At a time of economic hardship for all, why is the Public Sector wasting so much money?
A recent report by MP's suggests that IT spending is far higher than it need be. True, the figure quoted of an average £3,500 per desktop PC which could be bought in the high street for £250 is like comparing apples with chalk - the higher figure allegedly includes sofware and support and infrastructure but even so I think the figure is excessive, and I speak from experience in an IT department supporting a large number of users with a wide variety of specialised hardware and software requirements..
Moving on to supplies, it appears that paper can be bought far more expensively than I buy it - how can anyone spend £73 on a box of paper, even if they take the ministerial Jaguar for a spin to go and buy it?
We then see a report of the websites that Whitehall civil servants like to visit - it seems that whilst we pay them to work they do a bit of online gaming, shopping, gambling and sometimes visit government websites.
I know from friends and relatives that this is not simply a London issue, outside the capital there are many reports of wasted spending. Organisations like the government and local and county councils ought to have the buying power to negotiate very good deals with supplier in view of the volume of business they represent - yet we still hear of items being purchased at a higher price than the high street because 'that is our approved supplier'
Recently there was a report of a council which purchased iPads for all the councillors despite the fact that many did not want them or subsequently use them. Supposedly this was to increase efficiency but if left unsused they cannot achieve this. Perhaps we should all be issued with a tablet/laptop of our choosing so we can be more efficient - makes just as much sense because it will ensure we can communicate with all the official bodies electronically!
In the private sector, buyers and managers who negotiated or approved these deals would at least be reprimanded, and if repeated it is likely they would find themselves looking for new employment. In the public sector it seems that this is not the case.
Some of these may seem like minor issues or slight overspend, but considering the size of the departments and councils involved it soon adds up. We are in massive defecit as a country - why not start by catching up on issues such as this and paring down the debt.
Friday, July 29, 2011
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
HS2 - My View
There has been a lot of talk about the new high speed rail link (HS2) and whether it offers a benefit or not.
It also seems there are contradictory views in the environmental camp. In theory HS2 has the capability to reduce air travel within the UK. This reduces the need to expand airports and cuts the CO2 emissions and noise from the flights that are either cut or extra flights that are no longer needed. On this basis you would expect the evironmentalists to be positively encouraging HS2. But no, they don't want this solution. It isn't clear what they want unless we are all to stop travelling but at the moment the broadband infrastructure is still inadequate as a replacement for face to face meetings and is never likely to replace conferences and business exhibitions.
What is the answer? The existing rail network is already creaking at the seams so there is very little scope for adding more trains. Speaking as someone who has had to stand on a number of reasonably long journeys in dangerously overcrowded trains I feel we must do something if we are not to force people in to their cars (again much hated by environmentalists).
Based on this we should go ahead and build HS2, making sure it covers enough of the country to provide benefit which means it must ultimately go to Birmingham, Manchester, Edinburgh, Glasgow and other such key centres.
From an environmental impact point of view in many areas it is being built into tunnels and cuttings so reducing noise and visual disturbance. Maybe more of the route has to be built in this way but that depends on where it is passing.
Given the recent furore about Bombardier surely there must be good reason for going ahead - jobs could be saved and created. Not only jobs directly related to building the trains, but also construction jobs for the track and infrastructure and jobs at the new stations, drivers, maintenance staff and so on.
Of course a number of people in the south have complained about the line. An interesting solution was provided for this, put a station near them - improved links to London will send their house prices rocketting and they will suddenly change their minds.
We live in the 21st century and increasing population and work diversity means we must travel. Let us not be rated the poor relative to Europe when it comes to transport systems.
It also seems there are contradictory views in the environmental camp. In theory HS2 has the capability to reduce air travel within the UK. This reduces the need to expand airports and cuts the CO2 emissions and noise from the flights that are either cut or extra flights that are no longer needed. On this basis you would expect the evironmentalists to be positively encouraging HS2. But no, they don't want this solution. It isn't clear what they want unless we are all to stop travelling but at the moment the broadband infrastructure is still inadequate as a replacement for face to face meetings and is never likely to replace conferences and business exhibitions.
What is the answer? The existing rail network is already creaking at the seams so there is very little scope for adding more trains. Speaking as someone who has had to stand on a number of reasonably long journeys in dangerously overcrowded trains I feel we must do something if we are not to force people in to their cars (again much hated by environmentalists).
Based on this we should go ahead and build HS2, making sure it covers enough of the country to provide benefit which means it must ultimately go to Birmingham, Manchester, Edinburgh, Glasgow and other such key centres.
From an environmental impact point of view in many areas it is being built into tunnels and cuttings so reducing noise and visual disturbance. Maybe more of the route has to be built in this way but that depends on where it is passing.
Given the recent furore about Bombardier surely there must be good reason for going ahead - jobs could be saved and created. Not only jobs directly related to building the trains, but also construction jobs for the track and infrastructure and jobs at the new stations, drivers, maintenance staff and so on.
Of course a number of people in the south have complained about the line. An interesting solution was provided for this, put a station near them - improved links to London will send their house prices rocketting and they will suddenly change their minds.
We live in the 21st century and increasing population and work diversity means we must travel. Let us not be rated the poor relative to Europe when it comes to transport systems.
Green Energy Misinformation
I have just received yet another card through my door telling me how I can get free electricity and make money from solar power.
As with many of the other ones, this has Government written in large bold font to try and distract you from the fact that this is simply an installer of solar power systems who is trying to get your custom.
All the claims sound so wonderful, free energy, get paid for the energy you produce and so on. These claims are based on facts, but in some cases very loosely!
Let us start off with the free electricity and massive reductions in your electricity bill. The main problem with this is our lifestyles - we use much of our power at night when the sun isn't shining. This is due in part to the fact that many people are out of the house during the day and so the home is using little power unless you set timers on wasjing machines and tumble driers to run when the sun is at is strongest. Of course the other issue is that at night we have lights on, precisely because the sun isn't shining.
This means that your electricity bill won't reduce as much as may be claimed. There are systems which can store the power generated for use later but they are significantly more expensive and they are not the prices used when trying to sell the system to you.
Now let us look at the amount of power you will generate. Typical advertising assumes you have a south facing roof at the optimal angle and not shaded by anything else such as trees. Many people don't have this and when the actual facts are in place then the output falls. You also need to factor in the typical weather in your location - the figures given are often maximums assuming full sun, and not cloudy days like today. Finally, there are issues like contamination. Dirty cells can apparently reduce the power output by as much as ten percent. How many people would clean their roof? Many don't event do the gutters.
How about installation costs? The price quoted is likely to be for an optimal installation. When they survey your house you may get the odd added extra - access is difficult so it will cost more, or the roof will need strengthening to take the weight (remember your housebuilder will have taken standard design loads such as wind, snow, roof tile weight into consideration but not the extra load of the solar collector). Perhaps they will also say that the access to your existing electricity supply is awkward so they will charge extra.
So we have a sytem that costs more than the examples, generates less electricity than the examples and relies on a government guarantee on feed in tariffs to provide the returns suggested.
So often a rate of return is quoted which exceeds keeping the money in your bank account. If you wanted to grow money you would not leave it in a plain old bank account, you would invest. Potentially you could earn a much higher return than leaving it in the bank and still keep your money safe. Furthermore, depending upon the investment chosen you could access money if the need arose, not easy to do if it is all on the roof!
I have used the figures from the supplier whose card I have just received and they tell me that the installation will have a payback period in the region of 21 years based on average installtion costs and maximum returns. Assume the returns are less than promised for the reasons given above and the installation costs more than average and you can see my worry.
Over time it will reduce my carbon footprint, but the footprint of the initial manufacture and installation is likely to mean it could be several years before even that breaks event.
Just like wind power, this is not the answer for this country.
As with many of the other ones, this has Government written in large bold font to try and distract you from the fact that this is simply an installer of solar power systems who is trying to get your custom.
All the claims sound so wonderful, free energy, get paid for the energy you produce and so on. These claims are based on facts, but in some cases very loosely!
Let us start off with the free electricity and massive reductions in your electricity bill. The main problem with this is our lifestyles - we use much of our power at night when the sun isn't shining. This is due in part to the fact that many people are out of the house during the day and so the home is using little power unless you set timers on wasjing machines and tumble driers to run when the sun is at is strongest. Of course the other issue is that at night we have lights on, precisely because the sun isn't shining.
This means that your electricity bill won't reduce as much as may be claimed. There are systems which can store the power generated for use later but they are significantly more expensive and they are not the prices used when trying to sell the system to you.
Now let us look at the amount of power you will generate. Typical advertising assumes you have a south facing roof at the optimal angle and not shaded by anything else such as trees. Many people don't have this and when the actual facts are in place then the output falls. You also need to factor in the typical weather in your location - the figures given are often maximums assuming full sun, and not cloudy days like today. Finally, there are issues like contamination. Dirty cells can apparently reduce the power output by as much as ten percent. How many people would clean their roof? Many don't event do the gutters.
How about installation costs? The price quoted is likely to be for an optimal installation. When they survey your house you may get the odd added extra - access is difficult so it will cost more, or the roof will need strengthening to take the weight (remember your housebuilder will have taken standard design loads such as wind, snow, roof tile weight into consideration but not the extra load of the solar collector). Perhaps they will also say that the access to your existing electricity supply is awkward so they will charge extra.
So we have a sytem that costs more than the examples, generates less electricity than the examples and relies on a government guarantee on feed in tariffs to provide the returns suggested.
So often a rate of return is quoted which exceeds keeping the money in your bank account. If you wanted to grow money you would not leave it in a plain old bank account, you would invest. Potentially you could earn a much higher return than leaving it in the bank and still keep your money safe. Furthermore, depending upon the investment chosen you could access money if the need arose, not easy to do if it is all on the roof!
I have used the figures from the supplier whose card I have just received and they tell me that the installation will have a payback period in the region of 21 years based on average installtion costs and maximum returns. Assume the returns are less than promised for the reasons given above and the installation costs more than average and you can see my worry.
Over time it will reduce my carbon footprint, but the footprint of the initial manufacture and installation is likely to mean it could be several years before even that breaks event.
Just like wind power, this is not the answer for this country.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Beware - Error With Your PC
I am getting fed up with the persistent calls that claim a company has discovered an error with my PC.
These are all from outside the UK and guessing by the accents they come from India or somewhere close. Some claim to be from London, but if so why would my caller display say 'International'? Maybe London has moved since I did geography!
It is clear what they are trying to do, entice you to a web site that does try and cause a problem with your PC and then I have no doubt that they will charge you an exorbitant amount to correct the error they have 'discovered'
You are best to ignore these calls totally but they still keep making them. I think they are working on mailing lists they have bought where you have provided a phone number and an email address. From this they work out you may have a PC.
If you do try to find out how they know it is a problem with your PC then they come up with a whole host of technobabble designed to frighten the non computer aware. They told me they had the Windows Licence number of a machine at my address which had reported errors. Interestingly it didn't look like any Microsoft key I have ever seen and certainly was nothing like any of my machines.
It goes without saying - never tell them anything about your computer set up or go to any websites they may mention, you are just asking for trouble.
You could of course have some sport, tell them you are running Linux, Unix, Macintosh or any more obscure system you like and then invite them to explain why they think you have a Windows error - again they are piggybacking on the fact that many people do have Windows.
The bottom line is that they do NOT have any errors from your PC, could not associate any errors with your phone number and ARE out to get money off you.
Be aware of these scams and AVOID like the plague. Keep your computer protection up to date and never connect to any websites you are invited to by unknown callers.
Must go and apply the latest security patches to my VAX VMS machine!
These are all from outside the UK and guessing by the accents they come from India or somewhere close. Some claim to be from London, but if so why would my caller display say 'International'? Maybe London has moved since I did geography!
It is clear what they are trying to do, entice you to a web site that does try and cause a problem with your PC and then I have no doubt that they will charge you an exorbitant amount to correct the error they have 'discovered'
You are best to ignore these calls totally but they still keep making them. I think they are working on mailing lists they have bought where you have provided a phone number and an email address. From this they work out you may have a PC.
If you do try to find out how they know it is a problem with your PC then they come up with a whole host of technobabble designed to frighten the non computer aware. They told me they had the Windows Licence number of a machine at my address which had reported errors. Interestingly it didn't look like any Microsoft key I have ever seen and certainly was nothing like any of my machines.
It goes without saying - never tell them anything about your computer set up or go to any websites they may mention, you are just asking for trouble.
You could of course have some sport, tell them you are running Linux, Unix, Macintosh or any more obscure system you like and then invite them to explain why they think you have a Windows error - again they are piggybacking on the fact that many people do have Windows.
The bottom line is that they do NOT have any errors from your PC, could not associate any errors with your phone number and ARE out to get money off you.
Be aware of these scams and AVOID like the plague. Keep your computer protection up to date and never connect to any websites you are invited to by unknown callers.
Must go and apply the latest security patches to my VAX VMS machine!
Monday, July 18, 2011
Flying Cars
The Daily Mail reported today that flying cars could be with us in five years. Prototypes exist in the USA and reportedly the CAA states that certification in Europe should be easy on the back of that.
Should we be worrying about the skies being filled with these things? I would say an emphatic NO to that, and here's why.
I would expect certification in the USA to be in the Experimental category - this allows people to build flying machines and use them privately but with fairly strict limitatons. At present we have no equivalent category in Europe and the present European legislation is stricter than that of the US. It is to change as Europe takes more control over aviation from the individual countries but I can't see a European Experimental category.
To fly you need a pilot's licence - these are expensive to obtain and maintain. It is quite possible that the majority of the people who want one already have one and are quite happy flying aircraft - there's a novel idea. Some may take to the flying car but I can't see it being too many.
Aircraft have to be maintained to a high standard of airworthiness - this is not cheap at all as any owner will tell you. This is why many pilots hire an aircraft to let others have the risk and expense of maintenance and repairs, not to mention insurance.
As these flying cars are fixed wing, not rotary, they will need a runway to operate from. This means you will have people having to get in their flying car, drive to an airfield, convert from car to aircraft, takeoff and fly to an airfield near their destination, convert back to a car and then drive to their eventual destination. Practical, no more than driving to the airfield, hiring a real aircraft, and getting a taxi or hire car at the other end - which will also be less time consuming as there will be no rigging / derigging.
We also have the weather to contend with - weather you can safely drive in will prevent flight - so chances are you will have to drive anyway in a car that is a compromise and offers the worst of both worlds.
The final reason I have come up with for now is damage. Get a car park ding in a conventional car and you are annoyed. Get one in this machine and it can no longer be used as an aircraft until a certified engineer has repaired it and it has been deemed fit to fly again.
No way will I be getting a flying car rating on my licence!
Should we be worrying about the skies being filled with these things? I would say an emphatic NO to that, and here's why.
I would expect certification in the USA to be in the Experimental category - this allows people to build flying machines and use them privately but with fairly strict limitatons. At present we have no equivalent category in Europe and the present European legislation is stricter than that of the US. It is to change as Europe takes more control over aviation from the individual countries but I can't see a European Experimental category.
To fly you need a pilot's licence - these are expensive to obtain and maintain. It is quite possible that the majority of the people who want one already have one and are quite happy flying aircraft - there's a novel idea. Some may take to the flying car but I can't see it being too many.
Aircraft have to be maintained to a high standard of airworthiness - this is not cheap at all as any owner will tell you. This is why many pilots hire an aircraft to let others have the risk and expense of maintenance and repairs, not to mention insurance.
As these flying cars are fixed wing, not rotary, they will need a runway to operate from. This means you will have people having to get in their flying car, drive to an airfield, convert from car to aircraft, takeoff and fly to an airfield near their destination, convert back to a car and then drive to their eventual destination. Practical, no more than driving to the airfield, hiring a real aircraft, and getting a taxi or hire car at the other end - which will also be less time consuming as there will be no rigging / derigging.
We also have the weather to contend with - weather you can safely drive in will prevent flight - so chances are you will have to drive anyway in a car that is a compromise and offers the worst of both worlds.
The final reason I have come up with for now is damage. Get a car park ding in a conventional car and you are annoyed. Get one in this machine and it can no longer be used as an aircraft until a certified engineer has repaired it and it has been deemed fit to fly again.
No way will I be getting a flying car rating on my licence!
Friday, July 15, 2011
The Bombardier Saga
I am getting fed up over all the hype over Bombardier failing to win the ThamesLink contract. I have sympathy for those who are to lose their jobs at Bombardier but it seems that the media and unions are exaggerating, misleading and hyping up. I can see the unions want another reason to have a go at the government but the media can just be trying to justify their jobs.
Let us start with the headline, Bombardier loses contract for ThamesLink trains - they never had it so they can therefore not lose it. It is more accurate to say that they failed to win the contract.
Next, the nationality of the company. Much is made of the fact that Siemens is German. Well those who think that Bombardier is British should look into it. Bombardier is a Canadian company and their rail division is headquartered in Germany. Not so British eh? Not to mention that the media always pronounce the name in a way that sounds French - should be Bomb-buh-deer if it is British. Bombardier would have kept jobs in the UK if they had won the contract but Siemens are also stating that they will create jobs in the UK to work on the contract.
With regards to job losses, most of these were scheduled to happen regardless of whether or not the ThamesLink contract had been awarded to Bombardier. The figures released are that 980 contracts were not to be renewed. This is the nature of contracting and these positions were to go anyway. It is possible that many of these people will find employment with Siemens given their skill set. 446 permanent positions are said to be going which would not have gone if the contract had been won.
Siemens are estimating they will create some 2,000 jobs on the contract - it is possible that a number of those no longer employed by Bombardier will be able to take up these positions, who knows at this stage. The net effect however is some 500 or so extra jobs in the UK economy.
The unions however have some hidden calculations that suggest the loss of 1,500 or 500 jobs, whichever figure you prefer, will lead to 13,000 extra job losses and billions of pounds cost to the economy. I find this hard to believe but I doubt we will see any detailed explanation of their figures.
As a parting shot, I wonder how many of those complaining buy French cars, Japanese TV's, German washing machines etc for the same reason that the government issued the contract to Siemens?
Let us start with the headline, Bombardier loses contract for ThamesLink trains - they never had it so they can therefore not lose it. It is more accurate to say that they failed to win the contract.
Next, the nationality of the company. Much is made of the fact that Siemens is German. Well those who think that Bombardier is British should look into it. Bombardier is a Canadian company and their rail division is headquartered in Germany. Not so British eh? Not to mention that the media always pronounce the name in a way that sounds French - should be Bomb-buh-deer if it is British. Bombardier would have kept jobs in the UK if they had won the contract but Siemens are also stating that they will create jobs in the UK to work on the contract.
With regards to job losses, most of these were scheduled to happen regardless of whether or not the ThamesLink contract had been awarded to Bombardier. The figures released are that 980 contracts were not to be renewed. This is the nature of contracting and these positions were to go anyway. It is possible that many of these people will find employment with Siemens given their skill set. 446 permanent positions are said to be going which would not have gone if the contract had been won.
Siemens are estimating they will create some 2,000 jobs on the contract - it is possible that a number of those no longer employed by Bombardier will be able to take up these positions, who knows at this stage. The net effect however is some 500 or so extra jobs in the UK economy.
The unions however have some hidden calculations that suggest the loss of 1,500 or 500 jobs, whichever figure you prefer, will lead to 13,000 extra job losses and billions of pounds cost to the economy. I find this hard to believe but I doubt we will see any detailed explanation of their figures.
As a parting shot, I wonder how many of those complaining buy French cars, Japanese TV's, German washing machines etc for the same reason that the government issued the contract to Siemens?
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Rip Off Britain
There was an article in the paper yesterday about a survey, by the Post Office, on how costs of various items we would buy abroad on holiday have risen.
In this instance the cost in 2007 was compared with the cost now and indeed prices have risen.
What is not included in the survey results shown however is the price rise in the same items for the same period in the UK and indeed how these prices compare with the prices abroad.
I believe that if this were to be done then we would see a totally different picture which would suggest our best bet is to holiday abroad. For example I enjoy Spain as a holiday destination - Coffee at £1.13 a cup and £1.89 for a beer - oh how I wish I could get these prices on a holiday in the UK. And as for a meal for two at £23.58, well even if I go to the local pizza restaurant and take advantage of their offers I am doing well to get this price!
They also selectively show the countries to make a point. Many countries will be much cheaper than this.
Finally, I got riled the last time this type of comparison was done. The example then quoted was headlined by a ticket for the Eiffel Tower. I compared this with Blackpool Tower and found Paris to be about 10% cheaper and for a much better experience, having visited both Paris and Blackpool!
Why do we holiday in this country? I will check this years holiday cost very carefully before deciding where to book next year!
In this instance the cost in 2007 was compared with the cost now and indeed prices have risen.
What is not included in the survey results shown however is the price rise in the same items for the same period in the UK and indeed how these prices compare with the prices abroad.
I believe that if this were to be done then we would see a totally different picture which would suggest our best bet is to holiday abroad. For example I enjoy Spain as a holiday destination - Coffee at £1.13 a cup and £1.89 for a beer - oh how I wish I could get these prices on a holiday in the UK. And as for a meal for two at £23.58, well even if I go to the local pizza restaurant and take advantage of their offers I am doing well to get this price!
They also selectively show the countries to make a point. Many countries will be much cheaper than this.
Finally, I got riled the last time this type of comparison was done. The example then quoted was headlined by a ticket for the Eiffel Tower. I compared this with Blackpool Tower and found Paris to be about 10% cheaper and for a much better experience, having visited both Paris and Blackpool!
Why do we holiday in this country? I will check this years holiday cost very carefully before deciding where to book next year!
The Cyclist Peril
What is it with cyclists?
Don't get me wrong, cycling can be a great way of getting around and is less polluting (though watch your increased CO2 emissions when peddling hard compared with resting!) and good exercise to boot.
Many cyclists are well behaved and follow the rules of the road, but their image is tarnished by others of their number.
My problem is with the cyclists who think they are above the law and also in many cases common sense.
In this area we have a reasonable number of cycle paths, totally separate from the road but parallel to it and within a few feet. The odd exception occurs at roundabouts as there is sometimes only one way round but all exits are served by the cycle lane. Why then do the cyclists insist on riding on the road and more to the point why do they get angry with motorists? If there was no cycle lane then of course they are entitled to use the road, but where the local council has gone to the trouble of providing one then it should be used.
There is also the issue of cyclists and their disregard for traffic lights. I thought that a red traffic light had something to do with stopping but not all cyclists seem to follow this rule. Whilst motorists are still responsible for driving carefully, they will find this more difficult if they have to dodge the cyclists running red lights, and for what - a few seconds gained on their journey? We have cyclists running red lights, dodging through pedestrian only areas and running the risks of collisions by cycling on pavements which have no cycle lane. And how many times have you seen a cyclist cut up the nearside of a line of traffic only to curse when one of the vehicles turns left (and quite probably indicating that intention!)
Recently I was out walking along a path which is for both pedestrians and cyclists and whilst not laned off is certainly wide enough. The problem there is with cyclists approaching from behind at high speed and without giving any warning (using the bell that many now see as optional despite the law) or thanking you if you move over to let a group of cyclists through. Surely common good manners will resolve this.
Whilst I am on the subject of bikes not legally equipped, there is also the issue of lighting. If out at night a cyclist is vulnerable, so why do so many either dress in dark clothes with no high-vis components, not have lights on, or both. Proper clothing and lighting would make the roads much safer for all. And by lighting I don't mean just those flashing LED lights - I believe a steady light should be shown front and rear, possibly supplemented by flashing lights to make them stand out but not solely relying on them. Surely modern LED technology should allow a good bright light with decent battery life.
Finally there is the issue of accountability and insurance. First of all there is no easy way of tracking a bike involved in an accident if it leaves the scene (we have had cases reported in the papers of people being knocked down and injured by cyclists who then ride off) and secondly they have no insurance that specifically covers cycling (some may have it on household policies or through cycle clubs) so if damage is caused, say to a vehicle, there is typically little redress for the third party. Remember these are people who may have had no training, and if not drivers may never even have read the highway code.
I am not against cyclists, I even have a bike myself which I use from time to time. I did my cycling proficiency many years ago and have forgotten most of it but I am also a driver so have an understanding of the rules of the road. I choose not to cycle at night as I don't think it is safe even with lights and high-vis but that is a personal choice. Similarly I opt for cycle lanes wherever possible even where, as with some of the lanes round here, there may be a slightly shorter road route without lanes.
Let us all try an make the roads safer whether we be cyclists or motorists.
Don't get me wrong, cycling can be a great way of getting around and is less polluting (though watch your increased CO2 emissions when peddling hard compared with resting!) and good exercise to boot.
Many cyclists are well behaved and follow the rules of the road, but their image is tarnished by others of their number.
My problem is with the cyclists who think they are above the law and also in many cases common sense.
In this area we have a reasonable number of cycle paths, totally separate from the road but parallel to it and within a few feet. The odd exception occurs at roundabouts as there is sometimes only one way round but all exits are served by the cycle lane. Why then do the cyclists insist on riding on the road and more to the point why do they get angry with motorists? If there was no cycle lane then of course they are entitled to use the road, but where the local council has gone to the trouble of providing one then it should be used.
There is also the issue of cyclists and their disregard for traffic lights. I thought that a red traffic light had something to do with stopping but not all cyclists seem to follow this rule. Whilst motorists are still responsible for driving carefully, they will find this more difficult if they have to dodge the cyclists running red lights, and for what - a few seconds gained on their journey? We have cyclists running red lights, dodging through pedestrian only areas and running the risks of collisions by cycling on pavements which have no cycle lane. And how many times have you seen a cyclist cut up the nearside of a line of traffic only to curse when one of the vehicles turns left (and quite probably indicating that intention!)
Recently I was out walking along a path which is for both pedestrians and cyclists and whilst not laned off is certainly wide enough. The problem there is with cyclists approaching from behind at high speed and without giving any warning (using the bell that many now see as optional despite the law) or thanking you if you move over to let a group of cyclists through. Surely common good manners will resolve this.
Whilst I am on the subject of bikes not legally equipped, there is also the issue of lighting. If out at night a cyclist is vulnerable, so why do so many either dress in dark clothes with no high-vis components, not have lights on, or both. Proper clothing and lighting would make the roads much safer for all. And by lighting I don't mean just those flashing LED lights - I believe a steady light should be shown front and rear, possibly supplemented by flashing lights to make them stand out but not solely relying on them. Surely modern LED technology should allow a good bright light with decent battery life.
Finally there is the issue of accountability and insurance. First of all there is no easy way of tracking a bike involved in an accident if it leaves the scene (we have had cases reported in the papers of people being knocked down and injured by cyclists who then ride off) and secondly they have no insurance that specifically covers cycling (some may have it on household policies or through cycle clubs) so if damage is caused, say to a vehicle, there is typically little redress for the third party. Remember these are people who may have had no training, and if not drivers may never even have read the highway code.
I am not against cyclists, I even have a bike myself which I use from time to time. I did my cycling proficiency many years ago and have forgotten most of it but I am also a driver so have an understanding of the rules of the road. I choose not to cycle at night as I don't think it is safe even with lights and high-vis but that is a personal choice. Similarly I opt for cycle lanes wherever possible even where, as with some of the lanes round here, there may be a slightly shorter road route without lanes.
Let us all try an make the roads safer whether we be cyclists or motorists.
Friday, July 8, 2011
The Old Curmudgeon
Many people read my blog, Twitter feed and Facebook posts and decide I am just an old curmudgeon.
I cannot deny it, that is the way it seems. But why am I this way? To answer that you have to look at what I grumble about and why.
I think that as I have become older I have become less accepting of excuses and fob offs. It is all too often that we as nation don't complain about shoddy goods, services or treatment. Why not? After all we are paying for these things and ought to be satisfied with what we get.
I have commented in the past on organisations which make green claims, in the aid of marketing, but fail to follow them up in practice. Only last year I purchased some slippers from such a company - these lasted almost six months before falling apart! In the past I may have been tempted to just throw them away and buy a new pair, but then how would they know that their actions did not meet up with their claims? I returned them for a refund, went elsewhere and bought some more slippers which cost half as much and are lasting much better - so you can't even say I bought cheap and should expect no more. I paid quality price but got the lowest quality available it seems.
The same appears to apply to service - the number of restaurants nowadays who hand you the card payment machine and the first question is whether you wish to add a gratuity to your bill. As far as I am concerned, if I have had an ordinary meal, served in an ordinary way then I don't feel I should be asked. That is after all what I am paying for. If I have had an exceptional meal or very good service then I will leave a tip without being prompted. Most likely I will also leave cash as I don't trust the management to pass the tips from card payments on to the staff at all, never mind to the individual who provided the good service.
At least we are not yet like America in this country, where failure to leave an acceptable tip is likely to result in you being run out of town!
It is about time for us to stand up for our rights - if that is curmudgeonly then so be it.
Before I close, I will preempt the question that is likely to come my way - why do I complain about the current Public Sector workers actions? The issue here is that they are asking for what is presently impossible as there is not enough money in the economy to protect their pensions, salaries and the jobs of all their colleagues at the same time. Something has to give and by standing up for their rights they are damaging those of other people.
At the local Toyota plant, when times were hard the workforce went on to reduced hours which resulted in less pay for the period. However in doing this the management were able to minimise the number of redundancies that had to be made. Less money but they still kept their job.
Someone wrote a very telling comment in the paper recently. Will the teachers explain to their students that when they leave school they will have to pay exorbitant taxes in order to fund the lifestyle of those who taught them - I doubt it.
Finally, because I am British and we are good at this sort of thing I shall complain about the weather! I thought it was supposed to be summer and the climate is getting hotter as a result of me driving my car. Well it is hiding itself well, and due to the torrential rain predicted for later today I may choose to use my car rather than walk at lunchtime!!
I cannot deny it, that is the way it seems. But why am I this way? To answer that you have to look at what I grumble about and why.
I think that as I have become older I have become less accepting of excuses and fob offs. It is all too often that we as nation don't complain about shoddy goods, services or treatment. Why not? After all we are paying for these things and ought to be satisfied with what we get.
I have commented in the past on organisations which make green claims, in the aid of marketing, but fail to follow them up in practice. Only last year I purchased some slippers from such a company - these lasted almost six months before falling apart! In the past I may have been tempted to just throw them away and buy a new pair, but then how would they know that their actions did not meet up with their claims? I returned them for a refund, went elsewhere and bought some more slippers which cost half as much and are lasting much better - so you can't even say I bought cheap and should expect no more. I paid quality price but got the lowest quality available it seems.
The same appears to apply to service - the number of restaurants nowadays who hand you the card payment machine and the first question is whether you wish to add a gratuity to your bill. As far as I am concerned, if I have had an ordinary meal, served in an ordinary way then I don't feel I should be asked. That is after all what I am paying for. If I have had an exceptional meal or very good service then I will leave a tip without being prompted. Most likely I will also leave cash as I don't trust the management to pass the tips from card payments on to the staff at all, never mind to the individual who provided the good service.
At least we are not yet like America in this country, where failure to leave an acceptable tip is likely to result in you being run out of town!
It is about time for us to stand up for our rights - if that is curmudgeonly then so be it.
Before I close, I will preempt the question that is likely to come my way - why do I complain about the current Public Sector workers actions? The issue here is that they are asking for what is presently impossible as there is not enough money in the economy to protect their pensions, salaries and the jobs of all their colleagues at the same time. Something has to give and by standing up for their rights they are damaging those of other people.
At the local Toyota plant, when times were hard the workforce went on to reduced hours which resulted in less pay for the period. However in doing this the management were able to minimise the number of redundancies that had to be made. Less money but they still kept their job.
Someone wrote a very telling comment in the paper recently. Will the teachers explain to their students that when they leave school they will have to pay exorbitant taxes in order to fund the lifestyle of those who taught them - I doubt it.
Finally, because I am British and we are good at this sort of thing I shall complain about the weather! I thought it was supposed to be summer and the climate is getting hotter as a result of me driving my car. Well it is hiding itself well, and due to the torrential rain predicted for later today I may choose to use my car rather than walk at lunchtime!!
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Wind Power Mythology
We hear an awful lot these days about how wind turbines will be our answer to climate change by generating clean energy.
To this end, such a turbine has been installed in a local country park with the intention of reducing energy consumption, carbon footprint and cost.
To this end, such a turbine has been installed in a local country park with the intention of reducing energy consumption, carbon footprint and cost.
Shipley Country Park Turbine
All very well but this installation is nowhere near generating the amount of power that was promised or indeed required from it. The council have thoughtfully provided a display in the visitor centre of how much power has been produced since it was first turned on and also daily figures.
Since it was installed, the energy generated is only about 25% more than my household consumption over the same period. This is from a turbine that has a total height of 19.5 metres and a rotor diameter of 9 metres.
I probably do not use much energy, despite this computer. If you were to look at the electricity bills for my neighbours who have children, with the associated games consoles, multiple computers etc. I am sure you will see that the turbine only provides enough power for one household.
Should we have a wind turbine each down our street? I think everyone will acknowledge that is ridiculous. What is more it makes a mockery of the small turbines that people look to install on their houses to 'be green'.
Certainly larger installations are likely to be more efficient, and can be placed in locations where there is more wind (though that has the requirement for cabling to bring the power to the national grid) but the underlying problems are the same.
Wind is not consistent and does not always blow within the windspeed range required for turbines - too fast or too slow and no power can be generated.
No viable storage solutions have been demonstrated for large scale use to make power available when the wind isn't blowing.
The area of the country or close off shore required to build all these farms is significant and has an impact both upon the appearance of the environment and the effect on people.
The bottom line is that at present wind power is not viable.
Media Hysteria
Has anyone noticed that the media nowadays seem intent on enhancing the news rather than simply reporting it. This is in addition to any political bias their organisation may have that comes out in the reporting be it enhanced or simply selective.
Recently we have also had the abhorrent use of mobile phone hacking in relation to the Milly Dowler and Soham cases but I will say no more on that at the moment other than to say I find it disgusting and lacking in morals and ethics. Maybe I will return to this in future.
I would like to illustrate my point with a number of instances, in two of which I have been closely involved.
The first happened many, many years ago at the Windscale/Sellafield nuclear site in Cumbria. It's name keeps changing to try and confuse people but as I lived nearby at the time I can see through those disguises.
Papers hit the news stands and letterboxes with headlines such as 'Leak at Atom Plant' and 'Leak at Nuclear Station Causes Departments to Close' Certainly designed to grab the attention of the gullible public and in isolation they would stir up negative views on nuclear power.
Only by reading the article in detail - and many people may have only viewed the headline and first few lines - do you get to find out what really happened. Yes, there was indeed a leak inside the confines of the facility. Yes, some areas were closed. No, it most certainly was not a risk to anyone - why, because the leak was in a mains water supply pipe to feed the drinking water taps and toilets in a number of buildings - so these were closed until the leak had been fixed.
Must have been a quiet news day!
The second instance relates to an aircraft crash at Blackpool Airport.
A popular tabloid described how a Cessna jet crashed at the airport. The detail they quoted was extremely sketchy, principally because their reporter hadn't actually interviewed anyone, seen the crash, or looked at the wreckage. It appears their entire story was based on hearsay from other non-witnesses.
Well it was at least a Cessna, but not a jet and the other sketchy details were inaccurate as well!
Finally we have all the concern around Derby about Bombardier making massive cuts to their workforce because the government awarded the Thames Link contract to Siemens, a German company.
Once again the headlines are designed to grab attention and create a reaction.
And again, if we look at the facts then we shall see that all is not as it seems. I will discuss some of the detail behind this in a separate post and keep to the 'hysteria' element here.
Fact, Bombardier are laying off over 1,400 workers.
Fact, they lost the contract for Thames link
Fact, the contract has been awarded to Siemens
Fact, Siemens is a German company
But now for the elements that aren't mentioned in the headlines.
Bombardier were already planning on reducing the workforce by just under 1,000 - these were not people being made redundant as such but contract workers whose contract is not to be renewed. Even if the Thames Link contract had been awarded to Bombardier, this reduction would have to go ahead.
Siemens is indeed a German company. But Bombardier is a Canadian company, and indeed its rail transport division is ... German! They are also talking of creating 2,000 jobs for the contract. Note that this is for the contract, it seems this is the way these organisations work - keep a core staff and then hire contractors when required.
I feel sorry for those who have lost their jobs, but there is a possibility that they may be able to seek employment with Siemens, similarly for the suppliers to Bombardier they should be looking to forge links with Siemens.
In summary, the media should be more clear about the facts of a story and not an attention grabbing headline. Report the news, don't make it up!
Recently we have also had the abhorrent use of mobile phone hacking in relation to the Milly Dowler and Soham cases but I will say no more on that at the moment other than to say I find it disgusting and lacking in morals and ethics. Maybe I will return to this in future.
I would like to illustrate my point with a number of instances, in two of which I have been closely involved.
The first happened many, many years ago at the Windscale/Sellafield nuclear site in Cumbria. It's name keeps changing to try and confuse people but as I lived nearby at the time I can see through those disguises.
Papers hit the news stands and letterboxes with headlines such as 'Leak at Atom Plant' and 'Leak at Nuclear Station Causes Departments to Close' Certainly designed to grab the attention of the gullible public and in isolation they would stir up negative views on nuclear power.
Only by reading the article in detail - and many people may have only viewed the headline and first few lines - do you get to find out what really happened. Yes, there was indeed a leak inside the confines of the facility. Yes, some areas were closed. No, it most certainly was not a risk to anyone - why, because the leak was in a mains water supply pipe to feed the drinking water taps and toilets in a number of buildings - so these were closed until the leak had been fixed.
Must have been a quiet news day!
The second instance relates to an aircraft crash at Blackpool Airport.
A popular tabloid described how a Cessna jet crashed at the airport. The detail they quoted was extremely sketchy, principally because their reporter hadn't actually interviewed anyone, seen the crash, or looked at the wreckage. It appears their entire story was based on hearsay from other non-witnesses.
Well it was at least a Cessna, but not a jet and the other sketchy details were inaccurate as well!
Finally we have all the concern around Derby about Bombardier making massive cuts to their workforce because the government awarded the Thames Link contract to Siemens, a German company.
Once again the headlines are designed to grab attention and create a reaction.
And again, if we look at the facts then we shall see that all is not as it seems. I will discuss some of the detail behind this in a separate post and keep to the 'hysteria' element here.
Fact, Bombardier are laying off over 1,400 workers.
Fact, they lost the contract for Thames link
Fact, the contract has been awarded to Siemens
Fact, Siemens is a German company
But now for the elements that aren't mentioned in the headlines.
Bombardier were already planning on reducing the workforce by just under 1,000 - these were not people being made redundant as such but contract workers whose contract is not to be renewed. Even if the Thames Link contract had been awarded to Bombardier, this reduction would have to go ahead.
Siemens is indeed a German company. But Bombardier is a Canadian company, and indeed its rail transport division is ... German! They are also talking of creating 2,000 jobs for the contract. Note that this is for the contract, it seems this is the way these organisations work - keep a core staff and then hire contractors when required.
I feel sorry for those who have lost their jobs, but there is a possibility that they may be able to seek employment with Siemens, similarly for the suppliers to Bombardier they should be looking to forge links with Siemens.
In summary, the media should be more clear about the facts of a story and not an attention grabbing headline. Report the news, don't make it up!
Friday, July 1, 2011
Benefits of Recycling?
We are constantly being encouraged to recycle as muchs as we can, and to save our councils too much trouble we have to divide this up into an increeasing number of separate containers for collection.
I thought my council tax went in part to pay for the processing of my waste but I seem to have to do more of the work myself.
How green is this all though? Where I live we are lucky in that we have only five different categories: Non recyclable waste; Paper; Glass, Metal and Plastic; Textiles; Garden waste, Cardboard, Shredded Paper and Food waste.
Easy enough to separate, but requiring a fair amount of space to keep all the bins, bags and boxes necessary. The food waste is collected during the day in a sealed tub (I bought that myself) and taken out to the main bin.
Where it starts falling down is the fact that the council would like the contents of the plastic, glass and metal bin to be washed out - given that it is only emptied every two weeks that is also required to keep it from becoming too smelly - so I am now wasting water to do this.
Then we have the parade of collection lorries, with three separate vehicles coming round on the recycling week. That contributes wonderfully to pollution I guess and congestion on the roads adding yet more to the pollution.
Finally this collected material is then distributed far and wide for processing. Yet more road mileage, and I believe some waste is not even processed in this country so is shipped abroad.
Anyone see the flaws in this yet?
There also seem to be differences between what various councils will and won't process. If I get polystyrene food trays they are not accepted, despite having a recycling symbol on them, yet other councils are quite happy to accept them but will have their own exclusions that are processed here. How about a national standard on this?
I am also amazed that when man can be sent to the moon, and many countries automate separation of recyclable materials, here it is down to the householder in the first instance and then teams of people at the recycling centre.
Is this actually beneficial to the country / planet?
My final thought is one that many talk about but few seem to action - why not cut down on excessive packaging or the use of materials that cannot be reused or recycled easily at the source?
We have become a throwaway society and this is not good. Money and resources can be saved by addressing this.
I thought my council tax went in part to pay for the processing of my waste but I seem to have to do more of the work myself.
How green is this all though? Where I live we are lucky in that we have only five different categories: Non recyclable waste; Paper; Glass, Metal and Plastic; Textiles; Garden waste, Cardboard, Shredded Paper and Food waste.
Easy enough to separate, but requiring a fair amount of space to keep all the bins, bags and boxes necessary. The food waste is collected during the day in a sealed tub (I bought that myself) and taken out to the main bin.
Where it starts falling down is the fact that the council would like the contents of the plastic, glass and metal bin to be washed out - given that it is only emptied every two weeks that is also required to keep it from becoming too smelly - so I am now wasting water to do this.
Then we have the parade of collection lorries, with three separate vehicles coming round on the recycling week. That contributes wonderfully to pollution I guess and congestion on the roads adding yet more to the pollution.
Finally this collected material is then distributed far and wide for processing. Yet more road mileage, and I believe some waste is not even processed in this country so is shipped abroad.
Anyone see the flaws in this yet?
There also seem to be differences between what various councils will and won't process. If I get polystyrene food trays they are not accepted, despite having a recycling symbol on them, yet other councils are quite happy to accept them but will have their own exclusions that are processed here. How about a national standard on this?
I am also amazed that when man can be sent to the moon, and many countries automate separation of recyclable materials, here it is down to the householder in the first instance and then teams of people at the recycling centre.
Is this actually beneficial to the country / planet?
My final thought is one that many talk about but few seem to action - why not cut down on excessive packaging or the use of materials that cannot be reused or recycled easily at the source?
We have become a throwaway society and this is not good. Money and resources can be saved by addressing this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)