On 22/02/2026 16:28, Certes wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:04, JMB99 wrote:
On BBC News pages
Rail signs call after runner's death at crossing
-a-a-a-a 1 hour ago
A coroner has called for better signs at level crossings after a
runner listening to music died when he was hit by a train.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crk86lx2k4do
"The klaxon siren and red light were in operation at Hoggs Hill Level
Crossing".-a There also seem to be a plethora of warning signs.[1]-a Short >> of hiring a crossing guard, I think the railway has done its job here.
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg>
A totally illogical comment from the coroner. There is a known problem
and is shown by the picture from Certes. https://www.madeinbritain.org/news/sign-blindness-what-is-it-and-how-can-it-be-avoided
Many other sites show the same problem. The last thing needed is even
more signage.
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:28, Certes wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:04, JMB99 wrote:
On BBC News pages
Rail signs call after runner's death at crossing
-a-a-a-a 1 hour ago
A coroner has called for better signs at level crossings after a
runner listening to music died when he was hit by a train.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crk86lx2k4do
"The klaxon siren and red light were in operation at Hoggs Hill Level
Crossing".-a There also seem to be a plethora of warning signs.[1]-a Short >>> of hiring a crossing guard, I think the railway has done its job here.
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg>
A totally illogical comment from the coroner. There is a known problem
and is shown by the picture from Certes.
https://www.madeinbritain.org/news/sign-blindness-what-is-it-and-how-can-it-be-avoided
Many other sites show the same problem. The last thing needed is even
more signage.
Which of the four signs and one colour light indicator would you choose to remove?
If anything there are already too many signs. The coroner is not living
in the real world.
On 22/02/2026 22:49, ColinR wrote:
If anything there are already too many signs. The coroner is not
living in the real world.
It is the easy way out, to just put up more signs then at any
investigation you can say that you put up a sign.
We had someone at work who was involved in H&S and who similarly loved putting up signs - always the biggest ones he could get.-a There were
some on our diesel room door that you not read when opening the door,
you had to move back away from the door to be able to read them (which
was difficult because there was little room!).
On 24/02/2026 08:59, JMB99 wrote:
On 22/02/2026 22:49, ColinR wrote:
If anything there are already too many signs. The coroner is not
living in the real world.
It is the easy way out, to just put up more signs then at any
investigation you can say that you put up a sign.
We had someone at work who was involved in H&S and who similarly loved
putting up signs - always the biggest ones he could get.-a There were
some on our diesel room door that you not read when opening the door,
you had to move back away from the door to be able to read them (which
was difficult because there was little room!).
Where I was a student there was an old building with a very low door.
Above the door was a bright yellow sign telling you to mind your head. I lost count of the number of times I was going through the door and my
eye was caught by the bright colour of the sign, I reflexively looked up
at it and consequently smacked my head into the door frame.
Robin
On 24/02/2026 08:59, JMB99 wrote:
On 22/02/2026 22:49, ColinR wrote:
If anything there are already too many signs. The coroner is not
living in the real world.
It is the easy way out, to just put up more signs then at any
investigation you can say that you put up a sign.
We had someone at work who was involved in H&S and who similarly loved
putting up signs - always the biggest ones he could get.-a There were
some on our diesel room door that you not read when opening the door,
you had to move back away from the door to be able to read them (which
was difficult because there was little room!).
Where I was a student there was an old building with a very low door.
Above the door was a bright yellow sign telling you to mind your head. I lost count of the number of times I was going through the door and my
eye was caught by the bright colour of the sign, I reflexively looked up
at it and consequently smacked my head into the door frame.
On 23/02/2026 19:28, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:28, Certes wrote:Which of the four signs and one colour light indicator would you
On 22/02/2026 16:04, JMB99 wrote:
On BBC News pages
Rail signs call after runner's death at crossing
aaaa 1 hour ago
A coroner has called for better signs at level crossings after a
runner listening to music died when he was hit by a train.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crk86lx2k4do
"The klaxon siren and red light were in operation at Hoggs Hill Level
Crossing".a There also seem to be a plethora of warning signs.[1]a Short >>>> of hiring a crossing guard, I think the railway has done its job here. >>>>
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg>
A totally illogical comment from the coroner. There is a known problem
and is shown by the picture from Certes.
https://www.madeinbritain.org/news/sign-blindness-what-is-it-and-how-c >>>an-it-be-avoided
Many other sites show the same problem. The last thing needed is even
more signage.
choose to remove?
Not remove, but not add to as the Coroner wants!
On 23/02/2026 19:28, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:28, Certes wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:04, JMB99 wrote:
On BBC News pages
Rail signs call after runner's death at crossing
-a-a-a-a 1 hour ago
A coroner has called for better signs at level crossings after a
runner listening to music died when he was hit by a train.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crk86lx2k4do
"The klaxon siren and red light were in operation at Hoggs Hill Level
Crossing".-a There also seem to be a plethora of warning signs.[1]-a Short >>>> of hiring a crossing guard, I think the railway has done its job here. >>>>
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg>
A totally illogical comment from the coroner. There is a known problem
and is shown by the picture from Certes.
https://www.madeinbritain.org/news/sign-blindness-what-is-it-and-how-can-it-be-avoided
Many other sites show the same problem. The last thing needed is even
more signage.
Which of the four signs and one colour light indicator would you choose to >> remove?
Not remove, but not add to as the Coroner wants!
In message <10nijo4$3cje0$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:18:42 on Mon, 23 Feb
2026, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> remarked:
On 23/02/2026 19:28, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:28, Certes wrote:Which of the four signs and one colour light indicator would you
On 22/02/2026 16:04, JMB99 wrote:
On BBC News pages
Rail signs call after runner's death at crossing
-a-a-a-a 1 hour ago
A coroner has called for better signs at level crossings after a
runner listening to music died when he was hit by a train.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crk86lx2k4do
"The klaxon siren and red light were in operation at Hoggs Hill Level >>>>> Crossing".-a There also seem to be a plethora of warning signs.[1]-a Short
of hiring a crossing guard, I think the railway has done its job here. >>>>>
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg>
A totally illogical comment from the coroner. There is a known problem >>>> and is shown by the picture from Certes.
https://www.madeinbritain.org/news/sign-blindness-what-is-it-and-how-c >>>> an-it-be-avoided
Many other sites show the same problem. The last thing needed is even
more signage.
choose to remove?
Not remove, but not add to as the Coroner wants!
Signs need to be simpler to understand.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10nijo4$3cje0$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:18:42 on Mon, 23 Feb
2026, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> remarked:
On 23/02/2026 19:28, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:28, Certes wrote:Which of the four signs and one colour light indicator would you
On 22/02/2026 16:04, JMB99 wrote:
On BBC News pages
Rail signs call after runner's death at crossing
-a-a-a-a 1 hour ago
A coroner has called for better signs at level crossings after a >>>>>>> runner listening to music died when he was hit by a train.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crk86lx2k4do
"The klaxon siren and red light were in operation at Hoggs Hill Level >>>>>> Crossing".-a There also seem to be a plethora of warning signs.[1]-a Short
of hiring a crossing guard, I think the railway has done its job here. >>>>>>
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg>
A totally illogical comment from the coroner. There is a known problem >>>>> and is shown by the picture from Certes.
https://www.madeinbritain.org/news/sign-blindness-what-is-it-and-how-c >>>>> an-it-be-avoided
Many other sites show the same problem. The last thing needed is even >>>>> more signage.
choose to remove?
Not remove, but not add to as the Coroner wants!
Signs need to be simpler to understand.
Do you consider the signs at the crossing in question difficult to understand?
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg>
Personally I don't think the largest sign should be partly hidden behind
the fence.
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 23/02/2026 19:28, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:28, Certes wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:04, JMB99 wrote:
On BBC News pages
Rail signs call after runner's death at crossing
-a-a-a-a 1 hour ago
A coroner has called for better signs at level crossings after a
runner listening to music died when he was hit by a train.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crk86lx2k4do
"The klaxon siren and red light were in operation at Hoggs Hill Level >>>>> Crossing".-a There also seem to be a plethora of warning signs.[1]-a Short
of hiring a crossing guard, I think the railway has done its job here. >>>>>
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg>
A totally illogical comment from the coroner. There is a known problem >>>> and is shown by the picture from Certes.
https://www.madeinbritain.org/news/sign-blindness-what-is-it-and-how-can-it-be-avoided
Many other sites show the same problem. The last thing needed is even
more signage.
Which of the four signs and one colour light indicator would you choose to >>> remove?
Not remove, but not add to as the Coroner wants!
You said "There is a known problem and is shown by the picture from Certes" which shows four signs and a colour light at a crossing, together with a
link to "sign blindness" which contains a section about the problems of having too many signs. That suggests to me that you think the crossing in question has too many signs already.
On 24/02/2026 11:34, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 23/02/2026 19:28, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:28, Certes wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:04, JMB99 wrote:
On BBC News pages
Rail signs call after runner's death at crossing
-a-a-a-a 1 hour ago
A coroner has called for better signs at level crossings after a >>>>>>> runner listening to music died when he was hit by a train.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crk86lx2k4do
"The klaxon siren and red light were in operation at Hoggs Hill Level >>>>>> Crossing".-a There also seem to be a plethora of warning signs.[1]-a Short
of hiring a crossing guard, I think the railway has done its job here. >>>>>>
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg>
A totally illogical comment from the coroner. There is a known problem >>>>> and is shown by the picture from Certes.
https://www.madeinbritain.org/news/sign-blindness-what-is-it-and-how-can-it-be-avoided
Many other sites show the same problem. The last thing needed is even >>>>> more signage.
Which of the four signs and one colour light indicator would you choose to >>>> remove?
Not remove, but not add to as the Coroner wants!
You said "There is a known problem and is shown by the picture from Certes" >> which shows four signs and a colour light at a crossing, together with a
link to "sign blindness" which contains a section about the problems of
having too many signs. That suggests to me that you think the crossing in
question has too many signs already.
It is not an easy answer. Two are relevant for safe crossing, the colour light and the big sign. One is of useful information in relation to
contact details etc. Two are purely "I have put up a sign so I am no
liable if you do something silly" and it is these that are irrelevant,
just cluttering up what should be clear signage.
On 24/02/2026 11:34, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10nijo4$3cje0$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:18:42 on Mon, 23 Feb
2026, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> remarked:
On 23/02/2026 19:28, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:28, Certes wrote:Which of the four signs and one colour light indicator would you
On 22/02/2026 16:04, JMB99 wrote:
On BBC News pages
Rail signs call after runner's death at crossing
-a-a-a-a 1 hour ago
A coroner has called for better signs at level crossings after a >>>>>>>> runner listening to music died when he was hit by a train.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crk86lx2k4do
"The klaxon siren and red light were in operation at Hoggs Hill Level >>>>>>> Crossing".-a There also seem to be a plethora of warning signs.[1]-a Short
of hiring a crossing guard, I think the railway has done its job here. >>>>>>>
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg>
A totally illogical comment from the coroner. There is a known problem >>>>>> and is shown by the picture from Certes.
https://www.madeinbritain.org/news/sign-blindness-what-is-it-and-how-c >>>>>> an-it-be-avoided
Many other sites show the same problem. The last thing needed is even >>>>>> more signage.
choose to remove?
Not remove, but not add to as the Coroner wants!
Signs need to be simpler to understand.
Do you consider the signs at the crossing in question difficult to
understand?
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg>
Personally I don't think the largest sign should be partly hidden behind
the fence.
On the face of it I agree, any signage should be easily visible.
However, is the camera angle the fault, is it too low and the sign fully visible to an adult eye height? Unfortunately the crossing is outwith Streetview's reach so cannot be sure.
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 11:34, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10nijo4$3cje0$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:18:42 on Mon, 23 Feb >>>> 2026, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> remarked:
On 23/02/2026 19:28, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:28, Certes wrote:Which of the four signs and one colour light indicator would you
On 22/02/2026 16:04, JMB99 wrote:
On BBC News pages
Rail signs call after runner's death at crossing
-a-a-a-a 1 hour ago
A coroner has called for better signs at level crossings after a >>>>>>>>> runner listening to music died when he was hit by a train.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crk86lx2k4do
"The klaxon siren and red light were in operation at Hoggs Hill Level >>>>>>>> Crossing".-a There also seem to be a plethora of warning signs.[1]-a Short
of hiring a crossing guard, I think the railway has done its job here. >>>>>>>>
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg>
A totally illogical comment from the coroner. There is a known problem >>>>>>> and is shown by the picture from Certes.
https://www.madeinbritain.org/news/sign-blindness-what-is-it-and-how-c >>>>>>> an-it-be-avoided
Many other sites show the same problem. The last thing needed is even >>>>>>> more signage.
choose to remove?
Not remove, but not add to as the Coroner wants!
Signs need to be simpler to understand.
Do you consider the signs at the crossing in question difficult to
understand?
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg>
Personally I don't think the largest sign should be partly hidden behind >>> the fence.
On the face of it I agree, any signage should be easily visible.
However, is the camera angle the fault, is it too low and the sign fully
visible to an adult eye height? Unfortunately the crossing is outwith
Streetview's reach so cannot be sure.
ItrCOs not a good set of lights for those who are red green colour blind. Traffic lights are obvious by position. These lights arenrCOt entirely obvious that there is a green aspect lower down. Pedestrian crossing lights have obvious symbols as well as colour.
On 24/02/2026 13:59, Tweed wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 11:34, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10nijo4$3cje0$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:18:42 on Mon, 23 Feb >>>>> 2026, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> remarked:
On 23/02/2026 19:28, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:28, Certes wrote:Which of the four signs and one colour light indicator would you >>>>>>> choose to remove?
On 22/02/2026 16:04, JMB99 wrote:
On BBC News pages
Rail signs call after runner's death at crossing
-a-a-a-a 1 hour ago
A coroner has called for better signs at level crossings after a >>>>>>>>>> runner listening to music died when he was hit by a train. >>>>>>>>>>
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crk86lx2k4do
"The klaxon siren and red light were in operation at Hoggs Hill Level >>>>>>>>> Crossing".-a There also seem to be a plethora of warning signs.[1]-a Short
of hiring a crossing guard, I think the railway has done its job here.
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg>
A totally illogical comment from the coroner. There is a known problem >>>>>>>> and is shown by the picture from Certes.
https://www.madeinbritain.org/news/sign-blindness-what-is-it-and-how-c >>>>>>>> an-it-be-avoided
Many other sites show the same problem. The last thing needed is even >>>>>>>> more signage.
Not remove, but not add to as the Coroner wants!
Signs need to be simpler to understand.
Do you consider the signs at the crossing in question difficult to
understand?
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg>
Personally I don't think the largest sign should be partly hidden behind >>>> the fence.
On the face of it I agree, any signage should be easily visible.
However, is the camera angle the fault, is it too low and the sign fully >>> visible to an adult eye height? Unfortunately the crossing is outwith
Streetview's reach so cannot be sure.
ItrCOs not a good set of lights for those who are red green colour blind.
Traffic lights are obvious by position. These lights arenrCOt entirely
obvious that there is a green aspect lower down. Pedestrian crossing lights >> have obvious symbols as well as colour.
They are labelled ""Red" and "Green"
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:28, Certes wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:04, JMB99 wrote:
On BBC News pages
Rail signs call after runner's death at crossing
-a-a-a-a 1 hour ago
A coroner has called for better signs at level crossings after a
runner listening to music died when he was hit by a train.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crk86lx2k4do
"The klaxon siren and red light were in operation at Hoggs Hill Level
Crossing".-a There also seem to be a plethora of warning signs.[1]-a Short >>> of hiring a crossing guard, I think the railway has done its job here.
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg>
A totally illogical comment from the coroner. There is a known problem
and is shown by the picture from Certes.
https://www.madeinbritain.org/news/sign-blindness-what-is-it-and-how-can-it-be-avoided
Many other sites show the same problem. The last thing needed is even
more signage.
Which of the four signs and one colour light indicator would you choose to remove?
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 11:34, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 23/02/2026 19:28, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:28, Certes wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:04, JMB99 wrote:
On BBC News pages
Rail signs call after runner's death at crossing
-a-a-a-a 1 hour ago
A coroner has called for better signs at level crossings after a >>>>>>>> runner listening to music died when he was hit by a train.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crk86lx2k4do
"The klaxon siren and red light were in operation at Hoggs Hill Level >>>>>>> Crossing".-a There also seem to be a plethora of warning signs.[1]-a Short
of hiring a crossing guard, I think the railway has done its job here. >>>>>>>
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg>
A totally illogical comment from the coroner. There is a known problem >>>>>> and is shown by the picture from Certes.
https://www.madeinbritain.org/news/sign-blindness-what-is-it-and-how-can-it-be-avoided
Many other sites show the same problem. The last thing needed is even >>>>>> more signage.
Which of the four signs and one colour light indicator would you choose to
remove?
Not remove, but not add to as the Coroner wants!
You said "There is a known problem and is shown by the picture from Certes" >>> which shows four signs and a colour light at a crossing, together with a >>> link to "sign blindness" which contains a section about the problems of
having too many signs. That suggests to me that you think the crossing in >>> question has too many signs already.
It is not an easy answer. Two are relevant for safe crossing, the colour
light and the big sign. One is of useful information in relation to
contact details etc. Two are purely "I have put up a sign so I am no
liable if you do something silly" and it is these that are irrelevant,
just cluttering up what should be clear signage.
If ,as seems to be happening more people are not aware of their
surroundings and getting into dangerous situations because of music or reading a screen on personal devices then maybe signs are not the answer.
If they donrCOt notice a couple they wont notice any more .And you would think it would not be confined to the UK.
Maybe devices developed in future could be engineered that they react to a locally generated short range direction *signal that interrupts music or the screen with an alert.
The UK alone is unlikely to have enough clout but maybe with Europe as well
, and it would only work with devices that use a radio signal like phones
but they will be the majority in use now. Not many people seem to use Mp3 /
I Pod devices now.
*Directional could be the hard part, passengers on trains would soon get
fed up with alerts interrupting every time it passed over a crossing .
On 24/02/2026 13:44, Marland wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 11:34, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 23/02/2026 19:28, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:28, Certes wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:04, JMB99 wrote:
On BBC News pages
Rail signs call after runner's death at crossing
-a-a-a-a 1 hour ago
A coroner has called for better signs at level crossings after a >>>>>>>>> runner listening to music died when he was hit by a train.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crk86lx2k4do
"The klaxon siren and red light were in operation at Hoggs Hill Level >>>>>>>> Crossing".-a There also seem to be a plethora of warning signs.[1]-a Short
of hiring a crossing guard, I think the railway has done its job here. >>>>>>>>
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg>
A totally illogical comment from the coroner. There is a known problem >>>>>>> and is shown by the picture from Certes.
https://www.madeinbritain.org/news/sign-blindness-what-is-it-and-how-can-it-be-avoided
Many other sites show the same problem. The last thing needed is even >>>>>>> more signage.
Which of the four signs and one colour light indicator would you choose to
remove?
Not remove, but not add to as the Coroner wants!
You said "There is a known problem and is shown by the picture from Certes"
which shows four signs and a colour light at a crossing, together with a >>>> link to "sign blindness" which contains a section about the problems of >>>> having too many signs. That suggests to me that you think the crossing in >>>> question has too many signs already.
It is not an easy answer. Two are relevant for safe crossing, the colour >>> light and the big sign. One is of useful information in relation to
contact details etc. Two are purely "I have put up a sign so I am no
liable if you do something silly" and it is these that are irrelevant,
just cluttering up what should be clear signage.
If ,as seems to be happening more people are not aware of their
surroundings and getting into dangerous situations because of music or
reading a screen on personal devices then maybe signs are not the answer.
If they donrCOt notice a couple they wont notice any more .And you would
think it would not be confined to the UK.
Maybe devices developed in future could be engineered that they react to a >> locally generated short range direction *signal that interrupts music or >> the screen with an alert.
The UK alone is unlikely to have enough clout but maybe with Europe as well >> , and it would only work with devices that use a radio signal like phones
but they will be the majority in use now. Not many people seem to use Mp3 / >> I Pod devices now.
*Directional could be the hard part, passengers on trains would soon get
fed up with alerts interrupting every time it passed over a crossing .
An interesting idea. Of course, we don't want drivers to have to mess
with their phones, and it's probably not a great idea to distract
cyclists either. I can't believe that the klaxon is inaudible even if someone is listening to whatever is in the hit parade this week.
On 24/02/2026 13:44, Marland wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 11:34, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 23/02/2026 19:28, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:28, Certes wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:04, JMB99 wrote:
On BBC News pages
Rail signs call after runner's death at crossing
-a-a-a-a-a 1 hour ago
A coroner has called for better signs at level crossings after a >>>>>>>>> runner listening to music died when he was hit by a train.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crk86lx2k4do
"The klaxon siren and red light were in operation at Hoggs Hill >>>>>>>> Level
Crossing".-a There also seem to be a plethora of warning signs. >>>>>>>> [1]-a Short
of hiring a crossing guard, I think the railway has done its job >>>>>>>> here.
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg>
A totally illogical comment from the coroner. There is a known
problem
and is shown by the picture from Certes.
https://www.madeinbritain.org/news/sign-blindness-what-is-it-and- >>>>>>> how-can-it-be-avoided
Many other sites show the same problem. The last thing needed is >>>>>>> even
more signage.
Which of the four signs and one colour light indicator would you
choose to
remove?
Not remove, but not add to as the Coroner wants!
You said "There is a known problem and is shown by the picture from
Certes"
which shows four signs and a colour light at a crossing, together
with a
link to "sign blindness" which contains a section about the problems of >>>> having too many signs. That suggests to me that you think the
crossing in
question has too many signs already.
It is not an easy answer. Two are relevant for safe crossing, the colour >>> light and the big sign. One is of useful information in relation to
contact details etc. Two are purely "I have put up a sign so I am no
liable if you do something silly" and it is these that are irrelevant,
just cluttering up what should be clear signage.
If ,as seems to be happening more people are not aware of their
surroundings and getting into dangerous situations because of music or
reading a screen on personal devices then maybe signs are not the answer.
If they donrCOt notice a couple they wont notice any more .And you would
think it would-a not be confined to the UK.
Maybe devices developed in future could be engineered that they react
to a
locally generated short range-a direction *signal that interrupts
music-a or
the screen with an alert.
The UK alone is unlikely to have enough clout but maybe with Europe as
well
, and it would only work with devices that use a radio signal like phones
but they will be the majority in use now. Not many people seem to use
Mp3 /
I Pod devices now.
*Directional could be the hard part, passengers on trains would soon get
fed up with alerts interrupting every time it passed over a crossing .
An interesting idea.-a Of course, we don't want drivers to have to mess
with their phones, and it's probably not a great idea to distract
cyclists either.-a I can't believe that the klaxon is inaudible even if someone is listening to whatever is in the hit parade this week.
On 23/02/2026 19:28, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:28, Certes wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:04, JMB99 wrote:
On BBC News pages
Rail signs call after runner's death at crossing
-a-a-a-a-a 1 hour ago
A coroner has called for better signs at level crossings after a
runner listening to music died when he was hit by a train.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crk86lx2k4do
"The klaxon siren and red light were in operation at Hoggs Hill Level
Crossing".-a There also seem to be a plethora of warning signs.[1]
Short
of hiring a crossing guard, I think the railway has done its job here. >>>>
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg>
A totally illogical comment from the coroner. There is a known problem
and is shown by the picture from Certes.
https://www.madeinbritain.org/news/sign-blindness-what-is-it-and-how-
can-it-be-avoided
Many other sites show the same problem. The last thing needed is even
more signage.
Which of the four signs and one colour light indicator would you
choose to
remove?
-aIs there a fifth sign to the right "TA..." ?
ItrCOs not a good set of lights for those who are red green colour blind. Traffic lights are obvious by position. These lights arenrCOt entirely obvious that there is a green aspect lower down. Pedestrian crossing lights have obvious symbols as well as colour.
It is not an easy answer. Two are relevant for safe crossing, the colour light and the big sign. One is of useful information in relation to
contact details etc. Two are purely "I have put up a sign so I am no
liable if you do something silly" and it is these that are irrelevant,
just cluttering up what should be clear signage.
On 23/02/2026 19:28, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:28, Certes wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:04, JMB99 wrote:
On BBC News pages
Rail signs call after runner's death at crossing
-a-a-a-a-a 1 hour ago
A coroner has called for better signs at level crossings after a
runner listening to music died when he was hit by a train.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crk86lx2k4do
"The klaxon siren and red light were in operation at Hoggs Hill Level
Crossing".-a There also seem to be a plethora of warning signs.[1]
Short
of hiring a crossing guard, I think the railway has done its job here. >>>>
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg>
A totally illogical comment from the coroner. There is a known problem
and is shown by the picture from Certes.
https://www.madeinbritain.org/news/sign-blindness-what-is-it-and-how-can-it-be-avoided
Many other sites show the same problem. The last thing needed is even
more signage.
Which of the four signs and one colour light indicator would you
choose to
remove?
-aIs there a fifth sign to the right "TA..." ?
Do you consider the signs at the crossing in question difficult to >understand?
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg>
Personally I don't think the largest sign should be partly hidden behind
the fence.
In this particular case drivers are not relevant as the crossing cannot
be used by cars, motorcyles probably yes,
because the western end of the crossing has a sharp left hand turn too
much for a four wheeled vehicle:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/o1PGFmj8uJu4WHkVA
However.the idea has merit if techically possible. Maybe Roland can help...
On 24/02/2026 15:54, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 23/02/2026 19:28, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:28, Certes wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:04, JMB99 wrote:
On BBC News pages
Rail signs call after runner's death at crossing
-a-a-a-a-a 1 hour ago
A coroner has called for better signs at level crossings after a
runner listening to music died when he was hit by a train.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crk86lx2k4do
"The klaxon siren and red light were in operation at Hoggs Hill Level >>>>> Crossing".-a There also seem to be a plethora of warning signs.[1]
Short
of hiring a crossing guard, I think the railway has done its job here. >>>>>
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg>
A totally illogical comment from the coroner. There is a known problem >>>> and is shown by the picture from Certes.
https://www.madeinbritain.org/news/sign-blindness-what-is-it-and-
how-can-it-be-avoided
Many other sites show the same problem. The last thing needed is even
more signage.
Which of the four signs and one colour light indicator would you
choose to
remove?
-a-aIs there a fifth sign to the right "TA..." ?
Yes, also a sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth as shown in this wider view <https://i.ytimg.com/vi/O7lAg6VTgGI/maxresdefault.jpg>
No wonder someone failed to read the important one.
On 24/02/2026 12:08, ColinR wrote:
It is not an easy answer. Two are relevant for safe crossing, the
colour light and the big sign. One is of useful information in
relation to contact details etc. Two are purely "I have put up a sign
so I am no liable if you do something silly" and it is these that are >>irrelevant, just cluttering up what should be clear signage.
Being a runner, quite possibly got used to crossing there.
It is railway property so perhaps a big sign "u100 fine for anyone
wearing headphones or using a mobile phone after this point".
In message <10nkk0j$15vh$2@dont-email.me>, at 16:35:31 on Tue, 24 Feb
2026, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> remarked:
On 24/02/2026 12:08, ColinR wrote:
-aIt is not an easy answer. Two are relevant for safe crossing, the
colour-a light and the big sign. One is of useful information in
relation to-a contact details etc. Two are purely "I have put up a
sign so I am no-a liable if you do something silly" and it is these
that are irrelevant,-a just cluttering up what should be clear signage.
Being a runner, quite possibly got used to crossing there.
It is railway property so perhaps a big sign "-u100 fine for anyone
wearing headphones or using a mobile phone after this point".
And you'd need one the other side saying "Headphones and mobile phones
are now allowed".
On 24/02/2026 16:49, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10nkk0j$15vh$2@dont-email.me>, at 16:35:31 on Tue, 24 Feb >>2026, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> remarked:
On 24/02/2026 12:08, ColinR wrote:
aIt is not an easy answer. Two are relevant for safe crossing, the >>>>coloura light and the big sign. One is of useful information in >>>>relation toa contact details etc. Two are purely "I have put up a
sign so I am noa liable if you do something silly" and it is these >>>>that are irrelevant,a just cluttering up what should be clear signage.
Being a runner, quite possibly got used to crossing there.
It is railway property so perhaps a big sign "u100 fine for anyone >>>wearing headphones or using a mobile phone after this point".
And you'd need one the other side saying "Headphones and mobile
phones are now allowed".
Why?
In message <10nklko$188i$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:03:20 on Tue, 24 Feb
2026, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
On 24/02/2026 16:49, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10nkk0j$15vh$2@dont-email.me>, at 16:35:31 on Tue, 24 Feb
2026, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> remarked:
On 24/02/2026 12:08, ColinR wrote:
-aIt is not an easy answer. Two are relevant for safe crossing, the >>>>> colour-a light and the big sign. One is of useful information in
relation to-a contact details etc. Two are purely "I have put up a
sign so I am no-a liable if you do something silly" and it is these >>>>> that are irrelevant,-a just cluttering up what should be clear signage. >>>>
Being a runner, quite possibly got used to crossing there.
It is railway property so perhaps a big sign "-u100 fine for anyone
wearing headphones or using a mobile phone after this point".
-aAnd you'd need one the other side saying "Headphones and mobile
phones-a are now allowed".
Why?
Because otherwise people would think they can't use their phone until,
what? They get home...
Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 13:44, Marland wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 11:34, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 23/02/2026 19:28, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:28, Certes wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:04, JMB99 wrote:
On BBC News pages
Rail signs call after runner's death at crossing
-a-a-a-a 1 hour ago
A coroner has called for better signs at level crossings after a >>>>>>>>>> runner listening to music died when he was hit by a train. >>>>>>>>>>
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crk86lx2k4do
"The klaxon siren and red light were in operation at Hoggs Hill Level >>>>>>>>> Crossing".-a There also seem to be a plethora of warning signs.[1]-a Short
of hiring a crossing guard, I think the railway has done its job here.
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg>
A totally illogical comment from the coroner. There is a known problem >>>>>>>> and is shown by the picture from Certes.
https://www.madeinbritain.org/news/sign-blindness-what-is-it-and-how-can-it-be-avoided
Many other sites show the same problem. The last thing needed is even >>>>>>>> more signage.
Which of the four signs and one colour light indicator would you choose to
remove?
Not remove, but not add to as the Coroner wants!
You said "There is a known problem and is shown by the picture from Certes"
which shows four signs and a colour light at a crossing, together with a >>>>> link to "sign blindness" which contains a section about the problems of >>>>> having too many signs. That suggests to me that you think the crossing in >>>>> question has too many signs already.
It is not an easy answer. Two are relevant for safe crossing, the colour >>>> light and the big sign. One is of useful information in relation to
contact details etc. Two are purely "I have put up a sign so I am no
liable if you do something silly" and it is these that are irrelevant, >>>> just cluttering up what should be clear signage.
If ,as seems to be happening more people are not aware of their
surroundings and getting into dangerous situations because of music or
reading a screen on personal devices then maybe signs are not the answer. >>> If they donrCOt notice a couple they wont notice any more .And you would >>> think it would not be confined to the UK.
Maybe devices developed in future could be engineered that they react to a >>> locally generated short range direction *signal that interrupts music or >>> the screen with an alert.
The UK alone is unlikely to have enough clout but maybe with Europe as well >>> , and it would only work with devices that use a radio signal like phones >>> but they will be the majority in use now. Not many people seem to use Mp3 / >>> I Pod devices now.
*Directional could be the hard part, passengers on trains would soon get >>> fed up with alerts interrupting every time it passed over a crossing .
An interesting idea. Of course, we don't want drivers to have to mess
with their phones, and it's probably not a great idea to distract
cyclists either. I can't believe that the klaxon is inaudible even if
someone is listening to whatever is in the hit parade this week.
A flashing led strip across the road/pathway set into the road would be
hard to miss.
In message <10nklko$188i$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:03:20 on Tue, 24 Feb
2026, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
On 24/02/2026 16:49, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10nkk0j$15vh$2@dont-email.me>, at 16:35:31 on Tue, 24 Feb
2026, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> remarked:
On 24/02/2026 12:08, ColinR wrote:
-aIt is not an easy answer. Two are relevant for safe crossing, the >>>>> colour-a light and the big sign. One is of useful information in
relation to-a contact details etc. Two are purely "I have put up a
sign so I am no-a liable if you do something silly" and it is these >>>>> that are irrelevant,-a just cluttering up what should be clear signage. >>>>
Being a runner, quite possibly got used to crossing there.
It is railway property so perhaps a big sign "-u100 fine for anyone
wearing headphones or using a mobile phone after this point".
-aAnd you'd need one the other side saying "Headphones and mobile
phones-a are now allowed".
Why?
Because otherwise people would think they can't use their phone until,
what? They get home...
It should be possible to install some sort of bluetooth device which
when picked up by a phone turned the volume down. Or perhaps sounded a Klaxon on the phone if the light was red. If the process had a say 5
second delay in it, even if the bluetooth was picked up by passengers on
the train, it wouldn't activate those features.
And you'd need one the other side saying "Headphones and mobile phones
are now allowed".
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 13:59, Tweed wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 11:34, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10nijo4$3cje0$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:18:42 on Mon, 23 Feb >>>>>> 2026, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> remarked:
On 23/02/2026 19:28, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:28, Certes wrote:Which of the four signs and one colour light indicator would you >>>>>>>> choose to remove?
On 22/02/2026 16:04, JMB99 wrote:
On BBC News pages
Rail signs call after runner's death at crossing
-a-a-a-a 1 hour ago
A coroner has called for better signs at level crossings after a >>>>>>>>>>> runner listening to music died when he was hit by a train. >>>>>>>>>>>
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crk86lx2k4do
"The klaxon siren and red light were in operation at Hoggs Hill Level
Crossing".-a There also seem to be a plethora of warning signs.[1]-a Short
of hiring a crossing guard, I think the railway has done its job here.
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg>
A totally illogical comment from the coroner. There is a known problem
and is shown by the picture from Certes.
https://www.madeinbritain.org/news/sign-blindness-what-is-it-and-how-c
an-it-be-avoided
Many other sites show the same problem. The last thing needed is even >>>>>>>>> more signage.
Not remove, but not add to as the Coroner wants!
Signs need to be simpler to understand.
Do you consider the signs at the crossing in question difficult to
understand?
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg>
Personally I don't think the largest sign should be partly hidden behind >>>>> the fence.
On the face of it I agree, any signage should be easily visible.
However, is the camera angle the fault, is it too low and the sign fully >>>> visible to an adult eye height? Unfortunately the crossing is outwith
Streetview's reach so cannot be sure.
ItrCOs not a good set of lights for those who are red green colour blind. >>> Traffic lights are obvious by position. These lights arenrCOt entirely
obvious that there is a green aspect lower down. Pedestrian crossing lights >>> have obvious symbols as well as colour.
They are labelled ""Red" and "Green"
In the picture they are labelled stop, then a light, and then red legend
and then green legend immediately under the red legend. The green light is hardly to be seen. The green legend should be under the position of the
green lamp. ItrCOs poorly done and could so easily be better. It all looks a bit ad-hoc rather than following a well thought out standard.
On 24/02/2026 11:34, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 23/02/2026 19:28, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:28, Certes wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:04, JMB99 wrote:
On BBC News pages
Rail signs call after runner's death at crossing
-a-a-a-a 1 hour ago
A coroner has called for better signs at level crossings after a >>>>>>> runner listening to music died when he was hit by a train.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crk86lx2k4do
"The klaxon siren and red light were in operation at Hoggs Hill Level >>>>>> Crossing".-a There also seem to be a plethora of warning signs.[1]-a Short
of hiring a crossing guard, I think the railway has done its job here. >>>>>>
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg>
A totally illogical comment from the coroner. There is a known problem >>>>> and is shown by the picture from Certes.
https://www.madeinbritain.org/news/sign-blindness-what-is-it-and-how-can-it-be-avoided
Many other sites show the same problem. The last thing needed is even >>>>> more signage.
Which of the four signs and one colour light indicator would you choose to >>>> remove?
Not remove, but not add to as the Coroner wants!
You said "There is a known problem and is shown by the picture from Certes" >> which shows four signs and a colour light at a crossing, together with a
link to "sign blindness" which contains a section about the problems of
having too many signs. That suggests to me that you think the crossing in
question has too many signs already.
It is not an easy answer. Two are relevant for safe crossing, the colour light and the big sign. One is of useful information in relation to
contact details etc. Two are purely "I have put up a sign so I am no
liable if you do something silly" and it is these that are irrelevant,
just cluttering up what should be clear signage.
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 11:34, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10nijo4$3cje0$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:18:42 on Mon, 23 Feb >>>> 2026, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> remarked:
On 23/02/2026 19:28, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:28, Certes wrote:Which of the four signs and one colour light indicator would you
On 22/02/2026 16:04, JMB99 wrote:
On BBC News pages
Rail signs call after runner's death at crossing
-a-a-a-a 1 hour ago
A coroner has called for better signs at level crossings after a >>>>>>>>> runner listening to music died when he was hit by a train.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crk86lx2k4do
"The klaxon siren and red light were in operation at Hoggs Hill Level >>>>>>>> Crossing".-a There also seem to be a plethora of warning signs.[1]-a Short
of hiring a crossing guard, I think the railway has done its job here. >>>>>>>>
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg>
A totally illogical comment from the coroner. There is a known problem >>>>>>> and is shown by the picture from Certes.
https://www.madeinbritain.org/news/sign-blindness-what-is-it-and-how-c >>>>>>> an-it-be-avoided
Many other sites show the same problem. The last thing needed is even >>>>>>> more signage.
choose to remove?
Not remove, but not add to as the Coroner wants!
Signs need to be simpler to understand.
Do you consider the signs at the crossing in question difficult to
understand?
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg>
Personally I don't think the largest sign should be partly hidden behind >>> the fence.
On the face of it I agree, any signage should be easily visible.
However, is the camera angle the fault, is it too low and the sign fully
visible to an adult eye height? Unfortunately the crossing is outwith
Streetview's reach so cannot be sure.
ItrCOs not a good set of lights for those who are red green colour blind. Traffic lights are obvious by position. These lights arenrCOt entirely obvious that there is a green aspect lower down. Pedestrian crossing lights have obvious symbols as well as colour.
On 23/02/2026 19:28, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:28, Certes wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:04, JMB99 wrote:
On BBC News pages
Rail signs call after runner's death at crossing
-a-a-a-a 1 hour ago
A coroner has called for better signs at level crossings after a
runner listening to music died when he was hit by a train.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crk86lx2k4do
"The klaxon siren and red light were in operation at Hoggs Hill Level
Crossing".-a There also seem to be a plethora of warning signs.[1]-a Short >>>> of hiring a crossing guard, I think the railway has done its job here. >>>>
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg>
A totally illogical comment from the coroner. There is a known problem
and is shown by the picture from Certes.
https://www.madeinbritain.org/news/sign-blindness-what-is-it-and-how-can-it-be-avoided
Many other sites show the same problem. The last thing needed is even
more signage.
Which of the four signs and one colour light indicator would you choose to >> remove?
Is there a fifth sign to the right "TA..." ?
On 24/02/2026 15:54, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 23/02/2026 19:28, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:28, Certes wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:04, JMB99 wrote:
On BBC News pages
Rail signs call after runner's death at crossing
-a-a-a-a-a 1 hour ago
A coroner has called for better signs at level crossings after a
runner listening to music died when he was hit by a train.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crk86lx2k4do
"The klaxon siren and red light were in operation at Hoggs Hill Level >>>>> Crossing".-a There also seem to be a plethora of warning signs.[1] >>>>> Short
of hiring a crossing guard, I think the railway has done its job here. >>>>>
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg>
A totally illogical comment from the coroner. There is a known problem >>>> and is shown by the picture from Certes.
https://www.madeinbritain.org/news/sign-blindness-what-is-it-and-how-can-it-be-avoided
Many other sites show the same problem. The last thing needed is even
more signage.
Which of the four signs and one colour light indicator would you
choose to
remove?
-aIs there a fifth sign to the right "TA..." ?
Yes, also a sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth as shown in this wider view <https://i.ytimg.com/vi/O7lAg6VTgGI/maxresdefault.jpg>
No wonder someone failed to read the important one.
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 11:34, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 23/02/2026 19:28, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:28, Certes wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:04, JMB99 wrote:
On BBC News pages
Rail signs call after runner's death at crossing
aaaa 1 hour ago
A coroner has called for better signs at level crossings after a >>>>>>>> runner listening to music died when he was hit by a train.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crk86lx2k4do
"The klaxon siren and red light were in operation at Hoggs Hill Level >>>>>>> Crossing".a There also seem to be a plethora of warning signs.[1]a Short
of hiring a crossing guard, I think the railway has done its job here. >>>>>>>
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg>
A totally illogical comment from the coroner. There is a known problem >>>>>> and is shown by the picture from Certes.
https://www.madeinbritain.org/news/sign-blindness-what-is-it-and-how-can-it-be-avoided
Many other sites show the same problem. The last thing needed is even >>>>>> more signage.
Which of the four signs and one colour light indicator would you choose to
remove?
Not remove, but not add to as the Coroner wants!
You said "There is a known problem and is shown by the picture from Certes" >>> which shows four signs and a colour light at a crossing, together with a >>> link to "sign blindness" which contains a section about the problems of
having too many signs. That suggests to me that you think the crossing in >>> question has too many signs already.
It is not an easy answer. Two are relevant for safe crossing, the colour
light and the big sign. One is of useful information in relation to
contact details etc. Two are purely "I have put up a sign so I am no
liable if you do something silly" and it is these that are irrelevant,
just cluttering up what should be clear signage.
The latter two will be standard signage for anywhere the public can access >the railway, including LCs and platform ends.
I have a feeling that the red sign is a legal requirement at any access >point.
I suspect that the 'yellow triangle with warning text' is a cross-industry >safety sign style (ie not just railway) and probably not allowed to be >combined with other information (other than similar warnings about other >dangers) on one sign?
ie, could you put all four signs onto one metal plate, or would that not be >allowed?
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 13:59, Tweed wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 11:34, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10nijo4$3cje0$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:18:42 on Mon, 23 Feb >>>>>>> 2026, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> remarked:
On 23/02/2026 19:28, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:28, Certes wrote:Which of the four signs and one colour light indicator would you >>>>>>>>> choose to remove?
On 22/02/2026 16:04, JMB99 wrote:
On BBC News pages
Rail signs call after runner's death at crossing
-a-a-a-a 1 hour ago
A coroner has called for better signs at level crossings after a >>>>>>>>>>>> runner listening to music died when he was hit by a train. >>>>>>>>>>>>
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crk86lx2k4do
"The klaxon siren and red light were in operation at Hoggs Hill Level
Crossing".-a There also seem to be a plethora of warning signs.[1]-a Short
of hiring a crossing guard, I think the railway has done its job here.
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg>
A totally illogical comment from the coroner. There is a known problem
and is shown by the picture from Certes.
https://www.madeinbritain.org/news/sign-blindness-what-is-it-and-how-c
an-it-be-avoided
Many other sites show the same problem. The last thing needed is even
more signage.
Not remove, but not add to as the Coroner wants!
Signs need to be simpler to understand.
Do you consider the signs at the crossing in question difficult to >>>>>> understand?
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg>
Personally I don't think the largest sign should be partly hidden behind >>>>>> the fence.
On the face of it I agree, any signage should be easily visible.
However, is the camera angle the fault, is it too low and the sign fully >>>>> visible to an adult eye height? Unfortunately the crossing is outwith >>>>> Streetview's reach so cannot be sure.
ItrCOs not a good set of lights for those who are red green colour blind. >>>> Traffic lights are obvious by position. These lights arenrCOt entirely >>>> obvious that there is a green aspect lower down. Pedestrian crossing lights
have obvious symbols as well as colour.
They are labelled ""Red" and "Green"
In the picture they are labelled stop, then a light, and then red legend
and then green legend immediately under the red legend. The green light is >> hardly to be seen. The green legend should be under the position of the
green lamp. ItrCOs poorly done and could so easily be better. It all looks a >> bit ad-hoc rather than following a well thought out standard.
The wording should perhaps be consistent, eg meaning above and colour below each lens, rather than the two colour words together. And maybe a
horizontal line between them?
ItrCOs not a good set of lights for those who are red green colour blind.
Traffic lights are obvious by position. These lights arenrCOt entirely
obvious that there is a green aspect lower down. Pedestrian crossing lights >> have obvious symbols as well as colour.
It has the words "Stop Red" and "Green Clear" above and below the relevant >aspects?
Edit: see also my reply to another of your posts in this thread.
The same colour light head is also used for User Worked (vehicle)
Crossings, so I don't think you could put the red/green man symbols on
them.
Also, pedestrians are so used to ignoring those if there's no traffic >visible, that they'd possibly ignore them here too?
These are generally--
provided where an approaching train isn't visible until too late.
On 24/02/2026 16:48, Roland Perry wrote:
It should be possible to install some sort of bluetooth device which
when picked up by a phone turned the volume down. Or perhaps sounded a >>Klaxon on the phone if the light was red. If the process had a say 5 >>second delay in it, even if the bluetooth was picked up by passengers
on the train, it wouldn't activate those features.
How many years would it take for all mobile phones
to have the feature - you cannot rely on them having it until sure all
have it.
Would someone living near a crossing be able to mute it?
On 24/02/2026 16:49, Roland Perry wrote:
And you'd need one the other side saying "Headphones and mobile
phones are now allowed".
I thought that was obvious.
The other three appear to be related to a staff access gate; one thing I >think the railway doesn't do well is clarifying signage for
passengers/public vs signage for staff. Perhaps the solution here would be
to have them beyond the gate, but then I guess you'd possibly need a second >gate (if the signs have to be before the track access gate).
Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 23/02/2026 19:28, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:28, Certes wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:04, JMB99 wrote:
On BBC News pages
Rail signs call after runner's death at crossing
-a-a-a-a 1 hour ago
A coroner has called for better signs at level crossings after a
runner listening to music died when he was hit by a train.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crk86lx2k4do
"The klaxon siren and red light were in operation at Hoggs Hill Level >>>>> Crossing".-a There also seem to be a plethora of warning signs.[1]-a Short
of hiring a crossing guard, I think the railway has done its job here. >>>>>
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg>
A totally illogical comment from the coroner. There is a known problem >>>> and is shown by the picture from Certes.
https://www.madeinbritain.org/news/sign-blindness-what-is-it-and-how-can-it-be-avoided
Many other sites show the same problem. The last thing needed is even
more signage.
Which of the four signs and one colour light indicator would you choose to >>> remove?
Is there a fifth sign to the right "TA..." ?
I think that might be a Samaritans sign.
In message <10nliht$ckpe$4@dont-email.me>, at 01:16:45 on Wed, 25 Feb
2026, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
ItrCOs not a good set of lights for those who are red green colour blind. >>> Traffic lights are obvious by position. These lights arenrCOt entirely
obvious that there is a green aspect lower down. Pedestrian crossing lights >>> have obvious symbols as well as colour.
It has the words "Stop Red" and "Green Clear" above and below the relevant >> aspects?
I'm not terribly happy with the use of the word "Clear", because that's
not a direct opposite of "Stop".
Edit: see also my reply to another of your posts in this thread.
The same colour light head is also used for User Worked (vehicle)
Crossings, so I don't think you could put the red/green man symbols on
them.
That's only mean changing the lenses, not the whole apparatus.
Also, pedestrians are so used to ignoring those if there's no traffic
visible, that they'd possibly ignore them here too?
At level crossings with wig-wags they usually have yet another sign that says "Another train coming if lights continue to show". So clearly
they've had issues with badly behaved members of the public in the past.
In message <10nle9v$b6e5$1@dont-email.me>, at 00:04:15 on Wed, 25 Feb
2026, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> remarked:
On 24/02/2026 16:48, Roland Perry wrote:
It should be possible to install some sort of bluetooth device which
when picked up by a phone turned the volume down. Or perhaps sounded a
Klaxon on the phone if the light was red. If the process had a say 5
second delay in it, even if the bluetooth was picked up by passengers
on the train, it wouldn't activate those features.
How many years would it take for all mobile phones
You can't use a word like "all" on Usenet, because someone will say
"what about my 20yr old candybar".
to have the feature - you cannot rely on them having it until sure all
have it.
We must not let perfection be the enemy of good.
Would someone living near a crossing be able to mute it?
I don't see why not. Geofencing is a pretty mature technology.
On 24/02/2026 16:48, Roland Perry wrote:
It should be possible to install some sort of bluetooth device which
when picked up by a phone turned the volume down. Or perhaps sounded a
Klaxon on the phone if the light was red. If the process had a say 5
second delay in it, even if the bluetooth was picked up by passengers on
the train, it wouldn't activate those features.
How many years would it take for all mobile phones to have the feature -
you cannot rely on them having it until sure all have it.
Would someone living near a crossing be able to mute it?
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10nliht$ckpe$4@dont-email.me>, at 01:16:45 on Wed, 25 Feb
2026, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
ItrCOs not a good set of lights for those who are red green colour blind. >>>> Traffic lights are obvious by position. These lights arenrCOt entirely >>>> obvious that there is a green aspect lower down. Pedestrian crossing lights
have obvious symbols as well as colour.
It has the words "Stop Red" and "Green Clear" above and below the relevant >>> aspects?
I'm not terribly happy with the use of the word "Clear", because that's
not a direct opposite of "Stop".
Edit: see also my reply to another of your posts in this thread.
The same colour light head is also used for User Worked (vehicle)
Crossings, so I don't think you could put the red/green man symbols on
them.
That's only mean changing the lenses, not the whole apparatus.
That's not the reason I considered that you 'couldn't have them here' - consistency is the problem.
If you swap the lenses out for ones with human figures at pedestrian-only crossings, then the otherwise-identical equipment at crossings which are
also used by vehicles shows a different indication to pedestrians, unless
you add a second, co-acting set of equipment there.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2Also, pedestrians are so used to ignoring those if there's no traffic
visible, that they'd possibly ignore them here too?
At level crossings with wig-wags they usually have yet another sign that
says "Another train coming if lights continue to show". So clearly
they've had issues with badly behaved members of the public in the past.
I'm surprised that wording isn't present here, tbh.
On 22/02/2026 16:28, Certes wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:04, JMB99 wrote:
On BBC News pages
Rail signs call after runner's death at crossing
-a-a-a-a 1 hour ago
A coroner has called for better signs at level crossings after a
runner listening to music died when he was hit by a train.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crk86lx2k4do
"The klaxon siren and red light were in operation at Hoggs Hill Level
Crossing".-a There also seem to be a plethora of warning signs.[1]-a Short >> of hiring a crossing guard, I think the railway has done its job here.
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg>
A totally illogical comment from the coroner. There is a known problem
and is shown by the picture from Certes. https://www.madeinbritain.org/news/sign-blindness-what-is-it-and-how- can-it-be-avoided
Many other sites show the same problem. The last thing needed is even
more signage.
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 11:34, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10nijo4$3cje0$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:18:42 on Mon, 23 Feb >>>>> 2026, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> remarked:
On 23/02/2026 19:28, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:28, Certes wrote:Which of the four signs and one colour light indicator would you >>>>>>> choose to remove?
On 22/02/2026 16:04, JMB99 wrote:
On BBC News pages
Rail signs call after runner's death at crossing
-a-a-a-a 1 hour ago
A coroner has called for better signs at level crossings after a >>>>>>>>>> runner listening to music died when he was hit by a train. >>>>>>>>>>
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crk86lx2k4do
"The klaxon siren and red light were in operation at Hoggs Hill Level >>>>>>>>> Crossing".-a There also seem to be a plethora of warning signs.[1]-a Short
of hiring a crossing guard, I think the railway has done its job here.
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg>
A totally illogical comment from the coroner. There is a known problem >>>>>>>> and is shown by the picture from Certes.
https://www.madeinbritain.org/news/sign-blindness-what-is-it-and-how-c >>>>>>>> an-it-be-avoided
Many other sites show the same problem. The last thing needed is even >>>>>>>> more signage.
Not remove, but not add to as the Coroner wants!
Signs need to be simpler to understand.
Do you consider the signs at the crossing in question difficult to
understand?
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg>
Personally I don't think the largest sign should be partly hidden behind >>>> the fence.
On the face of it I agree, any signage should be easily visible.
However, is the camera angle the fault, is it too low and the sign fully >>> visible to an adult eye height? Unfortunately the crossing is outwith
Streetview's reach so cannot be sure.
ItrCOs not a good set of lights for those who are red green colour blind.
Traffic lights are obvious by position. These lights arenrCOt entirely
obvious that there is a green aspect lower down. Pedestrian crossing lights >> have obvious symbols as well as colour.
It has the words "Stop Red" and "Green Clear" above and below the relevant aspects? Edit: see also my reply to another of your posts in this thread.
The same colour light head is also used for User Worked (vehicle)
Crossings, so I don't think you could put the red/green man symbols on
them.
Also, pedestrians are so used to ignoring those if there's no traffic visible, that they'd possibly ignore them here too? These are generally provided where an approaching train isn't visible until too late.
On 22/02/2026 22:12, ColinR wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:28, Certes wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:04, JMB99 wrote:
On BBC News pages
Rail signs call after runner's death at crossing
-a-a-a-a 1 hour ago
A coroner has called for better signs at level crossings after a
runner listening to music died when he was hit by a train.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crk86lx2k4do
"The klaxon siren and red light were in operation at Hoggs Hill Level
Crossing".-a There also seem to be a plethora of warning signs.[1]-a Short >>> of hiring a crossing guard, I think the railway has done its job here.
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg>
A totally illogical comment from the coroner. There is a known problem
and is shown by the picture from Certes.
https://www.madeinbritain.org/news/sign-blindness-what-is-it-and-how-
can-it-be-avoided
Many other sites show the same problem. The last thing needed is even
more signage.
It seems to me (from what has appeared above) that the coroner ought to
have called for a public campaign to warn people that wearing headphones near railways (or roads) can be dangerously stupid.
And - OT on this item, I wonder how many more accidents to pedestrians
will occur due to (almost silent) battery vehicles replacing noisier
diesel or petrol vehicles? The noise of approaching traffic co,tributes
to knowing when it is safe to cross roads.
On 22/02/2026 22:12, ColinR wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:28, Certes wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:04, JMB99 wrote:
On BBC News pages
Rail signs call after runner's death at crossing
-a-a-a-a 1 hour ago
A coroner has called for better signs at level crossings after a
runner listening to music died when he was hit by a train.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crk86lx2k4do
"The klaxon siren and red light were in operation at Hoggs Hill Level
Crossing".-a There also seem to be a plethora of warning signs.[1]-a Short >>> of hiring a crossing guard, I think the railway has done its job here.
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg>
A totally illogical comment from the coroner. There is a known problem
and is shown by the picture from Certes.
https://www.madeinbritain.org/news/sign-blindness-what-is-it-and-how-
can-it-be-avoided
Many other sites show the same problem. The last thing needed is even
more signage.
It seems to me (from what has appeared above) that the coroner ought to
have called for a public campaign to warn people that wearing headphones near railways (or roads) can be dangerously stupid.
And - OT on this item, I wonder how many more accidents to pedestrians
will occur due to (almost silent) battery vehicles replacing noisier
diesel or petrol vehicles?-a The noise of approaching traffic co,tributes
to knowing when it is safe to cross roads.
Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 22:12, ColinR wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:28, Certes wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:04, JMB99 wrote:
On BBC News pages
Rail signs call after runner's death at crossing
-a-a-a-a 1 hour ago
A coroner has called for better signs at level crossings after a
runner listening to music died when he was hit by a train.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crk86lx2k4do
"The klaxon siren and red light were in operation at Hoggs Hill Level
Crossing".-a There also seem to be a plethora of warning signs.[1]-a Short >>>> of hiring a crossing guard, I think the railway has done its job here. >>>>
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg>
A totally illogical comment from the coroner. There is a known problem
and is shown by the picture from Certes.
https://www.madeinbritain.org/news/sign-blindness-what-is-it-and-how-
can-it-be-avoided
Many other sites show the same problem. The last thing needed is even
more signage.
It seems to me (from what has appeared above) that the coroner ought to
have called for a public campaign to warn people that wearing headphones
near railways (or roads) can be dangerously stupid.
And - OT on this item, I wonder how many more accidents to pedestrians
will occur due to (almost silent) battery vehicles replacing noisier
diesel or petrol vehicles? The noise of approaching traffic co,tributes
to knowing when it is safe to cross roads.
ArnrCOt new electric vehicles mandated to emit a warning tone at slow speed? Above say 10 mph the noise is mainly from the tyres or on our potholed
roads the worn suspensions rattling , modern IC vehicles can be as quiet
as electrics unless the user has decided they want a noisy one.
Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 22:12, ColinR wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:28, Certes wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:04, JMB99 wrote:
On BBC News pages
Rail signs call after runner's death at crossing
-a-a-a-a 1 hour ago
A coroner has called for better signs at level crossings after a
runner listening to music died when he was hit by a train.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crk86lx2k4do
"The klaxon siren and red light were in operation at Hoggs Hill Level
Crossing".-a There also seem to be a plethora of warning signs.[1]-a Short >>>> of hiring a crossing guard, I think the railway has done its job here. >>>>
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg>
A totally illogical comment from the coroner. There is a known problem
and is shown by the picture from Certes.
https://www.madeinbritain.org/news/sign-blindness-what-is-it-and-how-
can-it-be-avoided
Many other sites show the same problem. The last thing needed is even
more signage.
It seems to me (from what has appeared above) that the coroner ought to
have called for a public campaign to warn people that wearing headphones
near railways (or roads) can be dangerously stupid.
And - OT on this item, I wonder how many more accidents to pedestrians
will occur due to (almost silent) battery vehicles replacing noisier
diesel or petrol vehicles? The noise of approaching traffic co,tributes
to knowing when it is safe to cross roads.
ArnrCOt new electric vehicles mandated to emit a warning tone at slow speed? Above say 10 mph the noise is mainly from the tyres or on our potholed
roads the worn suspensions rattling , modern IC vehicles can be as quiet
as electrics unless the user has decided they want a noisy one.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10nliht$ckpe$4@dont-email.me>, at 01:16:45 on Wed, 25 Feb
2026, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
ItrCOs not a good set of lights for those who are red green colour blind. >>>> Traffic lights are obvious by position. These lights arenrCOt entirely >>>> obvious that there is a green aspect lower down. Pedestrian crossing lights
have obvious symbols as well as colour.
It has the words "Stop Red" and "Green Clear" above and below the relevant >>> aspects?
I'm not terribly happy with the use of the word "Clear", because that's
not a direct opposite of "Stop".
Edit: see also my reply to another of your posts in this thread.
The same colour light head is also used for User Worked (vehicle)
Crossings, so I don't think you could put the red/green man symbols on
them.
That's only mean changing the lenses, not the whole apparatus.
That's not the reason I considered that you 'couldn't have them here' - consistency is the problem.
If you swap the lenses out for ones with human figures at pedestrian-only crossings, then the otherwise-identical equipment at crossings which are
also used by vehicles shows a different indication to pedestrians, unless
you add a second, co-acting set of equipment there.
On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 01:16:43 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:Health and Safety (Safety Signs and Signals) Regulations 1996
On 24/02/2026 11:34, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 23/02/2026 19:28, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:28, Certes wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:04, JMB99 wrote:
On BBC News pages
Rail signs call after runner's death at crossing
-a-a-a-a 1 hour ago
A coroner has called for better signs at level crossings after a >>>>>>>>> runner listening to music died when he was hit by a train.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crk86lx2k4do
"The klaxon siren and red light were in operation at Hoggs Hill Level >>>>>>>> Crossing".-a There also seem to be a plethora of warning signs.[1]-a Short
of hiring a crossing guard, I think the railway has done its job here. >>>>>>>>
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg>
A totally illogical comment from the coroner. There is a known problem >>>>>>> and is shown by the picture from Certes.
https://www.madeinbritain.org/news/sign-blindness-what-is-it-and-how-can-it-be-avoided
Many other sites show the same problem. The last thing needed is even >>>>>>> more signage.
Which of the four signs and one colour light indicator would you choose to
remove?
Not remove, but not add to as the Coroner wants!
You said "There is a known problem and is shown by the picture from Certes"
which shows four signs and a colour light at a crossing, together with a >>>> link to "sign blindness" which contains a section about the problems of >>>> having too many signs. That suggests to me that you think the crossing in >>>> question has too many signs already.
It is not an easy answer. Two are relevant for safe crossing, the colour >>> light and the big sign. One is of useful information in relation to
contact details etc. Two are purely "I have put up a sign so I am no
liable if you do something silly" and it is these that are irrelevant,
just cluttering up what should be clear signage.
The latter two will be standard signage for anywhere the public can access >> the railway, including LCs and platform ends.
I have a feeling that the red sign is a legal requirement at any access
point.
I suspect that the 'yellow triangle with warning text' is a cross-industry >> safety sign style (ie not just railway) and probably not allowed to be
combined with other information (other than similar warnings about other
dangers) on one sign?
(which revoked The Safety Signs Regulations 1980)r
and
BS EN ISO 7010
ie, could you put all four signs onto one metal plate, or would that not be >> allowed?Signs are commonly combined on a single piece of material (as can be
seen on e.g. some LU trains on self-adhesive labels) but always as
distinctly separate signs although not inevitably with intervening
borders.
Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 22:12, ColinR wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:28, Certes wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:04, JMB99 wrote:
On BBC News pages
Rail signs call after runner's death at crossing
-a-a-a-a 1 hour ago
A coroner has called for better signs at level crossings after a
runner listening to music died when he was hit by a train.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crk86lx2k4do
"The klaxon siren and red light were in operation at Hoggs Hill Level >>>>> Crossing".-a There also seem to be a plethora of warning signs.[1]-a Short
of hiring a crossing guard, I think the railway has done its job here. >>>>>
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg>
A totally illogical comment from the coroner. There is a known problem >>>> and is shown by the picture from Certes.
https://www.madeinbritain.org/news/sign-blindness-what-is-it-and-how- >>>> can-it-be-avoided
Many other sites show the same problem. The last thing needed is even >>>> more signage.
It seems to me (from what has appeared above) that the coroner ought to >>> have called for a public campaign to warn people that wearing headphones >>> near railways (or roads) can be dangerously stupid.
And - OT on this item, I wonder how many more accidents to pedestrians
will occur due to (almost silent) battery vehicles replacing noisier
diesel or petrol vehicles? The noise of approaching traffic co,tributes >>> to knowing when it is safe to cross roads.
ArnrCOt new electric vehicles mandated to emit a warning tone at slow speed? >> Above say 10 mph the noise is mainly from the tyres or on our potholed
roads the worn suspensions rattling , modern IC vehicles can be as quiet
as electrics unless the user has decided they want a noisy one.
I believe the slow speed sound is indeed required. To an extent (and possibly a little sadly) the problem will be self correcting as people
begin to realise they canrCOt rely on hearing a noisy vehicle. If everyone is wearing earbuds or headphones it wonrCOt matter anyway.
Sam
Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 15:54, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 23/02/2026 19:28, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:28, Certes wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:04, JMB99 wrote:
On BBC News pages
Rail signs call after runner's death at crossing
-a-a-a-a-a 1 hour ago
A coroner has called for better signs at level crossings after a >>>>>>> runner listening to music died when he was hit by a train.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crk86lx2k4do
"The klaxon siren and red light were in operation at Hoggs Hill Level >>>>>> Crossing".-a There also seem to be a plethora of warning signs.[1] >>>>>> Short
of hiring a crossing guard, I think the railway has done its job here. >>>>>>
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg>
A totally illogical comment from the coroner. There is a known problem >>>>> and is shown by the picture from Certes.
https://www.madeinbritain.org/news/sign-blindness-what-is-it-and-how-can-it-be-avoided
Many other sites show the same problem. The last thing needed is even >>>>> more signage.
Which of the four signs and one colour light indicator would you
choose to
remove?
-aIs there a fifth sign to the right "TA..." ?
Yes, also a sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth as shown in this wider view
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/O7lAg6VTgGI/maxresdefault.jpg>
No wonder someone failed to read the important one.
I think that's the other side than we saw in the original link.
So, which of those signs would you remove/combine?
One about keeping dogs on a lead which looks like it's been added
recently/in a rush (laminated paper, wedged behind the fence wire); one asking cyclists to dismount.
The other three appear to be related to a staff access gate; one thing I think the railway doesn't do well is clarifying signage for
passengers/public vs signage for staff. Perhaps the solution here would be
to have them beyond the gate, but then I guess you'd possibly need a second gate (if the signs have to be before the track access gate).
In message <10nliht$ckpe$4@dont-email.me>, at 01:16:45 on Wed, 25 Feb
2026, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
ItrCOs not a good set of lights for those who are red green colour blind. >>> Traffic lights are obvious by position. These lights arenrCOt entirely
obvious that there is a green aspect lower down. Pedestrian crossing
lights
have obvious symbols as well as colour.
It has the words "Stop Red" and "Green Clear" above and below the
relevant
aspects?
I'm not terribly happy with the use of the word "Clear", because that's
not a direct opposite of "Stop".
Edit: see also my reply to another of your posts in this thread.
The same colour light head is also used for User Worked (vehicle)
Crossings, so I don't think you could put the red/green man symbols on
them.
That's only mean changing the lenses, not the whole apparatus.
On 22/02/2026 22:12, ColinR wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:28, Certes wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:04, JMB99 wrote:
On BBC News pages
Rail signs call after runner's death at crossing
-a-a-a-a 1 hour ago
A coroner has called for better signs at level crossings after a
runner listening to music died when he was hit by a train.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crk86lx2k4do
"The klaxon siren and red light were in operation at Hoggs Hill Level
Crossing".-a There also seem to be a plethora of warning signs.[1]-a Short >>> of hiring a crossing guard, I think the railway has done its job here.
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg>
A totally illogical comment from the coroner. There is a known problem
and is shown by the picture from Certes.
https://www.madeinbritain.org/news/sign-blindness-what-is-it-and-how-
can-it-be-avoided
Many other sites show the same problem. The last thing needed is even
more signage.
It seems to me (from what has appeared above) that the coroner ought to
have called for a public campaign to warn people that wearing headphones near railways (or roads) can be dangerously stupid.
And - OT on this item, I wonder how many more accidents to pedestrians
will occur due to (almost silent) battery vehicles replacing noisier
diesel or petrol vehicles?-a The noise of approaching traffic co,tributes
to knowing when it is safe to cross roads.
In message <10nlii3$ckpe$7@dont-email.me>, at 01:16:51 on Wed, 25 Feb
2026, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
The other three appear to be related to a staff access gate; one thing I >>think the railway doesn't do well is clarifying signage for >>passengers/public vs signage for staff. Perhaps the solution here would be >>to have them beyond the gate, but then I guess you'd possibly need a second >>gate (if the signs have to be before the track access gate).
Changing topic slightly, the railway is fond of saying things like >"Authorised persons only", but what credentials make a person
authorised... it could for example be having a valid ticket to travel.
There's some No Entry signs near me with a plate below saying "Except
permit holders",
but doesn't say what form this permit takes.
In fact--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
it's not a permit for market trading (which many assume), or even
something issued to residents, or men driving bin lorries etc, but an >adjunct to a Blue Badge, to allow disabled pax to be dropped off.
In message <10nleb5$b6e5$2@dont-email.me>, at 00:04:53 on Wed, 25 Feb
2026, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> remarked:
On 24/02/2026 16:49, Roland Perry wrote:
And you'd need one the other side saying "Headphones and mobile
phones-a are now allowed".
I thought that was obvious.
I'm sure there are people who think 95% of the signage at such places is "obvious".
On 25/02/2026 10:36, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10nliht$ckpe$4@dont-email.me>, at 01:16:45 on Wed, 25 Feb
2026, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
ItrCOs not a good set of lights for those who are red green colour blind. >>>>> Traffic lights are obvious by position. These lights arenrCOt entirely >>>>> obvious that there is a green aspect lower down. Pedestrian crossing lights
have obvious symbols as well as colour.
It has the words "Stop Red" and "Green Clear" above and below the relevant >>>> aspects?
I'm not terribly happy with the use of the word "Clear", because that's
not a direct opposite of "Stop".
Edit: see also my reply to another of your posts in this thread.
The same colour light head is also used for User Worked (vehicle)
Crossings, so I don't think you could put the red/green man symbols on >>>> them.
That's only mean changing the lenses, not the whole apparatus.
That's not the reason I considered that you 'couldn't have them here' -
consistency is the problem.
If you swap the lenses out for ones with human figures at pedestrian-only
crossings, then the otherwise-identical equipment at crossings which are
also used by vehicles shows a different indication to pedestrians, unless
you add a second, co-acting set of equipment there.
They could use globally recognised shapes, such as a green arrow and a
red hand, which are independent of the mode of transport. That would
also include users of wheelchairs, bicycles, horses, etc. But there's probably a British [copy of an international] Standard prohibiting that.
Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 11:34, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10nijo4$3cje0$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:18:42 on Mon, 23 Feb >>>>>> 2026, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> remarked:
On 23/02/2026 19:28, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:28, Certes wrote:Which of the four signs and one colour light indicator would you >>>>>>>> choose to remove?
On 22/02/2026 16:04, JMB99 wrote:
On BBC News pages
Rail signs call after runner's death at crossing
-a-a-a-a 1 hour ago
A coroner has called for better signs at level crossings after a >>>>>>>>>>> runner listening to music died when he was hit by a train. >>>>>>>>>>>
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crk86lx2k4do
"The klaxon siren and red light were in operation at Hoggs Hill Level
Crossing".-a There also seem to be a plethora of warning signs.[1]-a Short
of hiring a crossing guard, I think the railway has done its job here.
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg>
A totally illogical comment from the coroner. There is a known problem
and is shown by the picture from Certes.
https://www.madeinbritain.org/news/sign-blindness-what-is-it-and-how-c
an-it-be-avoided
Many other sites show the same problem. The last thing needed is even >>>>>>>>> more signage.
Not remove, but not add to as the Coroner wants!
Signs need to be simpler to understand.
Do you consider the signs at the crossing in question difficult to
understand?
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg>
Personally I don't think the largest sign should be partly hidden behind >>>>> the fence.
On the face of it I agree, any signage should be easily visible.
However, is the camera angle the fault, is it too low and the sign fully >>>> visible to an adult eye height? Unfortunately the crossing is outwith >>>> Streetview's reach so cannot be sure.
ItrCOs not a good set of lights for those who are red green colour blind. >>> Traffic lights are obvious by position. These lights arenrCOt entirely
obvious that there is a green aspect lower down. Pedestrian crossing lights >>> have obvious symbols as well as colour.
It has the words "Stop Red" and "Green Clear" above and below the relevant >> aspects? Edit: see also my reply to another of your posts in this thread. >>
The same colour light head is also used for User Worked (vehicle)
Crossings, so I don't think you could put the red/green man symbols on
them.
Also, pedestrians are so used to ignoring those if there's no traffic
visible, that they'd possibly ignore them here too? These are generally
provided where an approaching train isn't visible until too late.
There are two pedestrian/cycle crossings that I use fairly regularly. One
is on a straight section of track and simply has warning signs[1]. The
other is on a bend and has coloured lights (in a different and clearer
layout from the one werCOre discussing) and a yodalarm with a spoken message saying that if the light stays on another train may be coming[2]. The second one is in a slightly less obscure location and may get more use than the first.
ISTR most/all/all double track French level crossings have a sign saying rCLun train peut cacher un autrerCY.
[1] <https://maps.app.goo.gl/twmUi7fbSRhpt6KG9>
[2] <https://maps.app.goo.gl/bUmSMYiehkg2Yofs8>
On 25/02/2026 01:16, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 15:54, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 23/02/2026 19:28, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:28, Certes wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:04, JMB99 wrote:
On BBC News pages
Rail signs call after runner's death at crossing
-a-a-a-a-a 1 hour ago
A coroner has called for better signs at level crossings after a >>>>>>>> runner listening to music died when he was hit by a train.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crk86lx2k4do
"The klaxon siren and red light were in operation at Hoggs Hill Level >>>>>>> Crossing".-a There also seem to be a plethora of warning signs.[1] >>>>>>> Short
of hiring a crossing guard, I think the railway has done its job here. >>>>>>>
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg>
A totally illogical comment from the coroner. There is a known problem >>>>>> and is shown by the picture from Certes.
https://www.madeinbritain.org/news/sign-blindness-what-is-it-and-how-can-it-be-avoided
Many other sites show the same problem. The last thing needed is even >>>>>> more signage.
Which of the four signs and one colour light indicator would you
choose to
remove?
-aIs there a fifth sign to the right "TA..." ?
Yes, also a sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth as shown in this wider view >>> <https://i.ytimg.com/vi/O7lAg6VTgGI/maxresdefault.jpg>
No wonder someone failed to read the important one.
I think that's the other side than we saw in the original link.
So, which of those signs would you remove/combine?
One about keeping dogs on a lead which looks like it's been added
recently/in a rush (laminated paper, wedged behind the fence wire); one
asking cyclists to dismount.
The other three appear to be related to a staff access gate; one thing I
think the railway doesn't do well is clarifying signage for
passengers/public vs signage for staff. Perhaps the solution here would be >> to have them beyond the gate, but then I guess you'd possibly need a second >> gate (if the signs have to be before the track access gate).
From what I can see the gate is across the public path (Hoggs Hill
Lane), presumably for prevention of animals straying onto the line as
the lane goes SW across country areas, possibly unfenced.
On 25/02/2026 10:58, Bevan Price wrote:
On 22/02/2026 22:12, ColinR wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:28, Certes wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:04, JMB99 wrote:
On BBC News pages
Rail signs call after runner's death at crossing
-a-a-a-a 1 hour ago
A coroner has called for better signs at level crossings after a
runner listening to music died when he was hit by a train.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crk86lx2k4do
"The klaxon siren and red light were in operation at Hoggs Hill Level
Crossing".-a There also seem to be a plethora of warning signs.[1]-a Short >>>> of hiring a crossing guard, I think the railway has done its job here. >>>>
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg>
A totally illogical comment from the coroner. There is a known problem
and is shown by the picture from Certes.
https://www.madeinbritain.org/news/sign-blindness-what-is-it-and-how-
can-it-be-avoided
Many other sites show the same problem. The last thing needed is even
more signage.
It seems to me (from what has appeared above) that the coroner ought to
have called for a public campaign to warn people that wearing headphones
near railways (or roads) can be dangerously stupid.
And - OT on this item, I wonder how many more accidents to pedestrians
will occur due to (almost silent) battery vehicles replacing noisier
diesel or petrol vehicles?-a The noise of approaching traffic co,tributes >> to knowing when it is safe to cross roads.
Apart from the idiots who knock the baffles out of the silencers, modern
IC vehicles are not a great deal noisier than battery cars, most of the noise is road noise from the tyres.
On 2026-02-24 11:55 p.m., Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10nleb5$b6e5$2@dont-email.me>, at 00:04:53 on Wed, 25 Feb
2026, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> remarked:
On 24/02/2026 16:49, Roland Perry wrote:
And you'd need one the other side saying "Headphones and mobile
phones-a are now allowed".
I thought that was obvious.
I'm sure there are people who think 95% of the signage at such places is
"obvious".
I would suspect that this group's followers don't even need signs at
railway crossings, or indeed at any scene of rail activity. Our
interest carries over to being aware.
A year or three back while waiting at a city bus-stop (with SkyTrain
station above) in suburban Vancouver, immediately adjacent to the
BNSF/CN dual-track mainline, two cars had a minor fender-bender
straddling both on a four-lane semi-arterial. The drivers got involved
in an on-the-spot lengthy discussion of 'who me?' and began to exchange insurance info.
Bystanders (including self) began yelling at them to clear the tracks; locals were used to a major CN container train lumbering through each afternoon at that hour. It took some persuasion.
But back to the Merseyside incident: that trackage at Hoggs Hill seems
to have clear view for some distance from either direction. Even a
cursory left/right check, Shirley, should've caught the runner's attention.
On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 08:09:28 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <10nlii3$ckpe$7@dont-email.me>, at 01:16:51 on Wed, 25 FebGenerally, if you have to ask then it doesn't include yourself.
2026, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
The other three appear to be related to a staff access gate; one thing I >>>think the railway doesn't do well is clarifying signage for >>>passengers/public vs signage for staff. Perhaps the solution here would be >>>to have them beyond the gate, but then I guess you'd possibly need a second >>>gate (if the signs have to be before the track access gate).
Changing topic slightly, the railway is fond of saying things like >>"Authorised persons only", but what credentials make a person
authorised... it could for example be having a valid ticket to travel.
There's some No Entry signs near me with a plate below saying "Except >>permit holders",Ditto.
but doesn't say what form this permit takes.The necessaey information should be in the relevant TRO or council
office. There is also usually a silent "and authorised vehicles".
--In fact
it's not a permit for market trading (which many assume), or even
something issued to residents, or men driving bin lorries etc, but an >>adjunct to a Blue Badge, to allow disabled pax to be dropped off.
Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 10:36, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10nliht$ckpe$4@dont-email.me>, at 01:16:45 on Wed, 25 Feb
2026, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
ItrCOs not a good set of lights for those who are red green colour blind.
Traffic lights are obvious by position. These lights arenrCOt entirely >>>>>> obvious that there is a green aspect lower down. Pedestrian crossing lights
have obvious symbols as well as colour.
It has the words "Stop Red" and "Green Clear" above and below the relevant
aspects?
I'm not terribly happy with the use of the word "Clear", because that's >>>> not a direct opposite of "Stop".
Edit: see also my reply to another of your posts in this thread.
The same colour light head is also used for User Worked (vehicle)
Crossings, so I don't think you could put the red/green man symbols on >>>>> them.
That's only mean changing the lenses, not the whole apparatus.
That's not the reason I considered that you 'couldn't have them here' -
consistency is the problem.
If you swap the lenses out for ones with human figures at pedestrian-only >>> crossings, then the otherwise-identical equipment at crossings which are >>> also used by vehicles shows a different indication to pedestrians, unless >>> you add a second, co-acting set of equipment there.
They could use globally recognised shapes, such as a green arrow and a
red hand, which are independent of the mode of transport. That would
also include users of wheelchairs, bicycles, horses, etc. But there's
probably a British [copy of an international] Standard prohibiting that.
Would those be more effective than just red and green lights?
Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 10:36, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10nliht$ckpe$4@dont-email.me>, at 01:16:45 on Wed, 25 Feb >>>>> 2026, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
ItrCOs not a good set of lights for those who are red green colour blind.
Traffic lights are obvious by position. These lights arenrCOt entirely >>>>>>> obvious that there is a green aspect lower down. Pedestrian crossing lights
have obvious symbols as well as colour.
It has the words "Stop Red" and "Green Clear" above and below the relevant
aspects?
I'm not terribly happy with the use of the word "Clear", because that's >>>>> not a direct opposite of "Stop".
Edit: see also my reply to another of your posts in this thread.
The same colour light head is also used for User Worked (vehicle)
Crossings, so I don't think you could put the red/green man symbols on >>>>>> them.
That's only mean changing the lenses, not the whole apparatus.
That's not the reason I considered that you 'couldn't have them here' - >>>> consistency is the problem.
If you swap the lenses out for ones with human figures at pedestrian-only >>>> crossings, then the otherwise-identical equipment at crossings which are >>>> also used by vehicles shows a different indication to pedestrians, unless >>>> you add a second, co-acting set of equipment there.
They could use globally recognised shapes, such as a green arrow and a
red hand, which are independent of the mode of transport. That would
also include users of wheelchairs, bicycles, horses, etc. But there's
probably a British [copy of an international] Standard prohibiting that. >>>
Would those be more effective than just red and green lights?
If you are red green colour blind, yes.
A local multi-story car park has illuminated road studs to indicate the correct direction of travel. They have ones that illuminate red in the
shape of a X and green ones in the shape of an up arrow. Nothing safety related should rely on being able to differentiate between green and red only. The railway screens out colour blind potential drivers.
On 26/02/2026 07:21, Tweed wrote:
Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 10:36, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10nliht$ckpe$4@dont-email.me>, at 01:16:45 on Wed, 25 Feb >>>>>> 2026, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
ItrCOs not a good set of lights for those who are red green colour blind.
Traffic lights are obvious by position. These lights arenrCOt entirely >>>>>>>> obvious that there is a green aspect lower down. Pedestrian crossing lights
have obvious symbols as well as colour.
It has the words "Stop Red" and "Green Clear" above and below the relevant
aspects?
I'm not terribly happy with the use of the word "Clear", because that's >>>>>> not a direct opposite of "Stop".
Edit: see also my reply to another of your posts in this thread. >>>>>>>
The same colour light head is also used for User Worked (vehicle) >>>>>>> Crossings, so I don't think you could put the red/green man symbols on >>>>>>> them.
That's only mean changing the lenses, not the whole apparatus.
That's not the reason I considered that you 'couldn't have them here' - >>>>> consistency is the problem.
If you swap the lenses out for ones with human figures at pedestrian-only >>>>> crossings, then the otherwise-identical equipment at crossings which are >>>>> also used by vehicles shows a different indication to pedestrians, unless >>>>> you add a second, co-acting set of equipment there.
They could use globally recognised shapes, such as a green arrow and a >>>> red hand, which are independent of the mode of transport. That would
also include users of wheelchairs, bicycles, horses, etc. But there's >>>> probably a British [copy of an international] Standard prohibiting that. >>>>
Would those be more effective than just red and green lights?
If you are red green colour blind, yes.
A local multi-story car park has illuminated road studs to indicate the
correct direction of travel. They have ones that illuminate red in the
shape of a X and green ones in the shape of an up arrow. Nothing safety
related should rely on being able to differentiate between green and red
only. The railway screens out colour blind potential drivers.
The words "red" and "green" are a clue, as are the positions, and I
doubt many non-English speakers use the crossing. However, it doesn't
hurt to tell people twice as long as it doesn't add to the clutter.
And - OT on this item, I wonder how many more accidents to pedestrians
will occur due to (almost silent) battery vehicles replacing noisier
diesel or petrol vehicles?-a The noise of approaching traffic co,tributes
to knowing when it is safe to cross roads.
Two reds, alternating flashing like mini wig wags (as well as the green) would be much better at attracting attention. Human vision is adapted to
have attention drawn towards flashing lights.
On 25/02/2026 10:58, Bevan Price wrote:
And - OT on this item, I wonder how many more accidents to pedestrians
will occur due to (almost silent) battery vehicles replacing noisier
diesel or petrol vehicles?-a The noise of approaching traffic
co,tributes to knowing when it is safe to cross roads.
Haven't some models added a noise?-a Though I can imagine louder noises being added for safety and them becoming very annoying.-a It really needs
to be white noise as used on some emergency vehicles' sirens.
If you applied that reasoning to other things like cars then we would still be driving vehicles with no enhancements like ABS etc.
Would those be more effective than just red and green lights?
The railway screens out colour blind potential drivers.
Though I think when the American singer Dionne Warwick ended up in Hospital after getting knocked by a Glasgow Trolleybus it was more likely because
she looked the wrong way for traffic driving on the left, and it was foggy.Why I remember this snippet I donrCOt know, just hoping it might come up as answer in a pub quiz one day though for many most of them wouldnrCOt know what a Trolleybus was.
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 11:34, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10nijo4$3cje0$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:18:42 on Mon, 23 Feb >>>>>>> 2026, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> remarked:
On 23/02/2026 19:28, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:28, Certes wrote:Which of the four signs and one colour light indicator would you >>>>>>>>> choose to remove?
On 22/02/2026 16:04, JMB99 wrote:
On BBC News pages
Rail signs call after runner's death at crossing
-a-a-a-a 1 hour ago
A coroner has called for better signs at level crossings after a >>>>>>>>>>>> runner listening to music died when he was hit by a train. >>>>>>>>>>>>
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crk86lx2k4do
"The klaxon siren and red light were in operation at Hoggs Hill Level
Crossing".-a There also seem to be a plethora of warning signs.[1]-a Short
of hiring a crossing guard, I think the railway has done its job here.
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg>
A totally illogical comment from the coroner. There is a known problem
and is shown by the picture from Certes.
https://www.madeinbritain.org/news/sign-blindness-what-is-it-and-how-c
an-it-be-avoided
Many other sites show the same problem. The last thing needed is even
more signage.
Not remove, but not add to as the Coroner wants!
Signs need to be simpler to understand.
Do you consider the signs at the crossing in question difficult to >>>>>> understand?
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg>
Personally I don't think the largest sign should be partly hidden behind >>>>>> the fence.
On the face of it I agree, any signage should be easily visible.
However, is the camera angle the fault, is it too low and the sign fully >>>>> visible to an adult eye height? Unfortunately the crossing is outwith >>>>> Streetview's reach so cannot be sure.
ItrCOs not a good set of lights for those who are red green colour blind. >>>> Traffic lights are obvious by position. These lights arenrCOt entirely >>>> obvious that there is a green aspect lower down. Pedestrian crossing lights
have obvious symbols as well as colour.
It has the words "Stop Red" and "Green Clear" above and below the relevant >>> aspects? Edit: see also my reply to another of your posts in this thread. >>>
The same colour light head is also used for User Worked (vehicle)
Crossings, so I don't think you could put the red/green man symbols on
them.
Also, pedestrians are so used to ignoring those if there's no traffic
visible, that they'd possibly ignore them here too? These are generally
provided where an approaching train isn't visible until too late.
There are two pedestrian/cycle crossings that I use fairly regularly. One >> is on a straight section of track and simply has warning signs[1]. The
other is on a bend and has coloured lights (in a different and clearer
layout from the one werCOre discussing) and a yodalarm with a spoken message >> saying that if the light stays on another train may be coming[2]. The
second one is in a slightly less obscure location and may get more use than >> the first.
ISTR most/all/all double track French level crossings have a sign saying
rCLun train peut cacher un autrerCY.
[1] <https://maps.app.goo.gl/twmUi7fbSRhpt6KG9>
[2] <https://maps.app.goo.gl/bUmSMYiehkg2Yofs8>
I bet the person who lives in that house loves hearing that repeatedly!
On 26/02/2026 07:21, Tweed wrote:
The railway screens out colour blind potential drivers.
We were given colour blindness tests when I started work, not to screen
out people but to ensure thatthose with colour blindness were aware of it.
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
From what I can see the gate is across the public path (Hoggs Hill
Lane), presumably for prevention of animals straying onto the line as
the lane goes SW across country areas, possibly unfenced.
It can be seen from the first image <https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg> that the crossing itself is ungated.
[snip]
In the centre of this image <https://i.ytimg.com/vi/O7lAg6VTgGI/maxresdefault.jpg> . . .
On 26/02/2026 10:01, JMB99 wrote:
On 25/02/2026 10:58, Bevan Price wrote:
And - OT on this item, I wonder how many more accidents to pedestrians
will occur due to (almost silent) battery vehicles replacing noisier
diesel or petrol vehicles?-a The noise of approaching traffic
co,tributes to knowing when it is safe to cross roads.
Haven't some models added a noise?-a Though I can imagine louder noises
being added for safety and them becoming very annoying.-a It really needs >> to be white noise as used on some emergency vehicles' sirens.
White noise makes it much easier to hear what direction it comes from,
but I wonder whether it's immediately recognisable as a vehicle sound.
Perhaps an aftermarket will develop where one can make one's electric
car sound like a petrol Porsche (but hopefully not like a Crazy Frog).
On 25/02/2026 10:42, Marland wrote:
If you applied that reasoning to other things like cars then we would still >> be driving vehicles with no enhancements like ABS etc.
ABS is an additional feature and the vehicle can drive safely without it
(I once nearly hit a gate because of ABS).
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 01:16, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 15:54, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 23/02/2026 19:28, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:28, Certes wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:04, JMB99 wrote:
On BBC News pages
Rail signs call after runner's death at crossing
-a-a-a-a-a 1 hour ago
A coroner has called for better signs at level crossings after a >>>>>>>>> runner listening to music died when he was hit by a train.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crk86lx2k4do
"The klaxon siren and red light were in operation at Hoggs Hill Level >>>>>>>> Crossing".-a There also seem to be a plethora of warning signs.[1] >>>>>>>> Short
of hiring a crossing guard, I think the railway has done its job here. >>>>>>>>
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg>
A totally illogical comment from the coroner. There is a known problem >>>>>>> and is shown by the picture from Certes.
https://www.madeinbritain.org/news/sign-blindness-what-is-it-and-how-can-it-be-avoided
Many other sites show the same problem. The last thing needed is even >>>>>>> more signage.
Which of the four signs and one colour light indicator would you
choose to
remove?
-aIs there a fifth sign to the right "TA..." ?
Yes, also a sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth as shown in this wider view >>>> <https://i.ytimg.com/vi/O7lAg6VTgGI/maxresdefault.jpg>
No wonder someone failed to read the important one.
I think that's the other side than we saw in the original link.
So, which of those signs would you remove/combine?
One about keeping dogs on a lead which looks like it's been added
recently/in a rush (laminated paper, wedged behind the fence wire); one
asking cyclists to dismount.
The other three appear to be related to a staff access gate; one thing I >>> think the railway doesn't do well is clarifying signage for
passengers/public vs signage for staff. Perhaps the solution here would be >>> to have them beyond the gate, but then I guess you'd possibly need a second >>> gate (if the signs have to be before the track access gate).
From what I can see the gate is across the public path (Hoggs Hill
Lane), presumably for prevention of animals straying onto the line as
the lane goes SW across country areas, possibly unfenced.
It can be seen from the first image <https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg> that the crossing itself is ungated.
The line itself definitely won't be unfenced, it's a busy 3rd rail electrified suburban line with frequent trains. On google satellite viewblends in
you can see the anti-trespass rubber spikes either side of the crossing.
In the centre of this image <https://i.ytimg.com/vi/O7lAg6VTgGI/maxresdefault.jpg> are three signs not visible in the other picture. Counting from the right, sign 1 says
"Cyclists dismount", and then I'm referring to signs 2, 3 and 4. Sign 5 by this counting method will be the yellow 3rd rail warning sign.
One of the signs is an "access prohibited" sign (human figure in a red circle with a diagonal line), which can't be referring to the crow itself, because access very much is permitted there! The blue sign appears to be
one instructing staff going lineside that they must wear hi-viz.
The blue and white signs seem to be mounted on a locked gate (it
well with the fence, but you can see the latch mechanism on the left). This will be a lineside access gate.
I'm presuming that the three signs have to be mounted a certain distance before people going trackside actually reach the line, which in this case means before the gate, and thus in an area where they contribute to sign blindness for the public using the crossing.
Ideally they'd be beyond the lineside access gate, to avoid confusion, but presumably you'd then need a further gate to restrict access to the line until after the signs - and maybe there isn't room for that.
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 11:34, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 23/02/2026 19:28, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:28, Certes wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:04, JMB99 wrote:
On BBC News pages
Rail signs call after runner's death at crossing
-a-a-a-a 1 hour ago
A coroner has called for better signs at level crossings after a >>>>>>>> runner listening to music died when he was hit by a train.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crk86lx2k4do
"The klaxon siren and red light were in operation at Hoggs Hill Level >>>>>>> Crossing".-a There also seem to be a plethora of warning signs.[1]-a Short
of hiring a crossing guard, I think the railway has done its job here. >>>>>>>
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg>
A totally illogical comment from the coroner. There is a known problem >>>>>> and is shown by the picture from Certes.
https://www.madeinbritain.org/news/sign-blindness-what-is-it-and-how-can-it-be-avoided
Many other sites show the same problem. The last thing needed is even >>>>>> more signage.
Which of the four signs and one colour light indicator would you choose to
remove?
Not remove, but not add to as the Coroner wants!
You said "There is a known problem and is shown by the picture from Certes" >>> which shows four signs and a colour light at a crossing, together with a >>> link to "sign blindness" which contains a section about the problems of
having too many signs. That suggests to me that you think the crossing in >>> question has too many signs already.
It is not an easy answer. Two are relevant for safe crossing, the colour
light and the big sign. One is of useful information in relation to
contact details etc. Two are purely "I have put up a sign so I am no
liable if you do something silly" and it is these that are irrelevant,
just cluttering up what should be clear signage.
If ,as seems to be happening more people are not aware of their
surroundings and getting into dangerous situations because of music or reading a screen on personal devices then maybe signs are not the answer.
If they donrCOt notice a couple they wont notice any more .And you would think it would not be confined to the UK.
Maybe devices developed in future could be engineered that they react to a locally generated short range direction *signal that interrupts music or the screen with an alert.
The UK alone is unlikely to have enough clout but maybe with Europe as well
, and it would only work with devices that use a radio signal like phones
but they will be the majority in use now. Not many people seem to use Mp3 /
I Pod devices now.
*Directional could be the hard part, passengers on trains would soon get
fed up with alerts interrupting every time it passed over a crossing .
Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 11:34, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 23/02/2026 19:28, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:28, Certes wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:04, JMB99 wrote:
On BBC News pages
Rail signs call after runner's death at crossing
-a-a-a-a 1 hour ago
A coroner has called for better signs at level crossings after a >>>>>>>>> runner listening to music died when he was hit by a train.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crk86lx2k4do
"The klaxon siren and red light were in operation at Hoggs Hill Level >>>>>>>> Crossing".-a There also seem to be a plethora of warning signs.[1]-a Short
of hiring a crossing guard, I think the railway has done its job here. >>>>>>>>
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg>
A totally illogical comment from the coroner. There is a known problem >>>>>>> and is shown by the picture from Certes.
https://www.madeinbritain.org/news/sign-blindness-what-is-it-and-how-can-it-be-avoided
Many other sites show the same problem. The last thing needed is even >>>>>>> more signage.
Which of the four signs and one colour light indicator would you choose to
remove?
Not remove, but not add to as the Coroner wants!
You said "There is a known problem and is shown by the picture from Certes"
which shows four signs and a colour light at a crossing, together with a >>>> link to "sign blindness" which contains a section about the problems of >>>> having too many signs. That suggests to me that you think the crossing in >>>> question has too many signs already.
It is not an easy answer. Two are relevant for safe crossing, the colour >>> light and the big sign. One is of useful information in relation to
contact details etc. Two are purely "I have put up a sign so I am no
liable if you do something silly" and it is these that are irrelevant,
just cluttering up what should be clear signage.
If ,as seems to be happening more people are not aware of their
surroundings and getting into dangerous situations because of music or
reading a screen on personal devices then maybe signs are not the answer.
If they donrCOt notice a couple they wont notice any more .And you would
think it would not be confined to the UK.
Maybe devices developed in future could be engineered that they react to a >> locally generated short range direction *signal that interrupts music or >> the screen with an alert.
The UK alone is unlikely to have enough clout but maybe with Europe as well >> , and it would only work with devices that use a radio signal like phones
but they will be the majority in use now. Not many people seem to use Mp3 / >> I Pod devices now.
*Directional could be the hard part, passengers on trains would soon get
fed up with alerts interrupting every time it passed over a crossing .
The problem is that such a feature would have to work compatibly on both
iOS and Android, both developed in the US, where such requirements may seem eccentric. WhatrCOs more, various Asian phone manufacturers would then have to implement it into their devices. This can be done, but it seldom
happens, and I canrCOt see this being seen as important enough. One of the few such implementations I can think of is the Emergency Alerts system,
which works internationally:
https://educationhub.blog.gov.uk/2025/09/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-emergency-alerts-test-on-7-september/
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-02-26/national-emergency-mobile-alert-system-trials-to-begin/106390534Mmmm, I have never received
I did actually receive a real such alert, in English, off the coast of Iceland, warning of a nearby erupting volcano that should be avoided. It warned against travel to that area, and was presumably broadcast to an area of a few miles radius around it.
On 26/02/2026 12:31, Recliner wrote:
Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 11:34, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 23/02/2026 19:28, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:28, Certes wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:04, JMB99 wrote:
On BBC News pages
Rail signs call after runner's death at crossing
-a-a-a-a 1 hour ago
A coroner has called for better signs at level crossings after a >>>>>>>>>> runner listening to music died when he was hit by a train. >>>>>>>>>>
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crk86lx2k4do
"The klaxon siren and red light were in operation at Hoggs Hill Level >>>>>>>>> Crossing".-a There also seem to be a plethora of warning signs.[1]-a Short
of hiring a crossing guard, I think the railway has done its job here.
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg>
A totally illogical comment from the coroner. There is a known problem >>>>>>>> and is shown by the picture from Certes.
https://www.madeinbritain.org/news/sign-blindness-what-is-it-and-how-can-it-be-avoided
Many other sites show the same problem. The last thing needed is even >>>>>>>> more signage.
Which of the four signs and one colour light indicator would you choose to
remove?
Not remove, but not add to as the Coroner wants!
You said "There is a known problem and is shown by the picture from Certes"
which shows four signs and a colour light at a crossing, together with a >>>>> link to "sign blindness" which contains a section about the problems of >>>>> having too many signs. That suggests to me that you think the crossing in >>>>> question has too many signs already.
It is not an easy answer. Two are relevant for safe crossing, the colour >>>> light and the big sign. One is of useful information in relation to
contact details etc. Two are purely "I have put up a sign so I am no
liable if you do something silly" and it is these that are irrelevant, >>>> just cluttering up what should be clear signage.
If ,as seems to be happening more people are not aware of their
surroundings and getting into dangerous situations because of music or
reading a screen on personal devices then maybe signs are not the answer. >>> If they donrCOt notice a couple they wont notice any more .And you would >>> think it would not be confined to the UK.
Maybe devices developed in future could be engineered that they react to a >>> locally generated short range direction *signal that interrupts music or >>> the screen with an alert.
The UK alone is unlikely to have enough clout but maybe with Europe as well >>> , and it would only work with devices that use a radio signal like phones >>> but they will be the majority in use now. Not many people seem to use Mp3 / >>> I Pod devices now.
*Directional could be the hard part, passengers on trains would soon get >>> fed up with alerts interrupting every time it passed over a crossing .
The problem is that such a feature would have to work compatibly on both
iOS and Android, both developed in the US, where such requirements may seem >> eccentric. WhatrCOs more, various Asian phone manufacturers would then have >> to implement it into their devices. This can be done, but it seldom
happens, and I canrCOt see this being seen as important enough. One of the >> few such implementations I can think of is the Emergency Alerts system,
which works internationally:
https://educationhub.blog.gov.uk/2025/09/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-emergency-alerts-test-on-7-september/
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-02-26/national-emergency-mobile-alert-system-trials-to-begin/106390534Mmmm,
I have never received
I did actually receive a real such alert, in English, off the coast of
Iceland, warning of a nearby erupting volcano that should be avoided. It
warned against travel to that area, and was presumably broadcast to an area >> of a few miles radius around it.
Mmmmm, I have never received one of these. Maybe my Android 8.1.0
version is too old?
Perhaps an aftermarket will develop where one can make one's electric
car sound like a petrol Porsche (but hopefully not like a Crazy Frog).
On 26/02/2026 12:31, Recliner wrote:
Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 11:34, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 23/02/2026 19:28, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:28, Certes wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:04, JMB99 wrote:
On BBC News pages
Rail signs call after runner's death at crossing
-a-a-a-a-a 1 hour ago
A coroner has called for better signs at level crossings after a >>>>>>>>>> runner listening to music died when he was hit by a train. >>>>>>>>>>
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crk86lx2k4do
"The klaxon siren and red light were in operation at Hoggs Hill >>>>>>>>> Level
Crossing".-a There also seem to be a plethora of warning signs. >>>>>>>>> [1]-a Short
of hiring a crossing guard, I think the railway has done its >>>>>>>>> job here.
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg>
A totally illogical comment from the coroner. There is a known >>>>>>>> problem
and is shown by the picture from Certes.
https://www.madeinbritain.org/news/sign-blindness-what-is-it- >>>>>>>> and-how-can-it-be-avoided
Many other sites show the same problem. The last thing needed is >>>>>>>> even
more signage.
Which of the four signs and one colour light indicator would you >>>>>>> choose to
remove?
Not remove, but not add to as the Coroner wants!
You said "There is a known problem and is shown by the picture from >>>>> Certes"
which shows four signs and a colour light at a crossing, together
with a
link to "sign blindness" which contains a section about the
problems of
having too many signs. That suggests to me that you think the
crossing in
question has too many signs already.
It is not an easy answer. Two are relevant for safe crossing, the
colour
light and the big sign. One is of useful information in relation to
contact details etc. Two are purely "I have put up a sign so I am no
liable if you do something silly" and it is these that are irrelevant, >>>> just cluttering up what should be clear signage.
If ,as seems to be happening more people are not aware of their
surroundings and getting into dangerous situations because of music or
reading a screen on personal devices then maybe signs are not the
answer.
If they donrCOt notice a couple they wont notice any more .And you would >>> think it would-a not be confined to the UK.
Maybe devices developed in future could be engineered that they react
to a
locally generated short range-a direction *signal that interrupts
music-a or
the screen with an alert.
The UK alone is unlikely to have enough clout but maybe with Europe
as well
, and it would only work with devices that use a radio signal like
phones
but they will be the majority in use now. Not many people seem to use
Mp3 /
I Pod devices now.
*Directional could be the hard part, passengers on trains would soon get >>> fed up with alerts interrupting every time it passed over a crossing .
The problem is that such a feature would have to work compatibly on both
iOS and Android, both developed in the US, where such requirements may
seem
eccentric. WhatrCOs more, various Asian phone manufacturers would then have >> to implement it into their devices.-a This can be done, but it seldom
happens, and I canrCOt see this being seen as important enough. One of the >> few such implementations I can think of is the Emergency Alerts system,
which works internationally:
https://educationhub.blog.gov.uk/2025/09/what-you-need-to-know-about-
the-emergency-alerts-test-on-7-september/
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-02-26/national-emergency-mobile-
alert-system-trials-to-begin/106390534Mmmm, I have never received
I did actually receive a real such alert, in English, off the coast of
Iceland, warning of a nearby erupting volcano that should be avoided. It
warned against travel to that area, and was presumably broadcast to an
area
of a few miles radius around it.
Mmmmm, I have never received one of these. Maybe my Android 8.1.0
version is too old?
On 26/02/2026 07:21, Tweed wrote:
The railway screens out colour blind potential drivers.
We were given colour blindness tests when I started work, not to screen
out people but to ensure thatthose with colour blindness were aware of it.
Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 10:36, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10nliht$ckpe$4@dont-email.me>, at 01:16:45 on Wed, 25 Feb >>>>> 2026, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
ItrCOs not a good set of lights for those who are red green colour blind.
Traffic lights are obvious by position. These lights arenrCOt entirely >>>>>>> obvious that there is a green aspect lower down. Pedestrian crossing lights
have obvious symbols as well as colour.
It has the words "Stop Red" and "Green Clear" above and below the relevant
aspects?
I'm not terribly happy with the use of the word "Clear", because that's >>>>> not a direct opposite of "Stop".
Edit: see also my reply to another of your posts in this thread.
The same colour light head is also used for User Worked (vehicle)
Crossings, so I don't think you could put the red/green man symbols on >>>>>> them.
That's only mean changing the lenses, not the whole apparatus.
That's not the reason I considered that you 'couldn't have them here' - >>>> consistency is the problem.
If you swap the lenses out for ones with human figures at pedestrian-only >>>> crossings, then the otherwise-identical equipment at crossings which are >>>> also used by vehicles shows a different indication to pedestrians, unless >>>> you add a second, co-acting set of equipment there.
They could use globally recognised shapes, such as a green arrow and a
red hand, which are independent of the mode of transport. That would
also include users of wheelchairs, bicycles, horses, etc. But there's
probably a British [copy of an international] Standard prohibiting that. >>>
Would those be more effective than just red and green lights?
If you are red green colour blind, yes.
A local multi-story car park has illuminated road studs to indicate the correct direction of travel. They have ones that illuminate red in the
shape of a X and green ones in the shape of an up arrow. Nothing safety related should rely on being able to differentiate between green and red only. The railway screens out colour blind potential drivers.
Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
From what I can see the gate is across the public path (Hoggs Hill
Lane), presumably for prevention of animals straying onto the line as
the lane goes SW across country areas, possibly unfenced.
It can be seen from the first image
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg> that the crossing
itself is ungated.
[snip]
In the centre of this image
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/O7lAg6VTgGI/maxresdefault.jpg> . . .
Not ungated, just that the gate is set back some yards from the line. ThatrCOs visible from the second image above, and also from the Google Maps aerial view.
<https://maps.app.goo.gl/ta5AP6Mhx5rhcAKJA?g_st=ic>
On 26/02/2026 01:19, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 01:16, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 15:54, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 23/02/2026 19:28, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:28, Certes wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:04, JMB99 wrote:
On BBC News pages
Rail signs call after runner's death at crossing
-a-a-a-a-a 1 hour ago
A coroner has called for better signs at level crossings after a >>>>>>>>>> runner listening to music died when he was hit by a train. >>>>>>>>>>
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crk86lx2k4do
"The klaxon siren and red light were in operation at Hoggs Hill Level >>>>>>>>> Crossing".-a There also seem to be a plethora of warning signs.[1] >>>>>>>>> Short
of hiring a crossing guard, I think the railway has done its job here.
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg>
A totally illogical comment from the coroner. There is a known problem >>>>>>>> and is shown by the picture from Certes.
https://www.madeinbritain.org/news/sign-blindness-what-is-it-and-how-can-it-be-avoided
Many other sites show the same problem. The last thing needed is even >>>>>>>> more signage.
Which of the four signs and one colour light indicator would you >>>>>>> choose to
remove?
-aIs there a fifth sign to the right "TA..." ?
Yes, also a sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth as shown in this wider view >>>>> <https://i.ytimg.com/vi/O7lAg6VTgGI/maxresdefault.jpg>
No wonder someone failed to read the important one.
I think that's the other side than we saw in the original link.
So, which of those signs would you remove/combine?
One about keeping dogs on a lead which looks like it's been added
recently/in a rush (laminated paper, wedged behind the fence wire); one >>>> asking cyclists to dismount.
The other three appear to be related to a staff access gate; one thing I >>>> think the railway doesn't do well is clarifying signage for
passengers/public vs signage for staff. Perhaps the solution here would be >>>> to have them beyond the gate, but then I guess you'd possibly need a second
gate (if the signs have to be before the track access gate).
From what I can see the gate is across the public path (Hoggs Hill
Lane), presumably for prevention of animals straying onto the line as
the lane goes SW across country areas, possibly unfenced.
It can be seen from the first image
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg> that the crossing
itself is ungated.
Gated both sides, just that the gates are set back from the lineside fenceline:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/4eJoasAfN2FD1zjG9
blends in
The line itself definitely won't be unfenced, it's a busy 3rd rail
electrified suburban line with frequent trains. On google satellite view
you can see the anti-trespass rubber spikes either side of the crossing.
In the centre of this image
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/O7lAg6VTgGI/maxresdefault.jpg> are three signs not >> visible in the other picture. Counting from the right, sign 1 says
"Cyclists dismount", and then I'm referring to signs 2, 3 and 4. Sign 5 by >> this counting method will be the yellow 3rd rail warning sign.
One of the signs is an "access prohibited" sign (human figure in a red
circle with a diagonal line), which can't be referring to the crow itself, >> because access very much is permitted there! The blue sign appears to be
one instructing staff going lineside that they must wear hi-viz.
The blue and white signs seem to be mounted on a locked gate (it
well with the fence, but you can see the latch mechanism on the left). This >> will be a lineside access gate.
I'm presuming that the three signs have to be mounted a certain distance
before people going trackside actually reach the line, which in this case
means before the gate, and thus in an area where they contribute to sign
blindness for the public using the crossing.
Ideally they'd be beyond the lineside access gate, to avoid confusion, but >> presumably you'd then need a further gate to restrict access to the line
until after the signs - and maybe there isn't room for that.
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 10:36, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10nliht$ckpe$4@dont-email.me>, at 01:16:45 on Wed, 25 Feb >>>>>> 2026, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
ItrCOs not a good set of lights for those who are red green colour blind.
Traffic lights are obvious by position. These lights arenrCOt entirely >>>>>>>> obvious that there is a green aspect lower down. Pedestrian crossing lights
have obvious symbols as well as colour.
It has the words "Stop Red" and "Green Clear" above and below the relevant
aspects?
I'm not terribly happy with the use of the word "Clear", because that's >>>>>> not a direct opposite of "Stop".
Edit: see also my reply to another of your posts in this thread. >>>>>>>
The same colour light head is also used for User Worked (vehicle) >>>>>>> Crossings, so I don't think you could put the red/green man symbols on >>>>>>> them.
That's only mean changing the lenses, not the whole apparatus.
That's not the reason I considered that you 'couldn't have them here' - >>>>> consistency is the problem.
If you swap the lenses out for ones with human figures at pedestrian-only >>>>> crossings, then the otherwise-identical equipment at crossings which are >>>>> also used by vehicles shows a different indication to pedestrians, unless >>>>> you add a second, co-acting set of equipment there.
They could use globally recognised shapes, such as a green arrow and a >>>> red hand, which are independent of the mode of transport. That would
also include users of wheelchairs, bicycles, horses, etc. But there's >>>> probably a British [copy of an international] Standard prohibiting that. >>>>
Would those be more effective than just red and green lights?
If you are red green colour blind, yes.
A local multi-story car park has illuminated road studs to indicate the
correct direction of travel. They have ones that illuminate red in the
shape of a X and green ones in the shape of an up arrow. Nothing safety
related should rely on being able to differentiate between green and red
only. The railway screens out colour blind potential drivers.
How do colourblind car drivers manage?
Am 26.02.2026 um 16:20 schrieb Anna Noyd-Dryver:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 10:36, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10nliht$ckpe$4@dont-email.me>, at 01:16:45 on Wed, 25 >>>>>>> Feb
2026, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
ItrCOs not a good set of lights for those who are red green >>>>>>>>> colour blind.
Traffic lights are obvious by position. These lights arenrCOt >>>>>>>>> entirely
obvious that there is a green aspect lower down. Pedestrian >>>>>>>>> crossing lights
have obvious symbols as well as colour.
It has the words "Stop Red" and "Green Clear" above and below >>>>>>>> the relevant
aspects?
I'm not terribly happy with the use of the word "Clear", because >>>>>>> that's
not a direct opposite of "Stop".
Edit: see also my reply to another of your posts in this thread. >>>>>>>>
The same colour light head is also used for User Worked (vehicle) >>>>>>>> Crossings, so I don't think you could put the red/green man
symbols on
them.
That's only mean changing the lenses, not the whole apparatus.
That's not the reason I considered that you 'couldn't have them
here' -
consistency is the problem.
If you swap the lenses out for ones with human figures at
pedestrian-only
crossings, then the otherwise-identical equipment at crossings
which are
also used by vehicles shows a different indication to pedestrians, >>>>>> unless
you add a second, co-acting set of equipment there.
They could use globally recognised shapes, such as a green arrow and a >>>>> red hand, which are independent of the mode of transport.-a That would >>>>> also include users of wheelchairs, bicycles, horses, etc.-a But there's >>>>> probably a British [copy of an international] Standard prohibiting
that.
Would those be more effective than just red and green lights?
If you are red green colour blind, yes.
A local multi-story car park has illuminated road studs to indicate the
correct direction of travel. They have ones that illuminate red in the
shape of a X and green ones in the shape of an up arrow. Nothing safety
related should rely on being able to differentiate between green and red >>> only. The railway screens out colour blind potential drivers.
How do colourblind car drivers manage?
In the driving test they have to prove they've learned that the top
light is red and the bottom light is green.
The question is: can the railways rely on that knowledge when using non- standard lights?
In message <10np6a5$1h5ke$2@dont-email.me>, at 10:12:21 on Thu, 26 Feb
2026, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
Perhaps an aftermarket will develop where one can make one's electric
car sound like a petrol Porsche (but hopefully not like a Crazy Frog).
My smartphone ringtone is the Crazy Frog, never fails to get people's attention!! And of course, I can always tell that it's *my* phone which
is ringing.
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 26/02/2026 12:31, Recliner wrote:
Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 11:34, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 23/02/2026 19:28, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:28, Certes wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:04, JMB99 wrote:
On BBC News pages
Rail signs call after runner's death at crossing
-a-a-a-a 1 hour ago
A coroner has called for better signs at level crossings after a >>>>>>>>>>> runner listening to music died when he was hit by a train. >>>>>>>>>>>
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crk86lx2k4do
"The klaxon siren and red light were in operation at Hoggs Hill Level
Crossing".-a There also seem to be a plethora of warning signs.[1]-a Short
of hiring a crossing guard, I think the railway has done its job here.
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg>
A totally illogical comment from the coroner. There is a known problem
and is shown by the picture from Certes.
https://www.madeinbritain.org/news/sign-blindness-what-is-it-and-how-can-it-be-avoided
Many other sites show the same problem. The last thing needed is even >>>>>>>>> more signage.
Which of the four signs and one colour light indicator would you choose to
remove?
Not remove, but not add to as the Coroner wants!
You said "There is a known problem and is shown by the picture from Certes"
which shows four signs and a colour light at a crossing, together with a >>>>>> link to "sign blindness" which contains a section about the problems of >>>>>> having too many signs. That suggests to me that you think the crossing in
question has too many signs already.
It is not an easy answer. Two are relevant for safe crossing, the colour >>>>> light and the big sign. One is of useful information in relation to
contact details etc. Two are purely "I have put up a sign so I am no >>>>> liable if you do something silly" and it is these that are irrelevant, >>>>> just cluttering up what should be clear signage.
If ,as seems to be happening more people are not aware of their
surroundings and getting into dangerous situations because of music or >>>> reading a screen on personal devices then maybe signs are not the answer. >>>> If they donrCOt notice a couple they wont notice any more .And you would >>>> think it would not be confined to the UK.
Maybe devices developed in future could be engineered that they react to a >>>> locally generated short range direction *signal that interrupts music or >>>> the screen with an alert.
The UK alone is unlikely to have enough clout but maybe with Europe as well
, and it would only work with devices that use a radio signal like phones >>>> but they will be the majority in use now. Not many people seem to use Mp3 /
I Pod devices now.
*Directional could be the hard part, passengers on trains would soon get >>>> fed up with alerts interrupting every time it passed over a crossing . >>>>
The problem is that such a feature would have to work compatibly on both >>> iOS and Android, both developed in the US, where such requirements may seem >>> eccentric. WhatrCOs more, various Asian phone manufacturers would then have >>> to implement it into their devices. This can be done, but it seldom
happens, and I canrCOt see this being seen as important enough. One of the >>> few such implementations I can think of is the Emergency Alerts system,
which works internationally:
https://educationhub.blog.gov.uk/2025/09/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-emergency-alerts-test-on-7-september/
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-02-26/national-emergency-mobile-alert-system-trials-to-begin/106390534Mmmm,
I have never received
I did actually receive a real such alert, in English, off the coast of
Iceland, warning of a nearby erupting volcano that should be avoided. It >>> warned against travel to that area, and was presumably broadcast to an area >>> of a few miles radius around it.
Mmmmm, I have never received one of these. Maybe my Android 8.1.0
version is too old?
Yes, I think you probably need Android 11 or later:
https://www.gov.uk/alerts/how-alerts-work
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
From what I can see the gate is across the public path (Hoggs Hill
Lane), presumably for prevention of animals straying onto the line as
the lane goes SW across country areas, possibly unfenced.
It can be seen from the first image
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg> that the crossing >>> itself is ungated.
[snip]
In the centre of this image
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/O7lAg6VTgGI/maxresdefault.jpg> . . .
Not ungated, just that the gate is set back some yards from the line.
ThatrCOs visible from the second image above, and also from the Google Maps >> aerial view.
<https://maps.app.goo.gl/ta5AP6Mhx5rhcAKJA?g_st=ic>
Aah yes, I was focussed on the area of the signage and missed the gate in
the foreground *D'oh*
At the point of the crossing there's no gate, however there is a locked track-access gate in the fence to the right to which three of the signs refer, and is a potential source of sign-overload.
And - OT on this item, I wonder how many more accidents to pedestrians
will occur due to (almost silent) battery vehicles replacing noisier
diesel or petrol vehicles?-a The noise of approaching traffic co,tributes
to knowing when it is safe to cross roads.
On 25/02/2026 10:58, Bevan Price wrote:
[snip]
And - OT on this item, I wonder how many more accidents to pedestrians
will occur due to (almost silent) battery vehicles replacing noisier
diesel or petrol vehicles?-a The noise of approaching traffic co,tributes >> to knowing when it is safe to cross roads.
As others have said, all BEVs (and PHEVs?) are legally required to have
some form of noise making when driving slowly. However, my first BEV (a
Kia) had a push button which could switch this off. Noise reinstated
when next starting the car. No such switch on my current BEV (at least,
not that I have found yet!).
On 26/02/2026 12:57, Recliner wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 26/02/2026 12:31, Recliner wrote:
Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 11:34, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 23/02/2026 19:28, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:28, Certes wrote:
On 22/02/2026 16:04, JMB99 wrote:
On BBC News pages
Rail signs call after runner's death at crossing
-a-a-a-a 1 hour ago
A coroner has called for better signs at level crossings after a >>>>>>>>>>>> runner listening to music died when he was hit by a train. >>>>>>>>>>>>
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crk86lx2k4do
"The klaxon siren and red light were in operation at Hoggs Hill Level
Crossing".-a There also seem to be a plethora of warning signs.[1]-a Short
of hiring a crossing guard, I think the railway has done its job here.
<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cl2xAGSJZQs/maxresdefault.jpg>
A totally illogical comment from the coroner. There is a known problem
and is shown by the picture from Certes.
https://www.madeinbritain.org/news/sign-blindness-what-is-it-and-how-can-it-be-avoided
Many other sites show the same problem. The last thing needed is even
more signage.
Which of the four signs and one colour light indicator would you choose to
remove?
Not remove, but not add to as the Coroner wants!
You said "There is a known problem and is shown by the picture from Certes"
which shows four signs and a colour light at a crossing, together with a
link to "sign blindness" which contains a section about the problems of >>>>>>> having too many signs. That suggests to me that you think the crossing in
question has too many signs already.
It is not an easy answer. Two are relevant for safe crossing, the colour >>>>>> light and the big sign. One is of useful information in relation to >>>>>> contact details etc. Two are purely "I have put up a sign so I am no >>>>>> liable if you do something silly" and it is these that are irrelevant, >>>>>> just cluttering up what should be clear signage.
If ,as seems to be happening more people are not aware of their
surroundings and getting into dangerous situations because of music or >>>>> reading a screen on personal devices then maybe signs are not the answer. >>>>> If they donrCOt notice a couple they wont notice any more .And you would >>>>> think it would not be confined to the UK.
Maybe devices developed in future could be engineered that they react to a
locally generated short range direction *signal that interrupts music or
the screen with an alert.
The UK alone is unlikely to have enough clout but maybe with Europe as well
, and it would only work with devices that use a radio signal like phones >>>>> but they will be the majority in use now. Not many people seem to use Mp3 /
I Pod devices now.
*Directional could be the hard part, passengers on trains would soon get >>>>> fed up with alerts interrupting every time it passed over a crossing . >>>>>
The problem is that such a feature would have to work compatibly on both >>>> iOS and Android, both developed in the US, where such requirements may seem
eccentric. WhatrCOs more, various Asian phone manufacturers would then have
to implement it into their devices. This can be done, but it seldom
happens, and I canrCOt see this being seen as important enough. One of the >>>> few such implementations I can think of is the Emergency Alerts system, >>>> which works internationally:
https://educationhub.blog.gov.uk/2025/09/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-emergency-alerts-test-on-7-september/
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-02-26/national-emergency-mobile-alert-system-trials-to-begin/106390534Mmmm,
I have never received
I did actually receive a real such alert, in English, off the coast of >>>> Iceland, warning of a nearby erupting volcano that should be avoided. It >>>> warned against travel to that area, and was presumably broadcast to an area
of a few miles radius around it.
Mmmmm, I have never received one of these. Maybe my Android 8.1.0
version is too old?
Yes, I think you probably need Android 11 or later:
https://www.gov.uk/alerts/how-alerts-work
Which means that a number of people will not be alerted / music stopped
etc by potential level crossing technology! So that technological idea
is a dead end.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10np6a5$1h5ke$2@dont-email.me>, at 10:12:21 on Thu, 26 Feb
2026, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
Perhaps an aftermarket will develop where one can make one's electric
car sound like a petrol Porsche (but hopefully not like a Crazy Frog).
My smartphone ringtone is the Crazy Frog, never fails to get people's
attention!! And of course, I can always tell that it's *my* phone which
is ringing.
You evil, evil man!
Am 26.02.2026 um 16:20 schrieb Anna Noyd-Dryver:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 10:36, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10nliht$ckpe$4@dont-email.me>, at 01:16:45 on Wed, 25 Feb >>>>>>> 2026, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
ItrCOs not a good set of lights for those who are red green colour blind.
Traffic lights are obvious by position. These lights arenrCOt entirely
obvious that there is a green aspect lower down. Pedestrian crossing lights
have obvious symbols as well as colour.
It has the words "Stop Red" and "Green Clear" above and below the relevant
aspects?
I'm not terribly happy with the use of the word "Clear", because that's >>>>>>> not a direct opposite of "Stop".
Edit: see also my reply to another of your posts in this thread. >>>>>>>>
The same colour light head is also used for User Worked (vehicle) >>>>>>>> Crossings, so I don't think you could put the red/green man symbols on >>>>>>>> them.
That's only mean changing the lenses, not the whole apparatus.
That's not the reason I considered that you 'couldn't have them here' - >>>>>> consistency is the problem.
If you swap the lenses out for ones with human figures at pedestrian-only
crossings, then the otherwise-identical equipment at crossings which are >>>>>> also used by vehicles shows a different indication to pedestrians, unless
you add a second, co-acting set of equipment there.
They could use globally recognised shapes, such as a green arrow and a >>>>> red hand, which are independent of the mode of transport. That would >>>>> also include users of wheelchairs, bicycles, horses, etc. But there's >>>>> probably a British [copy of an international] Standard prohibiting that. >>>>>
Would those be more effective than just red and green lights?
If you are red green colour blind, yes.
A local multi-story car park has illuminated road studs to indicate the
correct direction of travel. They have ones that illuminate red in the
shape of a X and green ones in the shape of an up arrow. Nothing safety
related should rely on being able to differentiate between green and red >>> only. The railway screens out colour blind potential drivers.
How do colourblind car drivers manage?
In the driving test they have to prove they've learned that the top
light is red and the bottom light is green.
The question is: can the railways rely on that knowledge when using non-standard lights?
On 2026-02-26 15:27, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 26.02.2026 um 16:20 schrieb Anna Noyd-Dryver:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 10:36, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10nliht$ckpe$4@dont-email.me>, at 01:16:45 on Wed, 25 >>>>>>>> Feb
2026, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
ItrCOs not a good set of lights for those who are red green >>>>>>>>>> colour blind.
Traffic lights are obvious by position. These lights arenrCOt >>>>>>>>>> entirely
obvious that there is a green aspect lower down. Pedestrian >>>>>>>>>> crossing lights
have obvious symbols as well as colour.
It has the words "Stop Red" and "Green Clear" above and below >>>>>>>>> the relevant
aspects?
I'm not terribly happy with the use of the word "Clear", because >>>>>>>> that's
not a direct opposite of "Stop".
Edit: see also my reply to another of your posts in this thread. >>>>>>>>>
The same colour light head is also used for User Worked (vehicle) >>>>>>>>> Crossings, so I don't think you could put the red/green man >>>>>>>>> symbols on
them.
That's only mean changing the lenses, not the whole apparatus.
That's not the reason I considered that you 'couldn't have them >>>>>>> here' -
consistency is the problem.
If you swap the lenses out for ones with human figures at
pedestrian-only
crossings, then the otherwise-identical equipment at crossings
which are
also used by vehicles shows a different indication to pedestrians, >>>>>>> unless
you add a second, co-acting set of equipment there.
They could use globally recognised shapes, such as a green arrow and a >>>>>> red hand, which are independent of the mode of transport.-a That would >>>>>> also include users of wheelchairs, bicycles, horses, etc.-a But there's >>>>>> probably a British [copy of an international] Standard prohibiting >>>>>> that.
Would those be more effective than just red and green lights?
If you are red green colour blind, yes.
A local multi-story car park has illuminated road studs to indicate the >>>> correct direction of travel. They have ones that illuminate red in the >>>> shape of a X and green ones in the shape of an up arrow. Nothing safety >>>> related should rely on being able to differentiate between green and red >>>> only. The railway screens out colour blind potential drivers.
How do colourblind car drivers manage?
In the driving test they have to prove they've learned that the top
light is red and the bottom light is green.
The question is: can the railways rely on that knowledge when using non-
standard lights?
Some railway signals show different colours from the same lens. Not sure
if that includes red and green from the same lens, but certainly yellow
and one other colour.
Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 26.02.2026 um 16:20 schrieb Anna Noyd-Dryver:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 10:36, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10nliht$ckpe$4@dont-email.me>, at 01:16:45 on Wed, 25 Feb >>>>>>>> 2026, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
ItAs not a good set of lights for those who are red green colour blind.
Traffic lights are obvious by position. These lights arenAt entirely >>>>>>>>>> obvious that there is a green aspect lower down. Pedestrian crossing lights
have obvious symbols as well as colour.
It has the words "Stop Red" and "Green Clear" above and below the relevant
aspects?
I'm not terribly happy with the use of the word "Clear", because that's
not a direct opposite of "Stop".
Edit: see also my reply to another of your posts in this thread. >>>>>>>>>
The same colour light head is also used for User Worked (vehicle) >>>>>>>>> Crossings, so I don't think you could put the red/green man symbols on
them.
That's only mean changing the lenses, not the whole apparatus.
That's not the reason I considered that you 'couldn't have them here' - >>>>>>> consistency is the problem.
If you swap the lenses out for ones with human figures at pedestrian-only
crossings, then the otherwise-identical equipment at crossings which are
also used by vehicles shows a different indication to pedestrians, unless
you add a second, co-acting set of equipment there.
They could use globally recognised shapes, such as a green arrow and a >>>>>> red hand, which are independent of the mode of transport. That would >>>>>> also include users of wheelchairs, bicycles, horses, etc. But there's >>>>>> probably a British [copy of an international] Standard prohibiting that. >>>>>>
Would those be more effective than just red and green lights?
If you are red green colour blind, yes.
A local multi-story car park has illuminated road studs to indicate the >>>> correct direction of travel. They have ones that illuminate red in the >>>> shape of a X and green ones in the shape of an up arrow. Nothing safety >>>> related should rely on being able to differentiate between green and red >>>> only. The railway screens out colour blind potential drivers.
How do colourblind car drivers manage?
In the driving test they have to prove they've learned that the top
light is red and the bottom light is green.
The question is: can the railways rely on that knowledge when using
non-standard lights?
How do colourblind car drivers manage when encountering traffic lights at >night on an unlit 60mph road?
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 16:16:49 +0000
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> gabbled:
On 25/02/2026 10:58, Bevan Price wrote:
[snip]
And - OT on this item, I wonder how many more accidents to
pedestrians will occur due to (almost silent) battery vehicles
replacing noisier diesel or petrol vehicles?-a The noise of
approaching traffic co,tributes to knowing when it is safe to cross
roads.
As others have said, all BEVs (and PHEVs?) are legally required to
have some form of noise making when driving slowly. However, my first
BEV (a Kia) had a push button which could switch this off. Noise
reinstated when next starting the car. No such switch on my current
BEV (at least, not that I have found yet!).
Probably not too hard to find the speaker and disconnect it but prepare to
be wiped out financially if you then run someone over because they didn't hear your car as the insurance company will almost certainly walk away.
On 26/02/2026 16:20, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 16:16:49 +0000
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> gabbled:
On 25/02/2026 10:58, Bevan Price wrote:
[snip]
And - OT on this item, I wonder how many more accidents to
pedestrians will occur due to (almost silent) battery vehicles
replacing noisier diesel or petrol vehicles?-a The noise of
approaching traffic co,tributes to knowing when it is safe to cross
roads.
As others have said, all BEVs (and PHEVs?) are legally required to
have some form of noise making when driving slowly. However, my first
BEV (a Kia) had a push button which could switch this off. Noise
reinstated when next starting the car. No such switch on my current
BEV (at least, not that I have found yet!).
Probably not too hard to find the speaker and disconnect it but
prepare to
be wiped out financially if you then run someone over because they didn't
hear your car as the insurance company will almost certainly walk away.
Well-a - couple of days ago, woman driver parked small battery car in
middle of bus lane (St. Helens). Got out and slowly escorted passenger
(with walking stick) to kerb; returned-a to car, and drove away. Car was almost completely silent apart from very slight tyre noise.
On 26/02/2026 16:20, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 16:16:49 +0000
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> gabbled:
On 25/02/2026 10:58, Bevan Price wrote:
[snip]
And - OT on this item, I wonder how many more accidents to
pedestrians will occur due to (almost silent) battery vehicles
replacing noisier diesel or petrol vehicles?-a The noise of
approaching traffic co,tributes to knowing when it is safe to cross
roads.
As others have said, all BEVs (and PHEVs?) are legally required to
have some form of noise making when driving slowly. However, my first
BEV (a Kia) had a push button which could switch this off. Noise
reinstated when next starting the car. No such switch on my current
BEV (at least, not that I have found yet!).
Probably not too hard to find the speaker and disconnect it but prepare to >> be wiped out financially if you then run someone over because they didn't
hear your car as the insurance company will almost certainly walk away.
Well - couple of days ago, woman driver parked small battery car in
middle of bus lane (St. Helens). Got out and slowly escorted passenger
(with walking stick) to kerb; returned to car, and drove away. Car was almost completely silent apart from very slight tyre noise.
On 26/02/2026 16:20, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 16:16:49 +0000
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> gabbled:
On 25/02/2026 10:58, Bevan Price wrote:
[snip]
And - OT on this item, I wonder how many more accidents to
pedestrians will occur due to (almost silent) battery vehicles
replacing noisier diesel or petrol vehicles?-a The noise of
approaching traffic co,tributes to knowing when it is safe to cross
roads.
As others have said, all BEVs (and PHEVs?) are legally required to
have some form of noise making when driving slowly. However, my first
BEV (a Kia) had a push button which could switch this off. Noise
reinstated when next starting the car. No such switch on my current
BEV (at least, not that I have found yet!).
Probably not too hard to find the speaker and disconnect it but prepare to >> be wiped out financially if you then run someone over because they didn't
hear your car as the insurance company will almost certainly walk away.
Well - couple of days ago, woman driver parked small battery car in
middle of bus lane (St. Helens). Got out and slowly escorted passenger
(with walking stick) to kerb; returned to car, and drove away. Car was almost completely silent apart from very slight tyre noise.
Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
On 26/02/2026 16:20, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 16:16:49 +0000
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> gabbled:
On 25/02/2026 10:58, Bevan Price wrote:
[snip]
And - OT on this item, I wonder how many more accidents to
pedestrians will occur due to (almost silent) battery vehicles
replacing noisier diesel or petrol vehicles?-a The noise of
approaching traffic co,tributes to knowing when it is safe to cross
roads.
As others have said, all BEVs (and PHEVs?) are legally required to
have some form of noise making when driving slowly. However, my first
BEV (a Kia) had a push button which could switch this off. Noise
reinstated when next starting the car. No such switch on my current
BEV (at least, not that I have found yet!).
Probably not too hard to find the speaker and disconnect it but prepare to >>> be wiped out financially if you then run someone over because they didn't >>> hear your car as the insurance company will almost certainly walk away.
Well - couple of days ago, woman driver parked small battery car in
middle of bus lane (St. Helens). Got out and slowly escorted passenger
(with walking stick) to kerb; returned to car, and drove away. Car was
almost completely silent apart from very slight tyre noise.
IrCOve had a similar experience many years ago - Lexus hybrid SUV round about >2011. I was standing next to it and it set off completely silently, which >was disconcerting for a vehicle of that size.
How do colourblind car drivers manage when encountering traffic lights at >>night on an unlit 60mph road?Whether colour blind or not, you have to approach with the expectation
that the lights could change so if both the top and bottom look the
same you need to approach at an appropriate speed until you can work
out which is which. They won't look the same to all people with
red/green blindness and a lot of green lights have a distinct blue
tinge. IME unlit traffic light junctions are rare but YMMV in
different areas; the only traffic lights I usually encounter without
street lighting are on narrow hump-backed bridges in the middle of
nowhere.
In message <ee61qkt4cf86nlp6i3msu5i329vj55q09e@4ax.com>, at 19:16:12 on
Thu, 26 Feb 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
How do colourblind car drivers manage when encountering traffic lights at >>>night on an unlit 60mph road?Whether colour blind or not, you have to approach with the expectation
that the lights could change so if both the top and bottom look the
same you need to approach at an appropriate speed until you can work
out which is which. They won't look the same to all people with
red/green blindness and a lot of green lights have a distinct blue
tinge. IME unlit traffic light junctions are rare but YMMV in
different areas; the only traffic lights I usually encounter without
street lighting are on narrow hump-backed bridges in the middle of
nowhere.
An increasingly common instance are temporary traffic lights around
works by typically the water, power or gas utility.
The traffic
lights where Gatehouse Road, Histon crosses the guided busway only >illuminate the junction itself, and the road is largely unlit. It's >particularly striking if you look at Streetview approaching from the--
east.
Obligaory in TV and, oddly enough for sounfd men as well as cameras/
vision. The reason being that stereo ppms have red and green needles for left and right channels.
--
How do colourblind car drivers manage when encountering traffic lights at night on an unlit 60mph road?
My smartphone ringtone is the Crazy Frog, never fails to get people's attention!! And of course, I can always tell that it's*my* phone which
is ringing.
Probably not too hard to find the speaker and disconnect it but prepare to
be wiped out financially if you then run someone over because they didn't hear your car as the insurance company will almost certainly walk away.
IrCOm not sure which hybrid vehicles are affected. For example, Prius hybrids are often running on battery at low speeds, and very quiet.
On 26/02/2026 22:21, Recliner wrote:
IrCOm not sure which hybrid vehicles are affected. For example, Prius hybrids
are often running on battery at low speeds, and very quiet.
Do the 'mild hybrids' run on battery at low speeds? They seem to be
more common now.
On 26/02/2026 18:23, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
How do colourblind car drivers manage when encountering traffic lights at
night on an unlit 60mph road?
Presumably approach with caution like any driver, colour blind or not.
My driving instructor always taught me to be cautious so not go throughgreen lights at full speed and be ready for other drivers going through
red lights or Give Way signs.
My smartphone ringtone is the Crazy Frog, never fails to get people's
attention!! And of course, I can always tell that it's*my* phone which
is ringing.
Mine is The Lincolnshire Poacher and bursts of Numbers Stations, never
gets confused with anyone else's phone!
Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
Well - couple of days ago, woman driver parked small battery car in
middle of bus lane (St. Helens). Got out and slowly escorted passenger
(with walking stick) to kerb; returned to car, and drove away. Car was
almost completely silent apart from very slight tyre noise.
IrCOve had a similar experience many years ago - Lexus hybrid SUV round about >2011. I was standing next to it and it set off completely silently, which >was disconcerting for a vehicle of that size.
On 26/02/2026 16:20, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
Probably not too hard to find the speaker and disconnect it but prepare to >> be wiped out financially if you then run someone over because they didn't
hear your car as the insurance company will almost certainly walk away.
Is the noise now in the MOT test?
Or even a plod could notice if you passed one silently at low speed in a >town centre,
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 22:32:59 -0000 (UTC)
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> gabbled:
Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
Well - couple of days ago, woman driver parked small battery car in
middle of bus lane (St. Helens). Got out and slowly escorted passenger
(with walking stick) to kerb; returned to car, and drove away. Car was >>> almost completely silent apart from very slight tyre noise.
IrCOve had a similar experience many years ago - Lexus hybrid SUV round about
2011. I was standing next to it and it set off completely silently, which >> was disconcerting for a vehicle of that size.
In a way its a bit sad that the potential reduction in traffic noise from silent EVs has been mitigated by this rule but I can see the need for it. Also above probably 25-30mph most car noise is from the tyres anyway.
Am 27.02.2026 um 08:46 schrieb JMB99:
On 26/02/2026 18:23, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
How do colourblind car drivers manage when encountering traffic lights at >>> night on an unlit 60mph road?
Presumably approach with caution like any driver, colour blind or not.
My driving instructor always taught me to be cautious so not go throughgreen lights at full speed and be ready for other drivers going through
red lights or Give Way signs.
In Germany, traffic lights must not exist on 60 mph roads; in other
words, there is a speed limit of 70 km/h (45 mph) or lower ahead of the traffic lights to ensure that vehicles can come to a stop safely when
the lights change.
In Germany, traffic lights must not exist on 60 mph roads; in other
words, there is a speed limit of 70 km/h (45 mph) or lower ahead of the traffic lights to ensure that vehicles can come to a stop safely when
the lights change.
In the UK, traffic lights on higher-speed roads have a very long amber
phase, to ensure that traffic approaching at the speed limit can stop
safely if the lights change on approach.
I doubt they're clued up enough to notice unless they work for the traffic division.
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 22:32:59 -0000 (UTC)
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> gabbled:
Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
Well - couple of days ago, woman driver parked small battery car in
middle of bus lane (St. Helens). Got out and slowly escorted passenger >>>> (with walking stick) to kerb; returned to car, and drove away. Car was >>>> almost completely silent apart from very slight tyre noise.
IrCOve had a similar experience many years ago - Lexus hybrid SUV round >about
2011. I was standing next to it and it set off completely silently, which >>> was disconcerting for a vehicle of that size.
In a way its a bit sad that the potential reduction in traffic noise from
silent EVs has been mitigated by this rule but I can see the need for it.
Also above probably 25-30mph most car noise is from the tyres anyway.
This sound is only required below 20 km/h, when thererCOs no tyre noise.
Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 27.02.2026 um 08:46 schrieb JMB99:
On 26/02/2026 18:23, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
How do colourblind car drivers manage when encountering traffic lights at >>>> night on an unlit 60mph road?
Presumably approach with caution like any driver, colour blind or not.
My driving instructor always taught me to be cautious so not go through >>> green lights at full speed and be ready for other drivers going through >>> red lights or Give Way signs.
In Germany, traffic lights must not exist on 60 mph roads; in other
words, there is a speed limit of 70 km/h (45 mph) or lower ahead of the
traffic lights to ensure that vehicles can come to a stop safely when
the lights change.
In the UK, traffic lights on higher-speed roads have a very long amber
phase, to ensure that traffic approaching at the speed limit can stop
safely if the lights change on approach.
On 27/02/2026 11:25, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
I doubt they're clued up enough to notice unless they work for the traffic >> division.
Not if you surprise them because they did not hear you!
The Politically Correct term is now 'Road Policing Unit'. There are
probably still some who can quote the law but I once had an apology from
a Traffic cop because he did not realise (at that time) you could park
on double-yellow lines, I also had an apology from a police Inspector
after one of his Traffic Wardens did not know you could park in the same >place.
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:11:33 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 22:32:59 -0000 (UTC)
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> gabbled:
Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
Well - couple of days ago, woman driver parked small battery car in >>>> middle of bus lane (St. Helens). Got out and slowly escorted passenger >>>> (with walking stick) to kerb; returned to car, and drove away. Car was >>>> almost completely silent apart from very slight tyre noise.
IrCOve had a similar experience many years ago - Lexus hybrid SUV round >about
2011. I was standing next to it and it set off completely silently, which
was disconcerting for a vehicle of that size.
In a way its a bit sad that the potential reduction in traffic noise from >> silent EVs has been mitigated by this rule but I can see the need for it. >> Also above probably 25-30mph most car noise is from the tyres anyway.
This sound is only required below 20 km/h, when thererCOs no tyre noise.
Shame there isn't a lower limit. The uuurrr uurrrr mmmmm urrrr noise of EVs parking can get quite irritating in way that ICE cars arn't. Can't see any need for it below walking speed when there'd be no injury from a collision.
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:11:33 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 22:32:59 -0000 (UTC)about
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> gabbled:
Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
Well - couple of days ago, woman driver parked small battery car in >>>>> middle of bus lane (St. Helens). Got out and slowly escorted passenger >>>>> (with walking stick) to kerb; returned to car, and drove away. Car was >>>>> almost completely silent apart from very slight tyre noise.
IrCOve had a similar experience many years ago - Lexus hybrid SUV round
2011. I was standing next to it and it set off completely silently, which >>>> was disconcerting for a vehicle of that size.
In a way its a bit sad that the potential reduction in traffic noise from >>> silent EVs has been mitigated by this rule but I can see the need for it. >>> Also above probably 25-30mph most car noise is from the tyres anyway.
This sound is only required below 20 km/h, when thererCOs no tyre noise.
Shame there isn't a lower limit. The uuurrr uurrrr mmmmm urrrr noise of EVs parking can get quite irritating in way that ICE cars arn't. Can't see any need for it below walking speed when there'd be no injury from a collision.
Am 27.02.2026 um 14:12 schrieb boltar@caprica.universe:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:11:33 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 22:32:59 -0000 (UTC)
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> gabbled:
Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
Well-a - couple of days ago, woman driver parked small battery car in >>>>>> middle of bus lane (St. Helens). Got out and slowly escorted
passenger
(with walking stick) to kerb; returned-a to car, and drove away.
Car was
almost completely silent apart from very slight tyre noise.
IrCOve had a similar experience many years ago - Lexus hybrid SUV round >>> about
2011.-a I was standing next to it and it set off completely
silently, which
was disconcerting for a vehicle of that size.
In a way its a bit sad that the potential reduction in traffic noise
from
silent EVs has been mitigated by this rule but I can see the need
for it.
Also above probably 25-30mph most car noise is from the tyres anyway.
This sound is only required below 20 km/h, when thererCOs no tyre noise.
Shame there isn't a lower limit. The uuurrr uurrrr mmmmm urrrr noise
of EVs
parking can get quite irritating in way that ICE cars arn't. Can't see
any
need for it below walking speed when there'd be no injury from a
collision.
On the contrary, the rules now (2025+?) specify even an "Idling noise".
Given the choice (which she doesn't on a company car), my wife would
almost have preferred to stick to the 4-year old car with small battery rather than upgrade, just to enjoy the complete silence at the red
traffic lights.
On 2026-02-27 13:35, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 27.02.2026 um 14:12 schrieb boltar@caprica.universe:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:11:33 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:Shame there isn't a lower limit. The uuurrr uurrrr mmmmm urrrr noise
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 22:32:59 -0000 (UTC)
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> gabbled:
Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
Well-a - couple of days ago, woman driver parked small battery car in >>>>>>> middle of bus lane (St. Helens). Got out and slowly escorted
passenger
(with walking stick) to kerb; returned-a to car, and drove away. >>>>>>> Car was
almost completely silent apart from very slight tyre noise.
IrCOve had a similar experience many years ago - Lexus hybrid SUV round >>>> about
2011.-a I was standing next to it and it set off completely
silently, which
was disconcerting for a vehicle of that size.
In a way its a bit sad that the potential reduction in traffic
noise from
silent EVs has been mitigated by this rule but I can see the need
for it.
Also above probably 25-30mph most car noise is from the tyres anyway. >>>>>
This sound is only required below 20 km/h, when thererCOs no tyre noise. >>>
of EVs
parking can get quite irritating in way that ICE cars arn't. Can't
see any
need for it below walking speed when there'd be no injury from a
collision.
On the contrary, the rules now (2025+?) specify even an "Idling noise". [finally parsed what is meaningful context]
And presumably also on ICE cars that switch off the engine when stopped?
Am 27.02.2026 um 15:46 schrieb nib:
On 2026-02-27 13:35, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 27.02.2026 um 14:12 schrieb boltar@caprica.universe:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:11:33 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:Shame there isn't a lower limit. The uuurrr uurrrr mmmmm urrrr noise
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 22:32:59 -0000 (UTC)about
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> gabbled:
Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
Well-a - couple of days ago, woman driver parked small battery car in >>>>>>> middle of bus lane (St. Helens). Got out and slowly escorted
passenger
(with walking stick) to kerb; returned-a to car, and drove away. >>>>>>> Car was
almost completely silent apart from very slight tyre noise.
IrCOve had a similar experience many years ago - Lexus hybrid SUV round
2011.-a I was standing next to it and it set off completely
silently, which
was disconcerting for a vehicle of that size.
In a way its a bit sad that the potential reduction in traffic
noise from
silent EVs has been mitigated by this rule but I can see the need >>>>> for it.
Also above probably 25-30mph most car noise is from the tyres anyway. >>>>>
This sound is only required below 20 km/h, when thererCOs no tyre noise. >>>
of EVs
parking can get quite irritating in way that ICE cars arn't. Can't
see any
need for it below walking speed when there'd be no injury from a
collision.
On the contrary, the rules now (2025+?) specify even an "Idling noise". [finally parsed what is meaningful context]
And presumably also on ICE cars that switch off the engine when stopped?
IIUC, an ICE car with switched off engine when stopped has an "enginge starting" delay (probably 1s of noise) before it starts rolling off,
whereas an electric will start immediately (and vigorously).
Am 27.02.2026 um 15:46 schrieb nib:
On 2026-02-27 13:35, Rolf Mantel wrote:[finally parsed what is meaningful context]
Am 27.02.2026 um 14:12 schrieb boltar@caprica.universe:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:11:33 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:Shame there isn't a lower limit. The uuurrr uurrrr mmmmm urrrr noise
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 22:32:59 -0000 (UTC)
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> gabbled:
Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
Well-a - couple of days ago, woman driver parked small battery car in >>>>>>>> middle of bus lane (St. Helens). Got out and slowly escorted
passenger
(with walking stick) to kerb; returned-a to car, and drove away. >>>>>>>> Car was
almost completely silent apart from very slight tyre noise.
IrCOve had a similar experience many years ago - Lexus hybrid SUV round >>>>> about
2011.-a I was standing next to it and it set off completely
silently, which
was disconcerting for a vehicle of that size.
In a way its a bit sad that the potential reduction in traffic
noise from
silent EVs has been mitigated by this rule but I can see the need >>>>>> for it.
Also above probably 25-30mph most car noise is from the tyres anyway. >>>>>>
This sound is only required below 20 km/h, when thererCOs no tyre noise. >>>>
of EVs
parking can get quite irritating in way that ICE cars arn't. Can't
see any
need for it below walking speed when there'd be no injury from a
collision.
On the contrary, the rules now (2025+?) specify even an "Idling noise".
And presumably also on ICE cars that switch off the engine when stopped?
IIUC, an ICE car with switched off engine when stopped has an "enginge starting" delay (probably 1s of noise) before it starts rolling off,
whereas an electric will start immediately (and vigorously).
On 26/02/2026 22:21, Recliner wrote:
IrCOm not sure which hybrid vehicles are affected. For example, Prius hybrids
are often running on battery at low speeds, and very quiet.
Do the 'mild hybrids' run on battery at low speeds? They seem to be
more common now.
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 07:53:01 +0000, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 26/02/2026 22:21, Recliner wrote:
IrCOm not sure which hybrid vehicles are affected. For example, Prius hybrids
are often running on battery at low speeds, and very quiet.
Do the 'mild hybrids' run on battery at low speeds? They seem to be
more common now.
No, mild hybrids basically just have a bigger starter motor connected to
the gearbox which can boost the engine or do
some small regen, but can't power the vehicle. They provide slightly
better fuel consumption through regen, but not much
else.
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 26/02/2026 12:31, Recliner wrote:
https://educationhub.blog.gov.uk/2025/09/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-emergency-alerts-test-on-7-september/
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-02-26/national-emergency-mobile-alert-system-trials-to-begin/106390534Mmmm,
I have never received
I did actually receive a real such alert, in English, off the coast of
Iceland, warning of a nearby erupting volcano that should be avoided. It >>> warned against travel to that area, and was presumably broadcast to an area >>> of a few miles radius around it.
Mmmmm, I have never received one of these. Maybe my Android 8.1.0
version is too old?
Yes, I think you probably need Android 11 or later:
https://www.gov.uk/alerts/how-alerts-work
Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 27.02.2026 um 15:46 schrieb nib:
On 2026-02-27 13:35, Rolf Mantel wrote:[finally parsed what is meaningful context]
Am 27.02.2026 um 14:12 schrieb boltar@caprica.universe:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:11:33 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:Shame there isn't a lower limit. The uuurrr uurrrr mmmmm urrrr noise >>>>> of EVs
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 22:32:59 -0000 (UTC)about
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> gabbled:
Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
Well-a - couple of days ago, woman driver parked small battery car in >>>>>>>>> middle of bus lane (St. Helens). Got out and slowly escorted >>>>>>>>> passenger
(with walking stick) to kerb; returned-a to car, and drove away. >>>>>>>>> Car was
almost completely silent apart from very slight tyre noise.
IrCOve had a similar experience many years ago - Lexus hybrid SUV round
2011.-a I was standing next to it and it set off completely
silently, which
was disconcerting for a vehicle of that size.
In a way its a bit sad that the potential reduction in traffic
noise from
silent EVs has been mitigated by this rule but I can see the need >>>>>>> for it.
Also above probably 25-30mph most car noise is from the tyres anyway. >>>>>>>
This sound is only required below 20 km/h, when thererCOs no tyre noise. >>>>>
parking can get quite irritating in way that ICE cars arn't. Can't
see any
need for it below walking speed when there'd be no injury from a
collision.
On the contrary, the rules now (2025+?) specify even an "Idling noise".
And presumably also on ICE cars that switch off the engine when stopped?
IIUC, an ICE car with switched off engine when stopped has an "enginge
starting" delay (probably 1s of noise) before it starts rolling off,
whereas an electric will start immediately (and vigorously).
My Ford petrol mild hybrid goes from stopped and engine off to moving and engine on almost the moment the accelerator is pressed.
Am 27.02.2026 um 15:46 schrieb nib:
On 2026-02-27 13:35, Rolf Mantel wrote:[finally parsed what is meaningful context]
Am 27.02.2026 um 14:12 schrieb boltar@caprica.universe:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:11:33 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:Shame there isn't a lower limit. The uuurrr uurrrr mmmmm urrrr noise
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 22:32:59 -0000 (UTC)
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> gabbled:
Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
Well-a - couple of days ago, woman driver parked small battery car in >>>>>>>> middle of bus lane (St. Helens). Got out and slowly escorted
passenger
(with walking stick) to kerb; returned-a to car, and drove away. >>>>>>>> Car was
almost completely silent apart from very slight tyre noise.
IrCOve had a similar experience many years ago - Lexus hybrid SUV round >>>>> about
2011.-a I was standing next to it and it set off completely
silently, which
was disconcerting for a vehicle of that size.
In a way its a bit sad that the potential reduction in traffic
noise from
silent EVs has been mitigated by this rule but I can see the need >>>>>> for it.
Also above probably 25-30mph most car noise is from the tyres anyway. >>>>>>
This sound is only required below 20 km/h, when thererCOs no tyre noise. >>>>
of EVs
parking can get quite irritating in way that ICE cars arn't. Can't
see any
need for it below walking speed when there'd be no injury from a
collision.
On the contrary, the rules now (2025+?) specify even an "Idling noise".
And presumably also on ICE cars that switch off the engine when stopped?
IIUC, an ICE car with switched off engine when stopped has an "enginge starting" delay (probably 1s of noise) before it starts rolling off,
whereas an electric will start immediately (and vigorously).
Am 27.02.2026 um 16:11 schrieb Tweed:
Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 27.02.2026 um 15:46 schrieb nib:
On 2026-02-27 13:35, Rolf Mantel wrote:[finally parsed what is meaningful context]
Am 27.02.2026 um 14:12 schrieb boltar@caprica.universe:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:11:33 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 22:32:59 -0000 (UTC)about
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> gabbled:
Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
Well-a - couple of days ago, woman driver parked small battery >>>>>>>>>> car inIrCOve had a similar experience many years ago - Lexus hybrid SUV >>>>>>>>> round
middle of bus lane (St. Helens). Got out and slowly escorted >>>>>>>>>> passenger
(with walking stick) to kerb; returned-a to car, and drove away. >>>>>>>>>> Car was
almost completely silent apart from very slight tyre noise. >>>>>>>>>
2011.-a I was standing next to it and it set off completely
silently, which
was disconcerting for a vehicle of that size.
In a way its a bit sad that the potential reduction in traffic >>>>>>>> noise from
silent EVs has been mitigated by this rule but I can see the need >>>>>>>> for it.
Also above probably 25-30mph most car noise is from the tyres >>>>>>>> anyway.
This sound is only required below 20 km/h, when thererCOs no tyre >>>>>>> noise.
Shame there isn't a lower limit. The uuurrr uurrrr mmmmm urrrr noise >>>>>> of EVs
parking can get quite irritating in way that ICE cars arn't. Can't >>>>>> see any
need for it below walking speed when there'd be no injury from a
collision.
On the contrary, the rules now (2025+?) specify even an "Idling
noise".
And presumably also on ICE cars that switch off the engine when
stopped?
IIUC, an ICE car with switched off engine when stopped has an "enginge
starting" delay (probably 1s of noise) before it starts rolling off,
whereas an electric will start immediately (and vigorously).
My Ford petrol mild hybrid goes from stopped and engine off to moving and
engine on almost the moment the accelerator is pressed.
"Hybrids" are those cars that can drive short distances without ICE, so noise generation requirements should apply (being settled for Electric,
I'm not going to test drive a hybrid at a dealer just to find out).
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
Good one, the missis and I sometimes catch the end of the TV programme Bargain Hunt while waiting for the lunch time news and the appearance of a 1950rCOs valve radio prompted us to recall that both of us used to use such a set in the household to search the SW bands and the various interval
My smartphone ringtone is the Crazy Frog, never fails to get people's
attention!! And of course, I can always tell that it's*my* phone which
is ringing.
Mine is The Lincolnshire Poacher and bursts of Numbers Stations, never
gets confused with anyone else's phone!
signals that emanated from distant places.
The USSR era Radio Moscow interval one would make a good one on purely acoustic grounds but probably not very PC at the moment.
If anyone fancies a trip back in time this a reasonable compilation of an
era now gone.
< https://youtu.be/Yhwc-sV7GAE?si=OPncD5pOoAJF32kW>
That really is mystifying; they are using the standard CB technology
that has been part of the GSM specification for more than 30 years, how
in God's name have they managed to make it not work for old handsets or networks?
Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 27.02.2026 um 08:46 schrieb JMB99:
On 26/02/2026 18:23, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
How do colourblind car drivers manage when encountering traffic lights at >>>>> night on an unlit 60mph road?
Presumably approach with caution like any driver, colour blind or not. >>>>> My driving instructor always taught me to be cautious so not go through >>>> green lights at full speed and be ready for other drivers going through >>>> red lights or Give Way signs.
In Germany, traffic lights must not exist on 60 mph roads; in other
words, there is a speed limit of 70 km/h (45 mph) or lower ahead of the >>> traffic lights to ensure that vehicles can come to a stop safely when
the lights change.
In the UK, traffic lights on higher-speed roads have a very long amber
phase, to ensure that traffic approaching at the speed limit can stop
safely if the lights change on approach.
One set I know with fast approaches to a junction at the bottom of a dip
with a high accident rate
has a set of signals mounted far higher than the rest so they can be seen a long way off and over the top of any queuing traffic, IrCOm sure there other examples.
< https://maps.app.goo.gl/iduZkkNyQfdGwUyE8>
On 26/02/2026 10:20, JMB99 wrote:
On 26/02/2026 07:21, Tweed wrote:
The railway screens out colour blind potential drivers.
We were given colour blindness tests when I started work, not to screen
out people but to ensure thatthose with colour blindness were aware of it. >>
Obligaory in TV and, oddly enough for sounfd men as well as
cameras/vision. The reason being that stereo ppms have red and green
needles for left and right channels.
Am 27.02.2026 um 16:11 schrieb Tweed:
Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 27.02.2026 um 15:46 schrieb nib:
On 2026-02-27 13:35, Rolf Mantel wrote:[finally parsed what is meaningful context]
Am 27.02.2026 um 14:12 schrieb boltar@caprica.universe:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:11:33 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 22:32:59 -0000 (UTC)about
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> gabbled:
Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
Well-a - couple of days ago, woman driver parked small battery >>>>>>>>>> car inIrCOve had a similar experience many years ago - Lexus hybrid SUV >>>>>>>>> round
middle of bus lane (St. Helens). Got out and slowly escorted >>>>>>>>>> passenger
(with walking stick) to kerb; returned-a to car, and drove away. >>>>>>>>>> Car was
almost completely silent apart from very slight tyre noise. >>>>>>>>>
2011.-a I was standing next to it and it set off completely
silently, which
was disconcerting for a vehicle of that size.
In a way its a bit sad that the potential reduction in traffic >>>>>>>> noise from
silent EVs has been mitigated by this rule but I can see the need >>>>>>>> for it.
Also above probably 25-30mph most car noise is from the tyres >>>>>>>> anyway.
This sound is only required below 20 km/h, when thererCOs no tyre >>>>>>> noise.
Shame there isn't a lower limit. The uuurrr uurrrr mmmmm urrrr noise >>>>>> of EVs
parking can get quite irritating in way that ICE cars arn't. Can't >>>>>> see any
need for it below walking speed when there'd be no injury from a
collision.
On the contrary, the rules now (2025+?) specify even an "Idling
noise".
And presumably also on ICE cars that switch off the engine when
stopped?
IIUC, an ICE car with switched off engine when stopped has an "enginge
starting" delay (probably 1s of noise) before it starts rolling off,
whereas an electric will start immediately (and vigorously).
My Ford petrol mild hybrid goes from stopped and engine off to moving and
engine on almost the moment the accelerator is pressed.
"Hybrids" are those cars that can drive short distances without ICE, so noise generation requirements should apply (being settled for Electric,
I'm not going to test drive a hybrid at a dealer just to find out).
On 27/02/2026 12:37, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
In the UK, traffic lights on higher-speed roads have a very long amber
phase, to ensure that traffic approaching at the speed limit can stop
safely if the lights change on approach.
Unfortunately some think Amber means 'put your foot down because the
lights are going to change' rather than lose speed ready for the Red light!
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 07:53:01 +0000, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 26/02/2026 22:21, Recliner wrote:
IrCOm not sure which hybrid vehicles are affected. For example, Prius hybrids
are often running on battery at low speeds, and very quiet.
Do the 'mild hybrids' run on battery at low speeds? They seem to be
more common now.
No, mild hybrids basically just have a bigger starter motor connected to
the gearbox which can boost the engine or do
some small regen, but can't power the vehicle. They provide slightly
better fuel consumption through regen, but not much
else.
More than slightly better. My sonrCOs petrol only Focus averages around 35mpg. My petrol mild hybrid averages around 47mpg.
On 27/02/2026 15:48, Clank wrote:
That really is mystifying; they are using the standard CB technology
that has been part of the GSM specification for more than 30 years,
how in God's name have they managed to make it not work for old
handsets or networks?
Wasn't the warning system activated a few years ago when there were stabbings or shootings somewhere?
On 27/02/2026 15:47, Tweed wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 07:53:01 +0000, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 26/02/2026 22:21, Recliner wrote:
IrCOm not sure which hybrid vehicles are affected. For example, Prius hybrids
are often running on battery at low speeds, and very quiet.
Do the 'mild hybrids' run on battery at low speeds? They seem to be
more common now.
No, mild hybrids basically just have a bigger starter motor connected to >>> the gearbox which can boost the engine or do
some small regen, but can't power the vehicle. They provide slightly
better fuel consumption through regen, but not much
else.
More than slightly better. My sonrCOs petrol only Focus averages around
35mpg. My petrol mild hybrid averages around 47mpg.
The 21 year old petrol Focus I scrapped last year (sob!) achieved an average of 40-45 mpg. The only way I could get it to drop below 40 was to significantly exceed the motorway speed limit. My 11 year old petrol Octavia comfortably averages at least 47 mpg - no hybrid power required.
As far as I can tell modern emissions regulations have reduced fuel consumption.
Roger <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> wrote:
On 27/02/2026 15:47, Tweed wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 07:53:01 +0000, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 26/02/2026 22:21, Recliner wrote:
IrCOm not sure which hybrid vehicles are affected. For example, Prius hybrids
are often running on battery at low speeds, and very quiet.
Do the 'mild hybrids' run on battery at low speeds? They seem to be >>>>> more common now.
No, mild hybrids basically just have a bigger starter motor connected to >>>> the gearbox which can boost the engine or do
some small regen, but can't power the vehicle. They provide slightly
better fuel consumption through regen, but not much
else.
More than slightly better. My sonrCOs petrol only Focus averages around
35mpg. My petrol mild hybrid averages around 47mpg.
The 21 year old petrol Focus I scrapped last year (sob!) achieved an average >> of 40-45 mpg. The only way I could get it to drop below 40 was to
significantly exceed the motorway speed limit. My 11 year old petrol Octavia >> comfortably averages at least 47 mpg - no hybrid power required.
As far as I can tell modern emissions regulations have reduced fuel consumption.
IrCOve had two diesel s-max cars. The newer one meets the London
clean air regulations, the older one did not. The newer one has worse fuel consumption. (It doesnrCOt use adblue) In fact it is worse than my new petrol Focus.
On 28/02/2026 07:53, Tweed wrote:
Roger <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> wrote:
On 27/02/2026 15:47, Tweed wrote:
More than slightly better. My sonrCOs petrol only Focus averages around >>>> 35mpg. My petrol mild hybrid averages around 47mpg.
The 21 year old petrol Focus I scrapped last year (sob!) achieved an average
of 40-45 mpg. The only way I could get it to drop below 40 was to
significantly exceed the motorway speed limit. My 11 year old petrol Octavia
comfortably averages at least 47 mpg - no hybrid power required.
As far as I can tell modern emissions regulations have reduced fuel
consumption. IrCOve had two diesel s-max cars. The newer one meets the London
clean air regulations, the older one did not. The newer one has worse fuel >> consumption. (It doesnrCOt use adblue) In fact it is worse than my new petrol
Focus.
There have been silly side effects, most manufacturers no longer supply
a spare wheel with new cars (or even anywhere to put one) so they can slightly improve mpg because of the reduction in weight.
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Roger <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> wrote:
On 27/02/2026 15:47, Tweed wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 07:53:01 +0000, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 26/02/2026 22:21, Recliner wrote:
IrCOm not sure which hybrid vehicles are affected. For example, Prius hybrids
are often running on battery at low speeds, and very quiet.
Do the 'mild hybrids' run on battery at low speeds? They seem to be >>>>>> more common now.
No, mild hybrids basically just have a bigger starter motor connected to >>>>> the gearbox which can boost the engine or do
some small regen, but can't power the vehicle. They provide slightly >>>>> better fuel consumption through regen, but not much
else.
More than slightly better. My sonrCOs petrol only Focus averages around >>>> 35mpg. My petrol mild hybrid averages around 47mpg.
The 21 year old petrol Focus I scrapped last year (sob!) achieved an average
of 40-45 mpg. The only way I could get it to drop below 40 was to
significantly exceed the motorway speed limit. My 11 year old petrol Octavia
comfortably averages at least 47 mpg - no hybrid power required.
As far as I can tell modern emissions regulations have reduced fuel
consumption.
Increased?
IrCOve had two diesel s-max cars. The newer one meets the London
clean air regulations, the older one did not. The newer one has worse fuel >> consumption. (It doesnrCOt use adblue) In fact it is worse than my new petrol
Focus.
I think itrCOs because the best fuel efficiency is achieved with very high combustion temperatures, but thatrCOs also the level at which NOx production is highest. So in order to reduce the latter, engines have to run in a less fuel efficient zone. Diesel engines run at higher temperatures than petrol, which means theyrCOre more fuel efficient than petrol, which reduces the CO2, but also increases the NOx. Earlier this century, it was CO2 reduction that the government cared about most; now itrCOs NOx.
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Roger <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> wrote:
On 27/02/2026 15:47, Tweed wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 07:53:01 +0000, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 26/02/2026 22:21, Recliner wrote:
IrCOm not sure which hybrid vehicles are affected. For example, Prius hybrids
are often running on battery at low speeds, and very quiet.
Do the 'mild hybrids' run on battery at low speeds? They seem to be >>>>>> more common now.
No, mild hybrids basically just have a bigger starter motor connected to >>>>> the gearbox which can boost the engine or do
some small regen, but can't power the vehicle. They provide slightly >>>>> better fuel consumption through regen, but not much
else.
More than slightly better. My sonrCOs petrol only Focus averages around >>>> 35mpg. My petrol mild hybrid averages around 47mpg.
The 21 year old petrol Focus I scrapped last year (sob!) achieved an average
of 40-45 mpg. The only way I could get it to drop below 40 was to
significantly exceed the motorway speed limit. My 11 year old petrol Octavia
comfortably averages at least 47 mpg - no hybrid power required.
As far as I can tell modern emissions regulations have reduced fuel
consumption.
Increased?
IrCOve had two diesel s-max cars. The newer one meets the London
clean air regulations, the older one did not. The newer one has worse fuel >> consumption. (It doesnrCOt use adblue) In fact it is worse than my new petrol
Focus.
I think itrCOs because the best fuel efficiency is achieved with very high combustion temperatures, but thatrCOs also the level at which NOx production is highest. So in order to reduce the latter, engines have to run in a less fuel efficient zone. Diesel engines run at higher temperatures than petrol, which means theyrCOre more fuel efficient than petrol, which reduces the CO2, but also increases the NOx. Earlier this century, it was CO2 reduction that the government cared about most; now itrCOs NOx.
Am 26.02.2026 um 16:20 schrieb Anna Noyd-Dryver:
In the driving test they have to prove they've learned that the top
light is red and the bottom light is green.
The question is: can the railways rely on that knowledge when using non-standard lights?
On 27/02/2026 15:47, Tweed wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 07:53:01 +0000, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 26/02/2026 22:21, Recliner wrote:
IrCOm not sure which hybrid vehicles are affected. For example, Prius hybrids
are often running on battery at low speeds, and very quiet.
Do the 'mild hybrids' run on battery at low speeds? They seem to be
more common now.
No, mild hybrids basically just have a bigger starter motor connected to >>> the gearbox which can boost the engine or do
some small regen, but can't power the vehicle. They provide slightly
better fuel consumption through regen, but not much
else.
More than slightly better. My sonrCOs petrol only Focus averages around
35mpg. My petrol mild hybrid averages around 47mpg.
The 21 year old petrol Focus I scrapped last year (sob!) achieved an average of 40-45 mpg. The only way I could get it to drop below 40 was to significantly exceed the motorway speed limit. My 11 year old petrol Octavia comfortably averages at least 47 mpg - no hybrid power required.
On 28/02/2026 08:55, JMB99 wrote:
On 28/02/2026 07:53, Tweed wrote:
Roger <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> wrote:
On 27/02/2026 15:47, Tweed wrote:
More than slightly better. My sonrCOs petrol only Focus averages around >>>>> 35mpg. My petrol mild hybrid averages around 47mpg.
The 21 year old petrol Focus I scrapped last year (sob!) achieved an average
of 40-45 mpg. The only way I could get it to drop below 40 was to
significantly exceed the motorway speed limit. My 11 year old petrol Octavia
comfortably averages at least 47 mpg - no hybrid power required.
As far as I can tell modern emissions regulations have reduced fuel
consumption. IrCOve had two diesel s-max cars. The newer one meets the London
clean air regulations, the older one did not. The newer one has worse fuel >>> consumption. (It doesnrCOt use adblue) In fact it is worse than my new petrol
Focus.
Even the old Focus (hatch) met the London clean air regs, as it complied
with the Euro 4 standard in 2003. It helps that it was petrol.
There have been silly side effects, most manufacturers no longer supply
a spare wheel with new cars (or even anywhere to put one) so they can
slightly improve mpg because of the reduction in weight.
And to save cost. I paid extra for the privilege of lugging around a full size spare in the back of the Octavia (estate). Presumably all Octavia customers also had a slightly less big boot to make space for the few who bought the spare. The Focus only had a space-saver.
Am 27.02.2026 um 14:12 schrieb boltar@caprica.universe:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:11:33 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 22:32:59 -0000 (UTC)
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> gabbled:
Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
Well - couple of days ago, woman driver parked small battery car in >>>>>> middle of bus lane (St. Helens). Got out and slowly escorted passenger >>>>>> (with walking stick) to kerb; returned to car, and drove away. Car was >>>>>> almost completely silent apart from very slight tyre noise.
IrCOve had a similar experience many years ago - Lexus hybrid SUV round >>> about
2011. I was standing next to it and it set off completely silently, which
was disconcerting for a vehicle of that size.
In a way its a bit sad that the potential reduction in traffic noise from >>>> silent EVs has been mitigated by this rule but I can see the need for it. >>>> Also above probably 25-30mph most car noise is from the tyres anyway.
This sound is only required below 20 km/h, when thererCOs no tyre noise.
Shame there isn't a lower limit. The uuurrr uurrrr mmmmm urrrr noise of EVs >> parking can get quite irritating in way that ICE cars arn't. Can't see any >> need for it below walking speed when there'd be no injury from a collision.
On the contrary, the rules now (2025+?) specify even an "Idling noise".
Given the choice (which she doesn't on a company car), my wife would
almost have preferred to stick to the 4-year old car with small battery >rather than upgrade, just to enjoy the complete silence at the red
traffic lights.
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 14:35:04 +0100
Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> gabbled:
Am 27.02.2026 um 14:12 schrieb boltar@caprica.universe:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:11:33 GMTOn the contrary, the rules now (2025+?) specify even an "Idling noise".
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 22:32:59 -0000 (UTC)
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> gabbled:
Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
Well - couple of days ago, woman driver parked small battery car in >>>>>>> middle of bus lane (St. Helens). Got out and slowly escorted passenger >>>>>>> (with walking stick) to kerb; returned to car, and drove away. Car was >>>>>>> almost completely silent apart from very slight tyre noise.
IrCOve had a similar experience many years ago - Lexus hybrid SUV round >>>> about
2011. I was standing next to it and it set off completely silently, which
Shame there isn't a lower limit. The uuurrr uurrrr mmmmm urrrr noise of EVs >>> parking can get quite irritating in way that ICE cars arn't. Can't see any >>> need for it below walking speed when there'd be no injury from a collision. >>was disconcerting for a vehicle of that size.
In a way its a bit sad that the potential reduction in traffic noise from >>>>> silent EVs has been mitigated by this rule but I can see the need for it. >>>>> Also above probably 25-30mph most car noise is from the tyres anyway. >>>>>
This sound is only required below 20 km/h, when thererCOs no tyre noise. >>>
Presumably more EU bullshit rules. You can tell when the beaurocrats in Brussels don't have any useful work to do. Hopefully this nonsense won't be mandated here and it can be disabled by the dealer but I won't hold my breath.
Given the choice (which she doesn't on a company car), my wife would
almost have preferred to stick to the 4-year old car with small battery
rather than upgrade, just to enjoy the complete silence at the red
traffic lights.
I understand how she feels.
"Hybrids" are those cars that can drive short distances without ICE, so
noise generation requirements should apply (being settled for Electric,
I'm not going to test drive a hybrid at a dealer just to find out).
Certainly our 2021 PHEV had the low-speed noise. But mild hybrids don't >generally start on electric, they only use electric to assist the petrol >engine.
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
I understand how she feels.
Idling noise is potentially useful to the blind.
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 15:34:00 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
I understand how she feels.
Idling noise is potentially useful to the blind.
Don't see how. All it means is someone is sitting in a car, doesn't mean it'll move anywhere anytime soon particularly in BEVs where unlike a lot of ICE cars they only have on/off , not off/accessories/on so the car could be humming just because someone is on the phone and not planning on going anywhere.
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 15:34:00 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
I understand how she feels.
Idling noise is potentially useful to the blind.
Don't see how. All it means is someone is sitting in a car, doesn't mean
it'll move anywhere anytime soon particularly in BEVs where unlike a lot of >> ICE cars they only have on/off , not off/accessories/on so the car could be >> humming just because someone is on the phone and not planning on going
anywhere.
It would be useful to know if a car was stopped at a traffic light
junction. It might move soon, so knowing it was there is useful situational >awareness. A car in a supermarket car park with the ignition on might
reverse out shortly. So you know not to walk behind it. You canrCOt see the >reversing lights, which is the way I know not to walk behind a parked car.
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 16:08:56 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 15:34:00 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
I understand how she feels.
Idling noise is potentially useful to the blind.
Don't see how. All it means is someone is sitting in a car, doesn't mean >>> it'll move anywhere anytime soon particularly in BEVs where unlike a lot of >>> ICE cars they only have on/off , not off/accessories/on so the car could be >>> humming just because someone is on the phone and not planning on going
anywhere.
It would be useful to know if a car was stopped at a traffic light
junction. It might move soon, so knowing it was there is useful situational >> awareness. A car in a supermarket car park with the ignition on might
reverse out shortly. So you know not to walk behind it. You canrCOt see the >> reversing lights, which is the way I know not to walk behind a parked car.
A whole line of cars all pointlessly humming helps no one and I doubt many blind people wander along the road through a busy car park anyway.
Probably not too hard to find the speaker and disconnect it but prepare to
be wiped out financially if you then run someone over because they didn't hear your car as the insurance company will almost certainly walk away.
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 16:08:56 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:A whole line of cars all pointlessly humming helps no one and I doubt many >> blind people wander along the road through a busy car park anyway.
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 15:34:00 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
I understand how she feels.
Idling noise is potentially useful to the blind.
Don't see how. All it means is someone is sitting in a car, doesn't mean >>>> it'll move anywhere anytime soon particularly in BEVs where unlike a lot of
ICE cars they only have on/off , not off/accessories/on so the car could be
humming just because someone is on the phone and not planning on going >>>> anywhere.
It would be useful to know if a car was stopped at a traffic light
junction. It might move soon, so knowing it was there is useful situational >>> awareness. A car in a supermarket car park with the ignition on might
reverse out shortly. So you know not to walk behind it. You canrCOt see the >>> reversing lights, which is the way I know not to walk behind a parked car. >>
They wonrCOt hum unless the ignition is on. By me there is an Aldi with a small car park that pedestrians walk through. Give the standard of driving, even the sighted (never mind the partially sighted) will benefit from
knowing that a car is potentially going to reverse with no consideration
for who is in the way.
On 2026-02-28 16:24, Tweed wrote:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 16:08:56 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:A whole line of cars all pointlessly humming helps no one and I doubt many >>> blind people wander along the road through a busy car park anyway.
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 15:34:00 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
I understand how she feels.
Idling noise is potentially useful to the blind.
Don't see how. All it means is someone is sitting in a car, doesn't mean >>>>> it'll move anywhere anytime soon particularly in BEVs where unlike a lot of
ICE cars they only have on/off , not off/accessories/on so the car could be
humming just because someone is on the phone and not planning on going >>>>> anywhere.
It would be useful to know if a car was stopped at a traffic light
junction. It might move soon, so knowing it was there is useful situational
awareness. A car in a supermarket car park with the ignition on might
reverse out shortly. So you know not to walk behind it. You canrCOt see the
reversing lights, which is the way I know not to walk behind a parked car. >>>
They wonrCOt hum unless the ignition is on. By me there is an Aldi with a
small car park that pedestrians walk through. Give the standard of driving, >> even the sighted (never mind the partially sighted) will benefit from
knowing that a car is potentially going to reverse with no consideration
for who is in the way.
It presumably varies by type of car, but mine makes noises to me if
there's anyone walking across behind, even at a fair distance, when I
try to reverse!
On 2026-02-28 16:24, Tweed wrote:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 16:08:56 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:A whole line of cars all pointlessly humming helps no one and I doubt many >>> blind people wander along the road through a busy car park anyway.
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 15:34:00 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
I understand how she feels.
Idling noise is potentially useful to the blind.
Don't see how. All it means is someone is sitting in a car, doesn't mean >>>>> it'll move anywhere anytime soon particularly in BEVs where unlike a lot of
ICE cars they only have on/off , not off/accessories/on so the car could be
humming just because someone is on the phone and not planning on going >>>>> anywhere.
It would be useful to know if a car was stopped at a traffic light
junction. It might move soon, so knowing it was there is useful situational
awareness. A car in a supermarket car park with the ignition on might
reverse out shortly. So you know not to walk behind it. You canrCOt see the
reversing lights, which is the way I know not to walk behind a parked car. >>>
They wonrCOt hum unless the ignition is on. By me there is an Aldi with a
small car park that pedestrians walk through. Give the standard of driving, >> even the sighted (never mind the partially sighted) will benefit from
knowing that a car is potentially going to reverse with no consideration
for who is in the way.
It presumably varies by type of car, but mine makes noises to me if
there's anyone walking across behind, even at a fair distance, when I
try to reverse!
nib
nib <news@ingram-bromley.co.uk> wrote:
On 2026-02-28 16:24, Tweed wrote:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 16:08:56 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 15:34:00 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
I understand how she feels.
Idling noise is potentially useful to the blind.
Don't see how. All it means is someone is sitting in a car, doesn't mean >>>>>> it'll move anywhere anytime soon particularly in BEVs where unlike a lot of
ICE cars they only have on/off , not off/accessories/on so the car could be
humming just because someone is on the phone and not planning on going >>>>>> anywhere.
It would be useful to know if a car was stopped at a traffic light
junction. It might move soon, so knowing it was there is useful situational
awareness. A car in a supermarket car park with the ignition on might >>>>> reverse out shortly. So you know not to walk behind it. You canrCOt see the
reversing lights, which is the way I know not to walk behind a parked car.
A whole line of cars all pointlessly humming helps no one and I doubt many >>>> blind people wander along the road through a busy car park anyway.
They wonrCOt hum unless the ignition is on. By me there is an Aldi with a >>> small car park that pedestrians walk through. Give the standard of driving, >>> even the sighted (never mind the partially sighted) will benefit from
knowing that a car is potentially going to reverse with no consideration >>> for who is in the way.
It presumably varies by type of car, but mine makes noises to me if
there's anyone walking across behind, even at a fair distance, when I
try to reverse!
IsnrCOt that just what normal parking sensors do? ItrCOs nothing to do with the type of propulsion, or how noisy it is.
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:51:14 +0000
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> gabbled:
On 27/02/2026 11:25, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
I doubt they're clued up enough to notice unless they work for the traffic >>> division.
Not if you surprise them because they did not hear you!
The Politically Correct term is now 'Road Policing Unit'. There are >>probably still some who can quote the law but I once had an apology from
a Traffic cop because he did not realise (at that time) you could park
on double-yellow lines, I also had an apology from a police Inspector >>after one of his Traffic Wardens did not know you could park in the same >>place.
Traffic wardens and other measures such as cameras exist to make money for >whoever employs them. Controlling parking is a secondary bonus.
On 26/02/2026 16:20, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
Probably not too hard to find the speaker and disconnect it but prepare to >> be wiped out financially if you then run someone over because they didn't
hear your car as the insurance company will almost certainly walk away.
Your insurance company is not allowed to walk away from third party
liabilities just because you are an idiot and made stupid modifications.
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 17:48:51 +0200, Clank wrote:
That really is mystifying; they are using the standard CB technology
that has been part of the GSM specification for more than 30 years, how
in God's name have they managed to make it not work for old handsets or
networks?
The cell broadcast has been in GSM specs for years. However that doesn't include doing anything in particular with it. Interpreting certain types
of cell broadcast as an emergency alert is a later addition.
On 28/02/2026 21:01, Mike Humphrey wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 17:48:51 +0200, Clank wrote:
That really is mystifying; they are using the standard CB technology
that has been part of the GSM specification for more than 30 years, how
in God's name have they managed to make it not work for old handsets or
networks?
The cell broadcast has been in GSM specs for years. However that doesn't
include doing anything in particular with it. Interpreting certain types
of cell broadcast as an emergency alert is a later addition.
It was in the spec when I was working on it in the 1990s.
Simple Cell Broadcast application. Supports ETWS and CMAS emergency
messages, and can be extended to support other types of PWS
(Public Warning System) emergency warnings. User preferences for configuration of each supported national system (ETWS, CMAS, and
channel 50 broadcasts for Brazil) are displayed/hidden based on the
values in res/values/config.xml.
For emergency alerts, a flashing warning icon and special alert sound
is played. If there is a text-to-speech engine installed for the
language of the broadcast, then the contents of the broadcast message
will be spoken after the alert sound is played. The user can disable
the text-to-speech feature in settings, as well as adjusting the
length of the alert sound and enabling/disabling delivery of several emergency broadcast channels.
Traffic Wardens haven't existed for a few years.
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
A whole line of cars all pointlessly humming helps no one and I doubt many >> blind people wander along the road through a busy car park anyway.
They wonrCOt hum unless the ignition is on. By me there is an Aldi with a
small car park that pedestrians walk through. Give the standard of driving, >even the sighted (never mind the partially sighted) will benefit from
knowing that a car is potentially going to reverse with no consideration
for who is in the way.
On 26/02/2026 16:20, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
Probably not too hard to find the speaker and disconnect it but prepare to >> be wiped out financially if you then run someone over because they didn't
hear your car as the insurance company will almost certainly walk away.
Your insurance company is not allowed to walk away from third party
liabilities just because you are an idiot and made stupid modifications.
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 13:14:06 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe
wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:51:14 +0000Traffic Wardens haven't existed for a few years.
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> gabbled:
On 27/02/2026 11:25, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
I doubt they're clued up enough to notice unless they work for the traffic >>>> division.
Not if you surprise them because they did not hear you!
The Politically Correct term is now 'Road Policing Unit'. There are >>>probably still some who can quote the law but I once had an apology from >>>a Traffic cop because he did not realise (at that time) you could park >>>on double-yellow lines, I also had an apology from a police Inspector >>>after one of his Traffic Wardens did not know you could park in the same >>>place.
Traffic wardens and other measures such as cameras exist to make money for >>whoever employs them. Controlling parking is a secondary bonus.
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 17:17:05 +0000 Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk>
gabbled:
Your insurance company is not allowed to walk away from third party >>liabilities just because you are an idiot and made stupid modifications.
If they feel you've been fraudulent when applying or have broken the
terms of the policy hence invalidating it they absolutely can.
On Sun, 1 Mar 2026 15:40:56 -0000 (UTC), boltar wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 17:17:05 +0000 Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk>
gabbled:
Your insurance company is not allowed to walk away from third party >>>liabilities just because you are an idiot and made stupid modifications.
If they feel you've been fraudulent when applying or have broken the
terms of the policy hence invalidating it they absolutely can.
No they can't. The Road Traffic Act explicitly prohibits it. They still
have to pay all third party claims covered by the minimum requirements of
On 01/03/2026 03:15, Charles Ellson wrote:
Traffic Wardens haven't existed for a few years.
Notice past tense several times in my post.
On Sun, 01 Mar 2026 03:15:45 +0000
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> gabbled:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 13:14:06 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe
wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:51:14 +0000Traffic Wardens haven't existed for a few years.
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> gabbled:
On 27/02/2026 11:25, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
I doubt they're clued up enough to notice unless they work for the traffic
division.
Not if you surprise them because they did not hear you!
The Politically Correct term is now 'Road Policing Unit'. There are >>>>probably still some who can quote the law but I once had an apology from >>>>a Traffic cop because he did not realise (at that time) you could park >>>>on double-yellow lines, I also had an apology from a police Inspector >>>>after one of his Traffic Wardens did not know you could park in the same >>>>place.
Traffic wardens and other measures such as cameras exist to make money for >>>whoever employs them. Controlling parking is a secondary bonus.
Thats odd because there's one outside my kids school every weekday morning. >Did he arrive in a time machine? Whether they're called wardens or parking >attendents it doesn't change the nature of the actual job.
On Sun, 1 Mar 2026 16:17:08 -0000 (UTC)<
Mike Humphrey <mail@michaelhumphrey.me.uk> gabbled:
On Sun, 1 Mar 2026 15:40:56 -0000 (UTC), boltar wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 17:17:05 +0000 Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk>
gabbled:
Your insurance company is not allowed to walk away from third party >>>>liabilities just because you are an idiot and made stupid modifications. >>>If they feel you've been fraudulent when applying or have broken the
terms of the policy hence invalidating it they absolutely can.
No they can't. The Road Traffic Act explicitly prohibits it. They still >>have to pay all third party claims covered by the minimum requirements of
Not if the policy is void which is the same as not having any insurance at >all.
On Sun, 1 Mar 2026 16:35:23 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe
wrote:
On Sun, 1 Mar 2026 16:17:08 -0000 (UTC)<
Mike Humphrey <mail@michaelhumphrey.me.uk> gabbled:
On Sun, 1 Mar 2026 15:40:56 -0000 (UTC), boltar wrote:Not if the policy is void which is the same as not having any insurance at >>all.
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 17:17:05 +0000 Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk>
gabbled:
Your insurance company is not allowed to walk away from third party >>>>>liabilities just because you are an idiot and made stupid modifications. >>>>If they feel you've been fraudulent when applying or have broken the
terms of the policy hence invalidating it they absolutely can.
No they can't. The Road Traffic Act explicitly prohibits it. They still >>>have to pay all third party claims covered by the minimum requirements of >>
Still wrong. The only way to avoid liability is by never having a
contract with the allegedly insured person to begin with. Once an
insurance policy has been agreed it cannot be voided without notice;
when that is done properly then the liability does cease but not for
events occurring before the time that such voiding takes effect. Motor >insurance contracts have there
own special bit of law thus avoiding--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2
the general legal hurdles that might e.g. let a supplier avoid any
legal liability if they were never paid.
On Sun, 1 Mar 2026 16:35:23 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe
wrote:
On Sun, 1 Mar 2026 16:17:08 -0000 (UTC)<
Mike Humphrey <mail@michaelhumphrey.me.uk> gabbled:
On Sun, 1 Mar 2026 15:40:56 -0000 (UTC), boltar wrote:Not if the policy is void which is the same as not having any insurance at >> all.
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 17:17:05 +0000 Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk>
gabbled:
Your insurance company is not allowed to walk away from third partyIf they feel you've been fraudulent when applying or have broken the
liabilities just because you are an idiot and made stupid modifications. >>>>
terms of the policy hence invalidating it they absolutely can.
No they can't. The Road Traffic Act explicitly prohibits it. They still >>> have to pay all third party claims covered by the minimum requirements of >>
Still wrong. The only way to avoid liability is by never having a
contract with the allegedly insured person to begin with. Once an
insurance policy has been agreed it cannot be voided without notice;
when that is done properly then the liability does cease but not for
events occurring before the time that such voiding takes effect. Motor insurance contracts have there own special bit of law thus avoiding
the general legal hurdles that might e.g. let a supplier avoid any
legal liability if they were never paid.
I would assume any blind people in a supermarket carpark would be accompanied >by someone, otherwise they'd be waiting at the entrance for a taxi or bus.
nib <news@ingram-bromley.co.uk> wrote:
On 2026-02-28 16:24, Tweed wrote:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 16:08:56 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 15:34:00 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
I understand how she feels.
Idling noise is potentially useful to the blind.
Don't see how. All it means is someone is sitting in a car, doesn't mean >>>>>> it'll move anywhere anytime soon particularly in BEVs where unlike a lot of
ICE cars they only have on/off , not off/accessories/on so the car could be
humming just because someone is on the phone and not planning on going >>>>>> anywhere.
It would be useful to know if a car was stopped at a traffic light
junction. It might move soon, so knowing it was there is useful situational
awareness. A car in a supermarket car park with the ignition on might >>>>> reverse out shortly. So you know not to walk behind it. You canrCOt see the
reversing lights, which is the way I know not to walk behind a parked car.
A whole line of cars all pointlessly humming helps no one and I doubt many >>>> blind people wander along the road through a busy car park anyway.
They wonrCOt hum unless the ignition is on. By me there is an Aldi with a >>> small car park that pedestrians walk through. Give the standard of driving, >>> even the sighted (never mind the partially sighted) will benefit from
knowing that a car is potentially going to reverse with no consideration >>> for who is in the way.
It presumably varies by type of car, but mine makes noises to me if
there's anyone walking across behind, even at a fair distance, when I
try to reverse!
So does mine. But you assume that the driver acts sensiblyrCa..
Am 28.02.2026 um 18:56 schrieb Tweed:
So does mine. But you assume that the driver acts sensiblyrCa..
I believe the cross-traffic sensor prevents me from actually starting
off (never tested this).
Cross traffic sensors proved useless for me when I was on a roundabout
and someone came around the outside, didn't follow the lane markings to
turn
off at the exit and drove into the side of my car as I pulled out when
they were in my blind spot as it was an angled entry road. Naturally insurance
company said it was my fault.
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On Sun, 1 Mar 2026 16:35:23 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe
wrote:
On Sun, 1 Mar 2026 16:17:08 -0000 (UTC)<
Mike Humphrey <mail@michaelhumphrey.me.uk> gabbled:
On Sun, 1 Mar 2026 15:40:56 -0000 (UTC), boltar wrote:Not if the policy is void which is the same as not having any insurance at >>> all.
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 17:17:05 +0000 Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk>
gabbled:
Your insurance company is not allowed to walk away from third party >>>>>> liabilities just because you are an idiot and made stupid modifications. >>>>>If they feel you've been fraudulent when applying or have broken the >>>>> terms of the policy hence invalidating it they absolutely can.
No they can't. The Road Traffic Act explicitly prohibits it. They still >>>> have to pay all third party claims covered by the minimum requirements of >>>
Still wrong. The only way to avoid liability is by never having a
contract with the allegedly insured person to begin with. Once an
insurance policy has been agreed it cannot be voided without notice;
when that is done properly then the liability does cease but not for
events occurring before the time that such voiding takes effect. Motor
insurance contracts have there own special bit of law thus avoiding
the general legal hurdles that might e.g. let a supplier avoid any
legal liability if they were never paid.
Noting the validity of what you state, itAs very common for folk to be >prosecuted for no insurance because they have failed to keep up their
monthly payments.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 59 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 02:20:28 |
| Calls: | 810 |
| Files: | 1,287 |
| D/L today: |
2 files (9,745K bytes) |
| Messages: | 200,610 |
