In message <su2sb2$nd8$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:19:00 on Thu, 10 Feb
2022, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> remarked:
>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?

"Slated" seems to be new-speak for 'scheduled' rather than 'criticised'.
--
Roland Perry

On 10/02/2022 14:35, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <su2sb2$nd8$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:19:00 on Thu, 10 Feb
> 2022, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> remarked:
>> 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?
>
> "Slated" seems to be new-speak for 'scheduled' rather than 'criticised'.

Whoosh!

On 10/02/2022 14:35, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <su2sb2$nd8$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:19:00 on Thu, 10 Feb
> 2022, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> remarked:
>> 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?
>
> "Slated" seems to be new-speak for 'scheduled' rather than 'criticised'.

That's a new meaning I wasn't aware of. Even worse the two online
dictionaries I searched each gave one different meaning and not the
other. That's another word removed from my vocabulary.

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

Chains aren't part of the Usenet classic FFF measurement system (Furlong,
Firkin, Fortnight) <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FFF_system>

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 09:04:59 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>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.
>
That is a place of business not the address of the business.

>They'll have needed to
>apply for permission to use the land, so that's quite a simple
>investigation.
>
Display of details is required not their existence in someone else's
records.

>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
>
The circus in question uses somewhat larger banners attached to
pedestrian barriers. After years of visiting they seem to have
perfected the knack of not interfering with necessary sightlines or
with other permanent signage.

>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.

On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 07:57:00 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>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.
>
There isn't one now and for most of the tunnel's time never has been;
the 108 (like many other LB services irrespective of available
clearances) has used ordinary single-deck buses for over 40 years.
There were modified/non-standard double-deck buses many years ago
(second from bottom in
http://red-rf.com/single-deck_routes/centenary_run.aspx) which were
replaced by standard RT and RTL double-deckers -
"In the renumbering in 1934, the route became the plain 108, and three
years later, the 10-year old NSs were withdrawn and replaced by
specially-built tunnel STLs. These continued to be required until the
police relented in 1951, permitting standard buses, although these
still carried strengthened tyres because of the constant rubbing
against the kerb."
https://www.flickr.com/photos/23875695@N06/8376430867

1969 saw reversion to the use of single deck buses. AFAICT
Routemasters never operated through the tunnel so possibly their extra
width (6" more than STL/RT/RTL) caused a profile which was foul to
gauge (photographs suggest a standard STL had a squarer roof profile
than RT/RTL) and/or they were too high for low bridges in Bow and
Hackney Wick (the route in earlier times did not extend as far as it
does now).

The last tunnel-specific buses used by LT were those for the Dartford
Tunnel until 1965, their special feature being the fitting of racks
for bicycles rather than anything clearance-specific.
https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ill-fated-cycle-bus/
http://www.countrybus.org/TT/TT.htm
https://www.flickr.com/photos/rw3-497alh/18434860986

Before current width and weight restrictions, double-deck buses
operated through the Rotherhithe Tunnel with a similar historic
requirement by the Met. Police to use vehicles with modified roofs.
The last bus service through the Rotherhithe Tunnel was the 395 in
2006 - https://www.flickr.com/photos/wirewiping/4729443439

>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.

On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 07:51:07 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>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?
>
Not a relevant general one AFAIAA.
If a single railway vehicle can be exempted from general requirements
then I see no reason why an otherwise-roadworthy ambulance type cannot
be given a special classification but in practice that might not be
necessary with suitable newer designs intended to keep weight below
3.5t. The move away from box bodies on chassises has resulted in
vehicles with low floors and thus no need for a tail lift. OTOH MAN
supplies box-bodied ambulances below 3.5t which do not require a lift
:-
https://www.sja.org.uk/press-centre/press-releases/st-john-ambulance-unveils-new-ambulance/

>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).

In message <63ob0h1vuf59i59cspr57e25s72uqa2c3u@4ax.com>, at 04:12:13 on
Fri, 11 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:

>>>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.
>>
>That is a place of business not the address of the business.

But having the name of the business, it's easy to find their service
address.

>>They'll have needed to apply for permission to use the land, so that's
>>quite a simple investigation.
>>
>Display of details is required not their existence in someone else's
>records.

What bit of "or ascertain after reasonable inquiry" is giving you a
problem?

>>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
>>
>The circus in question uses somewhat larger banners attached to
>pedestrian barriers.

Such barriers are a fly-posting incident waiting to happen.

>After years of visiting they seem to have perfected the knack of not
>interfering with necessary sightlines

The traffic engineers I've spoken to are reluctant to nuance it on a
site-by-site basis. They simply say "all pedestrian barriers have
essential sight-lines through them".

>or with other permanent signage.

There's rarely permanent signage on pedestrian barriers (because it
would conflict with the statement above).

--
Roland Perry

In message <olob0h1bhf0ijbr7kj68ppvfruc1adbr73@4ax.com>, at 05:15:09 on
Fri, 11 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
>On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 07:57:00 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>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.
>>
>There isn't one now and for most of the tunnel's time never has been;
>the 108 (like many other LB services irrespective of available
>clearances) has used ordinary single-deck buses for over 40 years.

That's a work-around. In case you are having difficulty, let's try:

Most people do have some visualisation of double-decker buses -
although might not appreciate the former need for special DOUBLE
DECKER buses using the Blackwall Tunnel.

Meanwhile, if you want more material to research, Lodekka buses at
various other places in the country. I think the bridge near Oxford
Station came up recently in discussion. Let alone the lowbridge vehicles
previously commonplace because of the 13'6" clearance at Chelmsford
Station, right next to the bus station.

>The last tunnel-specific buses used by LT were those for the Dartford
>Tunnel until 1965, their special feature being the fitting of racks
>for bicycles rather than anything clearance-specific.

Perhaps that's because the Dartford Tunnel is built to a higher gauge.
Who'd-a-thunk it!

--
Roland Perry

In message <oesb0htn2qtvvkkmnam1bp9fvn19jggm3e@4ax.com>, at 05:46:35 on
Fri, 11 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
>On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 07:51:07 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>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.

Is this the sot of exemption you later deny?

>>>>>>>>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?
>>
>Not a relevant general one AFAIAA.
>If a single railway vehicle can be exempted from general requirements
>then I see no reason why an otherwise-roadworthy ambulance type cannot
>be given a special classification

While I agree that some individual railway vehicles have exemptions
(usually for short periods if a fleet, or heritage equipment is
permanent) government is reluctant to go down that route. Look at the
amount of paperwork to extend the life of HSTs for example.

>but in practice that might not be necessary with suitable newer designs
>intended to keep weight below 3.5t.

Of course it's not necessary if the manufacturers have taken these rules
seriously.

>The move away from box bodies on chassises has resulted in
>vehicles with low floors and thus no need for a tail lift.

And there was me thinking someone said that all of them had tail lifts.

>OTOH MAN
>supplies box-bodied ambulances below 3.5t which do not require a lift
>:-
>https://www.sja.org.uk/press-centre/press-releases/st-john-ambulance-unv
>eils-new-ambulance/

Yes, designing ambulances to keep within the rules is hard work. That's
sort of the point of why I mentioned it.
--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 08:52:00 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <63ob0h1vuf59i59cspr57e25s72uqa2c3u@4ax.com>, at 04:12:13 on
>Fri, 11 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>remarked:
>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>That is a place of business not the address of the business.
>
>But having the name of the business, it's easy to find their service
>address.
>
If the legal requirement is to display the address of a business then
merely supplying a clue will not win the argument with a magistrate.

>>>They'll have needed to apply for permission to use the land, so that's
>>>quite a simple investigation.
>>>
>>Display of details is required not their existence in someone else's
>>records.
>
>What bit of "or ascertain after reasonable inquiry" is giving you a
>problem?
>
The obligation is upon the advertiser to supply the information in a
specific manner not for the authorities to seek it.

>>>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
>>>
>>The circus in question uses somewhat larger banners attached to
>>pedestrian barriers.
>
>Such barriers are a fly-posting incident waiting to happen.
>
The same barriers are regularly "fly-posted" by councils.

>>After years of visiting they seem to have perfected the knack of not
>>interfering with necessary sightlines
>
>The traffic engineers I've spoken to are reluctant to nuance it on a
>site-by-site basis. They simply say "all pedestrian barriers have
>essential sight-lines through them".
>
Not necessarily for the entire length. Some are many yards long
{https://goo.gl/maps/A8U2szUvKwJgPADG9]
and used to reinforce the effect of zig-zag markings at pedestrian
crossings,
[https://goo.gl/maps/uJ1iHBaJuU4GpB4E6]
[https://goo.gl/maps/t51L3bELb4RZGavJ6], you don't need to see through
them away from the ends. OTOH there is the matter of distraction being
caused by unnecessary/unauthorised posting.
https://goo.gl/maps/YZdRfyCAC8oyehuC8.

>>or with other permanent signage.
>
>There's rarely permanent signage on pedestrian barriers (because it
>would conflict with the statement above).
>
A quick wander round Google Earth certainly seems to support that (and
also shows lots of places with no barriers where you would think they
are needed). I did find one counter-example of a sign attached to a
pedestrian barrier but it was in the Burgh of Brent (which has more
than the odd example of incompetent signage) so that doesn't really
count.

On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 09:03:41 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <olob0h1bhf0ijbr7kj68ppvfruc1adbr73@4ax.com>, at 05:15:09 on
>Fri, 11 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>remarked:
>>On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 07:57:00 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>There isn't one now and for most of the tunnel's time never has been;
>>the 108 (like many other LB services irrespective of available
>>clearances) has used ordinary single-deck buses for over 40 years.
>
>That's a work-around.
>
You snipped out "(like many other LB services irrespective of
available clearances)".

> In case you are having difficulty, let's try:
>
> Most people do have some visualisation of double-decker buses -
> although might not appreciate the

<cough!>
> former
</cough!>

> need for special DOUBLE
> DECKER buses using the Blackwall Tunnel.
>
>Meanwhile, if you want more material to research, Lodekka buses at
>various other places in the country. I think the bridge near Oxford
>Station came up recently in discussion. Let alone the lowbridge vehicles
>previously commonplace because of the 13'6" clearance at Chelmsford
>Station, right next to the bus station.
>
>>The last tunnel-specific buses used by LT were those for the Dartford
>>Tunnel until 1965, their special feature being the fitting of racks
>>for bicycles rather than anything clearance-specific.
>
>Perhaps that's because the Dartford Tunnel is built to a higher gauge.
>Who'd-a-thunk it!
>
You seem to have over-thunk it. They were specific to the purpose of
carrying cyclists and their bicycles through that tunnel irrespective
of clearances.

On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 05:15:09 +0000, Charles Ellson
<charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:

<snip>
>AFAICT Routemasters never operated through the tunnel so possibly their extra
>width (6" more than STL/RT/RTL) caused a profile which was foul to
>gauge
>
They aren't too fat :-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymT-6i8c_RE
but they are too high to come back in the northbound (original) tunnel
before worrying about other dimensions.
<snip>

As a side issue, the actual clearances in the northbound tunnel are an
official secret :-
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/height_change_in_northbound_blac
"However, in accordance with the EIR, TfL is not obliged to supply any
of the information as it is subject to a statutory exception to the
right of access to information under Regulation 12(5)(g).
In this instance the exception has been applied as disclosure of the
information you have requested would be invaluable to drivers wishing
to circumvent the height limit of the Blackwall Tunnel."
The tunnel seems to have a "pinch point" at the first bend which
causes the right lane to have a tighter restriction than the one
referred to in the FOI request.

In message <71cd0hh19b2vli3hbtsdd2f8hc0vt5br67@4ax.com>, at 19:35:23 on
Fri, 11 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
>On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 08:52:00 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <63ob0h1vuf59i59cspr57e25s72uqa2c3u@4ax.com>, at 04:12:13 on
>>Fri, 11 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>remarked:
>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>That is a place of business not the address of the business.
>>
>>But having the name of the business, it's easy to find their service
>>address.
>>
>If the legal requirement is to display the address of a business then
>merely supplying a clue will not win the argument with a magistrate.
>
>>>>They'll have needed to apply for permission to use the land, so that's
>>>>quite a simple investigation.
>>>>
>>>Display of details is required not their existence in someone else's
>>>records.
>>
>>What bit of "or ascertain after reasonable inquiry" is giving you a
>>problem?
>>
>The obligation is upon the advertiser to supply the information in a
>specific manner not for the authorities to seek it.

Apart from the law in question, which stipulates the LA should make
"reasonable inquiries".

>>>>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
>>>>
>>>The circus in question uses somewhat larger banners attached to
>>>pedestrian barriers.
>>
>>Such barriers are a fly-posting incident waiting to happen.
>>
>The same barriers are regularly "fly-posted" by councils.

Depends on the council. They don't do it here, they know better than
that. They've put up quite a lot of Covid signage, but only in places
where the private sector would need planning permission.

>>>After years of visiting they seem to have perfected the knack of not
>>>interfering with necessary sightlines
>>
>>The traffic engineers I've spoken to are reluctant to nuance it on a
>>site-by-site basis. They simply say "all pedestrian barriers have
>>essential sight-lines through them".
>>
>Not necessarily for the entire length. Some are many yards long
>{https://goo.gl/maps/A8U2szUvKwJgPADG9]

That's a classic case where the traffic engineers are *not* going start
negotiating about which bit of railing is OK, and which isn't.

>and used to reinforce the effect of zig-zag markings at pedestrian
>crossings,
>[https://goo.gl/maps/uJ1iHBaJuU4GpB4E6]

You'd still need permission for an advert there under planning rules.

>[https://goo.gl/maps/t51L3bELb4RZGavJ6],

And there.

>you don't need to see through them away from the ends.

That's because there's two overlapping sets of rules - planning and
traffic hazard.

>OTOH there is the matter of distraction being
>caused by unnecessary/unauthorised posting.
>https://goo.gl/maps/YZdRfyCAC8oyehuC8.

Again, a planning infringement.

>>>or with other permanent signage.
>>
>>There's rarely permanent signage on pedestrian barriers (because it
>>would conflict with the statement above).
>>
>A quick wander round Google Earth certainly seems to support that (and
>also shows lots of places with no barriers where you would think they
>are needed). I did find one counter-example of a sign attached to a
>pedestrian barrier but it was in the Burgh of Brent (which has more
>than the odd example of incompetent signage) so that doesn't really
>count.

--
Roland Perry

In message <iked0h98pecglbqr5vo77acn2l66j2dnud@4ax.com>, at 19:44:51 on
Fri, 11 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:

>>>The last tunnel-specific buses used by LT were those for the Dartford
>>>Tunnel until 1965, their special feature being the fitting of racks
>>>for bicycles rather than anything clearance-specific.
>>
>>Perhaps that's because the Dartford Tunnel is built to a higher gauge.
>>Who'd-a-thunk it!
>>
>You seem to have over-thunk it. They were specific to the purpose of
>carrying cyclists and their bicycles through that tunnel irrespective
>of clearances.

Talking of over-thinking, the thread was about special buses because of
tunnel clearances, and you've lobbed in special buses for completely
different purposes.
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 12:32:30 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <71cd0hh19b2vli3hbtsdd2f8hc0vt5br67@4ax.com>, at 19:35:23 on
>Fri, 11 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>remarked:
>>On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 08:52:00 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <63ob0h1vuf59i59cspr57e25s72uqa2c3u@4ax.com>, at 04:12:13 on
>>>Fri, 11 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>remarked:
>>>
>>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>That is a place of business not the address of the business.
>>>
>>>But having the name of the business, it's easy to find their service
>>>address.
>>>
>>If the legal requirement is to display the address of a business then
>>merely supplying a clue will not win the argument with a magistrate.
>>
>>>>>They'll have needed to apply for permission to use the land, so that's
>>>>>quite a simple investigation.
>>>>>
>>>>Display of details is required not their existence in someone else's
>>>>records.
>>>
>>>What bit of "or ascertain after reasonable inquiry" is giving you a
>>>problem?
>>>
>>The obligation is upon the advertiser to supply the information in a
>>specific manner not for the authorities to seek it.
>
>Apart from the law in question, which stipulates the LA should make
>"reasonable inquiries".
>
There is more than one law involved. Making inquiry to discover a
fly-poster's identity is a consequence of a failure by the poster to
display legally required information.
<snip>

On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 14:15:32 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <iked0h98pecglbqr5vo77acn2l66j2dnud@4ax.com>, at 19:44:51 on
>Fri, 11 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>remarked:
>
>>>>The last tunnel-specific buses used by LT were those for the Dartford
>>>>Tunnel until 1965, their special feature being the fitting of racks
>>>>for bicycles rather than anything clearance-specific.
>>>
>>>Perhaps that's because the Dartford Tunnel is built to a higher gauge.
>>>Who'd-a-thunk it!
>>>
>>You seem to have over-thunk it. They were specific to the purpose of
>>carrying cyclists and their bicycles through that tunnel irrespective
>>of clearances.
>
>Talking of over-thinking, the thread was about special buses because of
>tunnel clearances, and you've lobbed in special buses for completely
>different purposes.
>
Thread drift. I'm sure you have not only heard of it but also done it
yourself.

As for the tunnel buses, the connected tunnel clearances are those not
available between motor traffic and cyclists.

In message <dv3r0hd8ru9jq9tp2tklpg18dckonusv5c@4ax.com>, at 00:02:21 on
Thu, 17 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
>On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 14:15:32 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <iked0h98pecglbqr5vo77acn2l66j2dnud@4ax.com>, at 19:44:51 on
>>Fri, 11 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>remarked:
>>
>>>>>The last tunnel-specific buses used by LT were those for the Dartford
>>>>>Tunnel until 1965, their special feature being the fitting of racks
>>>>>for bicycles rather than anything clearance-specific.
>>>>
>>>>Perhaps that's because the Dartford Tunnel is built to a higher gauge.
>>>>Who'd-a-thunk it!
>>>>
>>>You seem to have over-thunk it. They were specific to the purpose of
>>>carrying cyclists and their bicycles through that tunnel irrespective
>>>of clearances.
>>
>>Talking of over-thinking, the thread was about special buses because of
>>tunnel clearances, and you've lobbed in special buses for completely
>>different purposes.
>>
>Thread drift. I'm sure you have not only heard of it but also done it
>yourself.

If you want to, go ahead, but it doesn't change the situation in London.

>As for the tunnel buses, the connected tunnel clearances are those not
>available between motor traffic and cyclists.

Sorry, can't parse that.
--
Roland Perry

In message <9p3r0h5cdhv895b6bbnsi6aevh4ja1iqll@4ax.com>, at 23:59:21 on
Wed, 16 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
>On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 12:32:30 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <71cd0hh19b2vli3hbtsdd2f8hc0vt5br67@4ax.com>, at 19:35:23 on
>>Fri, 11 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>remarked:
>>>On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 08:52:00 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <63ob0h1vuf59i59cspr57e25s72uqa2c3u@4ax.com>, at 04:12:13 on
>>>>Fri, 11 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>remarked:
>>>>
>>>>>>>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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>That is a place of business not the address of the business.
>>>>
>>>>But having the name of the business, it's easy to find their service
>>>>address.
>>>>
>>>If the legal requirement is to display the address of a business then
>>>merely supplying a clue will not win the argument with a magistrate.
>>>
>>>>>>They'll have needed to apply for permission to use the land, so that's
>>>>>>quite a simple investigation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Display of details is required not their existence in someone else's
>>>>>records.
>>>>
>>>>What bit of "or ascertain after reasonable inquiry" is giving you a
>>>>problem?
>>>>
>>>The obligation is upon the advertiser to supply the information in a
>>>specific manner not for the authorities to seek it.
>>
>>Apart from the law in question, which stipulates the LA should make
>>"reasonable inquiries".
>>
>There is more than one law involved.

Yes, and for planning purposes:

>Making inquiry to discover a fly-poster's identity is a consequence of
>a failure by the poster to display legally required information.

Correct. But has to be done before summarily removing the poster (under
planning law).
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 08:57:09 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <9p3r0h5cdhv895b6bbnsi6aevh4ja1iqll@4ax.com>, at 23:59:21 on
>Wed, 16 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>remarked:
>>On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 12:32:30 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <71cd0hh19b2vli3hbtsdd2f8hc0vt5br67@4ax.com>, at 19:35:23 on
>>>Fri, 11 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>remarked:
>>>>On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 08:52:00 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In message <63ob0h1vuf59i59cspr57e25s72uqa2c3u@4ax.com>, at 04:12:13 on
>>>>>Fri, 11 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>>remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>That is a place of business not the address of the business.
>>>>>
>>>>>But having the name of the business, it's easy to find their service
>>>>>address.
>>>>>
>>>>If the legal requirement is to display the address of a business then
>>>>merely supplying a clue will not win the argument with a magistrate.
>>>>
>>>>>>>They'll have needed to apply for permission to use the land, so that's
>>>>>>>quite a simple investigation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Display of details is required not their existence in someone else's
>>>>>>records.
>>>>>
>>>>>What bit of "or ascertain after reasonable inquiry" is giving you a
>>>>>problem?
>>>>>
>>>>The obligation is upon the advertiser to supply the information in a
>>>>specific manner not for the authorities to seek it.
>>>
>>>Apart from the law in question, which stipulates the LA should make
>>>"reasonable inquiries".
>>>
>>There is more than one law involved.
>
>Yes, and for planning purposes:
>
>>Making inquiry to discover a fly-poster's identity is a consequence of
>>a failure by the poster to display legally required information.
>
>Correct. But has to be done before summarily removing the poster (under
>planning law).
>
As mentioned before, there is provision for an offending item to be
removed without notice.

In message <06vt0hli67ao84h77ldfsdf3jmdtdcoqpi@4ax.com>, at 01:57:29 on
Fri, 18 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
>On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 08:57:09 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <9p3r0h5cdhv895b6bbnsi6aevh4ja1iqll@4ax.com>, at 23:59:21 on
>>Wed, 16 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>remarked:
>>>On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 12:32:30 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <71cd0hh19b2vli3hbtsdd2f8hc0vt5br67@4ax.com>, at 19:35:23 on
>>>>Fri, 11 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>remarked:
>>>>>On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 08:52:00 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In message <63ob0h1vuf59i59cspr57e25s72uqa2c3u@4ax.com>, at 04:12:13 on
>>>>>>Fri, 11 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>>>remarked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That is a place of business not the address of the business.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But having the name of the business, it's easy to find their service
>>>>>>address.
>>>>>>
>>>>>If the legal requirement is to display the address of a business then
>>>>>merely supplying a clue will not win the argument with a magistrate.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>They'll have needed to apply for permission to use the land, so that's
>>>>>>>>quite a simple investigation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Display of details is required not their existence in someone else's
>>>>>>>records.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What bit of "or ascertain after reasonable inquiry" is giving you a
>>>>>>problem?
>>>>>>
>>>>>The obligation is upon the advertiser to supply the information in a
>>>>>specific manner not for the authorities to seek it.
>>>>
>>>>Apart from the law in question, which stipulates the LA should make
>>>>"reasonable inquiries".
>>>>
>>>There is more than one law involved.
>>
>>Yes, and for planning purposes:
>>
>>>Making inquiry to discover a fly-poster's identity is a consequence of
>>>a failure by the poster to display legally required information.
>>
>>Correct. But has to be done before summarily removing the poster (under
>>planning law).
>>
>As mentioned before, there is provision for an offending item to be
>removed without notice.

Even if only in contravention of the planning law?

And let's not go round the loop again of "without notice" meaning
"because we can't find someone to send the notice to", rather than
"immediately". Enquiries have to be made.
--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 07:28:33 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <06vt0hli67ao84h77ldfsdf3jmdtdcoqpi@4ax.com>, at 01:57:29 on
>Fri, 18 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>remarked:
>>On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 08:57:09 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <9p3r0h5cdhv895b6bbnsi6aevh4ja1iqll@4ax.com>, at 23:59:21 on
>>>Wed, 16 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>remarked:
>>>>On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 12:32:30 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In message <71cd0hh19b2vli3hbtsdd2f8hc0vt5br67@4ax.com>, at 19:35:23 on
>>>>>Fri, 11 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>>remarked:
>>>>>>On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 08:52:00 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In message <63ob0h1vuf59i59cspr57e25s72uqa2c3u@4ax.com>, at 04:12:13 on
>>>>>>>Fri, 11 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>>>>remarked:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That is a place of business not the address of the business.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>But having the name of the business, it's easy to find their service
>>>>>>>address.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>If the legal requirement is to display the address of a business then
>>>>>>merely supplying a clue will not win the argument with a magistrate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>They'll have needed to apply for permission to use the land, so that's
>>>>>>>>>quite a simple investigation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Display of details is required not their existence in someone else's
>>>>>>>>records.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What bit of "or ascertain after reasonable inquiry" is giving you a
>>>>>>>problem?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>The obligation is upon the advertiser to supply the information in a
>>>>>>specific manner not for the authorities to seek it.
>>>>>
>>>>>Apart from the law in question, which stipulates the LA should make
>>>>>"reasonable inquiries".
>>>>>
>>>>There is more than one law involved.
>>>
>>>Yes, and for planning purposes:
>>>
>>>>Making inquiry to discover a fly-poster's identity is a consequence of
>>>>a failure by the poster to display legally required information.
>>>
>>>Correct. But has to be done before summarily removing the poster (under
>>>planning law).
>>>
>>As mentioned before, there is provision for an offending item to be
>>removed without notice.
>
>Even if only in contravention of the planning law?
>
>And let's not go round the loop again of "without notice" meaning
>"because we can't find someone to send the notice to", rather than
>"immediately". Enquiries have to be made.
>
The law is fairly clear (except to you):-
s.225(4) Town and Country Planning Act disapplies the giving of notice
in s.225(3) if -
"(a)the placard or poster does not give his address, and
(b)the authority do not know it and are unable to ascertain it after
reasonable inquiry."
For a typical fly-post the "reasonable enquiry" is highly likely to be
doomed to failure and determinable without having to leave the
location.

As mentioned before, there is more than planning law involved and a
Highway Authority can use s.132 Highways Act 1980 (which has no
requirement to give notice) to remove
"any picture, letter, sign or other mark upon the surface of a highway
or upon any tree, structure or works on or in a highway".
s.132(1) also makes it a criminal offence to attach without consent or
lawful excuse or authority any such thing as above.

In message <7rsv0hpeg8p1dib0a7r28o9meabccjll6f@4ax.com>, at 19:45:56 on
Fri, 18 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
>On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 07:28:33 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <06vt0hli67ao84h77ldfsdf3jmdtdcoqpi@4ax.com>, at 01:57:29 on
>>Fri, 18 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>remarked:
>>>On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 08:57:09 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <9p3r0h5cdhv895b6bbnsi6aevh4ja1iqll@4ax.com>, at 23:59:21 on
>>>>Wed, 16 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>remarked:
>>>>>On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 12:32:30 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In message <71cd0hh19b2vli3hbtsdd2f8hc0vt5br67@4ax.com>, at 19:35:23 on
>>>>>>Fri, 11 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>>>remarked:
>>>>>>>On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 08:52:00 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In message <63ob0h1vuf59i59cspr57e25s72uqa2c3u@4ax.com>, at 04:12:13 on
>>>>>>>>Fri, 11 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>>>>>remarked:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>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.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>That is a place of business not the address of the business.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>But having the name of the business, it's easy to find their service
>>>>>>>>address.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If the legal requirement is to display the address of a business then
>>>>>>>merely supplying a clue will not win the argument with a magistrate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>They'll have needed to apply for permission to use the land, so that's
>>>>>>>>>>quite a simple investigation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Display of details is required not their existence in someone else's
>>>>>>>>>records.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What bit of "or ascertain after reasonable inquiry" is giving you a
>>>>>>>>problem?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The obligation is upon the advertiser to supply the information in a
>>>>>>>specific manner not for the authorities to seek it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Apart from the law in question, which stipulates the LA should make
>>>>>>"reasonable inquiries".
>>>>>>
>>>>>There is more than one law involved.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, and for planning purposes:
>>>>
>>>>>Making inquiry to discover a fly-poster's identity is a consequence of
>>>>>a failure by the poster to display legally required information.
>>>>
>>>>Correct. But has to be done before summarily removing the poster (under
>>>>planning law).
>>>>
>>>As mentioned before, there is provision for an offending item to be
>>>removed without notice.
>>
>>Even if only in contravention of the planning law?
>>
>>And let's not go round the loop again of "without notice" meaning
>>"because we can't find someone to send the notice to", rather than
>>"immediately". Enquiries have to be made.

Oh dear, despite me saying "please", you go and do it!

>The law is fairly clear (except to you):-
>s.225(4) Town and Country Planning Act disapplies the giving of notice
>in s.225(3) if -
>"(a)the placard or poster does not give his address, and
>(b)the authority do not know it and are unable to ascertain it after
>reasonable inquiry."

Precisely, "after reasonable enquiry".

>For a typical fly-post the "reasonable enquiry" is highly likely to be
>doomed to failure and determinable without having to leave the
>location.

It doesn't say "after reasonable enquiry by mobile phone stood by the
roadside in the pouring rain for five minutes". That would be completely
unreasonable, especially as you aren't going to be issuing the notices
in five minutes stood by the roadside either.

Details will be taken (in practice a photo of the offending poster) and
delivered to the enforcement officer (who might well be otherwise
engaged that day) at the LA, and typically I'd expect the enquiry and/or
notification process to take at last a week anyway.

>As mentioned before, there is more than planning law involved and a
>Highway Authority can use s.132 Highways Act 1980 (which has no
>requirement to give notice) to remove
>"any picture, letter, sign or other mark upon the surface of a highway
>or upon any tree, structure or works on or in a highway".

That falls foul of "on or in a highway". Superficially it would prohibit
A-boards on a pavement, and that's clearly not how it works.

>s.132(1) also makes it a criminal offence to attach without consent or
>lawful excuse or authority any such thing as above.

Good luck with that. As I mentioned before it's my understanding there's
one officer in the whole of Cambridgeshire whose role it is to deal with
the sorts of things which do actually infringe.
--
Roland Perry

On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 08:40:54 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <7rsv0hpeg8p1dib0a7r28o9meabccjll6f@4ax.com>, at 19:45:56 on
>Fri, 18 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>remarked:
>>On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 07:28:33 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <06vt0hli67ao84h77ldfsdf3jmdtdcoqpi@4ax.com>, at 01:57:29 on
>>>Fri, 18 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>remarked:
>>>>On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 08:57:09 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In message <9p3r0h5cdhv895b6bbnsi6aevh4ja1iqll@4ax.com>, at 23:59:21 on
>>>>>Wed, 16 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>>remarked:
>>>>>>On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 12:32:30 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In message <71cd0hh19b2vli3hbtsdd2f8hc0vt5br67@4ax.com>, at 19:35:23 on
>>>>>>>Fri, 11 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>>>>remarked:
>>>>>>>>On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 08:52:00 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In message <63ob0h1vuf59i59cspr57e25s72uqa2c3u@4ax.com>, at 04:12:13 on
>>>>>>>>>Fri, 11 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>>>>>>remarked:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>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.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>That is a place of business not the address of the business.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>But having the name of the business, it's easy to find their service
>>>>>>>>>address.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>If the legal requirement is to display the address of a business then
>>>>>>>>merely supplying a clue will not win the argument with a magistrate.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>They'll have needed to apply for permission to use the land, so that's
>>>>>>>>>>>quite a simple investigation.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Display of details is required not their existence in someone else's
>>>>>>>>>>records.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>What bit of "or ascertain after reasonable inquiry" is giving you a
>>>>>>>>>problem?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The obligation is upon the advertiser to supply the information in a
>>>>>>>>specific manner not for the authorities to seek it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Apart from the law in question, which stipulates the LA should make
>>>>>>>"reasonable inquiries".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>There is more than one law involved.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, and for planning purposes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Making inquiry to discover a fly-poster's identity is a consequence of
>>>>>>a failure by the poster to display legally required information.
>>>>>
>>>>>Correct. But has to be done before summarily removing the poster (under
>>>>>planning law).
>>>>>
>>>>As mentioned before, there is provision for an offending item to be
>>>>removed without notice.
>>>
>>>Even if only in contravention of the planning law?
>>>
>>>And let's not go round the loop again of "without notice" meaning
>>>"because we can't find someone to send the notice to", rather than
>>>"immediately". Enquiries have to be made.
>
>Oh dear, despite me saying "please", you go and do it!
>
>>The law is fairly clear (except to you):-
>>s.225(4) Town and Country Planning Act disapplies the giving of notice
>>in s.225(3) if -
>>"(a)the placard or poster does not give his address, and
>>(b)the authority do not know it and are unable to ascertain it after
>>reasonable inquiry."
>
>Precisely, "after reasonable enquiry".
>
No, "unable to ascertain it after reasonable enquiry". (you are
snipping again). If it is clear that attempting to make enquiry is a
fruitless exercise then you will be unable to make reasonable enquiry.

>>For a typical fly-post the "reasonable enquiry" is highly likely to be
>>doomed to failure and determinable without having to leave the
>>location.
>
>It doesn't say "after reasonable enquiry by mobile phone stood by the
>roadside in the pouring rain for five minutes". That would be completely
>unreasonable, especially as you aren't going to be issuing the notices
>in five minutes stood by the roadside either.
>
If the fly-post is causing a hazard then it would be unreasonable to
waste time making more than a quick inquiry.

>Details will be taken (in practice a photo of the offending poster) and
>delivered to the enforcement officer (who might well be otherwise
>engaged that day) at the LA, and typically I'd expect the enquiry and/or
>notification process to take at last a week anyway.
>
I can't see you passing an interview for a job in a council highways
department if you seem to be more interested in working for the
opposition.

>>As mentioned before, there is more than planning law involved and a
>>Highway Authority can use s.132 Highways Act 1980 (which has no
>>requirement to give notice) to remove
>>"any picture, letter, sign or other mark upon the surface of a highway
>>or upon any tree, structure or works on or in a highway".
>
>That falls foul of "on or in a highway". Superficially it would prohibit
>A-boards on a pavement, and that's clearly not how it works.
>
It does prohibit unauthorised A-boards on pavements, that is why my
local council issues 150 pound tickets for them.
https://www.harrowtimes.co.uk/news/19032932.harrow-council-increases-environment-fines-extends-pspo/

If you really annoy them (because they can be sued if someone injures
themselves on a hazard that is allowed to persist on their property)
then you will be prosecuted instead and might get some new ankle
jewellery.
https://www.mylondon.news/news/west-london-news/harrow-firm-fined-51000-dumping-14943045
[Harrow firm fined £51,000 for dumping 7.5t of waste in Hatch End
playing field... ankle.. tag for 3 months]

>>s.132(1) also makes it a criminal offence to attach without consent or
>>lawful excuse or authority any such thing as above.
>
>Good luck with that. As I mentioned before it's my understanding there's
>one officer in the whole of Cambridgeshire whose role it is to deal with
>the sorts of things which do actually infringe.
>
Maybe your local council needs an incentivising boot up the backside
at the next election?

In message <avi31hl0i99ql3flu4chvbkpbhduf5m4t2@4ax.com>, at 05:27:22 on
Sun, 20 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:

>>Oh dear, despite me saying "please", you go and do it!
>>
>>>The law is fairly clear (except to you):-
>>>s.225(4) Town and Country Planning Act disapplies the giving of notice
>>>in s.225(3) if -
>>>"(a)the placard or poster does not give his address, and
>>>(b)the authority do not know it and are unable to ascertain it after
>>>reasonable inquiry."
>>
>>Precisely, "after reasonable enquiry".
>>
>No, "unable to ascertain it after reasonable enquiry". (you are
>snipping again).

It's important to try to make one's way through the chaff you keep
throwing out.

>If it is clear that attempting to make enquiry is a
>fruitless exercise then you will be unable to make reasonable enquiry.

Sure, but it's unreasonable to expect to be able to complete such an
enquiry in five minutes stood next to the first encounter with the
offending sign.

>>>For a typical fly-post the "reasonable enquiry" is highly likely to be
>>>doomed to failure and determinable without having to leave the
>>>location.
>>
>>It doesn't say "after reasonable enquiry by mobile phone stood by the
>>roadside in the pouring rain for five minutes". That would be completely
>>unreasonable, especially as you aren't going to be issuing the notices
>>in five minutes stood by the roadside either.
>>
>If the fly-post is causing a hazard then it would be unreasonable to
>waste time making more than a quick inquiry.

Once again you are conflating traffic and planning laws. The reasonable
enquiry is for posters which infringe the latter not the former.

>>Details will be taken (in practice a photo of the offending poster) and
>>delivered to the enforcement officer (who might well be otherwise
>>engaged that day) at the LA, and typically I'd expect the enquiry and/or
>>notification process to take at last a week anyway.
>>
>I can't see you passing an interview for a job in a council highways
>department if you seem to be more interested in working for the
>opposition.

I'm actually working for the planning department, so once again your
attempt to chaff me by conflating two different sets of rules, fails.

>>>As mentioned before, there is more than planning law involved and a
>>>Highway Authority can use s.132 Highways Act 1980 (which has no
>>>requirement to give notice) to remove
>>>"any picture, letter, sign or other mark upon the surface of a highway
>>>or upon any tree, structure or works on or in a highway".
>>
>>That falls foul of "on or in a highway". Superficially it would prohibit
>>A-boards on a pavement, and that's clearly not how it works.
>>
>It does prohibit unauthorised A-boards on pavements, that is why my
>local council issues 150 pound tickets for them.
>https://www.harrowtimes.co.uk/news/19032932.harrow-council-increases-env
>ironment-fines-extends-pspo/

And there you go again. While that cite doesn't actually mention
advertising (under either set of law) your implication is that the
planning department is giving permission for boards which are defacto
infringements of the Highways law.

>If you really annoy them (because they can be sued if someone injures
>themselves on a hazard that is allowed to persist on their property)
>then you will be prosecuted instead and might get some new ankle
>jewellery.
>https://www.mylondon.news/news/west-london-news/harrow-firm-fined-51000-
>dumping-14943045
>[Harrow firm fined £51,000 for dumping 7.5t of waste in Hatch End
>playing field... ankle.. tag for 3 months]

More chaff. I've never seen a 7.5t advertising poster. Unless a
sign-written barrage balloon counts. And that would probably come under
air traffic control law.

>>>s.132(1) also makes it a criminal offence to attach without consent or
>>>lawful excuse or authority any such thing as above.
>>
>>Good luck with that. As I mentioned before it's my understanding there's
>>one officer in the whole of Cambridgeshire whose role it is to deal with
>>the sorts of things which do actually infringe.
>>
>Maybe your local council needs an incentivising boot up the backside
>at the next election?

We don't regard the County Council as "local". They are busy moving it
from an hour away in one direction, to an hour away in a different
direction.
--
Roland Perry