Assume v. Presume

[Deleted member 473]

Beatles trivia. That really annoys me! ​

​

(Back OT.)​

 

[Black Hole]

Back on topic? Okay: Testing v. Commissioning.

The M4/M5 around Bristol is undergoing major roadworks at the moment, has been for about a year and is expected to end soon (about 6 months ahead of schedule). They are making it "managed" - gantry signs will display a variable speed limit, and the hard shoulder can be used as another lane at busy times, much like existing sections of the M25 and (introduced recently) the M4 at Newport. (Incidentally, there is a block 50 mph limit through the roadworks enforced by average speed cameras, and it has been reported that some vehicles have been clocked at over 120 mph! It was not reported whether these drivers were successfully prosecuted and banned from driving!!!)

Temporary matrix signs have been used for information during the works, and recently they have been displaying "Testing and commissioning of signs". As an engineer, I understand the difference between "testing" and "commissioning". As a driver on the motorway, the difference is irrelevant to me. Any other driver without an engineering background is unlikely to understand the difference. So why the heck did the guy that programmed the sign think that is a good choice of words?

 

[Wallace]

Because he knew you would be using that stretch of motorway and wanted to get on your t!ts.

 

[af123]

The M62 has recently become a managed motorway too. They keep showing "Hardshoulder for emergency use only" on the matrices. When did Hardshoulder become one word? Before anyone asks, yes there is room for a space if they wanted to put it in!


Posted on the move; please excuse any brevity.

 

[Black Hole]

Similar to the "Headteacher" issue I had a while back.

 

[Deleted member 473]

The M62 has recently become a managed motorway too. They keep showing "Hardshoulder for emergency use only" on the matrices. When did Hardshoulder become one word? Before anyone asks, yes there is room for a space if they wanted to put it in!


Posted on the move; please excuse any brevity.

p2:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1989/pdfs/uksi_20131989_en.pdf

 

[Black Hole]

That doesn't make it right, only that the guy who wrote the document (B Parker, I presume) knew no better!

 

[Deleted member 473]

That doesn't make it right, only that the guy who wrote the document (B Parker, I presume) knew no better!

I can't find the relevant The Motorways Traffic (England and Wales) Regulations 1982(a) online.

 

[Luke]

A google search using "Motorways Traffic (England and Wales) Regulations 1982" provides http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1982/1163/pdfs/uksi_19821163_en.pdf via the first item returned.

 

[Deleted member 473]

A google search using "Motorways Traffic (England and Wales) Regulations 1982" provides http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1982/1163/pdfs/uksi_19821163_en.pdf via the first item returned.

Perhaps the (a) is important, though. That one contains no mention of hardshoulders.

 

[Black Hole]

I thought sloping shoulders would be more up the Civil Service's motorway

 

[Luke]

Perhaps the (a) is important, though. That one contains no mention of hardshoulders.

The "(a)" is a foot note reference and not part of the document name.
The pdf I posted a link to does not mention hardshoulders but it does mention hard shoulders on page 2 (numbered 3820):

“hard shoulder” means that part of a motorway which is adjacent to and situated on the left hand or near side of the carriageway when facing in the direction in which vehicles may be driven in accordance with Regulation 6, and which is designed to take the weight of a vehicle;

The pdf refers to hard shoulders in the sections titled Restriction on stopping and Restriction on the use of hard shoulders.

 

[Black Hole]

Don't they use a spell checker?!

 

[Deleted member 473]

Don't they use a spell checker?!

The bit of legislation I linked to is null and void, then!

hardshoulder suggests shareholder as one correction. So, you can run over a shareholder in an emergency...

 

[prpr]

...which is intended to ultimately replace series-filer.

Bleaaaahh.

 

[Luke]

Yes, providing the shareholder can "take the weight of a vehicle". It doesn't say the vehicle driven has to be the same vehicle that the shareholder would be OK with.

 

[af123]

Bleaaaahh.

I thought split infinitives were fine nowadays : )

 

[Black Hole]

They always have been, it's just that educators and indoctrinators decided they were outlawed.

I would be interested to know what rearrangement of those words reads better. "intended to replace ultimately" is horrible, "intended ultimately to replace" doesn't express the meaning.

 

[Black Hole]

Yes, providing the shareholder can "take the weight of a vehicle". It doesn't say the vehicle driven has to be the same vehicle that the shareholder would be OK with.

Great! We'll test with a bubble car and then use a tank.

 

[af123]

They always have been, it's just that educators and indoctrinators decided they were outlawed.

I would be interested to know what rearrangement of those words reads better. "intended to replace ultimately" is horrible, "intended ultimately to replace" doesn't express the meaning.

"ultimately intended to replace"?