Two week campaign against dangerous driving.

I don't know whether something's been lost in translation, but another 'initiative' from Dubai police raises questions.

Gulf News reports that "...the two-week campaign focuses on three dangerous offences which include reckless driving and what accompanies it from speeding, leaving enough distance between vehicles and zigzag driving.

And it's going to be "on the stretch of Shaikh Zayed Road from the Trade Centre Roundabout to the Mall of the Emirates."

Two week campaign?

This is the type of driving that kills and injures so many people.

Shouldn't it be an ongoing, fifty-two weeks a year, twenty-four hours a day campaign?

And why on just one tiny stretch of road?

But it will be extended. "After completing the campaign on Shaikh Zayed Road, it will move to other highways and external roads and will continue until there is a positive reaction and commitment from the motorists."

I simply don't get it.

A two week campaign on a small stretch of road, to be extended later.

If we're ever to get our horrendous accident and death rate down we need more traffic police out on the roads, all the roads, all the time. Starting now.


The full report is here.



Then onto another hot topic around town.

Another Gulf News report tells us that As the deadline for tenants in overcrowded villas draws nearer, Dubai Municipality has clarified that people can share villas if they are related.

That seems to suggest a bit of backtracking by Dubai Municipality, that they've given a little more thought to their original all-encompasing directive. Or perhaps something was lost in translation when the original announcement was made.

The 'one villa one family' campaign is a misnomer apparently. Now "...the current inspections aimed at curbing the illegal sharing of villas is in line with 'Let us protect our residential environment...together', and not to implement a 'one villa one family' policy."

At least an official from DM has now said that the crackdown is against overcrowding, although they still haven't gone far enough and seem not to understand the concept of shared accommodation.

The official said: "If the members are in some way related, there is no problem if they share a villa but there should be no overcrowding."

No overcrowding, yes I agree with that. But sharers have to be related? Why?

I know, for example, two British couples, friends but not related, who share a three bedroom, three bathroom villa. For the same money they could each get a small studio apartment, so they prefer to share the villa with much more space and comfort.

Why shouldn't they?

And singles sharing a villa, each with their own room. Why should they not be allowed to share?

The new clarification is a step in the right direction but they need to go further. Stamp out overcrowding, yes. Stamp out sharing accommodation, no.



That story is here.