(slightly OT) load of old bollards

On 2006-11-08, Greg <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ah but empty, smoke belching, fuel inefficient, pedestrian unfriendly buses
> are the flavour of the moment,

They're certainly the favourite in the pedestrians-killed-per-mile
stakes! They kill more per mile than any other form of transport, and
that was figures from the government's own websites. You try finding
it again though, I really ought to save these things off when I find
them!! Twisty maze of websites, all identical.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

"Ian Rawlings" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> They're certainly the favourite in the pedestrians-killed-per-mile
> stakes! They kill more per mile than any other form of transport, and
> that was figures from the government's own websites. You try finding
> it again though, I really ought to save these things off when I find
> them!! Twisty maze of websites, all identical.

I'm not surprised, combine a front that makes even the worst designed 4x4's
look pedestrian friendly, the fact that the length means they often encroach
onto pavements on tight corners in towns, the lack of driver visibility, and
it's plain to see what the outcome will be.

I was once witness to a bus killing a pedestrian when it swung into an
entrance on the right, and the back end swung out onto the left pavement and
crushed her against a wall. People were tending to her when the same bus
began to back out straight towards them, I had to stop the arsehole backing
as he had no idea what had happened and would have blindly hit them. At the
time I thought she was just injured, but when they took statements the
police told us she had died.

Add a typical 4MPG, low occupancy on most journeys, the age of the UK bus
fleet, their refusal to stop their engines when parked up, the cost to the
tax payer of bus friendly road schemes and ever increasing subsidies needed
to keep them running where actually needed, and you've got a very expensive
failure to deal with our transport and pollution issues.

Greg

On or around Wed, 08 Nov 2006 09:38:10 +0000, beamendsltd
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>[1] This scheme also had a fun side - you can get a Defender through
>(alledgedly),

But you couldn't comment from personal experience?

>but any 4x4 with whishbone type rear suspension, or
>with struts to the hubs a la RAV4, Freelander etc would get very
>expensively stuck ;-)

and I bet they did, just like the idiots on the rising bollards, although
possibly with less risk to passers-by. It was no doubt cheaper to install,
too.

I quite like the single lane and non-moving bus idea though.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
Once, when the secrets of science were the jealously guarded property of
a small priesthood, the common man had no hope of mastering their arcane
complexities. Years of study in musty classrooms were prerequisite to
obtaining even a dim, incoherent knowledge of science.
Today, all that has changed: a dim, incoherent knowledge of science is
available to anyone. - Tom Weller, Science Made Stupid, 1986

On or around Wed, 08 Nov 2006 09:43:04 +0000 (GMT), [email protected]
("David G. Bell") enlightened us thusly:

>On 8 Nov, in article
> <[email protected]>
> [email protected] "Ga" wrote:
>
>> But for the motorists who are obviously ignoring
>> the signs and trying to save 5 minutes by sneaking through the
>> pedestrianised area - f&%k 'em.
>
>I don't think I would count a buslane as a pedestrianised area.

it's neither - it's a semi-ped area to which cretain vehicles such as buses
are allowed access.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
Once, when the secrets of science were the jealously guarded property of
a small priesthood, the common man had no hope of mastering their arcane
complexities. Years of study in musty classrooms were prerequisite to
obtaining even a dim, incoherent knowledge of science.
Today, all that has changed: a dim, incoherent knowledge of science is
available to anyone. - Tom Weller, Science Made Stupid, 1986

On or around Wed, 08 Nov 2006 13:04:59 -0000, "William Tasso"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>Any more bright ideas? perhaps we should shred the tyres of motors
>breaking the speed limit?

Stinger, anyone?
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"The breezy call of incense-breathing Morn, The swallow twittering
from the strawbuilt shed, The cock's shrill clarion, or the echoing
horn, No more shall rouse them from their lowly bed."
Thomas Gray, Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard.

They have got some of those rising bollards in Coventry round by the
Cathedral but I figure a landie could drive round them, not that I am
inclined to try.


--
Larry

Series 3 Rust and Holes

"Dave P" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In Manchester, they have bollards that rise and fall to keep motorists
> from using the bus-only lanes. Some numpties think they are quick
> enough to beat it ...
>
> http://arbroath.blogspot.com/2006/10/drivers-fail-to-beat-bollards.html
> and click on CCTV link.
>
> Hilarious.
>
> Dave
>

"Austin Shackles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Stinger, anyone?

Yeah that's it, a stinger automatically deployed by every one of those
flashing 30 signs, well they couldn't help but see the speed limit sign so
they've only themselves to blame, and if the car careers off into
pedestrians just prosecute the driver, no problem

Greg

On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 11:58:25 -0000, Greg wrote:

> Why?, would you drive through a camera if you knew you would get a £60
> ticket?, very few would,

ROFLMAO.

You have got to be kidding! Ample people already go through cameras and
get a ticket and make one hell of noise about it. WHEN THEY ARE PLAINLY
BREAKING THE LAW FFS!

--
Cheers [email protected]
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 19:26:48 -0000, "Greg"
<[email protected]> scribbled the following nonsense:

>"Austin Shackles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> Stinger, anyone?
>
>Yeah that's it, a stinger automatically deployed by every one of those
>flashing 30 signs, well they couldn't help but see the speed limit sign so
>they've only themselves to blame, and if the car careers off into
>pedestrians just prosecute the driver, no problem
>
>Greg
>

stingers are designed to supposedly deflate the tyres so that there is
no loss of control
--

Simon Isaacs

"Bad officials are elected by good citizens who do not vote"
George Jean Nathan (1882-1955)

ROT13 me....

"Dave Liquorice" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>ROFLMAO.

>You have got to be kidding! Ample people already go through cameras and
>get a ticket and make one hell of noise about it. WHEN THEY ARE PLAINLY
>BREAKING THE LAW FFS!

Who cares what noise they make about it, the footage is incontrovertible so
they still have to pay £60 each time, not many can afford do that on a
regular basis so most will stop going into the restricted area, goal
achieved.

Greg

"Simon Isaacs" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 19:26:48 -0000, "Greg"
> <[email protected]> scribbled the following nonsense:
>
> >"Austin Shackles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >
> >> Stinger, anyone?
> >
> >Yeah that's it, a stinger automatically deployed by every one of those
> >flashing 30 signs, well they couldn't help but see the speed limit sign
so
> >they've only themselves to blame, and if the car careers off into
> >pedestrians just prosecute the driver, no problem
> >
> >Greg
> >
>
> stingers are designed to supposedly deflate the tyres so that there is
> no loss of control

Me thinks some people need a sense of humour upgrade
Greg

On or around Wed, 08 Nov 2006 20:06:31 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 11:58:25 -0000, Greg wrote:
>
>> Why?, would you drive through a camera if you knew you would get a £60
>> ticket?, very few would,
>
>ROFLMAO.
>
>You have got to be kidding! Ample people already go through cameras and
>get a ticket and make one hell of noise about it. WHEN THEY ARE PLAINLY
>BREAKING THE LAW FFS!

quite. OK, I hate speed limits and speed cameras, but whinging 'cos you
were dozy (or unlucky) enough to get caught by one is, frankly, just making
yourself look a bigger prat.

's like the mobile phone thing. £30 quid fixed penalty - no-one gives a
f*ck. they're about to up it to 60 plus points, now the points might make
people think.

and that's often even more trivial than driving where you're not allowed.
Under some conditions, it's undoubtedly dangerous to drive using a hand-held
phone. Under other conditions, it isn't. I see the dibbles can still use
hand-held radio mikes while driving, dunno how that's supposed to be
different.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"Chuck didn't reply, so George swung round in his saddle. He could just
see Chuck's face, a white oval turned toward the sky.
'Look,' whispered Chuck, and George lifted his eyes to heaven.
(There is always a last time for everything.)
Overhead, without any fuss, the stars were going out"
Arthur C. Clarke, "The 9 billion names of God"

On or around Wed, 08 Nov 2006 20:35:14 +0000, Simon Isaacs
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 19:26:48 -0000, "Greg"
><[email protected]> scribbled the following nonsense:
>
>>"Austin Shackles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> Stinger, anyone?
>>
>>Yeah that's it, a stinger automatically deployed by every one of those
>>flashing 30 signs, well they couldn't help but see the speed limit sign so
>>they've only themselves to blame, and if the car careers off into
>>pedestrians just prosecute the driver, no problem
>>
>>Greg
>>
>
>stingers are designed to supposedly deflate the tyres so that there is
>no loss of control

not convinced by that argument, mind. probably not if the vehicles isn't
going all that fast in the first place, but they're deployed against things
doing 80 in a town. I'd not rate my chances much of controlling a car on 4
flats at 80.

what's really needed is a sort of sticky goo that grabs the car.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"Chuck didn't reply, so George swung round in his saddle. He could just
see Chuck's face, a white oval turned toward the sky.
'Look,' whispered Chuck, and George lifted his eyes to heaven.
(There is always a last time for everything.)
Overhead, without any fuss, the stars were going out"
Arthur C. Clarke, "The 9 billion names of God"

In message <[email protected]>
Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote:

> On or around Wed, 08 Nov 2006 20:06:31 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
> >On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 11:58:25 -0000, Greg wrote:
> >
> >> Why?, would you drive through a camera if you knew you would get a £60
> >> ticket?, very few would,
> >
> >ROFLMAO.
> >
> >You have got to be kidding! Ample people already go through cameras and
> >get a ticket and make one hell of noise about it. WHEN THEY ARE PLAINLY
> >BREAKING THE LAW FFS!
>
> quite. OK, I hate speed limits and speed cameras, but whinging 'cos you
> were dozy (or unlucky) enough to get caught by one is, frankly, just making
> yourself look a bigger prat.
>
> 's like the mobile phone thing. £30 quid fixed penalty - no-one gives a
> f*ck. they're about to up it to 60 plus points, now the points might make
> people think.
>
> and that's often even more trivial than driving where you're not allowed.
> Under some conditions, it's undoubtedly dangerous to drive using a hand-held
> phone. Under other conditions, it isn't. I see the dibbles can still use
> hand-held radio mikes while driving, dunno how that's supposed to be
> different.

Anyone can use radio (R/T) - it's specifically exempted from the
legislation - presumambly that includes CB as well.

Richard

--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
www.radioparadise.com - Good Music, No Vine
Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive

> > But for the motorists who are obviously ignoring
> > the signs and trying to save 5 minutes by sneaking through the
> > pedestrianised area
>
> as discussed, this ain't no pedestrianised area if it has buses running
> through it.
>
Austin - Thanks for clearing up the pedestrianised area thing for some
people that obviously steer clear of any town centres.

> More government sponsored violence is just what we need to maintain a
> decent tolerant society.

The government are too soft as it is: Rob an old lady and beat her up
in the process - here you go see how you can handle 50 hours community
service and a £30 fine!! Would like to know how they got called
"violent"!!! LOL
>
> With govt thinking like that the terrorists may as well pack up and go
> home. We're doing their job for them.
>
Bit of a difference between putting a bomb in amoungst innocent people
and cracking a radiator of someones vehicle who can't follow simple
instructions!!! If these dopey idiots could learn to read, and get out
of bed 5 minutes earlier to make up for the extra journey time then
there would be no need for things like rising bollards.

Agree that camera sounds to be a good idea for the majority of places
but how long would that last in the centre on Manchester?

The rising bollards just go back to untrainable people looking for a
scapegoat. The council clearly indicate that you are not allowed to
travel in the bus lane, some doughnuts still think they can beat the
system, crack their radiator and some how thats the councils fault. Bit
like nicking a car, driving through 30 mph limit doing 100mph whilst
being pursued by 3 police cars with blues and twos going, killing
someone - oh, that's the policemans fault for chasing him!!!! HELLLLLO
WAKE UP AND TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR ACTIONS YOU STUPID CHIMPS.

William Tasso wrote:
<snip>
>
> Any more bright ideas? perhaps we should shred the tyres of motors
> breaking the speed limit? launch javelins through the spokes of
> cyclists on the pavement? Acknowledge that pedestrians are simply
> road-kill in waiting?

*Now* you're talking!

Stuart

steve Taylor wrote:
> Srtgray wrote:
>
>> Quelle probleme? Aucun difficulte, si vous etes preparer a faire la
>> travaille.
>
>
> Vous ? N'êtes-vous pas notre ami de beaucoup d'années ?
>
> Steve
> PS Those accents are bastards to type.

Yes, I must get myself a French keyboard (cue joke: Why did General de
Gaulle have Latin letters on his cap? Because French ones would have
looked out of place)

Stuart

On or around Thu, 09 Nov 2006 08:37:41 +0000, beamendsltd
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>In message <[email protected]>
> Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> and that's often even more trivial than driving where you're not allowed.
>> Under some conditions, it's undoubtedly dangerous to drive using a hand-held
>> phone. Under other conditions, it isn't. I see the dibbles can still use
>> hand-held radio mikes while driving, dunno how that's supposed to be
>> different.
>
>Anyone can use radio (R/T) - it's specifically exempted from the
>legislation - presumambly that includes CB as well.

so in what way does a handheld mike differ from a handheld phone, in the
matter of using them?

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"The breezy call of incense-breathing Morn, The swallow twittering
from the strawbuilt shed, The cock's shrill clarion, or the echoing
horn, No more shall rouse them from their lowly bed."
Thomas Gray, Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard.

On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 08:37:41 -0000, beamendsltd
<[email protected]> wrote:

> In message <[email protected]>
> Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On or around Wed, 08 Nov 2006 20:06:31 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
>> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>>
>> >On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 11:58:25 -0000, Greg wrote:
>> >
>> >> Why?, would you drive through a camera if you knew you would get a
>> £60
>> >> ticket?, very few would,
>> >
>> >ROFLMAO.
>> >
>> >You have got to be kidding! Ample people already go through cameras and
>> >get a ticket and make one hell of noise about it. WHEN THEY ARE PLAINLY
>> >BREAKING THE LAW FFS!
>>
>> quite. OK, I hate speed limits and speed cameras, but whinging 'cos you
>> were dozy (or unlucky) enough to get caught by one is, frankly, just
>> making
>> yourself look a bigger prat.
>>
>> 's like the mobile phone thing. £30 quid fixed penalty - no-one gives a
>> f*ck. they're about to up it to 60 plus points, now the points might
>> make
>> people think.
>>
>> and that's often even more trivial than driving where you're not
>> allowed.
>> Under some conditions, it's undoubtedly dangerous to drive using a
>> hand-held
>> phone. Under other conditions, it isn't. I see the dibbles can still
>> use
>> hand-held radio mikes while driving, dunno how that's supposed to be
>> different.
>
> Anyone can use radio (R/T) - it's specifically exempted from the
> legislation

I guess it's the difference in concentration required. Mind, if they
really cared then carrying children in any vehicle where the driver is not
isolated would be forbidden, as would listening to the archers.

> presumambly that includes CB as well.

Talking of which, recommendations anyone?

I'm suffering from tmi when looking at pages like:
http://www.4x4cb.com/public/menu.cfm?Category=562

--
William Tasso

Land Rover - 110 V8
Discovery - V8

In message <[email protected]>
Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote:

> On or around Thu, 09 Nov 2006 08:37:41 +0000, beamendsltd
> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
> >In message <[email protected]>
> > Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> and that's often even more trivial than driving where you're not allowed.
> >> Under some conditions, it's undoubtedly dangerous to drive using a hand-held
> >> phone. Under other conditions, it isn't. I see the dibbles can still use
> >> hand-held radio mikes while driving, dunno how that's supposed to be
> >> different.
> >
> >Anyone can use radio (R/T) - it's specifically exempted from the
> >legislation - presumambly that includes CB as well.
>
> so in what way does a handheld mike differ from a handheld phone, in the
> matter of using them?
>

No idea - it wasn't my law!

Richard
--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
www.radioparadise.com - Good Music, No Vine
Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive