My council has just stated it is looking for consultants to review what
people are putting in their wheelie bins!


My annoyance is that councils up and down the country are probably wasting
money on similar initiatives - but are acting like commercial competitors in
not sharing - or seeking to share this type of information.

A bit like when I recently searched for some technical information and found
that several councils had all drawn up from first principles the process of
installing a traffic sign. Beautiful drawings - but substantially the same -
all done by councils with a silo mentality.

On Nov 24, 11:12*am, "John" wrote:
My council has just stated it is looking for consultants to review what
people are putting in their wheelie bins!

Grrr ditto. I used to be on the Environment Working Group of
the local council, for some time I documented my waste just
we could have a bit of real-world sample data. It had never
occured to anybody before to do this, everybody was talking
about getting the binmen to look in peoples' bins. A bit of
it is at http://mdfs.net/User/JGH/Docs/Me/Green/Waste.htm

JGH

jgharston wrote:
On Nov 24, 11:12 am, "John" wrote:
My council has just stated it is looking for consultants to review what
people are putting in their wheelie bins!

Grrr ditto. I used to be on the Environment Working Group of
the local council, for some time I documented my waste just
we could have a bit of real-world sample data. It had never
occured to anybody before to do this, everybody was talking
about getting the binmen to look in peoples' bins. A bit of
it is at http://mdfs.net/User/JGH/Docs/Me/Green/Waste.htm

JGH
If all the consultants were requited to sort the waste into piles for a
week, it would do them good. help recycle it, and probably we wouldn't
need to know anyway.

Or get all the jobless to do it as a condition of being on Soshul.

On 24/11/2010 11:12, John wrote:
My council has just stated it is looking for consultants to review what
people are putting in their wheelie bins!


My annoyance is that councils up and down the country are probably wasting
money on similar initiatives - but are acting like commercial competitors in
not sharing - or seeking to share this type of information.

A bit like when I recently searched for some technical information and found
that several councils had all drawn up from first principles the process of
installing a traffic sign. Beautiful drawings - but substantially the same -
all done by councils with a silo mentality.



IMO The only way these organisations can ever become efficient is
through merger with neighbours. Unless there are true economies of scale
they will forever be stitched up by the waste contracting companies
(Veolia and the like) and ultimately we pay extra the more complex the
waste collection process becomes. Of course don't expect the Civil
Service Unions to ever see it that way....

On Nov 24, 12:04*pm, Vortex7 wrote:
On 24/11/2010 11:12, John wrote:

My council has just stated it is looking for consultants to review what
people are putting in their wheelie bins!

My annoyance is that councils up and down the country are probably wasting
money on similar initiatives - but are acting like commercial competitors in
not sharing - or seeking to share this type of information.

A bit like when I recently searched for some technical information and found
that several councils had all drawn up from first principles the process of
installing a traffic sign. Beautiful drawings - but substantially the same -
all done by councils with a *silo mentality.

IMO The only way these organisations can ever become efficient is
through merger with neighbours. Unless there are true economies of scale
they will forever be stitched up by the waste contracting companies
(Veolia and the like) and ultimately we pay extra the more complex the
waste collection process becomes. *Of course don't expect the Civil
Service Unions to ever see it that way....

What have the Civil Service Unions got to do with local councils?

Cheers
Richard

Vortex7 wrote:
Of course don't expect the Civil
Service Unions to ever see it that way....

NOBODY expects the Civil Service Unions! Our chief weapon
is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise....

(I'm sorry, the temptation was just SOOO huge!)

JGH

On 24/11/2010 11:12, John wrote:
My council has just stated it is looking for consultants to review what
people are putting in their wheelie bins!


My annoyance is that councils up and down the country are probably wasting
money on similar initiatives - but are acting like commercial competitors in
not sharing - or seeking to share this type of information.

I would be surprised if people in different parts of the country put
exactly the same things in their wheelie bins, so this is one area where
local studies probably are necessary.

A bit like when I recently searched for some technical information and found
that several councils had all drawn up from first principles the process of
installing a traffic sign. Beautiful drawings - but substantially the same -
all done by councils with a silo mentality.

Are you sure they simply had not extracted the relevant parts of Chapter
1 of the Traffic Signs Manual and put them into a form that was easy to
distribute to a work detail?

That is what we did with Chapter 8 when I worked for an Electricity
Board as much of the chapter dealt with situations most work gangs would
not come across and they had trouble enough putting the signs out
properly even with a boiled down summary to work from.

Colin Bignell

"Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:

Are you sure they simply had not extracted the relevant parts of Chapter
1 of the Traffic Signs Manual and put them into a form that was easy to
distribute to a work detail?

That is what we did with Chapter 8 when I worked for an Electricity
Board as much of the chapter dealt with situations most work gangs would
not come across and they had trouble enough putting the signs out
properly even with a boiled down summary to work from.

Indeed so.

I reckon the most misunderstood pair of signs are "Oncoming
vehicles have priority" and "You have priority over oncoming
vehicles", especially amongst workers deploying signs around road
works.

I have seen works protected by identical pairs of signs of either
the above types.

On chatting with the men, at a location which was signed so as to
advise drivers approaching from both directions that they had
priority, they were convinced that they had done it right, and
showed me the comprehensive printout showing them exactly what
they had to do. Unfortunately, they failed to appreciate how
important it was to have _precisely_ what the sheet showed, not
merely something similar, because that was all they had on their
wagon.

Circles give orders, triangles warn and rectangles inform. There
is, sadly, little understanding of these important distinctions.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Have dancing shoes, will ceilidh.

On 24/11/2010 13:57, Chris J Dixon wrote:
"Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere wrote:

Are you sure they simply had not extracted the relevant parts of Chapter
1 of the Traffic Signs Manual and put them into a form that was easy to
distribute to a work detail?

That is what we did with Chapter 8 when I worked for an Electricity
Board as much of the chapter dealt with situations most work gangs would
not come across and they had trouble enough putting the signs out
properly even with a boiled down summary to work from.

Indeed so.

I reckon the most misunderstood pair of signs are "Oncoming
vehicles have priority" and "You have priority over oncoming
vehicles", especially amongst workers deploying signs around road
works.

I have seen works protected by identical pairs of signs of either
the above types.

On chatting with the men, at a location which was signed so as to
advise drivers approaching from both directions that they had
priority, they were convinced that they had done it right, and
showed me the comprehensive printout showing them exactly what
they had to do. Unfortunately, they failed to appreciate how
important it was to have _precisely_ what the sheet showed, not
merely something similar, because that was all they had on their
wagon.

That is why we ended up sending an engineer around to check on any new
road works. Literacy was never a requirement for getting a job digging
holes in roads.

Colin Bignell

Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
That is why we ended up sending an engineer around to check on any new
road works. Literacy was never a requirement for getting a job digging
holes in roads.

I'm not sure that numeracy is a requirement for getting a job painting
road markings either. There is a village near where I work that has had
a 30mph speed limit through it for as long as I have known it. Last
month the council sent someone around to put red paint on the road on
the way in to the village and paint the speed limit on it in white. It
seems quite common nowadays. So, the painting team, sitting right next
to the 30mph sign painted a big 40 on the road. Duh.

Andrew

Andrew May wrote:

I'm not sure that numeracy is a requirement for getting a job painting
road markings either. There is a village near where I work that has had
a 30mph speed limit through it for as long as I have known it. Last
month the council sent someone around to put red paint on the road on
the way in to the village and paint the speed limit on it in white. It
seems quite common nowadays. So, the painting team, sitting right next
to the 30mph sign painted a big 40 on the road. Duh.

I was intrigued to note, when road works started on the eastbound
A50, approaching M1 J24, and a 40 mph limit was imposed, that at
the end of the works there were a pair of 60 mph signs,
considering that the normal limit is 50 mph. Perhaps they were
misled by the fact that the normal limit westbound for this
stretch is 60 mph.

I sent an email to the Highways Agency. They did not reply, but
the signs were changed.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Have dancing shoes, will ceilidh.

On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 13:57:42 +0000, Chris J Dixon wrote:

I reckon the most misunderstood pair of signs are "Oncoming vehicles
have priority" and "You have priority over oncoming vehicles",

The rectangular ones rather than round?

I should think amongst most drivers as well. I know I have trouble
with 'em they are just too similar to each other. The give way road
markings help as they only appear next to the "Oncoming vehicles have
priority" sign. Not sure how they could be improved with a pictogram
like most other signs.

Maybe for "Oncoming vehicles have priority" a red tail view of a car
on the left and green head on view of a car on the right. And for
"You have priority over oncoming vehicles" a green tail view on the
left and red head on view on the right. Or are those to similar
again? And does the red/green infer a "right of way" rather that just
"priority"?

--
Cheers
Dave.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 13:57:42 +0000, Chris J Dixon wrote:

I reckon the most misunderstood pair of signs are "Oncoming vehicles
have priority" and "You have priority over oncoming vehicles",

The rectangular ones rather than round?

I should think amongst most drivers as well. I know I have trouble
with 'em they are just too similar to each other. The give way road
markings help as they only appear next to the "Oncoming vehicles have
priority" sign. Not sure how they could be improved with a pictogram
like most other signs.

It has always looked to me like a sign designed by committee. One group
wanting to indicate using large and small arrows and the other with red
and black arrows. Finally agreeing to disagree and settling on using
both. One OR the other would be a lot easier to remember/understand.

However I had to look at the highway code to find which was which and I
hadn't previously realised that give way to oncoming vehicles is a round
sign and priority over oncoming vehicles is rectangular. That's probably
a better way of remembering them.

Andrew

Andrew May wrote:

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 13:57:42 +0000, Chris J Dixon wrote:

I reckon the most misunderstood pair of signs are "Oncoming vehicles
have priority" and "You have priority over oncoming vehicles",

The rectangular ones rather than round?

I should think amongst most drivers as well. I know I have trouble
with 'em they are just too similar to each other. The give way road
markings help as they only appear next to the "Oncoming vehicles have
priority" sign. Not sure how they could be improved with a pictogram
like most other signs.

It has always looked to me like a sign designed by committee. One group
wanting to indicate using large and small arrows and the other with red
and black arrows. Finally agreeing to disagree and settling on using
both. One OR the other would be a lot easier to remember/understand.

However I had to look at the highway code to find which was which and I
hadn't previously realised that give way to oncoming vehicles is a round
sign and priority over oncoming vehicles is rectangular. That's probably
a better way of remembering them.

As I said originally:

Circles give orders, triangles warn and rectangles inform. There
is, sadly, little understanding of these important distinctions.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Have dancing shoes, will ceilidh.

On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 14:09:40 +0000, Andrew May wrote:

However I had to look at the highway code to find which was which and I
hadn't previously realised that give way to oncoming vehicles is a round
sign and priority over oncoming vehicles is rectangular. That's probably
a better way of remembering them.

No the rectangular ones come in pairs, not sure about the round one
but anyway that is an order to "Give Way", the other traffic has
right of way. The rectangular ones are information only and just
indicates priority not right of way. IANAL BTW...

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 26/11/2010 13:49, Dave Liquorice wrote:

Maybe for "Oncoming vehicles have priority" a red tail view of a car
on the left and green head on view of a car on the right. And for
"You have priority over oncoming vehicles" a green tail view on the
left and red head on view on the right. Or are those to similar
again? And does the red/green infer a "right of way" rather that just
"priority"?


Red-green colour blindness affects about 10% of men.

Andy

On 24 Nov, 13:57, Chris J Dixon wrote:
"Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:
Are you sure they simply had not extracted the relevant parts of Chapter
1 of the Traffic Signs Manual and put them into a form that was easy to
distribute to a work detail?

That is what we did with Chapter 8 when I worked for an Electricity
Board as much of the chapter dealt with situations most work gangs would
not come across and they had trouble enough putting the signs out
properly even with a boiled down summary to work from.

Indeed so.

I reckon the most misunderstood pair of signs are "Oncoming
vehicles have priority" and "You have priority over oncoming
vehicles", especially amongst workers deploying signs around road
works. *

I have seen works protected by identical pairs of signs of either
the above types. *

On chatting with the men, at a location which was signed so as to
advise drivers approaching from both directions that they had
priority, they were convinced that they had done it right, and
showed me the comprehensive printout showing them exactly what
they had to do. Unfortunately, they failed to appreciate how
important it was to have _precisely_ what the sheet showed, not
merely something similar, because that was all they had on their
wagon.

There is a standard motorcycling trick, which works best on roadworks
with traffic lights, preferably where one end of the roadworks is out
of sight of the other. One filters to the front of the row of cars at
a red light, to be first away when the lights change. One then
"experiences a breakdown" while half way around the road works,
unfirtunately bringing the cars following to a halt. Meanwhile the
lights have changed, and a queue of traffic approaches, coming the
other way, until it can go no farther. One then restarts one's
motorcycle, filters past the stationary oncoming traffic and continues
on one's way.

cheers
Richard

In message
,
geraldthehamster writes
On 24 Nov, 13:57, Chris J Dixon wrote:
"Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:
Are you sure they simply had not extracted the relevant parts of Chapter
1 of the Traffic Signs Manual and put them into a form that was easy to
distribute to a work detail?

That is what we did with Chapter 8 when I worked for an Electricity
Board as much of the chapter dealt with situations most work gangs would
not come across and they had trouble enough putting the signs out
properly even with a boiled down summary to work from.

Indeed so.

I reckon the most misunderstood pair of signs are "Oncoming
vehicles have priority" and "You have priority over oncoming
vehicles", especially amongst workers deploying signs around road
works. *

I have seen works protected by identical pairs of signs of either
the above types. *

On chatting with the men, at a location which was signed so as to
advise drivers approaching from both directions that they had
priority, they were convinced that they had done it right, and
showed me the comprehensive printout showing them exactly what
they had to do. Unfortunately, they failed to appreciate how
important it was to have _precisely_ what the sheet showed, not
merely something similar, because that was all they had on their
wagon.

There is a standard motorcycling trick, which works best on roadworks
with traffic lights, preferably where one end of the roadworks is out
of sight of the other. One filters to the front of the row of cars at
a red light, to be first away when the lights change. One then
"experiences a breakdown" while half way around the road works,
unfirtunately bringing the cars following to a halt. Meanwhile the
lights have changed, and a queue of traffic approaches, coming the
other way, until it can go no farther. One then restarts one's
motorcycle, filters past the stationary oncoming traffic and continues
on one's way.

You're a very naughty boy


--
geoff

On 27 Nov, 14:44, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , geoff
wrote:

In message
,
geraldthehamster writes
There is a standard motorcycling trick, which works best on roadworks
with traffic lights, preferably where one end of the roadworks is out
of sight of the other. One filters to the front of the row of cars at
a red light, to be first away when the lights change. One then
"experiences a breakdown" while half way around the road works,
unfirtunately bringing the cars following to a halt. Meanwhile the
lights have changed, and a queue of traffic approaches, coming the
other way, until it can go no farther. One then restarts one's
motorcycle, filters past the stationary oncoming traffic and continues
on one's way.

You're a very naughty boy

If he's actually done this, then the word "pillock" comes to mind. BTW,

The beauty is that the mere telling of the tale is enough to wind some
car drivers up, with no necessity actually to go and do it ;-)


Cheers
Richard

On 24/11/2010 14:45, Tim Streater wrote:

I reckon the most misunderstood pair of signs are "Oncoming
vehicles have priority" and "You have priority over oncoming
vehicles", especially amongst workers deploying signs around road
works.
I have seen works protected by identical pairs of signs of either
the above types.
On chatting with the men, at a location which was signed so as to
advise drivers approaching from both directions that they had
priority, they were convinced that they had done it right, and
showed me the comprehensive printout showing them exactly what
they had to do. Unfortunately, they failed to appreciate how
important it was to have _precisely_ what the sheet showed, not
merely something similar, because that was all they had on their
wagon.

So who would be liable if two people dinged each other?

Both. Having right of way is not a licence to drive into anyone who
impedes it if it is possible to avoid a collision. Whether they were
equally liable would depend on whether the rest of the road layout
conformed with a halt line painted on the side without priority passage.

On Nov 24, 3:33*pm, Roger Chapman wrote:
On 24/11/2010 14:45, Tim Streater wrote:

So who would be liable if two people dinged each other?

Both. Having right of way is not a licence to drive into anyone who
impedes it if it is possible to avoid a collision. Whether they were
equally liable would depend on whether the rest of the road layout
conformed with a halt line painted on the side without priority passage.

Unless, of course, the vehicle was being operated by or on behalf of
the local authority. Wife was parked, facing the correct way, on a
one-way street just before Christmas last year. Gritter on contract to
Council came up the street the wrong way and hit her. An open-and-
shut case with regard to liability, you'd have thought. Plenty of
photos. Police there to take statements. But would the guilty party
admit liability?

So working for, or on contract to, the Council is apparently a licence
to drive into anyone else who impedes your progress, even though you
are going the "wrong" way up a one-way street.

On 24/11/2010 21:06, Tim Streater wrote:

So who would be liable if two people dinged each other?

Both. Having right of way is not a licence to drive into anyone who
impedes it if it is possible to avoid a collision. Whether they were
equally liable would depend on whether the rest of the road layout
conformed with a halt line painted on the side without priority passage.

Hmmm, thanks for the lawyers' answers, guys, but I would have thought
anyone would have a reasonable expectation that, if they approach a
situation where the signage indicates they have priority, they would
continue on in the expectation that the other klod is going to come to a
halt so they can go through. By the time both realise the other is not
going to, it may be too late.

The situation visually is no different to driving along a single track
road. You just don't let the approaching traffic get so close that you
can't stop in time.

If your lawyers' replies had any merit, we could scrap all signage and
road marking tomorrow, as well as cats eyes, and the special road
surface that grips much better that you see on some bends.

You asked who would be liable. Colin suggests the council would be held
responsible but as devil's advocate for the council I think the car
insurers would split the bill and penalise the drivers for carelessness
even if they didn't get done for lack of due care and attention.

There are still roads in this country that lack adequate signage and
luxuries such as cat's eyes and road markings. OK so a wrong sign is a
special case but the scenario is really no different to what must happen
from time to time when some bozo misinterprets the proper signage. The
plod is not going to look on the driver with priority with any favour if
he didn't make a determined attempt to avoid an accident.

On 25/11/2010 10:14, Tim Streater wrote:

snip

Hmmm, thanks for the lawyers' answers, guys, but I would have thought
anyone would have a reasonable expectation that, if they approach a
situation where the signage indicates they have priority, they would
continue on in the expectation that the other klod is going to come
to a
halt so they can go through. By the time both realise the other is not
going to, it may be too late.

The situation visually is no different to driving along a single track
road. You just don't let the approaching traffic get so close that you
can't stop in time.

Single trackish roads, of which there are many in this area (with high
hedges and bends, just for grins, too), are a bit different in that you
know you'll both have to manoeuvre to get past each other, so you both
slow down to see how to effect that.

We will just have to disagree on that. ISTM that visually the situation
is exactly the same. You are aiming are both aiming for a space that is
not wide enough for two cars and the speed and position of the oncoming
traffic should be enough to trigger an emergency response in an alert
driver.

If your lawyers' replies had any merit, we could scrap all signage and
road marking tomorrow, as well as cats eyes, and the special road
surface that grips much better that you see on some bends.

You asked who would be liable. Colin suggests the council would be
held responsible but as devil's advocate for the council I think the
car insurers would split the bill and penalise the drivers for
carelessness even if they didn't get done for lack of due care and
attention.

Possibly if its roadworks, you might be right.

There are still roads in this country that lack adequate signage and
luxuries such as cat's eyes and road markings. OK so a wrong sign is a
special case but the scenario is really no different to what must
happen from time to time when some bozo misinterprets the proper
signage. The plod is not going to look on the driver with priority
with any favour if he didn't make a determined attempt to avoid an
accident.

Depends, seems to me. If I'm on the priority road, and the bozo drives
straight out from the joining road and smashes into the side of me
(because he thought that the give-way triangle meant "accelerate now")
then I'd take a very dim view if I was held in any way responsible.

There is not much you can do in such a case unless you see the
approaching car in time but just move the goalposts a trifle to the more
typical situation where a doddery old fool with delayed action reactions
decides to pull out very close in front of you and then accelerates at a
snail's pace. In such circumstances all you need to do is brake hard.
Exercising your priority by ramming him instead of slowing down is
frowned upon.

Tim Streater wrote:

In article ,
Chris J Dixon wrote:

I reckon the most misunderstood pair of signs are "Oncoming
vehicles have priority" and "You have priority over oncoming
vehicles", especially amongst workers deploying signs around road
works.

I have seen works protected by identical pairs of signs of either
the above types.

So who would be liable if two people dinged each other?

I guess that both drivers would be equally culpable, with the
excuse that the signing was wrong. The signs are supposed to
allocate priority, but if you drive towards another moving
vehicle, you still need to accept the consequences of your
action.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Have dancing shoes, will ceilidh.

On 24/11/2010 14:45, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Chris J Dixon wrote:
....
I have seen works protected by identical pairs of signs of either
the above types.
On chatting with the men, at a location which was signed so as to
advise drivers approaching from both directions that they had
priority, they were convinced that they had done it right, and
showed me the comprehensive printout showing them exactly what
they had to do. Unfortunately, they failed to appreciate how
important it was to have _precisely_ what the sheet showed, not
merely something similar, because that was all they had on their
wagon.

So who would be liable if two people dinged each other?


I suspect that liability for payment would end up with the utility's
public liability insurers.

Colin Bignell

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Chris J Dixon wrote:

"Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:

Are you sure they simply had not extracted the relevant parts of
Chapter 1 of the Traffic Signs Manual and put them into a form that
was easy to distribute to a work detail?

That is what we did with Chapter 8 when I worked for an Electricity
Board as much of the chapter dealt with situations most work gangs
would not come across and they had trouble enough putting the signs
out properly even with a boiled down summary to work from.

Indeed so.

I reckon the most misunderstood pair of signs are "Oncoming
vehicles have priority" and "You have priority over oncoming
vehicles", especially amongst workers deploying signs around road
works.

I have seen works protected by identical pairs of signs of either
the above types.

On chatting with the men, at a location which was signed so as to
advise drivers approaching from both directions that they had
priority, they were convinced that they had done it right, and
showed me the comprehensive printout showing them exactly what
they had to do. Unfortunately, they failed to appreciate how
important it was to have _precisely_ what the sheet showed, not
merely something similar, because that was all they had on their
wagon.

So who would be liable if two people dinged each other?

A few years ago SWMBO had an RTC on a quiet back road in Rochester. She was
on a long straight road with a junction on the right. Turned out tha road
on the right had priority.

http://maps.google.co.uk/?ie=UTF8&hq....027423&z=1 5

She was on Old Pattens Lane travelling north, but Boundary Rd has priority.
She carried on & a car from Bondary Road hit her.


No Give Way sign at the junction, road markings almost completely obscured
by tarmac repairs. I complained to the Council about the lack of signs &
markings & got nowhere. Three weeks later a brand new Give Way sign & fresh
road markings appeared as if by magic.


I should have pursued it at the time, to my mind the Councils lack of
maintenance & failure to put up a proper sign made then partly responsible.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

"Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:

That is what we did with Chapter 8 when I worked for an Electricity
Board as much of the chapter dealt with situations most work gangs would
not come across and they had trouble enough putting the signs out
properly even with a boiled down summary to work from.

Near me there is a stretch of gently curving road where there are
usually parked cars, and only enough width for a single passing
vehicle. Having realised that this hazard deserved a road sign,
the installation of one was duly instigated.

However, the guys doing the work clearly knew better than their
work sheet. 'Oncoming Vehicles In Middle Of Road' is clearly
associated in their experience with low arched bridges. As luck
would have it, there is a low (but not arched) bridge a couple of
hundred yards in the opposite direction, at the site of the
long-closed East Leake station.

So, they put the post in the right place, but fastened the sign
to the wrong side of it, to be read on the offside by traffic
passing. They also painted "Slow" on the wrong side of the road.

I made a mental note to ring the appropriate department to tell
them about it, but never got round to it until the evening when I
discovered that it had been dug up and replanted, still facing
the same way, on the nearside verge.

"Ah", said the guy "you're going to tell me about that sign."
Yes, I replied, I bet you told them it was on the wrong side,
didn't you? When I explained what had happened, he and his
colleagues fell about for a while, and bemoaned their labour
force, expecting that it would take another few months to put
right, which it did.

Even then, they never removed the extra "Slow" from the tarmac,
which was duly renewed when the road was resurfaced the following
summer.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Have dancing shoes, will ceilidh.

On 24/11/2010 11:12, John wrote:
My annoyance is that councils up and down the country are probably wasting
money on similar initiatives - but are acting like commercial competitors in
not sharing - or seeking to share this type of information.


I used to produce software for Local Authorities. Every one of them
wanted (different) expensive modifications. All it did was record sundry
debts - rents for village halls, rubbish collection etc.

Another Dave

John wrote:
My council has just stated it is looking for consultants to review what
people are putting in their wheelie bins!

My annoyance is that councils up and down the country are probably wasting
money on similar initiatives - but are acting like commercial competitors in
not sharing - or seeking to share this type of information.

Oh they share all right, or should I say plagiarise?

When I noticed they were about to convert a local car park to pay &
display, I downloaded the "Parking Strategy" document from Blaby
District Council's web site, only to find that the embedded title of the
PDF file was actually "Mid Sussex Parking Strategy", a quick search of
that council's website turned up a document with largely similiar chunks.

John :
My annoyance is that councils up and down the country are probably wasting
money on similar initiatives - but are acting like commercial competitors in
not sharing - or seeking to share this type of information.

Isn't that sharing the kind of thing that the Local Government
Association (or something like it) should be co-ordinating?

--
Mike Barnes