Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <su0161$6d8$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:23:13 on Wed, 9 Feb 2022,
> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>> A slightly different kind of vehicle strike…
>>
>> <https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/incredible-pictures-va
>> n-driver-accidentally-6625158>
>
> Classic example of why TPTB don't like even well-meaning constructions
> across the road (this was across private land of course.)

Just reminded me when we last visited the site of Arkwrights Mills at
Cromford in 2015 the grade 1 listed aqueduct which took water above the
road
<https://www.revolutionaryplayers.org.uk/cast-iron-aqueduct-cromford-derbyshire/>

was no longer there,turned out that the cast Iron artefact had been
shattered by a lorry colliding with it about 2002, its absence altered the
appearance of the road quite a lot since a previous visit years ago.
Twenty years later and the efforts that were going to place to reinstate it
have not taken place,
wonder it that is because it is too difficult to reassemble the prices in
any meaningful way or it is “convenient” not to have it back in place .

>
> Caption competition time: "Here's the roof you ordered, where do want it
> putting?"

You shouldn’t have a tiled roof on a vehicle, Thatcham research won’t have
tested it.

GH

On 09/02/2022 03:07, Charles Ellson wrote:
> On 8 Feb 2022 20:03:46 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2022 10:07:11 +0000
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <str1no$96e$4@dont-email.me>, at 12:02:01 on Mon, 7 Feb 2022,
>>>> MB <MB@nospam.net> remarked:
>>>>> On 07/02/2022 10:01, Charles Ellson wrote:
>>>>>> Stickers are not always stuck on. Parking ticket envelopes are
>>>>>> commonly sticky-backed but usually merely secured under a windscreen
>>>>>> wiper (as they are deemed to be "attached" whether stuck on or not).
>>>>>> Most motorcycles don't have windscreen wipers thus requiring actual
>>>>>> attachment.
>>>>>
>>>>> We used to use various universities for an annual meeting. We were
>>>>> told at one place they covered the windows of illegally parked cars
>>>>> with No Parking stickers so the driver would have spend time removing
>>>>> them - probably hurt him more than a fine.
>>>>
>>>> That's the classic case of vigilantism which is probably illegal under
>>>> criminal damage law.
>>>
>>> If there's no damage to the vehicle then its not illegal. Inconveniencing
>>> someone isn't - yet - a criminal offense.
>>
>> Isn’t there another offence like interfering with a vehicle that could be
>> used?
<snip>
> OTOH Construction and Use Regulation No.30 might be what you are
> after:-
> "A person is guilty of an offence if he uses, or causes or permits
> another to use, a motor vehicle or trailer on the road when:
>
> (a) the condition of the motor vehicle or trailer, or of its
> accessories or equipment, or
> (b) the purpose for which it is used, or
> (c) the number of passengers carried by it, or the manner in which
> they are carried, or
> (d) the weight, position or distribution of its load, or the manner in
> which it is secured, is such that the use of the motor vehicle or
> trailer involves a danger of injury to any person."
>
> "Causes.... another" should be hook to catch them with.

Unfortunately the sticker nazi isn't causing the vehicle to be used,
just putting it into a state where it would be dangerous if someone
else used it. When I need a new tyre, my garage takes a wheel off,
making the vehicle temporarily dangerous to use, but it would only
become an offence (mine) if I drove off before they replaced it.

In message <su0h1a$ebt$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:53:46 on Wed, 9 Feb 2022,
Certes <none@nowhere.net> remarked:
>On 09/02/2022 03:07, Charles Ellson wrote:
>> On 8 Feb 2022 20:03:46 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2022 10:07:11 +0000
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <str1no$96e$4@dont-email.me>, at 12:02:01 on Mon, 7 Feb 2022,
>>>>> MB <MB@nospam.net> remarked:
>>>>>> On 07/02/2022 10:01, Charles Ellson wrote:
>>>>>>> Stickers are not always stuck on. Parking ticket envelopes are
>>>>>>> commonly sticky-backed but usually merely secured under a windscreen
>>>>>>> wiper (as they are deemed to be "attached" whether stuck on or not).
>>>>>>> Most motorcycles don't have windscreen wipers thus requiring actual
>>>>>>> attachment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We used to use various universities for an annual meeting. We were
>>>>>> told at one place they covered the windows of illegally parked cars
>>>>>> with No Parking stickers so the driver would have spend time removing
>>>>>> them - probably hurt him more than a fine.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's the classic case of vigilantism which is probably illegal under
>>>>> criminal damage law.
>>>>
>>>> If there's no damage to the vehicle then its not illegal. Inconveniencing
>>>> someone isn't - yet - a criminal offense.
>>>
>>> Isn’t there another offence like interfering with a vehicle that could be
>>> used?
><snip>
>> OTOH Construction and Use Regulation No.30 might be what you are
>> after:-
>> "A person is guilty of an offence if he uses, or causes or permits
>> another to use, a motor vehicle or trailer on the road when:
>> (a) the condition of the motor vehicle or trailer, or of its
>> accessories or equipment, or
>> (b) the purpose for which it is used, or
>> (c) the number of passengers carried by it, or the manner in which
>> they are carried, or
>> (d) the weight, position or distribution of its load, or the manner in
>> which it is secured, is such that the use of the motor vehicle or
>> trailer involves a danger of injury to any person."
>> "Causes.... another" should be hook to catch them with.
>
>Unfortunately the sticker nazi isn't causing the vehicle to be used,
>just putting it into a state where it would be dangerous if someone
>else used it. When I need a new tyre, my garage takes a wheel off,
>making the vehicle temporarily dangerous to use, but it would only
>become an offence (mine) if I drove off before they replaced it.

Although the garage is committing an offence by permitting you to.
What's a mechanic to do - handcuff his customers in the waiting room?
--
Roland Perry

On 09/02/2022 09:23:13, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
> A slightly different kind of vehicle strike…
>
> <https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/incredible-pictures-van-driver-accidentally-6625158>
>
>
> Anna Noyd-Dryver

He should have kept whistling, reversed the van back between the
supports, let the tyres down, reversed out and whistled all the way to
the nearest garage to get some air, job done!

--
mick

On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 09:13:35 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
wrote:

>On Tue, 08 Feb 2022 19:11:17 +0000
>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 8 Feb 2022 16:53:33 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 8 Feb 2022 10:07:11 +0000
>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>In message <str1no$96e$4@dont-email.me>, at 12:02:01 on Mon, 7 Feb 2022,
>>>>MB <MB@nospam.net> remarked:
>>>>>On 07/02/2022 10:01, Charles Ellson wrote:
>>>>>> Stickers are not always stuck on. Parking ticket envelopes are
>>>>>> commonly sticky-backed but usually merely secured under a windscreen
>>>>>> wiper (as they are deemed to be "attached" whether stuck on or not).
>>>>>> Most motorcycles don't have windscreen wipers thus requiring actual
>>>>>> attachment.
>>>>>
>>>>>We used to use various universities for an annual meeting. We were
>>>>>told at one place they covered the windows of illegally parked cars
>>>>>with No Parking stickers so the driver would have spend time removing
>>>>>them - probably hurt him more than a fine.
>>>>
>>>>That's the classic case of vigilantism which is probably illegal under
>>>>criminal damage law.
>>>
>>>If there's no damage to the vehicle then its not illegal. Inconveniencing
>>>someone isn't - yet - a criminal offense.
>>>
>>There does not need to be damage to a vehicle for the offence of
>>Criminal Damage to be committed; a temporary impairment of its
>>usefulness is sufficient.
>>https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/criminal-damage
>
>tl;dr
>
>Perhaps there is , but good luck getting plod to even give you a crime
>reference number for someone bunging a sticker on your car, never mind persuing
>the matter. Half the cars in my street including mine got keyed a few years
>back and despite there being CCTV of the cunts who did it plod never did a
>damn thing.
>
YMMV with different forces (or if you sticker a police car?).

On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 13:53:46 +0000, Certes <none@nowhere.net> wrote:

>On 09/02/2022 03:07, Charles Ellson wrote:
>> On 8 Feb 2022 20:03:46 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2022 10:07:11 +0000
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <str1no$96e$4@dont-email.me>, at 12:02:01 on Mon, 7 Feb 2022,
>>>>> MB <MB@nospam.net> remarked:
>>>>>> On 07/02/2022 10:01, Charles Ellson wrote:
>>>>>>> Stickers are not always stuck on. Parking ticket envelopes are
>>>>>>> commonly sticky-backed but usually merely secured under a windscreen
>>>>>>> wiper (as they are deemed to be "attached" whether stuck on or not).
>>>>>>> Most motorcycles don't have windscreen wipers thus requiring actual
>>>>>>> attachment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We used to use various universities for an annual meeting. We were
>>>>>> told at one place they covered the windows of illegally parked cars
>>>>>> with No Parking stickers so the driver would have spend time removing
>>>>>> them - probably hurt him more than a fine.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's the classic case of vigilantism which is probably illegal under
>>>>> criminal damage law.
>>>>
>>>> If there's no damage to the vehicle then its not illegal. Inconveniencing
>>>> someone isn't - yet - a criminal offense.
>>>
>>> Isn’t there another offence like interfering with a vehicle that could be
>>> used?
><snip>
>> OTOH Construction and Use Regulation No.30 might be what you are
>> after:-
>> "A person is guilty of an offence if he uses, or causes or permits
>> another to use, a motor vehicle or trailer on the road when:
>>
>> (a) the condition of the motor vehicle or trailer, or of its
>> accessories or equipment, or
>> (b) the purpose for which it is used, or
>> (c) the number of passengers carried by it, or the manner in which
>> they are carried, or
>> (d) the weight, position or distribution of its load, or the manner in
>> which it is secured, is such that the use of the motor vehicle or
>> trailer involves a danger of injury to any person."
>>
>> "Causes.... another" should be hook to catch them with.
>
>Unfortunately the sticker nazi isn't causing the vehicle to be used,
>
No, he/she is causing it to be used illegally. You are causing the
vehicle's use, the illegal use is caused by your political
sticker-applier.

>just putting it into a state where it would be dangerous if someone
>else used it.
>
If it is "dangerous" then you are back with the Criminal Damage Act or
worse.

>When I need a new tyre, my garage takes a wheel off,
>making the vehicle temporarily dangerous to use,
>
Not an offence while it is in the garage and also not an act with
criminal intent.

>but it would only
>become an offence (mine) if I drove off before they replaced it.

On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 09:47:32 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <74g50hlpttme7bmhiulvb6tj1j8eqn5ce8@4ax.com>, at 19:18:14 on
>Tue, 8 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>On Tue, 8 Feb 2022 09:14:28 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <q4q10h5o7hlkmjqkkmsg61drjsnk5sg2bj@4ax.com>, at 10:01:21 on
>>>Mon, 7 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>>>>An advertisement can be defaced or removed without notice if it does
>>>>>>not identify the "person who displayed it" and their address. [s.225
>>>>>>Town and Country Planning Act 1990].
>>>>>
>>>>>Under-citing again.
>>>>>
>>>>>First it needs some regulations (maybe everywhere has them, maybe they
>>>>>don't - perhaps they've got regulations about fly-posting in their parks
>>>>>and open spaces, not verges at the side of roads).
>>>>>
>>>>>It then goes on to say:
>>>>>
>>>>> "the local planning authority shall not exercise any power conferred
>>>>> by subsection (1) unless ... <<they give notice>>"
>>>>>
>>>>>And the stuff about it "not giving an address" NOR "unable to ascertain
>>>>>it after reasonable inquiry", is simply to cover the circumstances of
>>>>>inability to deliver the necessary notices.
>>>>>
>>>>It is to deal with a common feature of fly-posting.
>>>
>>>Most fly-posting is not anonymous, that rather defeats the objective.
>>>"Come to our event, and we refuse to say who we are or where it is".
>>>
>>>The council can therefore find the service address of the perpetrator
>>>"after reasonable inquiry".
>>>
>>>There's a fly-posting-advertised beer festival locally this weekend,
>>>which is organised by the local branch of CAMRA, and although it only
>>>specifies the venue in generic terms (rather than an address and
>>>postcode) it wouldn't take long to track down who the organisers are.
>>>
>>>They've even got a Facebook page!
>>
>>Your town might be different but the majority of fly-posting I observe
>>involves no more identification than a mobile telephone number.
>
>There's two sorts round here - (a) pointing the way to premises, in
>effect pirate roadsigns. Often to housing developments, but I posted one
>the other day that's to a warehousing facility (b) Advertising of
>retail/events, like the beer festival I mentioned.
>
>Some of them you think "surely they'll have applied for permission" -
>like a banner saying they are recruiting volunteer firemen. But the
>places these typically get located are extremely unlikely to be approved
>of.
>
The closest to that round my way are possibly the banners for the
annual circus visit but I have never bothered to examine them long
enough to see what identification details (apart from the blatantly
obvious one) might be on them. In past years you would get flyposting
for the odd rave or two but these possibly became a bit of a giveaway
to the police and the councils and eventually disappeared.

On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 08:32:52 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 09/02/2022 02:02, Charles Ellson wrote:
>> Not all ambulances are emergency vehicles. Neither is there any need
>> for a vehicle to be ambulance to have "Ambulance" marked on it. You
>> can have blue lights and a siren on an ambulance which is not an
>> ambulance as long as you only use them under specific circumstances,
>> the main one being a non-NHS vehicle performing work for the NHS.
>
>The difficult part would be convincing a police officer of that!
>
Blue lights and a well-recognised name (locally, Falck) on the side
tend to put them off stopping you. A third party doing NHS work will
almost certainly have paperwork on them that the police would
recognise as well as appropriate comms. I would not be allowed on a
vehicle without basic ID, never mind a driving permit.

In the case of the local force, I doubt if few other than traffic
officers know the relevant law. The Hatzola case
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-26563934] started
off after a crew attended a crash (I presume with no invitation from
the main emergency services) so I suspect that caused someone to
wonder why an extra ambulance had turned up uninvited. One just
driving normally along the road isn't going to attract attention but
one doing something that doesn't fit the usual scenario will
eventually be noticed as has occurred with bogus emergency personnel
of which there are several examples online. A common giveaway is
simply the lack of a fleet number on their vehicle.

>A few
>years ago it was said that some traffic seemed to have a bit of a grudge
>against 'ambulances' and would regularly try to charge things like blood
>transfusion vehicles with speeding.
>
Blood transfusion vehicles weren't originally classed as emergency
vehicles but now are. They previously operated on blue lights with a
Secretary of State's permission which left them not quite within the
standard rules.

>I once had to use one of the work's vehicle and only found out
>afterwards that still had blue lights fitted from when it had been used
>by the Scottish Office radio techs - they were not switched on but it
>could have been awkward if I had caught the switch unintentionally!
>
Yes, something I had considered WRT driving some vehicles. You don't
need to know how to switch them on rather than how to switch them off;
something that tends to take a bit of explaining to the type who
insists "You don't need to know what those switches are for".

On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 09:57:43 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <rd660h9q4p70va9blr7c5n48rc0ivvdbnc@4ax.com>, at 02:02:06 on
>Wed, 9 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>On Tue, 8 Feb 2022 16:50:28 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <stqonh$cu3$2@dont-email.me>, at 09:28:18 on Mon, 7 Feb 2022,
>>>MB <MB@nospam.net> remarked:
>>>>On 07/02/2022 09:12, Charles Ellson wrote:
>>>
>>>>> That is the current position, my example was of a comparable vehicle
>>>>> (sometimes actually marked "Ambulance" which can be painted on any
>>>>> vehicle including at least one Leyland National bus) with a very
>>>>> narrow exemption allowing the standard weight limit to be exceeded.
>>>>
>>>>We were given printed signs saying that we were working for the
>>>>ambulance service, we just used to park in ambulance areas at hospitals
>>>>occasionally.
>>>
>>>In other words neither of these sets of vehicles is a classic emergency
>>>ambulance, and thus this rathole is utterly irrelevant.
>>>
>>Not all ambulances are emergency vehicles. Neither is there any need
>>for a vehicle to be ambulance to have "Ambulance" marked on it. You
>>can have blue lights and a siren on an ambulance which is not an
>>ambulance as long as you only use them under specific circumstances,
>>the main one being a non-NHS vehicle performing work for the NHS.
>
>And that's still irrelevant, because I'm talking about the classic
>Emergency Ambulance, and the trials and tribulations of manufacturing
>brand new ones, keeping under the 3.5t limit if a tail-lift is added.
>
Classic by who's definition? There are at least six types parked
outside where I work. There are two or three marked "Ambulance" which
are not ambulances but are equipped with blue lights and sirens. Most
have tail lifts (including the brand new ones) but are not over 3.5t
and are very "classic" for an ambulance.

On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 10:00:40 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <46860h1bpfmlirr917v9a9r199apioiin5@4ax.com>, at 02:04:02 on
>Wed, 9 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>On Tue, 8 Feb 2022 12:12:24 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <ukn10h1841cklct4g54j1fo673kh1h32kh@4ax.com>, at 09:12:06 on
>>>Mon, 7 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>>>Ambulance suppliers say they specifically have issues with the 3.5t
>>>>>limit, because it means they have to slim down the basic vehicle so it
>>>>>doesn't infringe if someone adds a tail-lift.
>>>>>
>>>>That is the current position, my example was of a comparable vehicle
>>>>(sometimes actually marked "Ambulance" which can be painted on any
>>>>vehicle including at least one Leyland National bus) with a very
>>>>narrow exemption allowing the standard weight limit to be exceeded.
>>>>
>>>>>Of all people, you'd expect *they* would know about an exception to the
>>>>>rule. Therefore I suggest you are over-reading the exception.
>>>>>
>>>>You are doing the over-reading. I wasn't saying it currently applied
>>>>to <3.5t ambulances which are also emergency vehicles.
>>>
>>>So you eventually agree that the suppliers of those have to slim them
>>>down in case someone later adds a tail-lift that would put them over the
>>>weight limit.
>>>
>>>Geez, that was hard work.
>>>
>>I never mentioned slimming down, you did.
>
>I think you mentioned circumstances where such slimming down might not
>be necessary, because of exemptions if a vehicle just exceeded the 3.5t
>
>I'm trying to explain those circumstances (should they even be correct)
>don't apply to brand new emergency ambulances.
>
If there was an exemption in the manner I previously posited then
there would be no need to "slim down".

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <strhgj$37a$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:31:15 on Mon, 7 Feb 2022,
> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:

>>
>> Is it wrong to say that you believe that lowering the road by a couple of
>> inches would eliminate the collisions?
>
> It's wrong to say I've advocated for that. What I've wanted is one
> inch/2cm, or whatever units keeps people both happy and able to
> visualise.
>

0.0028 double-decker buses, apparently, or 0.00013 furlongs.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

In message <mn.4d387e628cf38879.143772@junk.mail>, at 22:16:34 on Wed, 9
Feb 2022, mick <nospam@junk.mail> remarked:
>On 09/02/2022 09:23:13, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>> A slightly different kind of vehicle strike…
>>
>>
>><https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/incredible-pictures-v
>>an-driver-accidentally-6625158>
>
>He should have kept whistling, reversed the van back between the
>supports, let the tyres down, reversed out and whistled all the way to
>the nearest garage to get some air, job done!

Something a bit like that is plausibly the best strategy to re-fit the
roof, but you'd probably have to jack it up a bit first if the van's
roof is slightly caved in. And then of course have structural engineers
check the integrity. Fixing the van is going to cost the renter though
(as well as paying for the clear-up assuming the property's insurers
aren't interested).

Meanwhile, plod might be round with a ticket for careless driving.
--
Roland Perry

In message <04590h1ivsmunjsjql475u0jpfeh572ks7@4ax.com>, at 04:49:46 on
Thu, 10 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
>On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 09:57:43 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <rd660h9q4p70va9blr7c5n48rc0ivvdbnc@4ax.com>, at 02:02:06 on
>>Wed, 9 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>>On Tue, 8 Feb 2022 16:50:28 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <stqonh$cu3$2@dont-email.me>, at 09:28:18 on Mon, 7 Feb 2022,
>>>>MB <MB@nospam.net> remarked:
>>>>>On 07/02/2022 09:12, Charles Ellson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> That is the current position, my example was of a comparable vehicle
>>>>>> (sometimes actually marked "Ambulance" which can be painted on any
>>>>>> vehicle including at least one Leyland National bus) with a very
>>>>>> narrow exemption allowing the standard weight limit to be exceeded.
>>>>>
>>>>>We were given printed signs saying that we were working for the
>>>>>ambulance service, we just used to park in ambulance areas at hospitals
>>>>>occasionally.
>>>>
>>>>In other words neither of these sets of vehicles is a classic emergency
>>>>ambulance, and thus this rathole is utterly irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>Not all ambulances are emergency vehicles. Neither is there any need
>>>for a vehicle to be ambulance to have "Ambulance" marked on it. You
>>>can have blue lights and a siren on an ambulance which is not an
>>>ambulance as long as you only use them under specific circumstances,
>>>the main one being a non-NHS vehicle performing work for the NHS.
>>
>>And that's still irrelevant, because I'm talking about the
>>classic Emergency Ambulance, and the trials and tribulations of manufacturing
***************************
*********
>>brand new ones, keeping under the 3.5t limit if a tail-lift is added.
>>
>Classic by who's definition?

The Ambulance Trust, who classify a large proportion of their fleet as
"Emergency Ambulance" as opposed for example to rapid-response vehicles,
non-emergency ambulances (patient transport service), major incident
support vehicles etc.

<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/41/EEAS-
ambulance.jpg/220px-EEAS-ambulance.jpg>

>There are at least six types parked outside where I work.

Six types of Emergency Ambulance? There's a few neo-natal ambulances
here which look bigger, and must either have a dispensation, or be
driven by those with a 7.5t licence.

East Anglia is gradually replacing its once exclusively Sprinter fleet
of classic emergency ambulances with Fiat Ducatos.

>There are two or three marked "Ambulance" which are not ambulances but
>are equipped with blue lights and sirens.

Does that bring it up to nine different types?

>Most have tail lifts (including the brand new ones) but are not over
>3.5t

All nine types? And of course most will be under 3.5t (so they can be
driven by a wider pool), and it's the challenge of achieving that for
new build EMERGENCY ambulances that I'm discussing.

>and are very "classic" for an ambulance.

Yes, but see classic EMERGENCY ambulance, above.
--
Roland Perry

In message <4d690hlpfegrpviamr28rr1o5i2mq4d4kg@4ax.com>, at 04:51:49 on
Thu, 10 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
>On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 10:00:40 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <46860h1bpfmlirr917v9a9r199apioiin5@4ax.com>, at 02:04:02 on
>>Wed, 9 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>>On Tue, 8 Feb 2022 12:12:24 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <ukn10h1841cklct4g54j1fo673kh1h32kh@4ax.com>, at 09:12:06 on
>>>>Mon, 7 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>>>Ambulance suppliers say they specifically have issues with the 3.5t
>>>>>>limit, because it means they have to slim down the basic vehicle so it
>>>>>>doesn't infringe if someone adds a tail-lift.
>>>>>>
>>>>>That is the current position, my example was of a comparable vehicle
>>>>>(sometimes actually marked "Ambulance" which can be painted on any
>>>>>vehicle including at least one Leyland National bus) with a very
>>>>>narrow exemption allowing the standard weight limit to be exceeded.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Of all people, you'd expect *they* would know about an exception to the
>>>>>>rule. Therefore I suggest you are over-reading the exception.
>>>>>>
>>>>>You are doing the over-reading. I wasn't saying it currently applied
>>>>>to <3.5t ambulances which are also emergency vehicles.
>>>>
>>>>So you eventually agree that the suppliers of those have to slim them
>>>>down in case someone later adds a tail-lift that would put them over the
>>>>weight limit.
>>>>
>>>>Geez, that was hard work.
>>>>
>>>I never mentioned slimming down, you did.
>>
>>I think you mentioned circumstances where such slimming down might not
>>be necessary, because of exemptions if a vehicle just exceeded the 3.5t
>>
>>I'm trying to explain those circumstances (should they even be correct)
>>don't apply to brand new emergency ambulances.
>>
>If there was an exemption in the manner I previously posited then
>there would be no need to "slim down".

That's ambiguously drafted.

Are you saying there's no exemptions available? Or that they apply so
widely there's no need for the manufacturers to worry (in which case,
someone ought to tell them to stop fretting).
--
Roland Perry

In message <su2emr$3un$6@dont-email.me>, at 07:26:19 on Thu, 10 Feb
2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <strhgj$37a$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:31:15 on Mon, 7 Feb 2022,
>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>
>>> Is it wrong to say that you believe that lowering the road by a couple of
>>> inches would eliminate the collisions?
>>
>> It's wrong to say I've advocated for that. What I've wanted is one
>> inch/2cm, or whatever units keeps people both happy and able to
>> visualise.
>
>0.0028 double-decker buses, apparently, or 0.00013 furlongs.

Most people do have some visualisation of double-decker buses - although
might not appreciate the need for special ones for the Blackwall Tunnel.
Not being a racing man I can't visualise a furlong as easily, but
perhaps a cricket pitch.

Railway folk use Chains, of course, and I've got one of those in the
attic. Of course, that's the same distance as a cricket pitch.
--
Roland Perry

On 10/02/2022 07:26, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <strhgj$37a$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:31:15 on Mon, 7 Feb 2022,
>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>
>>>
>>> Is it wrong to say that you believe that lowering the road by a couple of
>>> inches would eliminate the collisions?
>>
>> It's wrong to say I've advocated for that. What I've wanted is one
>> inch/2cm, or whatever units keeps people both happy and able to
>> visualise.
>>
>
> 0.0028 double-decker buses, apparently, or 0.00013 furlongs.
>
>
> Anna Noyd-Dryver

What's that in blue whales?

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 10/02/2022 07:57, Roland Perry wrote:
> Railway folk use Chains, of course, and I've got one of those in the attic.

Kinky!

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <mn.4d387e628cf38879.143772@junk.mail>, at 22:16:34 on Wed, 9
> Feb 2022, mick <nospam@junk.mail> remarked:
>> On 09/02/2022 09:23:13, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>> A slightly different kind of vehicle strike…
>>>
>>>
>>> <https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/incredible-pictures-v
>>> an-driver-accidentally-6625158>
>>
>> He should have kept whistling, reversed the van back between the
>> supports, let the tyres down, reversed out and whistled all the way to
>> the nearest garage to get some air, job done!
>
> Something a bit like that is plausibly the best strategy to re-fit the
> roof, but you'd probably have to jack it up a bit first if the van's
> roof is slightly caved in. And then of course have structural engineers
> check the integrity. Fixing the van is going to cost the renter though
> (as well as paying for the clear-up assuming the property's insurers
> aren't interested).
>
> Meanwhile, plod might be round with a ticket for careless driving.

He will certainly get slated.

GH

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 10/02/2022 07:57, Roland Perry wrote:
>> Railway folk use Chains, of course, and I've got one of those in the attic.
>
> Kinky!
>

I thought funny place to have the toilet.

GH

In message <a7290h9hjlojthn98l6n7nmte3bgabkagu@4ax.com>, at 03:45:36 on
Thu, 10 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
>On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 09:47:32 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <74g50hlpttme7bmhiulvb6tj1j8eqn5ce8@4ax.com>, at 19:18:14 on
>>Tue, 8 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>>On Tue, 8 Feb 2022 09:14:28 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <q4q10h5o7hlkmjqkkmsg61drjsnk5sg2bj@4ax.com>, at 10:01:21 on
>>>>Mon, 7 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>>>>An advertisement can be defaced or removed without notice if it does
>>>>>>>not identify the "person who displayed it" and their address. [s.225
>>>>>>>Town and Country Planning Act 1990].
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Under-citing again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>First it needs some regulations (maybe everywhere has them, maybe they
>>>>>>don't - perhaps they've got regulations about fly-posting in their parks
>>>>>>and open spaces, not verges at the side of roads).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It then goes on to say:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "the local planning authority shall not exercise any power conferred
>>>>>> by subsection (1) unless ... <<they give notice>>"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And the stuff about it "not giving an address" NOR "unable to ascertain
>>>>>>it after reasonable inquiry", is simply to cover the circumstances of
>>>>>>inability to deliver the necessary notices.
>>>>>>
>>>>>It is to deal with a common feature of fly-posting.
>>>>
>>>>Most fly-posting is not anonymous, that rather defeats the objective.
>>>>"Come to our event, and we refuse to say who we are or where it is".
>>>>
>>>>The council can therefore find the service address of the perpetrator
>>>>"after reasonable inquiry".
>>>>
>>>>There's a fly-posting-advertised beer festival locally this weekend,
>>>>which is organised by the local branch of CAMRA, and although it only
>>>>specifies the venue in generic terms (rather than an address and
>>>>postcode) it wouldn't take long to track down who the organisers are.
>>>>
>>>>They've even got a Facebook page!
>>>
>>>Your town might be different but the majority of fly-posting I observe
>>>involves no more identification than a mobile telephone number.
>>
>>There's two sorts round here - (a) pointing the way to premises, in
>>effect pirate roadsigns. Often to housing developments, but I posted one
>>the other day that's to a warehousing facility (b) Advertising of
>>retail/events, like the beer festival I mentioned.
>>
>>Some of them you think "surely they'll have applied for permission" -
>>like a banner saying they are recruiting volunteer firemen. But the
>>places these typically get located are extremely unlikely to be approved
>>of.
>>
>The closest to that round my way are possibly the banners for the
>annual circus visit but I have never bothered to examine them long
>enough to see what identification details (apart from the blatantly
>obvious one) might be on them.

The name of the circus and the date and venue. They'll have needed to
apply for permission to use the land, so that's quite a simple
investigation. Circus posters tend to be glued to things like telephone
street cabinets, or wrapped around telegraph poles. And while being
unsightly are not particularly large.

The modern trend is to advertise events etc using large printed banners
(some might characterise them as tarpaulins) which are typically at
least a square metre. I posted a streetview link to some the other day
(ones at the smaller end of the scale).

https://goo.gl/maps/d7igpYSbYUPtXs1S7

Just round the corner, not much doubt who erected this one (and it might
just be exempt if it qualifies as being within their property)

https://goo.gl/maps/vf5gjXoZvdvqc6yR9

>In past years you would get flyposting
>for the odd rave or two but these possibly became a bit of a giveaway
>to the police and the councils and eventually disappeared.

--
Roland Perry

On 10/02/2022 07:26, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <strhgj$37a$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:31:15 on Mon, 7 Feb 2022,
>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>
>>>
>>> Is it wrong to say that you believe that lowering the road by a couple of
>>> inches would eliminate the collisions?
>>
>> It's wrong to say I've advocated for that. What I've wanted is one
>> inch/2cm, or whatever units keeps people both happy and able to
>> visualise.
>>
>
> 0.0028 double-decker buses, apparently, or 0.00013 furlongs.
>
>
> Anna Noyd-Dryver

As it is a vertical measurement surely 0.0139 fathoms would be better? ;-)

--
Colin

On 10/02/2022 09:07, Marland wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <mn.4d387e628cf38879.143772@junk.mail>, at 22:16:34 on Wed, 9
>> Feb 2022, mick <nospam@junk.mail> remarked:
>>> On 09/02/2022 09:23:13, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>> A slightly different kind of vehicle strike…
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/incredible-pictures-v
>>>> an-driver-accidentally-6625158>
>>>
>>> He should have kept whistling, reversed the van back between the
>>> supports, let the tyres down, reversed out and whistled all the way to
>>> the nearest garage to get some air, job done!
>>
>> Something a bit like that is plausibly the best strategy to re-fit the
>> roof, but you'd probably have to jack it up a bit first if the van's
>> roof is slightly caved in. And then of course have structural engineers
>> check the integrity. Fixing the van is going to cost the renter though
>> (as well as paying for the clear-up assuming the property's insurers
>> aren't interested).
>>
>> Meanwhile, plod might be round with a ticket for careless driving.
>
> He will certainly get slated.
>

Not sure that that is entily right?

--
Colin

On 10/02/2022 09:09, Marland wrote:
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 10/02/2022 07:57, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> Railway folk use Chains, of course, and I've got one of those in the attic.
>>
>> Kinky!
>>
>
> I thought funny place to have the toilet.

What a sheltered life you lead. A furlong, of course, is ten chains,
or one acre divided by one chain.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>
> And that's still irrelevant, because I'm talking about the classic
> Emergency Ambulance, and the trials and tribulations of manufacturing
> brand new ones, keeping under the 3.5t limit if a tail-lift is added.
>

Added? Are they not now built with tail-lift as standard? Certainly don't
recall having been behind one in traffic recently which didn't have a tail
lift.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

In message <su33sa$c69$5@dont-email.me>, at 13:27:38 on Thu, 10 Feb
2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> And that's still irrelevant, because I'm talking about the classic
>> Emergency Ambulance, and the trials and tribulations of manufacturing
>> brand new ones, keeping under the 3.5t limit if a tail-lift is added.
>
>Added? Are they not now built with tail-lift as standard? Certainly don't
>recall having been behind one in traffic recently which didn't have a tail
>lift.

That's probably why it's a concern. The particular fleet in question was
apparently susceptible to having been delivered without a tail-lift
(maybe to reduce the apparent cost, let alone the GVW) but needed to be
later updated.
--
Roland Perry