In message <j6b6qiF77e7U1@mid.individual.net>, at 00:18:25 on Mon, 7 Feb
2022, Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> remarked:
>On 6 Feb 2022 17:57, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <8u6mvg1697bu488va95ah4cecp46h4sqfh@4ax.com>, at 00:14:46 on
>> Thu, 3 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>>On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 09:48:55 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <stat2e$9g0$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:04:14 on Tue, 1 Feb
>2022,
>>>>Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <st8v6q$59j$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:28:27 on Mon, 31 Jan
>>>>>> 2022, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
>>>>>>> On 31/01/2022 15:03, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They know they are close to the indicated bridge height, but they
>>>>>>>>> reckon there's probably a safety margin built in. So, build in a
>>>>>>>>> bigger safety margin, and it will all be fine!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is 15cm not sufficient?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You want to spend say £1m lowering the roadway in order to make the
>>>>>>> margin 18cm. :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have no evidence it would cost that much.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have no evidence that it will work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think I have plenty.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, I know that 9 out of 10 collisions were caused by drivers only
>>>>>>> misjudging by a couple of cms,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They should not be judging the height on-the-fLy as they approach, when
>>>>>> their vehicle is *at least* 15cm taller than the number on the signage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> but you have no evidence that they won't continue to do so
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The evidence for that is the lack of any candidate vehicles whose height
>>>>>> is in that inch-higher-then-the-current-victims bracket.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> after the road is expensively lowered.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Network Rail need to tone down the shroud-waving and decide if a simple
>>>>>> remedy in this instance is cost-effective.
>>>>>
>>>>>Is lowering the road a Network Rail cost or a local
>authority/highways
>>>>>responsibility?
>>>>
>>>>I expect it's on railway land, but they are happy to have the
>Highways
>>>>Authority maintain it, while simultaneously grumbling about the
>>>>easily-designed-out bridge bashes.
>>>>
>>>The road will fairly certainly be highway land, if only the surface.
>>>Unless there is a significant cost knocking on to the local authority
>>>then I would not expect (change hats if necessary) the highway
>>>authority to take an interest in spending large amounts of money on
>>>anything other than signage.
>>
>> Rather than speculate, I thought I'd actually look at the definitive
>> mapping. And the underpass is adopted, as is rather more surprisingly
>> the surface of the now-closed level crossing.
>>
>> Unlike the next road and level crossing north of there (Kiln Lane) which
>> is unadopted.
>>
>> When work has been done of the surface of the Queen Adelaide level
>> crossings, it's been by Network Rail, despite also being allegedly
>> adopted. I wonder if they send a bill to the Highways Authority?
>
>I think I heard that that Network Rail were the Highways Authority for
>actual crossings.

That of course would be entirely possible. When the crossing is marked
as "adopted", does that mean it's been adopted by Network Rail (and can
you adopt something you already own)?

Meanwhile, what about things like the Ely underpass, would Network Rail
be the Highway Authority for that as well?
--
Roland Perry

In message <2ll00hl79a8di0c743ilprp8rvbu1b294g@4ax.com>, at 23:21:40 on
Sun, 6 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 17:45:27 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <qigtvgtm2oedfkbhnacj7h0jv994u4ueqd@4ax.com>, at 18:37:00 on
>>Sat, 5 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>>On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 15:25:29 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <576rvgppo99pmbve3crjlfapf4edk41cn9@4ax.com>, at 21:30:48 on
>>>>Fri, 4 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>>>>On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 13:54:02 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In message <stjadl$7sb$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:41:09 on Fri, 4 Feb 2022,
>>>>>>Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> That's normally the case here, which is why I was surprised, recently,
>>>>>>>>> to see one get stuck behind a car which hadn't pulled far
>>>>>>>>>enough across
>>>>>>>>> the pavement (pulling across at all being advised against in
>>>>>>>>>the Highway
>>>>>>>>> Code) on the exit of a traffic light junction. Normally they'd just
>>>>>>>>> whizz the Ambulance down the wrong side of the road.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The thing to be very wary of is letting an emergency vehicle past at a
>>>>>>>> red traffic light if there is a camera. There is a well known case of
>>>>>>>> someone doing that for an unmarked police car on blues.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Or moving to a bus lane to let them past…
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Shouldn't be necessary, because the Ambulance would use the bus lane.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Not if you have what exists along the Old Kent Road or elsewhere
>>>>>around Greater London where there are 24/7 bus lanes (hours altered
>>>>>with COVID) which are still interrupted by parking spaces. There is a
>>>>>similar problem associated with cycle lanes (often devoid of cyclists)
>>>>>now barriered off with posts.
>>>>
>>>>If the ambulance is only needing to pass one or two cars, that analysis
>>>>is broken.
>>>>
>>>It can't pass cars if the adjacent lanes 2+ are blocked solid by the
>>>same incident that the ambulance is travelling to.
>>
>>But the lane which is hypothetically blocked is the bus lane, Dear Liza.
>>
>The USP of a bus lane is that it remains devoid of unnecessary
>obstructions during the hours of operation.

You are the person floating the idea that it might be blocked (and so
isn't suitable for use by Ambulances).

>That is not what is being maintained where previous part-day/week bus
>lanes have been made 24/7 without removing the pre-existing parking
>places.

Are you seriously suggesting there are 24x7 bus lanes which also have
valid car parking spaces on them? even if the Highway Authority was
brain-dead enough to create such a monstrosity, you'd need to illegally
drive in the bus lane to park there, so that would defuse them
immediately.
--
Roland Perry

In message <59m00hpncned5feqdctk2fpbnm6o3far5h@4ax.com>, at 06:32:59 on
Mon, 7 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 17:57:43 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <8u6mvg1697bu488va95ah4cecp46h4sqfh@4ax.com>, at 00:14:46 on
>>Thu, 3 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>>On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 09:48:55 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <stat2e$9g0$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:04:14 on Tue, 1 Feb 2022,
>>>>Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <st8v6q$59j$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:28:27 on Mon, 31 Jan
>>>>>> 2022, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
>>>>>>> On 31/01/2022 15:03, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They know they are close to the indicated bridge height, but they
>>>>>>>>> reckon there's probably a safety margin built in. So, build in a
>>>>>>>>> bigger safety margin, and it will all be fine!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is 15cm not sufficient?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You want to spend say £1m lowering the roadway in order to make the
>>>>>>> margin 18cm. :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have no evidence it would cost that much.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have no evidence that it will work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think I have plenty.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, I know that 9 out of 10 collisions were caused by drivers only
>>>>>>> misjudging by a couple of cms,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They should not be judging the height on-the-fLy as they approach, when
>>>>>> their vehicle is *at least* 15cm taller than the number on the signage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> but you have no evidence that they won't continue to do so
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The evidence for that is the lack of any candidate vehicles whose height
>>>>>> is in that inch-higher-then-the-current-victims bracket.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> after the road is expensively lowered.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Network Rail need to tone down the shroud-waving and decide if a simple
>>>>>> remedy in this instance is cost-effective.
>>>>>
>>>>>Is lowering the road a Network Rail cost or a local authority/highways
>>>>>responsibility?
>>>>
>>>>I expect it's on railway land, but they are happy to have the Highways
>>>>Authority maintain it, while simultaneously grumbling about the
>>>>easily-designed-out bridge bashes.
>>>>
>>>The road will fairly certainly be highway land, if only the surface.
>>>Unless there is a significant cost knocking on to the local authority
>>>then I would not expect (change hats if necessary) the highway
>>>authority to take an interest in spending large amounts of money on
>>>anything other than signage.
>>
>>Rather than speculate, I thought I'd actually look at the definitive
>>mapping. And the underpass is adopted, as is rather more surprisingly
>>the surface of the now-closed level crossing.
>>
>>Unlike the next road and level crossing north of there (Kiln Lane) which
>>is unadopted.
>>
>>When work has been done of the surface of the Queen Adelaide level
>>crossings, it's been by Network Rail, despite also being allegedly
>>adopted. I wonder if they send a bill to the Highways Authority?
>>
>The landowner is generally responsible for physically maintaining a
>highway; a highway (or any particular section of it) is not inevitably
>an adopted road.

That's irrelevant at Queen Adelaide, because the road is marked as
adopted. We just need to find out "by whom". Rupert lives nearby, maybe
he knows.
--
Roland Perry

In message <07m00hpan2t39jakqj1aomlkjfa5mjbttj@4ax.com>, at 23:25:30 on
Sun, 6 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 17:48:47 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <c52mvg9rvv1918isn651toa5srguccln0b@4ax.com>, at 23:14:10 on
>>Wed, 2 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>>On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 11:46:45 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <st907b$ssj$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:45:47 on Mon, 31 Jan
>>>>2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>>In other news, something I learned last year is that the main
>>>>constraining factor on an emergency ambulance's design, is ensuring
>>>>that if there's an optional tail-lift added (to the basic design) it
>>>>doesn't tip it into the next category of driving licence. We are talking
>>>>a few tens of kilos here, not hundreds.
>>>>
>>>>Apparently there's no legislation to make an exception, unlike that
>>>>which says that when appropriate they can exceed the speed limit and
>>>>run red traffic lights.
>>>>
>>>There are already exemptions for driving a vehicle which would
>>>otherwise be outwith the limits of your licence :-
>>>https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa
>>>ds/attachment_data/file/891798/inf52-large-vehicles-you-can-drive-using-
>>>your-car-or-lorry-licence.pdf
>>>[tinyurl.com/5n845dab - INF52 Goods vehicles you can drive with a full
>>>car (category B) licence] and also exemptions applicable to military
>>>drivers.
>>>
>>>In past times there was a Secretary of State's exemption for motor
>>>cyclists carrying blood under "blue light" conditions which has
>>>morphed into statutory allowance.
>>>
>>>The same type of SoS's permission for marginally overweight (but
>>>type-approved) ambulances driven by specified persons (e.g. NHS/SJA/
>>>SAA/BRC) might be appropriate when taking into account that suitable
>>>training is required before drivers can travel under "blue light"
>>>conditions.
>>
>>>One comparable exemption in the above leaflet is +0.75 tonnes in
>>>excess of 3.5t for a minibus which has "any specialist equipment for
>>>carrying disabled passengers". The limit for the driver is 21y or
>>>over, B licensed for 2y, and is a volunteer.
>>><snip>
>>
>>More of your extreme over-reading exceptionalism. As evidenced by
>>ambulance suppliers not agreeing with your play-book.
>>
>?

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.

Of all people, you'd expect *they* would know about an exception to the
rule. Therefore I suggest you are over-reading the exception.
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 07 Feb 2022 00:18:25 +0000, Rupert Moss-Eccardt
<nin@moss-eccardt.com> wrote:

>On 6 Feb 2022 17:57, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <8u6mvg1697bu488va95ah4cecp46h4sqfh@4ax.com>, at 00:14:46 on
>> Thu, 3 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>>On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 09:48:55 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <stat2e$9g0$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:04:14 on Tue, 1 Feb
>2022,
>>>>Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <st8v6q$59j$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:28:27 on Mon, 31 Jan
>>>>>> 2022, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
>>>>>>> On 31/01/2022 15:03, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They know they are close to the indicated bridge height, but they
>>>>>>>>> reckon there's probably a safety margin built in. So, build in a
>>>>>>>>> bigger safety margin, and it will all be fine!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is 15cm not sufficient?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You want to spend say £1m lowering the roadway in order to make the
>>>>>>> margin 18cm. :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have no evidence it would cost that much.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have no evidence that it will work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think I have plenty.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, I know that 9 out of 10 collisions were caused by drivers only
>>>>>>> misjudging by a couple of cms,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They should not be judging the height on-the-fLy as they approach, when
>>>>>> their vehicle is *at least* 15cm taller than the number on the signage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> but you have no evidence that they won't continue to do so
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The evidence for that is the lack of any candidate vehicles whose height
>>>>>> is in that inch-higher-then-the-current-victims bracket.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> after the road is expensively lowered.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Network Rail need to tone down the shroud-waving and decide if a simple
>>>>>> remedy in this instance is cost-effective.
>>>>>
>>>>>Is lowering the road a Network Rail cost or a local
>authority/highways
>>>>>responsibility?
>>>>
>>>>I expect it's on railway land, but they are happy to have the
>Highways
>>>>Authority maintain it, while simultaneously grumbling about the
>>>>easily-designed-out bridge bashes.
>>>>
>>>The road will fairly certainly be highway land, if only the surface.
>>>Unless there is a significant cost knocking on to the local authority
>>>then I would not expect (change hats if necessary) the highway
>>>authority to take an interest in spending large amounts of money on
>>>anything other than signage.
>>
>> Rather than speculate, I thought I'd actually look at the definitive
>> mapping. And the underpass is adopted, as is rather more surprisingly
>> the surface of the now-closed level crossing.
>>
>> Unlike the next road and level crossing north of there (Kiln Lane) which
>> is unadopted.
>>
>> When work has been done of the surface of the Queen Adelaide level
>> crossings, it's been by Network Rail, despite also being allegedly
>> adopted. I wonder if they send a bill to the Highways Authority?
>
>I think I heard that that Network Rail were the Highways Authority for
>actual crossings.
>
NR is not one of the type of bodies listed in s.1 Highways Act 1980
[Highway authorities: general provision.]. OTOH "The Minister" does
seem to be eligible under s.1(1) if the end result of various ifs and
buts is that any highway can be taken within his remit.

On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 07:06:57 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <jmg00h940ohhjfp4gocfg0n7vdg771b84i@4ax.com>, at 21:56:00 on
>Sun, 6 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>On Sun, 06 Feb 2022 21:22:46 +0000, Charles Ellson
>><charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 18:30:28 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 06/02/2022 12:22, Rupert Moss-Eccardt wrote:
>>>>> There are some regional exceptions, but, in general, attaching
>>>>> political posters to street furniture is illegal.
>>>>
>>>>Perhaps someone should tell the political parties or dish out some
>>>>penalties.
>>>>
>>>It is generally unlawful (as a trespass) rather than illegal unless
>>>criminal damage is committed by the attachment of posters (e.g.
>>>nailed/glued to a telephone/electric pole etc.).
>>>Permitted posting is done in relation to planning legislation, e.g.
>>>for Wakefield :-
>>>https://www.wakefield.gov.uk/Documents/elections/2021-election-highways
>>>-poster-material-leafleting-guidance.pdf
>>>(40 UKP per poster removed by the council)
>>>
>>OTOH if treated as fly-posting then there are criminal penalties
>>(<2500UKP plus 100 per day or a 75UKP FPN) but that might need some
>>examination of the wording of the Planning and Highways legislation in
>>case e.g. time is allowed to remove an offending item or doing it
>>accidentally might be part of a defence.
>
>M'lud, I accidentally attached this election poster to the traffic light
>pole. Please allow me 14 days to remove it.
>
"Too late, it was damaged beyond repair while being removed because of
the danger to pedestrians from the excessively long and untrimmed
cable ties sticking out at eye level that you used."

On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 07:15:52 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <bsk00hdnmk7sgidbqj4l2nm63t2npdufng@4ax.com>, at 23:06:26 on
>Sun, 6 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 18:35:21 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> I see such "lost" ambulances fairly often around London.
>>>
>>>I think most now have "jobs" sent to the terminal in the ambulance and
>>>on the various "reality" programmes, I get the impression their control
>>>can send the location direct to a Sat Nav.
>>>
>>They do but that fails where the postcode is for various reasons
>>incorrect
>
>Or non-existent; not all places have a postcode. I'm sure I've mentioned
>the carriage washing machine in the sidings outside Cambridge Station
>before.
>
>>or in some cases defines a larger area (the premises number might not
>>have been supplied) where it is possible to find yourself on the wrong
>>side of a barrier.
>
Everywhere on mainland GB has a postcode; geographic postcodes are
mapped by area not points. I spent several weeks some years ago
finding postcodes for telephone kiosks and other equipment without
street addresses.

In message <85g10hlitp244buth37sltl08uq9it97c4@4ax.com>, at 07:13:35 on
Mon, 7 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 23:27:54 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
><recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 18:35:21 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I see such "lost" ambulances fairly often around London.
>>>>
>>>> I think most now have "jobs" sent to the terminal in the ambulance and
>>>> on the various "reality" programmes, I get the impression their control
>>>> can send the location direct to a Sat Nav.
>>>>
>>> They do but that fails where the postcode is for various reasons
>>> incorrect or in some cases defines a larger area (the premises number
>>> might not have been supplied) where it is possible to find yourself on
>>> the wrong side of a barrier.
>>>
>>
>>Is what3words used to pin down location?

I think they've missed a trick by not having what.three.words as the
front door of their HQ (wherever it is).

>You can report a location with w3w to the services listed in
>https://what3words.com/news/emergency/uk-emergency-services-rollout-what
>3words-in-control-rooms-to-save-resources-time-and-lives
>(which doesn't seem to leave many exceptions, if any)
>but I suspect that gets translated to a postcode or OS reference
>before it is transmitted to the terminal in an ambulance. w3w should
>be inherently more precise than the majority of postcodes while an OS
>reference is as accurate as the number of digits used (or e.g. the
>accuracy of a GPS device producing it).

Do many GPS (for example built into a phone) spit out a grid reference,
rather than longitude/latitude?

>Even w3w has the capability of
>putting you on the wrong side of a wall but the person/device
>originating the code would need to be close to it for that to happen,
>presuming also that there is no GPS/cellphone error involved.

Then there's locations like expect.tracks.digit (is that on the A14
verge, or the Girton Road, above). A mere 12 mins, 4.2 miles, apart by
road.

I've picked that spot because I've seen reports of satnav speed-limit
software having a nervous breakdown there.
--
Roland Perry

In message <94j10h9064h0dhlf9mtces8kpvsja1lldj@4ax.com>, at 07:42:04 on
Mon, 7 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 07:06:57 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <jmg00h940ohhjfp4gocfg0n7vdg771b84i@4ax.com>, at 21:56:00 on
>>Sun, 6 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>>On Sun, 06 Feb 2022 21:22:46 +0000, Charles Ellson
>>><charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 18:30:28 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 06/02/2022 12:22, Rupert Moss-Eccardt wrote:
>>>>>> There are some regional exceptions, but, in general, attaching
>>>>>> political posters to street furniture is illegal.
>>>>>
>>>>>Perhaps someone should tell the political parties or dish out some
>>>>>penalties.
>>>>>
>>>>It is generally unlawful (as a trespass) rather than illegal unless
>>>>criminal damage is committed by the attachment of posters (e.g.
>>>>nailed/glued to a telephone/electric pole etc.).
>>>>Permitted posting is done in relation to planning legislation, e.g.
>>>>for Wakefield :-
>>>>https://www.wakefield.gov.uk/Documents/elections/2021-election-highways
>>>>-poster-material-leafleting-guidance.pdf
>>>>(40 UKP per poster removed by the council)
>>>>
>>>OTOH if treated as fly-posting then there are criminal penalties
>>>(<2500UKP plus 100 per day or a 75UKP FPN) but that might need some
>>>examination of the wording of the Planning and Highways legislation in
>>>case e.g. time is allowed to remove an offending item or doing it
>>>accidentally might be part of a defence.
>>
>>M'lud, I accidentally attached this election poster to the traffic light
>>pole. Please allow me 14 days to remove it.
>>
>"Too late, it was damaged beyond repair while being removed because of
>the danger to pedestrians from the excessively long and untrimmed
>cable ties sticking out at eye level that you used."

"We have the remains of the sign, and cable ties, at our office for
collection within 7 days".
--
Roland Perry

In message <1bj10hhbnrghr3deujb2eoh5oqtrqmshv8@4ax.com>, at 07:51:58 on
Mon, 7 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 07:15:52 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <bsk00hdnmk7sgidbqj4l2nm63t2npdufng@4ax.com>, at 23:06:26 on
>>Sun, 6 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>>On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 18:35:21 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I see such "lost" ambulances fairly often around London.
>>>>
>>>>I think most now have "jobs" sent to the terminal in the ambulance and
>>>>on the various "reality" programmes, I get the impression their control
>>>>can send the location direct to a Sat Nav.
>>>>
>>>They do but that fails where the postcode is for various reasons
>>>incorrect
>>
>>Or non-existent; not all places have a postcode. I'm sure I've mentioned
>>the carriage washing machine in the sidings outside Cambridge Station
>>before.
>>
>>>or in some cases defines a larger area (the premises number might not
>>>have been supplied) where it is possible to find yourself on the wrong
>>>side of a barrier.
>>
>Everywhere on mainland GB has a postcode; geographic postcodes are
>mapped by area not points. I spent several weeks some years ago
>finding postcodes for telephone kiosks and other equipment without
>street addresses.

Nobody knew the postcode of the carriage washing machine, and I'm not
sure you'd find it in the Royal Mail database.
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 07:19:13 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <2ll00hl79a8di0c743ilprp8rvbu1b294g@4ax.com>, at 23:21:40 on
>Sun, 6 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 17:45:27 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <qigtvgtm2oedfkbhnacj7h0jv994u4ueqd@4ax.com>, at 18:37:00 on
>>>Sat, 5 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>>>On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 15:25:29 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In message <576rvgppo99pmbve3crjlfapf4edk41cn9@4ax.com>, at 21:30:48 on
>>>>>Fri, 4 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>>>>>On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 13:54:02 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In message <stjadl$7sb$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:41:09 on Fri, 4 Feb 2022,
>>>>>>>Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>> That's normally the case here, which is why I was surprised, recently,
>>>>>>>>>> to see one get stuck behind a car which hadn't pulled far
>>>>>>>>>>enough across
>>>>>>>>>> the pavement (pulling across at all being advised against in
>>>>>>>>>>the Highway
>>>>>>>>>> Code) on the exit of a traffic light junction. Normally they'd just
>>>>>>>>>> whizz the Ambulance down the wrong side of the road.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The thing to be very wary of is letting an emergency vehicle past at a
>>>>>>>>> red traffic light if there is a camera. There is a well known case of
>>>>>>>>> someone doing that for an unmarked police car on blues.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Or moving to a bus lane to let them past…
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Shouldn't be necessary, because the Ambulance would use the bus lane.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not if you have what exists along the Old Kent Road or elsewhere
>>>>>>around Greater London where there are 24/7 bus lanes (hours altered
>>>>>>with COVID) which are still interrupted by parking spaces. There is a
>>>>>>similar problem associated with cycle lanes (often devoid of cyclists)
>>>>>>now barriered off with posts.
>>>>>
>>>>>If the ambulance is only needing to pass one or two cars, that analysis
>>>>>is broken.
>>>>>
>>>>It can't pass cars if the adjacent lanes 2+ are blocked solid by the
>>>>same incident that the ambulance is travelling to.
>>>
>>>But the lane which is hypothetically blocked is the bus lane, Dear Liza.
>>>
>>The USP of a bus lane is that it remains devoid of unnecessary
>>obstructions during the hours of operation.
>
>You are the person floating the idea that it might be blocked (and so
>isn't suitable for use by Ambulances).
>
I am not "floating an idea", I am reporting a fact.

>>That is not what is being maintained where previous part-day/week bus
>>lanes have been made 24/7 without removing the pre-existing parking
>>places.
>
>Are you seriously suggesting there are 24x7 bus lanes which also have
>valid car parking spaces on them?
>
The spaces aren't specifically for cars (distinct from some
specifically for goods vehicle)
Old Kent Road, SE London, two trees past the "at any time" bus lane
sign - https://goo.gl/maps/cnWBbXQHtLeycySm8

Outside Screwfix, York Road, Battersea, the white building downwind of
the bus lane sign in https://goo.gl/maps/RK6zB3g5JPcAngU69

Outside Sainsbury's, Clapham High Street,
https://goo.gl/maps/wbg2n12TB1EQEepW8

>even if the Highway Authority was
>brain-dead enough to create such a monstrosity, you'd need to illegally
>drive in the bus lane to park there, so that would defuse them
>immediately.
>
Wrong again, Roland.
It is not illegal to enter or cross a bus lane to reach premises
adjacent to the road, parking places within or on the far side of a
bus lane and various other exceptions.
https://goo.gl/maps/vkSkJZSjgEMeU8Td9 (Clapham High Street)

On 06/02/2022 23:27, Recliner wrote:
> Is what3words used to pin down location?

I think their control have access to it in case a caller uses it, free
of charge I believe, unlike others. But I would hope they use a proper
location system.

Wasn't there a case where one of the emergency services was given a
location using that but it got slightly garbled so was useless.

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

>
> I see quite few posters on all sorts of street furniture appealing for
> information about lost cats. I'm not sure where they would fit into this
> complex matrix of rules. But at least they normally have some contact
> information on them!

Well ,its difficult to cover every situation Purrfectly.

GH

On 07/02/2022 07:13, Charles Ellson wrote:
> You can report a location with w3w to the services listed in
> https://what3words.com/news/emergency/uk-emergency-services-rollout-what3words-in-control-rooms-to-save-resources-time-and-lives
> (which doesn't seem to leave many exceptions, if any)
> but I suspect that gets translated to a postcode or OS reference
> before it is transmitted to the terminal in an ambulance. w3w should
> be inherently more precise than the majority of postcodes while an OS
> reference is as accurate as the number of digits used (or e.g. the
> accuracy of a GPS device producing it). Even w3w has the capability of
> putting you on the wrong side of a wall but the person/device
> originating the code would need to be close to it for that to happen,
> presuming also that there is no GPS/cellphone error involved.

I believe the emergency services are given free access unlike other users.

I just mentioned that I am sure there was a case of it being used but
the code was slightly garbled and so useless.

On 07/02/2022 09:05, Marland wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> I see quite few posters on all sorts of street furniture appealing for
>> information about lost cats. I'm not sure where they would fit into this
>> complex matrix of rules. But at least they normally have some contact
>> information on them!
>
> Well ,its difficult to cover every situation Purrfectly.
>
Now you are just pussy-footing around.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In message <d0h00hh0en33ie572fpjj3iephqm7sn4c7@4ax.com>, at 22:42:08 on
Sun, 6 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 08:48:09 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <9n4rvg9l4a7b7ka5ccfv1l1b4m19vtda7d@4ax.com>, at 21:07:07 on
>>Fri, 4 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>>On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 14:27:41 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <stjcmo$44v$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:20:08 on Fri, 4 Feb 2022,
>>>>Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <stg6qc$48a$4@dont-email.me>, at 09:21:16 on Thu, 3 Feb 2022,
>>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 03/02/2022 09:01, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Unfortunately, the way the law is at the moment the council is
>>>>>>>> probably guilty of criminal damage/theft if it does so. The solution
>>>>>>>> (if they had the time and energy to abstract from more important
>>>>>>>> matters) is to put up a YET ANOTHER sign giving notice that unless
>>>>>>>> the person who erected them removes them in 7 days the council will
>>>>>>>> do so, and the sign owner will then have 14 days to claim it back
>>>>>>>> from wherever the council stored it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sticker on the offending sign, big enough to obliterate its message.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unfortunately, that's also criminal damage; and doesn't reduce the
>>>>>> clutter because the passing motorist still has to parse it, and see it's
>>>>>> blank.
>>>>>
>>>>>I doubt it’s criminal damage if it’s a sticker.
>>>>>
>>>>>https://seatons.co.uk/legal-services/criminal-law/criminal-damage-offences/
>>>>>
>>>>>The Criminal Damage Act 1971 classifies criminal damage as:
>>>>>
>>>>>‘A person who, without lawful excuse, destroys or damages any property
>>>>>belonging to another, intending to destroy or damage any such property, or
>>>>>being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or
>>>>>damaged.’
>>>>>
>>>>>This offence is wide ranging and applies to any tangible property. For
>>>>>damage to be inflicted on a property however, it must be more than minimal
>>>>>and create a situation where the property’s value or usefulness has been
>>>>>affected in some way.
>>>>
>>>>There's plenty of caselaw for people being prosecuted for affixing
>>>>stickers (such as "stop parking here and blocking my gate") on people's
>>>>windscreens,
>>>>
>>>Correct but not generally applicable to something which is not
>>>"attached".
>>
>>Fascinated by how you'll wriggle out of a sticker not being "attached".
>>
>Attached implies some form of fixing. Something which is held by
>gravity or otherwise allowed to rest in position is not in the general
>sense "attached".

Then it wouldn't be a "sticker", which are stick on, that's why they
have the name.

>>>>and even doing things which will wash off like chalk-paintings on
>>>>pavements.
>>>>
>>>There is also case law concerning no offence being caused where there
>>>is lawful excuse or authority, recently WRT to marking queuing
>>>positions outside shops to maintain social distancing.
>>
>>Fascinated how you'll justify that applying to pavement artists.
>>
>In some areas that is/was established usage. Are you going to try to
>nick children playing hopscotch as one council official attempted to
>do a few years ago?

>IIRC for the simple offence of criminal damage you usually have to
>prove practical damage above a threshold otherwise the CPS won't want
>to know.

Almost all crimes have a "threshold" for prosecution (or even
investigation. It's one of the things campaigners wrestle with all the
time. Doesn't make the underlying activity legal though.

>>>>And why do you think that a sign with a plain sticker obscuring it is
>>>>"as useful" as the original sign, to either the people who erected it or
>>>>the people trying to find the new housing estate?
>>>>
>>>>To be lawful for the local authority to deal with these signs, the
>>>>bureaucratic process is too top heavy to be helpful, or deployed in
>>>>more than extreme cases.
>>>>
>>>A planning authority has the option of defacing/removing unlawful
>>>advertisements with or without judicial process,
>>
>>But not without giving notice.
>>
>On a highway removal can be "forthwith" under s.149 Highways Act if
>the PA deems it to be a danger or for any other reason if "the thing
>in question ought to be removed without the delay involved in giving
>notice or obtaining a removal and disposal order from a magistrates’
>court under this section".
>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's not just so the LA can
throw a hissy fit and decide it doesn't want to go through the
notification process.

>The same could apply by other action of law (e.g. Public Order Act
>1986) if it would be offensive or otherwise illegal for the PA to
>allow it to remain.
>
>>>the latter provision covering such as e.g. a continuing hazard (where
>>>multiple legal breaches will often be involved) or the inability to
>>>identify a person to serve notice upon.
>>
>>But as I keep saying (and you keep ignoring) the processes involved are
>>nevertheless sufficiently bureaucratic that there's only the resources
>>available to do it in the most egregious cases.
>>
>or where a local authority has managed to establish the necessary
>process for doing things ASAP.

That still involves issuing notices, waiting etc, returning to the scene
of the crime(sic) removing the notice, taking it away for safekeeping,
then pursuing the offender for damages.

>Highways Act breaches IME tend to be dealt with fairly quickly (between
>a couple of days and a week) as some can leave the highway authority in
>trouble if allowed to remain.

I don't expect that there any many such special cases. The only ones I
know of (and they aren't placards/posters anyway) is offensive graffiti.
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 07:25:49 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <07m00hpan2t39jakqj1aomlkjfa5mjbttj@4ax.com>, at 23:25:30 on
>Sun, 6 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 17:48:47 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <c52mvg9rvv1918isn651toa5srguccln0b@4ax.com>, at 23:14:10 on
>>>Wed, 2 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>>>On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 11:46:45 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In message <st907b$ssj$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:45:47 on Mon, 31 Jan
>>>>>2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>In other news, something I learned last year is that the main
>>>>>constraining factor on an emergency ambulance's design, is ensuring
>>>>>that if there's an optional tail-lift added (to the basic design) it
>>>>>doesn't tip it into the next category of driving licence. We are talking
>>>>>a few tens of kilos here, not hundreds.
>>>>>
>>>>>Apparently there's no legislation to make an exception, unlike that
>>>>>which says that when appropriate they can exceed the speed limit and
>>>>>run red traffic lights.
>>>>>
>>>>There are already exemptions for driving a vehicle which would
>>>>otherwise be outwith the limits of your licence :-
>>>>https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa
>>>>ds/attachment_data/file/891798/inf52-large-vehicles-you-can-drive-using-
>>>>your-car-or-lorry-licence.pdf
>>>>[tinyurl.com/5n845dab - INF52 Goods vehicles you can drive with a full
>>>>car (category B) licence] and also exemptions applicable to military
>>>>drivers.
>>>>
>>>>In past times there was a Secretary of State's exemption for motor
>>>>cyclists carrying blood under "blue light" conditions which has
>>>>morphed into statutory allowance.
>>>>
>>>>The same type of SoS's permission for marginally overweight (but
>>>>type-approved) ambulances driven by specified persons (e.g. NHS/SJA/
>>>>SAA/BRC) might be appropriate when taking into account that suitable
>>>>training is required before drivers can travel under "blue light"
>>>>conditions.
>>>
>>>>One comparable exemption in the above leaflet is +0.75 tonnes in
>>>>excess of 3.5t for a minibus which has "any specialist equipment for
>>>>carrying disabled passengers". The limit for the driver is 21y or
>>>>over, B licensed for 2y, and is a volunteer.
>>>><snip>
>>>
>>>More of your extreme over-reading exceptionalism. As evidenced by
>>>ambulance suppliers not agreeing with your play-book.
>>>
>>?
>
>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.

On 07/02/2022 07:15, Roland Perry wrote:
> Or non-existent; not all places have a postcode. I'm sure I've mentioned
> the carriage washing machine in the sidings outside Cambridge Station
> before.

If it is location that does not receive post then the Postcode will be
one covering a large area.

We had a contract that required us to visit and audit one of the mobile
phone companies' sites but all we were given was a Postcode and name.
We kept asking for NGRs but it took some time for them to let us have
them. I think we convinced them after going to one site that was up in
the cloud some distance from the road so not visible and access not obvious.

I got Postcodes for all our own sites because some SatNavs use them and
it would get you to the rough area and I had written out directions as
well as copied a section of a large scale map.

On 07/02/2022 07:19, Roland Perry wrote:
> Are you seriously suggesting there are 24x7 bus lanes which also have
> valid car parking spaces on them? even if the Highway Authority was
> brain-dead enough to create such a monstrosity, you'd need to illegally
> drive in the bus lane to park there, so that would defuse them
> immediately.

Would need to see the full regulations, you get some people who believe
you can never cross double white lines - I impressed an instructor on a
course when I listed the occasions when you can cross them. :-)

On 07/02/2022 08:10, Roland Perry wrote:
> I think they've missed a trick by not having what.three.words as the
> front door of their HQ (wherever it is).

"What3Words (W3W) gives each square a unique three-word address, and the
app is used by 100 UK emergency services.

But a security consultant found thousands of locations with similar
words less than 1km (0.6 miles) apart."

"Mark Lewis, the head of ICT at Mountain Rescue England and Wales
(MREW), said that the use of the W3W app had been "testing" for rescue
teams.

He gave the BBC a database from the last 12 months which listed 45
locations across England and Wales that rescuers received from lost or
injured walkers and climbers, which turned out to be incorrect. "

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.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <bsk00hdnmk7sgidbqj4l2nm63t2npdufng@4ax.com>, at 23:06:26 on
> Sun, 6 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>> On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 18:35:21 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> I see such "lost" ambulances fairly often around London.
>>>
>>> I think most now have "jobs" sent to the terminal in the ambulance and
>>> on the various "reality" programmes, I get the impression their control
>>> can send the location direct to a Sat Nav.
>>>
>> They do but that fails where the postcode is for various reasons
>> incorrect
>
> Or non-existent; not all places have a postcode. I'm sure I've mentioned
> the carriage washing machine in the sidings outside Cambridge Station
> before.
>

Used to cause me the odd problem when I lived on a boat in Southampton,some
organisations just don’t seem to be able to accept that the circumstances
of not having a post code can exist .
TV licensing was one , as an honest person and a desire not to bring the
organisation who owned the vessel into disrepute I purchased one for my
own viewing,over the counter was easy but online renewal became a
nightmare, so for convenience I used a Postcode that was near but made the
mistake of using another when the vessel moved berths. . Subsequently as
Royal Mail postmen are fairly good I then got reminders and then the
threatening letters for the ones that I had not renewed.
In the end after a long phone conversation with somebody in TV licensing I
was granted something called a detached licence which was linked to a
different address elsewhere with a postcode etc.
Did that make anything simpler when it came to renewal? Nope the serial
number was not recognised
and I had quite a row on the phone with the first person I spoke to who
also said it could not be number as they never start with whatever the
number was.( Are you having a bad day sir? as I got angrier.It was fine
till I had to talk to you) eventually she relented and got someone higher
up the tree who sorted it and told her my version did exist. No apology
from her though.

GH

On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 08:14:02 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <94j10h9064h0dhlf9mtces8kpvsja1lldj@4ax.com>, at 07:42:04 on
>Mon, 7 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 07:06:57 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <jmg00h940ohhjfp4gocfg0n7vdg771b84i@4ax.com>, at 21:56:00 on
>>>Sun, 6 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>>>On Sun, 06 Feb 2022 21:22:46 +0000, Charles Ellson
>>>><charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 18:30:28 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 06/02/2022 12:22, Rupert Moss-Eccardt wrote:
>>>>>>> There are some regional exceptions, but, in general, attaching
>>>>>>> political posters to street furniture is illegal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Perhaps someone should tell the political parties or dish out some
>>>>>>penalties.
>>>>>>
>>>>>It is generally unlawful (as a trespass) rather than illegal unless
>>>>>criminal damage is committed by the attachment of posters (e.g.
>>>>>nailed/glued to a telephone/electric pole etc.).
>>>>>Permitted posting is done in relation to planning legislation, e.g.
>>>>>for Wakefield :-
>>>>>https://www.wakefield.gov.uk/Documents/elections/2021-election-highways
>>>>>-poster-material-leafleting-guidance.pdf
>>>>>(40 UKP per poster removed by the council)
>>>>>
>>>>OTOH if treated as fly-posting then there are criminal penalties
>>>>(<2500UKP plus 100 per day or a 75UKP FPN) but that might need some
>>>>examination of the wording of the Planning and Highways legislation in
>>>>case e.g. time is allowed to remove an offending item or doing it
>>>>accidentally might be part of a defence.
>>>
>>>M'lud, I accidentally attached this election poster to the traffic light
>>>pole. Please allow me 14 days to remove it.
>>>
>>"Too late, it was damaged beyond repair while being removed because of
>>the danger to pedestrians from the excessively long and untrimmed
>>cable ties sticking out at eye level that you used."
>
>"We have the remains of the sign, and cable ties, at our office for
>collection within 7 days".
>
"You might be able to re-use the cable ties on a smaller post."

On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 17:22:13 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 15:27:17 +0000
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> computing. And I'm quoted extensively in the recent Raspberry Pi book on
>>> 1980's home computing.
>>
>> I don't really get the whole Pi link to retro. There's nothing retro about
>it,
>> its a compact form Linux computer and just as hard/easy depending on your POV
>
>> to program as any other linux box. A lovely little machine but has nothing
>in
>> common with anything from the 80s other than its ARM CPU being a descendent
>of
>> Acorn.
>
>Perhaps because it's an unashamedly bare-bones computer, like the ones from
>40+ years ago? Like them, it's aimed at programmers, not consumers.

I wouldn't say its bare bones. Its got pretty much everything a PC motherboard
has apart from slottable RAM and AFAIK a disk controller. Its just small.

On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 13:09:58 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <j06rvg9s1nsif6m0a0v66p8682416ol0q1@4ax.com>, at 21:20:36 on
>Fri, 4 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 09:53:34 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <3vrivgliap7qlv9plpbaa26n02vcttrspo@4ax.com>, at 17:46:14 on
>>>Tue, 1 Feb 2022, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>>>remarked:
>>>>On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 17:20:05 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, but an ambulance driver isn't a police officer, and cannot
>>>>>> therefore give permission for another vehicle to go through a red light.
>>>>>
>>>>>It only requires a change in the law to allow ambulance drivers to act as a
>>>>>police officer in this context. There is presumably a reason why this
>>>>>hasn’t happened.
>>>>
>>>>Even the police don't expect other vehicles to go through red lights in
>>>>order to get out of their way, even though they are, technically, able
>>>>to instruct them to do so. The ability of a police officer to tell a
>>>>driver to disregard the lights (or other road traffic law) is intended
>>>>for circumstances when that's necessary to clear the road for everybody
>>>>- for example, when the lights have failed on red, or when a one-way
>>>>street is blocked and people need to be authorised to leave in the
>>>>"wrong" direction. And when an officer exercises that right, he is
>>>>expected to have properly assessed the situation and is sure that giving
>>>>such an instruction will not generate significant danger to anyone. None
>>>>of which is applicable to a police car running on blues and twos.
>>>
>>>And yet they do it. I remember following a police car gingerly (urban
>>>30mph dual carriageway, he was doing maybe 20mph in the lefthand lane, I
>>>would otherwise have been doing slightly more in the righthand lane) as
>>>we both approached a crossroads with red lights. So we slowed down in
>>>our side-by-side convoy until he was about a car length from the red
>>>lights, at which point he floored the accelerator and screeched across
>>>my front and through the red lights, into the road on the right.
>>>
>>>It was all so sudden it seems unlikely to have been fully assessed.
>>>Afterwards I did wonder if the slowish-speed he'd been going earlier
>>>was because he was preoccupied taking instructions on his radio.
>>>
>>>Another incident on the same bit of dual carriageway, an ambulance on
>>>blues and twos overtakes me and a little way ahead turns right down what
>>>I know to be a fairly short cul-de-sac. "Wonder what's going on there" I
>>>think.
>>>
>>>Twenty seconds later the ambulance emerges, even faster, still on blues
>>>and twos turning right, in front of me, almost on only two wheels and
>>>carries on down the dual carriageway. I suppose he was cross at having
>>>taken a wrong turning, but could not possibly have assessed the traffic
>>>coming in the opposite direction.
>>>
>>I see such "lost" ambulances fairly often around London.
>
>What a lot of frantic red-light running by angry drivers! I don't see it
>as often as you, which is why that one instance stuck in my mind.
>
>>They can sometimes be well away from their usual patch and even with a
>>satnav they can be at the mercy of vague description of their
>>destination.
>
>There were reports of an Ambulance that "couldn't find Addenbrookes
>Hospital" a few years back. Despite it being one of the most road-signed
>destinations in the south of the City, and having a CHP-plant chimney
>you can spot from miles away. <https://goo.gl/maps/rF3x4xWfg3tWbTXe9>
>
>This is the view I saw the other day, although the wide-angle lens
>rather understates its visual impact. In fact you can see most of the
>biocampus laid out before you. The spire on the right is the Catholic
>Church not far from the station. <https://goo.gl/maps/MG465jpjmiZVXiWA9>
>
>In other news, this really needs a plate saying "Oh no they don't"
><https://goo.gl/maps/xGHNhQ5R6CEjv1MM6> and I've never really understood
>which of these two instructions take precedence
><https://goo.gl/maps/BMBR1FbZFkXHuWib9>
>
Landmarks are sometimes used with SatNavs. Mine refers to IIRC "the
big building with white columns" or similar at one junction on the
West Cross route in London but not to multiple other possibly useful
descriptions.