I was crossing the 590 at tank square yesterday and got talking to Gavin from Appleseeds about this new road layout through the town. He pointed out how badly sighted a pedestrian is when crossing from town to the ellers. They've moved the crossing point to a position now where you can't get a clear view of the traffic. I know people should wait until they get the green man to cross but at quieter times people will cross in between cars, we've all done it, this will be a much more dangerous thing to do with the new crossing point.
I had a near miss there just the other day. I was in a queue of four cars waiting to exit the Ellers, by Myerscoughs. When there was a gap in the traffic we all were able to head into town around tank square. But we were stopped by the new lights going to Red and now we were blocking the Main road, which had got busy again. We're now blocking the 590. When the lights changed we all set off, but I had to brake sharply as a van came off the 590 and took the free inside lane just missing my wing. I can see this causing an accident sooner or later.
We watched as drivers coming on to the roundabout from the Roxy stopping as they entered the roundabout even though the new lights were on green. They were using the roundabout as a roundabout not as a through road. I suppose because these lights have for years been a pedestrian crossing, not actual traffic lights telling you that you have right of way.
We know how to use a roundabout we've been doing it forever, this new concept of a roundabout is going to cause more problems than it's suppose to solve.
It's been a real waste of money and looks horrible.
3.10.2010
3.09.2010
The Green house effect
Ford Park had a very tasty hexagonal green house donated just before Christmas last year. I've been putting in the panes of glass over the last couple of days but what a fiasco it turned out to be. Being hexagonal has perhaps made things a trifle difficult.
The roof was fairly straight forward but when it came to doing the walls things got silly. As I wasn't around for the dismantling I had no clue of how it went together. All I could see was that we had lots of square panes of glass, so it would be easy. I started off really well and within an hour I had completed this couple of frames, with a couple of half panes and two full ones.
This instilled a certain confidence that was soon to be brought into question as I tackled the next frame which required three panes.
I put in pane one, then pane two, then pane three. But pane three was at least a centimetre too long. I couldn't figure this, and found myself puzzling, stopping for a smoke, a cuppa tea, try again, another fag. This is very strange, why doesn't it fit. Is it maybe that the frame is twisted, but surely they wouldn't make a greenhouse with such precision.
That was on Friday, and on Monday I tried to figure it out again. I decided to try measuring each of the panes that were stacked in the store. Turned out that I had three different sizes.
61x61cm
61x60cm
61x57cm
A full frame measured 180cm, and although it seemed obvious that 3x 60 would work, what do I do with the others. Maybe they go under the opening windows.
In the end it urns out that one full frame was made up of one 57cm pane, one 61cm pane and lastly one 60cm pane. Who would have thought of that! 178cm
So eventually I had it sorted, although like all flat pack problems I had a few bits left over.
On the way to completion I've broken two panes and there were some broken panes that never made it here in the first place. So I'll have to pop down to the glazier and pick up the missing panes and hopefully tomorrow we'll have it sorted.
Of course had I have measured the panes before I started, then I might have avoided the greenhouse effect.
The roof was fairly straight forward but when it came to doing the walls things got silly. As I wasn't around for the dismantling I had no clue of how it went together. All I could see was that we had lots of square panes of glass, so it would be easy. I started off really well and within an hour I had completed this couple of frames, with a couple of half panes and two full ones.
This instilled a certain confidence that was soon to be brought into question as I tackled the next frame which required three panes.
I put in pane one, then pane two, then pane three. But pane three was at least a centimetre too long. I couldn't figure this, and found myself puzzling, stopping for a smoke, a cuppa tea, try again, another fag. This is very strange, why doesn't it fit. Is it maybe that the frame is twisted, but surely they wouldn't make a greenhouse with such precision.
That was on Friday, and on Monday I tried to figure it out again. I decided to try measuring each of the panes that were stacked in the store. Turned out that I had three different sizes.
61x61cm
61x60cm
61x57cm
A full frame measured 180cm, and although it seemed obvious that 3x 60 would work, what do I do with the others. Maybe they go under the opening windows.
In the end it urns out that one full frame was made up of one 57cm pane, one 61cm pane and lastly one 60cm pane. Who would have thought of that! 178cm
So eventually I had it sorted, although like all flat pack problems I had a few bits left over.
On the way to completion I've broken two panes and there were some broken panes that never made it here in the first place. So I'll have to pop down to the glazier and pick up the missing panes and hopefully tomorrow we'll have it sorted.
Of course had I have measured the panes before I started, then I might have avoided the greenhouse effect.
3.05.2010
A public apology
Back in October 2009, I commented here on this blog about a letter published in the Evening Mail, written by Mr Martin Stables.
In retrospect I can now see how some of my comments may have strayed a little beyond the bounds of common decency in public debate. I therefore wish to apologise to Mr Stables for any offence which I may have caused him.
The views expressed here in this blog are personal, and are in no way the views of Ulverston Town Council.
This vigorous defense of the refurbishment of the Sir John Barrow Monument should not have strayed into a personal attack, which was unjustified.
Once again I apologise to Mr Stables, the offending entry has now been deleted.
In retrospect I can now see how some of my comments may have strayed a little beyond the bounds of common decency in public debate. I therefore wish to apologise to Mr Stables for any offence which I may have caused him.
The views expressed here in this blog are personal, and are in no way the views of Ulverston Town Council.
This vigorous defense of the refurbishment of the Sir John Barrow Monument should not have strayed into a personal attack, which was unjustified.
Once again I apologise to Mr Stables, the offending entry has now been deleted.
3.03.2010
Talk toilets
Today I popped along to the talk toilet event at the Coro organised by SLDC. There was a scattering of local councillors, who had been invited to this preview session. It's all about closing down some of Ulverstons' public toilets, as well as others in the district.
I browsed the half dozen display boards which seemed to be saying we now need 21st century toilets, and that to bring all toilets into the modern age was going to be beyond the councils budget. Apparently it cost, on average £405 per week to keep a toilet open. I asked Lawrence Conway, the SLDC rep. how they came to a figure of £405 and he told me that it was an average cost, so why not just say about £400, but Lawrence insisted it was an average figure which came out to £405.
The thing that I found ludicrous was the questionnaire that we were asked to fill in. This ran to about 8 pages and it was seeking my opinion and comments on every public toilet in the SLDC area. Each Toilet was to be rated as used very often through various options to never have used it. How ridiculous, I did have an opinion on Ulverstons quota of public loos but quite honestly I didn't have an opinion on most of the others, although if caught short in Aldingham I may have been grateful that there is one there.
To my mind this was an overkill questionnaire, a vast waste of paper and trees. Why not do it on line, or just have a page devoted to our toilets. On top of this there were hundreds of nicely printed postcards telling me of the event that I was already at.
Of course this had all been organised by some consultancy firm who must have spent goodness knows how much producing all these bits of paper, maybe enough to keep our loos open for a year when rolled out across the county.
In the end it'll probably be recycled into loo paper.
But honestly, who is going to collate all of these questionnaires, all those little tick boxes, and comments, surely it's going to take ages, and then who will cross check, it's going to take a small army. But then I was introduced to Lawrences' side kick from the consultancy, an enthusiastic young man whose name I didn't catch. Seemingly he was going to be doing the collating.
In the end, after talking to Lawrence for a while it turns out that the reason for all of this bringing loos up to date is to comply with the disability laws. Otherwise the council could get sued for not providing facilities for all. And I have to say you can't argue with that, it's the way of the European Union, and the march of civilisation.
I don't think we'll get the answers we want from this public consultation, and lots of loos will be closed, in fact I'm sure that SLDC already have a plan and this is just a smoke screen. Or maybe I'm just an old cynic, in fact my very first band was called The Cynix, with an x, so maybe nothing changes.
I browsed the half dozen display boards which seemed to be saying we now need 21st century toilets, and that to bring all toilets into the modern age was going to be beyond the councils budget. Apparently it cost, on average £405 per week to keep a toilet open. I asked Lawrence Conway, the SLDC rep. how they came to a figure of £405 and he told me that it was an average cost, so why not just say about £400, but Lawrence insisted it was an average figure which came out to £405.
The thing that I found ludicrous was the questionnaire that we were asked to fill in. This ran to about 8 pages and it was seeking my opinion and comments on every public toilet in the SLDC area. Each Toilet was to be rated as used very often through various options to never have used it. How ridiculous, I did have an opinion on Ulverstons quota of public loos but quite honestly I didn't have an opinion on most of the others, although if caught short in Aldingham I may have been grateful that there is one there.
To my mind this was an overkill questionnaire, a vast waste of paper and trees. Why not do it on line, or just have a page devoted to our toilets. On top of this there were hundreds of nicely printed postcards telling me of the event that I was already at.
Of course this had all been organised by some consultancy firm who must have spent goodness knows how much producing all these bits of paper, maybe enough to keep our loos open for a year when rolled out across the county.
In the end it'll probably be recycled into loo paper.
But honestly, who is going to collate all of these questionnaires, all those little tick boxes, and comments, surely it's going to take ages, and then who will cross check, it's going to take a small army. But then I was introduced to Lawrences' side kick from the consultancy, an enthusiastic young man whose name I didn't catch. Seemingly he was going to be doing the collating.
In the end, after talking to Lawrence for a while it turns out that the reason for all of this bringing loos up to date is to comply with the disability laws. Otherwise the council could get sued for not providing facilities for all. And I have to say you can't argue with that, it's the way of the European Union, and the march of civilisation.
I don't think we'll get the answers we want from this public consultation, and lots of loos will be closed, in fact I'm sure that SLDC already have a plan and this is just a smoke screen. Or maybe I'm just an old cynic, in fact my very first band was called The Cynix, with an x, so maybe nothing changes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)