In article .com,
(Mizter T) wrote:

On 4 Feb, 16:35, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
In article ,

(Richard J.) wrote:
I drove along Westway (A40) on Thursday evening, and noticed
that all the lamp columns in the central reservation had been cut
down, leaving stumps about 3 metres high with the tops covered over

with plastic. This means that Westway is currently unlit apart from

the slip roads.

Does anyone know if they are just replacing the lamps, or if the
lack of lighting is permanent? Either way it's daft.

If they are replacing the lamp columns, why not replace a few
at a time rather than leaving the whole road unlit? If it's
permanent, presumably that would be to reduce light pollution for
nearby residents. But a 6-lane 50-mph ex-motorway is not the best
place for that sort of exercise.

Something similar appears to have happened in Camden. Nearly all
the columns were cut down like than in Tavistock Place recently. Nw a

few new, smaller, columns have been erected so it's not in total
darkness. Looks like some Health and Safety panic to me.

Two sides to that argument of course - perhaps the design of said
columns has been found to be structurally flawed after corrosion
(i.e. rust) has affected them, and one has fallen down somewhere. Plus
a
crash on an elevated roadway such as the Westway could be pretty
ugly. Health and Safety panic vs sensible precautions...

Anyway I think prefer the Westway like it is - you can see the
lights of London town as you 'fly' through west London rather than
merely drive under the glare of harsh sodium lights - somehow it
appeals to my romanitic side! There's so much ambient light that it's
far from pitch black anyway.

A fairer point on a road like Westway than on a local street like
Tavistock Place with much less alternative lighting and cyclists trying
to negotiate hard-to-see obstacles. Isn't it just typical of modern risk
assessment that other risks like that are completely ignored?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 4 Feb, 18:12, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
In article .com,





(Mizter T) wrote:
On 4 Feb, 16:35, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
In article ,

(Richard J.) wrote:
I drove along Westway (A40) on Thursday evening, and noticed
that all the lamp columns in the central reservation had been cut
down, leaving stumps about 3 metres high with the tops covered over
with plastic. This means that Westway is currently unlit apart from
the slip roads.

Does anyone know if they are just replacing the lamps, or if the
lack of lighting is permanent? Either way it's daft.

If they are replacing the lamp columns, why not replace a few
at a time rather than leaving the whole road unlit? If it's
permanent, presumably that would be to reduce light pollution for
nearby residents. But a 6-lane 50-mph ex-motorway is not the best
place for that sort of exercise.

Something similar appears to have happened in Camden. Nearly all
the columns were cut down like than in Tavistock Place recently. Nw a
few new, smaller, columns have been erected so it's not in total
darkness. Looks like some Health and Safety panic to me.

Two sides to that argument of course - perhaps the design of said
columns has been found to be structurally flawed after corrosion
(i.e. rust) has affected them, and one has fallen down somewhere. Plus
a
crash on an elevated roadway such as the Westway could be pretty
ugly. Health and Safety panic vs sensible precautions...

Anyway I think prefer the Westway like it is - you can see the
lights of London town as you 'fly' through west London rather than
merely drive under the glare of harsh sodium lights - somehow it
appeals to my romanitic side! There's so much ambient light that it's
far from pitch black anyway.

A fairer point on a road like Westway than on a local street like
Tavistock Place with much less alternative lighting and cyclists trying
to negotiate hard-to-see obstacles. Isn't it just typical of modern risk
assessment that other risks like that are completely ignored?


As a cyclist I'd have to agree with the broad thrust of your argument.
I'll make a detour next time I'm around there after dark and see for
myself - I'll be sure to wear my high vis though!

Just got me thinking, the fatalities and injuries on the roads during
the blackout must have been numerous, though obviously the risk-
assessment was a rather different calculation then! And of course
there's the pea-soupers...

In message . com,
Mizter T writes

Just got me thinking, the fatalities and injuries on the roads during
the blackout must have been numerous, though obviously the risk-
assessment was a rather different calculation then!

Very true, and the statistics were alarming: 9169 road deaths in 1941,
38% higher than the immediate pre-war figure and almost three times the
present day figure. And this despite a 20mph limit after dark, few
private cars on the roads, and petrol rationing that amounted to a limit
of 7 miles per day on average (in fact, petrol for private motoring was
effectively banned in 1942).

And of course there's the pea-soupers...

I can *just* remember the pea-soupers of the 1950s. I doubt if there
were many fatalities, as it was often impossible to proceed at more than
a slow walking speed.

In fact (just to keep this vaguely on-topic) I can remember that my
grandfather, who worked at Monument station, found it quicker to walk
the 12 miles to work on several occasions, rather than to attempt to use
his LT priv ticket. Those were the days ...
--
Paul Terry

On Feb 4, 7:45 pm, Paul Terry wrote:
In message . com,
Mizter T writes

Just got me thinking, the fatalities and injuries on the roads during
the blackout must have been numerous, though obviously the risk-
assessment was a rather different calculation then!

Very true, and the statistics were alarming: 9169 road deaths in 1941,
38% higher than the immediate pre-war figure and almost three times the
present day figure. And this despite a 20mph limit after dark, few
private cars on the roads, and petrol rationing that amounted to a limit
" of 7 miles per day on average (in fact, petrol for private motoring
was
effectively banned in 1942).

And of course there's the pea-soupers...

I can *just* remember the pea-soupers of the 1950s. I doubt if there
were many fatalities, as it was often impossible to proceed at more than
a slow walking speed.

In fact (just to keep this vaguely on-topic) I can remember that my
grandfather, who worked at Monument station, found it quicker to walk
the 12 miles to work on several occasions, rather than to attempt to use
his LT priv ticket. Those were the days ...
--
Paul Terry

"I'm up and down the Westway, in an' out the lights
What a great traffic system - it's so bright
I can't think of a better way to spend the night
Then speeding around underneath the yellow lights"

London's Burning - The Clash

Not any more it would seem

Neill

On 4 Feb, 21:45, "Neillw001" wrote:
On Feb 4, 7:45 pm, Paul Terry wrote: In message . com,
Mizter T writes

Just got me thinking, the fatalities and injuries on the roads during
the blackout must have been numerous, though obviously the risk-
assessment was a rather different calculation then!

Very true, and the statistics were alarming: 9169 road deaths in 1941,
38% higher than the immediate pre-war figure and almost three times the
present day figure. And this despite a 20mph limit after dark, few
private cars on the roads, and petrol rationing that amounted to a limit

" of 7 miles per day on average (in fact, petrol for private motoring
was

effectively banned in 1942).

And of course there's the pea-soupers...

I can *just* remember the pea-soupers of the 1950s. I doubt if there
were many fatalities, as it was often impossible to proceed at more than
a slow walking speed.

In fact (just to keep this vaguely on-topic) I can remember that my
grandfather, who worked at Monument station, found it quicker to walk
the 12 miles to work on several occasions, rather than to attempt to use
his LT priv ticket. Those were the days ...
--
Paul Terry

"I'm up and down the Westway, in an' out the lights
What a great traffic system - it's so bright
I can't think of a better way to spend the night
Then speeding around underneath the yellow lights"

London's Burning - The Clash

Not any more it would seem

Neill


Ha, very apt. Though, as I said earlier, I rather demur from Clash's
love of being under the yellow lights. They will be back shortly I'm
sure, so until then I'll enjoy speeding around under the stars. Well,
the very few that remain visible in London. Though I don't have a car
of my own to do the speeding in. Not that I speed anyway.

In article . com,
(Mizter T) wrote:

As a cyclist I'd have to agree with the broad thrust of your
argument. I'll make a detour next time I'm around there after dark and
see for myself - I'll be sure to wear my high vis though!

It's better now as they have rushed in a couple of lights and the one on
the corner of Marchmont St survived the cull. Luckily for me the week
before the two columns were set up was when I got the early train home
because of meetings.

Just got me thinking, the fatalities and injuries on the roads
during the blackout must have been numerous, though obviously the risk-
assessment was a rather different calculation then! And of course
there's the pea-soupers...

They at least painted obstacles white to help them show up.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Sun, 4 Feb 2007 18:12 +0000 (GMT Standard Time), Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

A fairer point on a road like Westway than on a local street like
Tavistock Place with much less alternative lighting and cyclists trying
to negotiate hard-to-see obstacles.

Aren't bicycles in London requierd to have headlights?

--
jhk

In article ,
(Jarle H Knudsen) wrote:

On Sun, 4 Feb 2007 18:12 +0000 (GMT Standard Time), Colin
Rosenstiel wrote:

A fairer point on a road like Westway than on a local street like
Tavistock Place with much less alternative lighting and cyclists
trying to negotiate hard-to-see obstacles.

Aren't bicycles in London requierd to have headlights?

Indeed, and mine does, but they don't give enough light to spot stupidly
located obstacles on the road that expect to be shown up by street
lighting.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 4 Feb, 20:53, Jarle H Knudsen wrote:
Aren't bicycles in London requierd to have headlights?

Yes, however of them will never venture outside London, therefore it's
better to fit high-intensity lights which are designed to be seen, but
not so good at lighting the way when the road is unlit.