Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Rant about Councils
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. |
#2
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Rant about Councils
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 |
#3
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Rant about Councils
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. |
#4
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Rant about Councils
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.... |
#5
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Rant about Councils
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 |
#6
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Rant about Councils
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 |
#7
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Rant about Councils
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 |
#8
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Rant about Councils
"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. |
#9
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Rant about Councils
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 |
#10
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Rant about Councils
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 |
#11
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Rant about Councils
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. |
#12
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Rant about Councils
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. |
#13
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Rant about Councils
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 |
#14
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Rant about Councils
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. |
#15
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Rant about Councils
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. |
#16
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Rant about Councils
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 |
#17
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Rant about Councils
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 |
#18
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Rant about Councils
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 |
#19
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Rant about Councils
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 |
#20
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Rant about Councils
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. |
#21
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Rant about Councils
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. |
#22
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Rant about Councils
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. |
#23
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Rant about Councils
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. |
#24
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Rant about Councils
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. |
#25
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Rant about Councils
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 |
#26
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
| OT - Rant about Councils
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 |
#27
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Rant about Councils
"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. |
#28
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Rant about Councils
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 |
#29
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Rant about Councils
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. |
#30
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Rant about Councils
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
OT rant | UK diy | |||
Rubbish disposal, government regs and local councils | UK diy | |||
OT Rant | Home Repair | |||
ON TOPIC (RANT) MidAmerican Extrusions (RANT) | Metalworking |