Log in

View Full Version : Height kills...



Edbear
22nd July 2007, 13:18
Height Kills
By Andrew Bent

The traffic engineer was quite pleased with himself, he had finally managed to stop the local bus drivers trying to take their double deckers under the low bridge under the railway, so Councillor Prescott might finally concede that he knew what he was doing. But as he entered Prescott's office he saw that the councillor was in an ominously thoughtful mood.
'I see we've had a reduction in accidents in Railway Terrace' said Mr Prescott, 'Yes' said the engineer, anxious to demonstrate his success, 'You see I did a survey and found that the maximum safe height under the bridge was 12'2", so I arranged for some warning signs to stop anyone taking a vehicle more than 12' high...'
But the Councillor had already lost interest. 'I've been studying some statistics' said the Councillor (the engineer winced, Councillor Prescott's grasp of mathematics was notoriously shaky) 'and it seems that when those new warning signs went up the average height of vehicles using Railway Terrace fell by 9 inches', 'Well, yes..' replied the engineer, 'and accidents dropped by 18%' continued the Councillor triumphantly'. The traffic engineer tried to figure out where this was leading, 'Do you realise what this means? Every inch of average height reduction leads to a 2% reduction in accidents! All we have to do is alter the warning signs to read 11' and accidents will drop by another 24%!'
His head spinning, the traffic engineer tried to reason with the Councillor, 'but if a 12 foot vehicle can get through perfectly safely, what is the point in imposing extra restrictions?' Councillor Prescott was having none of this, 'you don't seem to understand, Height Kills, if every inch of height reduction causes a 2% drop in accidents, surely we must have a height limit reduction program, let's speak to the bus company and see if they can lower the single deckers somehow.'
The traffic engineer thought quickly, there was no point in trying to explain the facts, Councillor Prescott always regarded knowledge of road traffic and accident causation a fatal disqualification for making decisions on the subject, but there was a possible way to turn the situation to advantage. 'There is another low bridge, under the disused railway in Beeching Close, where lorries do sometimes get stuck, but I haven't had the funds to tackle the problem before, I suggest that should be the first priority for the height reduction program'. Councillor Prescott agreed and the traffic engineer set off for Beeching Close with measuring rod in hand.
At first it wasn't clear why there was a problem at this particular bridge, there was already a height restriction of 7 feet, so why on earth were drivers ignoring it? After an examination of the bridge the reason became clear, the maximum safe height was over 14 feet. On receiving a recommendation that the 7 foot height limit was unrealistic and should be raised, Councillor Prescott was apoplectic, 'lorries are getting stuck because they are too high' he yelled, 'surely the limit needs to be lowered'. The engineer tried to point out that it was precisely because the limit was obviously ludicrous that it was being ignored, and that raising the limit would increase compliance, but the Councillor did not understand. 'In Railway Terrace, reducing the height reduced accidents, therefore Height Kills' he argued, 'surely raising the limit in Beeching Close will increase average heights, therefore increase accidents,' 'But it isn't the average height that matters' the engineer tried to point out, 'a 14 foot limit will be taken seriously and will reduce instances of excessive height, therefore reduce accidents, whether the average goes up or down is totally beside the point'. 'But Height Kills' bellowed the Councillor, 'no it doesn't' the engineer bellowed back, of course he should have said 'not necessarily' but this is not an easy thing to bellow.
'How can you say height didn't cause this?' Councillor Prescott produced a press photo of the mangled remains of a double decker wedged under the Railway Terrace bridge and dropped it on the desk with the air of one producing the ace of trumps. 'The point was that the height was excessive for the situation, it is excessive height that causes the problem, not height itself' the engineer protested, but the Councillor wasn't listening, 'I've already decided to introduce a height reduction program, reducing all existing height limits by a foot, if this succeeds in reducing heights, I'll introduce a host of new height limits, if it doesn't I'll reduce the limits further until it does....'
The engineer stopped listening; once Councillor Prescott had made up his mind, there was no point in giving him the facts.

Steam
22nd July 2007, 13:30
Sadly Engineers can be just as bad... Real life example: In Wellington we were getting a new wharf built, the old one has been torn down and a new one constructed.
The old wharf had six horizontal beams that we could use as a ladder to get up and down to the boat.
The Engineer visited us and said "We are putting in two beams and how far do you want them apart?"
We explained that we needed about six beams, each about one foot apart so we could use it as a ladder.
The engineer shook his head and said "ok, but we are going to put in two, that's in the plans, how far do you want them apart?"
We explained this about three times in different ways, demonstrating how we couldn't get up onto the wharf if there were only two steps, and the engineer just didn't get it, kept on coming up with reasons why it couldn't be done.
He even got a bit miffed, as if he was offended we were trying to change his offical plans. In the end he said "Ok thanks" and wandered off, obviously dismissing us as being unhelpful.

We went to the site manager's office and explained, and he came to see what the situation was, he amended the plans, and we got six beams. So easy.

Astounding how blind and WILFULLY ignorant and obstructive people can be when they have a plan in their head and follow it to the letter.

xwhatsit
22nd July 2007, 15:40
Edbear -- bling awarded, very good :)

I wouldn't've put it in Jokes and Humour though :yes:

MSTRS
22nd July 2007, 15:58
Steam, do you not see the irony in this 'joke'?
Substitute 'speed' for 'height'....
Very good Edbear.

Steam
22nd July 2007, 16:53
Steam, do you not see the irony in this 'joke'?
Substitute 'speed' for 'height'....

Yes, I understood the joke. It was indeed amusing.

Laava
22nd July 2007, 20:33
Red tape huh?
We are applying for a PIM with the Far North District Council and part of that entails filling out an application for install of a water meter. You do not have a choice it seems. OK so we did that, and some weeks later while still waiting for PIM we get a bill for install of water meter[paperwork costs, not the physical install] and a part charge in advance totalling approx $230. In the very next line after the total it says "Please note Council does not have a water supply in this area" Everything goes on hold until this bill is paid which I couldn't bring myself to do. The people I have spoke to at the FNDC are quite ambivalent. Maybe they operate under an IQ quota system!
So I know exactly what you mean.

Colapop
22nd July 2007, 20:50
Sadly Engineers can be just as bad... Real life example: In Wellington we were getting a new wharf built, the old one has been torn down and a new one constructed.
The old wharf had six horizontal beams that we could use as a ladder to get up and down to the boat.
The Engineer visited us and said "We are putting in two beams and how far do you want them apart?"
We explained that we needed about six beams, each about one foot apart so we could use it as a ladder.
The engineer shook his head and said "ok, but we are going to put in two, that's in the plans, how far do you want them apart?"
We explained this about three times in different ways, demonstrating how we couldn't get up onto the wharf if there were only two steps, and the engineer just didn't get it, kept on coming up with reasons why it couldn't be done.
He even got a bit miffed, as if he was offended we were trying to change his offical plans. In the end he said "Ok thanks" and wandered off, obviously dismissing us as being unhelpful.

We went to the site manager's office and explained, and he came to see what the situation was, he amended the plans, and we got six beams. So easy.

Astounding how blind and WILFULLY ignorant and obstructive people can be when they have a plan in their head and follow it to the letter.
Sadly, you are unaware of the restrictions placed on the engineer by the bylaws and the building code. Because something was there before that does not mean that it can be there when it is rebuilt. It you need access to the boat then what's wrong with a ladder or some other form of access? I'm sure the boat owners have the option of discussing this matter with Wellington waterfront...

I did a lot of the drawing for this project and totally refute that we did not listen to the people who use this area. The engineer who designed the wharf is a good guy and doesn't deserve to be bagged.

Steam
22nd July 2007, 21:25
Sadly, you are unaware of the restrictions placed on the engineer by the bylaws and the building code.

You are right, I don't know nuffink about that kinda stuff.
Zero, nothing, nada.
I apologise to any engineer or designer who was unjustly impugned.
I don't know who was at fault, the owner of the boat maybe, got no idea. All I know is nobody who worked on the boat was asked until they came to actually do the work. Thinking about it, it was probably the boat owner, he cares for nothing but counting beans, he's the company manager from the Land of Spreadsheets.
It all got sorted in the end though, we have six beams. Just as it was originally. :rockon:

Mekk
24th July 2007, 04:35
I liked the joke/story. To me it represents more than just stubborn ignorance...it provides a good example of how misinformation is used in arguments by those who are more concerned about being right than knowing the truth. Very good.