A COUPLE of years ago I took part in a large running event in a southern English town. There we were, a few thousand people in varying states of nervousness awaiting the start. This was a well-organised, long-established event which everyone had been warned about for months. Roads had been closed bang on time and police and stewards were out ensuring nothing disturbed the clockwork precision of the event.

Then, with only a few minutes to go to the start, along came an elderly couple in a car. Whether they were trying to return to their home or set off on a trip somewhere, they arrived at the barriers and the sea of runners and then the car just sat there, its occupants looking both helpless and expectant at the same time.

So what happened next? This being England, of course the barriers were moved, the runners parted like the Red Sea and the couple and their car were escorted through, finally getting out of the way just before the race was due to start. There were some mutterings, naturally enough, but generally of a relatively good-humoured kind.

I don't know what brought the elderly couple to the situation where they were in danger if disrupting a major public event. Perhaps they had just arrived from another planet and didn't know anything unusual was happening that Sunday morning; perhaps they knew all about it but were just determined to go out in their car, come what may.

But it seems to me the eventual outcome was probably for the best. The race wasn't seriously disrupted and the people in the car weren't horribly inconvenienced.

I mention this in the fairly obvious context of the Tour de France passing through the Skipton and the Dales, but the points I want to make go beyond that event

or cycling, or even sport for that matter.

One of the curious aspects of modern Britain is the need people in public life appear to have that makes them insist that whatever they are in favour of is the absolute best for absolutely everyone, and makes them treat any dissent with a level of disapproval that makes me very relieved they don't actually have the repressive powers available to officials in a totalitarian state.

I have a sneaking feeling that once upon a time it was considered sufficient to say that a certain decision was the correct one because it provided the greatest good for the greatest number. This allowed individuals who didn't like the aforementioned decision to say so without running the risk of outright condemnation. Not that it did them much good to complain, but they were free to do so.

These days officials, or indeed enthusiasts for a particular idea, seem to take it downright personally if anyone objects to whatever is the flavour of the month.

Now, at the risk of appearing to try to cop out of being personally controversial, my point here is not to suggest that those who make these decisions are necessarily wrong (though sometimes they are, horribly so).

If I may return to the Tour de France for a moment, personally I can only applaud the efforts to try to bring to Craven something intended to create a surge not only in economic activity but also in community spirit and involvement.

But we have to bear in mind that what we plan in order to achieve this may not be in everyone's best interest, and it is downright wrong, in my view, to try to pretend otherwise.

Let's fact it; if you are elderly, or ill and infirm, or quite possibly both, the thought of having to cope with a major disruption to local transport systems which could affect the provision of care or getting to the shops to collect medicines is potentially quite frightening, even if it's only for a short time.

Then there's the point that many people undoubtedly move to the Dales to have a quiet life, not to have a huge international sporting event suddenly turn up on their doorstep.

I don't suggest such individual objections should actually prevent major projects being put in motion, merely that they should be listened to rather than condemned out of hand and that, if possible, the objections should be accommodated to some extent, but without damaging the wider interest. The elderly couple I referred to at the start didn't actually stop the road race or even delay it, you will recall. But with a little tolerance from the runners, they were able to go on their way.

What I object to is the attempt to simply shut awkward people up. To take an example outside Craven, I recently heard a man who should have known better declare that tourism in York benefited absolutely everyone in the city without exception, and anyone who claimed otherwise was so beyond the pale they were scarcely worth bothering with.

I could agree easily enough that tourism was vital to the city as a whole, but my companion was eventually persuaded to concede that there clearly were people in York for whom visitors were a bane rather than a boon.

I suspect that at least some of those who expressed doubts before the Grand Depart did so because they were reacting against the pressure for everyone to agree how great it was rather than because they really thought it shouldn't be happening.

Might it not be better for all of us if we could accept that even decisions which benefit the overwhelming majority will have a downside for some of us - and that we have a right to say so?