On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 10:04:23 -0000, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

>"Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:te6drh5k4djeg3opu7hcen1e8vd6j7512d@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 14:23:31 -0000, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>My brain still does a brief millisecond of cognitive dissonance when I
>>>hear
>>>a man [talk] about his husband or a woman talk about her wife.
>>
>> Same here, but don't let the Thought Police get wind of it, or they'll
>> be accusing you of an -ism of some sort just for thinking that.
>>
>> Personally I consider it none of my business how couples choose to
>> live together, but I'm disappointed that officialdom has chosen to
>> endorse the dilution of the English language in this way. Radically
>> new concepts really demand new words, rather than the distortion of
>> the meanings of existing ones that have been understood for centuries.
>
>I suppose there is the word "partner" which neatly conceals the gender of
>the spouse.
>
>I read up about civil partnerships and discovered that there *is* a legal
>difference: partners do not have full marital status (eg one is assumed to
>inherit from the other, by default). So when civil partnerships for same-sex
>couples were first introduced, they declared a permanent-relationship status
>but didn't give mutual inheritance and next-of-kin status. I can see why the
>later change to same-sex marriage was such a big step up.

It would have been quite simple to amend the law to allow a type of
"civil partnership" or "life partnership" that allowed the same
financial, ownership, tax and inheritance benefits already recognised
for a marriage, but with the *only* difference being that the
participants didn't need to be of the opposite sex.

This could have been done without having to call the arrangement a
"marriage". People with any kind of unconventional sexual background
could live together in couples with, if they chose to formalise it,
the same financial protections as anyone else, without the remaining
ninety-odd percent of the population having to change their
understanding of established words.

Rod.

On 05/01/2023 10:04, NY wrote:
> I suppose there is the word "partner" which neatly conceals the gender
> of the spouse.

I think it was being used informally, before that, to conceal a lack of
knowledge as to whether there was a legal marriage in place, and where
it was known that there wasn't.

On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 21:22:21 +0000
NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:

> (good old Eric Laithwaite and his gyroscope!)

And him sending a flat metal plate into the wall using magnetic
levitation and linear propulsion.
Now he could lecture!
--
Davey.

"Davey" <davey@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:tp6ks3$2r554$1@dont-email.me...
> On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 21:22:21 +0000
> NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> (good old Eric Laithwaite and his gyroscope!)
>
> And him sending a flat metal plate into the wall using magnetic
> levitation and linear propulsion.
> Now he could lecture!

And he had a lovely Lancashire accent that you could cut with a knife (or a
sharpened flat metal plate shoved by linear propulsion!).

I've seen a number of his lectures on Youtube. He was a good lecturer at any
level: lecturing to adult students is a very different skill to lecturing to
school-children, but he was equally at home with either.

I remember his demonstration with a heavy spinning metal disc which is set
in motion with an electric drill, and how he could lift it easily when it
was spinning but not when it was stationary, suggesting that it *apparently*
(stress "apparently") seemed to lose weight when it was spinning.

The lectures are at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvGh6xCKLQQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvpgrDmr4Bc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PLKVidbWiM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVuaqq06O-g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=647Km71ZxOM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bPV2AVMqW0

They seem to be a rather indifferent recording, maybe recorded on a
precursor of VHS such as Philips N1500 VCR. But that doesn't detract.

Having just downloaded them, I'll watch them and see if they were as good as
I remember.

I was impressed with Jonathan Van Tam (talking about Covid) a year ago. And
Alice Roberts (2018) is always good.

I'd forgotten that there was a period in the 2000-2010 decade when the
lectures were shown on Channel 4 or Channel 5, before going back to BBC
(though BBC Four rather than BBC Two). Interesting that the number of
lectures in a series has gradually reduced over the years from 6 to 3.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Institution_Christmas_Lectures

On 05/01/2023 10:35, charles wrote:
> The original A74 was just a normal road, but as with the A1 in places, the
> motorway replacement used the old road number with (M) added.

For a long time bits of the road were A74(M) and the rest M74. There
was no obvious difference between them and (apart from a few nerds)
everyone called it the M74.

On 04/01/2023 08:27 pm, NY wrote:

> On 04/01/2023 15:15, JNugent wrote:
>> On 04/01/2023 10:01 am, NY wrote:

>>> Is it still the case that speed limits for HGVs are different in
>>> Scotland and England? I remember around the time that the limits were
>>> raised (eg for 50 to 60 on single-carriageway roads) in England,
>>> seeing big signs at the border saying that Scotland's limit was still
>>> 50. One of the problems when two countries are *almost* the same is
>>> knowing what laws are UK-wide and what laws are England- or Scotland-
>>> or Wales-specific. (**)
>
>> Speed limits are the same: 60 / 70 unless a lower signed limit
>> applies, and automatically 30 on a road with street lights less than a
>> prescribed distance apart.
>
> Ah, are they now the same in Scotland and England. Maybe the date of
> introduction of the raised limits was different in the two countries,
> hence the signs.

Those limits have been in force since 1965 (though there was an overall
50 limit during the 1973/74 oil crisis).

> I remember having to be very careful when I hired a long-wheelbase van:
> the hire company were very good about reminding car drivers that vans
> are limited to 50 (instead of 60) on single-carriageway and 60 (instead
> of 70) on dual-carriageway - the only place where it is legal to do 70
> is on a motorway. I made sure I set the speed limiter (as I do with a
> car in a 30 zone) to prevent me inadvertently creeping over.

Good idea. I like having the 30mph limiter handy too.
>
>> It'll be different now because the M6 has effectively been extended
>> northward (partly as M6, mainly as A74(M)), but on getting onto the
>> A74 north of the old M6 termination, there used to be signs saying
>> "_A_74 - Commercial vehicles follow correct speed limit" (because
>> lorries were limited to 40 or 50 on all-purpose dual-carriageways).
>
> "Follow correct speed limit" is a bit of a woolly phrase. Better if it
> said "End of motorway speed limit. Follow correct dual/single limit".
> But maybe that would be too wordy. I suppose they are banking on
> "correct" making people think "what's the significance of that - ah,
> it's not a motorway any longer so my limits will be lower in a lorry".

I wasn't in a lorry and it only took a split second to interpret the
signs! It doesn't affect other roads - just the A74 (as it then was
before being upgraded to motorway).

> I've always wondered: why did the M6 not continue as motorway all the
> way to Glasgow? Did the Scots not want to pay extra to construct the
> road to any higher standards that may be needed for motorways, over and
> above those for a dual carriageway? I presume the A74 still only has
> grade-separated junctions (no T junctions, no roundabouts).

Effectively, the M6 now *does* continue all the way to Glasgow, but
after the A75 exit at Gretna, it changes name to A74(M).

Even before the upgrade, the route wasn't all that bad as just A74 (dual
carriageway) most of the way and M74 for the last miles into Glasgow.

On 04/01/2023 09:18 pm, charles wrote:
> In article <-1ydnQs_w7a9fCj-nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>,
> NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>> On 04/01/2023 15:15, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 04/01/2023 10:01 am, NY wrote:
>>>> Is it still the case that speed limits for HGVs are different in
>>>> Scotland and England? I remember around the time that the limits were
>>>> raised (eg for 50 to 60 on single-carriageway roads) in England,
>>>> seeing big signs at the border saying that Scotland's limit was still
>>>> 50. One of the problems when two countries are *almost* the same is
>>>> knowing what laws are UK-wide and what laws are England- or Scotland-
>>>> or Wales-specific. (**)
>>>
>>> Speed limits are the same: 60 / 70 unless a lower signed limit applies,
>>> and automatically 30 on a road with street lights less than a prescribed
>>> distance apart.
>
>> Ah, are they now the same in Scotland and England. Maybe the date of
>> introduction of the raised limits was different in the two countries,
>> hence the signs.
>
>> I remember having to be very careful when I hired a long-wheelbase van:
>> the hire company were very good about reminding car drivers that vans
>> are limited to 50 (instead of 60) on single-carriageway and 60 (instead
>> of 70) on dual-carriageway - the only place where it is legal to do 70
>> is on a motorway. I made sure I set the speed limiter (as I do with a
>> car in a 30 zone) to prevent me inadvertently creeping over.
>
>>> It'll be different now because the M6 has effectively been extended
>>> northward (partly as M6, mainly as A74(M)), but on getting onto the A74
>>> north of the old M6 termination, there used to be signs saying "_A_74 -
>>> Commercial vehicles follow correct speed limit" (because lorries were
>>> limited to 40 or 50 on all-purpose dual-carriageways).
>
>> "Follow correct speed limit" is a bit of a woolly phrase. Better if it
>> said "End of motorway speed limit. Follow correct dual/single limit".
>> But maybe that would be too wordy. I suppose they are banking on
>> "correct" making people think "what's the significance of that - ah,
>> it's not a motorway any longer so my limits will be lower in a lorry".
>
>> I've always wondered: why did the M6 not continue as motorway all the
>> way to Glasgow? Did the Scots not want to pay extra to construct the
>> road to any higher standards that may be needed for motorways, over and
>> above those for a dual carriageway? I presume the A74 still only has
>> grade-separated junctions (no T junctions, no roundabouts).
>
> Scotland has a separate road numbering system from England. Very few road
> have the same number north & south of the border. The A6 stopped at
> Carlisle

....and continued north through the city's suburbs and English
countryside as A7...

> and the M6, for very many years, stopped just north of Carlisle.
> The A74(M) is full motorway standard and stops at the Border..

But A7 and A1 start (or in the case of A7, originally started) in
England and go all the way to Edinburgh.

On 05/01/2023 09:57 am, NY wrote:
> "charles" <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote in message
> news:5a61aa1200charles@candehope.me.uk...
>
>>> I've always wondered: why did the M6 not continue as motorway all the
>>> way to Glasgow? Did the Scots not want to pay extra to construct the
>>> road to any higher standards that may be needed for motorways, over and
>>> above those for a dual carriageway? I presume the A74 still only has
>>> grade-separated junctions (no T junctions, no roundabouts).
>>
>> Scotland has a separate road numbering system from England. Very few road
>> have the same number north & south of the border. The A6 stopped at
>> Carlisle and the M6, for very many years, stopped just north of Carlisle.
>> The A74(M) is full motorway standard and stops at the Border..
>
> Ah, I've not studied the road-numbering system in detail. Indeed it was
> a long time before I realised that there was a logic, with A1 (and A1x
> and A1xx) going generally north, A4xx generally west and so on.

There certainly *is* a logic, but that isn't quite it.

England is divided into sectors by the low-number roads 1 - 6 radiating
from London, and then Scotland is further divided by the A7, A8 and A9.

Any road starting in the 1 sector (between A1 and the east coast) starts
with a 1. Roads south of the Thames east of London but east of the A3
start with a 2. Roads starting in the sector between A3 and A4 start
with a 3, and so on. The A6 sector starts where that road traditionally
started, at Barnet (as a branch of the original line of A1).

> But I thought (evidently wrongly) that the A7xx and A8xx numbers were
> generally for roads that originated and ended in Scotland,

That's correct. The 7 sector is between the west coast and the A7, etc.

> and that
> long-distance roads such as the A1 and the A6 kept their "English"
> numbers in Scotland.

The A1 certainly does. So do A68 and A696. And also the A7 (it starts in
England, originally in the centre of Carlisle).

> I'd forgotten (or never known) that the M6 extension was motorway
> standard (ie A74(M) rather than A74). Hence my question about whether it
> was constructed to a lower non-motorway standard.

Yes - the A74 was pretty much grade-separated, but had a few
sub-standard junctions along its length. Mind you, it's over forty years
since I drove along the A74.

On 05/01/2023 10:56 am, Robin wrote:
> On 05/01/2023 10:04, NY wrote:
>> "Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:te6drh5k4djeg3opu7hcen1e8vd6j7512d@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 14:23:31 -0000, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> My brain still does a brief millisecond of cognitive dissonance when
>>>> I hear
>>>> a man [talk] about his husband or a woman talk about her wife.
>>>
>>> Same here, but don't let the Thought Police get wind of it, or they'll
>>> be accusing you of an -ism of some sort just for thinking that.
>>>
>>> Personally I consider it none of my business how couples choose to
>>> live together, but I'm disappointed that officialdom has chosen to
>>> endorse the dilution of the English language in this way. Radically
>>> new concepts really demand new words, rather than the distortion of
>>> the meanings of existing ones that have been understood for centuries.
>>
>> I suppose there is the word "partner" which neatly conceals the gender
>> of the spouse.
>>
>> I read up about civil partnerships and discovered that there *is* a
>> legal difference: partners do not have full marital status (eg one is
>> assumed to inherit from the other, by default). So when civil
>> partnerships for same-sex couples were first introduced, they declared
>> a permanent-relationship status but didn't give mutual inheritance and
>> next-of-kin status. I can see why the later change to same-sex
>> marriage was such a big step up.
>
> The Civil Partnership Act 2004 changed the intestacy rules so civil
> partners inherited from a deceased civil partners under the same
> intestacy rules as a surviving husband or wife.

And that is the very reason why anyone should be able to enter into a
civil partnership with anyone else (even a sibling or a parent) - so as
to let everybody benefit from inheritance and inheritance tax rules.

In article <k1onhaFf7dcU1@mid.individual.net>,
JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
> On 05/01/2023 09:57 am, NY wrote:
> > "charles" <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote in message
> > news:5a61aa1200charles@candehope.me.uk...
> >
> >>> I've always wondered: why did the M6 not continue as motorway all the
> >>> way to Glasgow? Did the Scots not want to pay extra to construct the
> >>> road to any higher standards that may be needed for motorways, over and
> >>> above those for a dual carriageway? I presume the A74 still only has
> >>> grade-separated junctions (no T junctions, no roundabouts).
> >>
> >> Scotland has a separate road numbering system from England. Very few road
> >> have the same number north & south of the border. The A6 stopped at
> >> Carlisle and the M6, for very many years, stopped just north of Carlisle.
> >> The A74(M) is full motorway standard and stops at the Border..
> >
> > Ah, I've not studied the road-numbering system in detail. Indeed it was
> > a long time before I realised that there was a logic, with A1 (and A1x
> > and A1xx) going generally north, A4xx generally west and so on.

> There certainly *is* a logic, but that isn't quite it.

> England is divided into sectors by the low-number roads 1 - 6 radiating
> from London, and then Scotland is further divided by the A7, A8 and A9.

> Any road starting in the 1 sector (between A1 and the east coast) starts
> with a 1. Roads south of the Thames east of London but east of the A3
> start with a 2. Roads starting in the sector between A3 and A4 start
> with a 3, and so on. The A6 sector starts where that road traditionally
> started, at Barnet (as a branch of the original line of A1).

> > But I thought (evidently wrongly) that the A7xx and A8xx numbers were
> > generally for roads that originated and ended in Scotland,

> That's correct. The 7 sector is between the west coast and the A7, etc.

> > and that
> > long-distance roads such as the A1 and the A6 kept their "English"
> > numbers in Scotland.

> The A1 certainly does. So do A68 and A696. And also the A7 (it starts in
> England, originally in the centre of Carlisle).

> > I'd forgotten (or never known) that the M6 extension was motorway
> > standard (ie A74(M) rather than A74). Hence my question about whether it
> > was constructed to a lower non-motorway standard.

> Yes - the A74 was pretty much grade-separated, but had a few
> sub-standard junctions along its length. Mind you, it's over forty years
> since I drove along the A74.

I used it last October.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 05/01/2023 18:09, JNugent wrote:
> On 04/01/2023 08:27 pm, NY wrote:
>
>> On 04/01/2023 15:15, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 04/01/2023 10:01 am, NY wrote:
>>>> Is it still the case that speed limits for HGVs are different in
>>>> Scotland and England?
>>>
>>> Speed limits are the same: 60 / 70 unless a lower signed limit
>>> applies, and automatically 30 on a road with street lights less than
>>> a prescribed distance apart.
>>
>> Ah, are they now the same in Scotland and England. Maybe the date of
>> introduction of the raised limits was different in the two countries,
>> hence the signs.
>
> Those limits have been in force since 1965 (though there was an overall
> 50 limit during the 1973/74 oil crisis).

I thought the HGV limits were raised in England about 10 years ago,
maybe by 10 mph beyond the limit that had previously applied on each
type of road. And I believe that there was a period around that time
when England's and Scotland's HGV limits were out of step (England had
raised them, Scotland hadn't), but it sounds as if that is no longer the
case.

That's what I was talking about. I know that the car limits went from
"de-restricted" (ie unlimited) to finite values 60 for
single-carriageway, 70 for dual-carriageway and motorways, some time in
the 60s. Probably when the majority of cars started to be capable of
exceeding 70, whereas previously many were limited by engine technology
rather than law.

I'd forgotten the blanket 50 limit in the 70s. That must have been
tedious. I'd have been about 10 at the time, so you'd think I'd remember
my parents cursing about it. My dad used to drive from Leeds to London
and back each week on business (southwards at the crack of dawn on
Tuesday, northwards after work on Thursday), and a difference of 20 mph
for 200-odd miles would have made a significant difference to journey time.

When did motorways stop displaying an explicit "70" sign on the entry
slip road? I can remember that in the 70s. Now it is assumed as a
default value for any motorway, presumably with an explicit sign only if
the motorway that you are joining has a lower limit.

On 05/01/2023 09:23 pm, NY wrote:
> On 05/01/2023 18:09, JNugent wrote:
>> On 04/01/2023 08:27 pm, NY wrote:
>>
>>> On 04/01/2023 15:15, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 04/01/2023 10:01 am, NY wrote:
>>>>> Is it still the case that speed limits for HGVs are different in
>>>>> Scotland and England?
>>>>
>>>> Speed limits are the same: 60 / 70 unless a lower signed limit
>>>> applies, and automatically 30 on a road with street lights less than
>>>> a prescribed distance apart.
>>>
>>> Ah, are they now the same in Scotland and England. Maybe the date of
>>> introduction of the raised limits was different in the two countries,
>>> hence the signs.
>>
>> Those limits have been in force since 1965 (though there was an
>> overall 50 limit during the 1973/74 oil crisis).
>
> I thought the HGV limits were raised in England about 10 years ago,
> maybe by 10 mph beyond the limit that had previously applied on each
> type of road.

I hadn't mentioned the lower speed limits that applied to various
commercial vehicles.

For cars, larger passenger vehicles and motorbikes, the limits (which
had not existed until 1965) were 70 on formerly derestricted roads.

After the effects of the Yom-Kippur War-related 1973 oil crisis (with
its temporary nationwide 50 limit), the situation was changed to a limit
of 70 on motorways and dual carriageways and 60 on single carriageways
(unless a lower limit applied).

> And I believe that there was a period around that time
> when England's and Scotland's HGV limits were out of step (England had
> raised them, Scotland hadn't), but it sounds as if that is no longer the
> case.
>
> That's what I was talking about. I know that the car limits went from
> "de-restricted" (ie unlimited) to finite values 60 for
> single-carriageway, 70 for dual-carriageway and motorways, some time in
> the 60s.

It started in 1965 (70 all round) and the 60 on s/c came about in the
1970s (after the oil crisis, government taking the opportunity to partly
disguise the fall from 70 to 60 with an intermediate spell at 50).

> Probably when the majority of cars started to be capable of
> exceeding 70, whereas previously many were limited by engine technology
> rather than law.
>
> I'd forgotten the blanket 50 limit in the 70s. That must have been
> tedious. I'd have been about 10 at the time, so you'd think I'd remember
> my parents cursing about it. My dad used to drive from Leeds to London
> and back each week on business (southwards at the crack of dawn on
> Tuesday, northwards after work on Thursday), and a difference of 20 mph
> for 200-odd miles would have made a significant difference to journey time.

He'd probably hardly notice it these days!
>
> When did motorways stop displaying an explicit "70" sign on the entry
> slip road? I can remember that in the 70s. Now it is assumed as a
> default value for any motorway, presumably with an explicit sign only if
> the motorway that you are joining has a lower limit.

Pass. I remember the signs, certainly (though strictly, they weren't
necessary since 70 was the default limit everywhere).

On 06/01/2023 01:08, JNugent wrote:
> Pass. I remember the signs, certainly (though strictly, they weren't
> necessary since 70 was the default limit everywhere).

I can't remember which way around it is between England & Wales and
Scotland, one uses the NSL sign and the other a 70 mph sign.

There are lots of funny rules like the use of repeater signs for speed
limits. Logically you might think it was better to have plenty of
reminders but in one of the areas there are restrictions on their use.

It is a few years since I was in Northern Ireland but I liked the way
that just about every sign warning of speed cameras had a speed limit
repeater sign below it.

I recommend the SABRE group for anyone wanting more information, it is
full of nerds who like to discuss all sorts of technicalities about the
roads. :-) I gave it up years ago because it tended to run by a bit of
a clique.

On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 12:18:02 +0000, David Woolley
<david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:

>On 05/01/2023 10:04, NY wrote:
>> I suppose there is the word "partner" which neatly conceals the gender
>> of the spouse.
>
>I think it was being used informally, before that, to conceal a lack of
>knowledge as to whether there was a legal marriage in place, and where
>it was known that there wasn't.

I think it's still useful as a generic term, provided enough context
is given. I recall a conversation I once had with a colleague about
some electronic thing he was developing with the help of someone he
referred to as his partner. I assumed at first he meant a business
partner since he was effectively talking about a business venture, but
then realised it was ambiguous and didn't like to ask for details. (I
didn't know him well enough to know his preferences).

Rod.

On 04/01/2023 21:22, NY wrote:
>
> I don't think the amount of audience participation and the fake (or
> not) volunteering was any more noticeable than when I used to watch
> the lectures in the 1970s (good old Eric Laithwaite and his
> gyroscope!) and when I went there a couple of years in about 1980 (a
> friend's dad worked in the lighting department at the BBC and got
> complementary tickets).
>
> What has changed in recent years is that the lectures are now edited
> rather than being recorded "as live" with no breaks except in dire
> circumstances (*). That means they can take out the bits where
> volunteers are walking to/from their seats, and while demonstration
> equipment is brought in or out. That increases the amount of "lecture
> time".
>

TV fun fact. Back in the 70s, it was indeed an 'as live' OB, sent back
to TV Centre, and the recording made there. With as you say minimal
editing (because editing 2 inch Quad material was an expensive and
labour intensive task)

You might remember from the same era the ATV children's drama
'Timeslip'. That was also shot electronically as an OB, and the signal
sent back by microwave to their studios in Borehamwood.

On 06/01/2023 10:59, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 12:18:02 +0000, David Woolley
> <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 05/01/2023 10:04, NY wrote:
>>> I suppose there is the word "partner" which neatly conceals the gender
>>> of the spouse.
>>
>> I think it was being used informally, before that, to conceal a lack of
>> knowledge as to whether there was a legal marriage in place, and where
>> it was known that there wasn't.
>
> I think it's still useful as a generic term, provided enough context
> is given. I recall a conversation I once had with a colleague about
> some electronic thing he was developing with the help of someone he
> referred to as his partner. I assumed at first he meant a business
> partner since he was effectively talking about a business venture, but
> then realised it was ambiguous and didn't like to ask for details. (I
> didn't know him well enough to know his preferences).

"Sleeping partner" is even more confusing!

--
Max Demian

On 06/01/2023 10:46 am, MB wrote:

> On 06/01/2023 01:08, JNugent wrote:

>> Pass. I remember the signs, certainly (though strictly, they weren't
>> necessary since 70 was the default limit everywhere).
>
> I can't remember which way around it is between England & Wales and
> Scotland, one uses the NSL sign and the other a 70 mph sign.

England had the 70 signs. I don't remember whether Wales was different.
>
> There are lots of funny rules like the use of repeater signs for speed
> limits. Logically you might think it was better to have plenty of
> reminders but in one of the areas there are restrictions on their use.
>
> It is a few years since I was in Northern Ireland but I liked the way
> that just about every sign warning of speed cameras had a speed limit
> repeater sign below it.

Good idea. There's a good argument for putting a repeater sign on the
back and sides of speed cameras.
>
> I recommend the SABRE group for anyone wanting more information, it is
> full of nerds who like to discuss all sorts of technicalities about the
> roads.  :-)  I gave it up years ago because it tended to run by a bit of
> a clique.

On 06/01/2023 02:15, JNugent wrote:
> Good idea. There's a good argument for putting a repeater sign on the
> back and sides of speed cameras.

Depends on whether they are there to improve safety ar bring in money,
unfortunately most of the time it is the latter.

"JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote in message
news:k1qp11Fom7jU3@mid.individual.net...
> On 06/01/2023 10:46 am, MB wrote:
>> It is a few years since I was in Northern Ireland but I liked the way
>> that just about every sign warning of speed cameras had a speed limit
>> repeater sign below it.
>
> Good idea. There's a good argument for putting a repeater sign on the back
> and sides of speed cameras.

The other good thing on road with a generally high speed limit (eg 60) with
occasional much lower limits (eg 30 through villages) is countdown signs
300, 200, 100 yards to the restriction, so you can lift off the power in
plenty of time and aim to "hit" the limit (maybe with the aid of the brakes)
as you pass the sign. Apparently in the few places where they are used,
adherence to speed limits is better. Another good one is the "Your speed is"
digital sign as a gentle reminder.

NY wrote:

> Another good one is the "Your speed is" digital sign as a gentle reminder.

The annoying ones blink your speed at you (in amber without a thankyou) even if
you're within the limit ...

On 06/01/2023 18:14, Andy Burns wrote:
> The annoying ones blink your speed at you (in amber without a thankyou) even if
> you're within the limit ...

THey are said to be more effective at reducing speeds than speed traps
but they do not bring in any revenue of course.

I remember years ago, a local councillor asked why in the 60+ miles
between here and Inverness, there is only location where it is nearly
always possible to overtake safely and that is a very popular location
for the Talivan to lurk.

On 06/01/2023 12:02, Mark Carver wrote:
> On 04/01/2023 21:22, NY wrote:

> TV fun fact. Back in the 70s, it was indeed an 'as live' OB, sent back
> to TV Centre, and the recording made there. With as you say minimal
> editing (because editing 2 inch Quad material was an expensive and
> labour intensive task)
>
> You might remember from the same era the ATV children's drama
> 'Timeslip'. That was also shot electronically as an OB, and the signal
> sent back by microwave to their studios in Borehamwood.

I was surprised to learn that as recently as the mid 1990s, drama that
was shot on single-camera video (eg Boon) had the camera cabled back to
a VCR in the scanner van, rather than using a camcorder, which rather
limited the mobility of the camera.

When did high-quality recording equipment (as opposed to ENG on U-Matic)
become small enough to incorporate in the camera?

"Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote in message
news:k1r6p2FqpgvU1@mid.individual.net...
> NY wrote:
>
>> Another good one is the "Your speed is" digital sign as a gentle
>> reminder.
>
> The annoying ones blink your speed at you (in amber without a thankyou)
> even if you're within the limit ...

At least many of the ones which do that alternate a smiley face with the
amber speed if you are below and a sad face with the red speed if you are
about the limit.

I find the best way of staying within speed limits is to set the speed
limiter or the cruise control once I've got down to the limit as I'm
approaching the start of it, and then let technology keep my car at what
*sometimes* feels like a crawl. I'm all too well aware how easy it is for
the speed to gradually creep up to what *feels* a safe speed (*), even after
initially braking to the limit. There are a lot of limits when 10 mph over
still feels safe; there are also a lot of roads where I'd judge a safe speed
to be a good 10-20 mph below the stated limit.

(*) But according to our lords and masters, isn't!

MB wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> The annoying ones blink your speed at you (in amber without a thankyou) even if
>> you're within the limit ...
>
> THey are said to be more effective at reducing speeds than speed traps but they
> do not bring in any revenue of course.

I wouldn't mind if they just lit up green, but flashing amber is
1) a distraction
2) an implication I'm doing something wrong

> I remember years ago, a local councillor asked why in the 60+ miles between here
> and Inverness, there is only location where it is nearly always possible to
> overtake safely and that is a very popular location for the Talivan to lurk.

It also annoys me when you're travelling along a single carriageway with a 60
limit, not able to overtake a vehicle doing 50 due to oncoming traffic, you
reach a stretch of two-lane dual carriageway, where the limit has been dropped
from 70 to 50 for "no reason" so you're still not supposed to overtake, even
though there is now an empty lane there for just that purpose, which you could
do at any point in the preceeding 30 years ...