I have now arrived in Korea after a fairly exhaustive journey. The airport wait was long and tiresome, but security at Heathrow moved more smoothly than I had anticipated. They have had several weeks to sort things out, so it isn't surprising that the hobgoblins following the 10th August were not haunting the airport yesterday. Given that Saturday seemed to be a very busy traveling day, the lines were actually quite normal for Heathrow security several years ago. Hopefully in due course, they will be on track to improve security screening further.
That is not to say there are not some frustrations. Most notably, it looks as if the imposition of the new hand luggage size is not as universal as we are told. There appears to be a work around, which some travelers took advantage of. The flaw comes in the manner in which baggage dimensions are checked. The BAA has set up boxes interspersed in the check in zone and before security. The idea is that travelers can take their carry on luggage aboard if and only if it fits into these boxes. The problem lies in the self-check nature of this test. At least as of Saturday, staff are not necessarily verifying if the luggage precisely fits the box prior to security screening, nor are security screeners verifying the luggage dimensions. Now it is unlikely that someone with a bag obviously larger than requisite size will be noticed, butI don't see the current security regime able to control more modest exceptions.
Aren't the new hand luggage sizes a little restrictive anyway? Why not stick it to the man, if he's not enforcing his own rules? To be honest, I think the size of the bag is perfectly arbitrary. I assume British government chose this size because it makes manual searches swifter, but what is really important is what the bag contains. So I do not think there is anything inherently wrong with a few larger bags snuck on board. What bothers me is not the failure of the security, but the unfairness imposed on people like me who are willing to stick the rules. I understand the new sizes are inconvenient, but I want to do my part to make traveling a little safer. I bear the inconvenience within reason. When other travelers flaunt these regulations, it makes me feel like the purpose of my own long suffering over packing is stripped. But I suppose at bottom, I just don't like people who believe they don't have to follow the rules. Its exactly the same with those drivers who won't merge when a lane ends, but instead move to the front of the line and try to force their way in. This seems to represent an indemic me first attitude. Self interest is obviously natural, and at many times it is beneficial, but in these cases it isn't. For a little extra space or for an incrimentally better position in the trafic cue, these kinds of behaviour, when widespread, add up to serious frustrations for everyone else. Even the rule breaker has to contend with others playing the same game. Using a little Kantian reasoning, imbibed with a sense of enlightened self interest, universalised rule breaking simply doesn't pay, and even small scale infractions in these cases suffer rapidly diminishing returns.
On the other hand, a little civility in the full sense of the term, not just manners, but a level of respect accorded to others, instead of the latent egotism implicit in the rule breaking above, would go a long way to ease the tensions of my life. Not neglecting the solipsism in my own reasoning, I'm sure it would help everyone else as well, the reamaining rule breakers included.
Once more into the breach,
Ben
2 comments:
Amusing entry. Personally, I hate following rules, and dislike even more those who think that others should follow the rules just because he or she did (c.f. "solipsism"). This isn't a result of selfishness but rather the realization that rules are often irrelevant or inadequate to the situation, and are even more frequently a knee-jerk reaction compensating for a lack of intelligence and foresight. Even worse, it discounts the fact that humans are intelligent and resourceful and surely aren't expected to act like robots.
On the other hand, I also hate people who don't follow rules when I make a point of following them. I think Americans and cute blonds are particularly irritating in this respect. OK, I'll shut up about this now.
BTW, don't get me started on the fact that we (the US) are still fighting lustily in Iraq and we (the world) still have to deal with increasing security measures in every corner of society. Yeah, that worked out real well, Dubya, thanks a lot.
Ben: you'll need a 2500-mile long stick to hit me with, haha!
Hi KJ,
Thanks for the thought provoking comment. As the old saying goes sometimes rules are meant to be broken. You will know better than I whether the hand luggage size the UK mandated is grounded in some kind of effecient, security calculation, or is, rather, a knee jerk response. It is particularly telling that this problem bridges, largely, just the UK and America. Problems of our own making, indeed.
That's what is so stupid about the context behind the question I raised in this post. It should never have been necessary to change the hand luggage size limits, even if it was really just a meaningless yet aggrivating gesture. There seem to be far to many self-fulfilling prophecies and counter-productive policies behind all of this for my liking. Kicking hornets' nests doesn't change the nature of the hornets - it will never turn them into honey bees - but it does make them real angry, real fast.
Post a Comment