It's a new term I am playing with for things that seem to be fine in a 'why not?' way, but seem to have also been accorded a clunky bit of green in the process to , er, 'help'.
And this is a terrible example by being actually the exact reverse.
Driving instructors get green light from DSA to teach students 'eco-safety'
It's a bit of green with a clunky bit of 'why not?' attached.
Thing is, I am not sure it is serving the message of either too well by being so clunky.
I can get my head around driving safely, and being taught how to be even more so. I can also sort of get an eco-version, though much is plain common sense, but a few I have read about (Not here) might save a bit of gas but are certainly not helping safety at all.
But all in all, if I ever hear 'Eco-safety' like this, I'll ru... drive a mile... fast.
Good job I am not being asked to do another test... yet.
Times - Eco-safe driving: more lessons, more money - All becomes clear. And gives sensible green advocacy and even steeper slope to surmount... in 3rd, of course.
Newsnight - Post 3.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I believe in freedom of speech. But I also don't like bullies on blogs, even verbal ones, as they can drive away those with something valid to say... or offer.
Subjective is fine, but well argued and substantiated is even better. Calm and polite tops. Anything that crosses my personal line will not go up. There may be reasons given, but not guaranteed.
I'm not too keen on 'Anon' as a handle (and the content usually explains why), so if that's what you opt for it may not make it. Sorry.