We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Roadside Pub

The pub chain Wetherspoons, whose chairman Tim Martin seems to be of sound mind, is opening a pub at a motorway service station. Cue whining and moaning from assorted fake charities and do-gooders of the kind who complain about the “message” that allowing such a business to exist “sends out” and advise drivers against even one drink with lunch because, though it does not follow, people who drink to excess cause traffic accidents.

Say Wetherspoons:

“We believe the majority of people that use the pub to drink will be people that aren’t driving – coach parties or people travelling with others.

“We won’t be asking them whether they are driving. It’s up to them.”

This is individual responsibility that alcohol lobbyists do not acknowledge.

13 comments to Roadside Pub

  • RAB

    Absolutely no different than visiting a country pub. What do the berks from Brake think that windy tarmac thing is out the front of it then? Putting temptation in our way my arse.

    If anyone is round the West Country way, I recommend the George in Norton St Phillip. It is so old and atmospheric that you almost expect to see Will Shakespeare sat in the corner with a decent pint of Cider knocking out a play.

  • Martin Seebach

    Never mind the convenience stores that accompany practically all petrol stations, not just on the motorways, they all sell beer, wine and liquor. The horror.

  • Mr Ed

    Martin, it’s worse, petrol stations don’t just sell booze, they sell petrol and diesel, and Autogas. Without fuel, there would be no drunk drivers. They should put a tax on it, and also put a tax on ursine toilet paper.

  • RAB

    You wipe your bum on a bear? Not a man to be messed with are you, Mr Ed? Bring back Izal, that’ll learn ‘em!

  • Steven

    “We won’t be asking them whether they are driving. It’s up to them.”

    In the US many, many, oh so many bars have been sued when the bartender didn’t say “you’ve had enough.” Someone gets wasted and takes out a schoolbus full of nuns and orphans and it’s somehow the bar’s fault for not thinking that the drunk guy might drive home.

    I’m convinced that centuries from now historians are going to honestly look at the causes of the decline and fall of Western civilization and their assessment is that it wasn’t Marx and Engel, it wasn’t the economics of the welfare state, it wasn’t unchecked immigration. Nope, they’ll look back and just say “it was the courts.”

  • Mr Ed

    RAB, I prefer dock leaves for convenience, fur is smoother but scarce.

    One rarely hears the counter-argument ‘This is a totalitarian nonsense, get off with you and find a real job!’, ad hominem that might be, but why not?

    Wetherspoons’ Mr Martin is ‘sound’, as one used to say in the 80s. I’ll often nab a quick half in one, if circumstances permit, just to help out.

  • Dave Walker

    @RAB: Rather different from visiting a country pub, actually; give n an algorithm and a little luck, the country pub will have better food ;-).

    I recommend the “B road algorithm”, discovered by a friend of mine and heavily tested over several years of regular weekend jaunts around England (the only place it appears not to work, is Lincolnshire):

    Find a largish town, connected to a largish village by a B road. On this B road, there will be a pub serving good food and well-kept local ale, often at hours outside conventional dining times.

    …Or there’s now the Wetherspoon’s option. Mapping apps even the odds up a bit for the local pub; ultimately, market forces will out.

  • PersonFromPorlock

    In the US, I like to counter the “what kind of a message” argument with the observation that if x sends a message, it’s protected by the First Amendment.

  • Nick (nice-guy) Gray

    It’s all so obvious- Roads cause drinking! If you get rid of roads, people won’t be able to go to a pub, or liquor shop, and won’t be able to get drunk! Nor will they be in road accidents! The Anti-Road Sobriety Executive (A.R.S.E.) should be the next big movement!

  • James Strong

    All this is fine, but there is no doubt that consumption of alcohol impairs judgement. Driving a car is not the same as neurosurgery and for the vast majority of drivers having a drink will not cause an accident. But when it does I would like to see very heavy punishment.
    Personal responsibility is a great idea, but there needs to be a cost if it goes wrong.

  • Finally an adequate answer to the age-old question:…(are you sitting down?)…”But who will build the roads???”

    James, I think that cost is an intrinsic part of responsibility, and is semantically implied.

  • jerry

    Steven, part of the reason, in the U.S. is that, in one or more obscure courses required for a ‘law degree’ the word ‘accident’ as well as its definition is, somehow, surgically removed from the mind of the individual !!!
    I’m convinced that it MUST be done surgically – no amount of mental conditioning, no matter how thorough, could be so completely
    successful !!!
    What you end up with is an individual who actually believes that in ANY occurrence where there is an injury, SOMEONE ( usually the person or entity with the most MONEY !! ) MUST be responsible and therefore needs to cough up some of that money. That way the 30% – 50% ‘contingency’ fee get paid and if there is anything left over, it may eventually get to the the actual ‘injured party’ !!
    Otherwise a good percentage of attorneys would starve to death !!!