Fiona
@fiona-b.bsky.social
It became mandatory orange for all contractors, who used to be allowed to wear the yellow they used on construction sites. I have been told this, along with the red/green light explanation by two different organisations that do contract work for Railtrack.
September 28, 2025 at 9:22 AM
It became mandatory orange for all contractors, who used to be allowed to wear the yellow they used on construction sites. I have been told this, along with the red/green light explanation by two different organisations that do contract work for Railtrack.
But need the reflective strips for low light conditions. Yellow/orange bits are not effective in the dark.
Hi-viz/reflective material on moving parts, especially ankles and wrists, good in dark to be registered as a human ahead.
Hi-viz/reflective material on moving parts, especially ankles and wrists, good in dark to be registered as a human ahead.
September 25, 2025 at 7:08 AM
But need the reflective strips for low light conditions. Yellow/orange bits are not effective in the dark.
Hi-viz/reflective material on moving parts, especially ankles and wrists, good in dark to be registered as a human ahead.
Hi-viz/reflective material on moving parts, especially ankles and wrists, good in dark to be registered as a human ahead.
Railtrack switched to orange because when seen from afar by bored train drivers they are less likely to be confused with a green light.
Hi-viz becoming very common for many jobs, so people won't register it as different as much, but blob of hi-viz in distance = cyclist ahead for many drivers.
Hi-viz becoming very common for many jobs, so people won't register it as different as much, but blob of hi-viz in distance = cyclist ahead for many drivers.
September 25, 2025 at 7:08 AM
Railtrack switched to orange because when seen from afar by bored train drivers they are less likely to be confused with a green light.
Hi-viz becoming very common for many jobs, so people won't register it as different as much, but blob of hi-viz in distance = cyclist ahead for many drivers.
Hi-viz becoming very common for many jobs, so people won't register it as different as much, but blob of hi-viz in distance = cyclist ahead for many drivers.
All new housing developments to consist only of through roads.
I suggest a compulsory purchase of all houses at the end of cul-de-sacs to create through roads.
I suggest a compulsory purchase of all houses at the end of cul-de-sacs to create through roads.
May 18, 2025 at 12:43 PM
All new housing developments to consist only of through roads.
I suggest a compulsory purchase of all houses at the end of cul-de-sacs to create through roads.
I suggest a compulsory purchase of all houses at the end of cul-de-sacs to create through roads.
She was amazing. The whole third series was excellent with great performances all round and IMO a big step up in the writing.
May 12, 2025 at 7:00 AM
She was amazing. The whole third series was excellent with great performances all round and IMO a big step up in the writing.
Some of all ages will struggle with walking distances regardless, but in prioritising driving and making it too hard for most people to walk or cycle for ordinary journeys we bake in premature infirmity. It's a self perpetuating cycle.
May 11, 2025 at 7:05 AM
Some of all ages will struggle with walking distances regardless, but in prioritising driving and making it too hard for most people to walk or cycle for ordinary journeys we bake in premature infirmity. It's a self perpetuating cycle.
That's a particular community. Not doubting their experience, but I know many in their eighties who walk long distances. My 80 year old uncle did a 12 mile hike through the hills two weeks ago. My 83 year old dad clears country paths for a local woodlands charity.
May 11, 2025 at 7:05 AM
That's a particular community. Not doubting their experience, but I know many in their eighties who walk long distances. My 80 year old uncle did a 12 mile hike through the hills two weeks ago. My 83 year old dad clears country paths for a local woodlands charity.
I understood it fine, thanks. I'm a PhD qualified and chartered environmental scientist.
It's normally me explaining this stuff to other people, but I usually find not assuming that everyone else has no knowledge/is stupid is more effective approach when it comes to changing hearts and minds.🤷♀️
It's normally me explaining this stuff to other people, but I usually find not assuming that everyone else has no knowledge/is stupid is more effective approach when it comes to changing hearts and minds.🤷♀️
May 2, 2025 at 5:58 PM
I understood it fine, thanks. I'm a PhD qualified and chartered environmental scientist.
It's normally me explaining this stuff to other people, but I usually find not assuming that everyone else has no knowledge/is stupid is more effective approach when it comes to changing hearts and minds.🤷♀️
It's normally me explaining this stuff to other people, but I usually find not assuming that everyone else has no knowledge/is stupid is more effective approach when it comes to changing hearts and minds.🤷♀️
That's a much more sensible angle.
Most people will agree water intensive crops should be grown in places where there is enough water to go around, and an emphasis on ensuring that takes place - and demonstrating it is possible/already happening - is a better contribution to the debate.
Most people will agree water intensive crops should be grown in places where there is enough water to go around, and an emphasis on ensuring that takes place - and demonstrating it is possible/already happening - is a better contribution to the debate.
May 2, 2025 at 4:25 PM
That's a much more sensible angle.
Most people will agree water intensive crops should be grown in places where there is enough water to go around, and an emphasis on ensuring that takes place - and demonstrating it is possible/already happening - is a better contribution to the debate.
Most people will agree water intensive crops should be grown in places where there is enough water to go around, and an emphasis on ensuring that takes place - and demonstrating it is possible/already happening - is a better contribution to the debate.
Lots of good information & helpful references, but I can't help but think that 'dairy cows in California require lots of water', whilst valid, is not the most compelling counter-argument to 'almond milk uses a lot of water' for a British audience. I say this as a Scot who has soya milk on her muesli
April 28, 2025 at 3:35 PM
Lots of good information & helpful references, but I can't help but think that 'dairy cows in California require lots of water', whilst valid, is not the most compelling counter-argument to 'almond milk uses a lot of water' for a British audience. I say this as a Scot who has soya milk on her muesli
True. I don't know when or why Suffragist stopped being widely used. Growing up I only heard of the Suffragettes for all campaigners. It's pleasing to see both terms being recognised again these days, especially as the Suffragists wanted to distance themselves from the Suffragettes.
February 11, 2025 at 4:22 PM
True. I don't know when or why Suffragist stopped being widely used. Growing up I only heard of the Suffragettes for all campaigners. It's pleasing to see both terms being recognised again these days, especially as the Suffragists wanted to distance themselves from the Suffragettes.
The sustainable solution involves a significant reduction in aviation, and directing resources to make that happen, such as investing in better railway infrastructure and super-fast broadband.
The myth of "Sustainable Aviation Fuels" is a greenwashing boobytrap on our route to net zero.
The myth of "Sustainable Aviation Fuels" is a greenwashing boobytrap on our route to net zero.
February 5, 2025 at 5:15 PM
The sustainable solution involves a significant reduction in aviation, and directing resources to make that happen, such as investing in better railway infrastructure and super-fast broadband.
The myth of "Sustainable Aviation Fuels" is a greenwashing boobytrap on our route to net zero.
The myth of "Sustainable Aviation Fuels" is a greenwashing boobytrap on our route to net zero.
You are welcome to make choices based on your own financial interests.
The point is the rest of us, especially those making policy, need to understand the inefficient nature of biofuels and that they are not a miracle alternative to fossil fuels.
The point is the rest of us, especially those making policy, need to understand the inefficient nature of biofuels and that they are not a miracle alternative to fossil fuels.
February 4, 2025 at 9:39 PM
You are welcome to make choices based on your own financial interests.
The point is the rest of us, especially those making policy, need to understand the inefficient nature of biofuels and that they are not a miracle alternative to fossil fuels.
The point is the rest of us, especially those making policy, need to understand the inefficient nature of biofuels and that they are not a miracle alternative to fossil fuels.
It's better to use fertile land for food than it is to grow biofuels.
But not all farm land is especially fertile & continued use of fossil fuels is disastrous for ecosystems/food security, so a holistic approach is required to protect the most fertile land for future generations.
But not all farm land is especially fertile & continued use of fossil fuels is disastrous for ecosystems/food security, so a holistic approach is required to protect the most fertile land for future generations.
February 4, 2025 at 6:20 PM
It's better to use fertile land for food than it is to grow biofuels.
But not all farm land is especially fertile & continued use of fossil fuels is disastrous for ecosystems/food security, so a holistic approach is required to protect the most fertile land for future generations.
But not all farm land is especially fertile & continued use of fossil fuels is disastrous for ecosystems/food security, so a holistic approach is required to protect the most fertile land for future generations.
Why waste all of that fertile soil on biofuels when it's possible to produce the same amount of energy with a smaller area of land?
It's not 'economic thinking'. It's basic maths/geometry and not falling for the greenwashing attempts of the fossil fuel industry to maintain business as usual.
It's not 'economic thinking'. It's basic maths/geometry and not falling for the greenwashing attempts of the fossil fuel industry to maintain business as usual.
February 4, 2025 at 5:56 PM
Why waste all of that fertile soil on biofuels when it's possible to produce the same amount of energy with a smaller area of land?
It's not 'economic thinking'. It's basic maths/geometry and not falling for the greenwashing attempts of the fossil fuel industry to maintain business as usual.
It's not 'economic thinking'. It's basic maths/geometry and not falling for the greenwashing attempts of the fossil fuel industry to maintain business as usual.
This is about comparing the inefficiency of biofuels wrt land-use compared with solar. To get the same 'energy' from biofuels you need a lot more land.
How much longer do you think you'll get those yields as the planet warms & do you account for the application of extra fertilizer?
How much longer do you think you'll get those yields as the planet warms & do you account for the application of extra fertilizer?
February 4, 2025 at 5:53 PM
This is about comparing the inefficiency of biofuels wrt land-use compared with solar. To get the same 'energy' from biofuels you need a lot more land.
How much longer do you think you'll get those yields as the planet warms & do you account for the application of extra fertilizer?
How much longer do you think you'll get those yields as the planet warms & do you account for the application of extra fertilizer?
IMO all new builds should come with solar, but retrofitting the quantity of solar we need within cities or on roofs is much more complex, time consuming & expensive.
But this is a comparison between hugely inefficient biofuels versus solar. Biofuels 'take away' way more soil from food production.
But this is a comparison between hugely inefficient biofuels versus solar. Biofuels 'take away' way more soil from food production.
February 4, 2025 at 5:28 PM
IMO all new builds should come with solar, but retrofitting the quantity of solar we need within cities or on roofs is much more complex, time consuming & expensive.
But this is a comparison between hugely inefficient biofuels versus solar. Biofuels 'take away' way more soil from food production.
But this is a comparison between hugely inefficient biofuels versus solar. Biofuels 'take away' way more soil from food production.
The way I see it, First Past the Post rewards an adversarial campaigning style, whether the candidate in question is that way inclined or not. It's hard to adjust to a collaborative, cross party attitude after a bruising election campaign, or when another election is imminent.
January 31, 2025 at 11:00 AM
The way I see it, First Past the Post rewards an adversarial campaigning style, whether the candidate in question is that way inclined or not. It's hard to adjust to a collaborative, cross party attitude after a bruising election campaign, or when another election is imminent.
The point was we could instead build lots of wind & solar with the same money, which started generating long before nuclear would be ready. Carbon reductions are like pension investments - worth more the sooner you start.
With enough funding we should have done both.
With enough funding we should have done both.
January 31, 2025 at 10:54 AM
The point was we could instead build lots of wind & solar with the same money, which started generating long before nuclear would be ready. Carbon reductions are like pension investments - worth more the sooner you start.
With enough funding we should have done both.
With enough funding we should have done both.
There was a valid argument that the money spent on nuclear that wouldn't generate for 15+ years could be spent on solar/wind that would generate within five years.
Nuclear built 15 years ago wouldn't be obsolete now, but it would have come with an opportunity cost of getting quicker reductions.
Nuclear built 15 years ago wouldn't be obsolete now, but it would have come with an opportunity cost of getting quicker reductions.
January 31, 2025 at 10:49 AM
There was a valid argument that the money spent on nuclear that wouldn't generate for 15+ years could be spent on solar/wind that would generate within five years.
Nuclear built 15 years ago wouldn't be obsolete now, but it would have come with an opportunity cost of getting quicker reductions.
Nuclear built 15 years ago wouldn't be obsolete now, but it would have come with an opportunity cost of getting quicker reductions.
An oft-overlooked advantage of proportional electoral systems is you don't get those big swings in government, so long-term projects can evolve. Not to mention the election campaigns are less adversarial, with more focus on areas of commonality & less 'everything they've done is terrible'.
January 31, 2025 at 10:41 AM
An oft-overlooked advantage of proportional electoral systems is you don't get those big swings in government, so long-term projects can evolve. Not to mention the election campaigns are less adversarial, with more focus on areas of commonality & less 'everything they've done is terrible'.
Train operators pay a higher rate of tax on fuel than airlines do. Switching those rates would be a good starting point.
January 28, 2025 at 1:59 PM
Train operators pay a higher rate of tax on fuel than airlines do. Switching those rates would be a good starting point.
I'm guessing it's an attempt to distinguish between those concerned about the wider environment from those primarily bothered by the extra noise and air pollution associated with being under a busy flight path.
But under flight path and 'near airport because I fly a lot' may not be the same thing.
But under flight path and 'near airport because I fly a lot' may not be the same thing.
January 28, 2025 at 1:56 PM
I'm guessing it's an attempt to distinguish between those concerned about the wider environment from those primarily bothered by the extra noise and air pollution associated with being under a busy flight path.
But under flight path and 'near airport because I fly a lot' may not be the same thing.
But under flight path and 'near airport because I fly a lot' may not be the same thing.
Cyclist don't add anything to the economy, so long as we exclude those who cycle to or for their job, as part of a service offered by a local business, or customers of local businesses.
Meanwhile, van drivers are the backbone of the nation. etc.
Meanwhile, van drivers are the backbone of the nation. etc.
December 7, 2024 at 11:56 AM
Cyclist don't add anything to the economy, so long as we exclude those who cycle to or for their job, as part of a service offered by a local business, or customers of local businesses.
Meanwhile, van drivers are the backbone of the nation. etc.
Meanwhile, van drivers are the backbone of the nation. etc.