Stop! Elderly crossing!

I don't know if it's just me but there seem to be more articles in the papers these days reporting people stating the obvious. Nothing else to report or what?

In yesterday's Sunday Times, there was this article entitled 'Make roads safer for the elderly, say experts'. Ground-breaking, isn't it? The paper interviewed the elderly and experts on the issue of elderly pedestrians and their road-crossing habits and came to this intelligent conclusion:

"Most felt that pedestrian crossing lights should stay green longer, and that there should be more traffic light crossings instead of overhead bridges."

Duh.

The problem of the elderly jaywalking is nothing new. The fact that older people take longer to cross the road is nothing new. The fact that older people prefer road crossings to overhead bridges is nothing new (Wah, don't say older people. I also avoid overhead bridges.)

This guy from the National Safety Council so kindly said that "many elderly pedestrians are vulnerable because they do not take the trouble to look out, cannot make the crossing in time or are carrying heavy loads... Often, elderly people such as karung guni men pull big bags or trolleys. And I've heard of elderly women who jaywalk and expect traffic to stop for them by holding up their hands."

What kind of attitude is that? Never heard of empathy ah? Think it's easy to be old, have trouble walking fast (or have trouble walking) and have to carry big bags or loads across the road ah?

Anyway, I thought it should have been obvious that something needed to be done for elderly road users long before we got worried about our ageing population. I remember some twenty years ago, my driving instructor already made it a point to remind me to look out for the elderly on the roads. They don't know the highway code, he used to say.

May I also add that they also need to look into the issue of more older drivers on the road, building lifts in multi-storey car parks and such.

It's okay

Today, I want to say 'It's okay' to two groups of people.

First, the parents who were interviewed about the possibility of there being no exams for primary 1 and 2 kids (Sunday Times article). A significant number actually want exams for their children.

I think it is really okay for young children not to have exams. It's okay if they don't take exams seriously at first. It's okay if they only have four years (i.e. minus primary 1 and 2) of 'exam practice'. I mean, does 'practising' taking exams for another two years actually help you do better at the PSLE? It's okay to have mini topical 'tests' (in place of semestral exams) IF they are designed with the children in mind. I'd rather they were 'assessments' of different types. You don't need a pen-and-paper test to see what/how much/how well a kid has learnt something.

But I do agree with the person who said that if nothing changes for the remaining four years of primary school, it would be weird to have two years of 'fun' learning and then four years of torture.

I also want to say that it's okay if Roger Federer doesn't hit that magic 14th Grand Slam title. Goodness, he shouldn't break his heart over it lah. He has already achieved so much and he is considered by many to be one of the, if not the, greatest.

And maybe everyone else should just stop harping on it so that he wouldn't feel so much pressure.

Perhaps we can all learn something from Nadal, answering a question about how he thinks he'll do compared with Sampras and Federer:

Well, I have six right now, no? Happy with my six. Well, for sure I gonna continuing my best try every day for improve my tennis and for try to continuing win matches and titles.

But I know is very difficult, everything, no? Every title, I know how tough is win every one. I don't know if I gonna win more, but for sure I gonna continuing try. But, you know, when I won my first one I didn't know if I gonna be win more.

You never know when that stop. So you have to be always with precaution and you have to be humble for continuing work like all my life, no?

(From the AO website)

As for the AO, like many (and unlike some vocal ones), I thought the AO crown was Andy Murray's. Alas, it was not to be and probably we have to wait till the US Open to see if Murray is going to get his first crown. I have to confess that I didn't think Nadal would win it. Didn't count on his having improved so much.

I must also confess that, like many, I used to think that Nadal was just good for a string of French Open victories but look how he has blossomed into a champion on grass as well as hard court. And a true champion (at least in public) he is. It was so nice to see him climb over the net to hug Verdasco after their match, put his arm around Federer the other day and to be respectably muted in his celebrations whenever he beat Federer.

Anyhow, it will be a long, boring wait till the next Grand Slam.