From a local forum
From a local forum
quote
Civil "enforcement officers" are not real policemen. So just ignore them. They have no
greater powers of arrest than you or I.
:unquote
Given that Civil Enforcement Officers can and do issue Penalty Charge Notices for all sorts of offences, such a littering or feeding birds, as in this instance
the option of simply ignoring them does on the surface appear quite attractive.
While Addressing them in a foreign language might be another option.
Presumably there are downsides to this approach, however.
On 04/03/2024 20:04, billy bookcase wrote:
From a local forum
quote
Civil "enforcement officers" are not real policemen. So just ignore them.
They have no
greater powers of arrest than you or I.
:unquote
Given that Civil Enforcement Officers can and do issue Penalty Charge Notices
for all sorts of offences, such a littering or feeding birds, as in this
instance
the option of simply ignoring them does on the surface appear quite attractive.
While Addressing them in a foreign language might be another option.
Presumably there are downsides to this approach, however.
The Authority they work for sending round the bailiffs to collect the penalty, for example.
On 04/03/2024 20:04, billy bookcase wrote:
From a local forum
quote
Civil "enforcement officers" are not real policemen. So just ignore them. They have no
greater powers of arrest than you or I.
:unquote
Given that Civil Enforcement Officers can and do issue Penalty Charge Notices
for all sorts of offences, such a littering or feeding birds, as in this instance
the option of simply ignoring them does on the surface appear quite attractive.
While Addressing them in a foreign language might be another option.
Presumably there are downsides to this approach, however.
The Authority they work for sending round the bailiffs to collect the penalty, for
example.
Presumably there are downsides to this approach, however.
On 4 Mar 2024 at 22:49:56 GMT, "Colin Bignell" <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
On 04/03/2024 20:04, billy bookcase wrote:
From a local forum
quote
Civil "enforcement officers" are not real policemen. So just ignore them. >>> They have no
greater powers of arrest than you or I.
:unquote
Given that Civil Enforcement Officers can and do issue Penalty Charge Notices
for all sorts of offences, such a littering or feeding birds, as in this >>> instance
the option of simply ignoring them does on the surface appear quite attractive.
While Addressing them in a foreign language might be another option.
Presumably there are downsides to this approach, however.
The Authority they work for sending round the bailiffs to collect the
penalty, for example.
They can summon police if they reasonably believe they have been given false information. Can they hold someone until the police arrive?
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:l4n2n0F54d3U1@mid.individual.net...
On 4 Mar 2024 at 22:49:56 GMT, "Colin Bignell" <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> >> wrote:
On 04/03/2024 20:04, billy bookcase wrote:
From a local forum
quote
Civil "enforcement officers" are not real policemen. So just ignore them. >>>> They have no
greater powers of arrest than you or I.
:unquote
Given that Civil Enforcement Officers can and do issue Penalty Charge Notices
for all sorts of offences, such a littering or feeding birds, as in this >>>> instance
the option of simply ignoring them does on the surface appear quite attractive.
While Addressing them in a foreign language might be another option.
Presumably there are downsides to this approach, however.
The Authority they work for sending round the bailiffs to collect the
penalty, for example.
They can summon police if they reasonably believe they have been given false >> information. Can they hold someone until the police arrive?
According to an episode of "Lead Balloon" (Jack Dee) they can and do. Although
he didn't actually try to run off. He ended up on an Anger Management Course.
billy bookcase wrote:
Presumably there are downsides to this approach, however.
They are likely to have body-worn cameras, and easy access to local authority CCTV.
"Colin Bignell" <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote in message news:jvKcnaJ5_u5C0nv4nZ2dnZeNn_udnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 04/03/2024 20:04, billy bookcase wrote:
From a local forum
quote
Civil "enforcement officers" are not real policemen. So just ignore them. They have no
greater powers of arrest than you or I.
:unquote
Given that Civil Enforcement Officers can and do issue Penalty Charge Notices
for all sorts of offences, such a littering or feeding birds, as in this instance
the option of simply ignoring them does on the surface appear quite attractive.
While Addressing them in a foreign language might be another option.
Presumably there are downsides to this approach, however.
The Authority they work for sending round the bailiffs to collect the penalty, for
example.
But that's assuming they can find out who you actually are.
In the case of parking or motoring offences they obviously can,
or at least the identity of the keeper of the vehicle; but
not necessarily other offences.
Only looking up their powers online, they seem to neither have the power
of arrest nor the power to demand somebody's identity.
As noted elsewhere they can of course call on the assistance of the
police; but that's assuming this is available.
bb
billy bookcase wrote:
Presumably there are downsides to this approach, however.
They are likely to have body-worn cameras, and easy access to local
authority CCTV.
On 04/03/2024 20:04, billy bookcase wrote:
From a local forum
quote
Civil "enforcement officers" are not real policemen. So just ignore them. They have no
greater powers of arrest than you or I.
:unquote
Given that Civil Enforcement Officers can and do issue Penalty Charge Notices
for all sorts of offences, such a littering or feeding birds, as in this instance
the option of simply ignoring them does on the surface appear quite attractive.
While Addressing them in a foreign language might be another option.
Presumably there are downsides to this approach, however.
The main downside being committing an offence under section 88, subsection (8B) [1] of
the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the penalty for which is a fine greater than the
FPN for littering (see section (8C).
Avoid a minor misdemeanour for which one can be issued a FPN by committing an offence
which can land one with a conviction.
Yes, that seems like a brilliant plan.
As it happens, an acquaintance is a parking CEO. We were talking at the weekend and
they explained they were in court last week as a witness for an assault against them.
Apparently, somebody had spat at them whilst they were issuing a ticket and it was
caught on their body cam.
The person initially claimed they'd been racially abused, however the audio from the
body cam proved this wasn't the case.
But they still entered a plea of not guilty. As was expected, the case was adjourned
until January 2025. It is not uncommon either for the CPS prosecutor to fail to show
at the rescheduled hearing, or for a witness no longer to be available so the person
ends up walking hence the not guilty plea even when the evidence clearly demonstrates
that they're guilty.
Regards
S.P.
[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/section/88
On 05/03/2024 09:07, Mark Goodge wrote:
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
billy bookcase wrote:
Presumably there are downsides to this approach, however.
They are likely to have body-worn cameras, and easy access to local
authority CCTV.
They do, yes. And a direct line (not requiring the use of either 999
or 101) to the local police control room.
Having said that, it is true that their powers in relation to things like
littering are limited, because they can only issue an FPN if they
actually witness it happening and are able to speak to the offender.
It's not like unlawful parking, where they can leave the ticket on the
car. But their main value in non-parking situations is deterrance. The
mere sight of a uniformed CEO patrolling the area tends to make people
think more carefully about their actions, and the occasional succesful
prosecution which makes it into the local media even more so.
I passed two deliberately highly visible parking CEOs at one of the
local preparatory schools this morning.
The difference their presence made to the traffic in the area was
noteworthy, and most welcome I might add.
their powers in relation to things like littering are limited,
because they can only issue an FPN if they actually witness it
happening and are able to speak to the offender.
On 05/03/2024 11:27 am, Simon Parker wrote:
On 05/03/2024 09:07, Mark Goodge wrote:
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
billy bookcase wrote:
Presumably there are downsides to this approach, however.
They are likely to have body-worn cameras, and easy access to local
authority CCTV.
They do, yes. And a direct line (not requiring the use of either 999
or 101) to the local police control room.
Having said that, it is true that their powers in relation to things
like
littering are limited, because they can only issue an FPN if they
actually witness it happening and are able to speak to the offender.
It's not like unlawful parking, where they can leave the ticket on the
car. But their main value in non-parking situations is deterrance. The
mere sight of a uniformed CEO patrolling the area tends to make people
think more carefully about their actions, and the occasional succesful >>> prosecution which makes it into the local media even more so.
I passed two deliberately highly visible parking CEOs at one of the
local preparatory schools this morning.
The difference their presence made to the traffic in the area was
noteworthy, and most welcome I might add.
You mean that some parents had to go past the school, find a spot some distance away, accompany their children back to the school gate on foot,
then trudge back to the car in its distant parking place before being
able to get on with the other business of the day?
On 05/03/2024 12:52, billy bookcase wrote:
"Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:l4odntF755bU3@mid.individual.net...
On 04/03/2024 20:04, billy bookcase wrote:
From a local forum
quote
Civil "enforcement officers" are not real policemen. So just ignore them. They have
no
greater powers of arrest than you or I.
:unquote
Given that Civil Enforcement Officers can and do issue Penalty Charge Notices
for all sorts of offences, such a littering or feeding birds, as in this instance
the option of simply ignoring them does on the surface appear quite attractive.
While Addressing them in a foreign language might be another option.
Presumably there are downsides to this approach, however.
The main downside being committing an offence under section 88, subsection (8B) [1]
of
the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the penalty for which is a fine greater than
the
FPN for littering (see section (8C).
Avoid a minor misdemeanour for which one can be issued a FPN by committing an offence
which can land one with a conviction.
Yes, that seems like a brilliant plan.
Only if the perp can be positively identified.
I see you missed the bit on body-cam and CCTV.
"Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote in message news:l4nthrF8t34U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase wrote:
Presumably there are downsides to this approach, however.
They are likely to have body-worn cameras, and easy access to local authority CCTV.
On 05/03/2024 12:18, JNugent wrote:
On 05/03/2024 11:27 am, Simon Parker wrote:
On 05/03/2024 09:07, Mark Goodge wrote:
They do, yes. And a direct line (not requiring the use of either 999
or 101) to the local police control room.
Having said that, it is true that their powers in relation to things
like littering are limited, because they can only issue an FPN if they >>>> actually witness it happening and are able to speak to the offender.
It's not like unlawful parking, where they can leave the ticket on the >>>> car. But their main value in non-parking situations is deterrance. The >>>> mere sight of a uniformed CEO patrolling the area tends to make people >>>> think more carefully about their actions, and the occasional succesful >>>> prosecution which makes it into the local media even more so.
I passed two deliberately highly visible parking CEOs at one of the
local preparatory schools this morning.
The difference their presence made to the traffic in the area was
noteworthy, and most welcome I might add.
You mean that some parents had to go past the school, find a spot some
distance away, accompany their children back to the school gate on
foot, then trudge back to the car in its distant parking place before
being able to get on with the other business of the day?
If you consider something like 25metres to be "some distance away", then
yes.
On 05/03/2024 11:27 am, Simon Parker wrote:
I passed two deliberately highly visible parking CEOs at one of the
local preparatory schools this morning.
The difference their presence made to the traffic in the area was
noteworthy, and most welcome I might add.
You mean that some parents had to go past the school, find a spot some >distance away, accompany their children back to the school gate on foot,
then trudge back to the car in its distant parking place before being
able to get on with the other business of the day?
"Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message news:l4r4anF755bU9@mid.individual.net...
On 05/03/2024 12:52, billy bookcase wrote:
Only if the perp can be positively identified.
I see you missed the bit on body-cam and CCTV.
I see you missed the post I made on this very forum at 08.95 on 05/03/2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote in message news:us6mt6$3mbr8$1@dont-email.me...
"Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote in message
news:l4nthrF8t34U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase wrote:
Presumably there are downsides to this approach, however.
They are likely to have body-worn cameras, and easy access to local authority CCTV.
With images plastered all over local news and police websites no doubt.
"Can you identify this person caught feeding pigeons ?"
Call our Pigeon Feeder Hotline on 0800 000 000
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
On 05/03/2024 11:27 am, Simon Parker wrote:
I passed two deliberately highly visible parking CEOs at one of the
local preparatory schools this morning.
The difference their presence made to the traffic in the area was
noteworthy, and most welcome I might add.
You mean that some parents had to go past the school, find a spot some
distance away, accompany their children back to the school gate on foot,
then trudge back to the car in its distant parking place before being
able to get on with the other business of the day?
It would make more sense for them to stop before getting to the area where they know parking is prohibited, rather than drive past it.
Unless, of
course, the route they will take after dropping their children ff requires them to continue in that direction, in which case it doesn't really matter whether they stop before or after the gate.
The most important thing, of course, is that they park legally, safely and considerately when stopping to drop their children off. And if they consider that to be an unacceptable imposition then that is entirely their own
problem and not in even the slightest sense deserving of any sympathy.
On 05/03/2024 12:18, JNugent wrote:
On 05/03/2024 11:27 am, Simon Parker wrote:
On 05/03/2024 09:07, Mark Goodge wrote:
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
billy bookcase wrote:
Presumably there are downsides to this approach, however.
They are likely to have body-worn cameras, and easy access to local
authority CCTV.
They do, yes. And a direct line (not requiring the use of either 999
or 101) to the local police control room.
Having said that, it is true that their powers in relation to things
like littering are limited, because they can only issue an FPN if they >>>> actually witness it happening and are able to speak to the offender.
It's not like unlawful parking, where they can leave the ticket on the >>>> car. But their main value in non-parking situations is deterrance. The >>>> mere sight of a uniformed CEO patrolling the area tends to make people >>>> think more carefully about their actions, and the occasional succesful >>>> prosecution which makes it into the local media even more so.
I passed two deliberately highly visible parking CEOs at one of the
local preparatory schools this morning.
The difference their presence made to the traffic in the area was
noteworthy, and most welcome I might add.
You mean that some parents had to go past the school, find a spot some
distance away, accompany their children back to the school gate on
foot, then trudge back to the car in its distant parking place before
being able to get on with the other business of the day?
When I were a lad, anybody who was dropped off at school from a car
always got out a couple of streets away and walked the rest, so as not
to be seen to be arriving by car.
On 06/03/2024 11:54 am, Simon Parker wrote:
On 05/03/2024 12:18, JNugent wrote:
On 05/03/2024 11:27 am, Simon Parker wrote:
On 05/03/2024 09:07, Mark Goodge wrote:
They do, yes. And a direct line (not requiring the use of either
999 or 101) to the local police control room.
Having said that, it is true that their powers in relation to
things like littering are limited, because they can only issue an
FPN if they actually witness it happening and are able to speak to
the offender.
It's not like unlawful parking, where they can leave the ticket on the >>>>> car. But their main value in non-parking situations is deterrance. The >>>>> mere sight of a uniformed CEO patrolling the area tends to make people >>>>> think more carefully about their actions, and the occasional
succesful
prosecution which makes it into the local media even more so.
I passed two deliberately highly visible parking CEOs at one of the
local preparatory schools this morning.
The difference their presence made to the traffic in the area was
noteworthy, and most welcome I might add.
You mean that some parents had to go past the school, find a spot
some distance away, accompany their children back to the school gate
on foot, then trudge back to the car in its distant parking place
before being able to get on with the other business of the day?
If you consider something like 25metres to be "some distance away",
then yes.
"25metres"?
In the UK, we measure travel distance in miles and yards,
but that IS
"some distance".
You wouldn't like it if you habitually had to leave your car (assuming
you had one) 25+ yards along the road.
Though if, at the school, the stopping vehicles are concentrated, for
the few seconds that they are there, within a distance of less than 25
yards in either direction, what is the problem?
There is a large secondary school just along the road from here, a few
houses away. Provided that driveways are not blocked, it's hard to see
what can be done to prevent parents, from a fairly wide catchment area, dropping off their children at school.
OTOH, it's even harder to see *why* one would wish to do that. But
perhaps there's a clue in the (unnecessary and irrelevant?) use of the
term "preparatory".
On 06/03/2024 11:54 am, Simon Parker wrote:
On 05/03/2024 12:18, JNugent wrote:
On 05/03/2024 11:27 am, Simon Parker wrote:
On 05/03/2024 09:07, Mark Goodge wrote:
They do, yes. And a direct line (not requiring the use of either 999 or 101) to the
local police control room.
Having said that, it is true that their powers in relation to things like littering
are limited, because they can only issue an FPN if they actually witness it
happening and are able to speak to the offender.
It's not like unlawful parking, where they can leave the ticket on the >>>>> car. But their main value in non-parking situations is deterrance. The >>>>> mere sight of a uniformed CEO patrolling the area tends to make people >>>>> think more carefully about their actions, and the occasional succesful >>>>> prosecution which makes it into the local media even more so.
I passed two deliberately highly visible parking CEOs at one of the local >>>> preparatory schools this morning.
The difference their presence made to the traffic in the area was noteworthy, and
most welcome I might add.
You mean that some parents had to go past the school, find a spot some distance away,
accompany their children back to the school gate on foot, then trudge back to the car
in its distant parking place before being able to get on with the other business of
the day?
If you consider something like 25metres to be "some distance away", then yes.
"25metres"?
In the UK, we measure travel distance in miles and yards, but that IS "some distance".
You wouldn't like it if you habitually had to leave your car (assuming you had one) 25+
yards along the road.
Though if, at the school, the stopping vehicles are concentrated, for the few seconds
that they are there, within a distance of less than 25 yards in either direction, what
is the problem?
There is a large secondary school just along the road from here, a few houses away.
Provided that driveways are not blocked, it's hard to see what can be done to prevent
parents, from a fairly wide catchment area, dropping off their children at school.
OTOH, it's even harder to see *why* one would wish to do that. But perhaps there's a
clue in the (unnecessary and irrelevant?) use of the term "preparatory".
On 06/03/2024 11:54 am, Simon Parker wrote:
On 05/03/2024 12:18, JNugent wrote:
On 05/03/2024 11:27 am, Simon Parker wrote:
On 05/03/2024 09:07, Mark Goodge wrote:
They do, yes. And a direct line (not requiring the use of either 999 >>>>> or 101) to the local police control room.
Having said that, it is true that their powers in relation to things >>>>> like littering are limited, because they can only issue an FPN if they >>>>> actually witness it happening and are able to speak to the offender. >>>>> It's not like unlawful parking, where they can leave the ticket on the >>>>> car. But their main value in non-parking situations is deterrance. The >>>>> mere sight of a uniformed CEO patrolling the area tends to make people >>>>> think more carefully about their actions, and the occasional succesful >>>>> prosecution which makes it into the local media even more so.
I passed two deliberately highly visible parking CEOs at one of the
local preparatory schools this morning.
The difference their presence made to the traffic in the area was
noteworthy, and most welcome I might add.
You mean that some parents had to go past the school, find a spot some
distance away, accompany their children back to the school gate on
foot, then trudge back to the car in its distant parking place before
being able to get on with the other business of the day?
If you consider something like 25metres to be "some distance away", then
yes.
"25metres"?
In the UK, we measure travel distance in miles and yards, but that IS
"some distance".
You wouldn't like it if you habitually had to leave your car (assuming
you had one) 25+ yards along the road.
Though if, at the school, the stopping vehicles are concentrated, for
the few seconds that they are there, within a distance of less than 25
yards in either direction, what is the problem?
There is a large secondary school just along the road from here, a few
houses away. Provided that driveways are not blocked, it's hard to see
what can be done to prevent parents, from a fairly wide catchment area, dropping off their children at school.
OTOH, it's even harder to see *why* one would wish to do that. But
perhaps there's a clue in the (unnecessary and irrelevant?) use of the
term "preparatory".
On 06/03/2024 08:15 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
On 05/03/2024 11:27 am, Simon Parker wrote:
I passed two deliberately highly visible parking CEOs at one of the
local preparatory schools this morning.
The difference their presence made to the traffic in the area was
noteworthy, and most welcome I might add.
You mean that some parents had to go past the school, find a spot some
distance away, accompany their children back to the school gate on foot, >>> then trudge back to the car in its distant parking place before being
able to get on with the other business of the day?
It would make more sense for them to stop before getting to the area where >> they know parking is prohibited, rather than drive past it.
The context here was the unknown-in-advance presence of someone with >(presumably) sufficient authority to somehow penalise people who have
the effrontery to use their cars for normal social, domestic and
pleasure purposes, one of which is dropping family members (and
sometimes friends of the family) at a destination.
Unless, of
course, the route they will take after dropping their children ff requires >> them to continue in that direction, in which case it doesn't really matter >> whether they stop before or after the gate.
See above. You are now discussing a situation wherein drivers know in
advance something they clearly did not (as SP describes above) on 5th March.
The most important thing, of course, is that they park legally, safely and >> considerately when stopping to drop their children off. And if they consider >> that to be an unacceptable imposition then that is entirely their own
problem and not in even the slightest sense deserving of any sympathy.
Why is is "wrong" to stop (not "park", but as you correctly state, to
"stop", merely for the purpose allowing a passenger to alight) at
convenient and lawful spot of the driver's choosing?
What are the opponents of those parents trying to achieve?
"JNugent" <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
On 06/03/2024 11:54 am, Simon Parker wrote:
On 05/03/2024 12:18, JNugent wrote:
On 05/03/2024 11:27 am, Simon Parker wrote:
On 05/03/2024 09:07, Mark Goodge wrote:
They do, yes. And a direct line (not requiring the use of either 999 or 101) to the
local police control room.
Having said that, it is true that their powers in relation to things like littering
are limited, because they can only issue an FPN if they actually witness it
happening and are able to speak to the offender.
It's not like unlawful parking, where they can leave the ticket on the >>>>>> car. But their main value in non-parking situations is deterrance. The >>>>>> mere sight of a uniformed CEO patrolling the area tends to make people >>>>>> think more carefully about their actions, and the occasional succesful >>>>>> prosecution which makes it into the local media even more so.
I passed two deliberately highly visible parking CEOs at one of the local >>>>> preparatory schools this morning.
The difference their presence made to the traffic in the area was noteworthy, and
most welcome I might add.
You mean that some parents had to go past the school, find a spot some distance away,
accompany their children back to the school gate on foot, then trudge back to the car
in its distant parking place before being able to get on with the other business of
the day?
If you consider something like 25metres to be "some distance away", then yes.
"25metres"?
In the UK, we measure travel distance in miles and yards, but that IS "some distance".
You wouldn't like it if you habitually had to leave your car (assuming you had one) 25+
yards along the road.
Though if, at the school, the stopping vehicles are concentrated, for the few seconds
that they are there, within a distance of less than 25 yards in either direction, what
is the problem?
There is a large secondary school just along the road from here, a few houses away.
Provided that driveways are not blocked, it's hard to see what can be done to prevent
parents, from a fairly wide catchment area, dropping off their children at school.
OTOH, it's even harder to see *why* one would wish to do that. But perhaps there's a
clue in the (unnecessary and irrelevant?) use of the term "preparatory".
I think you'll find that its not the "dropping off" that's the problem; but the
subsequent "picking up".
So that while the "dropping off" vehicles may only stop "for only a few seconds" as you claim, and at fairly staggered intervals the "picking up vehicles" are presumably all going to be waiting around while the parent walks to the school gate and waits until the children start appearing. As certainly in the case of primary/preparatory school pupils the last thing anyone would want would be for the younger children to be left hanging
around inside or outside the school gates, until a parent eventually
turns up to collect them, rather than already waiting.
On 06/03/2024 14:36, JNugent wrote:
On 06/03/2024 11:54 am, Simon Parker wrote:
On 05/03/2024 12:18, JNugent wrote:
On 05/03/2024 11:27 am, Simon Parker wrote:
I passed two deliberately highly visible parking CEOs at one of the
local preparatory schools this morning.
The difference their presence made to the traffic in the area was
noteworthy, and most welcome I might add.
You mean that some parents had to go past the school, find a spot
some distance away, accompany their children back to the school gate
on foot, then trudge back to the car in its distant parking place
before being able to get on with the other business of the day?
If you consider something like 25metres to be "some distance away",
then yes.
"25metres"?
In the UK, we measure travel distance in miles and yards,
For travel, I more often measure in journey time.
but that IS "some distance".
It is about the distance from my house to my garage, which I would rate
as 'no distance at all'.
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 21:08:13 +0000, JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
On 06/03/2024 08:15 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
On 05/03/2024 11:27 am, Simon Parker wrote:
I passed two deliberately highly visible parking CEOs at one of the
local preparatory schools *this* *morning*. [my emphasis - Ed.]
The difference their presence made to the traffic in the area was
noteworthy, and most welcome I might add.
You mean that some parents had to go past the school, find a spot some >>>> distance away, accompany their children back to the school gate on foot, >>>> then trudge back to the car in its distant parking place before being
able to get on with the other business of the day?
It would make more sense for them to stop before getting to the area where >>> they know parking is prohibited, rather than drive past it.
The context here was the unknown-in-advance presence of someone with
(presumably) sufficient authority to somehow penalise people who have
the effrontery to use their cars for normal social, domestic and
pleasure purposes, one of which is dropping family members (and
sometimes friends of the family) at a destination.
You mean the effrontery to park illegally. Because an enforcement officer isn't going to have any deterrent effect on people who park legally.
Unless, of
course, the route they will take after dropping their children ff requires >>> them to continue in that direction, in which case it doesn't really matter >>> whether they stop before or after the gate.
See above. You are now discussing a situation wherein drivers know in
advance something they clearly did not (as SP describes above) on 5th March.
I'm assuming that they know where they can legally park. Which they will, if they are doing the school run regularly.
The most important thing, of course, is that they park legally, safely and >>> considerately when stopping to drop their children off. And if they consider
that to be an unacceptable imposition then that is entirely their own
problem and not in even the slightest sense deserving of any sympathy.
Why is is "wrong" to stop (not "park", but as you correctly state, to
"stop", merely for the purpose allowing a passenger to alight) at
convenient and lawful spot of the driver's choosing?
The problem is that they are not choosing a lawful place. That's why the enforcement officers drop by every now and then.
What are the opponents of those parents trying to achieve?
Getting them to realise that their convenience isn't more important than lawfulness.
On 06/03/2024 01:04 pm, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 05/03/2024 12:18, JNugent wrote:
On 05/03/2024 11:27 am, Simon Parker wrote:
On 05/03/2024 09:07, Mark Goodge wrote:
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
billy bookcase wrote:
Presumably there are downsides to this approach, however.
They are likely to have body-worn cameras, and easy access to local >>>>>> authority CCTV.
They do, yes. And a direct line (not requiring the use of either
999 or 101) to the local police control room.
Having said that, it is true that their powers in relation to
things like littering are limited, because they can only issue an
FPN if they actually witness it happening and are able to speak to
the offender.
It's not like unlawful parking, where they can leave the ticket on the >>>>> car. But their main value in non-parking situations is deterrance. The >>>>> mere sight of a uniformed CEO patrolling the area tends to make people >>>>> think more carefully about their actions, and the occasional
succesful
prosecution which makes it into the local media even more so.
I passed two deliberately highly visible parking CEOs at one of the
local preparatory schools this morning.
The difference their presence made to the traffic in the area was
noteworthy, and most welcome I might add.
You mean that some parents had to go past the school, find a spot
some distance away, accompany their children back to the school gate
on foot, then trudge back to the car in its distant parking place
before being able to get on with the other business of the day?
When I were a lad, anybody who was dropped off at school from a car
always got out a couple of streets away and walked the rest, so as not
to be seen to be arriving by car.
Luxury.
When I were a lad, no-one we knew locally HAD a car.
But... but... but... how do you know that anyone actually did what you describe?
After all, the rigmarole would be designed to hide that fact.
Nevertheless... that was then and this is now.
On 06/03/2024 05:34 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
On 06/03/2024 11:54 am, Simon Parker wrote:
On 05/03/2024 12:18, JNugent wrote:
On 05/03/2024 11:27 am, Simon Parker wrote:
On 05/03/2024 09:07, Mark Goodge wrote:
They do, yes. And a direct line (not requiring the use of either 999 or 101) to
the
local police control room.
Having said that, it is true that their powers in relation to things like
littering
are limited, because they can only issue an FPN if they actually witness it
happening and are able to speak to the offender.
It's not like unlawful parking, where they can leave the ticket on the >>>>>>> car. But their main value in non-parking situations is deterrance. The >>>>>>> mere sight of a uniformed CEO patrolling the area tends to make people >>>>>>> think more carefully about their actions, and the occasional succesful >>>>>>> prosecution which makes it into the local media even more so.
I passed two deliberately highly visible parking CEOs at one of the local
preparatory schools this morning.
The difference their presence made to the traffic in the area was noteworthy, and
most welcome I might add.
You mean that some parents had to go past the school, find a spot some distance
away,
accompany their children back to the school gate on foot, then trudge back to the
car
in its distant parking place before being able to get on with the other business of
the day?
If you consider something like 25metres to be "some distance away", then yes.
"25metres"?
In the UK, we measure travel distance in miles and yards, but that IS "some >>> distance".
You wouldn't like it if you habitually had to leave your car (assuming you had one)
25+
yards along the road.
Though if, at the school, the stopping vehicles are concentrated, for the few seconds
that they are there, within a distance of less than 25 yards in either direction,
what
is the problem?
There is a large secondary school just along the road from here, a few houses away.
Provided that driveways are not blocked, it's hard to see what can be done to prevent
parents, from a fairly wide catchment area, dropping off their children at school.
OTOH, it's even harder to see *why* one would wish to do that. But perhaps there's a
clue in the (unnecessary and irrelevant?) use of the term "preparatory".
I think you'll find that its not the "dropping off" that's the problem; but the
subsequent "picking up".
Not in the instant case. The PP's words were specific: "I passed two deliberately
highly visible parking CEOs at one of the local preparatory schools this morning".
So that while the "dropping off" vehicles may only stop "for only a few
seconds" as you claim, and at fairly staggered intervals the "picking up
vehicles" are presumably all going to be waiting around while the parent
walks to the school gate and waits until the children start appearing. As
certainly in the case of primary/preparatory school pupils the last thing
anyone would want would be for the younger children to be left hanging
around inside or outside the school gates, until a parent eventually
turns up to collect them, rather than already waiting.
One wonders why the officers described were wasting their time outside the school in
the morning if the problem is only bad in the mid-afternoon.
Perhaps they're trying to terrorise parents into not coming back at 14:45?
So that while the "dropping off" vehicles may only stop "for only a few seconds" as you claim, and at fairly staggered intervals the "picking up vehicles" are presumably all going to be waiting around while the parent walks to the school gate and waits until the children start appearing. As certainly in the case of primary/preparatory school pupils the last thing anyone would want would be for the younger children to be left hanging
around inside or outside the school gates, until a parent eventually
turns up to collect them, rather than already waiting.
On 06/03/2024 05:15 pm, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 06/03/2024 14:36, JNugent wrote:
On 06/03/2024 11:54 am, Simon Parker wrote:
On 05/03/2024 12:18, JNugent wrote:
On 05/03/2024 11:27 am, Simon Parker wrote:
[ ... ]
I passed two deliberately highly visible parking CEOs at one of
the local preparatory schools this morning.
The difference their presence made to the traffic in the area was
noteworthy, and most welcome I might add.
You mean that some parents had to go past the school, find a spot
some distance away, accompany their children back to the school
gate on foot, then trudge back to the car in its distant parking
place before being able to get on with the other business of the day?
If you consider something like 25metres to be "some distance away",
then yes.
"25metres"?
In the UK, we measure travel distance in miles and yards,
For travel, I more often measure in journey time.
but that IS "some distance".
It is about the distance from my house to my garage, which I would
rate as 'no distance at all'.
Either (a) you are immensely rich and living on a huge estate (or
perhaps working in domestic service in such a location), or (b) you rent
a garage in a block somewhere in the area.
On 06/03/2024 17:34, billy bookcase wrote:
....
So that while the "dropping off" vehicles may only stop "for only a few
seconds" as you claim, and at fairly staggered intervals the "picking up
vehicles" are presumably all going to be waiting around while the parent
walks to the school gate and waits until the children start appearing. As
certainly in the case of primary/preparatory school pupils the last thing
anyone would want would be for the younger children to be left hanging
around inside or outside the school gates, until a parent eventually
turns up to collect them, rather than already waiting.
Have they closed so many schools that it is no longer the norm that they are within
walking distance of where the pupils live?
On 06/03/2024 14:36, JNugent wrote:
On 06/03/2024 11:54 am, Simon Parker wrote:
On 05/03/2024 12:18, JNugent wrote:
You mean that some parents had to go past the school, find a spot
some distance away, accompany their children back to the school gate
on foot, then trudge back to the car in its distant parking place
before being able to get on with the other business of the day?
If you consider something like 25metres to be "some distance away",
then yes.
"25metres"?
Yes, 25 metres. 2,500cm if you prefer.
In the UK, we measure travel distance in miles and yards, but that IS
"some distance".
Oh, I see. You're one of those. That's 1 and one quarter chains to
you, sir.
I tend to measure short distances in metres and only think in terms of
miles when I'm driving, which is very much the point here.
Regardless of whether it is measured in metric or imperial units, it is
a walk of but a few minutes.
You wouldn't like it if you habitually had to leave your car (assuming
you had one) 25+ yards along the road.
For a number of years, we walked our children to school.
And I'd rather leave my car a short distance away, than risk the lives
of children by parking both unlawfully and irresponsibly.
But then that's me. Other opinions are available, and on display
several times a day outside the aforementioned prep school and many
others in the village and neighbouring villages.
Though if, at the school, the stopping vehicles are concentrated, for
the few seconds that they are there, within a distance of less than 25
yards in either direction, what is the problem?
I recommend you refresh your understanding of Rule 238 in the Highway
Code concerning what one must and must not do on 'school entrance
markings when upright signs indicate a prohibition of stopping.'
I'll give you a clue: It includes the words: "You *MUST NOT* wait or
park, or stop to set down and pick up passengers." (highlighting per the Highway Code.)
And it is a prep school. For the lower years, it is mandated that the children are escorted to the gate. It isn't a case of Cressida flinging
open the door to allow little Tarquin and Guinevere to alight.
Ditto for the bus stop. And the junctions. And across people's drives.
And even in the middle of the road in some cases. All of which some
seem to think is perfectly fine providing one's hazard lights have been illuminated, presumably enabling some form of cloaking device in their
mind that prevents the vehicle from being a hazard, but even if it is
clearly a hazard, that seems to be fine providing one is "only going to
be a couple of minutes".
There is a large secondary school just along the road from here, a few
houses away. Provided that driveways are not blocked, it's hard to see
what can be done to prevent parents, from a fairly wide catchment area,
dropping off their children at school.
I have no problem whatsoever with parents dropping off their children at school providing it is done in a safe and considerate manner.
Sadly, that doesn't seem to be the norm in these parts, and, as I've previously volunteered a number of family members work in education so,
I know it is a problem elsewhere too.
OTOH, it's even harder to see *why* one would wish to do that. But
perhaps there's a clue in the (unnecessary and irrelevant?) use of the
term "preparatory".
Why do you consider it unnecessary and irrelevant?
I live in an area still replete with grammar schools.
Despite there being a number of "outstanding" secondary schools, most
parents want their children to go to the grammar schools and there are essentially two routes to that goal:
(1) Send the child to a prep school where they will be educated at a
higher level on a daily basis for the entirety of the schooling with the express aim of passing the entrance exam at an approximate cost of £1Kpcm/per child; or
(2) Send the child to a primary school and supplement their state
education with private tutoring to assist them in passing the entrance
exam at an approximate cost around half of option (1), or even lower if
one reduces the amount of tutoring or hires a cheaper tutor, both of
which have obvious flaws.
There is a third option I include in the name of completeness:
(3) (a) Hope the child is a genius. (b) Hope that the local primary they attend does a good job of spotting their genius potential. (c) Hope that having identified the child, the school pulls out all the stops to
ensure the child is provided with the education befitting of their
natural genius. (d) Hope that the child somehow acquires the skills necessary to answer the verbal and non-verbal reasoning questions that
will be in the entrance exam as these are not typically taught in
primary schools.
For option 3 to succeed, all of (a) through (d) need to be true. Any
single missing element derails option 3 entirely.
Anecdata: Until last year, a close family member worked at one of the
local primary schools. For the entirety of their time working there, in
the class of 30 children, there would typically be no more than one or
two children that were not being privately tutored with the aim of
passing the entrance exam to enable them to attend one of the grammars.
Additional Anecdata: A number of HongKongese have moved into the area recently. Last year was the first time their arrival had a noticeable
effect on the community as the score required to secure a place at the grammar schools leapt around 12% in a single year which caught many
parents out and placed an even greater burden on the already heavily over-subscribed secondary schools.
Regards
S.P.
On 06/03/2024 14:36, JNugent wrote:
"25metres"?
Yes, 25 metres. 2,500cm if you prefer.
In the UK, we measure travel distance in miles and yards, but that IS
"some distance".
Oh, I see. You're one of those. That's 1 and one quarter chains to
you, sir.
I tend to measure short distances in metres and only think in terms of
miles when I'm driving, which is very much the point here.
Regardless of whether it is measured in metric or imperial units, it is
a walk of but a few minutes.
On 06/03/2024 22:11, JNugent wrote:
On 06/03/2024 09:49 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 21:08:13 +0000, JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
The context here was the unknown-in-advance presence of someone with
(presumably) sufficient authority to somehow penalise people who have
the effrontery to use their cars for normal social, domestic and
pleasure purposes, one of which is dropping family members (and
sometimes friends of the family) at a destination.
You mean the effrontery to park illegally. Because an enforcement
officer
isn't going to have any deterrent effect on people who park legally.
The PP did not make that claim, no-one has suggested it, so you will
appreciate that I cannot possible be taken to have "meant " it.
As the PP, I can assure you that the claim was certainly made whether
you saw it or not.
Civil PEOs will have no effect whatsoever on parents that are legally
going about their business so how could the presence of the PEOs have
caused what I described as a "noteworthy and most welcome" difference,
other than by forcing otherwise recalcitrant parents to comply with the relevant markings there to ensure the children's safety?
See above. You are now discussing a situation wherein drivers know in
advance something they clearly did not (as SP describes above) on
5th March.
I'm assuming that they know where they can legally park. Which they
will, if
they are doing the school run regularly.
That is not the issue. No parking is required. All that is necessary
is to stop to allow a passenger (or more than one) to alight. That is
lawful even on a double yellow line.
That is a basic function of all motor vehicles and the purpose of a
great number of journeys.
I refer you to my comments elsewhere in the thread concerning (a) the
road markings in effect and (b) the rules in place in these parts
regarding the dropping off and collection of young children from schools.
Why is is "wrong" to stop (not "park", but as you correctly state, to
"stop", merely for the purpose allowing a passenger to alight) at
convenient and lawful spot of the driver's choosing?
The problem is that they are not choosing a lawful place. That's why the >>> enforcement officers drop by every now and then.
Please describe how stopping there is illegal. The PP didn't do that.
Is there a pedestrian crossing with zig-zags there? If there is, it
wasn't mentioned.
I commend to you the 'wavy' yellow markings and the text contained
therein that I believe are, AFAIK, present at every single school around here. Ditto for the yellow lines that specifically state "No stopping between the hours of <a> and <b> and <c> and <d>" where <a>, <b>, <c>
and <d> are typical school dropping off and collection times.
For a reason that escapes me, some parents seem to think these markings
are merely advisory only and do not apply to them...
On 06/03/2024 21:31, JNugent wrote:
On 06/03/2024 05:15 pm, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 06/03/2024 14:36, JNugent wrote:
On 06/03/2024 11:54 am, Simon Parker wrote:
On 05/03/2024 12:18, JNugent wrote:
On 05/03/2024 11:27 am, Simon Parker wrote:
[ ... ]
I passed two deliberately highly visible parking CEOs at one of
the local preparatory schools this morning.
The difference their presence made to the traffic in the area was >>>>>>> noteworthy, and most welcome I might add.
You mean that some parents had to go past the school, find a spotIf you consider something like 25metres to be "some distance away",
some distance away, accompany their children back to the school
gate on foot, then trudge back to the car in its distant parking
place before being able to get on with the other business of the day? >>>
then yes.
"25metres"?
In the UK, we measure travel distance in miles and yards,
For travel, I more often measure in journey time.
but that IS "some distance".
It is about the distance from my house to my garage, which I would
rate as 'no distance at all'.
Either (a) you are immensely rich and living on a huge estate (or
perhaps working in domestic service in such a location), or (b) you
rent a garage in a block somewhere in the area.
That is about the length of my garden, which is not uncommon in older properties, and the garage is at the bottom of the garden. It opens onto
a road there, rather than the one my house faces onto.
On 06/03/2024 14:36, JNugent wrote:
On 06/03/2024 11:54 am, Simon Parker wrote:
On 05/03/2024 12:18, JNugent wrote:
You mean that some parents had to go past the school, find a spot
some distance away, accompany their children back to the school gate
on foot, then trudge back to the car in its distant parking place
before being able to get on with the other business of the day?
If you consider something like 25metres to be "some distance away",
then yes.
"25metres"?
Yes, 25 metres. 2,500cm if you prefer.
In the UK, we measure travel distance in miles and yards, but that IS
"some distance".
Oh, I see. You're one of those. That's 1 and one quarter chains to
you, sir.
I tend to measure short distances in metres and only think in terms of
miles when I'm driving, which is very much the point here.
Regardless of whether it is measured in metric or imperial units, it is
a walk of but a few minutes.
You wouldn't like it if you habitually had to leave your car (assuming
you had one) 25+ yards along the road.
For a number of years, we walked our children to school.
And I'd rather leave my car a short distance away, than risk the lives
of children by parking both unlawfully and irresponsibly.
But then that's me. Other opinions are available, and on display
several times a day outside the aforementioned prep school and many
others in the village and neighbouring villages.
Though if, at the school, the stopping vehicles are concentrated, for
the few seconds that they are there, within a distance of less than 25
yards in either direction, what is the problem?
I recommend you refresh your understanding of Rule 238 in the Highway
Code concerning what one must and must not do on 'school entrance
markings when upright signs indicate a prohibition of stopping.'
I'll give you a clue:Â It includes the words: "You *MUST NOT* wait or
park, or stop to set down and pick up passengers." (highlighting per the Highway Code.)
And it is a prep school. For the lower years, it is mandated that the children are escorted to the gate. It isn't a case of Cressida flinging open the door to allow little Tarquin and Guinevere to alight.
Ditto for the bus stop. And the junctions. And across people's drives.
 And even in the middle of the road in some cases. All of which some
seem to think is perfectly fine providing one's hazard lights have been illuminated, presumably enabling some form of cloaking device in their
mind that prevents the vehicle from being a hazard, but even if it is
clearly a hazard, that seems to be fine providing one is "only going to
be a couple of minutes".
There is a large secondary school just along the road from here, a few
houses away. Provided that driveways are not blocked, it's hard to see
what can be done to prevent parents, from a fairly wide catchment
area, dropping off their children at school.
I have no problem whatsoever with parents dropping off their children at school providing it is done in a safe and considerate manner.
Sadly, that doesn't seem to be the norm in these parts, and, as I've previously volunteered a number of family members work in education so,
I know it is a problem elsewhere too.
OTOH, it's even harder to see *why* one would wish to do that. But
perhaps there's a clue in the (unnecessary and irrelevant?) use of the
term "preparatory".
Why do you consider it unnecessary and irrelevant?
I live in an area still replete with grammar schools.
Despite there being a number of "outstanding" secondary schools, most
parents want their children to go to the grammar schools and there are essentially two routes to that goal:
(1) Send the child to a prep school where they will be educated at a
higher level on a daily basis for the entirety of the schooling with the express aim of passing the entrance exam at an approximate cost of £1Kpcm/per child; or
(2) Send the child to a primary school and supplement their state
education with private tutoring to assist them in passing the entrance
exam at an approximate cost around half of option (1), or even lower if
one reduces the amount of tutoring or hires a cheaper tutor, both of
which have obvious flaws.
There is a third option I include in the name of completeness:
(3) (a) Hope the child is a genius. (b) Hope that the local primary they attend does a good job of spotting their genius potential. (c) Hope that having identified the child, the school pulls out all the stops to
ensure the child is provided with the education befitting of their
natural genius. (d) Hope that the child somehow acquires the skills necessary to answer the verbal and non-verbal reasoning questions that
will be in the entrance exam as these are not typically taught in
primary schools.
For option 3 to succeed, all of (a) through (d) need to be true. Any
single missing element derails option 3 entirely.
Anecdata: Until last year, a close family member worked at one of the
local primary schools. For the entirety of their time working there, in
the class of 30 children, there would typically be no more than one or
two children that were not being privately tutored with the aim of
passing the entrance exam to enable them to attend one of the grammars.
Additional Anecdata: A number of HongKongese have moved into the area recently. Last year was the first time their arrival had a noticeable effect on the community as the score required to secure a place at the grammar schools leapt around 12% in a single year which caught many
parents out and placed an even greater burden on the already heavily over-subscribed secondary schools.
On 2024-03-07, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 06/03/2024 14:36, JNugent wrote:
"25metres"?
Yes, 25 metres. 2,500cm if you prefer.
In the UK, we measure travel distance in miles and yards, but that IS
"some distance".
Oh, I see. You're one of those. That's 1 and one quarter chains to
you, sir.
I tend to measure short distances in metres and only think in terms of
miles when I'm driving, which is very much the point here.
I think that is what the majority of people do these days. I can't
even remember the last time I heard anyone talk about "yards".
Regardless of whether it is measured in metric or imperial units, it is
a walk of but a few minutes.
25m in a few minutes? The average walking pace is apparently about
5km/h (or 8,351 furlongs per fortnight, for JNugent's benefit) which
means walking 25m should take about 18 seconds. The phrase "some
distance" is of course extremely vague, but I'd agree that a walk of
18 seconds does probably not fit well under it.
"Colin Bignell" <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote in message news:ifednXC0CKEUAHT4nZ2dnZeNn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 06/03/2024 17:34, billy bookcase wrote:
....
So that while the "dropping off" vehicles may only stop "for only a few
seconds" as you claim, and at fairly staggered intervals the "picking up >>> vehicles" are presumably all going to be waiting around while the parent >>> walks to the school gate and waits until the children start appearing. As >>> certainly in the case of primary/preparatory school pupils the last thing >>> anyone would want would be for the younger children to be left hanging
around inside or outside the school gates, until a parent eventually
turns up to collect them, rather than already waiting.
Have they closed so many schools that it is no longer the norm that they are within
walking distance of where the pupils live?
I'd imagine that like just about everything else from hospitals, to doctors surgeries to police stations, smaller schools have been swallowed up
over the years and amalgamated into larger schools; newly built on
what were often formerly greenfield sites on the periphery of residential areas. With playing fields now under threat from developers so as
to address shortfalls in LA finances. While in rural areas distances were always greater in any case; with a reliance on school buses being the
norm I'd imagine.
On 7 Mar 2024 at 12:41:44 GMT, "Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 06/03/2024 14:36, JNugent wrote:
On 06/03/2024 11:54 am, Simon Parker wrote:
On 05/03/2024 12:18, JNugent wrote:
You mean that some parents had to go past the school, find a spot
some distance away, accompany their children back to the school gate >>>>> on foot, then trudge back to the car in its distant parking place
before being able to get on with the other business of the day?
If you consider something like 25metres to be "some distance away",
then yes.
"25metres"?
Yes, 25 metres. 2,500cm if you prefer.
In the UK, we measure travel distance in miles and yards, but that IS
"some distance".
Oh, I see. You're one of those. That's 1 and one quarter chains to
you, sir.
I tend to measure short distances in metres and only think in terms of
miles when I'm driving, which is very much the point here.
Regardless of whether it is measured in metric or imperial units, it is
a walk of but a few minutes.
You wouldn't like it if you habitually had to leave your car (assuming
you had one) 25+ yards along the road.
For a number of years, we walked our children to school.
And I'd rather leave my car a short distance away, than risk the lives
of children by parking both unlawfully and irresponsibly.
But then that's me. Other opinions are available, and on display
several times a day outside the aforementioned prep school and many
others in the village and neighbouring villages.
Though if, at the school, the stopping vehicles are concentrated, for
the few seconds that they are there, within a distance of less than 25
yards in either direction, what is the problem?
I recommend you refresh your understanding of Rule 238 in the Highway
Code concerning what one must and must not do on 'school entrance
markings when upright signs indicate a prohibition of stopping.'
I'll give you a clue: It includes the words: "You *MUST NOT* wait or
park, or stop to set down and pick up passengers." (highlighting per the
Highway Code.)
And it is a prep school. For the lower years, it is mandated that the
children are escorted to the gate. It isn't a case of Cressida flinging
open the door to allow little Tarquin and Guinevere to alight.
Ditto for the bus stop. And the junctions. And across people's drives.
And even in the middle of the road in some cases. All of which some
seem to think is perfectly fine providing one's hazard lights have been
illuminated, presumably enabling some form of cloaking device in their
mind that prevents the vehicle from being a hazard, but even if it is
clearly a hazard, that seems to be fine providing one is "only going to
be a couple of minutes".
There is a large secondary school just along the road from here, a few
houses away. Provided that driveways are not blocked, it's hard to see
what can be done to prevent parents, from a fairly wide catchment area,
dropping off their children at school.
I have no problem whatsoever with parents dropping off their children at
school providing it is done in a safe and considerate manner.
Sadly, that doesn't seem to be the norm in these parts, and, as I've
previously volunteered a number of family members work in education so,
I know it is a problem elsewhere too.
OTOH, it's even harder to see *why* one would wish to do that. But
perhaps there's a clue in the (unnecessary and irrelevant?) use of the
term "preparatory".
Why do you consider it unnecessary and irrelevant?
I live in an area still replete with grammar schools.
Despite there being a number of "outstanding" secondary schools, most
parents want their children to go to the grammar schools and there are
essentially two routes to that goal:
(1) Send the child to a prep school where they will be educated at a
higher level on a daily basis for the entirety of the schooling with the
express aim of passing the entrance exam at an approximate cost of
£1Kpcm/per child; or
(2) Send the child to a primary school and supplement their state
education with private tutoring to assist them in passing the entrance
exam at an approximate cost around half of option (1), or even lower if
one reduces the amount of tutoring or hires a cheaper tutor, both of
which have obvious flaws.
There is a third option I include in the name of completeness:
(3) (a) Hope the child is a genius. (b) Hope that the local primary they
attend does a good job of spotting their genius potential. (c) Hope that
having identified the child, the school pulls out all the stops to
ensure the child is provided with the education befitting of their
natural genius. (d) Hope that the child somehow acquires the skills
necessary to answer the verbal and non-verbal reasoning questions that
will be in the entrance exam as these are not typically taught in
primary schools.
For option 3 to succeed, all of (a) through (d) need to be true. Any
single missing element derails option 3 entirely.
Anecdata: Until last year, a close family member worked at one of the
local primary schools. For the entirety of their time working there, in
the class of 30 children, there would typically be no more than one or
two children that were not being privately tutored with the aim of
passing the entrance exam to enable them to attend one of the grammars.
Additional Anecdata: A number of HongKongese have moved into the area
recently. Last year was the first time their arrival had a noticeable
effect on the community as the score required to secure a place at the
grammar schools leapt around 12% in a single year which caught many
parents out and placed an even greater burden on the already heavily
over-subscribed secondary schools.
Regards
S.P.
Relevant anecdote: some 65 years ago I was told by my C of E primary school I had to sit a scholarship exam to a grammar school and to this day I resent the
fact that I was not told I might not be able to understand some of the questions. The concept of algebra was totally new to me, and thus there were a
couple of questions I could not attempt. A bit of private tutoring might have been handy, but simply being warned that I hadn't covered all the exam syllabus would have been enough.
On 06/03/2024 14:36, JNugent wrote:...
Though if, at the school, the stopping vehicles are concentrated, for
the few seconds that they are there, within a distance of less than 25
yards in either direction, what is the problem?
I recommend you refresh your understanding of Rule 238 in the Highway
Code concerning what one must and must not do on 'school entrance
markings when upright signs indicate a prohibition of stopping.'
I'll give you a clue: It includes the words: "You *MUST NOT* wait or
park, or stop to set down and pick up passengers." (highlighting per the Highway Code.)
And it is a prep school. For the lower years, it is mandated that the children are escorted to the gate. It isn't a case of Cressida flinging
open the door to allow little Tarquin and Guinevere to alight.
Ditto for the bus stop. And the junctions. And across people's drives.
And even in the middle of the road in some cases. All of which some
seem to think is perfectly fine providing one's hazard lights have been illuminated, presumably enabling some form of cloaking device in their
mind that prevents the vehicle from being a hazard, but even if it is
clearly a hazard, that seems to be fine providing one is "only going to
be a couple of minutes".
On 06/03/2024 14:38, JNugent wrote:
On 06/03/2024 01:04 pm, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 05/03/2024 12:18, JNugent wrote:
On 05/03/2024 11:27 am, Simon Parker wrote:
On 05/03/2024 09:07, Mark Goodge wrote:
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
billy bookcase wrote:
Presumably there are downsides to this approach, however.
They are likely to have body-worn cameras, and easy access to local >>>>>>> authority CCTV.
They do, yes. And a direct line (not requiring the use of either
999 or 101) to the local police control room.
Having said that, it is true that their powers in relation to
things like littering are limited, because they can only issue an
FPN if they actually witness it happening and are able to speak to >>>>>> the offender.
It's not like unlawful parking, where they can leave the ticket on >>>>>> the
car. But their main value in non-parking situations is deterrance. >>>>>> The
mere sight of a uniformed CEO patrolling the area tends to make
people
think more carefully about their actions, and the occasional
succesful
prosecution which makes it into the local media even more so.
I passed two deliberately highly visible parking CEOs at one of the
local preparatory schools this morning.
The difference their presence made to the traffic in the area was
noteworthy, and most welcome I might add.
You mean that some parents had to go past the school, find a spot
some distance away, accompany their children back to the school gate
on foot, then trudge back to the car in its distant parking place
before being able to get on with the other business of the day?
When I were a lad, anybody who was dropped off at school from a car
always got out a couple of streets away and walked the rest, so as
not to be seen to be arriving by car.
Luxury.
When I were a lad, no-one we knew locally HAD a car.
The first family 'car' was a second hand Hillman van, which my father
paid £5 car tax on, so he could cut windows in the back. He got it so we could go on holiday, camping. It had a ventilated floor until my father patched that.
But... but... but... how do you know that anyone actually did what you
describe?
Because that is what I did. My school was on my father's way to work.
After all, the rigmarole would be designed to hide that fact.
We got in earlier than most and eventually, among our small group, it
turned out that we were all doing the same thing.
Nevertheless... that was then and this is now.
No reason for kids not to walk a bit though.
On 07/03/2024 12:11 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Colin Bignell" <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote in message
news:ifednXC0CKEUAHT4nZ2dnZeNn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 06/03/2024 17:34, billy bookcase wrote:
....
So that while the "dropping off" vehicles may only stop "for only a few >>>> seconds" as you claim, and at fairly staggered intervals the
"picking up
vehicles" are presumably all going to be waiting around while the
parent
walks to the school gate and waits until the children start
appearing. As
certainly in the case of primary/preparatory school pupils the last
thing
anyone would want would be for the younger children to be left hanging >>>> around inside or outside the school gates, until a parent eventually
turns up to collect them, rather than already waiting.
Have they closed so many schools that it is no longer the norm that
they are within
walking distance of where the pupils live?
I'd imagine that like just about everything else from hospitals, to
doctors
surgeries to police stations, smaller schools have been swallowed up
over the years and amalgamated into larger schools; newly built on
what were often formerly greenfield sites on the periphery of residential
areas. With playing fields now under threat from developers so as
to address shortfalls in LA finances. While in rural areas distances were
always greater in any case; with a reliance on school buses being the
norm I'd imagine.
That last thought is indeed manifested here with its secondary school. I
had never seen school buses (used for journeys to and from school as
opposed to excursions) before moving to this house.
A lot of pupils, though, live in the local village and walk home (
presume; they're going somewhere).
On 07/03/2024 10:58 am, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 06/03/2024 21:31, JNugent wrote:
On 06/03/2024 05:15 pm, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 06/03/2024 14:36, JNugent wrote:
On 06/03/2024 11:54 am, Simon Parker wrote:
On 05/03/2024 12:18, JNugent wrote:
On 05/03/2024 11:27 am, Simon Parker wrote:
[ ... ]
I passed two deliberately highly visible parking CEOs at one of >>>>>>>> the local preparatory schools this morning.
The difference their presence made to the traffic in the area
was noteworthy, and most welcome I might add.
You mean that some parents had to go past the school, find a spot >>>>>>> some distance away, accompany their children back to the school
gate on foot, then trudge back to the car in its distant parking >>>>>>> place before being able to get on with the other business of the >>>>>>> day?
If you consider something like 25metres to be "some distance
away", then yes.
"25metres"?
In the UK, we measure travel distance in miles and yards,
For travel, I more often measure in journey time.
but that IS "some distance".
It is about the distance from my house to my garage, which I would
rate as 'no distance at all'.
Either (a) you are immensely rich and living on a huge estate (or
perhaps working in domestic service in such a location), or (b) you
rent a garage in a block somewhere in the area.
That is about the length of my garden, which is not uncommon in older
properties, and the garage is at the bottom of the garden. It opens
onto a road there, rather than the one my house faces onto.
Ah, yes. I have seen that sort of arrangement, though garages at the
rear more often, IME, open onto a strip of (unpaved) land between the
streets rather like back entries used to be, but much wider.
On 06/03/2024 09:49 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 21:08:13 +0000, JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
On 06/03/2024 08:15 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
On 05/03/2024 11:27 am, Simon Parker wrote:
I passed two deliberately highly visible parking CEOs at one of the >>>>>> local preparatory schools *this* *morning*. [my emphasis - Ed.]
The difference their presence made to the traffic in the area was
noteworthy, and most welcome I might add.
You mean that some parents had to go past the school, find a spot some >>>>> distance away, accompany their children back to the school gate on foot, >>>>> then trudge back to the car in its distant parking place before being >>>>> able to get on with the other business of the day?
It would make more sense for them to stop before getting to the area where >>>> they know parking is prohibited, rather than drive past it.
The context here was the unknown-in-advance presence of someone with
(presumably) sufficient authority to somehow penalise people who have
the effrontery to use their cars for normal social, domestic and
pleasure purposes, one of which is dropping family members (and
sometimes friends of the family) at a destination.
You mean the effrontery to park illegally. Because an enforcement officer
isn't going to have any deterrent effect on people who park legally.
The PP did not make that claim, no-one has suggested it, so you will >appreciate that I cannot possible be taken to have "meant " it.
I'm assuming that they know where they can legally park. Which they will, if >> they are doing the school run regularly.
That is not the issue. No parking is required. All that is necessary is
to stop to allow a passenger (or more than one) to alight. That is
lawful even on a double yellow line.
The problem is that they are not choosing a lawful place. That's why the
enforcement officers drop by every now and then.
Please describe how stopping there is illegal. The PP didn't do that.
Is there a pedestrian crossing with zig-zags there? If there is, it
wasn't mentioned.
What are the opponents of those parents trying to achieve?
Getting them to realise that their convenience isn't more important than
lawfulness.
You do realise and take account of the fact that schools are provided
for the benefit of children and the journey is for the benefit and >convenience of the children concerned, yes?
On 07/03/2024 10:58 am, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 06/03/2024 21:31, JNugent wrote:
On 06/03/2024 05:15 pm, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 06/03/2024 14:36, JNugent wrote:
On 06/03/2024 11:54 am, Simon Parker wrote:
On 05/03/2024 12:18, JNugent wrote:
On 05/03/2024 11:27 am, Simon Parker wrote:
[ ... ]
I passed two deliberately highly visible parking CEOs at one of >>>>>>>> the local preparatory schools this morning.
The difference their presence made to the traffic in the area
was noteworthy, and most welcome I might add.
You mean that some parents had to go past the school, find a spot >>>>>>> some distance away, accompany their children back to the school
gate on foot, then trudge back to the car in its distant parking >>>>>>> place before being able to get on with the other business of the >>>>>>> day?
If you consider something like 25metres to be "some distance
away", then yes.
"25metres"?
In the UK, we measure travel distance in miles and yards,
For travel, I more often measure in journey time.
but that IS "some distance".
It is about the distance from my house to my garage, which I would
rate as 'no distance at all'.
Either (a) you are immensely rich and living on a huge estate (or
perhaps working in domestic service in such a location), or (b) you
rent a garage in a block somewhere in the area.
That is about the length of my garden, which is not uncommon in older
properties, and the garage is at the bottom of the garden. It opens
onto a road there, rather than the one my house faces onto.
Ah, yes. I have seen that sort of arrangement, though garages at the
rear more often, IME, open onto a strip of (unpaved) land between the
streets rather like back entries used to be, but much wider.
I repeat my earlier point: the only possible reason why drivers would need
to behave differently in the rpesence of an enforcement officer is when, in the absence of an enforcement officer, they would act unlawfully...
On 07/03/2024 19:55, Mark Goodge wrote:
....
I repeat my earlier point: the only possible reason why drivers would need >> to behave differently in the rpesence of an enforcement officer is when, in >> the absence of an enforcement officer, they would act unlawfully...
According to the Traffic Signs Manual, it is only unlawful to stop on the school
markings if there is also an upright sign stating hours when stopping is not permitted.
It also says that enforcement officers can only take action against those who park on
the markings within London. Elsewhere, it is a matter for the Police.
It also says that, where there is more than one marking, there must be an upright sign
for each marking, or the stopping restriction cannot be enforced on that marking. That
would appear to suggest that here:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/xtBzeNHMRF5KJTt98
the central making is not enforceable, as, although there are three upright signs, none
of them are alongside the centre marking.
"Colin Bignell" <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote in message news:beecndlqyZOJvHf4nZ2dnZeNn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 07/03/2024 19:55, Mark Goodge wrote:
....
I repeat my earlier point: the only possible reason why drivers would need >>> to behave differently in the rpesence of an enforcement officer is when, in >>> the absence of an enforcement officer, they would act unlawfully...
According to the Traffic Signs Manual, it is only unlawful to stop on the school
markings if there is also an upright sign stating hours when stopping is not permitted.
It also says that enforcement officers can only take action against those who park on
the markings within London. Elsewhere, it is a matter for the Police.
It also says that, where there is more than one marking, there must be an upright sign
for each marking, or the stopping restriction cannot be enforced on that marking. That
would appear to suggest that here:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/xtBzeNHMRF5KJTt98
the central making is not enforceable, as, although there are three upright signs, none
of them are alongside the centre marking.
But surely in this instance, the actual law is unimportant ?
All that matters is whether the parents in question *believe* that they would
be breaking the law; and thus are deterred from so acting by the presence
of the CEO.
On 07-Mar-24 15:36, JNugent wrote:
On 07/03/2024 10:58 am, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 06/03/2024 21:31, JNugent wrote:
On 06/03/2024 05:15 pm, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 06/03/2024 14:36, JNugent wrote:
On 06/03/2024 11:54 am, Simon Parker wrote:
On 05/03/2024 12:18, JNugent wrote:
On 05/03/2024 11:27 am, Simon Parker wrote:
[ ... ]
I passed two deliberately highly visible parking CEOs at one of >>>>>>>>> the local preparatory schools this morning.
The difference their presence made to the traffic in the area >>>>>>>>> was noteworthy, and most welcome I might add.
You mean that some parents had to go past the school, find a
spot some distance away, accompany their children back to the
school gate on foot, then trudge back to the car in its distant >>>>>>>> parking place before being able to get on with the other
business of the day?
If you consider something like 25metres to be "some distance
away", then yes.
"25metres"?
In the UK, we measure travel distance in miles and yards,
For travel, I more often measure in journey time.
but that IS "some distance".
It is about the distance from my house to my garage, which I would
rate as 'no distance at all'.
Either (a) you are immensely rich and living on a huge estate (or
perhaps working in domestic service in such a location), or (b) you
rent a garage in a block somewhere in the area.
That is about the length of my garden, which is not uncommon in older
properties, and the garage is at the bottom of the garden. It opens
onto a road there, rather than the one my house faces onto.
Ah, yes. I have seen that sort of arrangement, though garages at the
rear more often, IME, open onto a strip of (unpaved) land between the
streets rather like back entries used to be, but much wider.
In my experience, those sort of garages are invariably too narrow to accommodate a modern car.
On 2024-03-07, Simon Parker wrote:
On 06/03/2024 14:36, JNugent wrote:...
Though if, at the school, the stopping vehicles are concentrated, for
the few seconds that they are there, within a distance of less than 25
yards in either direction, what is the problem?
I recommend you refresh your understanding of Rule 238 in the Highway
Code concerning what one must and must not do on 'school entrance
markings when upright signs indicate a prohibition of stopping.'
I'll give you a clue: It includes the words: "You *MUST NOT* wait or
park, or stop to set down and pick up passengers." (highlighting per the
Highway Code.)
And it is a prep school. For the lower years, it is mandated that the
children are escorted to the gate. It isn't a case of Cressida flinging
open the door to allow little Tarquin and Guinevere to alight.
Ditto for the bus stop. And the junctions. And across people's drives.
And even in the middle of the road in some cases. All of which some
seem to think is perfectly fine providing one's hazard lights have been
illuminated, presumably enabling some form of cloaking device in their
mind that prevents the vehicle from being a hazard, but even if it is
clearly a hazard, that seems to be fine providing one is "only going to
be a couple of minutes".
It's interesting how some people enthusiastically want to round up the lawbreakers and throw the book at them for everthing *except* driving.
On 07/03/2024 15:36, JNugent wrote:
On 07/03/2024 10:58 am, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 06/03/2024 21:31, JNugent wrote:
On 06/03/2024 05:15 pm, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 06/03/2024 14:36, JNugent wrote:
On 06/03/2024 11:54 am, Simon Parker wrote:
On 05/03/2024 12:18, JNugent wrote:
On 05/03/2024 11:27 am, Simon Parker wrote:
[ ... ]
I passed two deliberately highly visible parking CEOs at one of >>>>>>>>> the local preparatory schools this morning.
The difference their presence made to the traffic in the area >>>>>>>>> was noteworthy, and most welcome I might add.
You mean that some parents had to go past the school, find a
spot some distance away, accompany their children back to the
school gate on foot, then trudge back to the car in its distant >>>>>>>> parking place before being able to get on with the other
business of the day?
If you consider something like 25metres to be "some distance
away", then yes.
"25metres"?
In the UK, we measure travel distance in miles and yards,
For travel, I more often measure in journey time.
but that IS "some distance".
It is about the distance from my house to my garage, which I would
rate as 'no distance at all'.
Either (a) you are immensely rich and living on a huge estate (or
perhaps working in domestic service in such a location), or (b) you
rent a garage in a block somewhere in the area.
That is about the length of my garden, which is not uncommon in older
properties, and the garage is at the bottom of the garden. It opens
onto a road there, rather than the one my house faces onto.
Ah, yes. I have seen that sort of arrangement, though garages at the
rear more often, IME, open onto a strip of (unpaved) land between the
streets rather like back entries used to be, but much wider.
There are some like that, nearer the town centre. It looks to me as
though those roads were originally the tradesman's entrance. In my case,
a relatively modern (1960s?) housing estate was built on the fields
behind my house, creating a new access road. I used to get occasional
offers to buy half my garden to build a house on.
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
Mark Goodge wrote:
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
Mark Goodge wrote:
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
Simon Parker wrote:
I passed two deliberately highly visible parking CEOs at one of the >>>>>>> local preparatory schools *this* *morning*. [my emphasis - Ed.]
The difference their presence made to the traffic in the area was >>>>>>> noteworthy, and most welcome I might add.
You mean that some parents had to go past the school, find a spot some >>>>>> distance away, accompany their children back to the school gate on foot, >>>>>> then trudge back to the car in its distant parking place before being >>>>>> able to get on with the other business of the day?
It would make more sense for them to stop before getting to the area where
they know parking is prohibited, rather than drive past it.
The context here was the unknown-in-advance presence of someone with
(presumably) sufficient authority to somehow penalise people who have
the effrontery to use their cars for normal social, domestic and
pleasure purposes, one of which is dropping family members (and
sometimes friends of the family) at a destination.
You mean the effrontery to park illegally. Because an enforcement officer >>> isn't going to have any deterrent effect on people who park legally.
The PP did not make that claim, no-one has suggested it, so you will
appreciate that I cannot possible be taken to have "meant " it.
I repeat my earlier point: the only possible reason why drivers would need
to behave differently in the rpesence of an enforcement officer is when, in the absence of an enforcement officer, they would act unlawfully.
I'm assuming that they know where they can legally park. Which they will, if
they are doing the school run regularly.
That is not the issue. No parking is required. All that is necessary is
to stop to allow a passenger (or more than one) to alight. That is
lawful even on a double yellow line.
If it's a primar school then parking is required, because the kid has to be dlievered to, and collected from, the door.
Secondary schools are much less of an issue. Most parents doing the school run for secondary age pupils do take them to a nearby convenient point and let them walk the rest of the way. That way, they often don't even need to make a significant detour on their commute.
The problem is that they are not choosing a lawful place. That's why the >>> enforcement officers drop by every now and then.
Please describe how stopping there is illegal. The PP didn't do that.
Then why are they not stopping there when the enforcement officers are present?
Is there a pedestrian crossing with zig-zags there? If there is, it
wasn't mentioned.
If it's a schoool, there will be a school zone zig-zag.
What are the opponents of those parents trying to achieve?
Getting them to realise that their convenience isn't more important than >>> lawfulness.
You do realise and take account of the fact that schools are provided
for the benefit of children and the journey is for the benefit and
convenience of the children concerned, yes?
And the children are not being inconvenienced in the slightest by having to walk a short distance from car to school.
On 07/03/2024 08:08 pm, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 07/03/2024 15:36, JNugent wrote:
On 07/03/2024 10:58 am, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 06/03/2024 21:31, JNugent wrote:
On 06/03/2024 05:15 pm, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 06/03/2024 14:36, JNugent wrote:
On 06/03/2024 11:54 am, Simon Parker wrote:
On 05/03/2024 12:18, JNugent wrote:
On 05/03/2024 11:27 am, Simon Parker wrote:
[ ... ]
I passed two deliberately highly visible parking CEOs at one >>>>>>>>>> of the local preparatory schools this morning.
The difference their presence made to the traffic in the area >>>>>>>>>> was noteworthy, and most welcome I might add.
You mean that some parents had to go past the school, find a >>>>>>>>> spot some distance away, accompany their children back to the >>>>>>>>> school gate on foot, then trudge back to the car in its distant >>>>>>>>> parking place before being able to get on with the other
business of the day?
If you consider something like 25metres to be "some distance
away", then yes.
"25metres"?
In the UK, we measure travel distance in miles and yards,
For travel, I more often measure in journey time.
but that IS "some distance".
It is about the distance from my house to my garage, which I would >>>>>> rate as 'no distance at all'.
Either (a) you are immensely rich and living on a huge estate (or
perhaps working in domestic service in such a location), or (b) you
rent a garage in a block somewhere in the area.
That is about the length of my garden, which is not uncommon in
older properties, and the garage is at the bottom of the garden. It
opens onto a road there, rather than the one my house faces onto.
Ah, yes. I have seen that sort of arrangement, though garages at the
rear more often, IME, open onto a strip of (unpaved) land between the
streets rather like back entries used to be, but much wider.
There are some like that, nearer the town centre. It looks to me as
though those roads were originally the tradesman's entrance. In my
case, a relatively modern (1960s?) housing estate was built on the
fields behind my house, creating a new access road. I used to get
occasional offers to buy half my garden to build a house on.
Not tempted? It's usually a lot of money.
On 07/03/2024 07:55 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:....
....If it's a primar school then parking is required, because the kid has
to be
dlievered to, and collected from, the door.
I didn't know that. Are you sure? Even at age 11-ish?
On 08/03/2024 01:16, JNugent wrote:
On 07/03/2024 07:55 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:....
....If it's a primar school then parking is required, because the kid has
to be
dlievered to, and collected from, the door.
I didn't know that. Are you sure? Even at age 11-ish?
I am surprised. When I was at primary school, everybody walked to and
from school on their own. We were warned not to talk to strangers or to
get into strange cars, but that was the extent of any precautions. I
even walked part of the way home from Infants' school, until I got to a
busy road I needed to cross, which is where my mother met me.
On 07/03/2024 17:10, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 07/03/2024 12:46, Simon Parker wrote:
On 06/03/2024 22:11, JNugent wrote:
Please describe how stopping there is illegal. The PP didn't do that.
Is there a pedestrian crossing with zig-zags there? If there is, it
wasn't mentioned.
I commend to you the 'wavy' yellow markings and the text contained
therein that I believe are, AFAIK, present at every single school
around here. Ditto for the yellow lines that specifically state "No
stopping between the hours of <a> and <b> and <c> and <d>" where <a>,
<b>, <c> and <d> are typical school dropping off and collection times.
For a reason that escapes me, some parents seem to think these
markings are merely advisory only and do not apply to them...
The zig-zag markings alone are merely advisory. It is the associated
upright signs that mandate the no stopping times and those are not
universal.
The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, Sh 7 Part 6
Para 2:
School etc entrances (diagram 1027.1)
2. The road marking provided for at item 10 of the sign table in Part
4, when not placed in conjunction with an upright sign which includes
the symbol at item 12 of the sign table in Part 3 of Schedule 4
(prohibiting stopping on entrance markings), indicates a part of the
carriageway outside an entrance where vehicles should not stop.
I thank you for this but as I'd specifically mentioned that the zigzags
in question do have upright signs accompanying them and are therefore
not merely advisory.
On 08/03/2024 11:32, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 08/03/2024 01:16, JNugent wrote:
On 07/03/2024 07:55 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:....
....If it's a primar school then parking is required, because the kid
has to be
dlievered to, and collected from, the door.
I didn't know that. Are you sure? Even at age 11-ish?
I am surprised. When I was at primary school, everybody walked to and
from school on their own. We were warned not to talk to strangers or
to get into strange cars, but that was the extent of any precautions.
I even walked part of the way home from Infants' school, until I got
to a busy road I needed to cross, which is where my mother met me.
I would respectfully suggest that both the population and car ownership
have increased significantly since you were at primary school, both of
which result in there being significantly more cars on the road than
there were when young Master Bignell was walking to school in his
shorts. :-)
On 07/03/2024 16:06, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2024-03-07, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-03-07, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
Regardless of whether it is measured in metric or imperial units, it is >>>> a walk of but a few minutes.
25m in a few minutes? The average walking pace is apparently about
5km/h (or 8,351 furlongs per fortnight, for JNugent's benefit) which
means walking 25m should take about 18 seconds. The phrase "some
distance" is of course extremely vague, but I'd agree that a walk of
18 seconds does probably not fit well under it.
Getting out the car to do that can be a genuine difficulty for people
with disabilities or mobility problems, but not most parents dropping
kids off at school.
Knowing the school, I do not think there is any question that they would relax the rule on parent's cars in the car park and permit the disabled parent to use the car park for dropping off and collecting their child
where there is a genuine need to do so. Assuming, of course, that
another parent hasn't parked across the entrance to the car park which, sadly, isn't uncommon.
On 2024-03-08, Simon Parker wrote:
On 07/03/2024 16:06, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2024-03-07, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-03-07, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
Regardless of whether it is measured in metric or imperial units, it is >>>>> a walk of but a few minutes.
25m in a few minutes? The average walking pace is apparently about
5km/h (or 8,351 furlongs per fortnight, for JNugent's benefit) which
means walking 25m should take about 18 seconds. The phrase "some
distance" is of course extremely vague, but I'd agree that a walk of
18 seconds does probably not fit well under it.
Getting out the car to do that can be a genuine difficulty for people
with disabilities or mobility problems, but not most parents dropping
kids off at school.
Knowing the school, I do not think there is any question that they would
relax the rule on parent's cars in the car park and permit the disabled
parent to use the car park for dropping off and collecting their child
where there is a genuine need to do so. Assuming, of course, that
another parent hasn't parked across the entrance to the car park which,
sadly, isn't uncommon.
But but but everyone knows [TM] that bad parking is a victimless crime!
On 08/03/2024 11:32, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 08/03/2024 01:16, JNugent wrote:
On 07/03/2024 07:55 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:....
....If it's a primar school then parking is required, because the kid has
to be
dlievered to, and collected from, the door.
I didn't know that. Are you sure? Even at age 11-ish?
I am surprised. When I was at primary school, everybody walked to and
from school on their own. We were warned not to talk to strangers or to
get into strange cars, but that was the extent of any precautions. I
even walked part of the way home from Infants' school, until I got to a
busy road I needed to cross, which is where my mother met me.
I would respectfully suggest that both the population and car ownership
have increased significantly since you were at primary school, both of
which result in there being significantly more cars on the road than
there were when young Master Bignell was walking to school in his
shorts. :-)
Regards
S.P.
On 07/03/2024 14:15, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-03-07, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 06/03/2024 14:36, JNugent wrote:
"25metres"?
Yes, 25 metres. 2,500cm if you prefer.
In the UK, we measure travel distance in miles and yards, but that IS
"some distance".
Oh, I see. You're one of those. That's 1 and one quarter chains to
you, sir.
I tend to measure short distances in metres and only think in terms of
miles when I'm driving, which is very much the point here.
I think that is what the majority of people do these days. I can't
even remember the last time I heard anyone talk about "yards".
Yay! I'm normal (FSVO "normal").
Regardless of whether it is measured in metric or imperial units, it is
a walk of but a few minutes.
25m in a few minutes? The average walking pace is apparently about
5km/h (or 8,351 furlongs per fortnight, for JNugent's benefit) which
means walking 25m should take about 18 seconds. The phrase "some
distance" is of course extremely vague, but I'd agree that a walk of
18 seconds does probably not fit well under it.
The walking pace will be determined by the slowest member of the party
which is likely to be the child attending the school therefore I'd
expect them to be walking at a pace below that of the average adult.
Additionally, there seems to be a trend amongst some of the children
that want to journey from the car to the playground on their (invariably three-wheeled) scooter but don't want to actually "scoot", resulting in
the bizarre sight of the child standing on the scooter with both feet
whilst the parent pushes them along, further reducing the speed at which they're moving.
On 07/03/2024 15:50, JNugent wrote:
On 07/03/2024 12:41 pm, Simon Parker wrote:
On 06/03/2024 14:36, JNugent wrote:
[...]
Though if, at the school, the stopping vehicles are concentrated,
for the few seconds that they are there, within a distance of less
than 25 yards in either direction, what is the problem?
I recommend you refresh your understanding of Rule 238 in the Highway
Code concerning what one must and must not do on 'school entrance
markings when upright signs indicate a prohibition of stopping.'
I'll give you a clue:Â It includes the words: "You *MUST NOT* wait or
park, or stop to set down and pick up passengers." (highlighting per
the Highway Code.)
That's the zig-zag lines, I think. Is that right? There are some
outside the local primary school, in a side road. There are none
outside the secondary school on the main road, which is a bus route.
But the zig-zags are just an administrative tool. I can see that for
many, any breach of admin rules is itself heinous. But I actually
asked "what is the problem?" and didn't expect an answer merely to the
effect that an administrative rule is being broken.
The zigzag lines at the school in question are backed by upright signs indicating a prohibition on stopping.
I do not see that as an "administrative rule" any more than I do parking
on double yellow lines (yes, some parents regularly do that), or
obstructing a junction (that too), or even abandoning the car completely
in the middle of the carriageway with the hazard lights illuminated (no,
I've no idea why they think that isn't going to completely log jam the
road but maybe because it will "only be for a couple of minutes" it
doesn't matter).
Where do "administrative rules" end and legislation begin for you?
Is exceeding the speed limit merely 'breaking an administrative rule'?
Stopping at traffic lights? Giving way to pedestrians at zebra crossings?
Moving away from driving what about murder? Is killing someone merely 'breaking an administrative rule' with which we shouldn't concern
ourselves or do you think something should be done about murder,
especially when there isn't even a 'rule' prohibiting it?
The fact that while the primary school has zig-zags (in a side road),
the much larger secondary school on the main road doesn't, makes one
wonder what the objectives of the local highway authority are.
I do not know the schools you mention, nor do I know what signage is in use. But in the school to which I was referring, stopping is
prohibited, primarily for the safety of the children.
OTOH, it's even harder to see *why* one would wish to do that. But
perhaps there's a clue in the (unnecessary and irrelevant?) use of
the term "preparatory".
Why do you consider it unnecessary and irrelevant?
I live in an area still replete with grammar schools.
Despite there being a number of "outstanding" secondary schools, most
parents want their children to go to the grammar schools and there
are essentially two routes to that goal:
(1) Send the child to a prep school where they will be educated at a
higher level on a daily basis for the entirety of the schooling with
the express aim of passing the entrance exam at an approximate cost
of £1Kpcm/per child; or
(2) Send the child to a primary school and supplement their state
education with private tutoring to assist them in passing the
entrance exam at an approximate cost around half of option (1), or
even lower if one reduces the amount of tutoring or hires a cheaper
tutor, both of which have obvious flaws.
There is a third option I include in the name of completeness:
(3) (a) Hope the child is a genius. (b) Hope that the local primary
they attend does a good job of spotting their genius potential. (c)
Hope that having identified the child, the school pulls out all the
stops to ensure the child is provided with the education befitting of
their natural genius. (d) Hope that the child somehow acquires the
skills necessary to answer the verbal and non-verbal reasoning
questions that will be in the entrance exam as these are not
typically taught in primary schools.
I get all of that (and didn't need the explanation as to what a prep
school is - there was one for the grammar school I attended, though I
certainly didn't go to the prep school).
My question was aimed more at finding out why any of it is relevant to
your previous answer. Is it all different when the school isn't a prep
school?
I would say there are two main differences between the parents of
children at the prep schools and parents of children at other primary schools.
Firstly the size of the vehicle they're driving and the ability to
correctly manage a vehicle of the size and shape chosen. At the primary schools, there is a good mix of vehicles of all shapes and sizes and
most drivers seem reasonably competent drivers. For the prep schools,
the Chelsea Tractor of choice seems to be either the Audi Q7, the
Masarati Levante or the Ineos Grenadier. Whilst these can just about be squeezed into the parking spaces at Booths, they are too big for the
spaces in the Waitrose car park, and most of the drivers of these
vehicles seem to have no idea of the actual size of their car, believing
it to be at least 1m bigger in all directions than it really is. This
makes watching the morning parking ritual compelling viewing, even with
their PDC sensors and cameras.
Secondly, the parents dropping the children at the prep schools tend to
act, shall I say, 'more entitled'. Perhaps they think, "I'm paying a
grand a month each for Tarquin and Guinevere to attend here so I can
park where I want when I want."
On 08/03/2024 01:16, JNugent wrote:
On 07/03/2024 07:55 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
The PP did not make that claim, no-one has suggested it, so you will
appreciate that I cannot possible be taken to have "meant " it.
I repeat my earlier point: the only possible reason why drivers would
need to behave differently in the rpesence of an enforcement officer is
when, in the absence of an enforcement officer, they would act unlawfully.
You are assuming various conditions there. The constant war against
car drivers and car use must have a confusing effect on road-users.
Drivers are confused about double yellow lines?
About abandoning their
car in the middle of the carriageway?
About parking so close to a junction that nobody can turn in or out of the road?
About parking at a bus stop?
About parking on "School Keep Clear" zigzags that prohibit
stopping never mind parking?
I would suggest any driver confused about any of the above, never mind
all of them, ought not to be on the road. YMMV.
"There's an enforcement officer. He must be trying to catch me out for
something and raise money for the council".
"There's an enforcement officer. I won't leave my car on the double
yellow lines / at the bus stop / obstructing a junction / obstructing
the road / on the zigzags (delete as applicable) today. This is going
to make me late for my Pilates class with James. I hope I am not late
for morning tea at Cordelia's. Etc."
If only the preferences of the public were respected by councils and
that could never happen, eh?
I'd be happy for the LA to take a vote on whether or not the majority of
the public would prefer that the restrictions are enforced more strongly
or less strongly. I am supremely confident of predicting the likely
result.
I'm assuming that they know where they can legally park. Which they
will, if they are doing the school run regularly.
That is not the issue. No parking is required. All that is necessary is >>>> to stop to allow a passenger (or more than one) to alight. That is
lawful even on a double yellow line.
If it's a primar school then parking is required, because the kid has
to be dlievered to, and collected from, the door.
I didn't know that. Are you sure? Even at age 11-ish?
In these parts, (which is where the school in question is located), absolutely.
I detailed the process in a previous post.
[...]
You do realise and take account of the fact that schools are provided
for the benefit of children and the journey is for the benefit and
convenience of the children concerned, yes?
And the children are not being inconvenienced in the slightest by
having to walk a short distance from car to school.
If I were to make an evidence-free assertion about parents and
children on the school run, it would be that parents are concerned to
get young children as close as possible to where they need to be
before they drive away. This for more than one reason.
That being the case, you are in favour of parents driving through the
school playground to drop the child no more than a few metres from the
door to their classroom, I take it?
On 07/03/2024 16:06, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2024-03-07, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-03-07, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
Regardless of whether it is measured in metric or imperial units, it is >>>> a walk of but a few minutes.
25m in a few minutes? The average walking pace is apparently about
5km/h (or 8,351 furlongs per fortnight, for JNugent's benefit) which
means walking 25m should take about 18 seconds. The phrase "some
distance" is of course extremely vague, but I'd agree that a walk of
18 seconds does probably not fit well under it.
Getting out the car to do that can be a genuine difficulty for people
with disabilities or mobility problems, but not most parents dropping
kids off at school.
Knowing the school, I do not think there is any question that they would >relax the rule on parent's cars in the car park and permit the disabled >parent to use the car park for dropping off and collecting their child
where there is a genuine need to do so. Assuming, of course, that
another parent hasn't parked across the entrance to the car park which, >sadly, isn't uncommon.
On 07/03/2024 07:55 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
If it's a primary school then parking is required, because the kid has to be >> dlievered to, and collected from, the door.
I didn't know that. Are you sure? Even at age 11-ish?
Secondary schools are much less of an issue. Most parents doing the school >> run for secondary age pupils do take them to a nearby convenient point and >> let them walk the rest of the way. That way, they often don't even need to >> make a significant detour on their commute.
I'd love to know how you know that.
On 2024-03-08, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
On 08/03/2024 01:16, JNugent wrote:
On 07/03/2024 07:55 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:....
....If it's a primar school then parking is required, because the kid has
to be
dlievered to, and collected from, the door.
I didn't know that. Are you sure? Even at age 11-ish?
I am surprised. When I was at primary school, everybody walked to and
from school on their own. We were warned not to talk to strangers or to
get into strange cars, but that was the extent of any precautions. I
even walked part of the way home from Infants' school, until I got to a
busy road I needed to cross, which is where my mother met me.
I've mentioned this before - when I was a child we walked to primary
school; I walked to middle school (age 8) a mile across town; from
age 11 I travelled into central London on the Underground for classes >arranged by my school. And the impression I get is that if you did
any of that these days, you'd be taken into care.
They can summon police if they reasonably believe they have been
given false information. Can they hold someone until the police
arrive?
I am not aware of any legislation that give CEOs this authority but
PCSOs can detail you until a police officer arrives or for up to 30
minutes, whichever is shorter.
However, the CEOs in these parts have both body cams (so there's no >possibility of claiming mistaken identity) and radio comms with the
LA's CCTV operator and depending on how good the coverage of said CCTV
is, they can (and will!) track a person to their destination for later
arrest by the police if necessary.
I tend to measure short distances in metres and only think in terms of
miles when I'm driving, which is very much the point here.
I think that is what the majority of people do these days. I can't
even remember the last time I heard anyone talk about "yards".
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 06:48:27 +0000, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
billy bookcase wrote:
Presumably there are downsides to this approach, however.
They are likely to have body-worn cameras, and easy access to local >>authority CCTV.
They do, yes. And a direct line (not requiring the use of either 999 or 101) >to the local police control room.
Having said that, it is true that their powers in relation to things like >littering are limited, because they can only issue an FPN if they actually >witness it happening and are able to speak to the offender.
It's not like unlawful parking, where they can leave the ticket on the
car. But their main value in non-parking situations is deterrance. The
mere sight of a uniformed CEO patrolling the area tends to make people
think more carefully about their actions, and the occasional succesful >prosecution which makes it into the local media even more so.
Mark
On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 11:59:26 +0000, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> >wrote:
On 07/03/2024 16:06, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2024-03-07, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-03-07, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
Regardless of whether it is measured in metric or imperial units, it is >>>>> a walk of but a few minutes.
25m in a few minutes? The average walking pace is apparently about
5km/h (or 8,351 furlongs per fortnight, for JNugent's benefit) which
means walking 25m should take about 18 seconds. The phrase "some
distance" is of course extremely vague, but I'd agree that a walk of
18 seconds does probably not fit well under it.
Getting out the car to do that can be a genuine difficulty for people
with disabilities or mobility problems, but not most parents dropping
kids off at school.
Knowing the school, I do not think there is any question that they would >>relax the rule on parent's cars in the car park and permit the disabled >>parent to use the car park for dropping off and collecting their child >>where there is a genuine need to do so. Assuming, of course, that
another parent hasn't parked across the entrance to the car park which, >>sadly, isn't uncommon.
Both of the schools I currently have children at have disabled parking
spaces right in front of the main entrance, which can be used by either >disabled parents or disabled pupils. But, unfortunately, they are also both >commonly abused.
in the school to which I was referring, stopping is prohibited,
primarily for the safety of the children.
What a silly rule. Those who made it seem to "think" that a stationary >vehicle is somehow more dangerous than it would have been if it had
continued to move.
The most important thing, of course, is that they park legally,
safely and
considerately when stopping to drop their children off. And if they consider >> that to be an unacceptable imposition then that is entirely their own
problem and not in even the slightest sense deserving of any sympathy.
Why is is "wrong" to stop (not "park", but as you correctly state, to
"stop", merely for the purpose allowing a passenger to alight) at
convenient and lawful spot of the driver's choosing?
What are the opponents of those parents trying to achieve?
Schools, like other large establishments, should be built with adequate
road access. Can you imagine a new hospital with no access for cars?
In message <usnduid9gu1s7hnr6hee52c4u3ev912p7a@4ax.com>, at 09:07:20 on
Tue, 5 Mar 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 06:48:27 +0000, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
wrote:
billy bookcase wrote:
Presumably there are downsides to this approach, however.
They are likely to have body-worn cameras, and easy access to local
authority CCTV.
They do, yes. And a direct line (not requiring the use of either 999
or 101)
to the local police control room.
Having said that, it is true that their powers in relation to things like
littering are limited, because they can only issue an FPN if they
actually
witness it happening and are able to speak to the offender.
For fly-tipping there's sometimes address labels or whatever on some of
the things tipped, especially if it's bags of "side waste" fly tipped
next to a litter bin.
In message <slrnuujivr.ad1.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, at 14:15:23
on Thu, 7 Mar 2024, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> remarked:
I tend to measure short distances in metres and only think in terms of
miles when I'm driving, which is very much the point here.
I think that is what the majority of people do these days. I can't
even remember the last time I heard anyone talk about "yards".
Assuming the officers of local authorities are "people", very many finger-posts they are responsible for give distances in yards to the
nearest tourist attraction, public toilets, railway station etc.
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
 The most important thing, of course, is that they park legally,
safely and considerately when stopping to drop their children off.
And if they consider that to be an unacceptable imposition then
that is entirely their own problem and not in even the slightest
sense deserving of any sympathy.
Why is is "wrong" to stop (not "park", but as you correctly state, to
"stop", merely for the purpose allowing a passenger to alight) at
convenient and lawful spot of the driver's choosing?
Because as has been described many many times in this thread it's no
longer acceptable to simply STOP and let the children out. The schools,
if not the parents, insist that they PARK and accompany the child to
child to the gates.
What are the opponents of those parents trying to achieve?
Safety fro pedestrians.
On 12/03/2024 10:58, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <usnduid9gu1s7hnr6hee52c4u3ev912p7a@4ax.com>, at 09:07:20
on Tue, 5 Mar 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 06:48:27 +0000, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
wrote:
billy bookcase wrote:
Presumably there are downsides to this approach, however.
They are likely to have body-worn cameras, and easy access to local
authority CCTV.
They do, yes. And a direct line (not requiring the use of either 999
or 101)
to the local police control room.
Having said that, it is true that their powers in relation to things
like
littering are limited, because they can only issue an FPN if they
actually
witness it happening and are able to speak to the offender.
For fly-tipping there's sometimes address labels or whatever on some
of the things tipped, especially if it's bags of "side waste" fly
tipped next to a litter bin.
At least the 'tipper' showed willing. Had adequate provision been made,
or the bin been emptied as required, there would have been no need for
it to be 'side waste' but could have been placed in the bin itself. And there's no greater effort, I suggest, to pick up bags of side waste by a litter bin than to empty the bin itself.
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
Schools, like other large establishments, should be built with
adequate road access. Can you imagine a new hospital with no access
for cars?
My daughter works at a community outpatients clinic which has no parking facility at all. And the road past the front door is a bus lane with
double yellow lines and no-loading strips.
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
in the school to which I was referring, stopping is prohibited,
primarily for the safety of the children.
What a silly rule. Those who made it seem to "think" that a stationary
vehicle is somehow more dangerous than it would have been if it had
continued to move.
The danger is to that minority of children walking to school, and
needing to cross the road in the vicinity of the school entrance.
On 12/03/2024 11:09, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <slrnuujivr.ad1.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, at
14:15:23 on Thu, 7 Mar 2024, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>remarked:
I tend to measure short distances in metres and only think in terms
of
miles when I'm driving, which is very much the point here.
I think that is what the majority of people do these days. I can't
even remember the last time I heard anyone talk about "yards".
Assuming the officers of local authorities are "people", very many >>finger-posts they are responsible for give distances in yards to the >>nearest tourist attraction, public toilets, railway station etc.
What practical difference does it make whether the numbers are metres
or yards?
Does anyone pace them out and say the church should be here but it's
actually another 20 metres away?
On 12/03/2024 11:15 am, Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:[in response to:]
in the school to which I was referring, stopping is prohibited, >>>>primarily for the safety of the children.
What a silly rule. Those who made it seem to "think" that a
stationary vehicle is somehow more dangerous than it would have been
if it had continued to move.
The danger is to that minority of children walking to school, and
needing to cross the road in the vicinity of the school entrance.
There are already rules for the operation of pedestrian crossings.
Directing children to a particular area for crossing the road without >ensuring that traffic must STOP (not be prohibited from stopping) there >sounds ill-advised.
On 12/03/2024 11:36 am, Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
Schools, like other large establishments, should be built with
adequate road access. Can you imagine a new hospital with no access
for cars?
My daughter works at a community outpatients clinic which has no
parking facility at all. And the road past the front door is a bus
lane with double yellow lines and no-loading strips.
That doesn't sound new.
It sounds re-purposed (land if not the building).
And it isn't a hospital.
FWIW, I am aware of a "clinic"
in a similar situation in the nearest town. And another with a
car-park.
On 12/03/2024 11:22 am, Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
The most important thing, of course, is that they park legally, >>>>safely and considerately when stopping to drop their children off.
And if they consider that to be an unacceptable imposition then
that is entirely their own problem and not in even the slightest
sense deserving of any sympathy.
Why is is "wrong" to stop (not "park", but as you correctly state,
to "stop", merely for the purpose allowing a passenger to alight) at >>>convenient and lawful spot of the driver's choosing?
Because as has been described many many times in this thread it's no >>longer acceptable to simply STOP and let the children out. The
schools, if not the parents, insist that they PARK and accompany the
child to child to the gates.
What are the opponents of those parents trying to achieve?
Safety fro pedestrians.
This is some parallel world you are describing.
There are two schools (primary / secondary) within unaided earshot of
this house. Neither of them operate these rules you mention.
The idea that a school would have such powers is startling.
On 12/03/2024 10:58, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <usnduid9gu1s7hnr6hee52c4u3ev912p7a@4ax.com>, at 09:07:20
on Tue, 5 Mar 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> >>remarked:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 06:48:27 +0000, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> >>>wrote:
billy bookcase wrote:
Presumably there are downsides to this approach, however.
They are likely to have body-worn cameras, and easy access to local
authority CCTV.
They do, yes. And a direct line (not requiring the use of either 999
or 101) to the local police control room.
Having said that, it is true that their powers in relation to things >>>like littering are limited, because they can only issue an FPN if
they actually witness it happening and are able to speak to the >>>offender.
For fly-tipping there's sometimes address labels or whatever on some
of the things tipped, especially if it's bags of "side waste" fly
tipped next to a litter bin.
At least the 'tipper' showed willing. Had adequate provision been
made, or the bin been emptied as required, there would have been no
need for it to be 'side waste' but could have been placed in the bin
itself. And there's no greater effort, I suggest, to pick up bags of
side waste by a litter bin than to empty the bin itself.
In message <l5att0F6hkmU8@mid.individual.net>, at 11:50:57 on Tue, 12
Mar 2024, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 12/03/2024 11:09, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <slrnuujivr.ad1.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, at
14:15:23Â on Thu, 7 Mar 2024, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
remarked:
I tend to measure short distances in metres and only think in terms of >>>>> miles when I'm driving, which is very much the point here.
I think that is what the majority of people do these days. I can't
even remember the last time I heard anyone talk about "yards".
 Assuming the officers of local authorities are "people", very many
finger-posts they are responsible for give distances in yards to the
nearest tourist attraction, public toilets, railway station etc.
What practical difference does it make whether the numbers are metres
or yards?
Convention that distances on signs in UK are in yards, not metres, to
some extent thinly disguised xenophobia.
Does anyone pace them out and say the church should be here but it's
actually another 20 metres away?
In message <l5bamlF9k1nU1@mid.individual.net>, at 15:29:24 on Tue, 12
Mar 2024, JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
On 12/03/2024 11:15 am, Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:[in response to:]
in the school to which I was referring, stopping is prohibited,
primarily for the safety of the children.
What a silly rule. Those who made it seem to "think" that a
stationary vehicle is somehow more dangerous than it would have
been if it had continued to move.
 The danger is to that minority of children walking to school, and
needing to cross the road in the vicinity of the school entrance.
There are already rules for the operation of pedestrian crossings.
Directing children to a particular area for crossing the road without
ensuring that traffic must STOP (not be prohibited from stopping)
there sounds ill-advised.
Very few school entrances have a pedestrian crossing adjacent. It's so
rare there must be some rule about it.
Convention that distances on signs in UK are in yards, not metres,I can't
even remember the last time I heard anyone talk about "yards".
Assuming the officers of local authorities are "people", very many >>>>finger-posts they are responsible for give distances in yards to the >>>>nearest tourist attraction, public toilets, railway station etc.
What practical difference does it make whether the numbers are
metres or yards?
to some extent thinly disguised xenophobia.
It is written into the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions
2016. Part 1 Regulation 6 (4):
'An expression of distance on a sign must be in imperial units and
comply with the requirements of Part 3 of Schedule 18.'
Part 3 of Schedule 18 details what units may be used for different
distances, with yards (to the nearest 10 yards) only being permitted if
the distance is under half a mile.
In message <0tydnQOcBMHxHG34nZ2dnZeNn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com>, at 16:26:37
on Tue, 12 Mar 2024, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> remarked:
 Convention that distances on signs in UK are in yards, not metres,I can't
even remember the last time I heard anyone talk about "yards".
 Assuming the officers of local authorities are "people", very many >>>>> finger-posts they are responsible for give distances in yards to
the nearest tourist attraction, public toilets, railway station etc.
What practical difference does it make whether the numbers are
metres or yards?
to some extent thinly disguised xenophobia.
It is written into the Traffic Signs Regulations and General
Directions 2016. Part 1 Regulation 6 (4):
'An expression of distance on a sign must be in imperial units and
comply with the requirements of Part 3 of Schedule 18.'
Part 3 of Schedule 18 details what units may be used for different
distances, with yards (to the nearest 10 yards) only being permitted
if the distance is under half a mile.
I'm not sure tourist information finger-posts are covered by that
regulation, but are still usually in yards.
In message <slrnuujivr.ad1.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, at 14:15:23
on Thu, 7 Mar 2024, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> remarked:
I tend to measure short distances in metres and only think in terms of
miles when I'm driving, which is very much the point here.
I think that is what the majority of people do these days. I can't
even remember the last time I heard anyone talk about "yards".
Assuming the officers of local authorities are "people", very many finger-posts they are responsible for give distances in yards to the
nearest tourist attraction, public toilets, railway station etc.
In message <l5b6ipF8vbeU1@mid.individual.net>, at 14:19:04 on Tue, 12
Mar 2024, JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
On 12/03/2024 11:22 am, Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
 The most important thing, of course, is that they park legally,
safely and considerately when stopping to drop their children off.
And if they consider that to be an unacceptable imposition then
that is entirely their own problem and not in even the slightest
sense deserving of any sympathy.
Why is is "wrong" to stop (not "park", but as you correctly state,
to "stop", merely for the purpose allowing a passenger to alight)
at convenient and lawful spot of the driver's choosing?
 Because as has been described many many times in this thread it's no
longer acceptable to simply STOP and let the children out. The
schools, if not the parents, insist that they PARK and accompany the
child to child to the gates.
What are the opponents of those parents trying to achieve?
 Safety fro pedestrians.
This is some parallel world you are describing.
There are two schools (primary / secondary) within unaided earshot of
this house. Neither of them operate these rules you mention.
The idea that a school would have such powers is startling.
It arises from disputes with the Teachers' Unions where they dug in
their heels and said they weren't employed to be childminders. So want children delivered to school late enough they don't need minding, but
also before lessons start.
The school then declares it can't guarantee the safety of children
milling around unsupervised on the pavement outside, and the majority
of parents can't bring themselves to disagree.
In message <l5bamlF9k1nU1@mid.individual.net>, at 15:29:24 on Tue, 12
Mar 2024, JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
On 12/03/2024 11:15 am, Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:[in response to:]
in the school to which I was referring, stopping is prohibited,
primarily for the safety of the children.
What a silly rule. Those who made it seem to "think" that a
stationary vehicle is somehow more dangerous than it would have
been if it had continued to move.
 The danger is to that minority of children walking to school, and
needing to cross the road in the vicinity of the school entrance.
There are already rules for the operation of pedestrian crossings.
Directing children to a particular area for crossing the road without
ensuring that traffic must STOP (not be prohibited from stopping)
there sounds ill-advised.
Very few school entrances have a pedestrian crossing adjacent. It's so
rare there must be some rule about it.
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> remarked:
I tend to measure short distances in metres and only think in terms of >>>>> miles when I'm driving, which is very much the point here.
I think that is what the majority of people do these days. I can't
even remember the last time I heard anyone talk about "yards".
 Assuming the officers of local authorities are "people", very many
finger-posts they are responsible for give distances in yards to the
nearest tourist attraction, public toilets, railway station etc.
What practical difference does it make whether the numbers are metres
or yards?
Convention that distances on signs in UK are in yards, not metres, to
some extent thinly disguised xenophobia.
In message <l5b6mlF8vbeU2@mid.individual.net>, at 14:21:09 on Tue, 12
Mar 2024, JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
On 12/03/2024 11:36 am, Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
Schools, like other large establishments, should be built with
adequate road access. Can you imagine a new hospital with no access
for cars?
My daughter works at a community outpatients clinic which has no
parking facility at all. And the road past the front door is a bus
lane with double yellow lines and no-loading strips.
That doesn't sound new.
It's fairly new as a hospital clinic, having I think moved from the main hospital building to a community location which is much more convenient
for those using public transport (or walking).
It sounds re-purposed (land if not the building).
And it isn't a hospital.
Sound of hairs being split.
The majority of trips to hospitals are done
to outpatients clinics.
FWIW, I am aware of a "clinic"
Why the quotes?
in a similar situation in the nearest town. And another with a car-park.
So what?
On 12/03/2024 04:08 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l5b6ipF8vbeU1@mid.individual.net>, at 14:19:04 on Tue, 12
Mar 2024, JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
On 12/03/2024 11:22 am, Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
 The most important thing, of course, is that they park legally,
safely and considerately when stopping to drop their children off. >>>>>> And if they consider that to be an unacceptable imposition then
that is entirely their own problem and not in even the slightest
sense deserving of any sympathy.
Why is is "wrong" to stop (not "park", but as you correctly state,
to "stop", merely for the purpose allowing a passenger to alight)
at convenient and lawful spot of the driver's choosing?
 Because as has been described many many times in this thread it's
no longer acceptable to simply STOP and let the children out. The
schools, if not the parents, insist that they PARK and accompany
the child to child to the gates.
What are the opponents of those parents trying to achieve?
 Safety fro pedestrians.
This is some parallel world you are describing.
There are two schools (primary / secondary) within unaided earshot of
this house. Neither of them operate these rules you mention.
The idea that a school would have such powers is startling.
It arises from disputes with the Teachers' Unions where they dug in
their heels and said they weren't employed to be childminders. So want
children delivered to school late enough they don't need minding, but
also before lessons start.
The school then declares it can't guarantee the safety of children
milling around unsupervised on the pavement outside, and the majority
of parents can't bring themselves to disagree.
Local, national, international or inter-galactic?
Not heard of that.
They never used to "mind" us in the playground before 09:00.
On 12/03/2024 19:11, JNugent wrote:
On 12/03/2024 04:08 pm, Roland Perry wrote:That would be back when parents held their own children responsible if
In message <l5b6ipF8vbeU1@mid.individual.net>, at 14:19:04 on Tue, 12
Mar 2024, JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
On 12/03/2024 11:22 am, Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
 The most important thing, of course, is that they park legally, >>>>>>> safely and considerately when stopping to drop their children off. >>>>>>> And if they consider that to be an unacceptable imposition then
that is entirely their own problem and not in even the slightest >>>>>>> sense deserving of any sympathy.
Why is is "wrong" to stop (not "park", but as you correctly state, >>>>>> to "stop", merely for the purpose allowing a passenger to alight) >>>>>> at convenient and lawful spot of the driver's choosing?
 Because as has been described many many times in this thread it's
no longer acceptable to simply STOP and let the children out. The
schools, if not the parents, insist that they PARK and accompany
the child to child to the gates.
What are the opponents of those parents trying to achieve?
 Safety fro pedestrians.
This is some parallel world you are describing.
There are two schools (primary / secondary) within unaided earshot
of this house. Neither of them operate these rules you mention.
The idea that a school would have such powers is startling.
It arises from disputes with the Teachers' Unions where they dug in
their heels and said they weren't employed to be childminders. So
want children delivered to school late enough they don't need
minding, but also before lessons start.
The school then declares it can't guarantee the safety of children
milling around unsupervised on the pavement outside, and the majority
of parents can't bring themselves to disagree.
Local, national, international or inter-galactic?
Not heard of that.
They never used to "mind" us in the playground before 09:00.
they hurt themselves doing something stupid.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <slrnuujivr.ad1.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, at 14:15:23
on Thu, 7 Mar 2024, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> remarked:
I think that is what the majority of people do these days. I can't
even remember the last time I heard anyone talk about "yards".
Assuming the officers of local authorities are "people", very many
finger-posts they are responsible for give distances in yards to the
nearest tourist attraction, public toilets, railway station etc.
There is one I pass frequently that gives a distance of 1 mile 1/2 furlong and it is near a junction with traffic lights so I often have plenty of
time to look at it to be sure that is what it really is says.
On 2024-03-12, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <slrnuujivr.ad1.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, at 14:15:23 >>> on Thu, 7 Mar 2024, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> remarked:
I think that is what the majority of people do these days. I can't
even remember the last time I heard anyone talk about "yards".
Assuming the officers of local authorities are "people", very many
finger-posts they are responsible for give distances in yards to the
nearest tourist attraction, public toilets, railway station etc.
There is one I pass frequently that gives a distance of 1 mile 1/2 furlong >> and it is near a junction with traffic lights so I often have plenty of
time to look at it to be sure that is what it really is says.
There do appear to be a very few very old signs remaining displaying furlongs. There's one example here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/2pBqE6Bw2Y3Zb4nP7
There do appear to be a very few very old signs remaining displaying furlongs. There's one example here:https://maps.app.goo.gl/2pBqE6Bw2Y3Zb4nP7
Jon Ribbens wrote:
There do appear to be a very few very old signs remaining displaying
furlongs. There's one example
here:https://maps.app.goo.gl/2pBqE6Bw2Y3Zb4nP7
Is that an official sign (obviously it used to be) but it appears to be
in someone's garden ...
Most councils no longer maintain finger posts.
The idea that a school would have such powers is startling.
It arises from disputes with the Teachers' Unions where they dug in
their heels and said they weren't employed to be childminders. So want >>children delivered to school late enough they don't need minding, but
also before lessons start.
The school then declares it can't guarantee the safety of children >>milling around unsupervised on the pavement outside, and the majority
of parents can't bring themselves to disagree.
Local, national, international or inter-galactic?
Not heard of that.
They never used to "mind" us in the playground before 09:00.
On 12/03/2024 04:04 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l5b6mlF8vbeU2@mid.individual.net>, at 14:21:09 on Tue, 12
Mar 2024, JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
On 12/03/2024 11:36 am, Roland Perry wrote:It's fairly new as a hospital clinic, having I think moved from the
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
Schools, like other large establishments, should be built with >>>>>adequate road access. Can you imagine a new hospital with no access
My daughter works at a community outpatients clinic which has no >>>>parking facility at all. And the road past the front door is a bus >>>>lane with double yellow lines and no-loading strips.
That doesn't sound new.
main hospital building to a community location which is much more >>convenient for those using public transport (or walking).
But not newly-built?
It sounds re-purposed (land if not the building).
And it isn't a hospital.
Sound of hairs being split.
Not in the slightest. I said "hospitals".
The majority of trips to hospitals are done to outpatients clinics.
FWIW, I am aware of a "clinic"Why the quotes?
To distinguish it from a hospital, of course.
in a similar situation in the nearest town. And another with a
car-park.
So what?
Re-purposed buildings will frequently / usually not have parking
facilities for staff or patients.
That's nothing to be proud of, though.
New-build facilities usually will have parking facilities.
In message <zN2dnUf6dsYFNWz4nZ2dnZeNn_idnZ2d@giganews.com>, at 13:28:00
on Wed, 13 Mar 2024, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> remarked:
Most councils no longer maintain finger posts.
One of the reasons I mentioned them is my friends who are civil
enforcement officers are tasked with keeping an eye out for fingerpost
signs which need maintaining.
The problem appears to be the fingers are
slotted onto a circular post, and are not that difficult for vandals to rotate so they point in the wrong direction.
In message <910nuit3evn0ggcueqa09hncudd47iten5@4ax.com>, at 21:19:06 on
Fri, 8 Mar 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 11:59:26 +0000, Simon Parker
<simonparkerulm@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 07/03/2024 16:06, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2024-03-07, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-03-07, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
Regardless of whether it is measured in metric or imperial units,
it is
a walk of but a few minutes.
25m in a few minutes? The average walking pace is apparently about
5km/h (or 8,351 furlongs per fortnight, for JNugent's benefit) which >>>>> means walking 25m should take about 18 seconds. The phrase "some
distance" is of course extremely vague, but I'd agree that a walk of >>>>> 18 seconds does probably not fit well under it.
Getting out the car to do that can be a genuine difficulty for people
with disabilities or mobility problems, but not most parents dropping
kids off at school.
Knowing the school, I do not think there is any question that they would >>> relax the rule on parent's cars in the car park and permit the disabled
parent to use the car park for dropping off and collecting their child
where there is a genuine need to do so. Assuming, of course, that
another parent hasn't parked across the entrance to the car park which,
sadly, isn't uncommon.
Both of the schools I currently have children at have disabled parking
spaces right in front of the main entrance, which can be used by either
disabled parents or disabled pupils. But, unfortunately, they are also
both
commonly abused.
Maybe the 'offenders' are suffering from a mental disability?
On 12-Mar-24 11:10, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <910nuit3evn0ggcueqa09hncudd47iten5@4ax.com>, at 21:19:06
on Fri, 8 Mar 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 11:59:26 +0000, Simon Parker
<simonparkerulm@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 07/03/2024 16:06, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2024-03-07, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-03-07, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
Regardless of whether it is measured in metric or imperial units, >>>>>>> it is
a walk of but a few minutes.
25m in a few minutes? The average walking pace is apparently about >>>>>> 5km/h (or 8,351 furlongs per fortnight, for JNugent's benefit) which >>>>>> means walking 25m should take about 18 seconds. The phrase "some
distance" is of course extremely vague, but I'd agree that a walk of >>>>>> 18 seconds does probably not fit well under it.
Getting out the car to do that can be a genuine difficulty for people >>>>> with disabilities or mobility problems, but not most parents dropping >>>>> kids off at school.
Knowing the school, I do not think there is any question that they
would
relax the rule on parent's cars in the car park and permit the disabled >>>> parent to use the car park for dropping off and collecting their child >>>> where there is a genuine need to do so. Assuming, of course, that
another parent hasn't parked across the entrance to the car park which, >>>> sadly, isn't uncommon.
Both of the schools I currently have children at have disabled parking
spaces right in front of the main entrance, which can be used by either
disabled parents or disabled pupils. But, unfortunately, they are
also both
commonly abused.
Maybe the 'offenders' are suffering from a mental disability?
Interesting point. The intention was to offer those parking spaces to people who have limited mobility. Can one legally discriminate between different forms of disability in such a matter?
Mar 2024, JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
On 12/03/2024 04:04 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
Mar 2024, JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
On 12/03/2024 11:36 am, Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
Schools, like other large establishments, should be built with
adequate road access. Can you imagine a new hospital with no access
My daughter works at a community outpatients clinic which has no
parking facility at all. And the road past the front door is a bus >>>>> lane with double yellow lines and no-loading strips.
That doesn't sound new.
 It's fairly new as a hospital clinic, having I think moved from the
main hospital building to a community location which is much more
convenient for those using public transport (or walking).
But not newly-built?
Why does that matter?
It sounds re-purposed (land if not the building).
And it isn't a hospital.
Sound of hairs being split.
Not in the slightest. I said "hospitals".
It's a department of a hospital.
The majority of trips to hospitals are done to outpatients clinics.
FWIW, I am aware of a "clinic"Â Why the quotes?
To distinguish it from a hospital, of course.
Hospitals are full of clinics, it's their main generator of footfall.
in a similar situation in the nearest town. And another with a
car-park.
 So what?
Re-purposed buildings will frequently / usually not have parking
facilities for staff or patients.
That's nothing to be proud of, though.
New-build facilities usually will have parking facilities.
Not necessarily if they are in city centres.
Mar 2024, JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
The idea that a school would have such powers is startling.
 It arises from disputes with the Teachers' Unions where they dug in
their heels and said they weren't employed to be childminders. So
want children delivered to school late enough they don't need
minding, but also before lessons start.
 The school then declares it can't guarantee the safety of children
milling around unsupervised on the pavement outside, and the majority
of parents can't bring themselves to disagree.
Local, national, international or inter-galactic?
I have no idea what yu are trying to say.
Not heard of that.
You should get out more, then.
They never used to "mind" us in the playground before 09:00.
That was before the teacher disputes I mentioned.
FWIW, there are at least two community health centres I have visited
which are in fairly-recent buildings near here, with all the services
you would expect, including parking - even for the patients.
But neither of them is a hospital.
The school then declares it can't guarantee the safety of children >>>>milling around unsupervised on the pavement outside, and the
majority of parents can't bring themselves to disagree.
Local, national, international or inter-galactic?
I have no idea what yu are trying to say.
I was asking something, not saying or stating anything.
I was asking how widespread this Teachers' Union "dispute" is,
and what powers said teachers have to issue such orders to parents (or,
in fact, to anybody).
IOW, there are no exclusive disabled bays, even the ones installed
directly outside someone's house intended, primarily, to be used by the disabled occupant of that house.
On 08/03/2024 15:36, JNugent wrote:
On 08/03/2024 12:03 pm, Simon Parker wrote:
Where do "administrative rules" end and legislation begin for you?
"Offences" which did not exist, say, 100 years ago and have only been
introduced in the pursuit of a particular one-step-removed outcome are
not the same as common law offences.
I fear you are attempting to defend the indefensible and will not find
much, if any, support for legalising the acts listed a few paragraphs
up, even from those that regularly perform those acts, albeit for "only
a minute or two".
On 2024-03-14, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
IOW, there are no exclusive disabled bays, even the ones installed
directly outside someone's house intended, primarily, to be used by the
disabled occupant of that house.
... although someone round here seems to have managed to arrange one:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/aFPSb3rp1tw2sU1JA
(Link is a picture of a parking bay marked "PERMIT HOLDER 059 ONLY",
in which is parked a car displaying both blue and green disabled
parking badges.) ("Green badge" is like "blue badge" but specific
to some areas of Camden in central London.)
On 2024-03-14, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
IOW, there are no exclusive disabled bays, even the ones installed
directly outside someone's house intended, primarily, to be used by the
disabled occupant of that house.
... although someone round here seems to have managed to arrange one:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/aFPSb3rp1tw2sU1JA
(Link is a picture of a parking bay marked "PERMIT HOLDER 059 ONLY",
in which is parked a car displaying both blue and green disabled
parking badges.) ("Green badge" is like "blue badge" but specific
to some areas of Camden in central London.)
On 14/03/2024 13:55, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-03-14, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
IOW, there are no exclusive disabled bays, even the ones installed
directly outside someone's house intended, primarily, to be used by the
disabled occupant of that house.
... although someone round here seems to have managed to arrange one:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/aFPSb3rp1tw2sU1JA
(Link is a picture of a parking bay marked "PERMIT HOLDER 059 ONLY",
in which is parked a car displaying both blue and green disabled
parking badges.) ("Green badge" is like "blue badge" but specific
to some areas of Camden in central London.)
Given that the image linked is not a disabled bay, I must, respectfully, disagree.
On 08/03/2024 15:36, JNugent wrote:...
....It can be. Some zealots are now installing 20 mph limits on dual
carriageways previously limited to 40mph.
I recommend you do not visit Wales any time soon. :-)
On 13/03/2024 20:53, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 13/03/2024 20:43, Sam Plusnet wrote:
On 12-Mar-24 11:10, Roland Perry wrote:
Presumably, they are only available to Blue Badge holders, so that isMaybe the 'offenders' are suffering from a mental disability?
Interesting point. The intention was to offer those parking spaces
to people who have limited mobility. Can one legally discriminate
between different forms of disability in such a matter?
a problem for the Local Authority issuing them, not the school.
A disabled bay is available to anyone that can fulfil the criteria for
using it.
Which is a source of frustration to residents that manage to get a
disabled bay installed on the road outside their house, (assuming they
have no off-road parking), only to learn that anyone with a blue badge
can now use the space they've handily reserved for the purpose.
IOW, there are no exclusive disabled bays, even the ones installed
directly outside someone's house intended, primarily, to be used by the disabled occupant of that house.
Regards
S.P.
On 2024-03-14, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-03-14, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
IOW, there are no exclusive disabled bays, even the ones installed
directly outside someone's house intended, primarily, to be used by the
disabled occupant of that house.
... although someone round here seems to have managed to arrange one:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/aFPSb3rp1tw2sU1JA
(Link is a picture of a parking bay marked "PERMIT HOLDER 059 ONLY",
in which is parked a car displaying both blue and green disabled
parking badges.) ("Green badge" is like "blue badge" but specific
to some areas of Camden in central London.)
Interesting, I hadn't heard of that. It turns out a Green Badge is
like a Blue Badge And Then Some: "You must already have a Blue Badge
to get a Green Badge."
<https://www.camden.gov.uk/green-badge>
On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 13:55:26 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-03-14, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
IOW, there are no exclusive disabled bays, even the ones installed
directly outside someone's house intended, primarily, to be used by the
disabled occupant of that house.
... although someone round here seems to have managed to arrange one:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/aFPSb3rp1tw2sU1JA
(Link is a picture of a parking bay marked "PERMIT HOLDER 059 ONLY",
in which is parked a car displaying both blue and green disabled
parking badges.) ("Green badge" is like "blue badge" but specific
to some areas of Camden in central London.)
That appears to be part of a longer section of more general Residents'
Permit parking. Allocating specific RP bays to specific permit holders is possible within the system, and a disabled user would be one reason
for such an allocation.
More generally, the whole thing about Residents' Permits is that they effectively turn on-street parking into private parking, so anything which could legitimately be done in off-street private parking (including
allocated bays) can be done on-street where RP applies. But the permit
scheme has to come first; it isn't possible to allocate reserved bays
on an uncontrolled street.
On 08/03/2024 12:50, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 08/03/2024 12:04, Simon Parker wrote:
On 08/03/2024 11:32, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 08/03/2024 01:16, JNugent wrote:
On 07/03/2024 07:55 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:....
....If it's a primar school then parking is required, because the kid
has to be
dlievered to, and collected from, the door.
I didn't know that. Are you sure? Even at age 11-ish?
I am surprised. When I was at primary school, everybody walked to
and from school on their own. We were warned not to talk to
strangers or to get into strange cars, but that was the extent of
any precautions. I even walked part of the way home from Infants'
school, until I got to a busy road I needed to cross, which is where
my mother met me.
I would respectfully suggest that both the population and car
ownership have increased significantly since you were at primary
school, both of which result in there being significantly more cars
on the road than there were when young Master Bignell was walking to
school in his shorts. :-)
I only had to cross one junction, on a residential road, so I'm not
sure that would make much difference. We had been trained in how to
cross a road safely by then.
Sadly, there is no modern day equivalent of Tufty Fluffytail
with RoSPA
believing 'small group training conducted in real-world environments
covering modern scenarios' is more beneficial to today's children. It
is also significantly cheaper for them, which I'm sure that's just a coincidence.
Unfortunately, schools simply do not have the time to include this in
the lesson plan as it isn't part of the curriculum on which they're
assessed so it simply doesn't happen.
Regards
S.P.
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
 The school then declares it can't guarantee the safety of children >>>>> milling around unsupervised on the pavement outside, and the
majority of parents can't bring themselves to disagree.
Local, national, international or inter-galactic?
 I have no idea what yu are trying to say.
I was asking something, not saying or stating anything.
I was asking how widespread this Teachers' Union "dispute" is,
Whatever territory is covered by "National" teachers unions and the employment T&C imposed by the Department of Education. E&W, and whether
it's a devolved matter in Scotland you'll need to look up yourself.
and what powers said teachers have to issue such orders to parents
(or, in fact, to anybody).
They aren't orders, it's more of a "on your head be it, and by the way
we'll call social services".
On 14/03/2024 13:36, Simon Parker wrote:
On 08/03/2024 15:36, JNugent wrote:...
....It can be. Some zealots are now installing 20 mph limits on dual
carriageways previously limited to 40mph.
I recommend you do not visit Wales any time soon. :-)
On a visit a couple of weeks ago, I was surprised to find 20mph limits
less omnipresent than the Welsh government would appear to have wished. Although i did have to ask my cousin whether I could trust the 30mph
signs I saw before believing them.
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
FWIW, there are at least two community health centres I have visited
which are in fairly-recent buildings near here, with all the services
you would expect, including parking - even for the patients.
But neither of them is a hospital.
This will be my last posting in this incredibly tedious discussion.
A community health centre isn't a hospital clinic, it's a completely different type of establishment.
On 14/03/2024 13:37, Simon Parker wrote:
On 08/03/2024 12:50, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 08/03/2024 12:04, Simon Parker wrote:
On 08/03/2024 11:32, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 08/03/2024 01:16, JNugent wrote:
On 07/03/2024 07:55 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:....
....If it's a primar school then parking is required, because the kid >>>>>>> has to be
dlievered to, and collected from, the door.
I didn't know that. Are you sure? Even at age 11-ish?
I am surprised. When I was at primary school, everybody walked to
and from school on their own. We were warned not to talk to
strangers or to get into strange cars, but that was the extent of
any precautions. I even walked part of the way home from Infants'
school, until I got to a busy road I needed to cross, which is
where my mother met me.
I would respectfully suggest that both the population and car
ownership have increased significantly since you were at primary
school, both of which result in there being significantly more cars
on the road than there were when young Master Bignell was walking to
school in his shorts. :-)
I only had to cross one junction, on a residential road, so I'm not
sure that would make much difference. We had been trained in how to
cross a road safely by then.
Sadly, there is no modern day equivalent of Tufty Fluffytail
I had to Google that. I can recall the Green Cross Man from TV adverts,
but the squirrel never lodged in my consciousness.
with RoSPA believing 'small group training conducted in real-world
environments covering modern scenarios' is more beneficial to today's
children. It is also significantly cheaper for them, which I'm sure
that's just a coincidence.
Unfortunately, schools simply do not have the time to include this in
the lesson plan as it isn't part of the curriculum on which they're
assessed so it simply doesn't happen.
When I were a kid, it was something parents taught their children.
On 14/03/2024 15:22, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 14/03/2024 13:36, Simon Parker wrote:Oh they are all over the place. Not really omnipresent though, given
On 08/03/2024 15:36, JNugent wrote:...
....It can be. Some zealots are now installing 20 mph limits on dual
carriageways previously limited to 40mph.
I recommend you do not visit Wales any time soon. :-)
On a visit a couple of weeks ago, I was surprised to find 20mph limits
less omnipresent than the Welsh government would appear to have wished.
Although i did have to ask my cousin whether I could trust the 30mph
signs I saw before believing them.
that I would guess around 95% of drivers ignore them.
On 14 Mar 2024 at 18:13:49 GMT, ""Les. Hayward"" <les@nospam.invalid> wrote:
On 14/03/2024 15:22, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 14/03/2024 13:36, Simon Parker wrote:Oh they are all over the place. Not really omnipresent though, given
On 08/03/2024 15:36, JNugent wrote:...
....It can be. Some zealots are now installing 20 mph limits on dual
carriageways previously limited to 40mph.
I recommend you do not visit Wales any time soon. :-)
On a visit a couple of weeks ago, I was surprised to find 20mph limits
less omnipresent than the Welsh government would appear to have wished.
Although i did have to ask my cousin whether I could trust the 30mph
signs I saw before believing them.
that I would guess around 95% of drivers ignore them.
That figures, because 95% of drivers used to ignore the 30 mph signs too.
On 14-Mar-24 20:10, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 14 Mar 2024 at 18:13:49 GMT, ""Les. Hayward"" <les@nospam.invalid> wrote: >>That isn't my experience.
On 14/03/2024 15:22, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 14/03/2024 13:36, Simon Parker wrote:Oh they are all over the place. Not really omnipresent though, given
On 08/03/2024 15:36, JNugent wrote:...
....It can be. Some zealots are now installing 20 mph limits on dual
carriageways previously limited to 40mph.
I recommend you do not visit Wales any time soon. :-)
On a visit a couple of weeks ago, I was surprised to find 20mph limits >>>> less omnipresent than the Welsh government would appear to have wished. >>>> Although i did have to ask my cousin whether I could trust the 30mph
signs I saw before believing them.
that I would guess around 95% of drivers ignore them.
That figures, because 95% of drivers used to ignore the 30 mph signs too.
Here the 'average' speed in the local 20mph limit is around 23mph.
These roads with a 20mph limit don't lend themselves to overtaking, so
if the drivers in front chose to do around 23mph, those following don't
have too many choices.
On 14-Mar-24 20:10, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 14 Mar 2024 at 18:13:49 GMT, ""Les. Hayward"" <les@nospam.invalid> wrote: >>That isn't my experience.
On 14/03/2024 15:22, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 14/03/2024 13:36, Simon Parker wrote:Oh they are all over the place. Not really omnipresent though, given
On 08/03/2024 15:36, JNugent wrote:...
....It can be. Some zealots are now installing 20 mph limits on dual
carriageways previously limited to 40mph.
I recommend you do not visit Wales any time soon. :-)
On a visit a couple of weeks ago, I was surprised to find 20mph limits >>>> less omnipresent than the Welsh government would appear to have wished. >>>> Although i did have to ask my cousin whether I could trust the 30mph
signs I saw before believing them.
that I would guess around 95% of drivers ignore them.
That figures, because 95% of drivers used to ignore the 30 mph signs too.
Here the 'average' speed in the local 20mph limit is around 23mph.
These roads with a 20mph limit don't lend themselves to overtaking, so
if the drivers in front chose to do around 23mph, those following don't
have too many choices.
On 14 Mar 2024 at 18:13:49 GMT, ""Les. Hayward"" <les@nospam.invalid> wrote:
On 14/03/2024 15:22, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 14/03/2024 13:36, Simon Parker wrote:Oh they are all over the place. Not really omnipresent though, given
On 08/03/2024 15:36, JNugent wrote:...
....It can be. Some zealots are now installing 20 mph limits on dual
carriageways previously limited to 40mph.
I recommend you do not visit Wales any time soon. :-)
On a visit a couple of weeks ago, I was surprised to find 20mph limits
less omnipresent than the Welsh government would appear to have wished.
Although i did have to ask my cousin whether I could trust the 30mph
signs I saw before believing them.
that I would guess around 95% of drivers ignore them.
That figures, because 95% of drivers used to ignore the 30 mph signs too.
On 14/03/2024 17:10, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 14/03/2024 13:37, Simon Parker wrote:
On 08/03/2024 12:50, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 08/03/2024 12:04, Simon Parker wrote:
On 08/03/2024 11:32, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 08/03/2024 01:16, JNugent wrote:
On 07/03/2024 07:55 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:....
....If it's a primar school then parking is required, because the
kid has to be
dlievered to, and collected from, the door.
I didn't know that. Are you sure? Even at age 11-ish?
I am surprised. When I was at primary school, everybody walked to
and from school on their own. We were warned not to talk to
strangers or to get into strange cars, but that was the extent of
any precautions. I even walked part of the way home from Infants'
school, until I got to a busy road I needed to cross, which is
where my mother met me.
I would respectfully suggest that both the population and car
ownership have increased significantly since you were at primary
school, both of which result in there being significantly more cars
on the road than there were when young Master Bignell was walking
to school in his shorts. :-)
I only had to cross one junction, on a residential road, so I'm not
sure that would make much difference. We had been trained in how to
cross a road safely by then.
Sadly, there is no modern day equivalent of Tufty Fluffytail
I had to Google that. I can recall the Green Cross Man from TV
adverts, but the squirrel never lodged in my consciousness.
with RoSPA believing 'small group training conducted in real-world
environments covering modern scenarios' is more beneficial to today's
children. It is also significantly cheaper for them, which I'm sure
that's just a coincidence.
Unfortunately, schools simply do not have the time to include this in
the lesson plan as it isn't part of the curriculum on which they're
assessed so it simply doesn't happen.
When I were a kid, it was something parents taught their children.
I'm pretty sure when I was in (upper) primary school I walked home by
myself for the most part. That would now be considered negligence on the
part of the parents.
These days teachers generally make sure sure there is a parent to
collect the child of primary school age. And they will recognise the
parent or guardian picking them up. Parents are obliged to ring through
to the school for any changes.
On 14/03/2024 19:32, Fredxx wrote:
On 14/03/2024 17:10, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 14/03/2024 13:37, Simon Parker wrote:
On 08/03/2024 12:50, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 08/03/2024 12:04, Simon Parker wrote:
On 08/03/2024 11:32, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 08/03/2024 01:16, JNugent wrote:
On 07/03/2024 07:55 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:....
....If it's a primar school then parking is required, because the >>>>>>>>> kid has to be
dlievered to, and collected from, the door.
I didn't know that. Are you sure? Even at age 11-ish?
I am surprised. When I was at primary school, everybody walked to >>>>>>> and from school on their own. We were warned not to talk to
strangers or to get into strange cars, but that was the extent of >>>>>>> any precautions. I even walked part of the way home from Infants' >>>>>>> school, until I got to a busy road I needed to cross, which is
where my mother met me.
I would respectfully suggest that both the population and car
ownership have increased significantly since you were at primary
school, both of which result in there being significantly more cars >>>>>> on the road than there were when young Master Bignell was walking
to school in his shorts. :-)
I only had to cross one junction, on a residential road, so I'm not
sure that would make much difference. We had been trained in how to
cross a road safely by then.
Sadly, there is no modern day equivalent of Tufty Fluffytail
I had to Google that. I can recall the Green Cross Man from TV
adverts, but the squirrel never lodged in my consciousness.
with RoSPA believing 'small group training conducted in real-world
environments covering modern scenarios' is more beneficial to today's
children. It is also significantly cheaper for them, which I'm sure
that's just a coincidence.
Unfortunately, schools simply do not have the time to include this in
the lesson plan as it isn't part of the curriculum on which they're
assessed so it simply doesn't happen.
When I were a kid, it was something parents taught their children.
I'm pretty sure when I was in (upper) primary school I walked home by
myself for the most part. That would now be considered negligence on the
part of the parents.
It used to be considered as developing self-reliance.
These days teachers generally make sure sure there is a parent to
collect the child of primary school age. And they will recognise the
parent or guardian picking them up. Parents are obliged to ring through
to the school for any changes.
I honestly think that, while true, this is irrelevant. When I walked to school
there may have been fewer cars but there was still a steady stream of them doing 30+ mph on all the through roads. Perhaps risk perception was different,
most parents then were brought up in the 20s and 30s when so many children died of infectious disease, fire and domestic accidents that road death was considered a minor additional risk.
On 08/03/2024 13:47, Roger Hayter wrote:
I honestly think that, while true, this is irrelevant. When I walked to school
there may have been fewer cars but there was still a steady stream of them >> doing 30+ mph on all the through roads. Perhaps risk perception was different,
most parents then were brought up in the 20s and 30s when so many children >> died of infectious disease, fire and domestic accidents that road death was >> considered a minor additional risk.
Road traffic fatalities peaked in the 60s. Government policy prioritised reducing fatalities, so risk perception increased and children walking
to school was reduced. We sacrificed our children's freedom.
It's only now, with the introduction of 20 mph areas and safer roads,
that we might see a serious attempt to reverse this.
Many London boroughs are introducing default 20 mph limits, like Wales. Around me, it happened a for a few months ago.
A lot of people seem angry about the new limits. On a trip yesterday,
cars were overtaking me, on narrow residential roads, which was very
rare before. I was exceeding 20mph, but only marginally. There is a lot
of difference between “ignoring†limits and not fully complying with them.
On 14/03/2024 15:19, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-03-14, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 14/03/2024 13:55, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-03-14, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
IOW, there are no exclusive disabled bays, even the ones installed
directly outside someone's house intended, primarily, to be used by the >>>>> disabled occupant of that house.
... although someone round here seems to have managed to arrange one:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/aFPSb3rp1tw2sU1JA
(Link is a picture of a parking bay marked "PERMIT HOLDER 059 ONLY",
in which is parked a car displaying both blue and green disabled
parking badges.) ("Green badge" is like "blue badge" but specific
to some areas of Camden in central London.)
Given that the image linked is not a disabled bay, I must, respectfully, >>> disagree.
Given that I didn't say anything about it being a disabled bay, I am
somewhat at a loss as to what you are disagreeing with.
Contextually, I'd said "There are no exclusive disabled bays" to which
you replied "...although someone round here seems to have managed to
arrange one."
I had assumed that the "one" referred to an "exclusive disabled bay"
since that was the subject under discussion.
You didn't mention it wasn't a exclusive disabled parking bay and now
seem to be expressing surprise when I say "That's not an exclusive
disabled bay" even though later in the post you yourself say it is by
using the word "work-around".
You presumably
aren't denying that the picture shows what I describe.
I agree that the link shows "a picture of a parking bay marked "PERMIT
HOLDER 059 ONLY" in which is parked a car".
However you then added that the car parked in the bay is "displaying
both blue and green disabled parking badges.)" and clarified for anyone
that doesn't know that a "("Green badge" is like "blue badge" but
specific to some areas of Camden in central London.)"
Any and all references to the disabled badges is superfluous.
The only thing required to park in the bay you linked is Permit Number
059. That the car displaying Permit 059 is also displaying blue and
green badges is irrelevant.
It is not an exclusive disabled bay. It is, however, an on-street
parking bay exclusively for the use of the holder of Permit 059 whom, it appears, happens to be disabled.
Had I claimed that it was not possible to designate an on-street parking
bay exclusively for the use of a single permit holder, your claim that "someone round here seems to have managed to arrange one." would have
been correct and I would have agreed wholeheartedly.
But it wasn't. I said, "there are no exclusive disabled bays, even the
ones installed directly outside someone's house intended, primarily, to
be used by the disabled occupant of that house."
The example you provided did nothing to contradict that statement.
I was pointing out that someone has managed to find a work-around to the
issue you were describing. It isn't a "disabled parking bay", but it is
a parking bay that is reserved for a specific disabled person to park in.
You can argue pedantically about that if you like, but you'll have to do
so on your own I'm afraid.
It *isn't* a disabled bay, so it isn't a work-around.
It also would have been helpful if your reply had mentioned that your
example was a work-around but it didn't, hence me disagreeing that what
you have shown was what was being discussed.
I am aware of many instances where a designated parking spot is for the
use of a specific user, some of whom may be disabled, usually in private
car parks, but none of those instances are regular disabled bays.
And as I think I've volunteered the information previously that a family member is disabled so the use (and often misuse) of disabled bays is something that matters to me.
Regards
S.P.
On 08/03/2024 13:47, Roger Hayter wrote:
I honestly think that, while true, this is irrelevant. When I walked to school
there may have been fewer cars but there was still a steady stream of them >> doing 30+ mph on all the through roads. Perhaps risk perception was different,
most parents then were brought up in the 20s and 30s when so many children >> died of infectious disease, fire and domestic accidents that road death was >> considered a minor additional risk.
Road traffic fatalities peaked in the 60s. Government policy prioritised reducing fatalities, so risk perception increased and children walking
to school was reduced. We sacrificed our children's freedom.
It's only now, with the introduction of 20 mph areas and safer roads,
that we might see a serious attempt to reverse this.
Many London boroughs are introducing default 20 mph limits, like Wales. Around me, it happened a for a few months ago.
A lot of people seem angry about the new limits. On a trip yesterday,
cars were overtaking me, on narrow residential roads, which was very
rare before. I was exceeding 20mph, but only marginally. There is a lot
of difference between “ignoring†limits and not fully complying with them.
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
On 08/03/2024 13:47, Roger Hayter wrote:
I honestly think that, while true, this is irrelevant. When I walked to school
there may have been fewer cars but there was still a steady stream of them >>> doing 30+ mph on all the through roads. Perhaps risk perception was different,
most parents then were brought up in the 20s and 30s when so many children >>> died of infectious disease, fire and domestic accidents that road death was >>> considered a minor additional risk.
Road traffic fatalities peaked in the 60s. Government policy prioritised
reducing fatalities, so risk perception increased and children walking
to school was reduced. We sacrificed our children's freedom.
It's only now, with the introduction of 20 mph areas and safer roads,
that we might see a serious attempt to reverse this.
Many London boroughs are introducing default 20 mph limits, like Wales.
Around me, it happened a for a few months ago.
A lot of people seem angry about the new limits. On a trip yesterday,
cars were overtaking me, on narrow residential roads, which was very
rare before. I was exceeding 20mph, but only marginally. There is a lot
of difference between “ignoring†limits and not fully complying with them.
You might find the following of interest, regarding your excessive speed in
a 20mph limit:
QUOTE: Writing in the British Medical Journal, Professor Scarlett McNally […] followed many road safety campaigners and charities, such as Cycling UK, in calling for the Highway Code changes of January 2022, brought in to better protect vulnerable road users, to be better communicated to the
public with a "bigger media campaign" about safe overtaking distances, and pedestrian and cyclist priority at junctions.
[…] and based on the "horrific injuries I see in orthopaedic and fracture clinics" that get "exponentially worse with every 1 mph increase in speed", she suggested the need to "demand 20 mph limits in all areas where people are".
[…]
“…Let's challenge the UK's car dependency and enable active travel for everyone's health." ENDQUOTE
The original article appears to be this one:
<https://www.bmj.com/content/384/bmj.q522>
Note that of the major killer diseases, the rates in the Netherlands, a cycle-intensive country, appear to be little different to those of the UK.
On 15/03/2024 11:28, Spike wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
On 08/03/2024 13:47, Roger Hayter wrote:
I honestly think that, while true, this is irrelevant. When I walked to school
there may have been fewer cars but there was still a steady stream of them >>>> doing 30+ mph on all the through roads. Perhaps risk perception was different,
most parents then were brought up in the 20s and 30s when so many children >>>> died of infectious disease, fire and domestic accidents that road death was
considered a minor additional risk.
Road traffic fatalities peaked in the 60s. Government policy prioritised >>> reducing fatalities, so risk perception increased and children walking
to school was reduced. We sacrificed our children's freedom.
It's only now, with the introduction of 20 mph areas and safer roads,
that we might see a serious attempt to reverse this.
Many London boroughs are introducing default 20 mph limits, like Wales.
Around me, it happened a for a few months ago.
A lot of people seem angry about the new limits. On a trip yesterday,
cars were overtaking me, on narrow residential roads, which was very
rare before. I was exceeding 20mph, but only marginally. There is a lot
of difference between “ignoring†limits and not fully complying with them.
You might find the following of interest, regarding your excessive speed in >> a 20mph limit:
QUOTE: Writing in the British Medical Journal, Professor Scarlett McNally
[…] followed many road safety campaigners and charities, such as Cycling >> UK, in calling for the Highway Code changes of January 2022, brought in to >> better protect vulnerable road users, to be better communicated to the
public with a "bigger media campaign" about safe overtaking distances, and >> pedestrian and cyclist priority at junctions.
[…] and based on the "horrific injuries I see in orthopaedic and fracture >> clinics" that get "exponentially worse with every 1 mph increase in speed", >> she suggested the need to "demand 20 mph limits in all areas where people
are".
[…]
“…Let's challenge the UK's car dependency and enable active travel for >> everyone's health." ENDQUOTE
The original article appears to be this one:
<https://www.bmj.com/content/384/bmj.q522>
Note that of the major killer diseases, the rates in the Netherlands, a
cycle-intensive country, appear to be little different to those of the UK.
You mean Holland has a death rate of 100%, too? Gosh!
What difference should we expect?
Additionally, reducing deaths is not the only goal. Quality of life is
also a goal. Kids should be able to walk to school and play outdoors.
FWIW, 20 mph limits make little difference to my journey times, which
tend to be dominated by congestion. Car drivers spend so much time
queuing, why get worked up about 20mph?
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
On 15/03/2024 11:28, Spike wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
On 08/03/2024 13:47, Roger Hayter wrote:
I honestly think that, while true, this is irrelevant. When I walked to school
there may have been fewer cars but there was still a steady stream of them
doing 30+ mph on all the through roads. Perhaps risk perception was different,
most parents then were brought up in the 20s and 30s when so many children
died of infectious disease, fire and domestic accidents that road death was
considered a minor additional risk.
Road traffic fatalities peaked in the 60s. Government policy prioritised >>>> reducing fatalities, so risk perception increased and children walking >>>> to school was reduced. We sacrificed our children's freedom.
It's only now, with the introduction of 20 mph areas and safer roads,
that we might see a serious attempt to reverse this.
Many London boroughs are introducing default 20 mph limits, like Wales. >>>> Around me, it happened a for a few months ago.
A lot of people seem angry about the new limits. On a trip yesterday,
cars were overtaking me, on narrow residential roads, which was very
rare before. I was exceeding 20mph, but only marginally. There is a lot >>>> of difference between “ignoring†limits and not fully complying with them.
You might find the following of interest, regarding your excessive speed in >>> a 20mph limit:
QUOTE: Writing in the British Medical Journal, Professor Scarlett McNally >>> […] followed many road safety campaigners and charities, such as Cycling >>> UK, in calling for the Highway Code changes of January 2022, brought in to >>> better protect vulnerable road users, to be better communicated to the
public with a "bigger media campaign" about safe overtaking distances, and >>> pedestrian and cyclist priority at junctions.
[…] and based on the "horrific injuries I see in orthopaedic and fracture >>> clinics" that get "exponentially worse with every 1 mph increase in speed", >>> she suggested the need to "demand 20 mph limits in all areas where people >>> are".
[…]
“…Let's challenge the UK's car dependency and enable active travel for >>> everyone's health." ENDQUOTE
The original article appears to be this one:
<https://www.bmj.com/content/384/bmj.q522>
Note that of the major killer diseases, the rates in the Netherlands, a
cycle-intensive country, appear to be little different to those of the UK.
You mean Holland has a death rate of 100%, too? Gosh!
I think you failed to take into account the qualifying phrase “…of the major killer diseases…â€.
The cycle-mad Dutch die of the same major diseases in the same proportions
as those in the UK, and it is very hard to find what the oft-touted claims, such as some of those echoed by the Professor, are based on, or what the effects of the ‘healthy lifestyle’ she wants for we peasants actually will
be in terms of reduced diseases or life extension.
What difference should we expect?
A good question, given the amount of hype of the touted health benefits of ‘active travel’.
On 15/03/2024 11:28, Spike wrote:
Note that of the major killer diseases, the rates in the Netherlands, a
cycle-intensive country, appear to be little different to those of the UK.
You mean Holland has a death rate of 100%, too? Gosh! What difference
should we expect?
On 15/03/2024 13:56, Spike wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
On 15/03/2024 11:28, Spike wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:You mean Holland has a death rate of 100%, too? Gosh!
On 08/03/2024 13:47, Roger Hayter wrote:
I honestly think that, while true, this is irrelevant. When I walked to school
there may have been fewer cars but there was still a steady stream of them
doing 30+ mph on all the through roads. Perhaps risk perception was different,
most parents then were brought up in the 20s and 30s when so many children
died of infectious disease, fire and domestic accidents that road death was
considered a minor additional risk.
Road traffic fatalities peaked in the 60s. Government policy prioritised >>>>> reducing fatalities, so risk perception increased and children walking >>>>> to school was reduced. We sacrificed our children's freedom.
It's only now, with the introduction of 20 mph areas and safer roads, >>>>> that we might see a serious attempt to reverse this.
Many London boroughs are introducing default 20 mph limits, like Wales. >>>>> Around me, it happened a for a few months ago.
A lot of people seem angry about the new limits. On a trip yesterday, >>>>> cars were overtaking me, on narrow residential roads, which was very >>>>> rare before. I was exceeding 20mph, but only marginally. There is a lot >>>>> of difference between “ignoring†limits and not fully complying with them.
You might find the following of interest, regarding your excessive speed in
a 20mph limit:
QUOTE: Writing in the British Medical Journal, Professor Scarlett McNally >>>> […] followed many road safety campaigners and charities, such as Cycling >>>> UK, in calling for the Highway Code changes of January 2022, brought in to >>>> better protect vulnerable road users, to be better communicated to the >>>> public with a "bigger media campaign" about safe overtaking distances, and >>>> pedestrian and cyclist priority at junctions.
[…] and based on the "horrific injuries I see in orthopaedic and fracture
clinics" that get "exponentially worse with every 1 mph increase in speed",
she suggested the need to "demand 20 mph limits in all areas where people >>>> are".
[…]
“…Let's challenge the UK's car dependency and enable active travel for >>>> everyone's health." ENDQUOTE
The original article appears to be this one:
<https://www.bmj.com/content/384/bmj.q522>
Note that of the major killer diseases, the rates in the Netherlands, a >>>> cycle-intensive country, appear to be little different to those of the UK. >>
I think you failed to take into account the qualifying phrase “…of the >> major killer diseases…â€.
Why do you say that?
People have to die somehow. If cycling prevented
people dying from major diseases, how would they die?
The cycle-mad Dutch die of the same major diseases in the same proportions >> as those in the UK, and it is very hard to find what the oft-touted claims, >> such as some of those echoed by the Professor, are based on, or what the
effects of the ‘healthy lifestyle’ she wants for we peasants actually will
be in terms of reduced diseases or life extension.
The paper gives many cites about how exercise improves health.
What difference should we expect?
A good question, given the amount of hype of the touted health benefits of >> ‘active travel’.
But you aren't going to answer it?
You appear to be suggesting a null effect without saying what effect you would expect to see, but didn't see. You need a hypothesis test.
Do you think Covid, had an effect on health? The difference in lifespan between 2019 and 2021 in the UK is -0.7 years. That is smaller than the difference between the Netherlands and UK. So it is possible not cycling
as much as the Netherlands has a worse effect on the UK than Covid. Is
that the point you were trying to make?
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
On 15/03/2024 13:56, Spike wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
On 15/03/2024 11:28, Spike wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
On 08/03/2024 13:47, Roger Hayter wrote:
I honestly think that, while true, this is irrelevant. When I walked to school
there may have been fewer cars but there was still a steady stream of them
doing 30+ mph on all the through roads. Perhaps risk perception was different,
most parents then were brought up in the 20s and 30s when so many children
died of infectious disease, fire and domestic accidents that road death was
considered a minor additional risk.
Road traffic fatalities peaked in the 60s. Government policy prioritised >>>>>> reducing fatalities, so risk perception increased and children walking >>>>>> to school was reduced. We sacrificed our children's freedom.
It's only now, with the introduction of 20 mph areas and safer roads, >>>>>> that we might see a serious attempt to reverse this.
Many London boroughs are introducing default 20 mph limits, like Wales. >>>>>> Around me, it happened a for a few months ago.
A lot of people seem angry about the new limits. On a trip yesterday, >>>>>> cars were overtaking me, on narrow residential roads, which was very >>>>>> rare before. I was exceeding 20mph, but only marginally. There is a lot >>>>>> of difference between “ignoring†limits and not fully complying with them.
You might find the following of interest, regarding your excessive speed in
a 20mph limit:
QUOTE: Writing in the British Medical Journal, Professor Scarlett McNally >>>>> […] followed many road safety campaigners and charities, such as Cycling
UK, in calling for the Highway Code changes of January 2022, brought in to
better protect vulnerable road users, to be better communicated to the >>>>> public with a "bigger media campaign" about safe overtaking distances, and
pedestrian and cyclist priority at junctions.
[…] and based on the "horrific injuries I see in orthopaedic and fracture
clinics" that get "exponentially worse with every 1 mph increase in speed",
she suggested the need to "demand 20 mph limits in all areas where people >>>>> are".
[…]
“…Let's challenge the UK's car dependency and enable active travel for
everyone's health." ENDQUOTE
The original article appears to be this one:
<https://www.bmj.com/content/384/bmj.q522>
Note that of the major killer diseases, the rates in the Netherlands, a >>>>> cycle-intensive country, appear to be little different to those of the UK.
You mean Holland has a death rate of 100%, too? Gosh!
I think you failed to take into account the qualifying phrase “…of the >>> major killer diseases…â€.
Why do you say that?
Because it’s an important qualification, ignored by the simplistic response you made.
Do you think Covid, had an effect on health? The difference in lifespan
between 2019 and 2021 in the UK is -0.7 years. That is smaller than the
difference between the Netherlands and UK. So it is possible not cycling
as much as the Netherlands has a worse effect on the UK than Covid. Is
that the point you were trying to make?
For the third time of asking, note that I was stating that for the major killers mentioned there is essentially no difference between the UK and
Dutch statistics. Getting out on your bicycle doesn’t seem to ward off strokes, heart disease, lung problems, or diabetes.
On 15/03/2024 16:55, Spike wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
On 15/03/2024 13:56, Spike wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
On 15/03/2024 11:28, Spike wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
On 08/03/2024 13:47, Roger Hayter wrote:
I honestly think that, while true, this is irrelevant. When I walked to school
there may have been fewer cars but there was still a steady stream of them
doing 30+ mph on all the through roads. Perhaps risk perception was different,
most parents then were brought up in the 20s and 30s when so many children
died of infectious disease, fire and domestic accidents that road death was
considered a minor additional risk.
Road traffic fatalities peaked in the 60s. Government policy prioritised
reducing fatalities, so risk perception increased and children walking >>>>>>> to school was reduced. We sacrificed our children's freedom.
It's only now, with the introduction of 20 mph areas and safer roads, >>>>>>> that we might see a serious attempt to reverse this.
Many London boroughs are introducing default 20 mph limits, like Wales. >>>>>>> Around me, it happened a for a few months ago.
A lot of people seem angry about the new limits. On a trip yesterday, >>>>>>> cars were overtaking me, on narrow residential roads, which was very >>>>>>> rare before. I was exceeding 20mph, but only marginally. There is a lot >>>>>>> of difference between “ignoring†limits and not fully complying with them.
You might find the following of interest, regarding your excessive speed in
a 20mph limit:
QUOTE: Writing in the British Medical Journal, Professor Scarlett McNally
[…] followed many road safety campaigners and charities, such as Cycling
UK, in calling for the Highway Code changes of January 2022, brought in to
better protect vulnerable road users, to be better communicated to the >>>>>> public with a "bigger media campaign" about safe overtaking distances, and
pedestrian and cyclist priority at junctions.
[…] and based on the "horrific injuries I see in orthopaedic and fracture
clinics" that get "exponentially worse with every 1 mph increase in speed",
she suggested the need to "demand 20 mph limits in all areas where people
are".
[…]
“…Let's challenge the UK's car dependency and enable active travel for
everyone's health." ENDQUOTE
The original article appears to be this one:
<https://www.bmj.com/content/384/bmj.q522>
Note that of the major killer diseases, the rates in the Netherlands, a >>>>>> cycle-intensive country, appear to be little different to those of the UK.
You mean Holland has a death rate of 100%, too? Gosh!
I think you failed to take into account the qualifying phrase “…of the >>>> major killer diseases…â€.
Why do you say that?
Because it’s an important qualification, ignored by the simplistic response
you made.
Why do you think it is an important qualification?
[snip]
Do you think Covid, had an effect on health? The difference in lifespan
between 2019 and 2021 in the UK is -0.7 years. That is smaller than the
difference between the Netherlands and UK. So it is possible not cycling >>> as much as the Netherlands has a worse effect on the UK than Covid. Is
that the point you were trying to make?
For the third time of asking, note that I was stating that for the major
killers mentioned there is essentially no difference between the UK and
Dutch statistics. Getting out on your bicycle doesn’t seem to ward off
strokes, heart disease, lung problems, or diabetes.
What are you asking for a third time?
The statistics you gave do not mention age or quality of life.
If cycling caused a person to have a heart attack at 80 instead of 40 it would not affect the statistics you posted.
On 14/03/2024 13:36, Simon Parker wrote:
On 08/03/2024 12:46, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 08/03/2024 12:04, Simon Parker wrote:
On 07/03/2024 17:10, Colin Bignell wrote:
The zig-zag markings alone are merely advisory. It is the
associated upright signs that mandate the no stopping times and
those are not universal.
The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, Sh 7
Part 6 Para 2:
School etc entrances (diagram 1027.1)
2. The road marking provided for at item 10 of the sign table in
Part 4, when not placed in conjunction with an upright sign which
includes the symbol at item 12 of the sign table in Part 3 of
Schedule 4 (prohibiting stopping on entrance markings), indicates a
part of the carriageway outside an entrance where vehicles should
not stop.
I thank you for this but as I'd specifically mentioned that the
zigzags in question do have upright signs accompanying them and are
therefore not merely advisory.
Assuming, of course, that the upright signs are correctly placed :-)
This set of three consecutive road markings has three associated
upright signs, but the placing of the one pictured, against one end
marking rather than the middle marking, probably means that the no
stopping restriction on centre set of road markings is not enforceable:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/iYcBQ2EBBuCBADtXA
One of the local secondary schools has a four long set of zig-zags
with upright signs. I've never considered checking the positioning of
the upright signs but I shall be driving past tomorrow on my way to
visit a friend so I have a feeling I'll be driving slower than usual
and checking the placement of the signs as I pass. :-)
There is a sign angled at 45 degrees towards the road (so it is clearly visible as one approaches) at the start of the lines, one sign in the
middle of each set of zig-zags and another sign, (also at 45 degrees) at
the end of the lines.
The start and end signs seem to be unnecessary but they remove any
claims of "but I didn't see the signs".
The statistics you gave do not mention age or quality of life.
That’s because the comparison was between death rates from the major killer diseases, which on this basis is not affected positively by cycling.
On 15/03/2024 11:20, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Mar 2024 at 09:48:21 GMT, "Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 14/03/2024 15:19, Jon Ribbens wrote:
[...]
I was pointing out that someone has managed to find a work-around to the >>>> issue you were describing. It isn't a "disabled parking bay", but it is >>>> a parking bay that is reserved for a specific disabled person to park in. >>>> You can argue pedantically about that if you like, but you'll have to do >>>> so on your own I'm afraid.
It *isn't* a disabled bay, so it isn't a work-around.
It also would have been helpful if your reply had mentioned that your
example was a work-around but it didn't, hence me disagreeing that what
you have shown was what was being discussed.
I am aware of many instances where a designated parking spot is for the
use of a specific user, some of whom may be disabled, usually in private >>> car parks, but none of those instances are regular disabled bays.
And as I think I've volunteered the information previously that a family >>> member is disabled so the use (and often misuse) of disabled bays is
something that matters to me.
It is however a workaround to enable the council to offer anI draw to your attention the bay immediately adjacent to the bay shown
exclusive bay to someone disabled, even though the result is not a
disabled bay[1], but merely a bay for the exclusive use of a
particular disabled person.
in the link in which a Mini is parked. That bay is for "Permit Holder
011 Only". The Mini is displaying neither a blue nor a green badge.
Is that too 'a bay for the exclusive use of a particular disabled
person' or is it merely 'a designated parking bay for a particular user'?
What is the difference between the TRO or similar that created Bay 059
and Bay 011? What is the difference between the permit that must be displayed for each bay? Is the word "disabled" mentioned anywhere for
either bay?
I once had a very interesting conversation with my relative wherein they explained that they are disabled but society is retarded (in its
original sense). They went on to explain that they are disabled, and
there's little can be done about that - it is a medical fact, but
society retards them (i.e. delays them or holds them back) because it
does not make adequate provision for their disabilities (even with all legislation in place).
On 16/03/2024 09:40, Spike wrote:
The statistics you gave do not mention age or quality of life.
That’s because the comparison was between death rates from the major killer
diseases, which on this basis is not affected positively by cycling.
Everyone dies. Standard practice is for a death certificate to give a
disease as cause of death, rather than just old age. Any medically
beneficial activity will just delay death, but death will still be
recorded as due to disease. Typically, a major killer disease.
So if cycling is as beneficial as claimed, it is far from clear what
effect, if any, it would have on the death rates you quote.
Given you are unwilling to explain what effect we would expect to see, and don't see…
…I don't see why you make statements such as "not affected
positively". You don't explain what positively affected is?
On 16/03/2024 09:40, Spike wrote:
The statistics you gave do not mention age or quality of life.
That’s because the comparison was between death rates from the major
killer
diseases, which on this basis is not affected positively by cycling.
Everyone dies. Standard practice is for a death certificate to give a
disease as cause of death, rather than just old age...
On 16/03/2024 11:04, Pancho wrote:
On 16/03/2024 09:40, Spike wrote:
The statistics you gave do not mention age or quality of life.
That’s because the comparison was between death rates from the major
killer
diseases, which on this basis is not affected positively by cycling.
Everyone dies. Standard practice is for a death certificate to give a
disease as cause of death, rather than just old age...
My late partner's cause of death was given as old age. The Recorder did, however, comment that it was a rare thing to see.
On 17/03/2024 11:02, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 16/03/2024 11:04, Pancho wrote:
On 16/03/2024 09:40, Spike wrote:
The statistics you gave do not mention age or quality of life.
That’s because the comparison was between death rates from the major >>>> killer
diseases, which on this basis is not affected positively by cycling.
Everyone dies. Standard practice is for a death certificate to give a
disease as cause of death, rather than just old age...
My late partner's cause of death was given as old age. The Recorder did,
however, comment that it was a rare thing to see.
On my father's death certificate (within the last 3 years) it says
Frailty of Age (Old Age)
The Queen's death certificate is widely reported as saying that the
cause of death was "old age".
I think many of us would like to know precisely what organ failure
caused the death but maybe this could only be accurately ascertained
with an autopsy, which isn't necessary in most cases.
On 17 Mar 2024 at 12:02:28 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 17/03/2024 11:02, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 16/03/2024 11:04, Pancho wrote:
On 16/03/2024 09:40, Spike wrote:
The statistics you gave do not mention age or quality of life.
That’s because the comparison was between death rates from the major >>>>> killer
diseases, which on this basis is not affected positively by cycling. >>>>>
Everyone dies. Standard practice is for a death certificate to give a
disease as cause of death, rather than just old age...
My late partner's cause of death was given as old age. The Recorder did, >>> however, comment that it was a rare thing to see.
On my father's death certificate (within the last 3 years) it says
Frailty of Age (Old Age)
The Queen's death certificate is widely reported as saying that the
cause of death was "old age".
I think many of us would like to know precisely what organ failure
caused the death but maybe this could only be accurately ascertained
with an autopsy, which isn't necessary in most cases.
The reluctance to do autopsies on frail old people who everyone is confident they have died naturally, or would have done soon anyway, is precisely why "old age" is allowed as a cause of death. And, of course, it is not always possible to define the cause of death with certainty even with an autopsy, and
previous disease may affect the conclusion even when an autopsy is done. So an
old person with no (or with many) previous diseases may still have an unascertained cause of death after all the upset and distress to the family of
an autopsy.
On 16/03/2024 11:04, Pancho wrote:
On 16/03/2024 09:40, Spike wrote:
The statistics you gave do not mention age or quality of life.
That’s because the comparison was between death rates from the major
killer
diseases, which on this basis is not affected positively by cycling.
Everyone dies. Standard practice is for a death certificate to give a
disease as cause of death, rather than just old age...
My late partner's cause of death was given as old age. The Recorder did, however, comment that it was a rare thing to see.
On 17/03/2024 14:31, Roger Hayter wrote:
The reluctance to do autopsies on frail old people who everyone is
confident
they have died naturally, or would have done soon anyway, is precisely
why
"old age" is allowed as a cause of death. And, of course, it is not
always
possible to define the cause of death with certainty even with an
autopsy, and
previous disease may affect the conclusion even when an autopsy is
done. So an
old person with no (or with many) previous diseases may still have an
unascertained cause of death after all the upset and distress to the
family of
an autopsy.
I completely agree. The curiosity about cause of death is probably
motivated by curiosity about death itself - whether it can be peaceful
and relatively painless. And maybe whether one can avoid the specific
disease that was the main cause of death. If an old person is to make an informed decision about whether to agree to a DNR or DNACPR, surely it's quite important to know whether the outlook after being resuscitated is preferable to death. A luxurious departure lounge would be nice.
On 15/03/2024 16:55, Spike wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
What are you asking for a third time?Do you think Covid, had an effect on health? The difference in lifespan
between 2019 and 2021 in the UK is -0.7 years. That is smaller than the
difference between the Netherlands and UK. So it is possible not cycling >>> as much as the Netherlands has a worse effect on the UK than Covid. Is
that the point you were trying to make?
For the third time of asking, note that I was stating that for the major
killers mentioned there is essentially no difference between the UK and
Dutch statistics. Getting out on your bicycle doesn’t seem to ward off
strokes, heart disease, lung problems, or diabetes.
The statistics you gave do not mention age or quality of life. If
cycling caused a person to have a heart attack at 80 instead of 40 it
would not affect the statistics you posted.
On 2024-03-16, Pancho wrote:
On 15/03/2024 16:55, Spike wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
What are you asking for a third time?Do you think Covid, had an effect on health? The difference in lifespan >>>> between 2019 and 2021 in the UK is -0.7 years. That is smaller than the >>>> difference between the Netherlands and UK. So it is possible not cycling >>>> as much as the Netherlands has a worse effect on the UK than Covid. Is >>>> that the point you were trying to make?
For the third time of asking, note that I was stating that for the major >>> killers mentioned there is essentially no difference between the UK and
Dutch statistics. Getting out on your bicycle doesn’t seem to ward off >>> strokes, heart disease, lung problems, or diabetes.
The statistics you gave do not mention age or quality of life. If
cycling caused a person to have a heart attack at 80 instead of 40 it
would not affect the statistics you posted.
I look forward to reading this paper in The Lancet, "Exercise is not
actually good for you".
Benefits from exercise to and from work might be offset by spending
long periods sitting.
Europe’s champion sitters: even the sporty Dutch are falling victim
to ‘chair-use disorder’
Long hours spent at desks and sofas leads to 21,000 deaths a year
in the Netherlands from cardiovascular disease, diabetes and cancer
<https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/mar/17/europes-champion-sitters-even-the-sporty-dutch-are-falling-victim-to-chair-use-disorder>
On 18/03/2024 12:48, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2024-03-16, Pancho wrote:
On 15/03/2024 16:55, Spike wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
What are you asking for a third time?Do you think Covid, had an effect on health? The difference in
lifespan
between 2019 and 2021 in the UK is -0.7 years. That is smaller than
the
difference between the Netherlands and UK. So it is possible not
cycling
as much as the Netherlands has a worse effect on the UK than Covid. Is >>>>> that the point you were trying to make?
For the third time of asking, note that I was stating that for the
major
killers mentioned there is essentially no difference between the UK and >>>> Dutch statistics. Getting out on your bicycle doesn’t seem to ward off >>>> strokes, heart disease, lung problems, or diabetes.
The statistics you gave do not mention age or quality of life. If
cycling caused a person to have a heart attack at 80 instead of 40 it
would not affect the statistics you posted.
I look forward to reading this paper in The Lancet, "Exercise is not
actually good for you".
It is not good for some. I had a heart valve replaced, because of a
genetic condition. In the cardiac rehabilitation sessions, I was the
only person there who had not had a heart attack while exercising.
I look forward to reading this paper in The Lancet, "Exercise is not
actually good for you".
Benefits from exercise to and from work might be offset by spending
long periods sitting.
Europe’s champion sitters: even the sporty Dutch are falling victim
to ‘chair-use disorder’
Long hours spent at desks and sofas leads to 21,000 deaths a year
in the Netherlands from cardiovascular disease, diabetes and cancer
<https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/mar/17/europes-champion-sitters-even-the-sporty-dutch-are-falling-victim-to-chair-use-disorder>
Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
I look forward to reading this paper in The Lancet, "Exercise is not
actually good for you".
Benefits from exercise to and from work might be offset by spending
long periods sitting.
Europe’s champion sitters: even the sporty Dutch are falling victim
to ‘chair-use disorder’
Long hours spent at desks and sofas leads to 21,000 deaths a year
in the Netherlands from cardiovascular disease, diabetes and cancer
…says an guesstimate rather than a report of actual data.
<https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/mar/17/europes-champion-sitters-even-the-sporty-dutch-are-falling-victim-to-chair-use-disorder>
One of my friends had a heart attack while being assessed on the exercise machine at Bart’s.
On 13/03/2024 20:53, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 13/03/2024 20:43, Sam Plusnet wrote:
On 12-Mar-24 11:10, Roland Perry wrote:
Presumably, they are only available to Blue Badge holders, so that isMaybe the 'offenders' are suffering from a mental disability?
Interesting point. The intention was to offer those parking spaces
to people who have limited mobility. Can one legally discriminate >>>between different forms of disability in such a matter?
a problem for the Local Authority issuing them, not the school.
A disabled bay is available to anyone that can fulfil the criteria for
using it.
Which is a source of frustration to residents that manage to get a
disabled bay installed on the road outside their house, (assuming they
have no off-road parking), only to learn that anyone with a blue badge
can now use the space they've handily reserved for the purpose.
IOW, there are no exclusive disabled bays, even the ones installed
directly outside someone's house intended, primarily, to be used by the >disabled occupant of that house.
I am aware of many instances where a designated parking spot is for the
use of a specific user, some of whom may be disabled, usually in
private car parks, but none of those instances are regular disabled
bays.
And as I think I've volunteered the information previously that a
family member is disabled so the use (and often misuse) of disabled
bays is something that matters to me.
[1] A disabled bay should really be a bay that has been rendered in some way >unusable.
On 2024-03-14, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-03-14, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
IOW, there are no exclusive disabled bays, even the ones installed
directly outside someone's house intended, primarily, to be used by the
disabled occupant of that house.
... although someone round here seems to have managed to arrange one:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/aFPSb3rp1tw2sU1JA
(Link is a picture of a parking bay marked "PERMIT HOLDER 059 ONLY",
in which is parked a car displaying both blue and green disabled
parking badges.) ("Green badge" is like "blue badge" but specific
to some areas of Camden in central London.)
Interesting, I hadn't heard of that. It turns out a Green Badge is
like a Blue Badge And Then Some: "You must already have a Blue Badge
to get a Green Badge."
<https://www.camden.gov.uk/green-badge>
Many London boroughs are introducing default 20 mph limits, like Wales. >Around me, it happened a for a few months ago.
A lot of people seem angry about the new limits. On a trip yesterday,
cars were overtaking me, on narrow residential roads, which was very
rare before. I was exceeding 20mph, but only marginally. There is a lot
of difference between “ignoring†limits and not fully complying with them.
[…] and based on the "horrific injuries I see in orthopaedic and fracture >clinics" that get "exponentially worse with every 1 mph increase in speed", >she suggested the need to "demand 20 mph limits in all areas where people >are".
I once had a very interesting conversation with my relative wherein
they explained that they are disabled but society is retarded (in its >original sense). They went on to explain that they are disabled, and
there's little can be done about that - it is a medical fact, but
society retards them (i.e. delays them or holds them back) because it
does not make adequate provision for their disabilities (even with all >legislation in place).
It was quite an eye-opening conversation.
Can you imagine a new hospital with no access for cars?
No access? No - because I expect ambulance and patient transport will
need to access it. But inadequate access for cars? Absolutely. It
seems to be par for the course at every local hospital around here, >(including the swanky new one built just before COVID). At the nearest
major hospital it is so common to be unable to find parking in *any* of
the on-site car parks, that they've added five bays outside A&E where
one can park temporarily, drop off the casualty and then drive around
for half an hour trying to find a parking spot whilst the patient is
waiting to be triaged. I don't know anybody that would drive their own >vehicle there unaccompanied and expect to find parking straight away.
On 14/03/2024 08:12 am, Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
Whatever territory is covered by "National" teachers unions and the >>employment T&C imposed by the Department of Education. E&W, andThe school then declares it can't guarantee the safety of >>>>>>children milling around unsupervised on the pavement outside, and >>>>>>the majority of parents can't bring themselves to disagree.
Local, national, international or inter-galactic?
I have no idea what yu are trying to say.
I was asking something, not saying or stating anything.
I was asking how widespread this Teachers' Union "dispute" is,
whether it's a devolved matter in Scotland you'll need to look up >>yourself.
and what powers said teachers have to issue such orders to parents
(or, in fact, to anybody).
They aren't orders, it's more of a "on your head be it, and by the
way we'll call social services".
So it's just pique on the part of that union and completely without effect.
In message <l5ipndFdsqjU1@mid.individual.net>, at 11:28:45 on Fri, 15
Mar 2024, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> remarked:
[…] and based on the "horrific injuries I see in orthopaedic and fracture >> clinics" that get "exponentially worse with every 1 mph increase in speed", >> she suggested the need to "demand 20 mph limits in all areas where people
are".
I wonder if they mean "pedestrians are". People are everywhere, even
inside cars and houses facing the street.
In message <2lebckx6gk.ln2@news.ducksburg.com>, at 14:36:50 on Thu, 14
Mar 2024, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> remarked:
On 2024-03-14, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-03-14, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
IOW, there are no exclusive disabled bays, even the ones installed
directly outside someone's house intended, primarily, to be used by the >>>> disabled occupant of that house.
... although someone round here seems to have managed to arrange one:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/aFPSb3rp1tw2sU1JA
(Link is a picture of a parking bay marked "PERMIT HOLDER 059 ONLY",
in which is parked a car displaying both blue and green disabled
parking badges.) ("Green badge" is like "blue badge" but specific
to some areas of Camden in central London.)
Interesting, I hadn't heard of that. It turns out a Green Badge is
like a Blue Badge And Then Some: "You must already have a Blue Badge
to get a Green Badge."
<https://www.camden.gov.uk/green-badge>
There's another kind of blue-badge-supplement, which is to gain access
past specific "No entry except permit holders" signs associated with pedestrianised areas. Contrary to popular belief, the blue badge itself
isn't sufficient.
On 18/03/2024 12:48, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2024-03-16, Pancho wrote:
On 15/03/2024 16:55, Spike wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
What are you asking for a third time?Do you think Covid, had an effect on health? The difference in lifespan >>>>> between 2019 and 2021 in the UK is -0.7 years. That is smaller than the >>>>> difference between the Netherlands and UK. So it is possible not cycling >>>>> as much as the Netherlands has a worse effect on the UK than Covid. Is >>>>> that the point you were trying to make?
For the third time of asking, note that I was stating that for the major >>>> killers mentioned there is essentially no difference between the UK and >>>> Dutch statistics. Getting out on your bicycle doesn’t seem to ward off >>>> strokes, heart disease, lung problems, or diabetes.
The statistics you gave do not mention age or quality of life. If
cycling caused a person to have a heart attack at 80 instead of 40 it
would not affect the statistics you posted.
I look forward to reading this paper in The Lancet, "Exercise is not
actually good for you".
It is not good for some. I had a heart valve replaced, because of a
genetic condition. In the cardiac rehabilitation sessions, I was the
only person there who had not had a heart attack while exercising.
In message <ut12hv$261u2$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:57:35 on Fri, 15 Mar
2024, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> remarked:
Many London boroughs are introducing default 20 mph limits, like Wales. >>Around me, it happened a for a few months ago.
A lot of people seem angry about the new limits. On a trip yesterday,
cars were overtaking me, on narrow residential roads, which was very
rare before. I was exceeding 20mph, but only marginally. There is a lot
of difference between “ignoring†limits and not fully complying with them.
In Ely the City Council (presumably with the connivance of the County
Council who are the Highways authority) has introduced (three weeks ago)
a controversial 20mph zone in roughly a 1.5 mile radius of the centre.
So far I have yet to drive into Ely (at 20.0mph) without suffering a road-rage overtaking episode by someone who had spent the previous
couple of minutes driving about two foot behind my car. So much safer
than before, NOT.
My relative will often stress that they are "impaired", rather than "disabled".
However, I shall don my stout hessian undergarments for the remainder of
the day as several times throughout this thread I have used the term "disabled" and even referred to "disabled bays" when I perhaps should
have said "parking bays for use by the impaired", at least for the first
few times. Or have clarified that "a disabled bay refers to a bay
reserved for use by those with a physical, sensory or mental impairment,
who has compromised mobility as a result of their condition." Should I
used the term "disabled" in a future post, please add that clarification
to the end if I omit it. :-)
On 08/03/2024 13:47, Roger Hayter wrote:
I honestly think that, while true, this is irrelevant. When I walked
to school
there may have been fewer cars but there was still a steady stream of
them
doing 30+ mph on all the through roads. Perhaps risk perception was
different,
most parents then were brought up in the 20s and 30s when so many
children
died of infectious disease, fire and domestic accidents that road
death was
considered a minor additional risk.
Road traffic fatalities peaked in the 60s. Government policy prioritised reducing fatalities, so risk perception increased and children walking
to school was reduced. We sacrificed our children's freedom.
It's only now, with the introduction of 20 mph areas and safer roads,
that we might see a serious attempt to reverse this.
Many London boroughs are introducing default 20 mph limits, like Wales. Around me, it happened a for a few months ago.
A lot of people seem angry about the new limits. On a trip yesterday,
cars were overtaking me, on narrow residential roads, which was very
rare before. I was exceeding 20mph, but only marginally. There is a lot
of difference between “ignoring†limits and not fully complying with them.
Out in the provinces the biggest obstacle, literally, is so-called >>disabled access that requires the physique of a bodybuilder to be
able to negotiate.
Indeed. I believe it would be beneficial if those that are responsible
for the provision of services for impaired users were first required to
live as a user of the services they're providing for a minimum of six
months.
On 19/03/2024 03:08, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l5ijr6F2pnbU1@mid.individual.net>, at 09:48:21 on Fri, 15
Mar 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
I am aware of many instances where a designated parking spot is forThere's a house near me with one of these much-misunderstood
the use of a specific user, some of whom may be disabled, usually in >>>private car parks, but none of those instances are regular disabled bays. >>>
And as I think I've volunteered the information previously that a
family member is disabled so the use (and often misuse) of disabled
bays is something that matters to me.
disabled spaces outside. In practice it's almost always occupied by
the car of one of the agency carers who attend daily, which I don't
think would entitle them to use the invalid's blue badge, which they
don't display anyway.
I believe the carer should display the blue badge of the household
they're visiting if they're parking in a disabled bay, otherwise they
risk receiving a parking ticket.
Alternatively, they can apply for a blue badge in their own right as a
carer. There is an "Organisation Blue Badge Scheme" where an
organisation may apply for blue badges for use by anyone working for
them, but they don't apply in the circumstances you've listed - perhaps
they should?
Regards
S.P.
On 2024-03-19, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <2lebckx6gk.ln2@news.ducksburg.com>, at 14:36:50 on Thu, 14
Mar 2024, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> remarked:
On 2024-03-14, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-03-14, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
IOW, there are no exclusive disabled bays, even the ones installed
directly outside someone's house intended, primarily, to be used by the >>>>> disabled occupant of that house.
... although someone round here seems to have managed to arrange one:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/aFPSb3rp1tw2sU1JA
(Link is a picture of a parking bay marked "PERMIT HOLDER 059 ONLY",
in which is parked a car displaying both blue and green disabled
parking badges.) ("Green badge" is like "blue badge" but specific
to some areas of Camden in central London.)
Interesting, I hadn't heard of that. It turns out a Green Badge is
like a Blue Badge And Then Some: "You must already have a Blue Badge
to get a Green Badge."
<https://www.camden.gov.uk/green-badge>
There's another kind of blue-badge-supplement, which is to gain access
past specific "No entry except permit holders" signs associated with
pedestrianised areas. Contrary to popular belief, the blue badge itself
isn't sufficient.
Interesting, I didn't know about that one either but it makes
sense. Does it require a further level of disability than the Blue
Badge?
On 15/03/2024 08:57 am, Pancho wrote:
On 08/03/2024 13:47, Roger Hayter wrote:
Road traffic fatalities peaked in the 60s. Government policy
I honestly think that, while true, this is irrelevant. When I walked
to school there may have been fewer cars but there was still a
steady stream of them doing 30+ mph on all the through roads.
Perhaps risk perception was different, most parents then were
brought up in the 20s and 30s when so many children died of
infectious disease, fire and domestic accidents that road death was >>>considered a minor additional risk.
prioritised reducing fatalities, so risk perception increased and
children walking to school was reduced. We sacrificed our children's >>freedom.
It's only now, with the introduction of 20 mph areas and safer
roads, that we might see a serious attempt to reverse this.
Many London boroughs are introducing default 20 mph limits, like
Wales. Around me, it happened a for a few months ago.
A lot of people seem angry about the new limits. On a trip
yesterday, cars were overtaking me, on narrow residential roads,
which was very rare before. I was exceeding 20mph, but only
marginally. There is a lot of difference between “ignoringâ€
limits and not fully complying with them.
Park Lane, London W1 (Marble Arch to Hyde Park Corner).
It was a 40mph dual carriageway and well-engineered for that.
Now a 20mph dual carriageway.
Residential?
No.
On 15/03/2024 08:57 am, Pancho wrote:
On 08/03/2024 13:47, Roger Hayter wrote:
I honestly think that, while true, this is irrelevant. When I walked
to school
there may have been fewer cars but there was still a steady stream of
them
doing 30+ mph on all the through roads. Perhaps risk perception was
different,
most parents then were brought up in the 20s and 30s when so many
children
died of infectious disease, fire and domestic accidents that road
death was
considered a minor additional risk.
Road traffic fatalities peaked in the 60s. Government policy prioritised
reducing fatalities, so risk perception increased and children walking
to school was reduced. We sacrificed our children's freedom.
It's only now, with the introduction of 20 mph areas and safer roads,
that we might see a serious attempt to reverse this.
Many London boroughs are introducing default 20 mph limits, like Wales.
Around me, it happened a for a few months ago.
A lot of people seem angry about the new limits. On a trip yesterday,
cars were overtaking me, on narrow residential roads, which was very
rare before. I was exceeding 20mph, but only marginally. There is a lot
of difference between “ignoring†limits and not fully complying with them.
Park Lane, London W1 (Marble Arch to Hyde Park Corner).
It was a 40mph dual carriageway and well-engineered for that.
Now a 20mph dual carriageway.
Residential?
No.
On 19/03/2024 03:15, Roland Perry wrote:
I have spent much of the last 18 months being the pilot of a wheelchair
(again simply medical necessity). And it's swings and roundabouts. Some
places, especially London, you can automatically jump most queues, and
even get free "carer" admission to tourist attractions, theatre etc.
Out in the provinces the biggest obstacle, literally, is so-called
disabled access that requires the physique of a bodybuilder to be
able to negotiate.
Indeed. I believe it would be beneficial if those that are responsible
for the provision of services for impaired users were first required to
live as a user of the services they're providing for a minimum of six
months.
In message <ut12hv$261u2$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:57:35 on Fri, 15 Mar
2024, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> remarked:
Many London boroughs are introducing default 20 mph limits, like Wales. >>Around me, it happened a for a few months ago.
A lot of people seem angry about the new limits. On a trip yesterday,
cars were overtaking me, on narrow residential roads, which was very
rare before. I was exceeding 20mph, but only marginally. There is a lot
of difference between “ignoring” limits and not fully complying with them.
In Ely the City Council (presumably with the connivance of the County
Council who are the Highways authority) has introduced (three weeks ago)
a controversial 20mph zone in roughly a 1.5 mile radius of the centre.
So far I have yet to drive into Ely (at 20.0mph) without suffering a >road-rage overtaking episode by someone who had spent the previous
couple of minutes driving about two foot behind my car. So much safer
than before, NOT.
In message <l5gd6rF755bU42@mid.individual.net>, at 13:42:49 on Thu, 14
Mar 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
Can you imagine a new hospital with no access for cars?
No access? No - because I expect ambulance and patient transport will
need to access it. But inadequate access for cars? Absolutely. It
seems to be par for the course at every local hospital around here, >>(including the swanky new one built just before COVID). At the nearest >>major hospital it is so common to be unable to find parking in *any* of
the on-site car parks, that they've added five bays outside A&E where
one can park temporarily, drop off the casualty and then drive around
for half an hour trying to find a parking spot whilst the patient is >>waiting to be triaged. I don't know anybody that would drive their own >>vehicle there unaccompanied and expect to find parking straight away.
Over the past couple of years we've become regulars at Addenbrookes, and >unless you arrive before 8:30, or have a weekend appointment, all the
blue badge parking surrounding the buildings on the campus will be
spoken for. And soon after, all the blue badge parking near the lifts in
the two multistorey car parks. Invalids being visitors to hospitals:
who'd a-thunk-it.
My rule of thumb is to drop off the patient as near as possible to the >clinic-du-jour and try to get an official volunteer to wheel the rest of
the way. Meanwhile typically it takes half an hour to access a regular >parking space and walk back to the clinic.
On 2024-03-19, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <ut12hv$261u2$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:57:35 on Fri, 15 Mar
2024, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> remarked:
Many London boroughs are introducing default 20 mph limits, like Wales.
Around me, it happened a for a few months ago.
A lot of people seem angry about the new limits. On a trip yesterday,
cars were overtaking me, on narrow residential roads, which was very
rare before. I was exceeding 20mph, but only marginally. There is a lot
of difference between “ignoring†limits and not fully complying with them.
In Ely the City Council (presumably with the connivance of the County
Council who are the Highways authority) has introduced (three weeks ago)
a controversial 20mph zone in roughly a 1.5 mile radius of the centre.
So far I have yet to drive into Ely (at 20.0mph) without suffering a
road-rage overtaking episode by someone who had spent the previous
couple of minutes driving about two foot behind my car. So much safer
than before, NOT.
Maybe it would improve safety if we broke the idea that speed limit enforcement has to be "sporting" and started moving hidden,
unpublished cameras around so that the rest of the population (besides
people like us) get used to the idea of complying with the law
everywhere rather than just where they are told "the law really
applies in this spot". We don't encourage that mentality for
non-driving crimes.
In message <l5gnu7F496rU2@mid.individual.net>, at 16:45:59 on Thu, 14
Mar 2024, JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
On 14/03/2024 08:12 am, Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
 Whatever territory is covered by "National" teachers unions and the The school then declares it can't guarantee the safety of
children milling around unsupervised on the pavement outside,
and the majority of parents can't bring themselves to disagree.
Local, national, international or inter-galactic?
 I have no idea what yu are trying to say.
I was asking something, not saying or stating anything.
I was asking how widespread this Teachers' Union "dispute" is,
employment T&C imposed by the Department of Education. E&W, and
whether it's a devolved matter in Scotland you'll need to look up
yourself.
and what powers said teachers have to issue such orders to parents
(or, in fact, to anybody).
 They aren't orders, it's more of a "on your head be it, and by the
way we'll call social services".
So it's just pique on the part of that union and completely without
effect.
Pique yes, but the effect on parents and children arriving at school is tangible in the extreme.
In message <l5ti9uF2rj1U2@mid.individual.net>, at 13:29:34 on Tue, 19
Mar 2024, JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
On 15/03/2024 08:57 am, Pancho wrote:
On 08/03/2024 13:47, Roger Hayter wrote:
 Road traffic fatalities peaked in the 60s. Government policy
I honestly think that, while true, this is irrelevant. When I walked
to school there may have been fewer cars but there was still a
steady stream of them doing 30+ mph on all the through roads.
Perhaps risk perception was different, most parents then were
brought up in the 20s and 30s when so many children died of
infectious disease, fire and domestic accidents that road death was
considered a minor additional risk.
prioritised reducing fatalities, so risk perception increased and
children walking to school was reduced. We sacrificed our children's
freedom.
 It's only now, with the introduction of 20 mph areas and safer
roads, that we might see a serious attempt to reverse this.
 Many London boroughs are introducing default 20 mph limits, like
Wales. Around me, it happened a for a few months ago.
 A lot of people seem angry about the new limits. On a trip
yesterday, cars were overtaking me, on narrow residential roads,
which was very rare before. I was exceeding 20mph, but only
marginally. There is a lot of difference between “ignoring†limits >>> and not fully complying with them.
Park Lane, London W1 (Marble Arch to Hyde Park Corner).
It was a 40mph dual carriageway and well-engineered for that.
Now a 20mph dual carriageway.
Residential?
No.
In fact yes. There are many residential flats at the northern east side.
It's where I've long said I'd seek to live if I won the lottery.
And there are of course long term residents in several of the hotels
slightly further south.
On 18/03/2024 16:54, Spike wrote:
Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
I look forward to reading this paper in The Lancet, "Exercise is not
actually good for you".
Benefits from exercise to and from work might be offset by spending
long periods sitting.
   Europe’s champion sitters: even the sporty Dutch are falling victim
   to ‘chair-use disorder’
   Long hours spent at desks and sofas leads to 21,000 deaths a year >>>    in the Netherlands from cardiovascular disease, diabetes and cancer
…says an guesstimate rather than a report of actual data.
<https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/mar/17/europes-champion-sitters-even-the-sporty-dutch-are-falling-victim-to-chair-use-disorder>
One of my friends had a heart attack while being assessed on the exercise
machine at Bart’s.
My uncle died of a heart attack whilst being assessed on the treadmill
in the cardiac clinic at the hospital. This was in the 1970s. Evidently
the expertise of the team wasn't sufficient to save his life.
On 19 Mar 2024 at 13:29:34 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
On 15/03/2024 08:57 am, Pancho wrote:
On 08/03/2024 13:47, Roger Hayter wrote:
I honestly think that, while true, this is irrelevant. When I walked
to school
there may have been fewer cars but there was still a steady stream of
them
doing 30+ mph on all the through roads. Perhaps risk perception was
different,
most parents then were brought up in the 20s and 30s when so many
children
died of infectious disease, fire and domestic accidents that road
death was
considered a minor additional risk.
Road traffic fatalities peaked in the 60s. Government policy prioritised >>> reducing fatalities, so risk perception increased and children walking
to school was reduced. We sacrificed our children's freedom.
It's only now, with the introduction of 20 mph areas and safer roads,
that we might see a serious attempt to reverse this.
Many London boroughs are introducing default 20 mph limits, like Wales.
Around me, it happened a for a few months ago.
A lot of people seem angry about the new limits. On a trip yesterday,
cars were overtaking me, on narrow residential roads, which was very
rare before. I was exceeding 20mph, but only marginally. There is a lot
of difference between “ignoring†limits and not fully complying with them.
Park Lane, London W1 (Marble Arch to Hyde Park Corner).
It was a 40mph dual carriageway and well-engineered for that.
Now a 20mph dual carriageway.
Residential?
No.
The roundabout is a bit daunting for strangers to the area.
But I would guess
it is more to do with making the road more fun for sightseers, who are after all a major source of revenue.
On 08/03/2024 15:50, JNugent wrote:
[ ... ]And that (though I have remarked on the fact that the local secondary
school, in the road where I live, has neither a bus stop nor zig-zag
lines. And no kerbside yellow lines.
Yes, really - none of those.
Oh, and if it makes any difference, it obviously isn't a prep school,
either (mentioned only because you seem to take the view that that
makes a difference).
I've also given a couple of reasons why it seems to make a difference.
"There's an enforcement officer. He must be trying to catch me out
for something and raise money for the council".
"There's an enforcement officer. I won't leave my car on the double
yellow lines / at the bus stop / obstructing a junction / obstructing
the road / on the zigzags (delete as applicable) today. This is
going to make me late for my Pilates class with James. I hope I am
not late for morning tea at Cordelia's. Etc."
You do love your sweeping class-based generalisations, don't you?
James is a good friend with whom I regularly watch football in one of
the local pubs.
As for the other names, as stated in a parallel post to the thread, I recommend stuffing them into Google (or another search engine of your choosing).
Should it be made an offence for any person of any gender whose name
is Cordelia to drive a motor vehicle?
I am at a loss as to why you are asking this
as I have never suggested,
intimated or otherwise remarked that I was in the slightest bit
interested in backing the introduction of such legislation.
Do you have any other straw men you wish to introduce?
If only the preferences of the public were respected by councils and
that could never happen, eh?
I'd be happy for the LA to take a vote on whether or not the majority
of the public would prefer that the restrictions are enforced more
strongly or less strongly. I am supremely confident of predicting
the likely result.
If it's a primar school then parking is required, because the kid
has to be dlievered to, and collected from, the door.
I didn't know that. Are you sure? Even at age 11-ish?
In these parts, (which is where the school in question is located),
absolutely.
Bye-law?
It is considered a "Safeguarding" issue. (I just asked a relative that works in education. Further details are available upon request.)
It isn't part of a Road Traffic Act.
Nor is it part of the Construction and Use Regulations. Your turn to
list something it "isn't part of"?
If there isn't enough parking for staff, there certainly isn't going to
be enough parking for parents, particularly when that parking is only
going to be needed for two very short windows during the day. (The
school in question currently has an arrangement in place with a nearby
garden centre which opens its car park early to allow parents to use it
in the morning.)
Schools, like other large establishments, should be built with
adequate road access.
I recommend raising that idea with your local MP.
Can you imagine a new hospital with no access for cars?
No access? No - because I expect ambulance and patient transport will
need to access it. But inadequate access for cars? Absolutely. It
seems to be par for the course at every local hospital around here, (including the swanky new one built just before COVID). At the nearest major hospital it is so common to be unable to find parking in *any* of
the on-site car parks, that they've added five bays outside A&E where
one can park temporarily, drop off the casualty and then drive around
for half an hour trying to find a parking spot whilst the patient is
waiting to be triaged. I don't know anybody that would drive their own vehicle there unaccompanied and expect to find parking straight away.
On 08/03/2024 15:36, JNugent wrote:
On 08/03/2024 12:03 pm, Simon Parker wrote:
On 07/03/2024 15:50, JNugent wrote:
On 07/03/2024 12:41 pm, Simon Parker wrote:
On 06/03/2024 14:36, JNugent wrote:
[...]
Though if, at the school, the stopping vehicles are concentrated,
for the few seconds that they are there, within a distance of less >>>>>> than 25 yards in either direction, what is the problem?
I recommend you refresh your understanding of Rule 238 in the
Highway Code concerning what one must and must not do on 'school
entrance markings when upright signs indicate a prohibition of
stopping.'
I'll give you a clue:Â It includes the words: "You *MUST NOT* wait
or park, or stop to set down and pick up passengers." (highlighting
per the Highway Code.)
That's the zig-zag lines, I think. Is that right? There are some
outside the local primary school, in a side road. There are none
outside the secondary school on the main road, which is a bus route.
But the zig-zags are just an administrative tool. I can see that for
many, any breach of admin rules is itself heinous. But I actually
asked "what is the problem?" and didn't expect an answer merely to
the effect that an administrative rule is being broken.
The zigzag lines at the school in question are backed by upright
signs indicating a prohibition on stopping.
That's what I said. The zig-zags - where they exist - are just an
administrative tool for drawing attention to the legal signage.
You appear to be extremely confused.
The zig-zags can exist without the
upright signs whilst the upright signs cannot exist without the zig-zags.
Where both are present, the zig-zags are most certainly not "just an administrative tool" any more so than double yellow lines, red lines,
kerb markings indicating no stopping, etc.
I do not see that as an "administrative rule" any more than I do
parking on double yellow lines (yes, some parents regularly do that),
or obstructing a junction (that too), or even abandoning the car
completely in the middle of the carriageway with the hazard lights
illuminated (no, I've no idea why they think that isn't going to
completely log jam the road but maybe because it will "only be for a
couple of minutes" it doesn't matter).
Where do "administrative rules" end and legislation begin for you?
"Offences" which did not exist, say, 100 years ago and have only been
introduced in the pursuit of a particular one-step-removed outcome are
not the same as common law offences.
I fear you are attempting to defend the indefensible and will not find
much, if any, support for legalising the acts listed a few paragraphs
up, even from those that regularly perform those acts, albeit for "only
a minute or two".
Is exceeding the speed limit merely 'breaking an administrative rule'?
It can be. Some zealots are now installing 20 mph limits on dual
carriageways previously limited to 40mph.
I recommend you do not visit Wales any time soon. :-)
Stopping at traffic lights? Giving way to pedestrians at zebra
crossings?
Moving away from driving what about murder? Is killing someone
merely 'breaking an administrative rule' with which we shouldn't
concern ourselves or do you think something should be done about
murder, especially when there isn't even a 'rule' prohibiting it?
Murder is a crime under common law.
I am aware of that. As somebody eschewing compliance with 'just administrative rules', which are at least provided for in legislation, I
was enquiring about your thoughts towards crimes which aren't codified
in the legislation itself.
It seems difficult to identify, absent you providing a list, precisely
what you consider 'just administrative rules' and which laws must be
followed by all citizens at all times to the best of their ability.
The fact that while the primary school has zig-zags (in a side
road), the much larger secondary school on the main road doesn't,
makes one wonder what the objectives of the local highway authority
are.
I do not know the schools you mention, nor do I know what signage is
in use.
But in the school to which I was referring, stopping iscontinued to move.
prohibited, primahee dangerous than it would have been if it had
I do not work for (nor have I ever been employed by) the transport
department at the LA so I cannot state definitively why they have
designated the various areas they have. However, I know the area well
and can make some logical assumptions. The school in question is on the corner of a busy road. It is impossible to park on the busy main road,
so those using cars must park in the adjacent streets and use the
entrance to the playground located on the side street. On the side
street, which is only wide enough for two and a half vehicles to pass,
there are double yellow lines down one side of the road. On the other
side of the road, working from the junction with the main road backwards there's double yellow lines (to prevent the junction getting clogged and
so that pedestrians can proceed along the main road safely), parking
bays for around half a dozen vehicles (or only 4 depending on how well
they park), an area reserved for buses, the zig-zags, more parking bays, interspersed with entrances to driveways, and then free parking. Further along the road is a grammar school to which many cars and several buses travel at the same time as the children arriving at the prep school.
The zig-zags, in conjunction with the double-yellow lines on the
opposite side of the road, create a "safe space" where parents and
children can cross the road without their view being obstructed by
parked cars and it also means that drivers can see parents and children crossing the road rather than them emerging from between parked
vehicles.
Those parents that park on the zig-zags and on the double
yellow lines opposite them are morons
and I wouldn't lose a moment's
sleep if their vehicle was impounded for 7 days when they parked on
either with the duration for which the vehicle is impounded doubling
each successive time it is taken. Ditto for the parents that park on
the white zig-zags at the zebra crossing at the grammar school further
down the road. (Thread convergence: The grammar school has buildings on both sides of the road and a zebra crossing between them. At certain
times of the day, it is not uncommon to wait a double digit number of
minutes for a break in the lemming-like stream of children crossing.)
I get all of that (and didn't need the explanation as to what a prep
school is - there was one for the grammar school I attended, though
I certainly didn't go to the prep school).
My question was aimed more at finding out why any of it is relevant
to your previous answer. Is it all different when the school isn't a
prep school?
I would say there are two main differences between the parents of
children at the prep schools and parents of children at other primary
schools.
Firstly the size of the vehicle they're driving and the ability to
correctly manage a vehicle of the size and shape chosen. At the
primary schools, there is a good mix of vehicles of all shapes and
sizes and most drivers seem reasonably competent drivers. For the
prep schools, the Chelsea Tractor of choice seems to be either the
Audi Q7, the Masarati Levante or the Ineos Grenadier. Whilst these
can just about be squeezed into the parking spaces at Booths, they
are too big for the spaces in the Waitrose car park, and most of the
drivers of these vehicles seem to have no idea of the actual size of
their car, believing it to be at least 1m bigger in all directions
than it really is. This makes watching the morning parking ritual
compelling viewing, even with their PDC sensors and cameras.
Have you ever heard the phrase "sweeping generalisation"?
No, that's a new one on me. But as I live here and you don't, I think
I'm the better placed of the two of us to know which cars I see being
used to drop children off at the prep school and to gauge the ability of those driving them.
Secondly, the parents dropping the children at the prep schools tend
to act, shall I say, 'more entitled'. Perhaps they think, "I'm
paying a grand a month each for Tarquin and Guinevere to attend here
so I can park where I want when I want."
Have you ever heard the term "stereotyping"?
I recommend feeding all the names I've used in this thread into Google.
All may become clear. :-)
adapting our language as appropriate to the current context.I think it would be difficult to discuss parking rules that
universally use the word "disabled" without mentioning that word and
it is therefore hard to argue it's unreasonable or rude to use in
this context... If you were to talk about "impaired parking bays"
nobody would have a clue what you were on about.
My point is simply that given the breadth of human experience there
is no single phrase that is a panacea for avoiding offence and that,
always, all we can do is muddle through to the best of our abilities,
I've noticed one poster to the thread using the term "invalid" which I >confess I haven't heard used for some time,
so we have at least "invalid", "disabled" and "impaired".
On 19/03/2024 01:47 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l5ti9uF2rj1U2@mid.individual.net>, at 13:29:34 on Tue, 19
Mar 2024, JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
On 15/03/2024 08:57 am, Pancho wrote:
On 08/03/2024 13:47, Roger Hayter wrote:
 Road traffic fatalities peaked in the 60s. Government policy >>>>prioritised reducing fatalities, so risk perception increased and >>>>children walking to school was reduced. We sacrificed our
I honestly think that, while true, this is irrelevant. When I
walked to school there may have been fewer cars but there was >>>>>still a steady stream of them doing 30+ mph on all the through >>>>>roads. Perhaps risk perception was different, most parents
then were brought up in the 20s and 30s when so many children >>>>>died of infectious disease, fire and domestic accidents that road >>>>>death was considered a minor additional risk.
children's freedom.
 It's only now, with the introduction of 20 mph areas and safer >>>>roads, that we might see a serious attempt to reverse this.
 Many London boroughs are introducing default 20 mph limits, like >>>>Wales. Around me, it happened a for a few months ago.
 A lot of people seem angry about the new limits. On a trip >>>>yesterday, cars were overtaking me, on narrow residential roads, >>>>which was very rare before. I was exceeding 20mph, but only >>>>marginally. There is a lot of difference between “ignoring†>>>>limits and not fully complying with them.
Park Lane, London W1 (Marble Arch to Hyde Park Corner).
It was a 40mph dual carriageway and well-engineered for that.
Now a 20mph dual carriageway.
Residential?
No.
In fact yes. There are many residential flats at the northern east
side. It's where I've long said I'd seek to live if I won the lottery.
And there are of course long term residents in several of the hotels >>slightly further south.
"Park Lane is a residential street", said no-one, ever.
On 19/03/2024 04:04 am, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l5gnu7F496rU2@mid.individual.net>, at 16:45:59 on Thu, 14
Mar 2024, JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
On 14/03/2024 08:12 am, Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
The school then declares it can't guarantee the safety of >>>>>>>>children milling around unsupervised on the pavement outside, >>>>>>>>and the majority of parents can't bring themselves to disagree.
Local, national, international or inter-galactic?
I have no idea what yu are trying to say.
I was asking something, not saying or stating anything.
I was asking how widespread this Teachers' Union "dispute" is,
Whatever territory is covered by "National" teachers unions and
the employment T&C imposed by the Department of Education. E&W, and >>>>whether it's a devolved matter in Scotland you'll need to look up yourself.
and what powers said teachers have to issue such orders to parents >>>>>(or, in fact, to anybody).
They aren't orders, it's more of a "on your head be it, and by the >>>>way we'll call social services".
So it's just pique on the part of that union and completely without >>>effect.
Pique yes, but the effect on parents and children arriving at school
is tangible in the extreme.
"without effect" = "without legal effect".
On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 03:36:53 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <ut12hv$261u2$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:57:35 on Fri, 15 Mar
2024, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> remarked:
Many London boroughs are introducing default 20 mph limits, like Wales. >>>Around me, it happened a for a few months ago.
A lot of people seem angry about the new limits. On a trip yesterday, >>>cars were overtaking me, on narrow residential roads, which was very
rare before. I was exceeding 20mph, but only marginally. There is a lot >>>of difference between “ignoring†limits and not fully complying with them.
In Ely the City Council (presumably with the connivance of the County >>Council who are the Highways authority) has introduced (three weeks ago)
a controversial 20mph zone in roughly a 1.5 mile radius of the centre.
Other way round: the county council has introduced it, but will have >consulted with the city council first (as they are legally obliged to do).
https://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/news/20mph-speed-limit-for-ely-approved
So far I have yet to drive into Ely (at 20.0mph) without suffering a >>road-rage overtaking episode by someone who had spent the previous
couple of minutes driving about two foot behind my car. So much safer
than before, NOT.
They'll learn, eventually.
On 18/03/2024 05:27 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 18/03/2024 16:54, Spike wrote:
Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
I look forward to reading this paper in The Lancet, "Exercise is not
actually good for you".
Benefits from exercise to and from work might be offset by spending
long periods sitting.
   Europe’s champion sitters: even the sporty Dutch are falling victim
   to ‘chair-use disorder’
   Long hours spent at desks and sofas leads to 21,000 deaths a year >>>>    in the Netherlands from cardiovascular disease, diabetes and cancer >>…says an guesstimate rather than a report of actual data.
<https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/mar/17/europes-champion-sitters-even-the-sporty-dutch-are-falling-victim-to-chair-use-disorder>
One of my friends had a heart attack while being assessed on the
exercise
machine at Bart’s.
My uncle died of a heart attack whilst being assessed on the treadmill
in the cardiac clinic at the hospital. This was in the 1970s.
Evidently the expertise of the team wasn't sufficient to save his life.
They nowadays sometimes (I hope that's "usually") have a cardiologist on
hand during treadmill or chemical stress tests.
Park Lane, London W1 (Marble Arch to Hyde Park Corner).
It was a 40mph dual carriageway and well-engineered for that.
Now a 20mph dual carriageway.
Residential?
No.
The roundabout is a bit daunting for strangers to the area.
Which one? Marble Arch?
But you could argue that about almost any A-road roundabout in inner
London.
You could even argue it about the inner ends of the London-bound
motorways and major trunk roads. Perhaps they should all be limited to
20mph, if not less than that?
But I would guess
it is more to do with making the road more fun for sightseers, who are
after
all a major source of revenue.
The Park Lane central reservation has long been equipped with barriers
which among other things, make crossing the carriageways on foot
difficult at best (except at obvious crossing places).
On 19/03/2024 14:04, JNugent wrote:
On 18/03/2024 05:27 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 18/03/2024 16:54, Spike wrote:
Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
I look forward to reading this paper in The Lancet, "Exercise is not >>>>> actually good for you".
Benefits from exercise to and from work might be offset by spending
long periods sitting.
Europe’s champion sitters: even the sporty Dutch are falling victim >>>>> to ‘chair-use disorder’
Long hours spent at desks and sofas leads to 21,000 deaths a year >>>>> in the Netherlands from cardiovascular disease, diabetes and cancer >>>…says an guesstimate rather than a report of actual data.
<https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/mar/17/europes-champion-sitters-even-the-sporty-dutch-are-falling-victim-to-chair-use-disorder>
One of my friends had a heart attack while being assessed on the
exercise
machine at Bart’s.
My uncle died of a heart attack whilst being assessed on the treadmill
in the cardiac clinic at the hospital. This was in the 1970s.
Evidently the expertise of the team wasn't sufficient to save his life.
They nowadays sometimes (I hope that's "usually") have a cardiologist on
hand during treadmill or chemical stress tests.
However, it's unlikely that a cardiologist would be able to save a
patient's life in that situation.
I was once informed by a doctor that when someone collapses with a heart attack it is very rare indeed for CPR to save that person's life even if administered by a medic. Which isn't the impression given in the
hospital dramas on the box.
On 18/03/2024 05:27 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 18/03/2024 16:54, Spike wrote:
Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
I look forward to reading this paper in The Lancet, "Exercise is not
actually good for you".
Benefits from exercise to and from work might be offset by spending
long periods sitting.
Europe’s champion sitters: even the sporty Dutch are falling victim >>>> to ‘chair-use disorder’
Long hours spent at desks and sofas leads to 21,000 deaths a year
in the Netherlands from cardiovascular disease, diabetes and cancer
…says an guesstimate rather than a report of actual data.
<https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/mar/17/europes-champion-sitters-even-the-sporty-dutch-are-falling-victim-to-chair-use-disorder>
One of my friends had a heart attack while being assessed on the exercise >>> machine at Bart’s.
My uncle died of a heart attack whilst being assessed on the treadmill
in the cardiac clinic at the hospital. This was in the 1970s. Evidently
the expertise of the team wasn't sufficient to save his life.
They nowadays sometimes (I hope that's "usually") have a cardiologist on
hand during treadmill or chemical stress tests.
On 19/03/2024 02:14 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Mar 2024 at 13:29:34 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
On 15/03/2024 08:57 am, Pancho wrote:
On 08/03/2024 13:47, Roger Hayter wrote:
I honestly think that, while true, this is irrelevant. When I walked >>>>> to school
there may have been fewer cars but there was still a steady stream of >>>>> them
doing 30+ mph on all the through roads. Perhaps risk perception was
different,
most parents then were brought up in the 20s and 30s when so many
children
died of infectious disease, fire and domestic accidents that road
death was
considered a minor additional risk.
Road traffic fatalities peaked in the 60s. Government policy prioritised >>>> reducing fatalities, so risk perception increased and children walking >>>> to school was reduced. We sacrificed our children's freedom.
It's only now, with the introduction of 20 mph areas and safer roads,
that we might see a serious attempt to reverse this.
Many London boroughs are introducing default 20 mph limits, like Wales. >>>> Around me, it happened a for a few months ago.
A lot of people seem angry about the new limits. On a trip yesterday,
cars were overtaking me, on narrow residential roads, which was very
rare before. I was exceeding 20mph, but only marginally. There is a lot >>>> of difference between “ignoring†limits and not fully complying with them.
Park Lane, London W1 (Marble Arch to Hyde Park Corner).
It was a 40mph dual carriageway and well-engineered for that.
Now a 20mph dual carriageway.
Residential?
No.
The roundabout is a bit daunting for strangers to the area.
Which one? Marble Arch?
But you could argue that about almost any A-road roundabout in inner London.
You could even argue it about the inner ends of the London-bound
motorways and major trunk roads. Perhaps they should all be limited to
20mph, if not less than that?
But I would guess
it is more to do with making the road more fun for sightseers, who are after >> all a major source of revenue.
The Park Lane central reservation has long been equipped with barriers
which among other things, make crossing the carriageways on foot
difficult at best (except at obvious crossing places).
Maybe it would improve safety if we broke the idea that speed limit >enforcement has to be "sporting" and started moving hidden,
unpublished cameras around so that the rest of the population (besides
people like us) get used to the idea of complying with the law
everywhere rather than just where they are told "the law really
applies in this spot". We don't encourage that mentality for
non-driving crimes.
In message <grfjvil0nmj9d4ovkdv5bnumg4cepd3klb@4ax.com>, at 16:43:51 on
Tue, 19 Mar 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 03:36:53 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In Ely the City Council (presumably with the connivance of the County >>>Council who are the Highways authority) has introduced (three weeks ago) >>>a controversial 20mph zone in roughly a 1.5 mile radius of the centre.
Other way round: the county council has introduced it, but will have >>consulted with the city council first (as they are legally obliged to do).
All the local chatter is 100% it's a City Councillor thing.
https://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/news/20mph-speed-limit-for-ely-approved
"The scheme was put forward by local councillors on behalf of the
community"
In message <l5tdcuFjcq3U11@mid.individual.net>, at 12:05:48 on Tue, 19
Mar 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
I've noticed one poster to the thread using the term "invalid" which I >>confess I haven't heard used for some time,
You might recall that so-called Mobility Scooters get their credentials
as a result of being classed as "Invalid Carriages". Although <dons >flameproof underwear> quite few seem to be used by the lazy, rather
than impaired.
On 14/03/2024 01:36 pm, Simon Parker wrote:
On 08/03/2024 15:36, JNugent wrote:That doesn't help by saying what the "problem" is.
On 08/03/2024 12:03 pm, Simon Parker wrote:
On 07/03/2024 15:50, JNugent wrote:
On 07/03/2024 12:41 pm, Simon Parker wrote:
On 06/03/2024 14:36, JNugent wrote:
[...]
Though if, at the school, the stopping vehicles are concentrated, >>>>>>> for the few seconds that they are there, within a distance of less >>>>>>> than 25 yards in either direction, what is the problem?
I recommend you refresh your understanding of Rule 238 in the
Highway Code concerning what one must and must not do on 'school
entrance markings when upright signs indicate a prohibition of
stopping.'
I'll give you a clue: It includes the words: "You *MUST NOT* wait >>>>>> or park, or stop to set down and pick up passengers." (highlighting >>>>>> per the Highway Code.)
I can quite see that for some, seeing people breaking an arbitrary rule
is problematic.
But what is the actual problem?
I mean, we all know that the rule banning chav-cyclists (let alone car-drivers) from riding along footways is there for a safety-related
reason. But stopping against the kerb to let passengers out? What's the problem with that? It's a main function of passenger vehicles.
That's the zig-zag lines, I think. Is that right? There are some
outside the local primary school, in a side road. There are none
outside the secondary school on the main road, which is a bus route. >>>>> But the zig-zags are just an administrative tool. I can see that for >>>>> many, any breach of admin rules is itself heinous. But I actually
asked "what is the problem?" and didn't expect an answer merely to
the effect that an administrative rule is being broken.
The zigzag lines at the school in question are backed by upright
signs indicating a prohibition on stopping.
That's what I said. The zig-zags - where they exist - are just an
administrative tool for drawing attention to the legal signage.
You appear to be extremely confused.
Not in the slightest.
The zig-zags can exist without the
upright signs whilst the upright signs cannot exist without the zig-zags.
What is the purpose of zebra-crossing-type zig-zag lines without signage
(and certainly no zebra crossing)?
Where both are present, the zig-zags are most certainly not "just an
administrative tool" any more so than double yellow lines, red lines,
kerb markings indicating no stopping, etc.
"...where both are present..."
What when only the zig zag lines are there?
I do not see that as an "administrative rule" any more than I do
parking on double yellow lines (yes, some parents regularly do that),
One is allowed to stop on a yellow line for certain purposes. Dropping
off a passenger is one of those (ask any taxi- or bus-driver). It would
be extraordinary if it weren't.
or obstructing a junction (that too), or even abandoning the car
completely in the middle of the carriageway with the hazard lights
illuminated (no, I've no idea why they think that isn't going to
completely log jam the road but maybe because it will "only be for a
couple of minutes" it doesn't matter).
None of that is what is under discussion.
Where do "administrative rules" end and legislation begin for you?
"Offences" which did not exist, say, 100 years ago and have only been
introduced in the pursuit of a particular one-step-removed outcome are
not the same as common law offences.
I fear you are attempting to defend the indefensible and will not find
much, if any, support for legalising the acts listed a few paragraphs
up, even from those that regularly perform those acts, albeit for "only
a minute or two".
In that case, it's a very good job that I did no such thing, isn't it?
Is exceeding the speed limit merely 'breaking an administrative rule'?
It can be. Some zealots are now installing 20 mph limits on dual
carriageways previously limited to 40mph.
I recommend you do not visit Wales any time soon. :-)
What is that supposed to mean?
Stopping at traffic lights? Giving way to pedestrians at zebra
crossings?
Moving away from driving what about murder? Is killing someone
merely 'breaking an administrative rule' with which we shouldn't
concern ourselves or do you think something should be done about
murder, especially when there isn't even a 'rule' prohibiting it?
Murder is a crime under common law.
I am aware of that. As somebody eschewing compliance with 'just
administrative rules', which are at least provided for in legislation, I
was enquiring about your thoughts towards crimes which aren't codified
in the legislation itself.
There has never been a problem with that. It's hard to see why you are
trying to invent one.
It seems difficult to identify, absent you providing a list, precisely
what you consider 'just administrative rules' and which laws must be
followed by all citizens at all times to the best of their ability.
Admin rules, under my ad-hoc definition, re those designed to prevent an activity which has long been perfectly lawful. And done in order to have
a secondary effect.
The fact that while the primary school has zig-zags (in a side
road), the much larger secondary school on the main road doesn't,
makes one wonder what the objectives of the local highway authority
are.
I do not know the schools you mention, nor do I know what signage is
in use.
Yes, you do. I told you.
But in the school to which I was referring, stopping iscontinued to move.
prohibited, primahee dangerous than it would have been if it had
I can't parse that.
Stationary objects are not obviously more dangerous than moving ones.
Perhaps you can explain your point better.
I do not work for (nor have I ever been employed by) the transport
department at the LA so I cannot state definitively why they have
designated the various areas they have. However, I know the area well
and can make some logical assumptions. The school in question is on the
corner of a busy road. It is impossible to park on the busy main road,
so those using cars must park in the adjacent streets and use the
entrance to the playground located on the side street. On the side
street, which is only wide enough for two and a half vehicles to pass,
there are double yellow lines down one side of the road. On the other
side of the road, working from the junction with the main road backwards
there's double yellow lines (to prevent the junction getting clogged and
so that pedestrians can proceed along the main road safely), parking
bays for around half a dozen vehicles (or only 4 depending on how well
they park), an area reserved for buses, the zig-zags, more parking bays,
interspersed with entrances to driveways, and then free parking. Further
along the road is a grammar school to which many cars and several buses
travel at the same time as the children arriving at the prep school.
The zig-zags, in conjunction with the double-yellow lines on the
opposite side of the road, create a "safe space" where parents and
children can cross the road without their view being obstructed by
parked cars and it also means that drivers can see parents and children
crossing the road rather than them emerging from between parked
vehicles.
That's the whole point of marked pedestrian crossings. There's one
outside the school on the main road here, but not one in the side street.
Those parents that park on the zig-zags and on the double
yellow lines opposite them are morons
"Park"?
We've been discussing "stopping".
Stopping on a yellow line to allow passengers to alight is not unlawful.
It's more difficult to be precise abut zig-zags because some have signs
and others don't.
and I wouldn't lose a moment's
sleep if their vehicle was impounded for 7 days when they parked on
either with the duration for which the vehicle is impounded doubling
each successive time it is taken. Ditto for the parents that park on
the white zig-zags at the zebra crossing at the grammar school further
down the road. (Thread convergence: The grammar school has buildings on
both sides of the road and a zebra crossing between them. At certain
times of the day, it is not uncommon to wait a double digit number of
minutes for a break in the lemming-like stream of children crossing.)
I get it. You don't support the right of citizens to travel by modes of
their choice. Had you made that clear earlier, time and typing could
have been saved.
I get all of that (and didn't need the explanation as to what a prep >>>>> school is - there was one for the grammar school I attended, though
I certainly didn't go to the prep school).
My question was aimed more at finding out why any of it is relevant
to your previous answer. Is it all different when the school isn't a >>>>> prep school?
I would say there are two main differences between the parents of
children at the prep schools and parents of children at other primary
schools.
[Stand by for sweeping generalisations and typecasting ahead! :-)]
Firstly the size of the vehicle they're driving and the ability to
correctly manage a vehicle of the size and shape chosen. At the
primary schools, there is a good mix of vehicles of all shapes and
sizes and most drivers seem reasonably competent drivers. For the
prep schools, the Chelsea Tractor of choice seems to be either the
Audi Q7, the Masarati Levante or the Ineos Grenadier. Whilst these
can just about be squeezed into the parking spaces at Booths, they
are too big for the spaces in the Waitrose car park, and most of the
drivers of these vehicles seem to have no idea of the actual size of
their car, believing it to be at least 1m bigger in all directions
than it really is. This makes watching the morning parking ritual
compelling viewing, even with their PDC sensors and cameras.
Have you ever heard the phrase "sweeping generalisation"?
No, that's a new one on me. But as I live here and you don't, I think
I'm the better placed of the two of us to know which cars I see being
used to drop children off at the prep school and to gauge the ability of
those driving them.
Secondly, the parents dropping the children at the prep schools tend
to act, shall I say, 'more entitled'. Perhaps they think, "I'm
paying a grand a month each for Tarquin and Guinevere to attend here
so I can park where I want when I want."
Have you ever heard the term "stereotyping"?
I recommend feeding all the names I've used in this thread into Google.
All may become clear. :-)
I've already said that I get it.
You don't support the right to travel by the mode of one's choice.
It would be better to state that clearly.
On 19 Mar 2024 at 13:29:34 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
Park Lane, London W1 (Marble Arch to Hyde Park Corner).
It was a 40mph dual carriageway and well-engineered for that.
Now a 20mph dual carriageway.
Residential?
No.
The roundabout is a bit daunting for strangers to the area. But I
would guess it is more to do with making the road more fun for
sightseers, who are after all a major source of revenue.
I was once informed by a doctor that when someone collapses with a
heart attack it is very rare indeed for CPR to save that person's life
even if administered by a medic.
Which isn't the impression given in the hospital dramas on the box.
Parking in an irresponsible and illegal manner causes safety issues for
the children attending the school as the road that should be clear
providing them with good visibility to cross is instead stuffed with
vehicles which forces them to cross from between parked vehicles which
is unsafe at the best of times, and certainly when the road is busy with
rush hour traffic. (See the stats further down the post if you disagree
with this.)
In message <l5l67eFjcq3U1@mid.individual.net>, at 09:14:22 on Sat, 16
Mar 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
I once had a very interesting conversation with my relative wherein
they explained that they are disabled but society is retarded (in its
original sense). They went on to explain that they are disabled, and
there's little can be done about that - it is a medical fact, but
society retards them (i.e. delays them or holds them back) because it
does not make adequate provision for their disabilities (even with all
legislation in place).
It was quite an eye-opening conversation.
I have spent much of the last 18 months being the pilot of a wheelchair (again simply medical necessity). And it's swings and roundabouts. Some places, especially London, you can automatically jump most queues, and
even get free "carer" admission to tourist attractions, theatre etc.
Out in the provinces the biggest obstacle, literally, is so-called
disabled access that requires the physique of a bodybuilder to be
able to negotiate.
On 19/03/2024 10:47, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2024-03-19, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <ut12hv$261u2$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:57:35 on Fri, 15 Mar
2024, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> remarked:
Many London boroughs are introducing default 20 mph limits, like Wales. >>>> Around me, it happened a for a few months ago.
A lot of people seem angry about the new limits. On a trip yesterday,
cars were overtaking me, on narrow residential roads, which was very
rare before. I was exceeding 20mph, but only marginally. There is a lot >>>> of difference between “ignoring†limits and not fully complying with them.
In Ely the City Council (presumably with the connivance of the County
Council who are the Highways authority) has introduced (three weeks ago) >>> a controversial 20mph zone in roughly a 1.5 mile radius of the centre.
So far I have yet to drive into Ely (at 20.0mph) without suffering a
road-rage overtaking episode by someone who had spent the previous
couple of minutes driving about two foot behind my car. So much safer
than before, NOT.
Maybe it would improve safety if we broke the idea that speed limit
enforcement has to be "sporting" and started moving hidden,
unpublished cameras around so that the rest of the population (besides
people like us) get used to the idea of complying with the law
everywhere rather than just where they are told "the law really
applies in this spot". We don't encourage that mentality for
non-driving crimes.
Thanks in no small part to funding from the Mayor's Challenge Fund (MCF)
all the speed cameras around here are being upgraded from standard
Gatsos to the new Jenoptik VECTOR-SR units (aka the "Ultra" Speed
Camera) which, in addition to monitoring speed, also target seatbelt,
red light and mobile phone offences. They also have ANPR built in so
can be used to alert mobile traffic units to vehicles being used without
a current MOT or road tax, or that are registered to a keeper who may be using the vehicle otherwise than in accordance with a licence.
I believe they are being used to enforce lower thresholds for
prosecution of speeding offences and they use infra-red so there's no telltale flash either.
Additionally, we have your second suggestion in the form of mobile units which are either in the form of two police constables operating a
handheld device at the roadside, (they're in full hi-vis so anyone that doesn't spot them and adjust their speed accordingly deserves a ticket
for their lack of observation - we've a pair of them appearing around
once a fortnight on one of the main roads near here at present) and
mobile vans which are impossible to spot until it is too late (they are
small CDVs with black windows in the rear doors, one of which slides
open to allow a speed camera to be operated from inside the rear of the
van.
Finally, there is also a roundabout with a large lay-by off one of the
roads nearby where VOSA seem to turn up at least once a quarter to stop
all commercial vehicles. They typically have three or more transporters
on hand which I assume they use for impounding vehicles in certain circumstances.
On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 10:47:22 +0000, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
Maybe it would improve safety if we broke the idea that speed limit >>enforcement has to be "sporting" and started moving hidden,
unpublished cameras around so that the rest of the population (besides >>people like us) get used to the idea of complying with the law
everywhere rather than just where they are told "the law really
applies in this spot". We don't encourage that mentality for
non-driving crimes.
Part of the problem is that speed limits are an arbitrary, round number
point on a continuum. The reason for having speed limits is safety, but you don't abruptly become unsafe at 61mph if you were safe at 60mph. You just become ever so slightly less safe. And because we use round numbers, almost all speed limits have to be set below the optimum safe speed. If 39mph is
too fast, then the limit has to be 30mph even if 34mph is fine. And so on. So, realistically, in the vast majority of real life situations, exceeding the speed limit by a relatively small margin does not create an unacceptable increase in risk. And the enforcement regime reflects that.
This is different to most property crimes, for example, where it's usually fairly clear than an object belongs to A and not B, so if B dishonestly appropriates it with intent to permanently deprive A then it's theft. But even with property crime, there's usually a de minimis threshold. It's technically criminal damage to leave a leaflet under a car windscreen wiper, but in practice it's hardly ever prosecuted because it's essentially
trivial. And it's unlikely that anyone would be prosecuted for taking a pen home from work. So it would be inconsistent to prosecute people for being only slightly above the speed limit.
On 19 Mar 2024 at 14:04:08 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
On 18/03/2024 05:27 pm, The Todal wrote:
My uncle died of a heart attack whilst being assessed on the treadmill
in the cardiac clinic at the hospital. This was in the 1970s. Evidently
the expertise of the team wasn't sufficient to save his life.
They nowadays sometimes (I hope that's "usually") have a cardiologist on
hand during treadmill or chemical stress tests.
They also have urgent angioplasty nowadays, which is what makes it especially
valuable having a cardiologist nearby.
On 2024-03-19, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 10:47:22 +0000, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote: >>
Maybe it would improve safety if we broke the idea that speed limit >>>enforcement has to be "sporting" and started moving hidden,
unpublished cameras around so that the rest of the population (besides >>>people like us) get used to the idea of complying with the law
everywhere rather than just where they are told "the law really
applies in this spot". We don't encourage that mentality for
non-driving crimes.
Part of the problem is that speed limits are an arbitrary, round number
point on a continuum. The reason for having speed limits is safety, but you >> don't abruptly become unsafe at 61mph if you were safe at 60mph. You just
become ever so slightly less safe. And because we use round numbers, almost >> all speed limits have to be set below the optimum safe speed. If 39mph is
too fast, then the limit has to be 30mph even if 34mph is fine. And so on. >> So, realistically, in the vast majority of real life situations, exceeding >> the speed limit by a relatively small margin does not create an unacceptable >> increase in risk. And the enforcement regime reflects that.
(I'm not arguing about the margin for prosecution, but you could say
the same about the difference in BAC between 0.79 and 0.81. There has
to be a cutoff somewhere and we have a cultural acceptance of the
"speed limit" as a target rather than a maximum.)
This is different to most property crimes, for example, where it's usually >> fairly clear than an object belongs to A and not B, so if B dishonestly
appropriates it with intent to permanently deprive A then it's theft. But
even with property crime, there's usually a de minimis threshold. It's
technically criminal damage to leave a leaflet under a car windscreen wiper, >> but in practice it's hardly ever prosecuted because it's essentially
trivial. And it's unlikely that anyone would be prosecuted for taking a pen >> home from work. So it would be inconsistent to prosecute people for being
only slightly above the speed limit.
I'm not arguing about the margin for prosecution. I have a problem
with the idea that they have to put warning signs up and paint cameras
yellow so people know where the law is enforced --- and therefore
where it is not.
On 2024-03-19, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 19 Mar 2024 at 13:29:34 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
Park Lane, London W1 (Marble Arch to Hyde Park Corner).
It was a 40mph dual carriageway and well-engineered for that.
Now a 20mph dual carriageway.
Residential?
No.
The roundabout is a bit daunting for strangers to the area. But I
would guess it is more to do with making the road more fun for
sightseers, who are after all a major source of revenue.
Also it's a bit weird to say "Residential? No" about a road that is
almost entirely residential.
On 19/03/2024 14:04, JNugent wrote:
On 18/03/2024 05:27 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 18/03/2024 16:54, Spike wrote:
Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
I look forward to reading this paper in The Lancet, "Exercise is not >>>>> actually good for you".
Benefits from exercise to and from work might be offset by spending
long periods sitting.
   Europe’s champion sitters: even the sporty Dutch are falling >>>>> victim
   to ‘chair-use disorder’
   Long hours spent at desks and sofas leads to 21,000 deaths a year >>>>>    in the Netherlands from cardiovascular disease, diabetes and
cancer
…says an guesstimate rather than a report of actual data.
<https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/mar/17/europes-champion-sitters-even-the-sporty-dutch-are-falling-victim-to-chair-use-disorder>
One of my friends had a heart attack while being assessed on the
exercise
machine at Bart’s.
My uncle died of a heart attack whilst being assessed on the
treadmill in the cardiac clinic at the hospital. This was in the
1970s. Evidently the expertise of the team wasn't sufficient to save
his life.
They nowadays sometimes (I hope that's "usually") have a cardiologist
on hand during treadmill or chemical stress tests.
However, it's unlikely that a cardiologist would be able to save a
patient's life in that situation.
I was once informed by a doctor that when someone collapses with a heart attack it is very rare indeed for CPR to save that person's life even if administered by a medic. Which isn't the impression given in the
hospital dramas on the box.
On 19 Mar 2024 at 15:10:06 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
On 19/03/2024 02:14 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
The roundabout is a bit daunting for strangers to the area.
Which one? Marble Arch?
But you could argue that about almost any A-road roundabout in inner London. >> You could even argue it about the inner ends of the London-bound
motorways and major trunk roads. Perhaps they should all be limited to
20mph, if not less than that?
But I would guess
it is more to do with making the road more fun for sightseers, who are after
all a major source of revenue.
The Park Lane central reservation has long been equipped with barriers
which among other things, make crossing the carriageways on foot
difficult at best (except at obvious crossing places).
What about the sightseers in vehicles?
In message <l5tn4pF3jvoU1@mid.individual.net>, at 14:52:09 on Tue, 19
Mar 2024, JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
On 19/03/2024 04:04 am, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l5gnu7F496rU2@mid.individual.net>, at 16:45:59 on Thu, 14
Mar 2024, JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
On 14/03/2024 08:12 am, Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
 The school then declares it can't guarantee the safety ofLocal, national, international or inter-galactic?
children milling around unsupervised on the pavement outside, >>>>>>>>> and the majority of parents can't bring themselves to disagree. >>>>>
 I have no idea what yu are trying to say.
I was asking something, not saying or stating anything.
I was asking how widespread this Teachers' Union "dispute" is,
 Whatever territory is covered by "National" teachers unions and
the employment T&C imposed by the Department of Education. E&W,
and whether it's a devolved matter in Scotland you'll need to look >>>>> up yourself.
and what powers said teachers have to issue such orders to parents >>>>>> (or, in fact, to anybody).
 They aren't orders, it's more of a "on your head be it, and by the >>>>> way we'll call social services".
So it's just pique on the part of that union and completely without
effect.
 Pique yes, but the effect on parents and children arriving at school
is tangible in the extreme.
"without effect" = "without legal effect".
Ah, the "invisible word" ploy. Except there's the safeguarding laws, and that's what causes the friction.
On 2024-03-19, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 10:47:22 +0000, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote: >>
Maybe it would improve safety if we broke the idea that speed limit
enforcement has to be "sporting" and started moving hidden,
unpublished cameras around so that the rest of the population (besides
people like us) get used to the idea of complying with the law
everywhere rather than just where they are told "the law really
applies in this spot". We don't encourage that mentality for
non-driving crimes.
Part of the problem is that speed limits are an arbitrary, round number
point on a continuum. The reason for having speed limits is safety, but you >> don't abruptly become unsafe at 61mph if you were safe at 60mph. You just
become ever so slightly less safe. And because we use round numbers, almost >> all speed limits have to be set below the optimum safe speed. If 39mph is
too fast, then the limit has to be 30mph even if 34mph is fine. And so on. >> So, realistically, in the vast majority of real life situations, exceeding >> the speed limit by a relatively small margin does not create an unacceptable >> increase in risk. And the enforcement regime reflects that.
(I'm not arguing about the margin for prosecution, but you could say
the same about the difference in BAC between 0.79 and 0.81. There has
to be a cutoff somewhere and we have a cultural acceptance of the
"speed limit" as a target rather than a maximum.)
This is different to most property crimes, for example, where it's usually >> fairly clear than an object belongs to A and not B, so if B dishonestly
appropriates it with intent to permanently deprive A then it's theft. But
even with property crime, there's usually a de minimis threshold. It's
technically criminal damage to leave a leaflet under a car windscreen wiper, >> but in practice it's hardly ever prosecuted because it's essentially
trivial. And it's unlikely that anyone would be prosecuted for taking a pen >> home from work. So it would be inconsistent to prosecute people for being
only slightly above the speed limit.
I'm not arguing about the margin for prosecution. I have a problem
with the idea that they have to put warning signs up and paint cameras
yellow so people know where the law is enforced --- and therefore
where it is not.
On 19 Mar 2024 at 13:13:37 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/03/2024 01:36 pm, Simon Parker wrote:
On 08/03/2024 15:36, JNugent wrote:That doesn't help by saying what the "problem" is.
On 08/03/2024 12:03 pm, Simon Parker wrote:
On 07/03/2024 15:50, JNugent wrote:
On 07/03/2024 12:41 pm, Simon Parker wrote:
On 06/03/2024 14:36, JNugent wrote:
[...]
Though if, at the school, the stopping vehicles are concentrated, >>>>>>>> for the few seconds that they are there, within a distance of less >>>>>>>> than 25 yards in either direction, what is the problem?
I recommend you refresh your understanding of Rule 238 in the
Highway Code concerning what one must and must not do on 'school >>>>>>> entrance markings when upright signs indicate a prohibition of
stopping.'
I'll give you a clue: It includes the words: "You *MUST NOT* wait >>>>>>> or park, or stop to set down and pick up passengers." (highlighting >>>>>>> per the Highway Code.)
I can quite see that for some, seeing people breaking an arbitrary rule
is problematic.
But what is the actual problem?
I mean, we all know that the rule banning chav-cyclists (let alone
car-drivers) from riding along footways is there for a safety-related
reason. But stopping against the kerb to let passengers out? What's the
problem with that? It's a main function of passenger vehicles.
That's the zig-zag lines, I think. Is that right? There are some
outside the local primary school, in a side road. There are none
outside the secondary school on the main road, which is a bus route. >>>>>> But the zig-zags are just an administrative tool. I can see that for >>>>>> many, any breach of admin rules is itself heinous. But I actually
asked "what is the problem?" and didn't expect an answer merely to >>>>>> the effect that an administrative rule is being broken.
The zigzag lines at the school in question are backed by upright
signs indicating a prohibition on stopping.
That's what I said. The zig-zags - where they exist - are just an
administrative tool for drawing attention to the legal signage.
You appear to be extremely confused.
Not in the slightest.
The zig-zags can exist without theWhat is the purpose of zebra-crossing-type zig-zag lines without signage
upright signs whilst the upright signs cannot exist without the zig-zags. >>
(and certainly no zebra crossing)?
Where both are present, the zig-zags are most certainly not "just an
administrative tool" any more so than double yellow lines, red lines,
kerb markings indicating no stopping, etc.
"...where both are present..."
What when only the zig zag lines are there?
I do not see that as an "administrative rule" any more than I do
parking on double yellow lines (yes, some parents regularly do that),
One is allowed to stop on a yellow line for certain purposes. Dropping
off a passenger is one of those (ask any taxi- or bus-driver). It would
be extraordinary if it weren't.
or obstructing a junction (that too), or even abandoning the car
completely in the middle of the carriageway with the hazard lights
illuminated (no, I've no idea why they think that isn't going to
completely log jam the road but maybe because it will "only be for a >>>>> couple of minutes" it doesn't matter).
None of that is what is under discussion.
Where do "administrative rules" end and legislation begin for you?
"Offences" which did not exist, say, 100 years ago and have only been
introduced in the pursuit of a particular one-step-removed outcome are >>>> not the same as common law offences.
I fear you are attempting to defend the indefensible and will not find
much, if any, support for legalising the acts listed a few paragraphs
up, even from those that regularly perform those acts, albeit for "only
a minute or two".
In that case, it's a very good job that I did no such thing, isn't it?
Is exceeding the speed limit merely 'breaking an administrative rule'? >>>It can be. Some zealots are now installing 20 mph limits on dual
carriageways previously limited to 40mph.
I recommend you do not visit Wales any time soon. :-)
What is that supposed to mean?
Stopping at traffic lights? Giving way to pedestrians at zebra
crossings?
Moving away from driving what about murder? Is killing someone
merely 'breaking an administrative rule' with which we shouldn't
concern ourselves or do you think something should be done about
murder, especially when there isn't even a 'rule' prohibiting it?
Murder is a crime under common law.
I am aware of that. As somebody eschewing compliance with 'just
administrative rules', which are at least provided for in legislation, I >>> was enquiring about your thoughts towards crimes which aren't codified
in the legislation itself.
There has never been a problem with that. It's hard to see why you are
trying to invent one.
It seems difficult to identify, absent you providing a list, precisely
what you consider 'just administrative rules' and which laws must be
followed by all citizens at all times to the best of their ability.
Admin rules, under my ad-hoc definition, re those designed to prevent an
activity which has long been perfectly lawful. And done in order to have
a secondary effect.
The fact that while the primary school has zig-zags (in a side
road), the much larger secondary school on the main road doesn't,
makes one wonder what the objectives of the local highway authority >>>>>> are.
I do not know the schools you mention, nor do I know what signage is >>>>> in use.
Yes, you do. I told you.
But in the school to which I was referring, stopping iscontinued to move.
prohibited, primahee dangerous than it would have been if it had
I can't parse that.
Stationary objects are not obviously more dangerous than moving ones.
Perhaps you can explain your point better.
I do not work for (nor have I ever been employed by) the transport
department at the LA so I cannot state definitively why they have
designated the various areas they have. However, I know the area well
and can make some logical assumptions. The school in question is on the >>> corner of a busy road. It is impossible to park on the busy main road,
so those using cars must park in the adjacent streets and use the
entrance to the playground located on the side street. On the side
street, which is only wide enough for two and a half vehicles to pass,
there are double yellow lines down one side of the road. On the other
side of the road, working from the junction with the main road backwards >>> there's double yellow lines (to prevent the junction getting clogged and >>> so that pedestrians can proceed along the main road safely), parking
bays for around half a dozen vehicles (or only 4 depending on how well
they park), an area reserved for buses, the zig-zags, more parking bays, >>> interspersed with entrances to driveways, and then free parking. Further >>> along the road is a grammar school to which many cars and several buses
travel at the same time as the children arriving at the prep school.
The zig-zags, in conjunction with the double-yellow lines on the
opposite side of the road, create a "safe space" where parents and
children can cross the road without their view being obstructed by
parked cars and it also means that drivers can see parents and children
crossing the road rather than them emerging from between parked
vehicles.
That's the whole point of marked pedestrian crossings. There's one
outside the school on the main road here, but not one in the side street.
Those parents that park on the zig-zags and on the double
yellow lines opposite them are morons
"Park"?
We've been discussing "stopping".
Stopping on a yellow line to allow passengers to alight is not unlawful.
It's more difficult to be precise abut zig-zags because some have signs
and others don't.
and I wouldn't lose a moment's
sleep if their vehicle was impounded for 7 days when they parked on
either with the duration for which the vehicle is impounded doubling
each successive time it is taken. Ditto for the parents that park on
the white zig-zags at the zebra crossing at the grammar school further
down the road. (Thread convergence: The grammar school has buildings on >>> both sides of the road and a zebra crossing between them. At certain
times of the day, it is not uncommon to wait a double digit number of
minutes for a break in the lemming-like stream of children crossing.)
I get it. You don't support the right of citizens to travel by modes of
their choice. Had you made that clear earlier, time and typing could
have been saved.
I get all of that (and didn't need the explanation as to what a prep >>>>>> school is - there was one for the grammar school I attended, though >>>>>> I certainly didn't go to the prep school).
My question was aimed more at finding out why any of it is relevant >>>>>> to your previous answer. Is it all different when the school isn't a >>>>>> prep school?
I would say there are two main differences between the parents of
children at the prep schools and parents of children at other primary >>>>> schools.
[Stand by for sweeping generalisations and typecasting ahead! :-)]
Firstly the size of the vehicle they're driving and the ability to
correctly manage a vehicle of the size and shape chosen. At the
primary schools, there is a good mix of vehicles of all shapes and
sizes and most drivers seem reasonably competent drivers. For the
prep schools, the Chelsea Tractor of choice seems to be either the
Audi Q7, the Masarati Levante or the Ineos Grenadier. Whilst these
can just about be squeezed into the parking spaces at Booths, they
are too big for the spaces in the Waitrose car park, and most of the >>>>> drivers of these vehicles seem to have no idea of the actual size of >>>>> their car, believing it to be at least 1m bigger in all directions
than it really is. This makes watching the morning parking ritual
compelling viewing, even with their PDC sensors and cameras.
Have you ever heard the phrase "sweeping generalisation"?
No, that's a new one on me. But as I live here and you don't, I think
I'm the better placed of the two of us to know which cars I see being
used to drop children off at the prep school and to gauge the ability of >>> those driving them.
Secondly, the parents dropping the children at the prep schools tend >>>>> to act, shall I say, 'more entitled'. Perhaps they think, "I'm
paying a grand a month each for Tarquin and Guinevere to attend here >>>>> so I can park where I want when I want."
Have you ever heard the term "stereotyping"?
I recommend feeding all the names I've used in this thread into Google.
All may become clear. :-)
I've already said that I get it.
You don't support the right to travel by the mode of one's choice.
It would be better to state that clearly.
Your argument seems remarkably like the FMOTL who claim travelling exempts them from burdensome government administrative rules like speed limits,
licences, roadworthiness etc. As far as I am concerned you are welcome to travel until you disappear (into the distance) but not to stop where you obscure the sightlines of children and your fellow "travellers" (who no doubt believe they have an inalienable right to travel at the posted speed limit regardless of road conditions) who need to avoid each other outside schools.
It is fun trying to push a wheelchair up the hill to look at the Round
Table in Winchester. Even more fun, is coming down and trying not to let
go. đŸ™‚
I had thoughts of designing a strap that went around my back and clipped
to each side of the chair, but found it easier to avoid hilly places
instead,
On 19/03/2024 13:25, JNugent wrote:
On 14/03/2024 01:42 pm, Simon Parker wrote:
On 08/03/2024 15:50, JNugent wrote:
[ ... ]
["prep schools" are mentioned, in an observably disapproving manner]
You clearly missed several references I've made in the past to the fact
that several family members work in education, including one that
recently (at the start of this academic year) crossed over from a state school to an "independent school".
I have no problem whatsoever with prep schools and am privileged to live
in an area replete with both independent and grammar schools.
I am all for parents having a choice about their children's education.
[...]
Should it be made an offence for any person of any gender whose name
is Cordelia to drive a motor vehicle?
If that is the case, I am at least an equal loss as to why you usedI am at a loss as to why you are asking this
the name "Cordelia", in a quite transparent attempt to indicate that
the lady (?) concerned is of a "certain class".
The vast majority of my close friends are "of a 'certain class'".
However, very few, if any, are Cressidas or Cordelias, although I
acknowledge that some come scarily close at times.
I recommended in a post elsewhere in the thread that you insert all of
the names I've used in this thread into Google. You replied stating
that you 'got it'.
I respectfully suggest that you have not actually 'got it' and again
repeat the suggestion to insert the names into Google (or a similar
search engine of your choosing) and then you might truly 'get it'. Enlightenment is but a single search away.
as I have never suggested, intimated or otherwise remarked that I was
in the slightest bit interested in backing the introduction of such
legislation.
That's good, because I was being sarcastic.
I shall send my sarcasm detector for calibration presently.
Do you have any other straw men you wish to introduce?
You don't accept that your mention of "Cordelia" was itself akin to a
strawman? A piece of class-based shorthand?
No, I do not. If you "got it", rather than merely thinking you had, you would understand.
If only the preferences of the public were respected by councils
and that could never happen, eh?
I'd be happy for the LA to take a vote on whether or not the
majority of the public would prefer that the restrictions are
enforced more strongly or less strongly. I am supremely confident
of predicting the likely result.
There's no need. If the majority don't want to drive their children to
school, they're free not to do it.
You're replying to comments made in posts from further up the thread again!
It is considered a "Safeguarding" issue. (I just asked a relative
that works in education. Further details are available upon request.)
So not a byelaw and not compellable.
That would depend on your precise definition of "compellable".
I recommend contacting your local Social Services department and
enquiring of them how they would handle a situation where they receive notification of a safeguarding issue from a primary school about a child
that is regularly being left unsupervised in the school playground at
the start of the day.
It isn't part of a Road Traffic Act.
Nor is it part of the Construction and Use Regulations. Your turn to
list something it "isn't part of"?
Common sense?
That went years ago and isn't coming back anytime soon.
[...]
Can you imagine a new hospital with no access for cars?
No access? No - because I expect ambulance and patient transport
will need to access it. But inadequate access for cars?
Absolutely. It seems to be par for the course at every local
hospital around here, (including the swanky new one built just before
COVID). At the nearest major hospital it is so common to be unable
to find parking in *any* of the on-site car parks, that they've added
five bays outside A&E where one can park temporarily, drop off the
casualty and then drive around for half an hour trying to find a
parking spot whilst the patient is waiting to be triaged. I don't
know anybody that would drive their own vehicle there unaccompanied
and expect to find parking straight away.
What a change of subject! :-)
You asked a question, I answered it. :-)
On 19/03/2024 13:13, JNugent wrote:
On 14/03/2024 01:36 pm, Simon Parker wrote:
On 08/03/2024 15:36, JNugent wrote:
On 08/03/2024 12:03 pm, Simon Parker wrote:
On 07/03/2024 15:50, JNugent wrote:
On 07/03/2024 12:41 pm, Simon Parker wrote:
On 06/03/2024 14:36, JNugent wrote:
That doesn't help by saying what the "problem" is.[...]
Though if, at the school, the stopping vehicles are
concentrated, for the few seconds that they are there, within a >>>>>>>> distance of less than 25 yards in either direction, what is the >>>>>>>> problem?
I recommend you refresh your understanding of Rule 238 in the
Highway Code concerning what one must and must not do on 'school >>>>>>> entrance markings when upright signs indicate a prohibition of
stopping.'
The comment to which you are replying is from five posts up-thread and
is, incidentally, a post to which you've already replied directly once.
I'm happy for you to have multiple stabs at replying but ask that you
reply directly to the post in question so that I stand a fighting chance
of not having to make the same point several times because you've lost
track of the thread.
[ ... ]I can quite see that for some, seeing people breaking an arbitrary
rule is problematic.
But what is the actual problem?
I mean, we all know that the rule banning chav-cyclists (let alone
car-drivers) from riding along footways is there for a safety-related
reason. But stopping against the kerb to let passengers out? What's
the problem with that? It's a main function of passenger vehicles.
The issue is parking, not stopping, as has been explained several times
- it is not possible to "stop" to drop off a child at a primary school
(of all designations) in this area. The child must be accompanied to
and supervised in the playground and collected in the same manner later
in the day.
That's what I said. The zig-zags - where they exist - are just an
administrative tool for drawing attention to the legal signage.
You appear to be extremely confused.
Not in the slightest.
I respectfully disagree.
The zig-zags can exist without the upright signs whilst the upright
signs cannot exist without the zig-zags.
What is the purpose of zebra-crossing-type zig-zag lines without
signage (and certainly no zebra crossing)?
If they are white, they indicate that parking and overtaking is
prohibited in that zone. Yellow lines are enforceable only during the
times specified on the accompanying sign, (and no sign therefore means
they are not enforceable at any time), whereas white lines are
enforceable 24/7/365.
Where both are present, the zig-zags are most certainly not "just an
administrative tool" any more so than double yellow lines, red lines,
kerb markings indicating no stopping, etc.
"...where both are present..."
What when only the zig zag lines are there?
See above.
I do not see that as an "administrative rule" any more than I do
parking on double yellow lines (yes, some parents regularly do that),
One is allowed to stop on a yellow line for certain purposes. Dropping
off a passenger is one of those (ask any taxi- or bus-driver). It
would be extraordinary if it weren't.
You're replying to comments from further up the thread again.
I fear you are attempting to defend the indefensible and will not
find much, if any, support for legalising the acts listed a few
paragraphs up, even from those that regularly perform those acts,
albeit for "only a minute or two".
In that case, it's a very good job that I did no such thing, isn't it?
Your train of thought appears to have derailed. Shall I wait for a bus replacement service, or will it be back on the tracks soon? :-)
Is exceeding the speed limit merely 'breaking an administrative rule'?
It can be. Some zealots are now installing 20 mph limits on dual
carriageways previously limited to 40mph.
I recommend you do not visit Wales any time soon. :-)
What is that supposed to mean?
Ask anybody that lives in or regularly visits Wales, (or pays attention
to the threads they're actively posting to in ULM).
I am aware of that. As somebody eschewing compliance with 'just
administrative rules', which are at least provided for in
legislation, I was enquiring about your thoughts towards crimes which
aren't codified in the legislation itself.
There has never been a problem with that. It's hard to see why you are
trying to invent one.
I am attempting to ascertain where you draw the line and confess I am no nearer to knowing. I don't think it is to do with what is
"administrative" and what is not, but more along the lines that you do
not believe the rights of drivers should be restricted to the extent
that they are. Would that be an accurate summary of your position?
It seems difficult to identify, absent you providing a list,
precisely what you consider 'just administrative rules' and which
laws must be followed by all citizens at all times to the best of
their ability.
Admin rules, under my ad-hoc definition, re those designed to prevent
an activity which has long been perfectly lawful. And done in order to
have a secondary effect.
The Dangerous Drugs Act 1920 criminalised the possession of opium and cocaine, an activity which had up until that time been perfectly lawful.
 In so doing, it stopped law abiding citizens from engaging in the secondary activity of getting high.
Drug laws are therefore an 'Administrative Rule' according to your definition. Is that correct?
But in the school to which I was referring, stopping is prohibited,continued to move.
primahee dangerous than it would have been if it had
I can't parse that.
The attribution marks indicate it is from several posts ago - there is
no need to parse it.
Stationary objects are not obviously more dangerous than moving ones.
Perhaps you can explain your point better.
I have done further up this post. If you disagree, then I commend to
you the following statistics (from a report complied in 2012 using data gathered in 2011):
In 16 per cent of RTIs involving pedestrian casualties, the pedestrian
had 'pedestrian crossing road masked by stationary or parked vehicles' reported as a contributory factor. The equivalent figure for uninjured pedestrians was 14 per cent.
'Pedestrian crossing road masked by stationary or parked vehicle' was
the 4th most frequently reported contributory factor for reported RTIs involving pedestrians.
Of all 118,403 RTIs attended by a police officer and in which a
contributory factor was recorded, 'vision affected by stationary or
parked vehicle(s)' was a contributory factor in 3,943 accidents (3 per
cent).
(Kilbey et al, 2012 [1])
The zig-zags, in conjunction with the double-yellow lines on the
opposite side of the road, create a "safe space" where parents and
children can cross the road without their view being obstructed by
parked cars and it also means that drivers can see parents and
children crossing the road rather than them emerging from between
parked vehicles.
That's the whole point of marked pedestrian crossings. There's one
outside the school on the main road here, but not one in the side street.
The enforced zig-zags and double yellow lines on the opposite side of
the road are designed to create a safe crossing zone in front of the
school which is significantly cheaper that a marked pedestrian crossing.
Those parents that park on the zig-zags and on the double yellow
lines opposite them are morons
"Park"?
Yes, park.
We've been discussing "stopping".
No we haven't. Several posters have mentioned the need to accompany children of primary school age into the playground. That requires
"parking" the vehicle, not merely "stopping".
Stopping on a yellow line to allow passengers to alight is not unlawful.
I have never claimed that it was.
It's more difficult to be precise abut zig-zags because some have
signs and others don't.
It isn't "difficult to be precise" in the slightest. If they are yellow
and have a sign, one cannot park on them between the times indicated on
the sign.
and I wouldn't lose a moment's sleep if their vehicle was impounded
for 7 days when they parked on either with the duration for which the
vehicle is impounded doubling each successive time it is taken.
Ditto for the parents that park on the white zig-zags at the zebra
crossing at the grammar school further down the road. (Thread
convergence: The grammar school has buildings on both sides of the
road and a zebra crossing between them. At certain times of the day,
it is not uncommon to wait a double digit number of minutes for a
break in the lemming-like stream of children crossing.)
I get it. You don't support the right of citizens to travel by modes
of their choice. Had you made that clear earlier, time and typing
could have been saved.
No you don't get it at all, unfortunately. I have no problem whatsoever with anyone using whatever mode of transport they so choose.
What I don't support are the "rights" of morons to bring an entire
section of the locality to a standstill because they won't drive
slightly further away from the school to park.
I would say there are two main differences between the parents of
children at the prep schools and parents of children at other
primary schools.
[Stand by for sweeping generalisations and typecasting ahead! :-)]
Yet another reply to a comment made several posts up-thread.
Firstly the size of the vehicle they're driving ...
Secondly, the parents dropping the children at the prep schools
tend to act, shall I say, 'more entitled'. Perhaps they think,
"I'm paying a grand a month each for Tarquin and Guinevere to
attend here so I can park where I want when I want."
Have you ever heard the term "stereotyping"?
I recommend feeding all the names I've used in this thread into
Google. All may become clear. :-)
I've already said that I get it.
Sadly, it is clear that you don't.
You don't support the right to travel by the mode of one's choice.
It would be better to state that clearly.
Let me know if you manage to get your train of thought back on the
tracks. In the meantime, it would appear we're done as it is impossible
to have a meaningful discussion in the manner you're attempting with
this reply.
On 20/03/2024 12:32, Colin Bignell wrote:
It is fun trying to push a wheelchair up the hill to look at the Round
Table in Winchester. Even more fun, is coming down and trying not to
let go. đŸ™‚
I had thoughts of designing a strap that went around my back and
clipped to each side of the chair, but found it easier to avoid hilly
places instead,
It's possible to have wheelchairs equipped with bicycle style brakes, controlled by the pusher. I have them on mine which means I don't have
to worry so much either about the pusher's back, or the risk of hurtling downhill, out of control ;)
On 19/03/2024 14:04, JNugent wrote:
They nowadays sometimes (I hope that's "usually") have a cardiologist
on hand during treadmill or chemical stress tests.
However, it's unlikely that a cardiologist would be able to save a
patient's life in that situation.
I was once informed by a doctor that when someone collapses with a
heart attack it is very rare indeed for CPR to save that person's life
even if administered by a medic. Which isn't the impression given in
the hospital dramas on the box.
On 20/03/2024 12:02 pm, Simon Parker wrote:
On 19/03/2024 13:25, JNugent wrote:
On 14/03/2024 01:42 pm, Simon Parker wrote:
On 08/03/2024 15:50, JNugent wrote:
[ ... ]
["prep schools" are mentioned, in an observably disapproving manner]
You clearly missed several references I've made in the past to the fact
that several family members work in education, including one that
recently (at the start of this academic year) crossed over from a state
school to an "independent school".
I have no problem whatsoever with prep schools and am privileged to live
in an area replete with both independent and grammar schools.
I am all for parents having a choice about their children's education.
But equally all for disparaging them for that choice when "useful" in discussion.
What other purpose can you have had in mind when referring to
"Cordelia", "Tarquin" and "Guinevere"?
Your prose sometimes comes across like a Guardian opinion column.
Mind you, you're not the only one.
[...]
If that is the case, I am at least an equal loss as to why you usedShould it be made an offence for any person of any gender whose name >>>>> is Cordelia to drive a motor vehicle?
I am at a loss as to why you are asking this
the name "Cordelia", in a quite transparent attempt to indicate that
the lady (?) concerned is of a "certain class".
The vast majority of my close friends are "of a 'certain class'".
However, very few, if any, are Cressidas or Cordelias, although I
acknowledge that some come scarily close at times.
Is this something like the modern (USA-originated?) use of "Karen"?
I recommended in a post elsewhere in the thread that you insert all of
the names I've used in this thread into Google. You replied stating
that you 'got it'.
I respectfully suggest that you have not actually 'got it' and again
repeat the suggestion to insert the names into Google (or a similar
search engine of your choosing) and then you might truly 'get it'.
Enlightenment is but a single search away.
I understand the significance of your use of "Cordelia", "Tarquin" and "Guinevere".
as I have never suggested, intimated or otherwise remarked that I was
in the slightest bit interested in backing the introduction of such
legislation.
That's good, because I was being sarcastic.
I shall send my sarcasm detector for calibration presently.
Do you have any other straw men you wish to introduce?
You don't accept that your mention of "Cordelia" was itself akin to a
strawman? A piece of class-based shorthand?
No, I do not. If you "got it", rather than merely thinking you had, you
would understand.
If only the preferences of the public were respected by councils >>>>>>> and that could never happen, eh?
I'd be happy for the LA to take a vote on whether or not the
majority of the public would prefer that the restrictions are
enforced more strongly or less strongly. I am supremely confident >>>>>> of predicting the likely result.
There's no need. If the majority don't want to drive their children to
school, they're free not to do it.
You're replying to comments made in posts from further up the thread again!
Well, it happens.
Get over it.
I've also done a lot of snipping; more than I usually do.
[on delivery of children to the school door, as apparently mandated by a teachers' trade-union:]
However, it's unlikely that a cardiologist would be able to save a
patient's life in that situation.
I was once informed by a doctor that when someone collapses with a heart attack it is very rare indeed for CPR to save that person's life even if administered by a medic. Which isn't the impression given in the
hospital dramas on the box.
On 20/03/2024 12:00 pm, Simon Parker wrote:
On 19/03/2024 13:13, JNugent wrote:
On 14/03/2024 01:36 pm, Simon Parker wrote:
On 08/03/2024 15:36, JNugent wrote:
On 08/03/2024 12:03 pm, Simon Parker wrote:
On 07/03/2024 15:50, JNugent wrote:
On 07/03/2024 12:41 pm, Simon Parker wrote:
On 06/03/2024 14:36, JNugent wrote:
That doesn't help by saying what the "problem" is.[...]
Though if, at the school, the stopping vehicles are
concentrated, for the few seconds that they are there, within a >>>>>>>>> distance of less than 25 yards in either direction, what is the >>>>>>>>> problem?
I recommend you refresh your understanding of Rule 238 in the
Highway Code concerning what one must and must not do on 'school >>>>>>>> entrance markings when upright signs indicate a prohibition of >>>>>>>> stopping.'
The comment to which you are replying is from five posts up-thread and
is, incidentally, a post to which you've already replied directly once.
I'm happy for you to have multiple stabs at replying but ask that you
reply directly to the post in question so that I stand a fighting chance
of not having to make the same point several times because you've lost
track of the thread.
Sorry - but I didn't have access to a Windows PC with the required
software for nearly a week.
[ ... ]
[ ... ]I can quite see that for some, seeing people breaking an arbitrary
rule is problematic.
But what is the actual problem?
I mean, we all know that the rule banning chav-cyclists (let alone
car-drivers) from riding along footways is there for a safety-related
reason. But stopping against the kerb to let passengers out? What's
the problem with that? It's a main function of passenger vehicles.
The issue is parking, not stopping, as has been explained several times
- it is not possible to "stop" to drop off a child at a primary school
(of all designations) in this area. The child must be accompanied to
and supervised in the playground and collected in the same manner later
in the day.
As far as I can remember, the original issue was vehicles being stopped
to allow children to get out and go into school.
That obviously a morning practice and requires stopping rather than
parking (and waiting).
OK... some people never distinguish between parking and stopping, but we
know enough to do that as a matter of course - don't we?
That's what I said. The zig-zags - where they exist - are just an
administrative tool for drawing attention to the legal signage.
You appear to be extremely confused.
Not in the slightest.
I respectfully disagree.
There is no point in my responding to that. If you are going to resort
to ad-homs, I can't stop you and we both know that no-one else will.
The zig-zags can exist without the upright signs whilst the upright
signs cannot exist without the zig-zags.
What is the purpose of zebra-crossing-type zig-zag lines without
signage (and certainly no zebra crossing)?
If they are white, they indicate that parking and overtaking is
prohibited in that zone. Yellow lines are enforceable only during the
times specified on the accompanying sign, (and no sign therefore means
they are not enforceable at any time), whereas white lines are
enforceable 24/7/365.
Where both are present, the zig-zags are most certainly not "just an
administrative tool" any more so than double yellow lines, red lines,
kerb markings indicating no stopping, etc.
"...where both are present..."
What when only the zig zag lines are there?
See above.
I do not see that as an "administrative rule" any more than I do
parking on double yellow lines (yes, some parents regularly do that),
One is allowed to stop on a yellow line for certain purposes. Dropping
off a passenger is one of those (ask any taxi- or bus-driver). It
would be extraordinary if it weren't.
You're replying to comments from further up the thread again.
It was part of the point about "parking" versus "stopping", which are
not the same thing and only one of which applies in the morning school run.
[ ... ]
I fear you are attempting to defend the indefensible and will not
find much, if any, support for legalising the acts listed a few
paragraphs up, even from those that regularly perform those acts,
albeit for "only a minute or two".
In that case, it's a very good job that I did no such thing, isn't it?
Your train of thought appears to have derailed. Shall I wait for a bus
replacement service, or will it be back on the tracks soon? :-)
Is exceeding the speed limit merely 'breaking an administrative rule'? >>It can be. Some zealots are now installing 20 mph limits on dual
carriageways previously limited to 40mph.
I recommend you do not visit Wales any time soon. :-)
What is that supposed to mean?
Ask anybody that lives in or regularly visits Wales, (or pays attention
to the threads they're actively posting to in ULM).
My meaning was clear. Why should I not visit Wales (not that I currently
have any plans to do so)?
[ ... ]
I am aware of that. As somebody eschewing compliance with 'just
administrative rules', which are at least provided for in
legislation, I was enquiring about your thoughts towards crimes which
aren't codified in the legislation itself.
There has never been a problem with that. It's hard to see why you are
trying to invent one.
I am attempting to ascertain where you draw the line and confess I am no
nearer to knowing. I don't think it is to do with what is
"administrative" and what is not, but more along the lines that you do
not believe the rights of drivers should be restricted to the extent
that they are. Would that be an accurate summary of your position?
It depends entirely upon which rights are being discussed.
Measures taken - as they disgracefully too often explicitly are - to
further a declared aim of reducing car travel (whether or not
"encouraging" other modes of travel) are an abuse of power. The
implication of that is that car-users have no rights, whether of the
legal or human varieties.
It seems difficult to identify, absent you providing a list,
precisely what you consider 'just administrative rules' and which
laws must be followed by all citizens at all times to the best of
their ability.
Admin rules, under my ad-hoc definition, re those designed to prevent
an activity which has long been perfectly lawful. And done in order to
have a secondary effect.
The Dangerous Drugs Act 1920 criminalised the possession of opium and
cocaine, an activity which had up until that time been perfectly lawful.
In so doing, it stopped law abiding citizens from engaging in the
secondary activity of getting high.
Drug laws are therefore an 'Administrative Rule' according to your
definition. Is that correct?
What else does "administrative" means?
[ ... ]
But in the school to which I was referring, stopping is prohibited, >>>>>> primahee dangerous than it would have been if it hadcontinued to move.
I can't parse that.
The attribution marks indicate it is from several posts ago - there is
no need to parse it.
Stationary objects are not obviously more dangerous than moving ones.
Perhaps you can explain your point better.
I have done further up this post. If you disagree, then I commend to
you the following statistics (from a report complied in 2012 using data
gathered in 2011):
In 16 per cent of RTIs involving pedestrian casualties, the pedestrian
had 'pedestrian crossing road masked by stationary or parked vehicles'
reported as a contributory factor. The equivalent figure for uninjured
pedestrians was 14 per cent.
'Pedestrian crossing road masked by stationary or parked vehicle' was
the 4th most frequently reported contributory factor for reported RTIs
involving pedestrians.
Of all 118,403 RTIs attended by a police officer and in which a
contributory factor was recorded, 'vision affected by stationary or
parked vehicle(s)' was a contributory factor in 3,943 accidents (3 per
cent).
(Kilbey et al, 2012 [1])
On that basis, all parking on highways needs to be banned by a new administrative regulation.
[ ... ]
The enforced zig-zags and double yellow lines on the opposite side ofThe zig-zags, in conjunction with the double-yellow lines on the
opposite side of the road, create a "safe space" where parents and
children can cross the road without their view being obstructed by
parked cars and it also means that drivers can see parents and
children crossing the road rather than them emerging from between
parked vehicles.
That's the whole point of marked pedestrian crossings. There's one
outside the school on the main road here, but not one in the side street. >>
the road are designed to create a safe crossing zone in front of the
school which is significantly cheaper that a marked pedestrian crossing.
Those parents that park on the zig-zags and on the double yellow
lines opposite them are morons
"Park"?
Yes, park.
We've been discussing "stopping".
No we haven't. Several posters have mentioned the need to accompany
children of primary school age into the playground. That requires
"parking" the vehicle, not merely "stopping".
The necessity of that has been questioned. It appears to have arisen (if
at all) only because of some trade dispute.
On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 12:18:41 +0000, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2024-03-19, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 10:47:22 +0000, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
Maybe it would improve safety if we broke the idea that speed limit >>>>enforcement has to be "sporting" and started moving hidden,
unpublished cameras around so that the rest of the population (besides >>>>people like us) get used to the idea of complying with the law >>>>everywhere rather than just where they are told "the law really
applies in this spot". We don't encourage that mentality for >>>>non-driving crimes.
Part of the problem is that speed limits are an arbitrary, round number
point on a continuum. The reason for having speed limits is safety, but you >>> don't abruptly become unsafe at 61mph if you were safe at 60mph. You just >>> become ever so slightly less safe. And because we use round numbers, almost >>> all speed limits have to be set below the optimum safe speed. If 39mph is >>> too fast, then the limit has to be 30mph even if 34mph is fine. And so on. >>> So, realistically, in the vast majority of real life situations, exceeding >>> the speed limit by a relatively small margin does not create an unacceptable
increase in risk. And the enforcement regime reflects that.
(I'm not arguing about the margin for prosecution, but you could say
the same about the difference in BAC between 0.79 and 0.81. There has
to be a cutoff somewhere and we have a cultural acceptance of the
"speed limit" as a target rather than a maximum.)
BAC is probably the odd one out in that we do generally accept a hard cut-off. But that's also probably because driving when over the limit is, statistically, a much higher risk (by an order of magnitude) than exceeding the speed limit.
This is different to most property crimes, for example, where it's usually >>> fairly clear than an object belongs to A and not B, so if B dishonestly
appropriates it with intent to permanently deprive A then it's theft. But >>> even with property crime, there's usually a de minimis threshold. It's
technically criminal damage to leave a leaflet under a car windscreen wiper,
but in practice it's hardly ever prosecuted because it's essentially
trivial. And it's unlikely that anyone would be prosecuted for taking a pen >>> home from work. So it would be inconsistent to prosecute people for being >>> only slightly above the speed limit.
I'm not arguing about the margin for prosecution. I have a problem
with the idea that they have to put warning signs up and paint cameras >>yellow so people know where the law is enforced --- and therefore
where it is not.
The argument for making them visible is a bit more subtle than is commonly portrayed. It's not about being "fair" to motorists. It's not even primarily about a deterrent effect in reducing speeds in known accident black spots (although that is a part of it). One of the main reasons for making them easily visible is that they then act as a kind of bozo filter. Because you have to be particularly unobservent to get caught by a speed camera, the people they catch are predominantly those who are particularly unobservent. And these are precisely the people who you want to catch, because they're potentially unsafe at any speed.
On 20/03/2024 15:01, Serena Blanchflower wrote:
On 20/03/2024 12:32, Colin Bignell wrote:
It is fun trying to push a wheelchair up the hill to look at the
Round Table in Winchester. Even more fun, is coming down and trying
not to let go. đŸ™‚
I had thoughts of designing a strap that went around my back and
clipped to each side of the chair, but found it easier to avoid hilly
places instead,
It's possible to have wheelchairs equipped with bicycle style brakes,
controlled by the pusher. I have them on mine which means I don't
have to worry so much either about the pusher's back, or the risk of
hurtling downhill, out of control ;)
Unless they can be set to apply the brakes when the handles are
released, that wouldn't overcome the potential problem of the chair
pulling out of my hands. However, that wheelchair is now sitting in my garage, waiting for its next occupant, which will probably be me, so it
is not an immediate problem.
On 19/03/2024 16:36, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 11:04:21 +0000, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> >> wrote:
On 19/03/2024 03:15, Roland Perry wrote:
I have spent much of the last 18 months being the pilot of a wheelchair >>>> (again simply medical necessity). And it's swings and roundabouts. Some >>>> places, especially London, you can automatically jump most queues, and >>>> even get free "carer" admission to tourist attractions, theatre etc.
Out in the provinces the biggest obstacle, literally, is so-called
disabled access that requires the physique of a bodybuilder to be
able to negotiate.
Indeed. I believe it would be beneficial if those that are responsible
for the provision of services for impaired users were first required to
live as a user of the services they're providing for a minimum of six
months.
Which user do you want them to live as?
As many as possible. :-) I listed some examples in a parallel reply
to a post from Roland.
Part of the problem is that "disability" is a very wide spectrum. No
disrespect intended to Roland here, but a common misapprehension I encounter >> in my role as a councillor trying to assist disabled residents is that
"disabled" means "wheelchair user" (or, occasionally, "blind"). Which has
two knock-on consequences: one is that making a facility wheelchair
accessible is considered to tick the "accessibility" box, and therefore
nothing more needs to be done, while the other is that where there are
genuine practical reasons why a facility can't be made wheelchair accessible >> then there's nothing else that can be done either.
For residents, I would agree that it needs to be looked at on a
case-by-case basis. A house considered "accessible" for one person may
be completely unsuitable for another. Add "growth restricted" to my
previous list of examples to demonstrate that point. :-)
But with public buildings and those to which the public have access, I
think it is too easy to hide behind the fact that "necessary changes"
need only to be "reasonable". Around 2% of the UK population use
wheelchairs whilst around 3% have vision loss serious enough for them
to be considered unsafe to drive.
Those two groups alone represent 1 in 20 in the UK. Granted, the >distribution isn't linear, (there's a direct correlation between
impairment and age), but I do not consider it "reasonable" to exclude
people from public buildings simply because it will be expensive to
grant them equal access.
And don't get me started on access for the impaired to concerts and
sporting events!
On 19/03/2024 13:29, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l5t9pnFjcq3U9@mid.individual.net>, at 11:04:21 on Tue, 19
Mar 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
Out in the provinces the biggest obstacle, literally, is so-called >>>>disabled access that requires the physique of a bodybuilder to be
able to negotiate.
Indeed. I believe it would be beneficial if those that are
responsible for the provision of services for impaired users were
first required to live as a user of the services they're providing
for a minimum of six months.
I don't understand why they can't employ a service user as a
consultant, who would probably welcome ceasing being economically
inactive.
Several service users: somebody in a wheelchair, somebody visually
impaired, somebody with hearing loss, somebody that is neurodiverse,
etc. as they all have different needs.
On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 11:04:21 +0000, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> >wrote:
On 19/03/2024 03:15, Roland Perry wrote:
I have spent much of the last 18 months being the pilot of a wheelchair
(again simply medical necessity). And it's swings and roundabouts. Some
places, especially London, you can automatically jump most queues, and
even get free "carer" admission to tourist attractions, theatre etc.
Out in the provinces the biggest obstacle, literally, is so-called
disabled access that requires the physique of a bodybuilder to be
able to negotiate.
Indeed. I believe it would be beneficial if those that are responsible
for the provision of services for impaired users were first required to >>live as a user of the services they're providing for a minimum of six >>months.
Which user do you want them to live as?
Part of the problem is that "disability" is a very wide spectrum. No >disrespect intended to Roland here, but a common misapprehension I encounter >in my role as a councillor trying to assist disabled residents is that >"disabled" means "wheelchair user" (or, occasionally, "blind"). Which has
two knock-on consequences: one is that making a facility wheelchair >accessible is considered to tick the "accessibility" box, and therefore >nothing more needs to be done, while the other is that where there are >genuine practical reasons why a facility can't be made wheelchair accessible >then there's nothing else that can be done either.
On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 13:26:11 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <l5tdcuFjcq3U11@mid.individual.net>, at 12:05:48 on Tue, 19
Mar 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
I've noticed one poster to the thread using the term "invalid" which I >>>confess I haven't heard used for some time,
You might recall that so-called Mobility Scooters get their credentials
as a result of being classed as "Invalid Carriages". Although <dons >>flameproof underwear> quite few seem to be used by the lazy, rather
than impaired.
To be fair, most of them are used by people who can't walk far, rather than >can't walk at all,
so the fact that you can observe someone getting off a
disability scooter and, say, walking around a shop tells you nothing about >whether they're swinging the lead or not. And the legislation only requires >that the user suffers from "some physical defect or physical disability", >which can be interpreted quite widely. That's not to say that I entirely >disagree with you, I'm sure some people do use them more because they can't >be bothered to walk rather than because they find it difficult to walk. But >it isn't something that's amenable to simple visual observation.
What's possibly more of an issue, and is amenable to simple visual >observation, is the number of users who disregard the 4mph limit which >applies to them when on the pavement or in a pedestrianised area.
There was an incident in my town where an elderly lady was hit, quite >forcibly, by a mobility scooter and suffered significant injury.
The scooter user was later prosecuted for not using it in accordance
with the law (he hadn't engaged the speed limiter as required, which
was spotted by a PCSO who attended the incident), but that's a rare
instance of someone being caught breaking the law on one. Mostly, they
get away with it.
On 19/03/2024 03:15, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l5l67eFjcq3U1@mid.individual.net>, at 09:14:22 on Sat, 16
Mar 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
I once had a very interesting conversation with my relative wherein
they explained that they are disabled but society is retarded (in its >>>original sense). They went on to explain that they are disabled, and >>>there's little can be done about that - it is a medical fact, but
society retards them (i.e. delays them or holds them back) because it >>>does not make adequate provision for their disabilities (even with
all legislation in place).
It was quite an eye-opening conversation.
I have spent much of the last 18 months being the pilot of a
wheelchair (again simply medical necessity). And it's swings and >>roundabouts. Some places, especially London, you can automatically
jump most queues, and even get free "carer" admission to tourist >>attractions, theatre etc.
Out in the provinces the biggest obstacle, literally, is so-called >>disabled access that requires the physique of a bodybuilder to be
able to negotiate.
It is fun trying to push a wheelchair up the hill to look at the Round
Table in Winchester. Even more fun, is coming down and trying not to
let go. :-)
I had thoughts of designing a strap that went around my back and
clipped to each side of the chair, but found it easier to avoid hilly
places instead,
On 19/03/2024 13:32, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l5t9qeFjcq3U10@mid.individual.net>, at 11:04:45 on Tue,
19 Mar 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
On 19/03/2024 03:08, Roland Perry wrote:
There's a house near me with one of these much-misunderstood >>>>disabled spaces outside. In practice it's almost always occupied by >>>>the car of one of the agency carers who attend daily, which I don't >>>>think would entitle them to use the invalid's blue badge, which
they don't display anyway.
I believe the carer should display the blue badge of the household >>>they're visiting if they're parking in a disabled bay, otherwise they >>>risk receiving a parking ticket.
We see a policeman (who are the only persons who can issue such
tickets) around here about once a month and they usually otherwise >>pre-occupied doing a drugs raid or something similar.
They can be enforced by Civil Parking Enforcement Officers in these
parts and I would say I see at least one of those most days.
(Mainly when driving through the village where there is no shortage of
"easy pickings" for them.) At certain times, (unknown and unknowable
by most residents), they work much later than usual, (up to 10pm in my >experience), to ensure people don't think, "It is after 6pm, they've
all finished work for the day. I can park here without fear of getting
a ticket."
Regards
S.P.
I was once informed by a doctor that when someone collapses with a
heart attack it is very rare indeed for CPR to save that person's
life even if administered by a medic. Which isn't the impression
given in the hospital dramas on the box.
I wasn't thinking of TV programmes!
However, it's unlikely that a cardiologist would be able to save a >>patient's life in that situation.
I was once informed by a doctor that when someone collapses with a
heart attack it is very rare indeed for CPR to save that person's
life even if administered by a medic. Which isn't the impression
given in the hospital dramas on the box.
I was chatting to a guy last year. He had a heart attack on a cycling
club ride. The ride leader was a nurse. She and another rider did chest >compressions while waiting for the air ambulance. Apparently, the nurse >noticed he was having an attack while he was still on his bike. He made
an almost total recovery.
Additionally, we have your second suggestion in the form of mobile units
which are either in the form of two police constables operating a
handheld device at the roadside, (they're in full hi-vis so anyone that
doesn't spot them and adjust their speed accordingly deserves a ticket
for their lack of observation - we've a pair of them appearing around
once a fortnight on one of the main roads near here at present) and
mobile vans which are impossible to spot until it is too late (they are
small CDVs with black windows in the rear doors, one of which slides
open to allow a speed camera to be operated from inside the rear of the
van.
Also good, but do police authorities still publish the locations of
those in advance?
Finally, there is also a roundabout with a large lay-by off one of the
roads nearby where VOSA seem to turn up at least once a quarter to stop
all commercial vehicles. They typically have three or more transporters
on hand which I assume they use for impounding vehicles in certain
circumstances.
Just curious --- what are they checking for?
I'm not arguing about the margin for prosecution. I have a problem
with the idea that they have to put warning signs up and paint cameras
yellow so people know where the law is enforced --- and therefore
where it is not.
The law on speed limits is enforced everywhere.
There was a time within easy living memory when there were no Gatso or >Truvelo cameras.
But people got caught speeding just the same.
In message <1irjvipdr51sivisq1m32aik48v7fgccka@4ax.com>, at 20:13:46 on
Tue, 19 Mar 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
so the fact that you can observe someone getting off a
disability scooter and, say, walking around a shop tells you nothing about >>whether they're swinging the lead or not. And the legislation only requires >>that the user suffers from "some physical defect or physical disability", >>which can be interpreted quite widely. That's not to say that I entirely >>disagree with you, I'm sure some people do use them more because they can't >>be bothered to walk rather than because they find it difficult to walk. But >>it isn't something that's amenable to simple visual observation.
We've clashed about this before, and I disagree how many instances are >examples of the rather woke "not all disabilities are visible". I
suppose I'm a bit biassed by not regarding simply being morbidly obese
as a "disability". Would it qualify someone for a blue badge?
I was chatting to a guy last year. He had a heart attack on a cycling
club ride. The ride leader was a nurse. She and another rider did chest compressions while waiting for the air ambulance. Apparently, the nurse noticed he was having an attack while he was still on his bike. He made
an almost total recovery.
He was using a fitness tracking app, Garmin, at the time, and he showed
me the graph of his heart going from 180 to Zero. He was amused to show
me that the app not only recorded his heart attack, but after a pause,
it completed the planned ride with a number of personal bests.
Apparently, a friend had taken his phone and completed the ride without turning it off.
It's quite an interesting issue. How high should we let our heart rate
go during training. Mine still goes very high, barely any less than it
did 30 years ago. AUIU, this is ok, as long as I don't feel breathless.
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
 I'm not arguing about the margin for prosecution. I have a problem
with the idea that they have to put warning signs up and paint cameras
yellow so people know where the law is enforced --- and therefore
where it is not.
The law on speed limits is enforced everywhere.
It's only routinely enforced on a few roads.
There was a time within easy living memory when there were no Gatso or
Truvelo cameras.
But people got caught speeding just the same.
Portable radar speed traps,
VASCAR, policemen with stopwatches following
an offender; just some of the more common methods.
In message <1irjvipdr51sivisq1m32aik48v7fgccka@4ax.com>, at 20:13:46 on...
Tue, 19 Mar 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
What's possibly more of an issue, and is amenable to simple visual >>observation, is the number of users who disregard the 4mph limit which >>applies to them when on the pavement or in a pedestrianised area.
Like the police when they stop a car for no tax and then discover a
whole panoply of other offences, I tend to regard this speeding (and
also driving a non-street legal example wrong-way down one-way streets
on the carriageway, as a bit "no smoke without fire".
On 19/03/2024 15:10, JNugent wrote:
Park Lane, London W1 (Marble Arch to Hyde Park Corner).
It was a 40mph dual carriageway and well-engineered for that.
Now a 20mph dual carriageway.
Residential?
No.
The roundabout is a bit daunting for strangers to the area.
Which one? Marble Arch?
But you could argue that about almost any A-road roundabout in inner
London.
You could even argue it about the inner ends of the London-bound
motorways and major trunk roads. Perhaps they should all be limited to
20mph, if not less than that?
It rather depends on pedestrians. Some of these motorway style trunk
roads don't allow pedestrians, don't have adjacent footpaths, or
pedestrian crossings.
But I would guess
it is more to do with making the road more fun for sightseers, who
are after
all a major source of revenue.
The Park Lane central reservation has long been equipped with barriers
which among other things, make crossing the carriageways on foot
difficult at best (except at obvious crossing places).
Park lane has an adjacent footpath, and crossings. So it is suitable for 20mph.
I guess some people consider it really important to be allowed a
short period of acceleration between traffic queuing. I can't see why we should pander to this.
Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
The scooter user was later prosecuted for not using it in accordance
with the law (he hadn't engaged the speed limiter as required, which
was spotted by a PCSO who attended the incident), but that's a rare
instance of someone being caught breaking the law on one. Mostly, they
get away with it.
Many road users do. I recently decided to remonstrate with a delivery
driver who narrowly missed me while reversing into a pedestrianised area through "No Entry" signs, and his response was "What's the problem, I do
this every day".
Well apart from the frightful illegality, it would help if they didn't
assume they had priority over pedestrians already in the pedestrianised
area, and expect them to scatter out of the way.
In message <l41rckxa4s.ln2@news.ducksburg.com>, at 12:24:21 on Wed, 20
Mar 2024, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> remarked:
Additionally, we have your second suggestion in the form of mobile units >>> which are either in the form of two police constables operating a
handheld device at the roadside, (they're in full hi-vis so anyone that
doesn't spot them and adjust their speed accordingly deserves a ticket
for their lack of observation - we've a pair of them appearing around
once a fortnight on one of the main roads near here at present) and
mobile vans which are impossible to spot until it is too late (they are
small CDVs with black windows in the rear doors, one of which slides
open to allow a speed camera to be operated from inside the rear of the
van.
Also good, but do police authorities still publish the locations of
those in advance?
I've not seen them doing it.
Finally, there is also a roundabout with a large lay-by off one of the
roads nearby where VOSA seem to turn up at least once a quarter to stop
all commercial vehicles. They typically have three or more transporters >>> on hand which I assume they use for impounding vehicles in certain
circumstances.
Just curious --- what are they checking for?
Anything from overloading/unsafe loads, to other MOT-style failures, to
lack of insurance/licences, or insurance/licences being used out of
scope. They days maybe even intoxicated driver.
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
 I was once informed by a doctor that when someone collapses with a
heart attack it is very rare indeed for CPR to save that person's
life even if administered by a medic. Which isn't the impression
given in the hospital dramas on the box.
I wasn't thinking of TV programmes!
Drama = fictional representation.
Box = TV
Over to you...
On 2024-03-21, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l41rckxa4s.ln2@news.ducksburg.com>, at 12:24:21 on Wed, 20
Mar 2024, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> remarked:
Additionally, we have your second suggestion in the form of mobile units >>>> which are either in the form of two police constables operating a
handheld device at the roadside, (they're in full hi-vis so anyone that >>>> doesn't spot them and adjust their speed accordingly deserves a ticket >>>> for their lack of observation - we've a pair of them appearing around
once a fortnight on one of the main roads near here at present) and
mobile vans which are impossible to spot until it is too late (they are >>>> small CDVs with black windows in the rear doors, one of which slides
open to allow a speed camera to be operated from inside the rear of the >>>> van.
Also good, but do police authorities still publish the locations of
those in advance?
I've not seen them doing it.
Finally, there is also a roundabout with a large lay-by off one of the >>>> roads nearby where VOSA seem to turn up at least once a quarter to stop >>>> all commercial vehicles. They typically have three or more transporters >>>> on hand which I assume they use for impounding vehicles in certain
circumstances.
Just curious --- what are they checking for?
Anything from overloading/unsafe loads, to other MOT-style failures, to
lack of insurance/licences, or insurance/licences being used out of
scope. They days maybe even intoxicated driver.
Interesting, thanks.
On 2024-03-21, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <1irjvipdr51sivisq1m32aik48v7fgccka@4ax.com>, at 20:13:46 on...
Tue, 19 Mar 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
What's possibly more of an issue, and is amenable to simple visual
observation, is the number of users who disregard the 4mph limit which
applies to them when on the pavement or in a pedestrianised area.
Like the police when they stop a car for no tax and then discover a
whole panoply of other offences, I tend to regard this speeding (and
also driving a non-street legal example wrong-way down one-way streets
on the carriageway, as a bit "no smoke without fire".
I'm not trying to be argumentative, but whenever I've seen a mobility
scooter going along the carriageway there has been some obvious
reason, usually parked cars up on the pavement.
(I admit that I don't see a lot of them anyway where I live and I
don't know how to tell the difference between the classes.)
On 2024-03-20, Mark Goodge wrote:
The argument for making them visible is a bit more subtle than is commonly >> portrayed. It's not about being "fair" to motorists. It's not even primarily >> about a deterrent effect in reducing speeds in known accident black spots
(although that is a part of it). One of the main reasons for making them
easily visible is that they then act as a kind of bozo filter. Because you >> have to be particularly unobservent to get caught by a speed camera, the
people they catch are predominantly those who are particularly unobservent. >> And these are precisely the people who you want to catch, because they're
potentially unsafe at any speed.
That's a good point, but why not have both kinds, with double the
points for setting off a bright yellow one?
I am certainly under the impression that quite a few drivers take
advantage of the published locations (which some software displays and
even gives audible warnings about) in order to comply only where they
think they have to. Is that not a significant problem?
Perhaps the most extreme example I can think of was the instance of a
young child (EYFS KS1 to give a broad indication of age) mentioning in a casual conversation with a teacher that over the weekend he had
accompanied his father to the local public house to watch the football
whilst "daddy drank 'dirty beer'". The teacher felt it necessary to
mention the conversation to their appointed Safeguarding Lead who felt
the school needed to report it as a "Safeguarding Concern" which is what happened.
On 2024-03-21, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <1irjvipdr51sivisq1m32aik48v7fgccka@4ax.com>, at 20:13:46 on...
Tue, 19 Mar 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
What's possibly more of an issue, and is amenable to simple visual
observation, is the number of users who disregard the 4mph limit which
applies to them when on the pavement or in a pedestrianised area.
Like the police when they stop a car for no tax and then discover a
whole panoply of other offences, I tend to regard this speeding (and
also driving a non-street legal example wrong-way down one-way streets
on the carriageway, as a bit "no smoke without fire".
I'm not trying to be argumentative, but whenever I've seen a mobility
scooter going along the carriageway there has been some obvious
reason, usually parked cars up on the pavement.
(I admit that I don't see a lot of them anyway where I live and I
don't know how to tell the difference between the classes.)
On 2024-03-21, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <1irjvipdr51sivisq1m32aik48v7fgccka@4ax.com>, at 20:13:46 on...
Tue, 19 Mar 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
What's possibly more of an issue, and is amenable to simple visual >>>observation, is the number of users who disregard the 4mph limit which >>>applies to them when on the pavement or in a pedestrianised area.
Like the police when they stop a car for no tax and then discover a
whole panoply of other offences, I tend to regard this speeding (and
also driving a non-street legal example wrong-way down one-way streets
on the carriageway, as a bit "no smoke without fire".
I'm not trying to be argumentative, but whenever I've seen a mobility
scooter going along the carriageway there has been some obvious
reason, usually parked cars up on the pavement.
(I admit that I don't see a lot of them anyway where I live and I
don't know how to tell the difference between the classes.)
On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 09:07:14 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1irjvipdr51sivisq1m32aik48v7fgccka@4ax.com>, at 20:13:46 on >>Tue, 19 Mar 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
so the fact that you can observe someone getting off a
disability scooter and, say, walking around a shop tells you nothing about >>>whether they're swinging the lead or not. And the legislation only requires >>>that the user suffers from "some physical defect or physical disability", >>>which can be interpreted quite widely. That's not to say that I entirely >>>disagree with you, I'm sure some people do use them more because they can't >>>be bothered to walk rather than because they find it difficult to walk. But >>>it isn't something that's amenable to simple visual observation.
We've clashed about this before, and I disagree how many instances are >>examples of the rather woke "not all disabilities are visible". I
suppose I'm a bit biassed by not regarding simply being morbidly obese
as a "disability". Would it qualify someone for a blue badge?
Being obese alone is not a disability. But a lot of people who have mobility >difficulties struggle to control their weight because, unlike the rest of
us, they're not consuming the calories by walking or exercising.
So the
underlying condition probably qualifies them for a blue badge.
On 21/03/2024 09:47 am, Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:[in response to:]
[JN:]I was once informed by a doctor that when someone collapses with a >>>>heart attack it is very rare indeed for CPR to save that person's
life even if administered by a medic. Which isn't the impression
given in the hospital dramas on the box.
[RP:]I wasn't thinking of TV programmes!
Drama = fictional representation.
Box = TV
Over to you...
Er... I wasn't thinking of TV programmes [at all]?
On 21/03/2024 09:59 am, Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
It's only routinely enforced on a few roads.I'm not arguing about the margin for prosecution. I have a problem
with the idea that they have to put warning signs up and paint cameras >>>> yellow so people know where the law is enforced --- and therefore
where it is not.
The law on speed limits is enforced everywhere.
...and?
With automated installations it can only be enforced on a few spots on
a relatively few roads and some might observe that they're easy to spot
and deal with. Ask Chris Huhne how that went for him.
There was a time within easy living memory when there were no GatsoPortable radar speed traps,
or Truvelo cameras.
But people got caught speeding just the same.
There was an amusing one on the A446 just north of the M6, heading
towards Lichfield (in the days before the toll road), located off the
road in the entrance to someone's driveway.
There was (and may still be) another in Chitterne between Shrewton and >Warminster, also mainly obscured by a driveway entrance. I saw several
people caught by both of them.
VASCAR, policemen with stopwatches following an offender; just some
of the more common methods.
Did they need stopwatches? The speedo was surely evidence enough?
On 20/03/2024 02:53 am, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-03-19, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 19 Mar 2024 at 13:29:34 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:Also it's a bit weird to say "Residential? No" about a road that is
Park Lane, London W1 (Marble Arch to Hyde Park Corner).
It was a 40mph dual carriageway and well-engineered for that.
Now a 20mph dual carriageway.
Residential?
No.
The roundabout is a bit daunting for strangers to the area. But I
would guess it is more to do with making the road more fun for
sightseers, who are after all a major source of revenue.
almost entirely residential.
How many houses and flats (NOT commercial premises) are there adjacent
to the west side of Park Lane?
How many houses and flats (NOT commercial premises) are there adjacent
to the east side of Park Lane?
[on delivery of children to the school door, as apparently mandated by
a teachers' trade-union:]
On 20/03/2024 14:14, JNugent wrote:
On 19/03/2024 06:53 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
"without effect" = "without legal effect".
Ah, the "invisible word" ploy. Except there's the safeguarding laws,
and that's what causes the friction.
What are these "safeguarding laws"?
Primarily, the Children Act 1989, the Children Act 2004 and the Children
and Social Work Act 2017.
Are they brought into ploy by the decisions of teachers' trade-unions?
Please see the statutory guidance contained in the document "Working
Together to Safeguard Children" December 2023 edition. [1]
When you've read it, ask yourself: What must a school do, if a child is regularly left in the playground unsupervised?
On 21/03/2024 11:01 am, Simon Parker wrote:
On 20/03/2024 14:14, JNugent wrote:
On 19/03/2024 06:53 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
"without effect" = "without legal effect".
Ah, the "invisible word" ploy. Except there's the safeguarding laws,
and that's what causes the friction.
What are these "safeguarding laws"?
Primarily, the Children Act 1989, the Children Act 2004 and the Children
and Social Work Act 2017.
Are they brought into ploy by the decisions of teachers' trade-unions?
Please see the statutory guidance contained in the document "Working
Together to Safeguard Children" December 2023 edition. [1]
When you've read it, ask yourself: What must a school do, if a child is
regularly left in the playground unsupervised?
Get one or more of the teachers to look after the child, reminding them
that if they're involved in industrial "action" and therefore refuse to
do so, they should take themselves off home and stay there, without pay, until the dispute is resolved and normal service can be resumed.
It would also get the dispute settled faster, I suggest.
In message <fjctckxj5j.ln2@news.ducksburg.com>, at 09:52:15 on Thu, 21
Mar 2024, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> remarked:
On 2024-03-21, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <1irjvipdr51sivisq1m32aik48v7fgccka@4ax.com>, at 20:13:46 on...
Tue, 19 Mar 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
What's possibly more of an issue, and is amenable to simple visual
observation, is the number of users who disregard the 4mph limit which >>>> applies to them when on the pavement or in a pedestrianised area.
Like the police when they stop a car for no tax and then discover a
whole panoply of other offences, I tend to regard this speeding (and
also driving a non-street legal example wrong-way down one-way streets
on the carriageway, as a bit "no smoke without fire".
I'm not trying to be argumentative, but whenever I've seen a mobility
scooter going along the carriageway there has been some obvious
reason, usually parked cars up on the pavement.
Two rights don't make a wrong.
FWIW the location I see it most, there isn't a pavement on that side,
but that's not an excuse either.
(I admit that I don't see a lot of them anyway where I live and I
don't know how to tell the difference between the classes.)
Lights and numberplates are the main clues. They also tend to be much
bigger.
On 21/03/2024 17:21, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <fjctckxj5j.ln2@news.ducksburg.com>, at 09:52:15 on Thu,
21 Mar 2024, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> remarked:
On 2024-03-21, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <1irjvipdr51sivisq1m32aik48v7fgccka@4ax.com>, at 20:13:46 on >>>> Tue, 19 Mar 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>...
remarked:
What's possibly more of an issue, and is amenable to simple visual
observation, is the number of users who disregard the 4mph limit which >>>>> applies to them when on the pavement or in a pedestrianised area.
Like the police when they stop a car for no tax and then discover a
whole panoply of other offences, I tend to regard this speeding (and
also driving a non-street legal example wrong-way down one-way streets >>>> on the carriageway, as a bit "no smoke without fire".
I'm not trying to be argumentative, but whenever I've seen a mobility
scooter going along the carriageway there has been some obvious
reason, usually parked cars up on the pavement.
Two rights don't make a wrong.
FWIW the location I see it most, there isn't a pavement on that
side, but that's not an excuse either.
(I admit that I don't see a lot of them anyway where I live and I
don't know how to tell the difference between the classes.)
Lights and numberplates are the main clues. They also tend to be
much bigger.
I've never seen a mobility scooter carrying a numberplate I'm not sure
where I could fit one on mine, or on most other scooters.
Class 3 scooters should be registered (and, nominally, taxed) with DVLA
and will be given a registration number. They don't have to carry a
number plate though.
On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 18:56:21 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <grfjvil0nmj9d4ovkdv5bnumg4cepd3klb@4ax.com>, at 16:43:51 on >>Tue, 19 Mar 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 03:36:53 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>All the local chatter is 100% it's a City Councillor thing.
In Ely the City Council (presumably with the connivance of the County >>>>Council who are the Highways authority) has introduced (three weeks ago) >>>>a controversial 20mph zone in roughly a 1.5 mile radius of the centre.
Other way round: the county council has introduced it, but will have >>>consulted with the city council first (as they are legally obliged to do). >>
Local chatter almost invariably gets that sort of thing wrong.
Outside political nerds, very few people have any concept at all of the
fact that there's more than one level of local government. To them,
it's all just "the council". And, typically, they call that "[town
name] council".
https://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/news/20mph-speed-limit-for-ely-approved
"The scheme was put forward by local councillors on behalf of the >>community"
I think they mean local [county] councillors. At least one county councillor >is explicitly described as such in the press release:
Cllr Piers Coutts, local councillor for Ely South at Cambridgeshire County
Council, said "Cllr Whelan and I have heard from many residents about
these plans[...]"
Both Cllr Coutts and Cllr Whelan are county councillors:
https://cambridgeshire.cmis.uk.com/ccc_live/Councillors/tabid/63/ctl/Vi >ewCMIS_Person/mid/383/id/1539/ScreenMode/Alphabetical/Default.aspx >https://cambridgeshire.cmis.uk.com/ccc_live/Councillors/tabid/63/ctl/Vi >ewCMIS_Person/mid/383/id/1519/ScreenMode/Alphabetical/Default.aspx
(Despite the fact that those URLs differ only by a single id value, they >can't be truncated. Which is bad design. But that's a different matter).
You'll recognise the name of one of the city councillors. Maybe you should >post this in uk.railway and ask him where the idea came from.
https://www.cityofelycouncil.org.uk/councillors/
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
[in response to:]
 I was once informed by a doctor that when someone collapses with a >>>>> heart attack it is very rare indeed for CPR to save that person's
life even if administered by a medic. Which isn't the impression
given in the hospital dramas on the box.
[JN:]
I wasn't thinking of TV programmes!
[RP:]
Drama = fictional representation.
Box = TV
Over to you...
Er... I wasn't thinking of TV programmes [at all]?
Dramas on a soapbox, cardboard box, or what?
On 21 Mar 2024 at 14:42:47 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
On 21/03/2024 11:01 am, Simon Parker wrote:
On 20/03/2024 14:14, JNugent wrote:
On 19/03/2024 06:53 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
"without effect" = "without legal effect".
Ah, the "invisible word" ploy. Except there's the safeguarding laws, >>>>> and that's what causes the friction.
What are these "safeguarding laws"?
Primarily, the Children Act 1989, the Children Act 2004 and the Children >>> and Social Work Act 2017.
Are they brought into ploy by the decisions of teachers' trade-unions?
Please see the statutory guidance contained in the document "Working
Together to Safeguard Children" December 2023 edition. [1]
When you've read it, ask yourself: What must a school do, if a child is
regularly left in the playground unsupervised?
Get one or more of the teachers to look after the child, reminding them
that if they're involved in industrial "action" and therefore refuse to
do so, they should take themselves off home and stay there, without pay,
until the dispute is resolved and normal service can be resumed.
It would also get the dispute settled faster, I suggest.
They are not currently involved in industrial action. Their negotiated contract excludes childminding duties outside school hours. In the same way as
when I worked in a hospital I wasn't required to sweep the corridors on my way
in to work.
In message <l62hukFqbc7U1@mid.individual.net>, at 10:54:13 on Thu, 21
Mar 2024, JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
On 21/03/2024 09:59 am, Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
 It's only routinely enforced on a few roads. I'm not arguing about the margin for prosecution. I have a problem >>>>> with the idea that they have to put warning signs up and paint cameras >>>>> yellow so people know where the law is enforced --- and therefore
where it is not.
The law on speed limits is enforced everywhere.
...and?
With automated installations it can only be enforced on a few spots on
a relatively few roads and some might observe that they're easy to
spot and deal with. Ask Chris Huhne how that went for him.
He went on one of the few roads with speed checking infrastructure the
whole length.
There was a time within easy living memory when there were no Gatso
or Truvelo cameras.
But people got caught speeding just the same.
 Portable radar speed traps,
There was an amusing one on the A446 just north of the M6, heading
towards Lichfield (in the days before the toll road), located off the
road in the entrance to someone's driveway.
There was (and may still be) another in Chitterne between Shrewton and
Warminster, also mainly obscured by a driveway entrance. I saw several
people caught by both of them.
VASCAR, policemen with stopwatches following an offender; just some
of the more common methods.
Did they need stopwatches? The speedo was surely evidence enough?
Why do you systemically disbelieve almost everything I post?
On 21/03/2024 06:39 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 21 Mar 2024 at 14:42:47 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
On 21/03/2024 11:01 am, Simon Parker wrote:
On 20/03/2024 14:14, JNugent wrote:
On 19/03/2024 06:53 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
"without effect" = "without legal effect".
Ah, the "invisible word" ploy. Except there's the safeguarding laws, >>>>>> and that's what causes the friction.
What are these "safeguarding laws"?
Primarily, the Children Act 1989, the Children Act 2004 and the Children >>>> and Social Work Act 2017.
Are they brought into ploy by the decisions of teachers' trade-unions? >>>>Please see the statutory guidance contained in the document "Working
Together to Safeguard Children" December 2023 edition. [1]
When you've read it, ask yourself: What must a school do, if a child is >>>> regularly left in the playground unsupervised?
Get one or more of the teachers to look after the child, reminding them
that if they're involved in industrial "action" and therefore refuse to
do so, they should take themselves off home and stay there, without pay, >>> until the dispute is resolved and normal service can be resumed.
It would also get the dispute settled faster, I suggest.
They are not currently involved in industrial action. Their negotiated
contract excludes childminding duties outside school hours. In the same way as
when I worked in a hospital I wasn't required to sweep the corridors on my way
in to work.
What arrangements did the education authorities make in order to cover
for the playground duties whose cessation they had negotiated?
In message <uti5nv$24eag$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:36:15 on Thu, 21 Mar....
2024, Serena Blanchflower <nospam@blanchflower.me.uk> remarked:
....I've never seen a mobility scooter carrying a numberplate I'm not sure
where I could fit one on mine, or on most other scooters.
Some do have them though.
<https://www.bossreg.com/news/55/mobility-scooter-with-q- plates.html/mobility-scooter-with-q-plates.html>
<https://mypolice.qld.gov.au/moreton/files/2019/01/IMG_20190108_112244- e1547006190766-360x480.jpg>
Yes, I know that second one is Australia, but the size of scooter and
plate is the same as UK.
It's quite an interesting issue. How high should we let our heart rate
go during training. Mine still goes very high, barely any less than it
did 30 years ago. AUIU, this is ok, as long as I don't feel breathless.
There are formulas and tables for target rates during exercise based
on age, for example:
<https://www.heart.org/en/healthy-living/fitness/fitness-basics/target-heart-rates>
I expect that people who are out of shape need to work up to that
range gradually, though.
On 22/03/2024 07:04, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <uti5nv$24eag$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:36:15 on Thu, 21 Mar....
2024, Serena Blanchflower <nospam@blanchflower.me.uk> remarked:
I've never seen a mobility scooter carrying a numberplate I'm not sureSome do have them though.
where I could fit one on mine, or on most other scooters.
<https://www.bossreg.com/news/55/mobility-scooter-with-q-
plates.html/mobility-scooter-with-q-plates.html>
<https://mypolice.qld.gov.au/moreton/files/2019/01/IMG_20190108_112244-
e1547006190766-360x480.jpg>
Yes, I know that second one is Australia, but the size of scooter....
and
plate is the same as UK.
The ones I have seen with a number plate usually read something like
OLD GIT 1
On 21/03/2024 09:52, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2024-03-21, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <1irjvipdr51sivisq1m32aik48v7fgccka@4ax.com>, at 20:13:46 on...
Tue, 19 Mar 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
What's possibly more of an issue, and is amenable to simple visual
observation, is the number of users who disregard the 4mph limit which >>>> applies to them when on the pavement or in a pedestrianised area.
Like the police when they stop a car for no tax and then discover a
whole panoply of other offences, I tend to regard this speeding (and
also driving a non-street legal example wrong-way down one-way streets
on the carriageway, as a bit "no smoke without fire".
I'm not trying to be argumentative, but whenever I've seen a mobility
scooter going along the carriageway there has been some obvious
reason, usually parked cars up on the pavement.
(I admit that I don't see a lot of them anyway where I live and I
don't know how to tell the difference between the classes.)
Class 3 have lights and indicators. Class 2 usually do not.
In message <fjctckxj5j.ln2@news.ducksburg.com>, at 09:52:15 on Thu, 21
Mar 2024, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> remarked:
On 2024-03-21, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <1irjvipdr51sivisq1m32aik48v7fgccka@4ax.com>, at 20:13:46 on...
Tue, 19 Mar 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
What's possibly more of an issue, and is amenable to simple visual >>>>observation, is the number of users who disregard the 4mph limit which >>>>applies to them when on the pavement or in a pedestrianised area.
Like the police when they stop a car for no tax and then discover a
whole panoply of other offences, I tend to regard this speeding (and
also driving a non-street legal example wrong-way down one-way streets
on the carriageway, as a bit "no smoke without fire".
I'm not trying to be argumentative, but whenever I've seen a mobility >>scooter going along the carriageway there has been some obvious
reason, usually parked cars up on the pavement.
Two rights don't make a wrong.
FWIW the location I see it most, there isn't a pavement on that side,
but that's not an excuse either.
(I admit that I don't see a lot of them anyway where I live and I
don't know how to tell the difference between the classes.)
Lights and numberplates are the main clues. They also tend to be much
bigger.
On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 19:18:23 +0000, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2024-03-20, Mark Goodge wrote:
The argument for making them visible is a bit more subtle than is commonly >>> portrayed. It's not about being "fair" to motorists. It's not even primarily
about a deterrent effect in reducing speeds in known accident black spots >>> (although that is a part of it). One of the main reasons for making them >>> easily visible is that they then act as a kind of bozo filter. Because you >>> have to be particularly unobservent to get caught by a speed camera, the >>> people they catch are predominantly those who are particularly unobservent. >>> And these are precisely the people who you want to catch, because they're >>> potentially unsafe at any speed.
That's a good point, but why not have both kinds, with double the
points for setting off a bright yellow one?
I am certainly under the impression that quite a few drivers take
advantage of the published locations (which some software displays and
even gives audible warnings about) in order to comply only where they
think they have to. Is that not a significant problem?
It's becoming more of a problem with the increased availability of the means to share the locations. And it's not a problem which can be solved by painting them grey. Back in the day when speed cameras were first a thing, sat-navs were only a high-end thing and over-the-air updates (which are necessary for tracking the location of easily moved and installed objects) were definitely not a thing. It's only since most sat-navs, either
standalone or app based, became routinely updated over-the-air (real-time, even, in the case of apps like Waze) that sharing speed camera locations has been sufficiently feasible for non-nerds to benefit from it.
One option would be to do what France does, and prohibit sharing that data. But that's hard to enforce, and merely tends to drive the adoption of workarounds. You can't share speed camera locations in France, but you can share locations of "abnormally dangerous roads" where you are particularly encouraged to keep your speed low. And France also does what a lot of people suggest the UK should do, which is have a lot more speed cameras and paint them grey or green so that they're harder to spot. But there's no evidence that that actually works, from a safety perspective. France has a higher KSI road accident rate than the UK, by a fairly significant margin (almost double, in fact).
The UK's approach is that safety is better designed into the roads, where possible, and that speed limits should be appropriate to the location and enforced flexibly. This seems to work; our road accident rate is one of the best in the world. There is still room for improvement, particularly in
urban areas where vehicles and pedestrians are likely to come into conflict (and 20mph zones are a part of that toolkit), but the scope for
legislatively enforced changes to driver behaviour is now well into the
realm of diminishing returns.
pps. The formatting has broken at the point "Cathedral Ward" should be a
headline.
On 2024-03-21, Mark Goodge wrote:
The UK's approach is that safety is better designed into the roads, where
possible, and that speed limits should be appropriate to the location and
enforced flexibly. This seems to work; our road accident rate is one of the >> best in the world. There is still room for improvement, particularly in
urban areas where vehicles and pedestrians are likely to come into conflict >> (and 20mph zones are a part of that toolkit), but the scope for
legislatively enforced changes to driver behaviour is now well into the
realm of diminishing returns.
You are exceptionally well-informed about the subject. Thanks for the >information.
Do you know why drunk driving has become socially unacceptable to a
much greater extent than speeding?
On 21 Mar 2024 at 23:42:29 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
On 21/03/2024 06:39 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 21 Mar 2024 at 14:42:47 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
Get one or more of the teachers to look after the child, reminding them >>>> that if they're involved in industrial "action" and therefore refuse to >>>> do so, they should take themselves off home and stay there, without pay, >>>> until the dispute is resolved and normal service can be resumed.
It would also get the dispute settled faster, I suggest.
They are not currently involved in industrial action. Their negotiated
contract excludes childminding duties outside school hours. In the same way as
when I worked in a hospital I wasn't required to sweep the corridors on my way
in to work.
What arrangements did the education authorities make in order to cover
for the playground duties whose cessation they had negotiated?
Largely, they instructed parents not to leave children in the playground, but to hand them over to staff after the school had opened. And to collect them from staff at the end of the school day.
On 2024-03-21, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 19:18:23 +0000, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote: >>
On 2024-03-20, Mark Goodge wrote:
The argument for making them visible is a bit more subtle than is commonly >>>> portrayed. It's not about being "fair" to motorists. It's not even primarily
about a deterrent effect in reducing speeds in known accident black spots >>>> (although that is a part of it). One of the main reasons for making them >>>> easily visible is that they then act as a kind of bozo filter. Because you >>>> have to be particularly unobservent to get caught by a speed camera, the >>>> people they catch are predominantly those who are particularly unobservent.
And these are precisely the people who you want to catch, because they're >>>> potentially unsafe at any speed.
That's a good point, but why not have both kinds, with double the
points for setting off a bright yellow one?
I am certainly under the impression that quite a few drivers take
advantage of the published locations (which some software displays and
even gives audible warnings about) in order to comply only where they
think they have to. Is that not a significant problem?
It's becoming more of a problem with the increased availability of the means >> to share the locations. And it's not a problem which can be solved by
painting them grey. Back in the day when speed cameras were first a thing, >> sat-navs were only a high-end thing and over-the-air updates (which are
necessary for tracking the location of easily moved and installed objects) >> were definitely not a thing. It's only since most sat-navs, either
standalone or app based, became routinely updated over-the-air (real-time, >> even, in the case of apps like Waze) that sharing speed camera locations has >> been sufficiently feasible for non-nerds to benefit from it.
One option would be to do what France does, and prohibit sharing that data. >> But that's hard to enforce, and merely tends to drive the adoption of
workarounds. You can't share speed camera locations in France, but you can >> share locations of "abnormally dangerous roads" where you are particularly >> encouraged to keep your speed low. And France also does what a lot of people >> suggest the UK should do, which is have a lot more speed cameras and paint >> them grey or green so that they're harder to spot. But there's no evidence >> that that actually works, from a safety perspective. France has a higher KSI >> road accident rate than the UK, by a fairly significant margin (almost
double, in fact).
The UK's approach is that safety is better designed into the roads, where
possible, and that speed limits should be appropriate to the location and
enforced flexibly. This seems to work; our road accident rate is one of the >> best in the world. There is still room for improvement, particularly in
urban areas where vehicles and pedestrians are likely to come into conflict >> (and 20mph zones are a part of that toolkit), but the scope for
legislatively enforced changes to driver behaviour is now well into the
realm of diminishing returns.
You are exceptionally well-informed about the subject. Thanks for the information.
Do you know why drunk driving has become socially unacceptable to a
much greater extent than speeding?
(I was going to say that drunk driving laws are newer than speed
limits, but I looked it up and the history of both is complicated and
they overlap.)
On 22/03/2024 12:33 pm, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2024-03-21, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 19:18:23 +0000, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2024-03-20, Mark Goodge wrote:
The argument for making them visible is a bit more subtle than is commonly
portrayed. It's not about being "fair" to motorists. It's not even primarily
about a deterrent effect in reducing speeds in known accident black spots >>>>> (although that is a part of it). One of the main reasons for making them >>>>> easily visible is that they then act as a kind of bozo filter. Because you
have to be particularly unobservent to get caught by a speed camera, the >>>>> people they catch are predominantly those who are particularly unobservent.
And these are precisely the people who you want to catch, because they're >>>>> potentially unsafe at any speed.
That's a good point, but why not have both kinds, with double the
points for setting off a bright yellow one?
I am certainly under the impression that quite a few drivers take
advantage of the published locations (which some software displays and >>>> even gives audible warnings about) in order to comply only where they
think they have to. Is that not a significant problem?
It's becoming more of a problem with the increased availability of the means
to share the locations. And it's not a problem which can be solved by
painting them grey. Back in the day when speed cameras were first a thing, >>> sat-navs were only a high-end thing and over-the-air updates (which are
necessary for tracking the location of easily moved and installed objects) >>> were definitely not a thing. It's only since most sat-navs, either
standalone or app based, became routinely updated over-the-air (real-time, >>> even, in the case of apps like Waze) that sharing speed camera locations has
been sufficiently feasible for non-nerds to benefit from it.
One option would be to do what France does, and prohibit sharing that data. >>> But that's hard to enforce, and merely tends to drive the adoption of
workarounds. You can't share speed camera locations in France, but you can >>> share locations of "abnormally dangerous roads" where you are particularly >>> encouraged to keep your speed low. And France also does what a lot of people
suggest the UK should do, which is have a lot more speed cameras and paint >>> them grey or green so that they're harder to spot. But there's no evidence >>> that that actually works, from a safety perspective. France has a higher KSI
road accident rate than the UK, by a fairly significant margin (almost
double, in fact).
The UK's approach is that safety is better designed into the roads, where >>> possible, and that speed limits should be appropriate to the location and >>> enforced flexibly. This seems to work; our road accident rate is one of the >>> best in the world. There is still room for improvement, particularly in
urban areas where vehicles and pedestrians are likely to come into conflict >>> (and 20mph zones are a part of that toolkit), but the scope for
legislatively enforced changes to driver behaviour is now well into the
realm of diminishing returns.
You are exceptionally well-informed about the subject. Thanks for the
information.
Do you know why drunk driving has become socially unacceptable to a
much greater extent than speeding?
Wouldn't that be because of a general perception that whereas an alert
and objectively unimpaired person can adapt to evolving circumstances as quickly as required (or as possible), whereas a person who is *impaired*
by drugs and/or excessive alcohol cannot? That, of course, is the whole rationale for the 1967 legislation.
Whether the threshold blood alcohol levels are too low, just right or
too high is another matter, as is the question of whether the mandatory punishment is fair, especially to persons whose readings are trivially o
in excess of the maximum, is another matter. Not every First World
country, or even every EU country, takes the UK's robust and adamant
attitude to punishment.
(I was going to say that drunk driving laws are newer than speed
limits, but I looked it up and the history of both is complicated and
they overlap.)
Speed laws are the older of the two. Red flags, etc.
On 22/03/2024 12:33 pm, Adam Funk wrote:
Do you know why drunk driving has become socially unacceptable to a
much greater extent than speeding?
Wouldn't that be because of a general perception that whereas an alert
and objectively unimpaired person can adapt to evolving circumstances as >quickly as required (or as possible), whereas a person who is *impaired*
by drugs and/or excessive alcohol cannot? That, of course, is the whole >rationale for the 1967 legislation.
Whether the threshold blood alcohol levels are too low, just right or
too high is another matter, as is the question of whether the mandatory >punishment is fair, especially to persons whose readings are trivially o
in excess of the maximum, is another matter. Not every First World
country, or even every EU country, takes the UK's robust and adamant
attitude to punishment.
Wasn't there a crime of driving a horsedrawn vehicle when drunk? I haven't looked it up, but I thought there was.
On 2024-03-21, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <fjctckxj5j.ln2@news.ducksburg.com>, at 09:52:15 on Thu, 21
Mar 2024, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> remarked:
On 2024-03-21, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <1irjvipdr51sivisq1m32aik48v7fgccka@4ax.com>, at 20:13:46 on >>>> Tue, 19 Mar 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>...
remarked:
What's possibly more of an issue, and is amenable to simple visual >>>>>observation, is the number of users who disregard the 4mph limit which >>>>>applies to them when on the pavement or in a pedestrianised area.
Like the police when they stop a car for no tax and then discover a
whole panoply of other offences, I tend to regard this speeding (and
also driving a non-street legal example wrong-way down one-way streets >>>> on the carriageway, as a bit "no smoke without fire".
I'm not trying to be argumentative, but whenever I've seen a mobility >>>scooter going along the carriageway there has been some obvious
reason, usually parked cars up on the pavement.
Two rights don't make a wrong.
I don't mean that they're driving down the road to make a point --- I
mean that they can't get where they need to go without doing it.
FWIW the location I see it most, there isn't a pavement on that side,
but that's not an excuse either.
The average adult male will be hovering around the legal limit after three >pints of beer, depending on how strong it is.
On 21/03/2024 05:28 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:Dramas on a soapbox, cardboard box, or what?
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
[in response to:]
I was once informed by a doctor that when someone collapses with >>>>>>a heart attack it is very rare indeed for CPR to save that >>>>>>person's life even if administered by a medic. Which isn't the >>>>>>impression given in the hospital dramas on the box.
[JN:]
I wasn't thinking of TV programmes!
[RP:]
Drama = fictional representation.
Box = TV
Over to you...
Er... I wasn't thinking of TV programmes [at all]?
You'd probably do better asking the person who mentioned "hospital
dramas on the box".
A word of advice gratis: it was not I.
On 21/03/2024 05:33 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l62hukFqbc7U1@mid.individual.net>, at 10:54:13 on Thu, 21
Mar 2024, JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
On 21/03/2024 09:59 am, Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
I'm not arguing about the margin for prosecution. I have a problem >>>>>> with the idea that they have to put warning signs up and paint cameras >>>>>> yellow so people know where the law is enforced --- and therefore
where it is not.
The law on speed limits is enforced everywhere.
It's only routinely enforced on a few roads.
...and?
With automated installations it can only be enforced on a few spots
on a relatively few roads and some might observe that they're easy
to spot and deal with. Ask Chris Huhne how that went for him.
He went on one of the few roads with speed checking infrastructure
the whole length.
My understanding was that he passed a very prominent Gatso on the M11 >southbound carriageway, near the the tail end of the A120 (Stortford
and Stansted) southbound slip road. Perhaps his attention was diverted
from the task at hand.
There was a time within easy living memory when there were no
Gatso or Truvelo cameras.
But people got caught speeding just the same.
Portable radar speed traps,
There was an amusing one on the A446 just north of the M6, heading >>>towards Lichfield (in the days before the toll road), located off the >>>road in the entrance to someone's driveway.
There was (and may still be) another in Chitterne between Shrewton
and Warminster, also mainly obscured by a driveway entrance. I saw >>>several people caught by both of them.
VASCAR, policemen with stopwatches following an offender; just
some of the more common methods.
Did they need stopwatches? The speedo was surely evidence enough?
Why do you systemically disbelieve almost everything I post?
Stopwatch speed measurement was what the AA was formed to combat, surely?
Have you ever seen a police officer with an actual stopwatch measuring >traffic speeds?
That's effectively what VASCAR did (and does, if it is still in use).
On 22/03/2024 09:38 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 21 Mar 2024 at 23:42:29 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
On 21/03/2024 06:39 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 21 Mar 2024 at 14:42:47 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
Get one or more of the teachers to look after the child, reminding them >>>>> that if they're involved in industrial "action" and therefore refuse to >>>>> do so, they should take themselves off home and stay there, without pay, >>>>> until the dispute is resolved and normal service can be resumed.
It would also get the dispute settled faster, I suggest.
They are not currently involved in industrial action. Their
negotiated contract excludes childminding duties outside school
hours. In the same way as when I worked in a hospital I wasn't >>>>required to sweep the corridors on my way in to work.
What arrangements did the education authorities make in order to cover
for the playground duties whose cessation they had negotiated?
Largely, they instructed parents not to leave children in the
playground, but to hand them over to staff after the school had
opened. And to collect them from staff at the end of the school day.
Peremptory instructions to third parties on a non-contractual basis >(especially on the "or else..." basis previous described in this
thread) are not "arrangements" within any normal understanding of that
term.
Arrangements and agreements have to be er... arranged... and agreed.
On 21 Mar 2024 at 23:42:29 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
On 21/03/2024 06:39 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 21 Mar 2024 at 14:42:47 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
On 21/03/2024 11:01 am, Simon Parker wrote:
On 20/03/2024 14:14, JNugent wrote:
On 19/03/2024 06:53 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
"without effect" = "without legal effect".
Ah, the "invisible word" ploy. Except there's the safeguarding laws, >>>>>>> and that's what causes the friction.
What are these "safeguarding laws"?
Primarily, the Children Act 1989, the Children Act 2004 and the Children >>>>> and Social Work Act 2017.
Are they brought into ploy by the decisions of teachers' trade-unions? >>>>>Please see the statutory guidance contained in the document "Working >>>>> Together to Safeguard Children" December 2023 edition. [1]
When you've read it, ask yourself: What must a school do, if a child is >>>>> regularly left in the playground unsupervised?
Get one or more of the teachers to look after the child, reminding them >>>> that if they're involved in industrial "action" and therefore refuse to >>>> do so, they should take themselves off home and stay there, without pay, >>>> until the dispute is resolved and normal service can be resumed.
It would also get the dispute settled faster, I suggest.
They are not currently involved in industrial action. Their
negotiated contract excludes childminding duties outside school
hours. In the same way as when I worked in a hospital I wasn't
required to sweep the corridors on my way in to work.
What arrangements did the education authorities make in order to cover
for the playground duties whose cessation they had negotiated?
Largely, they instructed parents not to leave children in the playground, but >to hand them over to staff after the school had opened. And to collect them >from staff at the end of the school day.
In message <gv6rviddknsjdp0a3puttf0brdkhjkiol8@4ax.com>, at 16:19:16 on Fri, 22 Mar
2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
The average adult male will be hovering around the legal limit after three >>pints of beer, depending on how strong it is.
It's slightly more complicated than that, because the body metabolises alcohol drunk
earlier (at about 15mg-per-100ml-of-blood, per hour), and the rate of absorption in the
first place depends quite significantly on the amount of food in the digestive system.
In message <l65i7lF9v9dU1@mid.individual.net>, at 14:17:25 on Fri, 22
Mar 2024, JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
On 22/03/2024 09:38 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 21 Mar 2024 at 23:42:29 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
On 21/03/2024 06:39 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 21 Mar 2024 at 14:42:47 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
Get one or more of the teachers to look after the child, reminding >>>>>> them
that if they're involved in industrial "action" and therefore
refuse to
do so, they should take themselves off home and stay there,
without pay,
until the dispute is resolved and normal service can be resumed.
It would also get the dispute settled faster, I suggest.
They are not currently involved in industrial action. Their
negotiated contract excludes childminding duties outside school
hours. In the same way as when I worked in a hospital I wasn't
required to sweep the corridors on my way in to work.
What arrangements did the education authorities make in order to cover >>>> for the playground duties whose cessation they had negotiated?
 Largely, they instructed parents not to leave children in the
playground, but to hand them over to staff after the school had
opened. And to collect them from staff at the end of the school day.
Peremptory instructions to third parties on a non-contractual basis
(especially on the "or else..." basis previous described in this
thread) are not "arrangements" within any normal understanding of that
term.
Arrangements and agreements have to be er... arranged... and agreed.
You've had the situation explained to you several times, with chapter
and verse. If you don't accept those explanations, they won't change
just because you have your head in the sand.
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 14:25:52 +0000, JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
On 22/03/2024 12:33 pm, Adam Funk wrote:
Do you know why drunk driving has become socially unacceptable to a
much greater extent than speeding?
Wouldn't that be because of a general perception that whereas an alert
and objectively unimpaired person can adapt to evolving circumstances as
quickly as required (or as possible), whereas a person who is *impaired*
by drugs and/or excessive alcohol cannot? That, of course, is the whole
rationale for the 1967 legislation.
Broadly speaking, yes. Alcohol has various different effects on the human body, and different efffects predominate at different levels of consumption. But the one that has been found to be the most important in the context of driving is reaction time. Driving safely is a skill which requires the ability to respond instantly to external data, such as the movement of another vehicle (or person) or even an unexpected pothole in the road. And that reaction time is measured in fractions of a second. Alcohol always impairs reaction time, even when there are no other perceptible effects. So
a person with a significant amount of alcohol in their system will be simply unable to react quickly enough if something unexpected happens.
Whether the threshold blood alcohol levels are too low, just right or
too high is another matter, as is the question of whether the mandatory
punishment is fair, especially to persons whose readings are trivially o
in excess of the maximum, is another matter. Not every First World
country, or even every EU country, takes the UK's robust and adamant
attitude to punishment.
Most other European countries have a lower limit, but a stepped penalty. In the UK, 79mg per 100ml is fine, but 80mg will get you disqualified. Which is a bit of a cliff edge scenario. Most European countries have a limit of
50mg, but a level from 50mg to 79mg only means a fine (and, for those countries which have that system, points), and only values of 80mg or above mean a ban.
I am inclined to agree that a stepped penalty, but with a lower basic threshold, does make more sense than the UK's all-or-nothing approach.
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
Mar 2024, JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
 I'm not arguing about the margin for prosecution. I have a problem >>>>>>> with the idea that they have to put warning signs up and paint
cameras yellow so people know where the law is enforced --- and
therefore where it is not.
The law on speed limits is enforced everywhere.
 It's only routinely enforced on a few roads.
...and?
With automated installations it can only be enforced on a few spots
on a relatively few roads and some might observe that they're easy
to spot and deal with.
 He went on one of the few roads with speed checking infrastructure
the whole length.
My understanding was that he passed a very prominent Gatso on the M11
southbound carriageway, near the the tail end of the A120 (Stortford
and Stansted) southbound slip road. Perhaps his attention was diverted
from the task at hand.
Is that an attempt to refute the suggestion there are Gatsos scattered
along the road all the way to the edge of London?
There was a time within easy living memory when there were no
Gatso or Truvelo cameras.
But people got caught speeding just the same.
 Portable radar speed traps,
There was an amusing one on the A446 just north of the M6, heading
towards Lichfield (in the days before the toll road), located off
the road in the entrance to someone's driveway.
There was (and may still be) another in Chitterne between Shrewton
and Warminster, also mainly obscured by a driveway entrance. I saw
several people caught by both of them.
VASCAR, policemen with stopwatches following an offender; just
some of the more common methods.
Did they need stopwatches? The speedo was surely evidence enough?
 Why do you systemically disbelieve almost everything I post?
Stopwatch speed measurement was what the AA was formed to combat, surely?
Have you ever seen a police officer with an actual stopwatch measuring
traffic speeds?
Have you missed the words: "following an offender". I presume that means
in a car, rather than on foot!
That's effectively what VASCAR did (and does, if it is still in use).
Yes, and Vascar used to be a tool employed by passengers in [following] patrol cars, because trying to use a stopwatch wasn't reliable enough.
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
[in response to:]
 I was once informed by a doctor that when someone collapses with >>>>>>> a heart attack it is very rare indeed for CPR to save that
person's life even if administered by a medic. Which isn't the >>>>>>> impression given in the hospital dramas on the box.
[JN:]
I wasn't thinking of TV programmes!
[RP:]
Drama = fictional representation.
Box = TV
Over to you...
Er... I wasn't thinking of TV programmes [at all]?
 Dramas on a soapbox, cardboard box, or what?
You'd probably do better asking the person who mentioned "hospital
dramas on the box".
A word of advice gratis: it was not I.
Todal.
In the mean time perhaps you could do us the honour of where *you* see
these dramas. On the East End stage, or somewhere else?
On 22 Mar 2024 at 14:25:52 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
On 22/03/2024 12:33 pm, Adam Funk wrote:
Do you know why drunk driving has become socially unacceptable to a
much greater extent than speeding?
Wouldn't that be because of a general perception that whereas an alert
and objectively unimpaired person can adapt to evolving circumstances as
quickly as required (or as possible), whereas a person who is *impaired*
by drugs and/or excessive alcohol cannot? That, of course, is the whole
rationale for the 1967 legislation.
Whether the threshold blood alcohol levels are too low, just right or
too high is another matter, as is the question of whether the mandatory
punishment is fair, especially to persons whose readings are trivially o
in excess of the maximum, is another matter. Not every First World
country, or even every EU country, takes the UK's robust and adamant
attitude to punishment.
(I was going to say that drunk driving laws are newer than speed
limits, but I looked it up and the history of both is complicated and
they overlap.)
Speed laws are the older of the two. Red flags, etc.
Wasn't there a crime of driving a horsedrawn vehicle when drunk? I haven't looked it up, but I thought there was.
On 22/03/2024 07:57 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
Wasn't there a crime of driving a horsedrawn vehicle when drunk? I haven't >> looked it up, but I thought there was.
Pass. But I've never heard of such legislation.
Even if there had been, its effects would have been limited to one-off punishment,
since no licence is required for driving a horse-drawn carriage.
On 23/03/2024 07:49 am, Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
[in response to:]
I was once informed by a doctor that when someone collapses >>>>>>>>with a heart attack it is very rare indeed for CPR to save >>>>>>>>that person's life even if administered by a medic. Which >>>>>>>>isn't the impression given in the hospital dramas on the box.
[JN:]
I wasn't thinking of TV programmes!
[RP:]
Drama = fictional representation.
Box = TV
Over to you...
Er... I wasn't thinking of TV programmes [at all]?
Dramas on a soapbox, cardboard box, or what?
You'd probably do better asking the person who mentioned "hospital >>>dramas on the box".
A word of advice gratis: it was not I.Todal.
<shrug> That's the person to ask.
In the mean time perhaps you could do us the honour of where *you*
see these dramas. On the East End stage, or somewhere else?
I am not sure I have ever seen such a thing.
On 22/03/2024 08:38 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 14:25:52 +0000, JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
Whether the threshold blood alcohol levels are too low, just right or
too high is another matter, as is the question of whether the mandatory
punishment is fair, especially to persons whose readings are trivially o >>> in excess of the maximum, is another matter. Not every First World
country, or even every EU country, takes the UK's robust and adamant
attitude to punishment.
Most other European countries have a lower limit, but a stepped penalty. In >> the UK, 79mg per 100ml is fine, but 80mg will get you disqualified. Which is >> a bit of a cliff edge scenario. Most European countries have a limit of
50mg, but a level from 50mg to 79mg only means a fine (and, for those
countries which have that system, points), and only values of 80mg or above >> mean a ban.
That doesn't actually sound any better for the citizen concerned!
You can get a fine and an endorsement for something which isn't even an >offence in the UK and you still get banned for 80mg.
It's clearly more harsh, not less harsh.
"JNugent" <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote in message news:l6800aFl9vuU1@mid.individual.net...
On 22/03/2024 07:57 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
Wasn't there a crime of driving a horsedrawn vehicle when drunk? I haven't >>> looked it up, but I thought there was.
Pass. But I've never heard of such legislation.
Even if there had been, its effects would have been limited to one-off punishment,
since no licence is required for driving a horse-drawn carriage.
The Licence in question was that issued to Licensed premises to permit
the sale of Intoxicating Liquors.
quote:
Licensing Act 1872
1872 CHAPTER 94 35 and 36 Vict
An Act for Regulating the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors.
[10th August 1872
:unquote
Prohibitions on activities resulting from overindulgence
in said intoxicating liquors were simply tacked on to that
licensing legislation
quote:
Offences against Public Order
12 Penalty on persons found drunk.Every person found drunk in
any highway or other public place, whether a building or not, or
on any licensed premises, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding [F2level 1 on the standard scale], and on a second conviction
within a period of twelve months shall be liable to a penalty
not exceeding [F2level 1 on the standard scale], and on a third or
subsequent conviction within such period of twelve months be liable
to a penalty not exceeding [F2level 1 on the standard scale].
Every person . . . F3 who is drunk while in charge on any highway
or other public place of any carriage, horse, cattle, or steam engine,
or who is drunk when in possession of any loaded firearms, F4... shall
be liable to a penalty not exceeding forty shillings, or in the
discretion of the court to imprisonment . . . F5 for any term not
exceeding one month.
:unquote
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/35-36/94
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
On 22/03/2024 08:38 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
Whether the threshold blood alcohol levels are too low, just right or
too high is another matter, as is the question of whether the mandatory >>>> punishment is fair, especially to persons whose readings are trivially o >>>> in excess of the maximum, is another matter. Not every First World
country, or even every EU country, takes the UK's robust and adamant
attitude to punishment.
Most other European countries have a lower limit, but a stepped penalty. In >>> the UK, 79mg per 100ml is fine, but 80mg will get you disqualified. Which is
a bit of a cliff edge scenario. Most European countries have a limit of
50mg, but a level from 50mg to 79mg only means a fine (and, for those
countries which have that system, points), and only values of 80mg or above >>> mean a ban.
That doesn't actually sound any better for the citizen concerned!
You can get a fine and an endorsement for something which isn't even an
offence in the UK and you still get banned for 80mg.
It's clearly more harsh, not less harsh.
That's the point. I was correcting your mistaken belief that the UK is more harsh than most other European countries.
Mar 2024, JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
On 23/03/2024 07:49 am, Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
[in response to:]
 I was once informed by a doctor that when someone collapses >>>>>>>>> with a heart attack it is very rare indeed for CPR to save >>>>>>>>> that person's life even if administered by a medic. Which >>>>>>>>> isn't the impression given in the hospital dramas on the box.
[JN:]
I wasn't thinking of TV programmes!
[RP:]
Drama = fictional representation.
Box = TV
Over to you...
Er... I wasn't thinking of TV programmes [at all]?
 Dramas on a soapbox, cardboard box, or what?
You'd probably do better asking the person who mentioned "hospital
dramas on the box".
A word of advice gratis: it was not I. Todal.
<shrug> That's the person to ask.
And I'm sure he'd say "box" is slang for a TV.
 In the mean time perhaps you could do us the honour of where *you*
see these dramas. On the East End stage, or somewhere else?
I am not sure I have ever seen such a thing.
I'm totally confused how that's consistent with saying "I wasn't
thinking of TV programmes at all". SO WHAT WERE YOU thinking of?
Wasn't there a crime of driving a horsedrawn vehicle when drunk? I
haven't
looked it up, but I thought there was.
Pass. But I've never heard of such legislation.
Even if there had been, its effects would have been limited to one-off punishment, since no licence is required for driving a horse-drawn
carriage.
On 21/03/2024 09:49, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <utf78t$1k2ju$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:43:57 on Wed, 20 Mar >>2024, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> remarked:
One of the *rare* successes!However, it's unlikely that a cardiologist would be able to save a >>>>patient's life in that situation.
I was once informed by a doctor that when someone collapses with a >>>>heart attack it is very rare indeed for CPR to save that person's
life even if administered by a medic. Which isn't the impression
given in the hospital dramas on the box.
I was chatting to a guy last year. He had a heart attack on a
cycling club ride. The ride leader was a nurse. She and another
rider did chest compressions while waiting for the air ambulance. >>>Apparently, the nurse noticed he was having an attack while he was
still on his bike. He made an almost total recovery.
Anecdata#1: Somebody had a heart attack in the village recently and was >successfully revived using the defib. (I know because a friend that's
on the committee remarked that the person concerned had written
offering to cover the cost of replacing the pads and anything else
required to return it to service.)
So there are successes, although not always:
Anecdata#2: Somebody had a heart attack in a car outside an office
where I was attending a meeting. The office didn't have a
defibrillator. The nearest one was located on the Internet and someone
ran to get it and used it on him however he didn't survive.
So, my personal experience is no better than 50/50.
Wasn't there a crime of driving a horsedrawn vehicle when drunk? I
haven't looked it up, but I thought there was.
Pass. But I've never heard of such legislation.
Even if there had been, its effects would have been limited to one-off
punishment, since no licence is required for driving a horse-drawn
carriage.
S 12 of the Licensing Act 1872
On 23/03/2024 08:32 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
On 22/03/2024 08:38 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
Whether the threshold blood alcohol levels are too low, just right or >>>>> too high is another matter, as is the question of whether the mandatory >>>>> punishment is fair, especially to persons whose readings are trivially o >>>>> in excess of the maximum, is another matter. Not every First World
country, or even every EU country, takes the UK's robust and adamant >>>>> attitude to punishment.
Most other European countries have a lower limit, but a stepped penalty. In
the UK, 79mg per 100ml is fine, but 80mg will get you disqualified. Which is
a bit of a cliff edge scenario. Most European countries have a limit of >>>> 50mg, but a level from 50mg to 79mg only means a fine (and, for those
countries which have that system, points), and only values of 80mg or above
mean a ban.
That doesn't actually sound any better for the citizen concerned!
You can get a fine and an endorsement for something which isn't even an
offence in the UK and you still get banned for 80mg.
It's clearly more harsh, not less harsh.
That's the point. I was correcting your mistaken belief that the UK is more >> harsh than most other European countries.
Generally speaking, my impression - gained from the horse's mouth, so to >speak - was that penalties were harsh in northern Europe but less so in >Mediterranean countries.
On 21/03/2024 09:49, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <utf78t$1k2ju$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:43:57 on Wed, 20 Mar
2024, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> remarked:
However, it's unlikely that a cardiologist would be able to save a
patient's life in that situation.
I was once informed by a doctor that when someone collapses with a
heart attack it is very rare indeed for CPR to save that person's
life even if administered by a medic. Which isn't the impression
given in the hospital dramas on the box.
I was chatting to a guy last year. He had a heart attack on a cycling
club ride. The ride leader was a nurse. She and another rider did
chest compressions while waiting for the air ambulance. Apparently,
the nurse noticed he was having an attack while he was still on his
bike. He made an almost total recovery.
One of the *rare* successes!
Anecdata#1: Somebody had a heart attack in the village recently and was >successfully revived using the defib. (I know because a friend that's
on the committee remarked that the person concerned had written offering
to cover the cost of replacing the pads and anything else required to
return it to service.)
So there are successes, although not always:
Anecdata#2: Somebody had a heart attack in a car outside an office where
I was attending a meeting. The office didn't have a defibrillator. The >nearest one was located on the Internet and someone ran to get it and
used it on him however he didn't survive.
So, my personal experience is no better than 50/50.
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message >news:0FT3Lfa6io$lFAgk@perry.uk...
In message <gv6rviddknsjdp0a3puttf0brdkhjkiol8@4ax.com>, at 16:19:16
on Fri, 22 Mar
2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
The average adult male will be hovering around the legal limit after three >>>pints of beer, depending on how strong it is.
It's slightly more complicated than that, because the body
metabolises alcohol drunk earlier (at about 15mg-per-100ml-of-blood,
per hour), and the rate of absorption in the first place depends
quite significantly on the amount of food in the digestive system.
Which presumably accounts for the use of the word "average" in the above >claim.
And secondly, assuming the above average to be correct. all that matters are >the two variables; the amount of beer drunk and the resulting blood alcohol >level.
Quite why and how particular quantities of beer should lead to
different values of the latter in different individuals, is irrelevant insofar >as that average is concerned.
Which isn't to say that such information might not prove useful in
other contexts.
bb
his arm now had the properties of memory foam where if you gently
squeezed it, the indentation of your hand print remained for a while
before disappeared.
On Sun, 24 Mar 2024 10:33:59 +0000, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> >wrote:
On 21/03/2024 09:49, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <utf78t$1k2ju$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:43:57 on Wed, 20 Mar
2024, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> remarked:
However, it's unlikely that a cardiologist would be able to save a
patient's life in that situation.
I was once informed by a doctor that when someone collapses with a
heart attack it is very rare indeed for CPR to save that person's
life even if administered by a medic. Which isn't the impression
given in the hospital dramas on the box.
I was chatting to a guy last year. He had a heart attack on a cycling
club ride. The ride leader was a nurse. She and another rider did
chest compressions while waiting for the air ambulance. Apparently,
the nurse noticed he was having an attack while he was still on his
bike. He made an almost total recovery.
One of the *rare* successes!
Anecdata#1: Somebody had a heart attack in the village recently and was >>successfully revived using the defib. (I know because a friend that's
on the committee remarked that the person concerned had written offering
to cover the cost of replacing the pads and anything else required to >>return it to service.)
So there are successes, although not always:
Anecdata#2: Somebody had a heart attack in a car outside an office where
I was attending a meeting. The office didn't have a defibrillator. The >>nearest one was located on the Internet and someone ran to get it and
used it on him however he didn't survive.
So, my personal experience is no better than 50/50.
Defibrillators do, generally, have a better success rate than CPR. Mainly >because a defib can be successfully used by someone with no training or >experience, while CPR is almost always only ever successful when
administered by someone with at least some training. But, for both, time is >very much of the essence.
My own anecdata is that one of my friends was successfully revived[1] by CPR >performed by another of my friends. However, the person who performed CPR is >medically trained (he's actually a dentist, but he's had the medical >emergency training which is a required element of clinical dentistry) and he >was present when the victim collapsed. If either of those had not been the >case then I think the outcome would have been entirely different.
[1] Or, at least, kept alive until the ambulance arrived, and he
subsequently recovered after a spell in intensive care.
Mark
The supplementary would be something like: "Why can you not imagine
a new hospital with no access for cars?".
I've no idea. Why can I not imagine a new hospital with no access for cars?
/me waits for the punchline.
The average adult male will be hovering around the legal limit after three pints of beer, depending on how strong it is. At that point, their risk of being involved in an accident is about four times higher than normal. Have just one more pint, and the risk is seven times higher than normal. Add another, and it's around 11 times higher. Make it six pints - easily
possible on a night out - and the risk is approching 50 times higher.
That's one of the reasons why "drunk driving" is a bad label. It implies
that only those who are perceptibly intoxicated are at increased risk. In
In message <utmams$3j4ci$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:25:31 on Sat, 23 Mar 2024, billy
bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message news:0FT3Lfa6io$lFAgk@perry.uk...
In message <gv6rviddknsjdp0a3puttf0brdkhjkiol8@4ax.com>, at 16:19:16 on Fri, 22 Mar
2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
The average adult male will be hovering around the legal limit after three >>>>pints of beer, depending on how strong it is.
It's slightly more complicated than that, because the body metabolises alcohol drunk
earlier (at about 15mg-per-100ml-of-blood, per hour), and the rate of absorption in
the first place depends quite significantly on the amount of food in the digestive
system.
Which presumably accounts for the use of the word "average" in the above >>claim.
But it's not a property of the male, rather it's of what they've randomly eaten
recently.
And secondly, assuming the above average to be correct. all that matters are >>the two variables; the amount of beer drunk and the resulting blood alcohol >>level.
No!! It depends just as much on the contents of the digestive system.
Quite why and how particular quantities of beer should lead to
different values of the latter in different individuals, is irrelevant insofar
as that average is concerned.
It's not irrelevant, because it can present as an isolated spike well above the limit, rather than hovering just below it for hours.
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message news:Kv1YhSAe$EAmFAwi@perry.uk...
In message <utmams$3j4ci$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:25:31 on Sat, 23 Mar 2024, billy
bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message news:0FT3Lfa6io$lFAgk@perry.uk...
In message <gv6rviddknsjdp0a3puttf0brdkhjkiol8@4ax.com>, at 16:19:16 on Fri, 22 Mar
2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
The average adult male will be hovering around the legal limit after three >>>>>pints of beer, depending on how strong it is.
It's slightly more complicated than that, because the body metabolises alcohol drunk
earlier (at about 15mg-per-100ml-of-blood, per hour), and the rate of absorption in
the first place depends quite significantly on the amount of food in the digestive
system.
Which presumably accounts for the use of the word "average" in the above >>>claim.
But it's not a property of the male, rather it's of what they've randomly eaten
recently.
And ?
That's what averages are. Thus in the original claim the (mean) average
adult male can reasonably expected to have average male stomach contents.
On 2024-03-22, Mark Goodge wrote:
...
The average adult male will be hovering around the legal limit after three >> pints of beer, depending on how strong it is. At that point, their risk of >> being involved in an accident is about four times higher than normal. Have >> just one more pint, and the risk is seven times higher than normal. Add
another, and it's around 11 times higher. Make it six pints - easily
possible on a night out - and the risk is approching 50 times higher.
That's one of the reasons why "drunk driving" is a bad label. It implies
that only those who are perceptibly intoxicated are at increased risk. In
That's a good point (a bit like the problem of calling collisions "accidents").
On 2024-03-22, Mark Goodge wrote:
The average adult male will be hovering around the legal limit after three >> pints of beer, depending on how strong it is. At that point, their risk of >> being involved in an accident is about four times higher than normal. Have >> just one more pint, and the risk is seven times higher than normal. Add
another, and it's around 11 times higher. Make it six pints - easily
possible on a night out - and the risk is approching 50 times higher.
That's one of the reasons why "drunk driving" is a bad label. It implies
that only those who are perceptibly intoxicated are at increased risk. In
That's a good point (a bit like the problem of calling collisions "accidents").
In message <l6aee2Fq816U4@mid.individual.net>, at 10:43:14 on Sun, 24
Mar 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
The supplementary would be something like: "Why can you not imagine
a new hospital with no access for cars?".
I've no idea. Why can I not imagine a new hospital with no access for cars? >>
/me waits for the punchline.
I've already suggested an answer to this scenario, which is that the
vast majority of demand for parking at hospitals is at outpatients. And
not all outpatients are seen at facilities with "Hospital" in the name.
Many are seen at clinics (which are nevertheless almost always run by a nearby Hospital Trust). And there are definitely new outpatients clinics being commissioned with either no parking at all, or parking only for a handful of disabled patients (and a few staff).
To be obsessed with sites that have "Hospital" in their name is missing
the point.
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 14:25:52 +0000, JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
On 22/03/2024 12:33 pm, Adam Funk wrote:
Do you know why drunk driving has become socially unacceptable to a
much greater extent than speeding?
Wouldn't that be because of a general perception that whereas an alert
and objectively unimpaired person can adapt to evolving circumstances as >>quickly as required (or as possible), whereas a person who is *impaired*
by drugs and/or excessive alcohol cannot? That, of course, is the whole >>rationale for the 1967 legislation.
Broadly speaking, yes. Alcohol has various different effects on the human body, and different efffects predominate at different levels of consumption. But the one that has been found to be the most important in the context of driving is reaction time. Driving safely is a skill which requires the ability to respond instantly to external data, such as the movement of another vehicle (or person) or even an unexpected pothole in the road. And that reaction time is measured in fractions of a second. Alcohol always impairs reaction time, even when there are no other perceptible effects. So
a person with a significant amount of alcohol in their system will be simply unable to react quickly enough if something unexpected happens.
Whether the threshold blood alcohol levels are too low, just right or
too high is another matter, as is the question of whether the mandatory >>punishment is fair, especially to persons whose readings are trivially o
in excess of the maximum, is another matter. Not every First World
country, or even every EU country, takes the UK's robust and adamant >>attitude to punishment.
Most other European countries have a lower limit, but a stepped penalty. In the UK, 79mg per 100ml is fine, but 80mg will get you disqualified. Which is a bit of a cliff edge scenario. Most European countries have a limit of
50mg, but a level from 50mg to 79mg only means a fine (and, for those countries which have that system, points), and only values of 80mg or above mean a ban.
I am inclined to agree that a stepped penalty, but with a lower basic threshold, does make more sense than the UK's all-or-nothing approach.
On 25/03/2024 11:16, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2024-03-22, Mark Goodge wrote:So, all collisions are carried out with prior intention then?
...
The average adult male will be hovering around the legal limit after three >>> pints of beer, depending on how strong it is. At that point, their risk of >>> being involved in an accident is about four times higher than normal. Have >>> just one more pint, and the risk is seven times higher than normal. AddThat's a good point (a bit like the problem of calling collisions
another, and it's around 11 times higher. Make it six pints - easily
possible on a night out - and the risk is approching 50 times higher.
That's one of the reasons why "drunk driving" is a bad label. It implies >>> that only those who are perceptibly intoxicated are at increased risk. In >>
"accidents").
I've already suggested an answer to this scenario, which is that the
vast majority of demand for parking at hospitals is at outpatients. And
not all outpatients are seen at facilities with "Hospital" in the name.
Many are seen at clinics (which are nevertheless almost always run by a
nearby Hospital Trust). And there are definitely new outpatients clinics
being commissioned with either no parking at all, or parking only for a
handful of disabled patients (and a few staff).
I have the pleasure of having to attend one of the latter, on an annual >basis. It has no parking whatsoever.
The recommended action is for drivers to use a park-and-ride facility.
This lies five miles beyond the clinic. There can be a wait of up to an
hour for a bus to take me the five miles back to the clinic. The
appointment lasts about 10 minutes. I then have to do this in reverse, with >another wait of up to an hour, and then travel the five miles to pick up my >car. Finally, I traverse the five miles yet again on my journey home.
Twenty miles of round trips and up to two hours wait! Somewhere there’s a >Universe in which this makes sense.
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message >news:Kv1YhSAe$EAmFAwi@perry.uk...
In message <utmams$3j4ci$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:25:31 on Sat, 23 Mar >>2024, billy
bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message >>>news:0FT3Lfa6io$lFAgk@perry.uk...
In message <gv6rviddknsjdp0a3puttf0brdkhjkiol8@4ax.com>, at
16:19:16 on Fri, 22 Mar
2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
The average adult male will be hovering around the legal limit after three >>>>>pints of beer, depending on how strong it is.
It's slightly more complicated than that, because the body
metabolises alcohol drunk earlier (at about
15mg-per-100ml-of-blood, per hour), and the rate of absorption in
the first place depends quite significantly on the amount of food
in the digestive system.
Which presumably accounts for the use of the word "average" in the above >>>claim.
But it's not a property of the male, rather it's of what they've
randomly eaten recently.
And ?
That's what averages are. Thus in the original claim the (mean) average
adult male can reasonably expected to have average male stomach contents.
Unless you can suggest a reason why not.
Quite why and how particular quantities of beer should lead to
different values of the latter in different individuals, is
irrelevant insofar as that average is concerned.
It's not irrelevant, because it can present as an isolated spike well above >> the limit, rather than hovering just below it for hours.
But that's what averages consist of. Isolated values, including spikes.
On 2024-03-22, Mark Goodge wrote:
Most other European countries have a lower limit, but a stepped penalty. In >> the UK, 79mg per 100ml is fine, but 80mg will get you disqualified. Which is >> a bit of a cliff edge scenario. Most European countries have a limit of
50mg, but a level from 50mg to 79mg only means a fine (and, for those
countries which have that system, points), and only values of 80mg or above >> mean a ban.
I am inclined to agree that a stepped penalty, but with a lower basic
threshold, does make more sense than the UK's all-or-nothing approach.
Good drivers ought to support stricter law enforcement and easier >disqualification because getting bad drivers off the road makes them
(the good ones) and their property safer.
On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 14:44:51 +0000, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2024-03-22, Mark Goodge wrote:
Most other European countries have a lower limit, but a stepped penalty. In >>> the UK, 79mg per 100ml is fine, but 80mg will get you disqualified. Which is
a bit of a cliff edge scenario. Most European countries have a limit of
50mg, but a level from 50mg to 79mg only means a fine (and, for those
countries which have that system, points), and only values of 80mg or above >>> mean a ban.
I am inclined to agree that a stepped penalty, but with a lower basic
threshold, does make more sense than the UK's all-or-nothing approach.
Good drivers ought to support stricter law enforcement and easier >>disqualification because getting bad drivers off the road makes them
(the good ones) and their property safer.
As a general principle, yes. But I'm also not particularly comfortable with cliff-edge penalties for relatively minor infractions. I think that the severity of the penalty should broadly correlate with the severity of the offence.
In message <utreiv$106ks$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:02:21 on Mon, 25 Mar 2024, billy
bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message news:Kv1YhSAe$EAmFAwi@perry.uk...
In message <utmams$3j4ci$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:25:31 on Sat, 23 Mar 2024, billy
bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message news:0FT3Lfa6io$lFAgk@perry.uk...
In message <gv6rviddknsjdp0a3puttf0brdkhjkiol8@4ax.com>, at 16:19:16 on Fri, 22 Mar
2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
The average adult male will be hovering around the legal limit after three
pints of beer, depending on how strong it is.
It's slightly more complicated than that, because the body metabolises alcohol
drunk earlier (at about 15mg-per-100ml-of-blood, per hour), and the rate of
absorption in the first place depends quite significantly on the amount of food in
the digestive system.
Which presumably accounts for the use of the word "average" in the above >>>>claim.
But it's not a property of the male, rather it's of what they've randomly eaten
recently.
And ?
That's what averages are. Thus in the original claim the (mean) average >>adult male can reasonably expected to have average male stomach contents.
Unless you can suggest a reason why not.
Average stomach contents (even if anyone has ever done a study and produced statistics)
will vary by time of day, the person's lifesytle (eg when they eat and when they don't)
and so on. An average of all that is meaningless.
Quite why and how particular quantities of beer should lead to different values of
the latter in different individuals, is irrelevant insofar as that average is
concerned.
See above.
It's not irrelevant, because it can present as an isolated spike well above >>> the limit, rather than hovering just below it for hours.
But that's what averages consist of. Isolated values, including spikes.
You are completely missing the point.
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message >news:RDGeaGcTh$AmFAAe@perry.uk...
In message <utreiv$106ks$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:02:21 on Mon, 25 Mar >>2024, billy
bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message >>>news:Kv1YhSAe$EAmFAwi@perry.uk...
In message <utmams$3j4ci$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:25:31 on Sat, 23
Mar 2024, billy
bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message >>>>>news:0FT3Lfa6io$lFAgk@perry.uk...
In message <gv6rviddknsjdp0a3puttf0brdkhjkiol8@4ax.com>, at >>>>>>16:19:16 on Fri, 22 Mar
2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
The average adult male will be hovering around the legal limit >>>>>>>after three
pints of beer, depending on how strong it is.
It's slightly more complicated than that, because the body >>>>>>metabolises alcohol
drunk earlier (at about 15mg-per-100ml-of-blood, per hour), and >>>>>>the rate of
absorption in the first place depends quite significantly on the >>>>>>amount of food in
the digestive system.
Which presumably accounts for the use of the word "average" in the above >>>>>claim.
But it's not a property of the male, rather it's of what they've >>>>randomly eaten
recently.
And ?
That's what averages are. Thus in the original claim the (mean) average >>>adult male can reasonably expected to have average male stomach contents. >>>
Unless you can suggest a reason why not.
Average stomach contents (even if anyone has ever done a study and >>produced statistics)
will vary by time of day, the person's lifesytle (eg when they eat
and when they don't)
and so on. An average of all that is meaningless.
Quite why and how particular quantities of beer should lead to >>>>>different values of
the latter in different individuals, is irrelevant insofar as that >>>>>average is
concerned.
See above.
It's not irrelevant, because it can present as an isolated spike well above
the limit, rather than hovering just below it for hours.
But that's what averages consist of. Isolated values, including spikes.
You are completely missing the point.
As Mark Goodge explained "the average adult male will be hovering around
the legal limit after three pints of beer".
Now that would a totally satisafactory answer to the question "On average
how many pints of beer would an adult male need to drink, so as to
be hovering around the legal limit.
IOW. that was the actual question being addressed.
Now if instead the question have been "Name some of the factors which can >influence blood alcohol levels over time, the rate of absorbtion etc"
then indeed your answer would have been correct, and you would have
scored better marks.
Unfortunately however, this is a legal group. And all plod, the Courts
etc are interested in is the blood alcohol level of the defendant,
as measured at a specific time.
Not what they had for their dinner, when they eat it, the effect
of body weight or BMI or differential rated of absorption.
All totally irrelevant to the matter in hand.
On 2024-03-25, Les. Hayward wrote:
On 25/03/2024 11:16, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2024-03-22, Mark Goodge wrote:So, all collisions are carried out with prior intention then?
...
The average adult male will be hovering around the legal limit after three >>>> pints of beer, depending on how strong it is. At that point, their risk of >>>> being involved in an accident is about four times higher than normal. Have >>>> just one more pint, and the risk is seven times higher than normal. Add >>>> another, and it's around 11 times higher. Make it six pints - easilyThat's a good point (a bit like the problem of calling collisions
possible on a night out - and the risk is approching 50 times higher.
That's one of the reasons why "drunk driving" is a bad label. It implies >>>> that only those who are perceptibly intoxicated are at increased risk. In >>>
"accidents").
The term encourages people to think that "accidents just happen"
instead of having causes (which may not always be someone's fault, but usually are).
In message <uu4jem$3po2g$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:20:33 on Thu, 28 Mar
2024, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
As Mark Goodge explained "the average adult male will be hovering around >>the legal limit after three pints of beer".
And as I keep explaining, that dpends a lot on their stomach contents.
So while mathematically it's an average, some will be well above and
some well below.
In message <uu4jem$3po2g$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:20:33 on Thu, 28 Mar 2024, billy
bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message news:RDGeaGcTh$AmFAAe@perry.uk...
In message <utreiv$106ks$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:02:21 on Mon, 25 Mar 2024, billy
bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message news:Kv1YhSAe$EAmFAwi@perry.uk...
In message <utmams$3j4ci$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:25:31 on Sat, 23 Mar 2024, billy
bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message news:0FT3Lfa6io$lFAgk@perry.uk...
In message <gv6rviddknsjdp0a3puttf0brdkhjkiol8@4ax.com>, at 16:19:16 on Fri, 22
Mar
2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
The average adult male will be hovering around the legal limit after three
pints of beer, depending on how strong it is.
It's slightly more complicated than that, because the body metabolises alcohol
drunk earlier (at about 15mg-per-100ml-of-blood, per hour), and the rate of
absorption in the first place depends quite significantly on the amount of food
in
the digestive system.
Which presumably accounts for the use of the word "average" in the above >>>>>>claim.
But it's not a property of the male, rather it's of what they've randomly eaten
recently.
And ?
That's what averages are. Thus in the original claim the (mean) average >>>>adult male can reasonably expected to have average male stomach contents. >>>>
Unless you can suggest a reason why not.
Average stomach contents (even if anyone has ever done a study and produced >>> statistics)
will vary by time of day, the person's lifesytle (eg when they eat and when they
don't)
and so on. An average of all that is meaningless.
Quite why and how particular quantities of beer should lead to different values of
the latter in different individuals, is irrelevant insofar as that average is
concerned.
See above.
It's not irrelevant, because it can present as an isolated spike well above
the limit, rather than hovering just below it for hours.
But that's what averages consist of. Isolated values, including spikes.
You are completely missing the point.
As Mark Goodge explained "the average adult male will be hovering around >>the legal limit after three pints of beer".
And as I keep explaining, that dpends a lot on their stomach contents.
So while mathematically it's an average, some will be well above and some well below.
Much of the public information about "safe" levels of drinking only mentions the amount
of beer, and very rarely the issue of stomach contents.
Now that would a totally satisafactory answer to the question "On average >>how many pints of beer would an adult male need to drink, so as to
be hovering around the legal limit.
See above, it says very little at all about the state any individual would be in.
IOW. that was the actual question being addressed.
Now if instead the question have been "Name some of the factors which can >>influence blood alcohol levels over time, the rate of absorbtion etc"
then indeed your answer would have been correct, and you would have
scored better marks.
Unfortunately however, this is a legal group. And all plod, the Courts
etc are interested in is the blood alcohol level of the defendant,
as measured at a specific time.
Not what they had for their dinner, when they eat it, the effect
of body weight or BMI or differential rated of absorption.
All totally irrelevant to the matter in hand.
Not irrelevant at all, because the blood alcohol level, as tested, crucially depends
upon the rate of absorption, which is again most influenced by the stomach contents.
... Drunk driving is an absolute offence. So that providing there
are no technical issues with the reading itself, once established satisfactorily, then how it came about is totally irrelevant.
On 30/03/2024 10:14 am, billy bookcase wrote:
[ huge snip ]
... Drunk driving is an absolute offence. So that providing there
are no technical issues with the reading itself, once established
satisfactorily, then how it came about is totally irrelevant.
Not exactly.
There are available defences (eg, having been "spiked"). The central
point is that the defence deployed has to be closely connected to
commission or otherwise of the alleged offence and not to the
defendant's general circumstances, state of health, etc.
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
billy bookcase wrote:
[ huge snip ]
... Drunk driving is an absolute offence. So that providing there
are no technical issues with the reading itself, once established
satisfactorily, then how it came about is totally irrelevant.
Not exactly.
There are available defences (eg, having been "spiked"). The central
point is that the defence deployed has to be closely connected to
commission or otherwise of the alleged offence and not to the
defendant's general circumstances, state of health, etc.
Actually, spiking isn't a defence to the charge itself. There is just one defence for someone who is demonstrably and unambiguously over the limit at the time they were in charge of a vehicle, which is that they had no likelihood of driving despite being in charge (aka the camper van defence). There are also defences available to someone who can demonstrate that the measured alcohol level is incorrect (eg, by providing their own
independently obtained analysis which differs from that obtained by the police), or is a result of alcohol consumed after the accused had ceased driving (aka the hip-flask defence). But those are defences which rebut the evidence provided by the prosecution, rather than defences which accept the evidence but assert special circumstances.
Spiking is, though, one of the "special reasons" for a court not to impose the otherwise mandatory disqualification. Others include duress (either
being forced to consume alcohol or being forced to drive), a genuine medical emergency, fleeing from danger, and a purely technical breach committed by driving only a short distance when there was no realistic prospect of any risk to another person. In all of those cases, the court has discretion to reduce the penalty, either by shortening the ban, imposing points and/or a fine only, or even all the way down to an absolute discharge if appropriate.
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 10:05:49 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <uu4jem$3po2g$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:20:33 on Thu, 28 Mar
2024, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
As Mark Goodge explained "the average adult male will be hovering around >>>the legal limit after three pints of beer".
And as I keep explaining, that dpends a lot on their stomach contents.
So while mathematically it's an average, some will be well above and
some well below.
That's precisely why I said "average". Not "all". Some will be above, and >some will be below. Those different values average out.
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message >news:S78e0om9JpBmFAqd@perry.uk...
In message <uu4jem$3po2g$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:20:33 on Thu, 28 Mar >>2024, billy
bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message >>>news:RDGeaGcTh$AmFAAe@perry.uk...
In message <utreiv$106ks$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:02:21 on Mon, 25
Mar 2024, billy
bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message >>>>>news:Kv1YhSAe$EAmFAwi@perry.uk...
In message <utmams$3j4ci$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:25:31 on Sat, 23 >>>>>>Mar 2024, billy
bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message >>>>>>>news:0FT3Lfa6io$lFAgk@perry.uk...
In message <gv6rviddknsjdp0a3puttf0brdkhjkiol8@4ax.com>, at >>>>>>>>16:19:16 on Fri, 22
Mar
2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
The average adult male will be hovering around the legal limit >>>>>>>>>after three
pints of beer, depending on how strong it is.
It's slightly more complicated than that, because the body >>>>>>>>metabolises alcohol
drunk earlier (at about 15mg-per-100ml-of-blood, per hour), >>>>>>>>and the rate of
absorption in the first place depends quite significantly on >>>>>>>>the amount of food
in
the digestive system.
Which presumably accounts for the use of the word "average" in the above >>>>>>>claim.
But it's not a property of the male, rather it's of what they've >>>>>>randomly eaten
recently.
And ?
That's what averages are. Thus in the original claim the (mean) average >>>>>adult male can reasonably expected to have average male stomach contents. >>>>>
Unless you can suggest a reason why not.
Average stomach contents (even if anyone has ever done a study and produced
statistics)
will vary by time of day, the person's lifesytle (eg when they eat
and when they
don't)
and so on. An average of all that is meaningless.
Quite why and how particular quantities of beer should lead to >>>>>>>different values of
the latter in different individuals, is irrelevant insofar as >>>>>>>that average is
concerned.
See above.
You are completely missing the point.It's not irrelevant, because it can present as an isolated spike >>>>>>well above
the limit, rather than hovering just below it for hours.
But that's what averages consist of. Isolated values, including spikes. >>>>
As Mark Goodge explained "the average adult male will be hovering around >>>the legal limit after three pints of beer".
And as I keep explaining, that dpends a lot on their stomach contents.
So while mathematically it's an average, some will be well above and
some well below.
Much of the public information about "safe" levels of drinking only >>mentions the amount
of beer, and very rarely the issue of stomach contents.
Now that would a totally satisafactory answer to the question "On average >>>how many pints of beer would an adult male need to drink, so as to
be hovering around the legal limit.
See above, it says very little at all about the state any individual
would be in.
IOW. that was the actual question being addressed.
Now if instead the question have been "Name some of the factors which can >>>influence blood alcohol levels over time, the rate of absorbtion etc" >>>then indeed your answer would have been correct, and you would have >>>scored better marks.
Unfortunately however, this is a legal group. And all plod, the Courts >>>etc are interested in is the blood alcohol level of the defendant,
as measured at a specific time.
Not what they had for their dinner, when they eat it, the effect
of body weight or BMI or differential rated of absorption.
All totally irrelevant to the matter in hand.
Not irrelevant at all, because the blood alcohol level, as tested, >>crucially depends
upon the rate of absorption, which is again most influenced by the
stomach contents.
As already noted, it would be absolutely irrelevant in at least two
contexts.
First. Were an examination candidate to offer such an explanation in answer >to
Question 1 : On average how many pints of beer would an adult male need to >drink, so as to be hovering around the legal limit ?
They would be severly marked down if given any marks at all. As candidates >are often forewarned, this is known as answering the question which has been >revised for, rather than the question actually written on the paper.
And usually stands out a mile.
Or again, quite possibly in answer to a *slightly different question* which >arose in the past, such an observation might well have made an important >contribution to the argument. Such arguments may well be remembered in the >form of "heuristics", same as are opening chess moves. However if the previous >conditions/question/argument is remembered incorrectly, same as the placing >of the pieces on the board, then its possible to jump in with completely
the wrong argument
Second. Drunk driving is an absolute offence. So that providing there
are no technical issues with the reading itself, once established >satisfactorily, then how it came about is totally irrelevant.
On 23/03/2024 07:54 am, Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:[in response to:]
Roland Perry wrote:
Mar 2024, JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
I'm not arguing about the margin for prosecution. I have a problem >>>>>>>> with the idea that they have to put warning signs up and paint >>>>>>>>cameras yellow so people know where the law is enforced --- and >>>>>>>> therefore where it is not.
The law on speed limits is enforced everywhere.
It's only routinely enforced on a few roads.
...and?
With automated installations it can only be enforced on a few
spots on a relatively few roads and some might observe that
they're easy to spot and deal with.
Ask Chris Huhne how that went for him.
Is that an attempt to refute the suggestion there are GatsosHe went on one of the few roads with speed checking infrastructure >>>>the whole length.
My understanding was that he passed a very prominent Gatso on the
M11 southbound carriageway, near the the tail end of the A120
(Stortford and Stansted) southbound slip road. Perhaps his attention
was diverted from the task at hand.
scattered along the road all the way to the edge of London?
I'm not sure about the current situation - the stretch between the A120
and the M25 may have been converted to "smart motorway" (with a camera
on every gantry) for all I know. Huhne's case was a good few years ago
now.
Have you missed the words: "following an offender". I presume thatThere was a time within easy living memory when there were no >>>>>>>Gatso or Truvelo cameras.
But people got caught speeding just the same.
Portable radar speed traps,
There was an amusing one on the A446 just north of the M6, heading >>>>>towards Lichfield (in the days before the toll road), located off
the road in the entrance to someone's driveway.
There was (and may still be) another in Chitterne between Shrewton >>>>>and Warminster, also mainly obscured by a driveway entrance. I saw >>>>>several people caught by both of them.
VASCAR, policemen with stopwatches following an offender; just >>>>>>some of the more common methods.
Did they need stopwatches? The speedo was surely evidence enough?
Why do you systemically disbelieve almost everything I post?
Stopwatch speed measurement was what the AA was formed to combat, surely? >>> Have you ever seen a police officer with an actual stopwatch
measuring traffic speeds?
means in a car, rather than on foot!
Driving and using a stopwatch?
What for? And at what cost to road safety?
The police car's speedometer tells the officer what he needs to know
without having to calculate the speed arithmetically.
That's effectively what VASCAR did (and does, if it is still inYes, and Vascar used to be a tool employed by passengers in
use).
[following] patrol cars, because trying to use a stopwatch wasn't
reliable enough.
I'd have thought that the risk of parallax errors (and similar errors
of perception) was too great from within a moving police vehicle.
Didn't they used to oprate from stationary vehicles, pushing a button
on seeing a vehicle pass a specified mark on the carriageway
and pushing another (or the same one again) when it passed the next >carriageway marking? The marks gave distance, the time between pushes
of the button gave time. The machine did the rest.
I haven't noticed any of the little square markers for a long time, though.
In message <orfd0jl48n5inq24ofp8i43s40b8bonauu@4ax.com>, at 13:19:13 on
Fri, 29 Mar 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
That's precisely why I said "average". Not "all". Some will be above, and >>some will be below. Those different values average out.
All of which is no help whatsoever to drivers wanting to know how much
*they* can drink before becoming legally impaired.
On 30/03/2024 06:26 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
Spiking is, though, one of the "special reasons" for a court not to impose >> the otherwise mandatory disqualification. Others include duress (either
being forced to consume alcohol or being forced to drive), a genuine medical >> emergency, fleeing from danger, and a purely technical breach committed by >> driving only a short distance when there was no realistic prospect of any
risk to another person. In all of those cases, the court has discretion to >> reduce the penalty, either by shortening the ban, imposing points and/or a >> fine only, or even all the way down to an absolute discharge if appropriate.
That'll do.
That's why, in my opinion, we would be better off going down the route adopted by most of our European neighbours, with a graduated limit and a graduated penalty, starting at a lower level than currently but rising to
the current level with the current penalty at that point. I'd even do something similar to the way that speeding is currently enforced, whereby if you are only slightly over the limit (which, for BAC, I'd set at 50mg/100ml, in line with most of our European neighbours) you can avoid points and a
fine by doing an "alcohol awareness course". And maybe that course could teach people how to be aware of their own alcohol consumption and the effect it has on them in different circumstances.
In message <l68129Flh6eU1@mid.individual.net>, at 12:42:48 on Sat, 23
Mar 2024, JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
On 23/03/2024 07:54 am, Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:[in response to:]
Roland Perry wrote:
Mar 2024, JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
 I'm not arguing about the margin for prosecution. I have a >>>>>>>>> problem
with the idea that they have to put warning signs up and paint >>>>>>>>> cameras yellow so people know where the law is enforced --- and >>>>>>>>> therefore where it is not.
The law on speed limits is enforced everywhere.
 It's only routinely enforced on a few roads.
...and?
With automated installations it can only be enforced on a few
spots on a relatively few roads and some might observe that
they're easy to spot and deal with.
Ask Chris Huhne how that went for him.
 Is that an attempt to refute the suggestion there are Gatsos He went on one of the few roads with speed checking infrastructure >>>>> the whole length.
My understanding was that he passed a very prominent Gatso on the
M11Â southbound carriageway, near the the tail end of the A120
(Stortford and Stansted) southbound slip road. Perhaps his
attention was diverted from the task at hand.
scattered along the road all the way to the edge of London?
I'm not sure about the current situation - the stretch between the
A120 and the M25 may have been converted to "smart motorway" (with a
camera on every gantry) for all I know. Huhne's case was a good few
years ago now.
 Have you missed the words: "following an offender". I presume thatThere was a time within easy living memory when there were no
Gatso or Truvelo cameras.
But people got caught speeding just the same.
 Portable radar speed traps,
There was an amusing one on the A446 just north of the M6, heading >>>>>> towards Lichfield (in the days before the toll road), located off
the road in the entrance to someone's driveway.
There was (and may still be) another in Chitterne between Shrewton >>>>>> and Warminster, also mainly obscured by a driveway entrance. I
saw several people caught by both of them.
VASCAR, policemen with stopwatches following an offender; just >>>>>>> some of the more common methods.
Did they need stopwatches? The speedo was surely evidence enough?
 Why do you systemically disbelieve almost everything I post?
Stopwatch speed measurement was what the AA was formed to combat,
surely?
Have you ever seen a police officer with an actual stopwatch
measuring traffic speeds?
means in a car, rather than on foot!
Driving and using a stopwatch?
What for? And at what cost to road safety?
The passenger has the stopwatch.
The police car's speedometer tells the officer what he needs to know
without having to calculate the speed arithmetically.
That's effectively what VASCAR did (and does, if it is still in use). Yes, and Vascar used to be a tool employed by passengers in
[following]Â patrol cars, because trying to use a stopwatch wasn't
reliable enough.
I'd have thought that the risk of parallax errors (and similar errors
of perception) was too great from within a moving police vehicle.
Didn't they used to oprate from stationary vehicles, pushing a button
on seeing a vehicle pass a specified mark on the carriageway
Can be a landmark like a bridge, to.
and pushing another (or the same one again) when it passed the next
carriageway marking? The marks gave distance, the time between pushes
of the button gave time. The machine did the rest.
That's Vascar.
I haven't noticed any of the little square markers for a long time,
though.
Perhaps because Vascar is no longer deployed.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
That's precisely why I said "average". Not "all". Some will be above, and >>> some will be below. Those different values average out.
All of which is no help whatsoever to drivers wanting to know how much
*they* can drink before becoming legally impaired.
It wasn't intended to be any help to them. It was part of a more general discussion on the reasons why the law is what it is, and how it could potentially be improved.
One of the problems with the current law is that it is a cliff edge; the outcome for two people who have only a very tiny difference in the BAC is considerably different if one is just under and one is just over the limit. Equally, unlike speed - for which the vehicle they are driving is legally required to give them an indication to within 10% of reality - there is no way for most drivers to know whether they are under or over the BAC limit. And, again unlike speed, there's no enforcement leeway for someone who is only just over the BAC limit. And also unlike speed, you can break the BAC limit without realising it, because even if the average person is under it after three average strength pints on an average day, in reality most people are not precisely on the average.
That's why, in my opinion, we would be better off going down the route adopted by most of our European neighbours, with a graduated limit and a graduated penalty, starting at a lower level than currently but rising to
the current level with the current penalty at that point. I'd even do something similar to the way that speeding is currently enforced, whereby if you are only slightly over the limit (which, for BAC, I'd set at 50mg/100ml, in line with most of our European neighbours) you can avoid points and a
fine by doing an "alcohol awareness course". And maybe that course could teach people how to be aware of their own alcohol consumption and the effect it has on them in different circumstances.
See the reply I gave to Mark, a few moments ago.
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message news:2DzXKvyNsUCmFAFE@perry.uk...
All of which is no help whatsoever to drivers wanting to know
how much *they* can drink before becoming legally impaired."
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message >news:vjmRSOzbtUCmFAkU@perry.uk...
Snippage
See the reply I gave to Mark, a few moments ago.
quote;
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message >>news:2DzXKvyNsUCmFAFE@perry.uk...
All of which is no help whatsoever to drivers wanting to know
how much *they* can drink before becoming legally impaired."
:unquote
First: that assumes that such questions only arise when people
are deciding how much they can drink. When fairly obviously they
can arise in general conversation as well. Thus
...
A: "Did you hear about X, he's lost his licence as a result
of being over the limit "
B:" I don't drink myself and didn't realise X was a heavy
drinker"
A: "You don't need to be a heavy drinker to go over the limit.
Did you know that the average adult male will be hovering around
the legal limit after three pints of beer ?
B: No I didn't. Now that is interesting, than you.
Second: its better than nothing. A rough approximation but
still better than a random shot in the dark, say six or eight
pints. Then as more information becomes available the figure can
be further narrowed down. That's how most knowledge evolves from
random guesses to rough approximations to more accurate statements
of increasing precision.
In message <uudpek$2ccgl$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:58:09 on Mon, 1 Apr
2024, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message
news:vjmRSOzbtUCmFAkU@perry.uk...
Snippage
See the reply I gave to Mark, a few moments ago.
quote;
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message
news:2DzXKvyNsUCmFAFE@perry.uk...
All of which is no help whatsoever to drivers wanting to know
how much *they* can drink before becoming legally impaired."
:unquote
First: that assumes that such questions only arise when people
are deciding how much they can drink. When fairly obviously they
can arise in general conversation as well. Thus
...
A: "Did you hear about X, he's lost his licence as a result
of being over the limit "
B:" I don't drink myself and didn't realise X was a heavy
drinker"
A: "You don't need to be a heavy drinker to go over the limit.
Did you know that the average adult male will be hovering around
the legal limit after three pints of beer ?
B: No I didn't. Now that is interesting, than you.
And still you persist in airbrushing out the vital information that it
all depends on the stomach contents.
Second: its better than nothing. A rough approximation but
still better than a random shot in the dark, say six or eight
pints. Then as more information becomes available the figure can
be further narrowed down. That's how most knowledge evolves from
random guesses to rough approximations to more accurate statements
of increasing precision.
Where stomach contents is a vital parameter.
In message <uudpek$2ccgl$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:58:09 on Mon, 1 Apr 2024, billy
bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message news:vjmRSOzbtUCmFAkU@perry.uk...
Snippage
See the reply I gave to Mark, a few moments ago.
quote;
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message news:2DzXKvyNsUCmFAFE@perry.uk...
All of which is no help whatsoever to drivers wanting to know
how much *they* can drink before becoming legally impaired."
:unquote
First: that assumes that such questions only arise when people
are deciding how much they can drink. When fairly obviously they
can arise in general conversation as well. Thus
...
A: "Did you hear about X, he's lost his licence as a result
of being over the limit "
B:" I don't drink myself and didn't realise X was a heavy
drinker"
A: "You don't need to be a heavy drinker to go over the limit.
Did you know that the average adult male will be hovering around
the legal limit after three pints of beer ?
B: No I didn't. Now that is interesting, than you.
And still you persist in airbrushing out the vital information that it all depends on
the stomach contents.
Second: its better than nothing. A rough approximation but
still better than a random shot in the dark, say six or eight
pints. Then as more information becomes available the figure can
be further narrowed down. That's how most knowledge evolves from
random guesses to rough approximations to more accurate statements
of increasing precision.
Where stomach contents is a vital parameter.
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message news:vjmRSOzbtUCmFAkU@perry.uk...
Snippage
See the reply I gave to Mark, a few moments ago.
quote;
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message news:2DzXKvyNsUCmFAFE@perry.uk...
All of which is no help whatsoever to drivers wanting to know
how much *they* can drink before becoming legally impaired."
:unquote
First: that assumes that such questions only arise when people
are deciding how much they can drink. When fairly obviously they
can arise in general conversation as well. Thus
On 2024-04-01, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message news:vjmRSOzbtUCmFAkU@perry.uk...
Snippage
See the reply I gave to Mark, a few moments ago.
quote;
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message news:2DzXKvyNsUCmFAFE@perry.uk...
All of which is no help whatsoever to drivers wanting to know
how much *they* can drink before becoming legally impaired."
:unquote
First: that assumes that such questions only arise when people
are deciding how much they can drink. When fairly obviously they
can arise in general conversation as well. Thus
A situation that it occurs to me could arise is if someone has had
a drink then unexpectedly they need to drive (less urgently than >life-or-death but urgently enough that simply deciding not to drive
is not an easy answer). I must admit I thought the limit was closer
to 2 units than the 6-9 units Mark seems to be implying.
On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 11:47:10 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-04-01, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message news:vjmRSOzbtUCmFAkU@perry.uk...
Snippage
See the reply I gave to Mark, a few moments ago.
quote;
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message news:2DzXKvyNsUCmFAFE@perry.uk...
All of which is no help whatsoever to drivers wanting to know
how much *they* can drink before becoming legally impaired."
:unquote
First: that assumes that such questions only arise when people
are deciding how much they can drink. When fairly obviously they
can arise in general conversation as well. Thus
A situation that it occurs to me could arise is if someone has had
a drink then unexpectedly they need to drive (less urgently than
life-or-death but urgently enough that simply deciding not to drive
is not an easy answer). I must admit I thought the limit was closer
to 2 units than the 6-9 units Mark seems to be implying.
A "unit" is generally considered to be half a pint of regular strength beer or a single shot of spirits. The relationship between alcohol consumption
and BAC is, of course, neither simple nor linear. But three pints of regular strength beer (ie, 6 units) is about the maximum for our hypothetical
average adult male of average build and average food consumption. More than
6 units will take most people over the limit. And some will be over the
limit on less.
What complicates it is that beer is, typically, stronger now than when the concept of units was first introduced. A half of strong beer will be 2
units, so even two pints of that will take most people over the limit.
Mark
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message news:JKBIo$YG3nCmFAT6@perry.uk...
In message <uudpek$2ccgl$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:58:09 on Mon, 1 Apr 2024, >> billy
bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message
news:vjmRSOzbtUCmFAkU@perry.uk...
Snippage
See the reply I gave to Mark, a few moments ago.
quote;
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message
news:2DzXKvyNsUCmFAFE@perry.uk...
All of which is no help whatsoever to drivers wanting to know
how much *they* can drink before becoming legally impaired."
:unquote
First: that assumes that such questions only arise when people
are deciding how much they can drink. When fairly obviously they
can arise in general conversation as well. Thus
...
A: "Did you hear about X, he's lost his licence as a result
of being over the limit "
B:" I don't drink myself and didn't realise X was a heavy
drinker"
A: "You don't need to be a heavy drinker to go over the limit.
Did you know that the average adult male will be hovering around
the legal limit after three pints of beer ?
B: No I didn't. Now that is interesting, than you.
And still you persist in airbrushing out the vital information that it all >> depends on
the stomach contents.
So vital a topic of conversation that nobody ever talks about it;
apart from yourself that is.
As a guaranteed conversation stopper, stomach contents probably rank alongside topics such as post mortems, embalming, and sewage treatment schemes.
Second: its better than nothing. A rough approximation but
still better than a random shot in the dark, say six or eight
pints. Then as more information becomes available the figure can
be further narrowed down. That's how most knowledge evolves from
random guesses to rough approximations to more accurate statements
of increasing precision.
Where stomach contents is a vital parameter.
Unless you can suggest a satisfactory method of easily measuring
the stomach contents of living people then such a claim is totally meaningless.
One might just as well say that a person's genetic makeup is a vital component in their ability to absorb alcohol. But without
being able to identify which specific genes are responsible,
all such claims, while quite possibly true, are again to all
intents and purposes, meaningless
bb
On 2024-04-01 14:18, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 11:47:10 -0000 (UTC), Jon RibbensA "unit" in terms of what's written on the labels on bottles is 10 mL of >ethanol. A pint of a decent beer (say 5%) is therefore 2.8 units, a 25
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-04-01, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message news:vjmRSOzbtUCmFAkU@perry.uk...
Snippage
See the reply I gave to Mark, a few moments ago.
quote;
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message news:2DzXKvyNsUCmFAFE@perry.uk...
All of which is no help whatsoever to drivers wanting to know
how much *they* can drink before becoming legally impaired."
:unquote
First: that assumes that such questions only arise when people
are deciding how much they can drink. When fairly obviously they
can arise in general conversation as well. Thus
A situation that it occurs to me could arise is if someone has had
a drink then unexpectedly they need to drive (less urgently than
life-or-death but urgently enough that simply deciding not to drive
is not an easy answer). I must admit I thought the limit was closer
to 2 units than the 6-9 units Mark seems to be implying.
A "unit" is generally considered to be half a pint of regular strength beer >> or a single shot of spirits. The relationship between alcohol consumption
and BAC is, of course, neither simple nor linear. But three pints of regular >> strength beer (ie, 6 units) is about the maximum for our hypothetical
average adult male of average build and average food consumption. More than >> 6 units will take most people over the limit. And some will be over the
limit on less.
What complicates it is that beer is, typically, stronger now than when the >> concept of units was first introduced. A half of strong beer will be 2
units, so even two pints of that will take most people over the limit.
mL nip of 40% spirit is 1 unit and a (small) 125 mL glass of 11% wine
1.4 units.
As far as I'm aware, that has always been the definition of a "unit" in
the UK?
In message <orfd0jl48n5inq24ofp8i43s40b8bonauu@4ax.com>, at 13:19:13 on
Fri, 29 Mar 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 10:05:49 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <uu4jem$3po2g$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:20:33 on Thu, 28 Mar >>>2024, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
As Mark Goodge explained "the average adult male will be hovering around >>>>the legal limit after three pints of beer".
And as I keep explaining, that dpends a lot on their stomach contents.
So while mathematically it's an average, some will be well above and
some well below.
That's precisely why I said "average". Not "all". Some will be above, and >>some will be below. Those different values average out.
All of which is no help whatsoever to drivers wanting to know how much
*they* can drink before becoming legally impaired.
On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 14:42:24 +0100, nib <news@caffnib.co.uk> wrote:
On 2024-04-01 14:18, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 11:47:10 -0000 (UTC), Jon RibbensA "unit" in terms of what's written on the labels on bottles is 10 mL of >>ethanol. A pint of a decent beer (say 5%) is therefore 2.8 units, a 25
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-04-01, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message news:vjmRSOzbtUCmFAkU@perry.uk...
Snippage
See the reply I gave to Mark, a few moments ago.
quote;
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message news:2DzXKvyNsUCmFAFE@perry.uk...
All of which is no help whatsoever to drivers wanting to know
how much *they* can drink before becoming legally impaired."
:unquote
First: that assumes that such questions only arise when people
are deciding how much they can drink. When fairly obviously they
can arise in general conversation as well. Thus
A situation that it occurs to me could arise is if someone has had
a drink then unexpectedly they need to drive (less urgently than
life-or-death but urgently enough that simply deciding not to drive
is not an easy answer). I must admit I thought the limit was closer
to 2 units than the 6-9 units Mark seems to be implying.
A "unit" is generally considered to be half a pint of regular strength beer >>> or a single shot of spirits. The relationship between alcohol consumption >>> and BAC is, of course, neither simple nor linear. But three pints of regular
strength beer (ie, 6 units) is about the maximum for our hypothetical
average adult male of average build and average food consumption. More than >>> 6 units will take most people over the limit. And some will be over the
limit on less.
What complicates it is that beer is, typically, stronger now than when the >>> concept of units was first introduced. A half of strong beer will be 2
units, so even two pints of that will take most people over the limit.
mL nip of 40% spirit is 1 unit and a (small) 125 mL glass of 11% wine
1.4 units.
As far as I'm aware, that has always been the definition of a "unit" in
the UK?
In terms of definition, yes. But many people are mentally attuned to the
idea that a pint of beer is two units (ie, a half is a unit) because that's based on normal strength beer. See, for example, the chart in this BBC article:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16470686
The idea that beer has to be stronger to be "decent" is more about marketing than quality. A good, classic IPA will be around 4%, and making it stronger won't make it better. And there are a lot of traditional real ales which
have less alcohol than that. But stronger beers have become more popular
over recent years, not because they're intrinsically better, but because it suits the brewers to be able to market "premium" brands.
On 2024-03-31, Roland Perry wrote:
Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
As Mark Goodge explained "the average adult male will be hovering around >>>>> the legal limit after three pints of beer".
And as I keep explaining, that dpends a lot on their stomach contents.
So while mathematically it's an average, some will be well above and
some well below.
That's precisely why I said "average". Not "all". Some will be above, and >>> some will be below. Those different values average out.
All of which is no help whatsoever to drivers wanting to know how much
*they* can drink before becoming legally impaired.
Well, breathalyzers are available for consumers to buy.
But anyway,
from a public safety perspective, it's desirable to encourage people
to err on the side of caution.
Well, breathalyzers are available for consumers to buy.
They are. I have a pair in the glove compartment of my car, simply
because they're compulsory equipment in France.
The idea that beer has to be stronger to be "decent" is more about marketing >than quality. A good, classic IPA will be around 4%, and making it stronger >won't make it better. And there are a lot of traditional real ales which
have less alcohol than that. But stronger beers have become more popular
over recent years, not because they're intrinsically better, but because it >suits the brewers to be able to market "premium" brands.
As a guaranteed conversation stopper, stomach contents probably rank >alongside topics such as post mortems, embalming, and sewage treatment >schemes.
Second: its better than nothing. A rough approximation but
still better than a random shot in the dark, say six or eight
pints. Then as more information becomes available the figure can
be further narrowed down. That's how most knowledge evolves from
random guesses to rough approximations to more accurate statements
of increasing precision.
Where stomach contents is a vital parameter.
Unless you can suggest a satisfactory method of easily measuring
the stomach contents of living people then such a claim is totally >meaningless.
On 1 Apr 2024 at 10:26:30 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <uudpek$2ccgl$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:58:09 on Mon, 1 Apr
2024, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message
news:vjmRSOzbtUCmFAkU@perry.uk...
Snippage
See the reply I gave to Mark, a few moments ago.
quote;
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message
news:2DzXKvyNsUCmFAFE@perry.uk...
All of which is no help whatsoever to drivers wanting to know
how much *they* can drink before becoming legally impaired."
:unquote
First: that assumes that such questions only arise when people
are deciding how much they can drink. When fairly obviously they
can arise in general conversation as well. Thus
...
A: "Did you hear about X, he's lost his licence as a result
of being over the limit "
B:" I don't drink myself and didn't realise X was a heavy
drinker"
A: "You don't need to be a heavy drinker to go over the limit.
Did you know that the average adult male will be hovering around
the legal limit after three pints of beer ?
B: No I didn't. Now that is interesting, than you.
And still you persist in airbrushing out the vital information that it
all depends on the stomach contents.
Second: its better than nothing. A rough approximation but
still better than a random shot in the dark, say six or eight
pints. Then as more information becomes available the figure can
be further narrowed down. That's how most knowledge evolves from
random guesses to rough approximations to more accurate statements
of increasing precision.
Where stomach contents is a vital parameter.
But not one of any use to man nor beast (except pathologists) because no-one >knows their stomach contents by 20 minutes after eating. Stomach emptying is >very variable.
In message <uue57t$2f1i2$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:19:22 on Mon, 1 Apr
2024, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
As a guaranteed conversation stopper, stomach contents probably rank
alongside topics such as post mortems, embalming, and sewage treatment
schemes.
Second: its better than nothing. A rough approximation but
still better than a random shot in the dark, say six or eight
pints. Then as more information becomes available the figure can
be further narrowed down. That's how most knowledge evolves from
random guesses to rough approximations to more accurate statements
of increasing precision.
Where stomach contents is a vital parameter.
Unless you can suggest a satisfactory method of easily measuring
the stomach contents of living people then such a claim is totally
meaningless.
Asking them when they last ate, and how much, is a very good first approximation.
In message <6546560426.79550263@uninhabited.net>, at 09:57:45 on Mon, 1
Apr 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 1 Apr 2024 at 10:26:30 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <uudpek$2ccgl$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:58:09 on Mon, 1 Apr
2024, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message
news:vjmRSOzbtUCmFAkU@perry.uk...
Snippage
See the reply I gave to Mark, a few moments ago.
quote;
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message
news:2DzXKvyNsUCmFAFE@perry.uk...
All of which is no help whatsoever to drivers wanting to know
how much *they* can drink before becoming legally impaired."
:unquote
First: that assumes that such questions only arise when people
are deciding how much they can drink. When fairly obviously they
can arise in general conversation as well. Thus
...
A: "Did you hear about X, he's lost his licence as a result
of being over the limit "
B:" I don't drink myself and didn't realise X was a heavy
drinker"
A: "You don't need to be a heavy drinker to go over the limit.
Did you know that the average adult male will be hovering around
the legal limit after three pints of beer ?
B: No I didn't. Now that is interesting, than you.
And still you persist in airbrushing out the vital information that it
all depends on the stomach contents.
Second: its better than nothing. A rough approximation but
still better than a random shot in the dark, say six or eight
pints. Then as more information becomes available the figure can
be further narrowed down. That's how most knowledge evolves from
random guesses to rough approximations to more accurate statements
of increasing precision.
Where stomach contents is a vital parameter.
But not one of any use to man nor beast (except pathologists) because no-one >> knows their stomach contents by 20 minutes after eating. Stomach emptying is >> very variable.
Most people can remember whether they had a big meal before going out drinking, or did it on "an empty stomach"[tm]
In message <uue57t$2f1i2$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:19:22 on Mon, 1 Apr 2024, billy
bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
As a guaranteed conversation stopper, stomach contents probably rank >>alongside topics such as post mortems, embalming, and sewage treatment >>schemes.
Second: its better than nothing. A rough approximation but
still better than a random shot in the dark, say six or eight
pints. Then as more information becomes available the figure can
be further narrowed down. That's how most knowledge evolves from
random guesses to rough approximations to more accurate statements
of increasing precision.
Where stomach contents is a vital parameter.
Unless you can suggest a satisfactory method of easily measuring
the stomach contents of living people then such a claim is totally >>meaningless.
Asking them when they last ate, and how much, is a very good first approximation.
On 3 Apr 2024 at 20:47:38 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <6546560426.79550263@uninhabited.net>, at 09:57:45 on Mon, 1
Apr 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 1 Apr 2024 at 10:26:30 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <uudpek$2ccgl$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:58:09 on Mon, 1 Apr
2024, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message
news:vjmRSOzbtUCmFAkU@perry.uk...
Snippage
See the reply I gave to Mark, a few moments ago.
quote;
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message
news:2DzXKvyNsUCmFAFE@perry.uk...
All of which is no help whatsoever to drivers wanting to know
how much *they* can drink before becoming legally impaired."
:unquote
First: that assumes that such questions only arise when people
are deciding how much they can drink. When fairly obviously they
can arise in general conversation as well. Thus
...
A: "Did you hear about X, he's lost his licence as a result
of being over the limit "
B:" I don't drink myself and didn't realise X was a heavy
drinker"
A: "You don't need to be a heavy drinker to go over the limit.
Did you know that the average adult male will be hovering around
the legal limit after three pints of beer ?
B: No I didn't. Now that is interesting, than you.
And still you persist in airbrushing out the vital information that it >>>> all depends on the stomach contents.
Second: its better than nothing. A rough approximation but
still better than a random shot in the dark, say six or eight
pints. Then as more information becomes available the figure can
be further narrowed down. That's how most knowledge evolves from
random guesses to rough approximations to more accurate statements
of increasing precision.
Where stomach contents is a vital parameter.
But not one of any use to man nor beast (except pathologists) because no-one
knows their stomach contents by 20 minutes after eating. Stomach emptying is
very variable.
Most people can remember whether they had a big meal before going out
drinking, or did it on "an empty stomach"[tm]
But do they know how quickly their stomach empties?
Second: its better than nothing. A rough approximation but
still better than a random shot in the dark, say six or eight
pints. Then as more information becomes available the figure can
be further narrowed down. That's how most knowledge evolves from
random guesses to rough approximations to more accurate statements
of increasing precision.
Where stomach contents is a vital parameter.
Unless you can suggest a satisfactory method of easily measuring
the stomach contents of living people then such a claim is totally
meaningless.
Asking them when they last ate, and how much, is a very good first
approximation.
But the variability is much too great to translate a full meal into a likely >alcohol blood level without very broad confidence limits, overlapping the >already broad confidence limits for people who haven't eaten a meal. So it is >quite useless in practice.
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message >news:g6XCEupaKbDmFA9R@perry.uk...
In message <uue57t$2f1i2$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:19:22 on Mon, 1 Apr
2024, billy
bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
As a guaranteed conversation stopper, stomach contents probably rank >>>alongside topics such as post mortems, embalming, and sewage treatment >>>schemes.
Second: its better than nothing. A rough approximation but
still better than a random shot in the dark, say six or eight
pints. Then as more information becomes available the figure can
be further narrowed down. That's how most knowledge evolves from >>>>>random guesses to rough approximations to more accurate statements
of increasing precision.
Where stomach contents is a vital parameter.
Unless you can suggest a satisfactory method of easily measuring
the stomach contents of living people then such a claim is totally >>>meaningless.
Asking them when they last ate, and how much, is a very good first >>approximation.
Given it's such a "vital parameter", can you suggest some standard
reference works or tables*, which people can consult once having finished >their meals ?
In message <7553918403.2d259566@uninhabited.net>, at 20:18:59 on Wed, 3
Apr 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 3 Apr 2024 at 20:47:38 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <6546560426.79550263@uninhabited.net>, at 09:57:45 on Mon, 1
Apr 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 1 Apr 2024 at 10:26:30 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>>
In message <uudpek$2ccgl$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:58:09 on Mon, 1 Apr >>>>> 2024, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message
news:vjmRSOzbtUCmFAkU@perry.uk...
Snippage
See the reply I gave to Mark, a few moments ago.
quote;
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message
news:2DzXKvyNsUCmFAFE@perry.uk...
All of which is no help whatsoever to drivers wanting to know
how much *they* can drink before becoming legally impaired."
:unquote
First: that assumes that such questions only arise when people
are deciding how much they can drink. When fairly obviously they
can arise in general conversation as well. Thus
...
A: "Did you hear about X, he's lost his licence as a result
of being over the limit "
B:" I don't drink myself and didn't realise X was a heavy
drinker"
A: "You don't need to be a heavy drinker to go over the limit.
Did you know that the average adult male will be hovering around
the legal limit after three pints of beer ?
B: No I didn't. Now that is interesting, than you.
And still you persist in airbrushing out the vital information that it >>>>> all depends on the stomach contents.
Second: its better than nothing. A rough approximation but
still better than a random shot in the dark, say six or eight
pints. Then as more information becomes available the figure can
be further narrowed down. That's how most knowledge evolves from
random guesses to rough approximations to more accurate statements >>>>>> of increasing precision.
Where stomach contents is a vital parameter.
But not one of any use to man nor beast (except pathologists) because no-one
knows their stomach contents by 20 minutes after eating. Stomach emptying is
very variable.
Most people can remember whether they had a big meal before going out
drinking, or did it on "an empty stomach"[tm]
But do they know how quickly their stomach empties?
It's a term of art which describes the condition of not having eaten for
hour and hours. Not having eaten and the contents processed into the intestines. In any event, such half-digested food also slows the
absorption of alcohol, because it gets in the way.
So your question in entirely misconceived.
In message <uulpoi$i1j6$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:52:27 on Thu, 4 Apr 2024, billy
bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message news:g6XCEupaKbDmFA9R@perry.uk...
In message <uue57t$2f1i2$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:19:22 on Mon, 1 Apr 2024, billy
bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
As a guaranteed conversation stopper, stomach contents probably rank >>>>alongside topics such as post mortems, embalming, and sewage treatment >>>>schemes.
Second: its better than nothing. A rough approximation but
still better than a random shot in the dark, say six or eight >>>>>>pints. Then as more information becomes available the figure can
be further narrowed down. That's how most knowledge evolves from >>>>>>random guesses to rough approximations to more accurate statements >>>>>>of increasing precision.
Where stomach contents is a vital parameter.
Unless you can suggest a satisfactory method of easily measuring
the stomach contents of living people then such a claim is totally >>>>meaningless.
Asking them when they last ate, and how much, is a very good first approximation.
Given it's such a "vital parameter", can you suggest some standard >>reference works or tables*, which people can consult once having finished >>their meals ?
See my reply to Roger.
On 5 Apr 2024 at 14:33:10 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <7553918403.2d259566@uninhabited.net>, at 20:18:59 on Wed, 3
Apr 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 3 Apr 2024 at 20:47:38 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <6546560426.79550263@uninhabited.net>, at 09:57:45 on Mon, 1 >>>> Apr 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 1 Apr 2024 at 10:26:30 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>>>
In message <uudpek$2ccgl$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:58:09 on Mon, 1 Apr >>>>>> 2024, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message
news:vjmRSOzbtUCmFAkU@perry.uk...
Snippage
See the reply I gave to Mark, a few moments ago.
quote;
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message
news:2DzXKvyNsUCmFAFE@perry.uk...
All of which is no help whatsoever to drivers wanting to know
how much *they* can drink before becoming legally impaired."
:unquote
First: that assumes that such questions only arise when people
are deciding how much they can drink. When fairly obviously they >>>>>>> can arise in general conversation as well. Thus
...
A: "Did you hear about X, he's lost his licence as a result
of being over the limit "
B:" I don't drink myself and didn't realise X was a heavy
drinker"
A: "You don't need to be a heavy drinker to go over the limit.
Did you know that the average adult male will be hovering around >>>>>>> the legal limit after three pints of beer ?
B: No I didn't. Now that is interesting, than you.
And still you persist in airbrushing out the vital information that it >>>>>> all depends on the stomach contents.
Second: its better than nothing. A rough approximation but
still better than a random shot in the dark, say six or eight
pints. Then as more information becomes available the figure can >>>>>>> be further narrowed down. That's how most knowledge evolves from >>>>>>> random guesses to rough approximations to more accurate statements >>>>>>> of increasing precision.
Where stomach contents is a vital parameter.
But not one of any use to man nor beast (except pathologists) >>>>>because no-one knows their stomach contents by 20 minutes after >>>>>eating. Stomach emptying is very variable.
Most people can remember whether they had a big meal before going out
drinking, or did it on "an empty stomach"[tm]
But do they know how quickly their stomach empties?
It's a term of art which describes the condition of not having eaten for
hour and hours. Not having eaten and the contents processed into the
intestines. In any event, such half-digested food also slows the
absorption of alcohol, because it gets in the way.
Alcohol is a small molecule that can diffuse quickly and I really doubt
if liquid and semi-liquid food in the small intestine impedes that in
any way.
Do you have any studies to support
you view, especially the "hours and hours" bit?
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message >news:hgAiyjSF4$DmFA8M@perry.uk...
In message <uulpoi$i1j6$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:52:27 on Thu, 4 Apr
2024, billy
bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message >>>news:g6XCEupaKbDmFA9R@perry.uk...
In message <uue57t$2f1i2$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:19:22 on Mon, 1
Apr 2024, billy
bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
As a guaranteed conversation stopper, stomach contents probably rank >>>>>alongside topics such as post mortems, embalming, and sewage treatment >>>>>schemes.
Second: its better than nothing. A rough approximation but
still better than a random shot in the dark, say six or eight >>>>>>>pints. Then as more information becomes available the figure can >>>>>>>be further narrowed down. That's how most knowledge evolves from >>>>>>>random guesses to rough approximations to more accurate statements >>>>>>>of increasing precision.
Where stomach contents is a vital parameter.
Unless you can suggest a satisfactory method of easily measuring
the stomach contents of living people then such a claim is totally >>>>>meaningless.
Asking them when they last ate, and how much, is a very good first >>>>approximation.
Given it's such a "vital parameter", can you suggest some standard >>>reference works or tables*, which people can consult once having finished >>>their meals ?
See my reply to Roger.
In respect of your replies to Roger, I can see no possible reason why
I should be any more satisfied with them, than is Roger himself; who being >infinitely more qualified than myself in such matters, finds them all
to be totally unsatisfactory.
So that aside, it only remains for you to suggest some standard reference
or other, by which members of the public will be able to judge
with confidence whether or not the consumption of a recent meal -
"this vital parameter" will sufficiently suppress their blood alcohol
level, as to allow them to drive without fear of prosecution.
In message <uup7gf$1ffhl$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:05:28 on Fri, 5 Apr 2024, billy
bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message news:hgAiyjSF4$DmFA8M@perry.uk...
In message <uulpoi$i1j6$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:52:27 on Thu, 4 Apr 2024, billy
bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message news:g6XCEupaKbDmFA9R@perry.uk...
In message <uue57t$2f1i2$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:19:22 on Mon, 1 Apr 2024, billy
bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
As a guaranteed conversation stopper, stomach contents probably rank >>>>>>alongside topics such as post mortems, embalming, and sewage treatment >>>>>>schemes.
Second: its better than nothing. A rough approximation but >>>>>>>>still better than a random shot in the dark, say six or eight >>>>>>>>pints. Then as more information becomes available the figure can >>>>>>>>be further narrowed down. That's how most knowledge evolves from >>>>>>>>random guesses to rough approximations to more accurate statements >>>>>>>>of increasing precision.
Where stomach contents is a vital parameter.
Unless you can suggest a satisfactory method of easily measuring >>>>>>the stomach contents of living people then such a claim is totally >>>>>>meaningless.
Asking them when they last ate, and how much, is a very good first approximation.
Given it's such a "vital parameter", can you suggest some standard >>>>reference works or tables*, which people can consult once having finished >>>>their meals ?
See my reply to Roger.
In respect of your replies to Roger, I can see no possible reason why
I should be any more satisfied with them, than is Roger himself; who being >>infinitely more qualified than myself in such matters, finds them all
to be totally unsatisfactory.
So that aside, it only remains for you to suggest some standard reference >>or other, by which members of the public will be able to judge
with confidence whether or not the consumption of a recent meal -
"this vital parameter" will sufficiently suppress their blood alcohol >>level, as to allow them to drive without fear of prosecution.
As with almost all other medical calculations, the profession almost never publishes
such "ready reckoners".
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message >news:W73fE2n0a5ImFACS@perry.uk...
In message <uup7gf$1ffhl$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:05:28 on Fri, 5 Apr
2024, billy
bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message >>>news:hgAiyjSF4$DmFA8M@perry.uk...
In message <uulpoi$i1j6$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:52:27 on Thu, 4 Apr >>>>2024, billy
bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message >>>>>news:g6XCEupaKbDmFA9R@perry.uk...
In message <uue57t$2f1i2$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:19:22 on Mon, 1 >>>>>>Apr 2024, billy
bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
As a guaranteed conversation stopper, stomach contents probably rank >>>>>>>alongside topics such as post mortems, embalming, and sewage treatment >>>>>>>schemes.
Second: its better than nothing. A rough approximation but >>>>>>>>>still better than a random shot in the dark, say six or eight >>>>>>>>>pints. Then as more information becomes available the figure can >>>>>>>>>be further narrowed down. That's how most knowledge evolves from >>>>>>>>>random guesses to rough approximations to more accurate statements >>>>>>>>>of increasing precision.
Where stomach contents is a vital parameter.
Unless you can suggest a satisfactory method of easily measuring >>>>>>>the stomach contents of living people then such a claim is totally >>>>>>>meaningless.
Asking them when they last ate, and how much, is a very good
first approximation.
Given it's such a "vital parameter", can you suggest some standard >>>>>reference works or tables*, which people can consult once having finished >>>>>their meals ?
See my reply to Roger.
In respect of your replies to Roger, I can see no possible reason why
I should be any more satisfied with them, than is Roger himself; who being >>>infinitely more qualified than myself in such matters, finds them all
to be totally unsatisfactory.
So that aside, it only remains for you to suggest some standard reference >>>or other, by which members of the public will be able to judge
with confidence whether or not the consumption of a recent meal -
"this vital parameter" will sufficiently suppress their blood alcohol >>>level, as to allow them to drive without fear of prosecution.
As with almost all other medical calculations, the profession almost
never publishes
such "ready reckoners".
IOW, for all practical purposes, its totally impossible for memabers
of the public to safely act upon any of these principles which
you've been at such pains to expound concerning the effects of
stomach contents on blood alcohol levels. This "vital parameter".
So to be on the safe side, they're probably best sticking to the
Govt guidelines, IOW.
In message <v00h4e$3mneu$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:48:59 on Sat, 20 Apr
2024, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message
news:W73fE2n0a5ImFACS@perry.uk...
In message <uup7gf$1ffhl$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:05:28 on Fri, 5 Apr
2024, billy
bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message
news:hgAiyjSF4$DmFA8M@perry.uk...
In message <uulpoi$i1j6$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:52:27 on Thu, 4 Apr
2024, billy
bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message
news:g6XCEupaKbDmFA9R@perry.uk...
In message <uue57t$2f1i2$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:19:22 on Mon, 1 >>>>>>> Apr 2024, billy
bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
As a guaranteed conversation stopper, stomach contents probably rank >>>>>>>> alongside topics such as post mortems, embalming, and sewage treatment >>>>>>>> schemes.
Second: its better than nothing. A rough approximation but >>>>>>>>>> still better than a random shot in the dark, say six or eight >>>>>>>>>> pints. Then as more information becomes available the figure can >>>>>>>>>> be further narrowed down. That's how most knowledge evolves from >>>>>>>>>> random guesses to rough approximations to more accurate statements >>>>>>>>>> of increasing precision.
Where stomach contents is a vital parameter.
Unless you can suggest a satisfactory method of easily measuring >>>>>>>> the stomach contents of living people then such a claim is totally >>>>>>>> meaningless.
Asking them when they last ate, and how much, is a very good
first approximation.
Given it's such a "vital parameter", can you suggest some standard >>>>>> reference works or tables*, which people can consult once having finished
their meals ?
See my reply to Roger.
In respect of your replies to Roger, I can see no possible reason why
I should be any more satisfied with them, than is Roger himself; who being >>>> infinitely more qualified than myself in such matters, finds them all
to be totally unsatisfactory.
So that aside, it only remains for you to suggest some standard reference >>>> or other, by which members of the public will be able to judge
with confidence whether or not the consumption of a recent meal -
"this vital parameter" will sufficiently suppress their blood alcohol
level, as to allow them to drive without fear of prosecution.
As with almost all other medical calculations, the profession almost
never publishes
such "ready reckoners".
IOW, for all practical purposes, its totally impossible for memabers
of the public to safely act upon any of these principles which
you've been at such pains to expound concerning the effects of
stomach contents on blood alcohol levels. This "vital parameter".
Of course they can, if they look up the various papers on the subject,
and appreciate what they say (and no, I won't be doing your homework for you).
Exactly the same process of self-help required for taxation and pretty
much any medical issue.
So to be on the safe side, they're probably best sticking to the
Govt guidelines, IOW.
Which government guidance is that?
IOW, for all practical purposes, its totally impossible for memabers
of the public to safely act upon any of these principles which
you've been at such pains to expound concerning the effects of
stomach contents on blood alcohol levels. This "vital parameter".
Of course they can, if they look up the various papers on the subject,
and appreciate what they say (and no, I won't be doing your homework for
you).
If they look up the various papers they will find that the response in an >individual person at a particular time is largely unpredictable.
In message <9903650875.d4093f3c@uninhabited.net>, at 22:50:36 on Wed, 24
Apr 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
[Drinking on an empty stomach versus a full one]
IOW, for all practical purposes, its totally impossible for memabers
of the public to safely act upon any of these principles which
you've been at such pains to expound concerning the effects of
stomach contents on blood alcohol levels. This "vital parameter".
Of course they can, if they look up the various papers on the subject,
and appreciate what they say (and no, I won't be doing your homework for >>> you).
If they look up the various papers they will find that the response in an
individual person at a particular time is largely unpredictable.
Because it depends when they last ate.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 52:16:49 |
| Calls: | 6,712 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,355,177 |
| Posted today: | 1 |