On Tue, 8 Feb 2022 13:08:08 +0000, Graeme Wall
<rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 08/02/2022 13:05, MB wrote:
>> On 08/02/2022 11:25, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>> "Maybe it has a postcode now" - Google maps gives its postcode, if you'd
>>> clicked on the tower itself rather than somewhere near it…
>>
>>
>> People forget that the Postcode system is designed delivery of mail not
>> for drivers. One postcode in a rural area might cover several square
>> miles but that might be covered one delivery.
>>
>> Also the Post Town can be many miles away from an address, my Post Town
>> is about 100 miles away and there are places further away with that same
>> Post Town.
>>
>> There often used to be claims that it was crazy that the Western Isles
>> had a Paisley Postcode when it is obvious why it was the like that if
>> they just stopped and thought about it (now has its own Postcode).
>>
>> I suspected that it is now like telephone codes and a particular code
>> can be directed to anywhere with automatic sorting.
>>
>>
>>
>
>AIUI Post Towns no longer exist as far as te Royal Mail is concerned
>
They still feature as the general area description in addresses (and
in many places are/were a significant distance from the street
address) but the connection with sorting office locations in many
places is long gone.
Post towns are mentioned several times in e.g. :-
https://www.royalmail.com/sites/default/files/docs/pdf/paf_code_of_practice_june_10.pdf
[Postcode Address File Code of Practice - May 2010]

"The table below identifies the elements that can make up an address
and states whether each is required for the delivery of mail
[..........]
Data Postally required
Post Town (capital letters) Yes"

Although in reality it is now more of a backup for the outgoing part
of the postcode.

On Tue, 8 Feb 2022 16:21:46 +0000, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk"
<hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>On 08/02/2022 13:05, MB wrote:
>> On 08/02/2022 11:25, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>> "Maybe it has a postcode now" - Google maps gives its postcode, if you'd
>>> clicked on the tower itself rather than somewhere near it…
>>
>>
>> People forget that the Postcode system is designed delivery of mail not
>> for drivers. One postcode in a rural area might cover several square
>> miles but that might be covered one delivery.
>
>What about in the Republic of Ireland, for example, where there are no
>postal codes. That is the only such country or territory in Europe
>without them, AFAIK.
>
Ireland has had postcodes since 2015 -
https://www.eircode.ie/what-is-eircode
They are in the same two-part outgoing/incoming groups as UK and
Canadian postcodes but (as with UK v CAN) a letter/number sequence
particular to Ireland e.g. A65 F4E2.
<snip>

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Feb 2022 10:07:11 +0000
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <str1no$96e$4@dont-email.me>, at 12:02:01 on Mon, 7 Feb 2022,
>> MB <MB@nospam.net> remarked:
>>> On 07/02/2022 10:01, Charles Ellson wrote:
>>>> Stickers are not always stuck on. Parking ticket envelopes are
>>>> commonly sticky-backed but usually merely secured under a windscreen
>>>> wiper (as they are deemed to be "attached" whether stuck on or not).
>>>> Most motorcycles don't have windscreen wipers thus requiring actual
>>>> attachment.
>>>
>>> We used to use various universities for an annual meeting. We were
>>> told at one place they covered the windows of illegally parked cars
>>> with No Parking stickers so the driver would have spend time removing
>>> them - probably hurt him more than a fine.
>>
>> That's the classic case of vigilantism which is probably illegal under
>> criminal damage law.
>
> If there's no damage to the vehicle then its not illegal. Inconveniencing
> someone isn't - yet - a criminal offense.
>
>

Isn’t there another offence like interfering with a vehicle that could be
used?
And I wouldn’t bank on damage having to be actual “ damage, If I was to
cover your car with pig shit
would you be happy to be told that nothing can be done as all the car needs
is a wash.

GH

hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 08/02/2022 16:38, Recliner wrote:
>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 08/02/2022 13:05, MB wrote:
>>>> On 08/02/2022 11:25, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>>> "Maybe it has a postcode now" - Google maps gives its postcode, if you'd
>>>>> clicked on the tower itself rather than somewhere near it…
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> People forget that the Postcode system is designed delivery of mail not
>>>> for drivers. One postcode in a rural area might cover several square
>>>> miles but that might be covered one delivery.
>>>
>>> What about in the Republic of Ireland, for example, where there are no
>>> postal codes. That is the only such country or territory in Europe
>>> without them, AFAIK.
>>
>> Not any more:
>> https://www.eircode.ie/what-is-eircode
>>
>>>
>>>> Also the Post Town can be many miles away from an address, my Post Town
>>>> is about 100 miles away and there are places further away with that same
>>>> Post Town.
>>>>
>>>> There often used to be claims that it was crazy that the Western Isles
>>>> had a Paisley Postcode when it is obvious why it was the like that if
>>>> they just stopped and thought about it (now has its own Postcode).
>>>>
>>>> I suspected that it is now like telephone codes and a particular code
>>>> can be directed to anywhere with automatic sorting.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Tristan da Cunha, for example, has the international country code +290,
>>> though I understand that in many cases they use London's 020 code.
>>
>> They'd need the +44 code for that.
>
> Yes, indeed. It's still notably cheaper than calling the island via the
> +290 code, however.
>
> St. Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha have two county codes, +290
> and +247. The former is for St. Helena and TdC, whilst the latter is for
> Ascension. Using either one of those codes is NOT cheap.
>
> Somebody I know once had to ring southern Greenland on personal
> business. A very short call was somewhere in the area of £7.
>
>>
>>>
>>> Calling one of France's overseas departments or territories from
>>> Metropolitan France is just a trunk call, whilst it is an international
>>> call if dialled from elsewhere.
>>
>> The French overseas departments are French in every way.
>
> Yeah, but calling them from outside of Metropolitan France requires a
> different international dialling code.
>
>
>> They are in the
>> EU, and Schengen, speak French and use the Euro.
>
> I believe that Schengen only applies to Metropolitan France.

Yes, you're right. I've been to some of those territories, and thought they
were in Schengen, but see they're not.

On 08/02/2022 20:45, Recliner wrote:
> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 08/02/2022 16:38, Recliner wrote:
>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 08/02/2022 13:05, MB wrote:
>>>>> On 08/02/2022 11:25, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>>>> "Maybe it has a postcode now" - Google maps gives its postcode, if you'd
>>>>>> clicked on the tower itself rather than somewhere near it…
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> People forget that the Postcode system is designed delivery of mail not
>>>>> for drivers. One postcode in a rural area might cover several square
>>>>> miles but that might be covered one delivery.
>>>>
>>>> What about in the Republic of Ireland, for example, where there are no
>>>> postal codes. That is the only such country or territory in Europe
>>>> without them, AFAIK.
>>>
>>> Not any more:
>>> https://www.eircode.ie/what-is-eircode
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Also the Post Town can be many miles away from an address, my Post Town
>>>>> is about 100 miles away and there are places further away with that same
>>>>> Post Town.
>>>>>
>>>>> There often used to be claims that it was crazy that the Western Isles
>>>>> had a Paisley Postcode when it is obvious why it was the like that if
>>>>> they just stopped and thought about it (now has its own Postcode).
>>>>>
>>>>> I suspected that it is now like telephone codes and a particular code
>>>>> can be directed to anywhere with automatic sorting.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Tristan da Cunha, for example, has the international country code +290,
>>>> though I understand that in many cases they use London's 020 code.
>>>
>>> They'd need the +44 code for that.
>>
>> Yes, indeed. It's still notably cheaper than calling the island via the
>> +290 code, however.
>>
>> St. Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha have two county codes, +290
>> and +247. The former is for St. Helena and TdC, whilst the latter is for
>> Ascension. Using either one of those codes is NOT cheap.
>>
>> Somebody I know once had to ring southern Greenland on personal
>> business. A very short call was somewhere in the area of £7.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Calling one of France's overseas departments or territories from
>>>> Metropolitan France is just a trunk call, whilst it is an international
>>>> call if dialled from elsewhere.
>>>
>>> The French overseas departments are French in every way.
>>
>> Yeah, but calling them from outside of Metropolitan France requires a
>> different international dialling code.
>>
>>
>>> They are in the
>>> EU, and Schengen, speak French and use the Euro.
>>
>> I believe that Schengen only applies to Metropolitan France.
>
> Yes, you're right. I've been to some of those territories, and thought they
> were in Schengen, but see they're not.
>
>
Yes? Where'd you visit?

hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 08/02/2022 20:45, Recliner wrote:
>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 08/02/2022 16:38, Recliner wrote:
>>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 08/02/2022 13:05, MB wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Calling one of France's overseas departments or territories from
>>>>> Metropolitan France is just a trunk call, whilst it is an international
>>>>> call if dialled from elsewhere.
>>>>
>>>> The French overseas departments are French in every way.
>>>
>>> Yeah, but calling them from outside of Metropolitan France requires a
>>> different international dialling code.
>>>
>>>
>>>> They are in the
>>>> EU, and Schengen, speak French and use the Euro.
>>>
>>> I believe that Schengen only applies to Metropolitan France.
>>
>> Yes, you're right. I've been to some of those territories, and thought they
>> were in Schengen, but see they're not.
>>
>>
> Yes? Where'd you visit?

Several, including French Guiana, Martinique and Saint Barthélemy.

hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 07/02/2022 12:02, MB wrote:
>> On 07/02/2022 10:01, Charles Ellson wrote:
>>> Stickers are not always stuck on. Parking ticket envelopes are
>>> commonly sticky-backed but usually merely secured under a windscreen
>>> wiper (as they are deemed to be "attached" whether stuck on or not).
>>> Most motorcycles don't have windscreen wipers thus requiring actual
>>> attachment.
>>
>> We used to use various universities for an annual meeting.  We were told
>> at one place they covered the windows of illegally parked cars with No
>> Parking stickers so the driver would have spend time removing them -
>> probably hurt him more than a fine.
>>
>>
> Some warm water normally takes care of that.

The hospital I worked in used to do that. One day the departmental
secretary left her car “temporarily” on the double yellow lines outside the
building and got stickered. She spent the next 20 minutes running in and
out with a kettle and various scraping objects.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On 08/02/2022 21:55, Recliner wrote:
> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 08/02/2022 20:45, Recliner wrote:
>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 08/02/2022 16:38, Recliner wrote:
>>>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> On 08/02/2022 13:05, MB wrote:
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Calling one of France's overseas departments or territories from
>>>>>> Metropolitan France is just a trunk call, whilst it is an international
>>>>>> call if dialled from elsewhere.
>>>>>
>>>>> The French overseas departments are French in every way.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, but calling them from outside of Metropolitan France requires a
>>>> different international dialling code.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> They are in the
>>>>> EU, and Schengen, speak French and use the Euro.
>>>>
>>>> I believe that Schengen only applies to Metropolitan France.
>>>
>>> Yes, you're right. I've been to some of those territories, and thought they
>>> were in Schengen, but see they're not.
>>>
>>>
>> Yes? Where'd you visit?
>
> Several, including French Guiana, Martinique and Saint Barthélemy.
>

The last is an overseas collectivity.

Ever make it to SPM?

hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 08/02/2022 21:55, Recliner wrote:
>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 08/02/2022 20:45, Recliner wrote:
>>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 08/02/2022 16:38, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 08/02/2022 13:05, MB wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Calling one of France's overseas departments or territories from
>>>>>>> Metropolitan France is just a trunk call, whilst it is an international
>>>>>>> call if dialled from elsewhere.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The French overseas departments are French in every way.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, but calling them from outside of Metropolitan France requires a
>>>>> different international dialling code.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> They are in the
>>>>>> EU, and Schengen, speak French and use the Euro.
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe that Schengen only applies to Metropolitan France.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you're right. I've been to some of those territories, and thought they
>>>> were in Schengen, but see they're not.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Yes? Where'd you visit?
>>
>> Several, including French Guiana, Martinique and Saint Barthélemy.
>>
>
> The last is an overseas collectivity.
>
> Ever make it to SPM?

No, nowhere closer than Quebec City yet, though I'll be passing close by
next year on a cruise:
<https://www.silversea.com/destinations/transoceanic-cruise/southampton-to-quebec-city-ss230801015.html>

On Tue, 8 Feb 2022 16:50:28 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <stqonh$cu3$2@dont-email.me>, at 09:28:18 on Mon, 7 Feb 2022,
>MB <MB@nospam.net> remarked:
>>On 07/02/2022 09:12, Charles Ellson wrote:
>
>>> That is the current position, my example was of a comparable vehicle
>>> (sometimes actually marked "Ambulance" which can be painted on any
>>> vehicle including at least one Leyland National bus) with a very
>>> narrow exemption allowing the standard weight limit to be exceeded.
>>
>>We were given printed signs saying that we were working for the
>>ambulance service, we just used to park in ambulance areas at hospitals
>>occasionally.
>
>In other words neither of these sets of vehicles is a classic emergency
>ambulance, and thus this rathole is utterly irrelevant.
>
Not all ambulances are emergency vehicles. Neither is there any need
for a vehicle to be ambulance to have "Ambulance" marked on it. You
can have blue lights and a siren on an ambulance which is not an
ambulance as long as you only use them under specific circumstances,
the main one being a non-NHS vehicle performing work for the NHS.

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.

On 8 Feb 2022 20:03:46 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk>
wrote:

><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2022 10:07:11 +0000
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <str1no$96e$4@dont-email.me>, at 12:02:01 on Mon, 7 Feb 2022,
>>> MB <MB@nospam.net> remarked:
>>>> On 07/02/2022 10:01, Charles Ellson wrote:
>>>>> Stickers are not always stuck on. Parking ticket envelopes are
>>>>> commonly sticky-backed but usually merely secured under a windscreen
>>>>> wiper (as they are deemed to be "attached" whether stuck on or not).
>>>>> Most motorcycles don't have windscreen wipers thus requiring actual
>>>>> attachment.
>>>>
>>>> We used to use various universities for an annual meeting. We were
>>>> told at one place they covered the windows of illegally parked cars
>>>> with No Parking stickers so the driver would have spend time removing
>>>> them - probably hurt him more than a fine.
>>>
>>> That's the classic case of vigilantism which is probably illegal under
>>> criminal damage law.
>>
>> If there's no damage to the vehicle then its not illegal. Inconveniencing
>> someone isn't - yet - a criminal offense.
>>
>>
>
>Isn’t there another offence like interfering with a vehicle that could be
>used?
>
There is but it is related more to trying to steal the vehicle:-
[Criminal Attempts Act 1981]
"9 Interference with vehicles.
(1)A person is guilty of the offence of vehicle interference if he
interferes with a motor vehicle or trailer or with anything carried in
or on a motor vehicle or trailer with the intention that an offence
specified in subsection (2) below shall be committed by himself or
some other person.
(2)The offences mentioned in subsection (1) above are—
(a)theft of the motor vehicle or trailer or part of it;
(b)theft of anything carried in or on the motor vehicle or trailer;
and
(c)an offence under section 12(1) of the M1Theft Act 1968 (taking and
driving away without consent);"

OTOH Construction and Use Regulation No.30 might be what you are
after:-
"A person is guilty of an offence if he uses, or causes or permits
another to use, a motor vehicle or trailer on the road when:

(a) the condition of the motor vehicle or trailer, or of its
accessories or equipment, or
(b) the purpose for which it is used, or
(c) the number of passengers carried by it, or the manner in which
they are carried, or
(d) the weight, position or distribution of its load, or the manner in
which it is secured, is such that the use of the motor vehicle or
trailer involves a danger of injury to any person."

"Causes.... another" should be hook to catch them with.

>And I wouldn’t bank on damage having to be actual “ damage, If I was to
>cover your car with pig shit
>would you be happy to be told that nothing can be done as all the car needs
>is a wash.
>
>GH

On 09/02/2022 02:02, Charles Ellson wrote:
> Not all ambulances are emergency vehicles. Neither is there any need
> for a vehicle to be ambulance to have "Ambulance" marked on it. You
> can have blue lights and a siren on an ambulance which is not an
> ambulance as long as you only use them under specific circumstances,
> the main one being a non-NHS vehicle performing work for the NHS.

The difficult part would be convincing a police officer of that! A few
years ago it was said that some traffic seemed to have a bit of a grudge
against 'ambulances' and would regularly try to charge things like blood
transfusion vehicles with speeding.

I once had to use one of the work's vehicle and only found out
afterwards that still had blue lights fitted from when it had been used
by the Scottish Office radio techs - they were not switched on but it
could have been awkward if I had caught the switch unintentionally!

On Tue, 08 Feb 2022 19:11:17 +0000
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 8 Feb 2022 16:53:33 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 8 Feb 2022 10:07:11 +0000
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>In message <str1no$96e$4@dont-email.me>, at 12:02:01 on Mon, 7 Feb 2022,
>>>MB <MB@nospam.net> remarked:
>>>>On 07/02/2022 10:01, Charles Ellson wrote:
>>>>> Stickers are not always stuck on. Parking ticket envelopes are
>>>>> commonly sticky-backed but usually merely secured under a windscreen
>>>>> wiper (as they are deemed to be "attached" whether stuck on or not).
>>>>> Most motorcycles don't have windscreen wipers thus requiring actual
>>>>> attachment.
>>>>
>>>>We used to use various universities for an annual meeting. We were
>>>>told at one place they covered the windows of illegally parked cars
>>>>with No Parking stickers so the driver would have spend time removing
>>>>them - probably hurt him more than a fine.
>>>
>>>That's the classic case of vigilantism which is probably illegal under
>>>criminal damage law.
>>
>>If there's no damage to the vehicle then its not illegal. Inconveniencing
>>someone isn't - yet - a criminal offense.
>>
>There does not need to be damage to a vehicle for the offence of
>Criminal Damage to be committed; a temporary impairment of its
>usefulness is sufficient.
>https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/criminal-damage

tl;dr

Perhaps there is , but good luck getting plod to even give you a crime
reference number for someone bunging a sticker on your car, never mind persuing
the matter. Half the cars in my street including mine got keyed a few years
back and despite there being CCTV of the cunts who did it plod never did a
damn thing.

A slightly different kind of vehicle strike…

<https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/incredible-pictures-van-driver-accidentally-6625158>

Anna Noyd-Dryver

In message <strhgj$37a$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:31:15 on Mon, 7 Feb 2022,
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <stj0eq$oj2$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:51:06 on Fri, 4 Feb 2022,
>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <st907b$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:
>>>>>> 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 that it will work. Yes, I know that 9 out of 10
>>>>>> collisions were caused by drivers only misjudging by a couple of cms,
>>>>>> but you have no evidence that they won't continue to do so after the
>>>>>> road is expensively lowered.
>>>>>
>>>>> I’ve tried to take this up with Roland before but he insists,
>>>>>without much
>>>>> in the way of evidence except that the vans that are a couple of
>>>>>inches too
>>>>> tall are the ones that hit the bridge, that there is a break point in the
>>>>> distribution of van heights at around 2.85.
>>>>
>>>> Find me some which are. It might take you a while.
>>>
>>> No, you keep insisting that there is a fleet of vans out there that are a
>>> couple of inches too tall for the bridge and that raising the bridge that
>>> far will make sure that no vans hit it.
>>
>> Not a huge fleet, maybe one van in fifty (or 100?) is a model of the
>> particular height that's either prone to wedging under the bridge or
>> just planing a centimetre off the top.
>
>Who said anything about huge?

What matters is the tension between the expression "no vans", which
implies "entire fleet", and "huge"/small, which can be summed up as
"most" (avoiding a collision as a result).

>>> It’s up to you to verify that claim.
>>
>> Not really, especially as you've misrepresented it.
>
>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.

Seeing as you ask whether I believe a couple of inches would suffice,
then because that's more than one inch, I think I'd have to say I did.

Although a couple of inches could very likely be a much more substantial
civil engineering prospect, and hence less likely to happen, so I'm less
likely to advocate for it.

In passing, I'd recommend for clarity that when saying things like
"eliminate the collisions" you specify which collisions. It's not going
to be "all the collisions by all vans", but it could be "most of the
collisions by vans which happen to be out there on the streets".

>>> You keep producing evidence of vans that are just too tall, but you
>>> provide no evidence of vans that are more than a couple of inches too tall
>>> because they don’t hit or scrape the bridge.
>>
>> That's because there are almost no vans on the road in that height
>> racket.
>
>Another proof by assertion, though I see you’ve added an “almost” this
>time. Could you provide something more in the way of evidence, perhaps?

You could look at my dashcam footage from the other day, where in half
an hour there were no vans in that category in a pretty constant stream
of traffic. (And only one LWB amongst the thirty-something vans bigger
than car-derivatives, and I tuned out all the buses, HGVs and flat-bed
vans, and I don't think there were any emergency ambulances).

I realise you don't consider that 19/20 of the bashes being vehicles
which merely get wedged under, or who clip <1cm off the top, as
evidence. But I don't think there's some extra alertness in the drivers
of vans whose height is 1.86m+, compared to those whose height is
1.84m+, that makes then turn round (or read the signs, or whatever).

If a van ever came along that was 1.9m+ and hit the bridge, it'd be all
over the local social media in minutes. It's a busy road (which is why
so many people reject the proposal to shut it permanently) and the
wreckage is often left in the vicinity for days rather than hours, when
the vehicle is undriveable afterwards.

>>>> An analogy I've used before is multi-storeys and SUVs. Typically the
>>>> former will have a height limit of 2m, and that works fine because even
>>>> the taller SUVs are rarely above 1.85m. If there were significant
>>>> numbers of SUVs that are 2.05m tall, I'm sure we'd have heard the
>>>> complaints about them being excluded from the facilities everyone
>>>> else uses.
>>>
>>> Or perhaps, just perhaps, SUV designers know that to fit into common spaces
>>> like car parks they have to make vehicles that fit under a 2 m bar.
>>> Where’s the evolutionary pressure like that to make vans fit into a 2.85 m
>>> high space?
>>
>> The pressure is that almost no-one needs a van with a 3.5t weight limit
>> (that's the van plus contents) which is taller than the 2.80-2.86 range
>> that the manufacturers roll off their production lines.
>
>That may very well be true, but it sounds like speculation.

The only significant counter-example anyone has been able to find are
tradesmen who wish to transport large sheets of glass, and they do that
on a custom rack outside the van, not propped up inside.
--
Roland Perry

In message <j6fv49F4lgaU1@mid.individual.net>, at 19:37:45 on Tue, 8 Feb
2022, Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> remarked:
>On 8 Feb 2022 09:08, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <j6ddd9Fk71aU1@mid.individual.net>, at 20:23:04 on Mon, 7 Feb
>> 2022, Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> remarked:
>>>On 7 Feb 2022 11:47, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <stqo6l$apg$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:19:18 on Mon, 7 Feb 2022,
>>>> MB <MB@nospam.net> remarked:
>>>>>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. :-)
>>>>
>>>> ObRail: I sometimes cross double white lines on the approach to a level
>>>> crossing where they've parked a Network Rail van by the side of the
>>>> road, and it's the only way to get past.
>>>
>>>When I find that in my area, I park in safe place and get them to park
>>>in the official place. If they don't move I report them to the COSS.
>>
>> So you agree it happens fairly frequently?
>
>No. According to the RSSB and my contacts in NR it is just some
>contractors and a few 'bad apples'. I'm not sure I agree with that
>assessment either

Are any Network Rail signwritten vans issued to contractors? Anyway,
next time I see it happening I'll make sure I download my dashcam
footage.
--
Roland Perry

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.
--
Roland Perry

Am 09.02.2022 um 10:23 schrieb Anna Noyd-Dryver:
> A slightly different kind of vehicle strike…
>
> <https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/incredible-pictures-van-driver-accidentally-6625158>

At my company, there's a covered walkway from one building to the next.
Until ca 2006, the crossing of this covered walkway with a bus lane used
to be roofed as well.

Then, a lorry illegally used the bus lane as a short-cut ignoring the
3.4m signs; since then we get wet when walking from one building to the
next on the outside (there's an 'indoor bridge' connection on 2nd floor
level so that's not really important).

https://goo.gl/maps/WUV7aT281SgtCFv56

Rolf

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

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

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.
--
Roland Perry

In message <j6fv6dF4lqeU1@mid.individual.net>, at 19:38:52 on Tue, 8 Feb
2022, Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> remarked:
>On 8 Feb 2022 12:09, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <j6dd4iFk491U1@mid.individual.net>, at 20:18:26 on Mon, 7 Feb
>> 2022, Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> remarked:
>>>>>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.
>>>
>>>Ah. If you are relying on the map on the Cambridgeshire web site, not
>>>all roads marked as 'adopted' actually are but are labelled as such as
>>>they are, for most purposes, handled as if they were.
>>
>> Kafka would be proud.
>
>As you should know only the definitive map is, well, definitive

I thought that the maps on the Cambs County website *were* definitive.

https://maps.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/mycambridgeshire.aspx
--
Roland Perry

In message <su0161$6d8$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:23:13 on Wed, 9 Feb 2022,
Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>A slightly different kind of vehicle strike…
>
><https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/incredible-pictures-va
>n-driver-accidentally-6625158>

Classic example of why TPTB don't like even well-meaning constructions
across the road (this was across private land of course.)

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

In message <anj00hdpuc9n21uee0nefkn6cqogfe6gd2@4ax.com>, at 23:00:54 on
Sun, 6 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 08:50:35 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <tg4rvgdcaa50s3sg4fhp6tu7ee8vekovgi@4ax.com>, at 20:55:24 on
>>Fri, 4 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>>On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 13:56:27 +0000, 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.
>>>>
>>>It would not be criminal damage if done by the planning authority :-
>>>https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/8/section/225
>>>s.225 Town and Country Planning Act 1990
>>>Power to remove or obliterate placards and posters.
>>>"(1)Subject to subsections (2) and (3), the local planning authority
>>>may remove or obliterate any placard or poster—........."
>>
>>Classic Ellson under-citing. Perhaps you should also have included:
>>
>> Subject to subsection (4), where a placard or poster identifies the
>> person who displayed it or caused it to be displayed, the local
>> planning authority shall not exercise any power conferred by
>> *********
>> subsection (1) unless they have first given him notice in writing
>> **************************************************
>>
>> (a) that in their opinion it is displayed in contravention of
>> regulations made under section 220; and
>>
>> (b) that they intend to remove or obliterate it on the expiry of a
>> period specified in the notice
>>
>>Which is what I've been saying all along !!!
>>
>The under-citing[TM] is yours. There are a total of 11 sub-sections,
>including:-
>225(4) Subsection (3) does not apply 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.

Pardon? That's exactly what I referred to earlier. It allows them to
remove a sign without giving notice, if it's not possible to give the
notice for the reasons stated.

I specifically remember mentioning the "reasonable inquiry aspect".

>This describes the majority of advertisements seen randomly attached
>to lampposts or other street furniture.

Not in my experience. Most of them I see are specifically trying to draw
attention to a particular premises/event, and as such being anonymous is
a waste of their time.

"Antiques Fair 12/13 Feb, we decline to tell you where, or how
to contact us to ask where".

(The ones I see are about such a Fair, it's half an hour's drive away,
so this isn't a case of fly-posting outside the Village Hall, and
expecting people put two and two together).

>In any case on a highway the above Act applies in parallel with the
>Highways Act 1980 which gives what in practice is authority to remove
>or deface most unauthorised advertisements without notice, they only
>have to be a "nuisance" (e.g. a distraction to road users) [s.149
>Highways Act 1980] which in practice is for the highway authority to
>decide.

Yes, I've mentioned those before, too. In practice there are far more
[but still not sufficient to be deployed on a daily basis] resources in
the planning department for getting advertising notices removed, than
the Highways people chasing up villagers putting fake "30mph" signs on
the road outside their houses, (is the sort of distraction the Highways
Act is for).
--
Roland Perry

On 08/02/2022 22:01, Sam Wilson wrote:
> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 07/02/2022 12:02, MB wrote:
>>> On 07/02/2022 10:01, Charles Ellson wrote:
>>>> Stickers are not always stuck on. Parking ticket envelopes are
>>>> commonly sticky-backed but usually merely secured under a windscreen
>>>> wiper (as they are deemed to be "attached" whether stuck on or not).
>>>> Most motorcycles don't have windscreen wipers thus requiring actual
>>>> attachment.
>>>
>>> We used to use various universities for an annual meeting.  We were told
>>> at one place they covered the windows of illegally parked cars with No
>>> Parking stickers so the driver would have spend time removing them -
>>> probably hurt him more than a fine.
>>>
>>>
>> Some warm water normally takes care of that.
>
> The hospital I worked in used to do that. One day the departmental
> secretary left her car “temporarily” on the double yellow lines outside the
> building and got stickered. She spent the next 20 minutes running in and
> out with a kettle and various scraping objects.
>
> Sam
>
Was she a jobsworth?