Vale Road works

Just to prove I'm not just about dishing out the negativity I'd like to applaud the Vale Road lamp-post replacement works. It would be easy to expect the street furniture crew to turn up at 8am lay everything out then bugger off while the actual works crew turned up at 10am, before disappearing at 4.30pm leaving everything still there; but no. The closure takes place after the morning rush and is gone by the evening despite them working since at least Monday on one side of the other. Well done this is the way it should be done whenever possible.

Pavement parking

As a throw-away remark in reply to Dan H I mentioned that I'd become more sensitive to reports of police doing things without quoting the authority under which they act. I've just realised I haven't quite mentioned why.

It's really all to do with a letter published in the Shuttle from Inspector Paul Crowley entitled On the beat regarding courtesy when driving and under-18's drinking alcohol. My comments along with others' can be seen, but it just highlighted to me how easily you can get away with stating X is illegal and leave it at that.

To summarise the points I made there Inspector Crowley made five assertions

1) Under 18s cannot legally purchase alcohol (in public?)
2) Under 18s cannot legally drink alcohol in public
3) Purchase of alcohol for under-18s is illegal
4) Parking on pavements can cause obstruction which is illegal
5) Driving over pavements is illegal

Two of those are incorrect; do you know which ones?

It's two and five. Alcohol can be confiscated from under-18s, but the act of drinking it is not itself illegal - Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Act 1997. Driving over pavements is not illegal if you are doing so to park on land within 15 yards of a road - Road Traffic Act 1988 s34. For anyone saying "Ah but what about Alcohol Restriction Zones, don't they make drinking in public illegal?" no they don't they just extend the confiscation of alcohol to everyone not just under-18s. Of course if you refuse to hand it over or discard it then you're in breach of the order and they can arrest you, but that's still not for drinking.

So as an addendum to "On the Beat" the Shuttle has received another letter from a Michael Dimbylow entitled Ways to Overcome the selfish minority. In the first paragraph he makes the assertion that "parking on verges and grass is also illegal.". And once again no attempt is made to back this up. Possibly because it may be wrong.

Why am I hesitant - because it's possible that the council have implemented a by-law prohibiting it. Now if I could obtain a list of all by-laws applicable I could check - anyone care to point me in the right direction? Anyway assuming that no such by-law is in place once again this is wrong.

There are no prohibitions to parking on pavements, verges or grass in and of itself. However doing so may incur an offence. For those going huh the answer lies in a few points. Firstly to park on the grass or pavement you might damage the grass or kerb and that's criminal damage; or you might be causing a danger or obstruction to other users by parking there. Finally what most people don't realise is that under case law the "public highway" is defined as from the border of private land to the opposite border and that any waiting restrictions painted on the road apply to the public highway. So that includes any pavements verges etc. So even if you're not parked directly on the road that has the double yellow markings they still apply to the pavement so expect a PCN.

As I say in the comment this all might seem pedantic, but it's an important distinction and even more importantly stops others from stating the all-encompassing "That's illegal!" without having to back that statement up.

Parking Charge Notices

There have been a couple of letters in the Shuttle about the trials and tribulations of parking charge notices as such I decided (as the paper hasn't bothered) to take some sample photos of different boards around Kidderminster.

[Additional - Just wanted to point out that in the case of the latter two car-parks you are parking on private land with the permission of the land owner provided you abide by the rules set down. Strictly speaking this is a contract and as such is bound by contract laws regarding legability and unfair terms - yes I'm looking at you Excel Parking Services Ltd]

The first from Bromsgrove Street car-park is a council-run affair as can be deduced by the Wyre Forest District Council logo at the top. Notice that they're talking about Penalty Charge Notices rather than Parking Charge Notices. That's because the former are listed under statute and the latter are just invoices from a private company.

Okay charges apply from 8am to 6.30pm which suggests it's free to park before or after these times oh and find a space before buying a ticket. Conditions of Use are nice and clear - a ticket showing date and expiry time must be visible in the vehicle. Note that leaving it on your seat is not an option even if its visible as the next line states that it must be on the windscreen or dashboard. Okay everyone visible and in one of those positions.

Next we get a grammatical/spelling mistake for Blue badge holders "and the display their permit and time clock." Important to note that the holder need only be present at the start or end of the 3 hour time period. So someone can turn up 3 hours early to do some shopping before picking up the holder and they get to park free.

Then we get the interesting point that you can use a ticket bought in this car-park at another car-park provided they have the same fee structure; didn't know that.

Then the list of Penalties. They're all clear except 86 - "Parking beyond the bay markings" what does beyond mean in this context? 91 can also be deemed a little vague "Parking in an area not designated for that class of vehicle" sure that means don't park a car in a motorcycle bay, but on the flip side all the other bays are blank, which means you have to assume that you can park there unless told otherwise. Sounds petty, but I'll return to that point elsewhere.

Okay Blah 50% reduction if paid early (nothing about the timer being stopped if you query it) and the rules being viewable at the offices during hours you're probably at work yourself. Give them a tiny url or something.

Okay second photo is telling me that this is a pay and display car-park. There are a couple of these dotted about and this one is cleverly positioned so you can't read it on the way in only on the way out as it seems are all the others. In fact without rigorous checking I'll assert that it's possible to both enter and leave the car-park with out seeing one of these signs.

Notice that this slightly contradicts the main notice by stating that tickets must be placed on the inside of windscreens and that the need to find a space before purchase only need be done during "busy periods". In caps we get told that "vehicles must be parked in accordance with the current parking order" and that parking order is located where exactly? Is it that other notice? Is it the rules viewable at the council offices?

Okay two from Sainsbury's next a specific one detailing disabled and family spaces. Nice and simple - you can only park in the appropriately marked bays if you are a Blue Badge holder or if you're accompanied by 1 or more children under 12. Note unlike the council car-park you have to be the Blue Badge holder no picking up or dropping off. 50% of fines penalties monies collected will go to charity, note my strikeouts these aren't fines or penalties as they have no legal bearing.

Small print time

Town & City Parking have been appointed to enforce the conditions of parking on this private land. In the event that the conditions of parking are breached Town & City Parking may obtain the name and address of the registered keeper from the DVLA. Town & City Parking is a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) and strictly adheres to the BPA'S [sic] code of practice for parking enforcement on private land and unregulated car parks. Further details of the BPA's Code of Conduct and Code of Practice can be viewed at www.britishparking.co.uk

Meh, just note they can get details out of the DVLA.

Okay main parking notice. Okay for the use of "Sainsbury's Customers Only" fair enough, but what if I buy something from Sainsbury's then nip into town, am I still a Sainsbury's customer or is it Sainsbury's Only Customers? 2 hours maximum stay nice and big. Okay the park is patrolled and if you don't comply with the following you can get a penalty ticket of £50; again note penalty ticket not penalty and not fine. Okay let's look at those actions a little more closely:

You can't stay for over 2 hours, okay fair enough. You can only use Sainsbury's, damn that stops my trip into town. You can't return within 2 hours, no seriously read that again "No return within 2 hrs" now you and I know that's to stop someone using the car-park for 1 hour 55 minutes, driving off it and coming back for another 1 hour 55 minute stay; but by the phrasing if you finished your shopping then realised you'd forgotten something you could be ticketed for returning unless you'd waited 2 hours.

"Park only within marked bays", fair enough. "Disabled badge holders only in disabled bays", ah a little ambiguous here does that mean disabled badge holders aren't allowed to park in bays that aren't designated for disabled use? Again of course we know they mean that only disabled badge holders can park in disabled bays, but remember this is a contract you're accepting so would you accept any form of ambiguity like this if you were buying a house, a car?

"Parent & Child parking only within marked bays", as before ambiguous after all they've already said everyone is only allowed to park within marked bays so as written this is simply stating the same thing. Again we know that they mean that only parents and children can park in bays marked as Parent and Child, but they don't say that except on the other notice.

Sadly I can't even read the small print here except for the Important something Notice - nice small print. Oh and just to confuse matters it states that this is managed by Euro Car Parks Ltd. So have Sainsbury's hired ECP Ltd who have hired TCP, or are they each monitoring half of the car-park?

Onto Crossley Retail Park and compare this notice to the others - that's a lot of dense text there.

We start with an incongruous welcome followed by big bold all capped "2 hours maximum stay" along with a "No Return Within 2 Hours" yeah I've dealt with that ambiguity for Sainsbury's. All caps "No overnight parking" okay fair enough. Then, like Sainsbury's, we get an all capped "failure to comply with the following" they're talking about Parking Charge Notices of £100 dropped to £40 if you succumb early. Moreover you're threatened with recovery charges and court enforcement costs if you don't cough up. Ah yes "Welcome" indeed.

Now remember for the Sainsbury's rules I went through them in a 'if you do this then you get a ticket' type of way? I'm going to try and do the same here - heh.

So first off a big chuck of text all capped yeesh I'll spare you

Normal tariffs apply - please pay at machine(s) Please note that marked disabled bays are for valid disabled badge holders only. A valid disabled badge must be displayed in the front windscreen of the vehicle with all details clearly visible.

Where to start? Okay remember if you don't comply you get a ticket - so if you don't pay at the machine(s) you'll get ticketed - this is a free car-park there are no machines so technically everyone is breaching this rule. Next we're told that specifically marked bays are for disabled badge holders only - fair enough except note from the first line this rule is addressed to everyone so the next line in effect states that everyone has to display a valid badge or get a ticket. Follow that? Yes we know they're only talking about disabled bay parking, but they don't say that. I could also make a deal about which details they want displayed, remember the council car-park just wanted the badge and time-clock displayed.

Okay next "No Lorries or HGV'S." misused apostrophe, but I'm no saint so I'll let it go; I could say that as this is a "failure to comply" you have a double negative there, but I'll be generous and say that failure to comply with the rule stating no Lorries or HGVs is a ticket-able offence

"No Buses/Coaches or Caravans" as before.

Another big block of text:

When parking bays are present park correctly within an authorised marked bay. If marked parking bays are not present, do not park so as to obstruct other vehicles, entrances/exits, pedestrian walkways, doors, emergency exits or emergency vehicle access.

This is a similar ambiguity as penalty 91 for the council car-park - which bays are authorised and which aren't. If a bay isn't marked can I assume I'm authorised to park there? As before if there's nothing to say otherwise I'll bet the law would be on your side. And as with penalty 86 we're told to park "correctly" within such bays - define correctly; if I'm on the line is that wrong, or just if I'm outside it? How far back can I protrude, if at all?

"Lock your vehicle securely. Help reduce crime." Say what? Once again this is "Failure to comply" so failure to lock your vehicle securely (define securely) could get you a ticket as could failing to help reduce crime. No seriously that's exactly what this bit means if you read it as stated.

Gods another chunk of text:

Vehicles and their contents are left entirely at the risk of the owner/driver and no liability can or will be accepted by the land owner, nor Excel Parking Services Ltd, its servants or agents for any loss, damage distress or injury incurred howsoever caused to vehicles or persons other than that attributed to wilful misconduct by any or all of the aforementioned parties.

Seems fair enough at first glance except again this is a failure to comply so if you do try to take the land owner etc. to court over some loss they can give you a ticket because you're not accepting responsibility and that's a failure to comply. Also note the "wilful misconduct" section so if the land owner decides to drive a tank over all the cars that's not covered, but if they accidentally rear-end your car that's all your responsibility; that's what you're agreeing to by parking here.

Another bloody chunk o'text:

The car park is monitored by parking wardens. Parking enforcement in operation. Parking Charge Notice £100.00 discounted to £40.00 if payment is received within 7 days of the notice issue date. Additional costs will be incurred through late payment including any costs incurred through debt recovery and/or court enforcement.

Sigh once again a "failure to comply" so failure to um ensure that a warden is around or that enforcement is in operation can get you ticketed? Also note this is simply a repeat of what they've already told you as part of the failure to comply; so failure to comply with getting a ticket could get you a ticket? Also worth pointing out that additional costs "will" be incurred rather than "might".

Finally "For evidential purposes photographs may be taken of vehicles contravening the car parks terms and conditions" that's the terms and conditions attributed to the car park and thus the car park's terms and conditions - apostrophe people. Once again though this is in the "failure to comply section" so um preventing photographs of your vehicle being taken can result in a ticket?

Okay out of that section we finally get "Entry to or use of this car park is subject to the current terms and conditions of Excel Parking Services Ltd. Motorists utilising this car park hereby accept in full the terms and conditions." Which would be great if they made sense as written, which they don't.

So on the whole the council car-park rules aren't too shabby and the Sainsbury's car-park rules are at least easy to read and simple, but the Excel ones - yeesh I'm betting a competent lawyer could rip it to shreds for how they've presented it.

[Additional - missed this. Remember that the Sainsbury's car-park notice specifically stated that it was for Sainsbury's only customers? Well guess what the Crossely Retail Park doesn't do? That's right Kidderminster now has a free-car-park. Just park there, then head into town. Provided you're not longer than two hours nothing they can do]

Arrest that scarecrow

A story from the Daily Express (sorry) about how a scarecrow was 'arrested'. It caught my eye for several reasons, check the story and see if you can guess why.

I'll retell the story in chronological order. A town is having a scarecrow festival and in order to promote it the organiser received permission to put up a scarecrow dressed in a police uniform by the roadside. A passing policewomen from another area sees it and takes it away back to the station. The organiser reports is stolen and three hours later the police admit they were the ones who took it and return it saying that as a 'speed gun' had been added it was "inappropriate". Okay everyone got that.

Point 1: By what right did the officer remove the scarecrow in the first place? It wasn't causing an obstruction and couldn't be deemed offensive. The best I can think of is littering, but I think that would be difficult to stick; perhaps 'impersonating a police officer'?

Point 2: The officer wasn't even in her jurisdiction. Now sure if an officer saw a criminal offence taking place I wouldn't expect them to shrug and say "Not my area", but what offence took place here? At the most all she should have done was contact the local constabulary and told them what was there.

Point 3: Apparently it must have taken her three hours to get the scarecrow to the station, because that's how long it took for anyone to call the organiser back after she reported it stolen. Now call me odd but I'd have thought that the news that a scarecrow had been brought in would make it round the station rather quickly.

Point 4: This is the one that makes by blood boil. Instead of just holding up their hands and saying "Oops our bad" the police try to justify their actions. Oh of course they do because as we know the police never ever make a mistake. How pathetic to give permission for a police scarecrow then claim that as it had a 'speed gun' it was inappropriate. Just feel the sanctimony oozing out of this quote

"Speed radars are used to ­prevent casualties on our roads and address the irresponsible actions of motorists. They should not be recreated by the roadside in jest."

Yep that's right a scarecrow with a pretend speed gun was presenting an "inappropriate message to passing motorists" and as such was removed for um... being inappropriate? Dear gods, dear little gods, if I were Devil's Kitchen I'd be spitting obscenities at the sheer arse-covering twaddle going on here. Oh and of course the newspaper doesn't bother asking exactly what crime had been committed that warranted such action just taking it as read that the police can do whatever they bloody well feel like.

Banning bottled water

It seems the residents of Bundanoon have banned retailers from stocking bottled water, well I say residents as according the AP out of a population of 2500 only 356 turned out to vote. For stat fans that's 14.24% of the population.

Sorry are you insane? Here's the deal - if your shops are stocking bottled water its because they're selling it and making money from it. There aren't any shady bottled water reps going around and slipping it onto shelves without the shopkeepers noticing, they're buying it.

So if you want them to stop selling bottled water STOP BUYING IT.

Do they seriously think that anyone who wants the stuff will suddenly turn to tap because they can't buy it locally? Nope they'll just drive to somewhere else (incidentally making a mockery of the eco-friendly cause of banning it) and get it there... as well as any other shopping that occurs to them.

Yes okay some might switch because they can't be bothered to travel, but all that means is that 14% of the population have caused inconvenience to possibly 86% of the rest. Neat let's see how long it lasts.

Gilgal Roadworks

Driving through this morning I found two signs on the side of Vale Road telling me that the right-hand lane was closed in Gilgal. From the guy setting up the last of the cones I'm guessing it had only just been put down and from the lines on the road I'm also guessing we're going to get some holes. Oh goody yet more patchworking that'll fall apart after a couple of months.

Now as I've already suggested anyone who decides to set up roadworks during the morning rush-hour should be forced to wear an "I'm with stupid" T-shirt with an arrow pointing upwards at themselves.

So with a lane closure and a 10mph speed limit on this, a main road in Stourport, what difference did it make to the traffic - bugger all. That's how Gilgal is treated anyway - the right-hand lane is barely used and you rarely exceed 10mph anyway.

What was interesting to me was the portable Give Way sign that had been positioned at the start of the coning on the right-hand side - who is supposed to give way to whom?

Severn Trent Water

About as much use as British Gas and British Energy, though to be fair part of the mess is not of their making.

Last year a certain subcontracting company I'll refer to as BB replaced all the water meters on the estate where I work; sadly it seems as they ripped out the old ones no-one thought to record their numbers and the new numbers of the ones replacing them.

So as landlords of some empty properties we're responsible for paying the water bills, we receive a bill for our property and one near-by which was quite a bit more than usual, but it's a big unit and you have drainage charges so...

It turned out that big bill wasn't ours it was someone else's so they owe us around £300, they then send through a bill for the correct property which they've backdated from an estimate to a meter read. Which would be fine if they could find the meter. Yep just read that again - they've provided a bill based on a meter read from a meter they can't locate.

Unsurprisingly enough I queried it and fun has ensued in trying to find it. In the meantime we've had a bill for around £50, however they owe us ~£300 and we're still getting bills for the hidden-meter property.

Last straw they've sent a Notice of Court Action for the £50 and a Disconnection Notice for the other property. As they can't find the meter I'd love to see them carry it out.

Once again phoning them up and it will be sorted just as it has been each time I've contacted them.

[Update - they've cancelled the two invoices. Something they could have done way back when]

Thermal picture of Worcestershire

Via the Shuttle I find that the heat-loss map of Worcestershire is up and running here.

First off applause for featuring a map that is navigable with a mouse drag. Yep unlike every other map that seems to get used by the either council instead of relentlessly having to click on arrows or pick a zoom tool you can drag the map around and scroll in and out. Huzzah now apply this to the roadworks and planning application pages and I'll shout your praises to the high heavens.

Likewise applause for doing it during the winter. Yeah it seems obvious, but I wouldn't have been overly surprised.

Okay it seems my house is "Average Good" err say what? The scale is as follows:

Good
Average Good
Average
Average Poor
Poor
Unclassified

Which reminds me of the alignments in most role-playing games. So if I live in an area with high heat loss and I'm slightly better would that put me in "Average Good" territory if I lived in an area with low heat loss would I be "Average Poor" for the same reading? Has this data been normalised taking the highest and lowest readings and quintiles created? Give us figures in degrees Celsius or Fahrenheit and we can judge it better.

Anyway interesting to play spot the hotspot in the town centres. I'll have to print it out and confirm their identities next time I'm in that area.

[Update - a link at the bottom of the page takes you to more information and I quote "relative to the rest of the area surveyed" yeah I bet that gets forgotten when the dictates arrive from Westminster about insulation.]

Letter to the Shuttle

Well my letter's been published, but they've stuck my name on it. Now previously I sent it as FlipC and they asked for a name and location and done it as Name Supplied, Stourport. So this time I pre-empted their request by adding it to the bottom and they've printed my name... yeesh. So I've asked them to clarify their procedures for my future reference.

[Update - Wow that was a quick reply. They need them for legal reasons, yep guessed that, but otherwise I have to request that Name Supplied is used; despite me not doing that before]

Computer fun

I get a call last night from a friend who's having computer problems. He inherited a computer and printer from my aunt and the printer's gone "wonky" so on the spur of the moment he went out to buy another in this case an Epson all-in-one. Having been relatively well-trained one of the first things he tells me is that the operating system he's using is Windows 98.

"Ah", I say.
"So I put the disc in and it..."
"Tells you that it's the wrong operating system"
"Yeah"
"Ah"

I've just switched on my PS3 so I head over to the Epson site to see what they say, head through support, tap in the model number and find I can go no further because they've neglected to add a "Go" button. Pulling out the laptop and repeating the exercise I discover that's because they're trying to be clever and matching up your text as you type to offer the right model in a floating box, which the PS3 browser apparently doesn't support.

No drivers for 98, but a Google search comes up with a step by step instruction from Epson to install manually. That fails at the first hurdle as the CD doesn't come with the folders suggested and a 'just find it' also fails.

Now I know that for HP you used to be able to install the 550 printer drivers and they'd work with pretty much any HP Printer, but I don't know if there are any generic Epson drivers around. He's got a separate scanner that works so he doesn't need to use that, and like my printer a lot can be done from the printer itself; so all he needs is the ability to print.

Now there is the Epson EasyPrint module but read it carefully. Despite saying in the blurb it supports Win98 when it gets to specifics that gets removed.

Trouble is he doesn't have an internet connection so I'd have to download it for him and courier it across; not really a problem just annoying if the first thing it bleats to me is about not supporting that operating system.

So anyone know?

Roadwork yawn

As someone pointed out to me Saturday and I've just confirmed the pot-hole in York Street that has been blocked off has gained a metal sheet over the top of it. This is one of those temporary contoured sheets used to cover up holes and allow either pedestrians or vehicles to travel over it. Except of course you can't because it has orange barricades around it so... no I'm stumped. Of course it matters not to anyone as we had two cars parked on the right before it and one open back lorry parked after it. Good to see those traffic wardens are being kept busy. Just as they were this morning with the double-parked Superdrug delivery van with the driver peering in at the door to see if anyone was in.

To add to the fun the left-hand lane of Vale Road is cordoned off. As it stands someone's doing work at the top next to the splitter triangle. Judging by the crane and the metal tubes it looks like lampposts are going up, might be along the entire stretch there. Interesting to note that such an enterprise apparently requires two open-back lorries carrying signs and cones, another carrying the trunks, a crane, and an eOn van obstructing the pavements on the splitter triangle. Oh but applause due for the signs on both approaches being not only on the correct side as you drive, but also giving accurate information as to which lane is being blocked; a sad thing being that you can't seem to count on either of those things just being done nowadays.

Bratus Major's Birthday

To celebrate his ascension to teenager-hood we all went out for a meal at Cadmore Lodge on Sunday with another group, then just us back to their place.

The starters were fine Major and Minor playing safe with melon and ham, though Major dislikes ham for no real reason and left his. I scooped it up with Minor's fork and gave it to him; oh yes sorry they were sat either side of me as they always insist on doing. I had goats cheese and tomato bruschetta, otherwise known as a posh pizza ;-) The cheese was light and the tomatoes full of flavour that complimented it well. A little too much cress on the side for my personal taste, but it all went so not off by much.

Timing was off on delivery - all the lambs came out at which point we all sat there looking at it until the vegetables arrived, fortunately the plates were good and hot so everything stayed warm.

I had lamb, Major had pork, Minor had beef. Minor cleared his plate though it was painful to watch him hold down the meat with the knife and tear chunks off with his fork. I did suggest he switch, but he just seems to lack the dexterity either way. Major left most of his meat and his mother, who'd had the same, did say afterwards it wasn't that good. My lamb shank was nice and the crisped skin was full of flavour; sadly as I got further inwards the taste started to turn bland and I cast around for some mint sauce.

There was some at the start, just not near me, but as there had been a lot of us having lamb and there wasn't much to begin with and now it had all gone. Someone had asked for some more and it wended its way down to me; it did help. I will say the lamb stripped off the bone with ease so I'll put the slight lack of taste down to the lamb rather than the cooking; that's just what you get sometimes.

The roast potatoes were nicely crisp without being floury, the boiled were okay with some mint added to them. The cauliflower was apparently crisp (I'm not a fan) but not as crisp as the beans that were al dente to say the least and almost appeared raw. The cabbage was perfection - firm enough to hold, soft enough to bite and still retaining enough flavour to have taste without being overpowering. The carrots were the let-down personally.

I noticed as soon as I had one, but no-one said anything so I thought it was just the one; until I had another. "These carrots taste... unusual.", I essayed. "Sort of... I don't know, creamy?" Major agreed, my mother agreed, my father and the Brats parents couldn't say until Bratus Pater considered that they'd been cooked in butter. Yes that was it exactly. Now hey add some in no problem, but these tasted like they'd been coated in the stuff. On a blind taste test I doubt you could tell they were carrots.

Puddings and in a surprise twist neither of the Bratii went with the ice-cream. Minor had a raspberry meringue and Major strawberries and cream, I had a white chocolate truffle cake. When the meringue arrived I warned Minor about attacking it lest it explode into chunks and then had to warn him again as he repeatedly struck it with the spoon. Major's strawberries were big and came in a knickerbocker glory type glass. Minor ate the majority of his, Major left some; unusual.

My white chocolate truffle cake was sadly disappointing, normally the sweetness of the chocolate would be offset by a slightly tart sauce. In this case some fool had dumped a metric ton of dessicated coconut over the top of the cake, so the sweetness vanished under the creaminess of the coconut rendering the smear of sauce too tart. If there was any sweetness to the chocolate at all I couldn't taste it.

Finally the coffee was... well the coffee you always get out - slightly too strong in a cup I can barely fit a finger through and never quite hot enough.

We then had a quick raffle to raise some money for Macmillan Nurses; we always bring something to these things, but it's almost embarrassing as we rarely walk away without something. So much so that we normally choose to recluse ourselves after two wins. In this case we walked away with three prizes, but that's my father's fault.

My mother won and shooed my father up to get something; he came back with a bottle of white to "I thought you'd have picked up the chocolates"; they drink only slightly more than me so this action was plainly weird. Then I won and got a murmured "chocolates" from my father as I went past. Dutiful son that I am I picked them up and dropped them before my surprised mother. Then she won again and obviously not trusting my father went up herself and dropped a pack of assorted biscuits, that I'd have picked, in front of me. All my father's fault see :-)

I'd bought two strips of tickets one of each colour, my parents had done the same and the Bratii Famili had bought six, two for the parents and two each for the Bratii. They won nothing, which seems to be the norm for them.

Ready to go and Bratus Pater had wondered off to talk shop, we couldn't leave before them for obvious reasons; so we stayed put, and waited... until I (the driver) got fed-up and walked over to him and told him we were going to break into his house if that was okay with him. My father said we could take Bratus Mater and he could take the kids on his own; that spurred him to action.

The rest of the afternoon was spent with us playing on Major's new XBox360 a quick burst of Sega Superstar Tennis which was bloody awful - yellow ball on a green background on a 15" TV with cutscene interruptions as the players activated their special moves; and Major obviously used to an AI partner playing the entire court-end. We ditched that after he got his present from me Sega Ultimate Megadrive Collection and we headed for the classic "Streets of Rage 3". Highly amusing to play the these 'ancient' 16-bit games on one of the latest consoles, but damn fun. We unlocked Roo and Major had some serious fun playing him

Finished up with Lego Indiana Jones solely because he couldn't seem to save the game to the memory card. We solved that problem, but highlighted a small bug I'd forgotten about that also shows up on the PS3 version. If the second player decides to leave and turns off their controller, the game pauses and won't allow player one to continue. See player two is supposed to access the menu and "Drop out" then turn off the controller. Just leave and the game goes into a sulk until player two comes back.

Sad to say I slightly neglected Minor; with only two controllers and a tiny screen it's difficult for three. Also he'd decided to play 'swing the plastic thing around on a string' in that confined space while we were concentrating on the tennis and smacked me in the thoat which resulted in some sharp words and him sulking in his room with the PS2. We were alright later, just neither of them seem to have a spatial awareness beyond their own bodies and that needs addressing (which I constantly try to do).

We also had fun with one of their cats, the exact number of which they own eludes me, who shies off with human contact except for Bratus Pater. Watching as Bratus Mater yelled at the Bratii for yelling and chasing it that holds no surprises for me. Bratus Pater found her and as he held her and the Bratii had scampered back clutching one of the other cats I slowly edged up and let her sniff and lick my hand. She bolted soon after entering the house as the Bratii shrieked and tried to force behind the coach where she "likes to go". They vanished upstairs and I followed both cats outside and just stood at a distance; they eyed me, I eyed them. Nothing much happened until I leant a little more on a pipe which let out an awful creak and the shy cat scampered off; setting off the other one who came to a halt shortly after and then eyed me again in embarrassment before I headed back in.

Animals and children; I don't know why I seem to get on with them both so well.

School holidays

A special report from GMTV on how many families were taking their children on holiday during term time because it was cheaper than during the summer break. A rep came on and impressed me by making no bones about the matter "It's supply and demand" yep same number of slots more people wanting them so the price goes up; just look at the Jackson memorial tickets on eBay.

What the report didn't seem to want to delve into was exactly why schools have such a long break and why all at the same time.

Interestingly I can't seem to find an origin on the 'net for this, the official reason is that it's a time for the kids to relax and be kids, to do maintenance on the schools and give the teachers some time to extend their training etc. which doesn't explain why it's done at the same time beyond state schools being centrally managed nor why it has such a long history.

An explanation I have been told, and been unable to verify, was that the origin was at the time when the government started to insist on compulsory education; the UK was still a mix of industrial and agricultural and what would happen during this time was what happened at the same time when parents had to pay for an education - the kids went home to help their families on the farm. The summer holidays are just a formalisation of this arrangement.

The summer holidays are an anachronism. Claiming that it's for teachers to catch up on training is countered by the teacher-training days that occur during term time; that the schools need maintenance by the number of classes I took in portable cabins; and that kids need the time off by the amount of homework piled on to them presumably in an attempt to stop them forgetting everything they've just learnt.

We have summer holidays because... we have summer holidays; as it was so shall it always be, amen.

Courtesy in driving

Well I've talked about good old Meth a couple of entries back, and yet I'm still surprised by the sheer discourtesy on the roads at times.

Heading to the bridge into town we're all stopped by the crossing next to Harold Davies Drive. There is a car (two to be precise) waiting here to turn right. Oncoming traffic has obviously been stopped by the lights so the only thing stopping him getting out is the traffic in my lane heading towards the lights.

The car in front slows down and... joins the queue directly opposite this car. I hold back, the lights change, and the other lane's traffic roar down leaving no chance for him to get out reluctantly I join my now moving queue. Now if I were in that position, me I'd have thought "pfft what's the hassle" and seeing that I would be the only thing stopping him getting out would slow down and stop early so as to let him exit before the lights changed and he was stuffed into waiting for a clear patch in both lanes.

Later this same car approached Parkes Passage in High Street and slowing down indicated to turn right. At which point he bumped up past the zig-zag lines of the crossing onto the pavement and parked across the double yellow and single line kerb markings. Nothing to do I'm sure with the cash-point machine next to him. Yeah excuse me I now have to get around you using the other lane.

I've mentioned many a time those who park on the exit corners of York Street into High Street and Bridge Street and yes company that I will not name I do mean you. I've also mentioned all those who park opposite or at a slant to the bus stops in York Street and High Street.

However we have a winner today as in a stroke of amazement they're working on the pot-hole in York Street. Well I say working a set of orange barricades have gone round it; no actually working taking place when I went through. Now for picking up passenger reasons I loop this section of the town; so I came through and stayed on the right and found surprisingly that so was everyone else; orange barricade came up I went yippee and hooked round and then back through the loop.

This time around though someone had thought it the best thing in the world to park diagonally opposite the orangeness. So everyone had to pull out left before sharply turning right then left again to get back in the lane they wanted - a bus or larger vehicle wouldn't have had a hope in hell.

I mention the looping because this wasn't the case of someone parking there and then having workmen turn up and drop orangeness into the road they were parking there despite clearly seeing what lay ahead of them.

I truly can't grasp the teeny-tiny mentality that would allow anyone to behave like this.

£150 fine for removal of vehicle

From the Shuttle we get another story about the police charging the victims of vehicular crime for cost of removing their vehicles. The first in April when the person in question was told that they were removing her car for forensic analysis. And now another this month with a £150 charge for removal of a moped.

In both cases the spokesperson stated

"Under the provisions of the Road Traffic Act, such removals were subject to a minimum statutory fee of £150, which was the responsibility of the vehicle’s registered keeper and their insurers."

word for word in both cases. Now I neglectfully let it go in the first case, but with a repeat I asked the question that everyone should ask when dealing with the police - "Which Act and what Section of that Act?"

Now the former had been answered, The Road Traffic Act, the second has been unanswered twice; so I had a look. Guess what there's nothing there; there is a provision to allow the police to "seize vehicles driven without licence or insurance" in 165A and to charge under 165B, but nothing about "vehicles that had been stolen and abandoned [and are] removed from the roadside to prevent further theft or damage.".

So I cast my net wider and well yes there is such a provision it's in the Road Safety Act Schedule 4 which allows the police to immobilise or remove vehicles and even provides a handy dandy chart of charges; except there's a problem this only applies to certain types of use none of which is 'leaving your vehicle somewhere'.

More net casting I stumble across the Wiltshire police page regarding Vehicle Recovery the key point is part 2 "Stolen Vehicle"

The applicable legislation is section 99 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Huzzah let us away. Bingo section 99 and onwards. Any [...] or [sic]'s are mine own additions anything else in such brackets are legal amendments to the original.

99.Removal of vehicles illegally, obstructively or dangerously parked, or abandoned or broken down.
— (1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the removal of vehicles which have been permitted to remain at rest—
[...](c) on a road, or on any land in the open air, in such a position or in such condition or in such circumstances as to appear, to an authority empowered by the regulations to remove such vehicles, to have been abandoned without lawful authority,

So there we go 99.1(c) allows the removal of vehicles.

100. Interim disposal of vehicles removed under s. 99.
[...]
(4) While a vehicle is in the custody of an authority in pursuance of this section or of regulations under section 99 of this Act, other than a vehicle which in the opinion of that authority is in such a condition that it ought to be destroyed, it shall be the duty of that authority to take such steps as are reasonably necessary for the safe custody of the vehicle.

They have to look after it.

101. Ultimate disposal of vehicles abandoned and removeable [sic] under this Act.
— (1) Subject to subsections (3) to [F14 (5A)] below, a competent authority may, in such manner as they think fit, dispose of a vehicle which appears to them to be abandoned and which has been, or could at any time be, removed in pursuance of—
[..]
(3) The time at which a competent authority may dispose of a vehicle under subsection (1) above is as follows, that is to say—
[...]
(c) in any other case, any time after such steps as may be prescribed have been taken by a competent authority (or partly by one competent authority and partly by the other) to find a person appearing to the authority taking such steps to be the owner of the vehicle and either—
(i) they have failed to find such a person, or
(ii) he has failed to comply with a notice served on him in the prescribed manner by a competent authority requiring him to remove the vehicle from their custody within the prescribed period.
but, in a case where it appears to the authority proposing to dispose of the vehicle that a licence is in force in respect of the vehicle, not a time earlier than the expiry of the licence.

They can dispose of the vehicle but not without reasonable attempts to contact the owner and not before the licence expires.

[101] (4) If, before a vehicle [F15 found outside Greater London] is disposed of by an authority in pursuance of subsections (1) to (3) above, the vehicle is claimed by a person who satisfies the authority that he is its owner and pays such sums in respect of its removal and storage as may be prescribed to the authority entitled to those sums, the authority shall permit him to remove the vehicle from their custody within such period as may be prescribed.

and

102. Charges for removal, storage and disposal of vehicles.
— (1) The provisions of this section shall have effect where a vehicle—
[...](b) is removed from a road, or from land in the open air, in pursuance of regulations under section 99 of this Act.
(2) In any such case—
(a) the appropriate authority shall be entitled to recover from any person responsible such charges as may be prescribed in respect of the removal of the vehicle;
(b) the chief officer of a police force or a local authority [F36 other than a London authority] in whose custody any such vehicle is during any period shall be entitled to recover from any person responsible charges ascertained by reference to a prescribed scale in respect of that period; F37 . . .
(c)
the chief officer of a police force or a local authority [F36 other than a London authority] who dispose of any such vehicle in pursuance of section 101 of this Act shall be entitled to recover from any person responsible charges determined in the prescribed manner in respect of its disposal. [ F38 and
[...]
(4) Without prejudice to subsection (3) above, where by virtue of paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (2) above any sum is recoverable in respect of a vehicle by the chief officer of a police force or a local authority in whose custody the vehicle is, the chief officer or local authority shall be entitled to retain custody of it until that sum has been paid.

Okay seems simple enough except I still can't find this minimum statutory fee of £150 mentioned. More digging and I find a Home Office PDFed consultation paper which mentions on page 11 "Removal and Disposal of Vehicles (Prescribed Sums and Charges etc) Regulations 1989". Charrrrrge! And there it is in Table 1 Column 2 under section 4. With table 2 for storage.

So that throwaway quote about being able to charge under "the Road Traffic Act" is um a little incorrect let us say. Specifically the quote should have read 'under section 99 of the Road Traffic Regulations Act we can remove the vehicle and charge a fee as detailed under the Removal and Disposal of Vehicles (Prescribed Sums and Charges etc) Regulations" Tell me you're doing it because the Road Traffic Act says you can and I will as I have done in the comments ask you to quote the relevant section... and if they're not reading this entry I wish them good luck with that.

[Update - 10/7: It suddenly occurred to me that there was an exemption for vehicles removed for forensic examination such that charges would be met by the police. I'm right except there's an exception to the exemption and that is if the car has been stolen or abandoned. So you can turn up to pick up your stolen vehicle, be told they want to take it for examination and that get landed with a bill for them doing so - neat]

Rain?

Tuesday:
"Thunderstorms today"
"uh-huh"
Nothing

Wednesday:
"They're coming in today"
"Uh-huh"
Nothing

Thursday:
"Lot's of rain for this afternoon"
"Uh-huh"
later:
"Supposed to be this evening"
"Uh-huh"

and now I see that the east wind pushing the rain in has turned into a west wind.

In case you hadn't guessed the "Uh-huh"'s were by me, because I knew nothing of the sort was going to happen; how? Because it doesn't feel like anyone's sitting on top of my head.

My neck's cricky and that means a pressure change but nothing of 'Ye god wrath of the skies' type fury. In fact my neck's been slightly more cricky this morning which means that a pressure change is moving towards us faster, but that's it. Not even a 'balancing a book on my head' type of pressure or a 'gotta close my eyes' type of tiredness - nothing, nowt, zip.

Now as I said something's getting faster and at times I've only had an hour or two's notice before the heavens open up; but at the moment I'm getting nothing overt.

Heh I saw the local forecast with the rain pattern across it for yesterday, a sheet of blue with an open patch in it; guess where the patch covered? It's the geography see 'weather' either gets pushed over the top or settles down on us for the long-term which is why these odd patches in the data seem to cover us.

[Update - Oh typical I publish this go to look at the comments at the Shuttle and I'm yawning and my eyes are getting heavier. Here come the drums, here come the drums.]
[Nope back to normal still cricky, it just went dark for a bit and still is slightly]
[And then it went away and then it came back and then it went away again and I'm just very cricky with a touch of tiredness]

Methuselahian drivers

It's a Friday that means dropping someone off in town as I pass through. Of course there was a bus parked at the High Street stop; not that I stop there that would be against the dictates of the Highway code me not being a taxi and all; but it means that I can't stay in the left-hand lane because the bus is there. Oh sure there's a indent for the bus to park, but as mentioned it was cleverly designed and built not to accommodate buses.

Anyway as usual I park jest next to the Wheatsheaf. Cars can still get out of that junction and disabled drivers pull into the bays before me, yes I'm blocking the left-hand lane, but the number of people who are normally using it at this point can be counted on the fingers of one head; besides there's a bus in the way.

So 10 seconds later I'm trying to pull out back into the right-hand lane and a queue is backing up from the Vale Road junction; normally this is good because by the time it reaches me the traffic about to join think "What the hell" and let me out to sit at its end; not today. I watch the queue stop just past me then watch two cars pull up opposite me. Oh look there's a wonking great gap behind them gee how useful I could reverse down High Street to pull in there yeesh.

Anyway the queue moves forward and the reason for the gap becomes obvious - it's a Methuselah. Now the gap is just short enough and he's driving just fast enough for not to be able to pull out with any degree of certainty that I wouldn't cause him to alter his speed. However he's also travelling slowly enough that the gap behind him is narrowing as all the cars catch up.

So I hone up my reflexes and get ready to slip out behind him as he passes me, at which point he slows down thank you, thank you very much. I still manage to get out mainly I think because the white van behind him has worked out he's following someone who thinks 15mph is 'pushing it' and wants nothing to do with him.

So I'm stuck behind the cloth capped guy in the plaid short-sleeved shirt whose side mirror is displaying an elbow; what he can see behind him using it is anyone's guess - my roof I'm betting.

So we reach the bend and someone's trying to get out of Lickhill Road and use the right-hand lane, which of course they can't do due to the left-hand lane waiting on Vale Road (in turn waiting on the infamous Gilgal). As this is a queue I normally let them out, which I do, or try to because Methuselah has a turning circle of a mile and his rear-end is sticking out into that lane. He finally shuffles forward 5 seconds after everyone else does and they manage to get out and I join the queue.

It's backed up along Vale Road and past the Mitton Street splitter which happens occasionally. We've four vehicles trying to join Vale Road from Mitton Street who despite not wanting to use that lane are, like us, blocked by it. Oh and yes once again they have right-of way over two of those lanes.

The traffic moves forward and the car before Meth has managed to slip in and the rest of the stuck queue move forward to get into the middle lane. At which point Meth sticks his nose out into the second lane and forces his way before that traffic into the queue and leaves his rear-end stuck out again blocking them all until everything moves forward again. Please note no-body knew he was going to do this indicators being for the weak. I sadly end up behind him again.

We finally reach Gilgal and praise be a gap is about to form in the constant stream of traffic from the lights. Meth slows down in order to slip in behind it, just as I would, makes the corner and then slows down again just as I'm following him. I get out, the car behind not being as fortunate despite that there would have been enough time for him. Oh and no Meth didn't indicate here either.

Down Gilgal and past the awkwardly parked van blocking half the left-hand lane screwing everyone up. Round the corner, over the bridge and up to the island. Where Meth slows down to about 5mph in order to see what's coming. This of course doesn't work because, as mentioned elsewhere, you can't see what's coming even if you stop. As Michael George sang you have to have faith when you venture out.

Meth pulls out and causes a car on the next exit to come to a stop, because he assumed that Meth was going straight on, a safe assumption given that once again Meth isn't indicating.

Oh gods I'm still behind him. Trundling at 20mph through the 30mph; we finally hit the 50mph where we reach the giddy heights of 30mph.

[Additional - Damn it I forgot to add what he was doing along this 50mph. He would slowly drift towards the middle line, before 'waking up' and shifting a little bit quicker back to the middle before slowly drifting back out again. Repeat for the entire stretch]

Compulsory re-examination of anyone over 70? Yes please. Start with the Toyota, registration J865 DWP.

More traffic

I did end up writing to the Shuttle about the half-hour trips to get through Stourport in a morning and my proposal to introduce a delay in the traffic-light stream entering Gilgal; it hasn't been published yet, but there is usually a delay if it will be at all.

So only 40 minutes this morning to do a run that would take 5 on a Sunday morning; as this seems to have been going on all week I'm guessing something is causing it. Nothing in the paper about 'road chaos' but then if it doesn't affect Kidderminster or Bewdley I wouldn't expect anything. Looking at the latest weekly traffic report I'm once again struck by how useless it is without a map to go with it.

Sure I know the roads around me, but as I've already mentioned elsewhere it's the knock-on effects that count and you're left either mentally working out where things are and how they link up or, as I did, calling up Google Maps and plotting things out for myself.

There's a lane closure on the Birmingham Road, except that should have finished at the start of the week and a Road Closure at Sychampton Lane which I can't see how that would cause a flow.

Word has it that the traffic flowing from Hartlebury of an evening has been heavy too; so it adds credence to my thought that Stourport is being used as a Kidderminster by-pass (more so than normal).

Well we'll see what it's like next week. If it's back to normal I'm sure everyone will just shrug their shoulders and forget about it; until it happens again.