Skip to main content

What's our Belisha Beacon?

A Belisha beacon
I was crossing the road (the way you do) on a zebra crossing and enjoying the mellifluous name of the flashing orange ball-on-a-stick that alerts drivers to its presence: a Belisha beacon. It is named, of course, after Leslie Hore-Belisha, who introduced both the driving test and these handy crossings when a transport minister in the 1930s.

When you think about it, it's rather sweet, naming something after the minister responsible in this way. I think it is something we ought to see more of. Forget 'free schools' which sounds like something Victorians set up for the deserving poor. Let's have Gove schools. Or Blair wars, Brown gaffes, Osborne cock-ups and Cameron u-turns. Actually, with the exception of the schools, they're a bit vague - we need specific, detailed objects like the Belisha beacon. Perhaps a Grayling commissioner for police commissioners.

They don't have to be named after politicians, of course. We might speak of a Dyson cleaner, for instance (though in practice we tend to call it a hoover, something that really irritated them when I kept doing it while touring the Dyson R&D department). Or a Branson stunt. (Not cockney rhyming slang.)

What are your suggestions for the new equivalent of a Belisha beacon? Who, for instance, introduced dog poo bins? I'd love to know.

Image from Canthusus at the English language Wikipedia

Comments

  1. Brian

    To start off your list I can add "Baker" days which are the training days that teachers have during term time several times a year. Named after the then Minister of Education, Ken Baker.

    There is also the eponymous Churchill Tank amongst several other tributes such as bridges, squares, roads, etc.

    Bevin boys would have been thankful for their Wellingtons and Sandwiches during the war and had they been alive now I'm sure they would have used their Boris Bikes to get to work.

    They would also have doubtless used an Anderson shelter at night where they would have drunk their Earl Grey tea whilst keeping warm in their Cardigans.

    I'm sure there must be many others with which your other correspondents may be more familiar.

    Ian

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think it would be nice to have a mini village called the nite garden " igglepiggle" - the pub, "Makkapakka" - the butchers, " pinky ponk" - the hairdressers, " tombliboos" - the doctors, "Ninky nook" - the dentist and soo on.

    We have a local park called "the dick bell park" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Bell

    In Belfast our parish was called " the holy family". It had a boxing club called " the holy family boxing club"

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks, Ian - excellent existing ones, but I was more asking for new things that ought to be named after someone, but aren't yet.

    Claire - my children are too old for us to have experienced In the Night Garden, but I can imagine it. Of course there that rich seam of local dignitaries like your Dick Bell I hadn't really thought of...

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Mirror, mirror

A little while ago I had the pleasure of giving a talk at the Royal Institution in London - arguably the greatest location for science communication in the UK. At one point in the talk, I put this photograph on the screen, which for some reason caused some amusement in the audience. But the photo was illustrating a serious point: the odd nature of mirror reflections. I remember back at school being puzzled by a challenge from one of our teachers - why does a mirror swap left and right, but not top and bottom? Clearly there's nothing special about the mirror itself in that direction - if there were, rotating the mirror would change the image. The most immediately obvious 'special' thing about the horizontal direction is that the observer has two eyes oriented in that direction - but it's not as if things change if you close one eye. In reality, the distinction is much more interesting - we fool ourselves into thinking that the image behind the mirror is what's on ou