Jump to content

IanD

Member
  • Posts

    5014
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    59

Everything posted by IanD

  1. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  2. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  3. Not that kind, no. Or indeed the other kind... 😉 Locks -- love 'em, gimme more. Swing bridges in general and L&L ones in particular -- burning's too good for 'em... 😞
  4. Is this actually true (especially the first part), or are you just making it up (like in the elf'n'safety myths link I posted, or Boris Johnson) ? If the school was that risk-averse, they'd also have to ban cricket (risk of being hit in the eye by a ball), football (risk of falling and twisting ankle), running (ditto), playing in the playground (grazed knees), eating lunch in the canteen (knives)...
  5. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  6. We moored (twice) at Cole Mere a bit further along, which doesn't have such splendid views but does have a fantastic walk around the lake.
  7. There are very good reasons why the Daily Wail often comes up again and again -- and why I post this diagram again and again... 😉 Maybe your local school has banned conkers (proof, or just another unfounded rumour, or not for H&S reasons?) -- I expect you know this is what I was referring to: https://www.ihasco.co.uk/blog/entry/2162/10-ridiculous-health-safety-myths
  8. Not surprising, having an opinion which doesn't agree with the facts is a common feature in anti-H&S diatribes in places like the Daily Wail, which often turn out to be simply not true (conker bans etc.). You do know that not all disabilities involve restricted movement, don't you?
  9. I expect the figure for HS2 is so high because of the massive lengths of tunnels required to keep modern NIMBYs happy, because nobody wants a new noisy high-speed line at the bottom of their garden. The Guardian figure probably also includes land costs which the other one specifically excludes. There's no inherent reason for a new high-speed line to cost much more than a new standard-speed line; in the UK in particular they would *both* be very expensive... (but difficult to compare since there are almost no new standard-speed lines built nowadays) And in "pre-H&S" days it was also fairly common for railway workmen to be killed either by workplace accidents or passing trains. Saved money though, funerals with bugger-all compensation were cheap... 😞 I suspect the Modern Railways article may have been somewhat tongue-in-cheek, it seems unlikely that there are many permanent way workers in wheelchairs for obvious reasons... 😉
  10. I think you're confusing Walsall with Ankh-Morpork. Though there do seem to be certain similarities... 😉
  11. That's going to annoy quite a few CCers/CMers along that stretch -- I wonder where they'll go instead?
  12. Either the workman was wrong, or whoever specified HS2 (the government?) was an idiot, or they wanted it also make it "freight-capable" just in case this was ever needed -- even though there's no plan for this -- and nobody pointed out how much money/time/construction could be saved by following TGV principles, where they allow gradients up to 1 in 30 which are *far* steeper than normal rail tracks. Or maybe they didn't want to do that because it would imply the French teaching us how to do things, and that can't *possibly* be allowed... 😉
  13. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  14. Why do you think fear of litigation (from who?) is the reason for changes to railway construction regulations? Surely fear of the line being blocked for a long time if a landslip happens (like happened on the ECML) is a much more likely reason? I get annoyed when people (or the Daily Wail) keep blaming "elf'n'safety" for things that are nothing to do with it -- while ignoring the fact that most of these rules are changed in reaction to something which went horribly wrong in the past, to prevent it happening again and possible killing people. Otherwise we'd still have unstable slag-heaps behind schools... 😞 If you disagree, maybe you could provide some evidence of where such changes to HS2 design are actually due to overcautious legislation-fearing "elf'n'safety" rules... 😉
  15. I doubt that "elf'n'safety" or "fear of litigation" has anything to do with it, more likely newer constructional standards restricting things like embankment angles because experience has shown that steep ones are too prone to landslips, especially with weather changes due to climate change.
  16. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  17. Not sure that's true. High-speed lines which only carry high-speed trains (like the TGV) go up and down hill more steeply than lines which also carry freight, because the trains have much higher power-to-weight ratio and more speed and inertia to carry them uphill, they barely slow down. Anyone who has ever driven along the motorway where it runs parallel to the TGV line can't have missed the way it follows the motorway up and down some quite steep hills, and the way the trains pass you like you're going backwards...
  18. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  19. We're having a discussion where we're both capable of giving as good as we get 🙂 Your view that Alan's posts to LadyG are not bullying is one which you're entitled to, just the same as people who would ignore (for example) a small woman being shouted at and threatened in the street by a big man on the basis that "it's none of my business" or "it's the police's job not mine". Other people have different views which they're equally entitled to -- including saying that they think somebody's posts are inappropriate, which is what I did, admittedly in robust language... 🙂 Look back over Alan's many posts as a "forum expert" in reply to posts from LadyG, they are without exception belittling and insulting, as the post from LadyG above says -- it's perfectly possible to correct factual errors without namecalling and suggesting that maybe somebody isn't fit to be on the canals and should perhaps go and live ashore. Repeated use of language like this is bullying or gaslighting, regardless of whether you choose to ignore it or not. Maybe I can remind you of the forum rules for posts other than in the political area? "To ensure we provide an enjoyable and safe platform for everyone, it is expected that members be respectful and civil in all communications on the site." "Members are required to conduct themselves in a civil manner including the use of language when engaging with other members" If you think Alan's replies to many of LadyG's posts follow these rules, you're being as blind as a Brexiteer... 😉 [and I wouldn't be surprised if this thread is moved to the Politics section soon, like others which have provoked similar heated arguments]
  20. If you don't like being told that you're acting like a bullying tw*t, don't make repeated sniping posts at somebody who may not be entirely robust against them.
  21. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  22. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  23. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  24. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.