewer involve exceeding posted limits, but do nothing to address their undesirable side-effects. 

Compare with that other tool of law enforcement: the Policeman. Motorists generally don't speed past the Plod, but neither do they tailgate, ignore red lights and Stop signs, or hoon all over the road. Especially if he's Judge Dredd.

]}:-{>

Good news, everyone*

Original artwork: Carlos Lopez

Traffic violations earn both fines and Black Points in the UAE, with the number of Black Points dependent on the severity of the offence. For extreme offences such as racing on the highway or having a loud exhaust, vehicle impounding is an available weapon in the Police's armoury in the constant war on bad driving.

Today's 7DAYS newspaper carries a headline story that the head of Dubai Police has proposed a scheme involving White Points that can be used to clear Black Points. A carrot as well as the traditional stick.

What a marvellous thing! The Goat will collect a White Point for every month he manages not to get caught committing a traffic offence, and at the end of a year these twelve White Points may be used to pay a traffic fine, or release an impounded vehicle, or wipe away up to 12 Black Points. (These disappear after six months anyway, as far as the Goat knows. He once received a couple of Black Points for making an illegal U-turn in Sharjah, but by the time the Goatmobile was next up for registration those points had vanished.)

The Points Make Prizes bit is that the White Points may be exchanged for shopping vouchers, and drivers who manage five years without [being convicted of] a single traffic offence will be entered into a raffle to win a new car. The Goat idly speculates on how many drivers will keep their noses clean all year and then go on a single annual speedathon. None, of course; they'll all be wanting those vouchers. The newspaper doesn't say what the vouchers will be worth, but to make it financially worthwhile they should exceed AED600: the cost of a basic speeding ticket.

* The bad news is that the rewards scheme only applies to Dubai licence holders owning vehicles registered in Dubai.

]}:-{>

Intolerable Acts

This town
Is gonna be like a ghost town.
All the clubs have been closed down.

This place
Is gonna be like a ghost town
Bands don't play no more
(Too much fightin' on da dancefloor)

The presence of intoxicating alcoholic beverage in Qatar has for many years been a touchy subject. On one hand, we have an indigenous society for whom alcohol is forbidden by both religion and the law of the land, and on another there is a majority of residents who regard a drink as a normal part of adult life.

So for many years there has been an arrangement whereby non-Muslim residents have a permit to acquire liquor for personal consumption in private. It’s also possible to buy and consume liquor in certain hotel bars and restaurants. Current practice is that any prospective drinker has to present a valid passport or ID card before being allowed in. Whether this is to shame us into not actually visiting a bar (good luck with that), or to keep track of who drinks, or is merely a way of giving a couple of doormen something to do is unclear.

And then a couple of years ago, everything changed as The Pearl appeared. This man-made development, won from the ocean by reclamation, isn’t technically in Qatar. It’s a gated community on what is almost an island. The normal rule that non-nationals can’t own real estate doesn’t apply, and thus foreigners have purchased apartments and business units. It’s luxury living, with the developments in crescents around marinas full of motor yachts. We all know how waterfront properties command high prices, don’t we? 

Another aspect of the not-quite-in-Qatar-ness of The Pearl is, or more accurately was, the relative freedom to buy drinks.

Until, according to one of my associates who “saw it happen”, there was a punch-up.

A couple of drunks have a fight, and are presumably arrested, fined, given very short haircuts, imprisoned, and deported. Good: most adults are fully capable of imbibing without becoming incoherent or aggressive. Assault, drunken or otherwise, is unacceptable; it is right and proper to punish the guilty.

The Qatar authorities have reacted by shutting down all liquor outlets throughout The Pearl. This appears to be a form of collective punishment. Why should all residents, all visitors, all businesses, and all employees suffer because of the unacceptable behavior of a tiny minority? Restaurants that did a booming trade up until the liquor ban still have to pay their high waterfront rents , but now struggle to find customers. Businesses close down. Employees lose their jobs and have to go home. Their children don’t get educated. Their relatives don’t get medical care.

Incidentally, I await with interest to outcome of the discussions between FIFA and the State of Qatar with regard to the supply of vast quantities of booze to very large numbers of thirsty foopball fans. In Brazil, the 2003 law preventing sale of beer in foopball arenas is in direct conflict with Budweiser being a major sponsor of the tournament. “The selling of beer in stadiums is part of the fan culture and will also be part of the 2014 FIFA World Cup,” said FIFA in January. And what about in 2022?

]}:-{>

The mouse problem

Dubai follows Abu Dhabi’s lead, and is, according to this article in the Gulf News, going to offer discounts on traffic fines.

Think about the purpose of a traffic fine for a moment. Officially at least, it is punishment. The money that you were saving up for your holiday, new fridge, school fees or beer is instead directed into central government coffers. That’ll learn ya! A more cynical Goat might believe that traffic fines, especially those incurred after being detected by a speed camera, are simply a means of raising revenue.

Look how easy it is to pay most traffic fines. Go on-line and quote your credit card number. Visit a shopping mall and stand at one of those fine Fine-Payment machines. Wait until the end of the year and simply add the payment on to the inspection and registration fees.

If the intention were punitive, the perpetrator would have to take time off work, attend court, and then be given a right royal runaround across town, collecting rubber stamps on official forms in order to obtain permission to pay. In truth, this punishment is reserved for those attempting to recover their security deposits before leaving the country. It is true that some traffic offences incur a version of the time-wasting palaver. According to the Goat’s spies, driving on the breakdown lane (for example) can involve an invitation to stand in front of the Police Captain to receive a dressing down and then to apologise. (Fifth Amendment inserted here for the avoidance of doubt.)

What can possibly be the reasoning behind reducing traffic fines, then? Previously they were increased: speeding now starts at Dh600, whereas it used to be Dh200. That ‘zero tolerance yields zero crashes’ no-messin’ attitude seems to have had minimal effect.

The Goat reckons that the increased fines simply cause more and more cases of non-payment. Either can’t pay or won’t pay. It’s impossible to register a motor vehicle without paying the fines, so logically the non-payers are punished by not being able to use their vehicles, right? Of course not! The number of unregistered and consequently uninsured vehicles on the road increases. By reducing the fines, they become easier to pay. Result: fewer unregistered and uninsured vehicles. A further benefit for the government is that 50% of some income is better than 100% of buggerall.

Abu Dhabi, and soon Dubai seem to be following advice from Monty Python’s The Mouse Problem sketch. “The only way to bring the crime figures down is to reduce the number of offences.”

]}:-{>

Do you 'ave a leecence?

Today I discovered that I’d been breaking the law for the past week. Purely by chance, I discovered that I’m only allowed to use my UAE driving licence for seven days (not three months as previously asserted by my employer), after which I completely forget how to drive in Qatar, my motor insurance ceases to be valid, and if some idiot decides to drive into the back of my rental car when I stop at a red traffic light, I’ll collect some Black Points, a massive fine, and also a very short haircut and some time in Al Slammah.

The actual rules seem to vary, dependent on who you ask. Also the phase of the moon and your grandfather’s inside-leg measurement may have some effect. But in summary:-

GCC nationals can drive ad infinitum in Qatar with impunity.

Expatriate holders of GCC licences may drive in Qatar for up to either two weeks or three months, depending on who you ask.

Holders of International Driving Permits may drive in Qatar for up to six months.

Holders of various brands of foreign driving licence may drive in Qatar for up to one week.

BUT the moment an expatriate’s visa turns into a ‘Work’ visa, as opposed to a ‘Visit’ or ‘Business’ visa, the said expat has to obtain a Qatar driving licence.

So there I was, happily driving a rental car. But last week my visa was converted from ‘Business’ to ‘Work’ as part of the slow process of obtaining a Residence Permit, and so I came over all driving unlicensed and uninsured. The rental company was indifferent. As far as they were concerned, if I drove without insurance I’d be trapped in the country until I bought them a new car to replace the one I’d pranged. Hardly a responsible attitude, I think.

I made several phone calls and emails, explaining that there was no way I was getting into the car again until I was legal. I do not relish the prospect of attempting to explain from the comfort of a Qatar gaol cell how I’d been misled by my employer. Anyway, ignorantia legis non excusat.

So at 3pm I was given a lift up to the driver and vehicle licensing centre, where an eye-test and QAR150 later I had a temporary Qatar driving licence. Another QR150 for the motorcycle licence, because the nice lady behind the counter seemed incapable of ticking two boxes on the same form. The temporary licence is valid for three months. Once I have my Residence Permit I can upgrade to a full Qatar licence for an additional fee. I think the technical term is ‘tax’.

In summary, the licensing process was easy. But it was fraught with unnecessary concern and risk on my part, all because of the vagaries of the rules and a lackadaisical attitude of others to keeping me on the correct side of the law.

]}:-{>

Dunspeedin

Driving to Abu Dhabi yesterday was a new experience. I’ve not made the trip for several weeks, and it’s true that yesterday’s journey and this morning’s return did not involve the rush hour.

The new experience involved an almost unheard-of adherence to speed limits.

In the Bad Old Days, it was common knowledge that the 120kph posted speed limit could be flouted because the cameras were all set to flash at 160kph. Coupled with virtually non-existent police patrols, the result was tailgating at 159.9kph.

And then on 2nd April, there was a 127 vehicle traffic pile-up caused by people driving inappropriately in foggy conditions. Gulf News ran a story on 4th April suggesting that the reduced speed limit was as a direct consequence of the crash. Not so; the new 140kph signs were erected but covered in sack cloth back in March.

Putting aside for a moment the possible confusion that might come about because of enormous

ATTENTION
140kph
MAXIMUM SPEED LIMIT

signs in apparent contradiction with the 120kph signs, and also that 140kph, 120kph or even 60kph might be lethally excessive in fog, the Powers That Be have now decided that enforcement is the answer.

The practical legal maximum speed limit on the Abu Dhabi section of the Dubai - Abu Dhabi road is just a trace under 140kph; exactly the same as on the Dubai section, where the posted limit is 120kph and the cameras are set with a 20kph leeway.

Today, to my surprise, most of the traffic was bowling along at 130ish. Apart, that is, from one red Mercedes, the driver of which seemed to consider that speed limits only apply to other people. He went roaring past at probably 160kph, only to attract the immediate unwelcome, inconvenient and expensive attention of a large red and white car with blue lights on its roof that had been cruising in the right-hand lane. Time for a Muntz moment.

And there we have it. The fundamental means to keep traffic speeds to within limits is to tell everyone what those limits are and then to enforce them.

There were no visible police patrols on the journey back, but again everyone seemed to be staying below 140kph. Maybe the message is starting to sink in.

]}:-{>