[OT] Np sidewalks

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

I had occasion today to lookup Atherton, California,on Wikipedia. I was
surprised to read this: "The town's zoning regulations permit only one
single-family home per acre, and prohibit sidewalks."

I suppose one single-family home per acre is OK if you have plenty of
space, but no sidewalks? Is it illegal to go from one house to another
other than in a car?

I first experienced the American horror of pedestrians one evening in
1969 in Barstow, California. We were on our way to the Grand Canyon,
and planned to spend a night in Barstow. We parked about 5 minutes walk
from the motel. I needed to get something from the car so I walked to
it. On the way back a police car drove past me very slowly, did a
U-turn and passed me a second time very slowly, did another U-turn and
passed me a third time very slowly. That was it: they didn't haul me
off to prison for not being in my car, but it was obvious that they
thought it extremely suspicious to be walking in Barstow.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I had occasion today to lookup Atherton, California,on Wikipedia. I was
surprised to read this: "The town's zoning regulations permit only one
single-family home per acre, and prohibit sidewalks."

If you enter "Atherton, California" in Google Maps, you can see that
they take it seriously. Streetview shows no option for a pedistrian.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I had occasion today to lookup Atherton, California,on Wikipedia. I was
surprised to read this: "The town's zoning regulations permit only one
single-family home per acre, and prohibit sidewalks."

If you enter "Atherton, California" in Google Maps,

I did, but...

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
you can see that
they take it seriously. Streetview shows no option for a pedistrian.

...it refused to load. However, trying again, it worked this time. That
raised another question, why is East Palo Alto located north of Palo
Alto? Did they move it?

[Snidely]

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I had occasion today to lookup Atherton, California,on Wikipedia. I was
surprised to read this: "The town's zoning regulations permit only one
single-family home per acre, and prohibit sidewalks."

If you enter "Atherton, California" in Google Maps, you can see that
they take it seriously. Streetview shows no option for a pedistrian.

In Google Earth, I think I'm seeing many properties that are not a full
acre. None of the properties look like "gentleman farms", either, so I
can't offer "trying to look like a real farm" as an explanation for no
sidewalks.

On the other hand, I grew up in a neighborhood where lots of houses did
not have sidewalks in front. Our house was a corner lot, with the
street in front having a parking strip for the shoulder of the road,
and the side street barely having any shoulder (and was tar-and-gravel
well into my school years).

I doubt that was a zoning regulation, because the houses appeared
sporadically between the '30s and the '60s and were usually set way
back from the street. Definitely a small town pattern established when
land was relatively cheap and people didn't mind feeling rural.

I had two classmates in college who came from that area, and had
competed in long distance running ... one for Hillsdale, and I think
the other came from Atherton.

/dps "and we see Np-key rollover demonstrated with Athel's keyboard"

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Snidely

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I had occasion today to lookup Atherton, California,on Wikipedia. I was
surprised to read this: "The town's zoning regulations permit only one
single-family home per acre, and prohibit sidewalks."

If you enter "Atherton, California" in Google Maps, you can see that
they take it seriously. Streetview shows no option for a pedistrian.

In Google Earth, I think I'm seeing many properties that are not a full
acre. None of the properties look like "gentleman farms", either, so I
can't offer "trying to look like a real farm" as an explanation for no
sidewalks.
On the other hand, I grew up in a neighborhood where lots of houses did
not have sidewalks in front. Our house was a corner lot, with the
street in front having a parking strip for the shoulder of the road,
and the side street barely having any shoulder (and was tar-and-gravel
well into my school years).
I doubt that was a zoning regulation, because the houses appeared
sporadically between the '30s and the '60s and were usually set way
back from the street. Definitely a small town pattern established when
land was relatively cheap and people didn't mind feeling rural.
I had two classmates in college who came from that area, and had
competed in long distance running ... one for Hillsdale, and I think
the other came from Atherton.
/dps "and we see Np-key rollover demonstrated with Athel's keyboard"

That was strange typo: N and P are not at all close to one another on
my (AZERTY) keyboard. I think they'd have the same relationship to one
another on a QWERTY keyboard.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Snidely
/dps "and we see Np-key rollover demonstrated with Athel's keyboard"

That was strange typo: N and P are not at all close to one another on
my (AZERTY) keyboard. I think they'd have the same relationship to one
another on a QWERTY keyboard.

Oh dear. More evidence of senility. I should have compared P with O,
which are indeed next to one another.

[Snidely]

Post by Snidely

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I had occasion today to lookup Atherton, California,on Wikipedia. I was
surprised to read this: "The town's zoning regulations permit only one
single-family home per acre, and prohibit sidewalks."

If you enter "Atherton, California" in Google Maps, you can see that
they take it seriously. Streetview shows no option for a pedistrian.

In Google Earth, I think I'm seeing many properties that are not a full
acre. None of the properties look like "gentleman farms", either, so I
can't offer "trying to look like a real farm" as an explanation for no
sidewalks.
On the other hand, I grew up in a neighborhood where lots of houses did not
have sidewalks in front. Our house was a corner lot, with the street in
front having a parking strip for the shoulder of the road, and the side
street barely having any shoulder (and was tar-and-gravel well into my
school years).
I doubt that was a zoning regulation, because the houses appeared
sporadically between the '30s and the '60s and were usually set way back
from the street. Definitely a small town pattern established when land was
relatively cheap and people didn't mind feeling rural.
I had two classmates in college who came from that area, and had competed
in long distance running ... one for Hillsdale, and I think the other came
from Atherton.
/dps "and we see Np-key rollover demonstrated with Athel's keyboard"

That was strange typo: N and P are not at all close to one another on my
(AZERTY) keyboard. I think they'd have the same relationship to one another
on a QWERTY keyboard.

It's the O and P, no?

-d

[Snidely]

Post by Snidely

Post by Snidely

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I had occasion today to lookup Atherton, California,on Wikipedia. I was
surprised to read this: "The town's zoning regulations permit only one
single-family home per acre, and prohibit sidewalks."

If you enter "Atherton, California" in Google Maps, you can see that
they take it seriously. Streetview shows no option for a pedistrian.

In Google Earth, I think I'm seeing many properties that are not a full
acre. None of the properties look like "gentleman farms", either, so I
can't offer "trying to look like a real farm" as an explanation for no
sidewalks.
On the other hand, I grew up in a neighborhood where lots of houses did
not have sidewalks in front. Our house was a corner lot, with the street
in front having a parking strip for the shoulder of the road, and the side
street barely having any shoulder (and was tar-and-gravel well into my
school years).
I doubt that was a zoning regulation, because the houses appeared
sporadically between the '30s and the '60s and were usually set way back
from the street. Definitely a small town pattern established when land
was relatively cheap and people didn't mind feeling rural.
I had two classmates in college who came from that area, and had competed
in long distance running ... one for Hillsdale, and I think the other came
from Atherton.
/dps "and we see Np-key rollover demonstrated with Athel's keyboard"

That was strange typo: N and P are not at all close to one another on my
(AZERTY) keyboard. I think they'd have the same relationship to one another
on a QWERTY keyboard.

It's the O and P, no?
-d

shudda red a hed.

/dps

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Sat, 30 Nov 2024 12:41:09 -0800

Post by Snidely

Post by Snidely

Post by Snidely

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I had occasion today to lookup Atherton, California,on Wikipedia. I was
surprised to read this: "The town's zoning regulations permit only one
single-family home per acre, and prohibit sidewalks."

If you enter "Atherton, California" in Google Maps, you can see that
they take it seriously. Streetview shows no option for a pedistrian.

In Google Earth, I think I'm seeing many properties that are not a full
acre. None of the properties look like "gentleman farms", either, so I
can't offer "trying to look like a real farm" as an explanation for no
sidewalks.
On the other hand, I grew up in a neighborhood where lots of houses did
not have sidewalks in front. Our house was a corner lot, with the street
in front having a parking strip for the shoulder of the road, and the side
street barely having any shoulder (and was tar-and-gravel well into my
school years).
I doubt that was a zoning regulation, because the houses appeared
sporadically between the '30s and the '60s and were usually set way back
from the street. Definitely a small town pattern established when land
was relatively cheap and people didn't mind feeling rural.
I had two classmates in college who came from that area, and had competed
in long distance running ... one for Hillsdale, and I think the other came
from Atherton.
/dps "and we see Np-key rollover demonstrated with Athel's keyboard"

That was strange typo: N and P are not at all close to one another on my
(AZERTY) keyboard. I think they'd have the same relationship to one another
on a QWERTY keyboard.

It's the O and P, no?
-d

shudda red a hed.

Lot's of problems are NP complete. So they say.

[occam]

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Sat, 30 Nov 2024 12:41:09 -0800

Post by Snidely

Post by Snidely

Post by Snidely

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I had occasion today to lookup Atherton, California,on Wikipedia. I was
surprised to read this: "The town's zoning regulations permit only one
single-family home per acre, and prohibit sidewalks."

If you enter "Atherton, California" in Google Maps, you can see that
they take it seriously. Streetview shows no option for a pedistrian.

In Google Earth, I think I'm seeing many properties that are not a full
acre. None of the properties look like "gentleman farms", either, so I
can't offer "trying to look like a real farm" as an explanation for no
sidewalks.
On the other hand, I grew up in a neighborhood where lots of houses did
not have sidewalks in front. Our house was a corner lot, with the street
in front having a parking strip for the shoulder of the road, and the side
street barely having any shoulder (and was tar-and-gravel well into my
school years).
I doubt that was a zoning regulation, because the houses appeared
sporadically between the '30s and the '60s and were usually set way back
from the street. Definitely a small town pattern established when land
was relatively cheap and people didn't mind feeling rural.
I had two classmates in college who came from that area, and had competed
in long distance running ... one for Hillsdale, and I think the other came
from Atherton.
/dps "and we see Np-key rollover demonstrated with Athel's keyboard"

That was strange typo: N and P are not at all close to one another on my
(AZERTY) keyboard. I think they'd have the same relationship to one another
on a QWERTY keyboard.

It's the O and P, no?
-d

shudda red a hed.

Lot's of problems are NP complete. So they say.

That's a very mathematical joke in an English language forum. But it
provided me with my first smile of the day.

[Snidely]

Post by occam

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Sat, 30 Nov 2024 12:41:09 -0800

Post by Snidely

Post by Snidely

Post by Snidely

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I had occasion today to lookup Atherton, California,on Wikipedia. I
was surprised to read this: "The town's zoning regulations permit
only one single-family home per acre, and prohibit sidewalks."

If you enter "Atherton, California" in Google Maps, you can see that
they take it seriously. Streetview shows no option for a pedistrian.

In Google Earth, I think I'm seeing many properties that are not a full
acre. None of the properties look like "gentleman farms", either, so I
can't offer "trying to look like a real farm" as an explanation for no
sidewalks.
On the other hand, I grew up in a neighborhood where lots of houses did
not have sidewalks in front. Our house was a corner lot, with the
street in front having a parking strip for the shoulder of the road,
and the side street barely having any shoulder (and was tar-and-gravel
well into my school years).
I doubt that was a zoning regulation, because the houses appeared
sporadically between the '30s and the '60s and were usually set way back
from the street. Definitely a small town pattern established when land
was relatively cheap and people didn't mind feeling rural.
I had two classmates in college who came from that area, and had
competed in long distance running ... one for Hillsdale, and I think
the other came from Atherton.
/dps "and we see Np-key rollover demonstrated with Athel's keyboard"

That was strange typo: N and P are not at all close to one another on my
(AZERTY) keyboard. I think they'd have the same relationship to one
another on a QWERTY keyboard.

It's the O and P, no?
-d

shudda red a hed.

Lot's of problems are NP complete. So they say.

That's a very mathematical joke in an English language forum. But it
provided me with my first smile of the day.

We're just trying to get with the program.

-d

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by Snidely
On the other hand, I grew up in a neighborhood where lots of houses did
not have sidewalks in front. Our house was a corner lot, with the
street in front having a parking strip for the shoulder of the road,
and the side street barely having any shoulder (and was tar-and-gravel
well into my school years).

Would you walk across the neighbours' lawns, or did you just not walk?

[Snidely]

Bertel Lund Hansen pounded on thar keyboard to tell us

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Snidely
On the other hand, I grew up in a neighborhood where lots of houses did
not have sidewalks in front. Our house was a corner lot, with the
street in front having a parking strip for the shoulder of the road,
and the side street barely having any shoulder (and was tar-and-gravel
well into my school years).

Would you walk across the neighbours' lawns, or did you just not walk?

For the side street, I generally walked on the edge of the pavement.
The lawns would have been a detour, some of them behind hedges. The
parking strip on the front street generally wasn't crowded.

/dps

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Snidely
Bertel Lund Hansen pounded on thar keyboard to tell us

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Snidely
On the other hand, I grew up in a neighborhood where lots of houses
did not have sidewalks in front.  Our house was a corner lot, with
the street in front having a parking strip for the shoulder of the
road, and the side street barely having any shoulder (and was tar-
and-gravel well into my school years).

Would you walk across the neighbours' lawns, or did you just not walk?

For the side street, I generally walked on the edge of the pavement.

That caused some confusion to this BrE speaker, since BrE "pavement" is
AmE "sidewalk" (which in your case you did not have).

[Snidely]

Post by Snidely
Bertel Lund Hansen pounded on thar keyboard to tell us

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Snidely
On the other hand, I grew up in a neighborhood where lots of houses did
not have sidewalks in front.  Our house was a corner lot, with the street
in front having a parking strip for the shoulder of the road, and the
side street barely having any shoulder (and was tar- and-gravel well into
my school years).

Would you walk across the neighbours' lawns, or did you just not walk?

For the side street, I generally walked on the edge of the pavement.

That caused some confusion to this BrE speaker, since BrE "pavement" is AmE
"sidewalk" (which in your case you did not have).

This pavement ws blacktop, but only after it was well-aged
tar-and-gravel that had accumulated into a resemblance of blacktop.

Blacktop, of course, begins as tar and gravel, but mixed hot before
spreading and rollered smooth while still hot.

Portland, Oregon has a street called Macadam, apparently after the
paving method, but I don't know if they accurately followed Mac's
formulation or if they were spreading blacktop. By the time I was
familiar with the street, it had been resurfaced and widened several
times.

/dps

[lar3ryca]

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Snidely
On the other hand, I grew up in a neighborhood where lots of houses did
not have sidewalks in front. Our house was a corner lot, with the
street in front having a parking strip for the shoulder of the road,
and the side street barely having any shoulder (and was tar-and-gravel
well into my school years).

Would you walk across the neighbours' lawns, or did you just not walk?

When I lived on a gravel street, with no sidewalks and a fairly deep
ditch (perhaps 3 ft.) on one side, we would walk on the gravel.

I used to love coming home on my bicycle, which had brakes that acted
when a pedal was pressed backward. It was downhill, so I would build up
a good speed, position the pedals so the right one was at the rear, then
stand on it hard, lifting my butt off the seat. I would then swing the
rear of the bike to the right, skid sideways for about 40 or 50 ft.,
come to a stop with my left foot planted on the gravel.

[Snidely]

On Saturday or thereabouts, lar3ryca declared ...

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Snidely
On the other hand, I grew up in a neighborhood where lots of houses did
not have sidewalks in front. Our house was a corner lot, with the
street in front having a parking strip for the shoulder of the road,
and the side street barely having any shoulder (and was tar-and-gravel
well into my school years).

Would you walk across the neighbours' lawns, or did you just not walk?

When I lived on a gravel street, with no sidewalks and a fairly deep ditch
(perhaps 3 ft.) on one side, we would walk on the gravel.
I used to love coming home on my bicycle, which had brakes that acted when a
pedal was pressed backward.

coaster brakes is the term of art, I believe.

It was downhill, so I would build up a good
speed, position the pedals so the right one was at the rear, then stand on it
hard, lifting my butt off the seat. I would then swing the rear of the bike
to the right, skid sideways for about 40 or 50 ft., come to a stop with my
left foot planted on the gravel.

Still popular with a segment of the population whose bones aren't
brittle, but some of them may be using disk brakes instead of coaster
brakes. I think when I had good brake pads and a decent grip, I could
lock up the rear wheel with caliper brakes, but I didn't do it on
purpose.

(Disk brakes also use calipers, no? But not on the rim.)

/dps

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by Snidely
Still popular with a segment of the population whose bones aren't
brittle, but some of them may be using disk brakes instead of coaster
brakes. I think when I had good brake pads and a decent grip, I could
lock up the rear wheel with caliper brakes, but I didn't do it on
purpose.

When I had brakes that gripped the rim, I could lock the wheels with my
little fingers.

Today my - now not well-kept - bike has what in Danish is called
"rullebremser" (roller brakes). They take some force to work properly
but once you'r used to them, they are fine. It took some getting used to
right after the rim brakes.

They need no maintainance except pressure grease with intervals of
several years.

[jerryfriedman]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I had occasion today to lookup Atherton, California,on Wikipedia. I was
surprised to read this: "The town's zoning regulations permit only one
single-family home per acre, and prohibit sidewalks."
I suppose one single-family home per acre is OK if you have plenty of
space, but no sidewalks? Is it illegal to go from one house to another
other than in a car?

If you want to walk or jog, you do so on the correct
(not right) side of the road.

That Wikipedia article says that Atherton is one of the
wealthiest towns in the country, if not the wealthiest,
and 'As of November 2022, Atherton's stated land-use goal
is to “preserve the Town's character as a scenic, rural,
thickly wooded residential area with abundant open
space."[41]' I imagine the main purpose of not having
sidewalks is that rural look.

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I first experienced the American horror of pedestrians one evening in
1969 in Barstow, California. We were on our way to the Grand Canyon,
and planned to spend a night in Barstow. We parked about 5 minutes walk
from the motel. I needed to get something from the car so I walked to
it. On the way back a police car drove past me very slowly, did a
U-turn and passed me a second time very slowly, did another U-turn and
passed me a third time very slowly. That was it: they didn't haul me
off to prison for not being in my car, but it was obvious that they
thought it extremely suspicious to be walking in Barstow.

Lucky for you that you're white.

--
Jerry Friedman

--

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I had occasion today to lookup Atherton, California,on Wikipedia. I was
surprised to read this: "The town's zoning regulations permit only one
single-family home per acre, and prohibit sidewalks."
I suppose one single-family home per acre is OK if you have plenty of
space, but no sidewalks? Is it illegal to go from one house to another
other than in a car?

If you want to walk or jog, you do so on the correct
(not right) side of the road.
That Wikipedia article says that Atherton is one of the
wealthiest towns in the country, if not the wealthiest,
and 'As of November 2022, Atherton's stated land-use goal
is to “preserve the Town's character as a scenic, rural,
thickly wooded residential area with abundant open
space."[41]' I imagine the main purpose of not having
sidewalks is that rural look.

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I first experienced the American horror of pedestrians one evening in
1969 in Barstow, California. We were on our way to the Grand Canyon,
and planned to spend a night in Barstow. We parked about 5 minutes walk
from the motel. I needed to get something from the car so I walked to
it. On the way back a police car drove past

Ouch: passed

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
me very slowly, did a
U-turn and passed

However, I got it right that time...

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
me a second time very slowly, did another U-turn and
passed

... and that time.

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
me a third time very slowly. That was it: they didn't haul me
off to prison for not being in my car, but it was obvious that they
thought it extremely suspicious to be walking in Barstow.

Lucky for you that you're white.

That's what I think -- now, anyway; I don't remember what I thought in
1969. I don't think I looked too much like a scruffy Berkeley radical
at that time either.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I first experienced the American horror of pedestrians one evening in
1969 in Barstow, California. We were on our way to the Grand Canyon,
and planned to spend a night in Barstow. We parked about 5 minutes walk
from the motel. I needed to get something from the car so I walked to
it. On the way back a police car drove past

Ouch: passed

No. "Past" is correct.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I first experienced the American horror of pedestrians one evening in
1969 in Barstow, California. We were on our way to the Grand Canyon,
and planned to spend a night in Barstow. We parked about 5 minutes walk
from the motel. I needed to get something from the car so I walked to
it. On the way back a police car drove past

Ouch: passed

No. "Past" is correct.

Oh dear. Yes, you are right.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I had occasion today to lookup Atherton, California,on Wikipedia. I was
surprised to read this: "The town's zoning regulations permit only one
single-family home per acre, and prohibit sidewalks."
I suppose one single-family home per acre is OK if you have plenty of
space, but no sidewalks? Is it illegal to go from one house to another
other than in a car?

If you want to walk or jog, you do so on the correct
(not right) side of the road.
That Wikipedia article says that Atherton is one of the
wealthiest towns in the country, if not the wealthiest,
and 'As of November 2022, Atherton's stated land-use goal
is to "preserve the Town's character as a scenic, rural,
thickly wooded residential area with abundant open
space."[41]' I imagine the main purpose of not having
sidewalks is that rural look.

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I first experienced the American horror of pedestrians one evening in
1969 in Barstow, California. We were on our way to the Grand Canyon,
and planned to spend a night in Barstow. We parked about 5 minutes walk
from the motel. I needed to get something from the car so I walked to
it. On the way back a police car drove past

Ouch: passed

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
me very slowly, did a
U-turn and passed

However, I got it right that time...

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
me a second time very slowly, did another U-turn and
passed

... and that time.

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
me a third time very slowly. That was it: they didn't haul me
off to prison for not being in my car, but it was obvious that they
thought it extremely suspicious to be walking in Barstow.

Lucky for you that you're white.

That's what I think -- now, anyway; I don't remember what I thought in
1969. I don't think I looked too much like a scruffy Berkeley radical
at that time either.

In Ray Bradbury, The Pedestrian, (short story, 1951, set in 2053)
the protagonist, Leonard Mead, gets arrested by a robot police car
and carted off to a psychiatric institution for being a pedestrian.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pedestrian>

Full text at
<https://www.riversidelocalschools.com/downloads/pedestrian%20short%20story.pdf>

Hint: the wikiparticle is longer than the short story it describes,

Jan

[Mike Spencer]

Post by J. J. Lodder
In Ray Bradbury, The Pedestrian, (short story, 1951, set in 2053)
the protagonist, Leonard Mead, gets arrested by a robot police car
and carted off to a psychiatric institution for being a pedestrian.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pedestrian>
Full text at
<https://www.riversidelocalschools.com/downloads/pedestrian%20short%20story.pdf>

Spring of 1962. I was a student, bleary-eyed over a textbook in my
student room over a laundromat, about 10:00 PM, I decided to walk to
my family home ca. 25 miles away. My roommate was out so no
explanations were needed. Took my 6' hiking staff and set out. After
ca. 5 miles, I was beyond the domain of any street lighting.

About 20 miles along, having only once fallen into ditch (unhurt) and
only once being lost in the woods (an ill-conceived shortcut where I
erroneously believed I knew just where I was) I came, after 4:00 AM,
to a coffee & doughnut shop all lit up but still closed.

Banged on the service door, the night-shift doughnut cook answered,
and I asked to buy a cup of coffee. No coffee made yet but could some
doughnuts at no charge. The cook filled a large shopping bag with
day-old doughnuts and sent me on my way.

About two miles from home, just at dawn, crossing a short causeway
across a long, narrow pond, I stopped for a rest and to watch the
flock of ducks on the pond. Possessed of more doughnuts than I, my
parents and roommate could eat in a week, I commenced feeding them to
the ducks.

And a police cruiser pulled up, two cops giving me the cop eye. I
recounted all of the above. They looked at each other, seemed to come
to a favorable conclusion and drove off. Arrived home by 6:00 AM,
coffee and, yes, doughnuts and a long nap before being driven back to
my student lodging.

[jerryfriedman]

Post by Mike Spencer

Post by J. J. Lodder
In Ray Bradbury, The Pedestrian, (short story, 1951, set in 2053)
the protagonist, Leonard Mead, gets arrested by a robot police car
and carted off to a psychiatric institution for being a pedestrian.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pedestrian>
Full text at
<https://www.riversidelocalschools.com/downloads/pedestrian%20short%20story.pdf>

Spring of 1962. I was a student, bleary-eyed over a textbook in my
student room over a laundromat, about 10:00 PM, I decided to walk to
my family home ca. 25 miles away. My roommate was out so no
explanations were needed. Took my 6' hiking staff and set out. After
ca. 5 miles, I was beyond the domain of any street lighting.
About 20 miles along, having only once fallen into ditch (unhurt) and
only once being lost in the woods (an ill-conceived shortcut where I
erroneously believed I knew just where I was)

Striking a blow for gender stereotypes.

Post by Mike Spencer
I came, after 4:00 AM,
to a coffee & doughnut shop all lit up but still closed.
Banged on the service door, the night-shift doughnut cook answered,
and I asked to buy a cup of coffee. No coffee made yet but could some
doughnuts at no charge. The cook filled a large shopping bag with
day-old doughnuts and sent me on my way.
About two miles from home, just at dawn, crossing a short causeway
across a long, narrow pond, I stopped for a rest and to watch the
flock of ducks on the pond. Possessed of more doughnuts than I, my
parents and roommate could eat in a week, I commenced feeding them to
the ducks.

(I'm sure we all know now that you shouldn't feed ducks
anything like bread as a regular thing. Feeding them
doughnuts every time you feel like a 25-mile overnight
walk probably won't hurt them, though.)

Post by Mike Spencer
And a police cruiser pulled up, two cops giving me the cop eye. I
recounted all of the above. They looked at each other, seemed to come
to a favorable conclusion and drove off. Arrived home by 6:00 AM,
coffee and, yes, doughnuts and a long nap before being driven back to
my student lodging.

Did your parents come to a favorable conclusion?

--
Jerry Friedman

--

[Mike Spencer]

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by Mike Spencer
And a police cruiser pulled up, two cops giving me the cop eye. I
recounted all of the above. They looked at each other, seemed to come
to a favorable conclusion and drove off. Arrived home by 6:00 AM,
coffee and, yes, doughnuts and a long nap before being driven back to
my student lodging.

Did your parents come to a favorable conclusion?

Favorable on my athletic achievement, a little wobbly on the sanity of
a 25 mile walk in the dark. Favorable enough that Dad drove me back
to school without complaint. He had been a long distance runner in his
youth (before WW I) and was sympatico.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by J. J. Lodder
In Ray Bradbury, The Pedestrian, (short story, 1951, set in 2053)
the protagonist, Leonard Mead, gets arrested by a robot police car
and carted off to a psychiatric institution for being a pedestrian.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pedestrian>

Johnny Cash in "Live at San Quentin" tells how he was arrested for
walking and picking Dandelions.

[Hibou]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I had occasion today to lookup Atherton, California,on Wikipedia. I was
surprised to read this: "The town's zoning regulations permit only one
single-family home per acre, and prohibit sidewalks."
I suppose one single-family home per acre is OK if you have plenty of
space, but no sidewalks? Is it illegal to go from one house to another
other than in a car?
I first experienced the American horror of pedestrians one evening in
1969 in Barstow, California. We were on our way to the Grand Canyon, and
planned to spend a night in Barstow. We parked about 5 minutes walk from
the motel. I needed to get something from the car so I walked to it. On
the way back a police car drove past me very slowly, did a U-turn and
passed me a second time very slowly, did another U-turn and passed me a
third time very slowly. That was it: they didn't haul me off to prison
for not being in my car, but it was obvious that they thought it
extremely suspicious to be walking in Barstow.

I suppose the USA is not a pedestrian country.

[Bertietaylor]

Thought the subject was semiconductor doping profiles...

[HenHanna]

Post by Bertietaylor
Thought the subject was semiconductor doping profiles...

----------- What's Np in the Subj line?



i had 2 town-names mixed up (with Ashby) and was going...
no... that town isn't that posh ????

[Bertietaylor]

Post by HenHanna

Post by Bertietaylor
Thought the subject was semiconductor doping profiles...

----------- What's Np in the Subj line?

Every semiconductor junction creating a barrier potential has different
doping on either side. There is n doping to create surplus loose
electrons on one side and p doping to create holes or absence of
electrons on the other. The n p doping profiles underlies the wonders of
electronics.

Post by HenHanna
i had 2 town-names mixed up (with Ashby) and was going...
no... that town isn't that posh ????

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Bertietaylor

Post by HenHanna

Post by Bertietaylor
Thought the subject was semiconductor doping profiles...

----------- What's Np in the Subj line?

Every semiconductor junction creating a barrier potential has different
doping on either side. There is n doping to create surplus loose
electrons on one side and p doping to create holes or absence of
electrons on the other. The n p doping profiles underlies the wonders of
electronics.

Post by HenHanna
i had 2 town-names mixed up (with Ashby) and was going...
no... that town isn't that posh ????

There are are rare occasions when I agree with your posts. This one of them.

[Bertietaylor]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Bertietaylor

Post by HenHanna

Post by Bertietaylor
Thought the subject was semiconductor doping profiles...

----------- What's Np in the Subj line?

Every semiconductor junction creating a barrier potential has different
doping on either side. There is n doping to create surplus loose
electrons on one side and p doping to create holes or absence of
electrons on the other. The n p doping profiles underlies the wonders of
electronics.

Post by HenHanna
i had 2 town-names mixed up (with Ashby) and was going...
no... that town isn't that posh ????

There are are rare occasions when I agree with your posts. This one of them.

Wow, unexpected, wonders will never cease. Though what possible reason
anyone reasonable could have to disagree with Arindam is known only to
his devoted wife. On trifling matters, that is.

Arindam will remember the sidewalks of US. On his first day in the US in
San Jose he nearly lost his life while stepping off it to cross the
road. Looked right when he should have looked left. Someone braked hard.
The Gods and Goddesses are always with Arindam so to tell this tale with
lots of

Woof-woof woof woof woof woof woof-woof woof

Bertietaylor

[Steve Hayes]

On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 14:46:56 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I first experienced the American horror of pedestrians one evening in
1969 in Barstow, California. We were on our way to the Grand Canyon,
and planned to spend a night in Barstow. We parked about 5 minutes walk
from the motel. I needed to get something from the car so I walked to
it. On the way back a police car drove past me very slowly, did a
U-turn and passed me a second time very slowly, did another U-turn and
passed me a third time very slowly. That was it: they didn't haul me
off to prison for not being in my car, but it was obvious that they
thought it extremely suspicious to be walking in Barstow.

I experienced the same thing in England.

When I worked for London Transport, and was walking home after night
shift, wearing a bus driver's uniform, the police sometimes stopped me
and questioned me.

And once they questioned me in broad daylight in Merstham, Surrey,
when I was taking a photo of a train from a railway bridge, like they
thought I was a spy photographing a top-secret installation. At that
time South Africa was on its way to becoming a fully-fledged police
state, but I was soon disabused of my notion that the UK was the land
of the free.

[Hibou]

Post by Steve Hayes
I experienced the same thing in England.
When I worked for London Transport, and was walking home after night
shift, wearing a bus driver's uniform, the police sometimes stopped me
and questioned me. [...]

A bus driver without a bus? Obviously suspicious.

I suppose one could tell the police that, while busmen do go on busmen's
holidays, few take their work home with them.

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Hibou

Post by Steve Hayes
I experienced the same thing in England.
When I worked for London Transport, and was walking home after night
shift, wearing a bus driver's uniform, the police sometimes stopped me
and questioned me. [...]

A bus driver without a bus? Obviously suspicious.
I suppose one could tell the police that, while busmen do go on busmen's
holidays, few take their work home with them.

I suspect that many of these stops happen simply because the police are
bored, and just want something to add to their notebooks to show they
were doing real policing - and not asleep somewhere.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by Sam Plusnet
I suspect that many of these stops happen simply because the police are
bored, and just want something to add to their notebooks to show they
were doing real policing - and not asleep somewhere.

Danish police have more than enough work on their hands. Is that
different in the USA?

[Tony Cooper]

On Sat, 30 Nov 2024 21:21:06 +0100, Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Sam Plusnet
I suspect that many of these stops happen simply because the police are
bored, and just want something to add to their notebooks to show they
were doing real policing - and not asleep somewhere.

Danish police have more than enough work on their hands. Is that
different in the USA?

The comment was about Steve being stopped in London, and made by an UK
poster. Presumably, no American policemen were involved.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by Tony Cooper
The comment was about Steve being stopped in London, and made by an UK
poster. Presumably, no American policemen were involved.

Damn. This skipping from post to post without looking at the subject
line has its disadvantages.

[lar3ryca]

Post by Hibou

Post by Steve Hayes
I experienced the same thing in England.
When I worked for London Transport, and was walking home after night
shift, wearing a bus driver's uniform, the police sometimes stopped me
and questioned me. [...]

A bus driver without a bus? Obviously suspicious.
I suppose one could tell the police that, while busmen do go on busmen's
holidays, few take their work home with them.

After an evening at a pub, I decided to take a bus home.

I was surprised, because I had never driven a bus before.

[Hibou]

Post by lar3ryca
After an evening at a pub, I decided to take a bus home.
I was surprised, because I had never driven a bus before.

Bet the passengers were even more surprised.

[Mark Brader]

Post by Steve Hayes
And once they questioned me in broad daylight in Merstham, Surrey,
when I was taking a photo of a train from a railway bridge, like they
thought I was a spy photographing a top-secret installation...

Um, you were trespassing on the railway and putting yourself in danger
if a train used the bridge before you could get off it? I can't say
what the attitude of British police to that would be, but.I like to
think they'd have something to say about it.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Steve Hayes
And once they questioned me in broad daylight in Merstham, Surrey,
when I was taking a photo of a train from a railway bridge, like
they thought I was a spy photographing a top-secret
installation...

Um, you were trespassing on the railway and putting yourself in
danger if a train used the bridge before you could get off it? I
can't say what the attitude of British police to that would be, but.I
like to think they'd have something to say about it.

That possibilitity didn't occur to me. The mental picture I got from
Steve's description was of a train going under the bridge, and Steve
taking a photo from above.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Steve Hayes
And once they questioned me in broad daylight in Merstham, Surrey,
when I was taking a photo of a train from a railway bridge, like
they thought I was a spy photographing a top-secret
installation...

Um, you were trespassing on the railway and putting yourself in
danger if a train used the bridge before you could get off it? I
can't say what the attitude of British police to that would be, but.I
like to think they'd have something to say about it.

That possibilitity didn't occur to me. The mental picture I got from
Steve's description was of a train going under the bridge, and Steve
taking a photo from above.

Quite.

[Mark Brader]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Steve Hayes
And once they questioned me in broad daylight in Merstham, Surrey,
when I was taking a photo of a train from a railway bridge, like
they thought I was a spy photographing a top-secret
installation...

Um, you were trespassing on the railway and putting yourself in
danger if a train used the bridge before you could get off it?

That possibilitity didn't occur to me. The mental picture I got from
Steve's description was of a train going under the bridge, and Steve
taking a photo from above.

Quite.

Ah, so you meant a bridge (presumably a road bridge or footbridge)
*over* the railway. In my world "a railway bridge" must have tracks
along it.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Steve Hayes
And once they questioned me in broad daylight in Merstham, Surrey,
when I was taking a photo of a train from a railway bridge, like they
thought I was a spy photographing a top-secret installation...

Um, you were trespassing on the railway and putting yourself in danger
if a train used the bridge before you could get off it? I can't say
what the attitude of British police to that would be, but.I like to
think they'd have something to say about it.

The bridge was used by cars and pedestrians to cross the railway line.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Steve Hayes
And once they questioned me in broad daylight in Merstham,
Surrey, when I was taking a photo of a train from a railway
bridge, like they thought I was a spy photographing a top-secret
installation...

Um, you were trespassing on the railway and putting yourself in
danger if a train used the bridge before you could get off it? I
can't say what the attitude of British police to that would be,
but.I like to think they'd have something to say about it.

The bridge was used by cars and pedestrians to cross the railway line.

Are we talking about a pondian difference here? My usage agrees with
yours, but perhaps Mark reserves the term "railway bridge" for a bridge
carrying rail lines, and would use "vehicular bridge" for the sort
you're describing.

I certainly use "pedestrian bridge" and "pedestrian underpass" for the
facilities that are for the use of pedestrians only. (And perhaps also
bicycles.)

[Mark Brader]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Steve Hayes
The bridge was used by cars and pedestrians to cross the railway line.

Are we talking about a pondian difference here? My usage agrees with
yours, but perhaps Mark reserves the term "railway bridge" for a bridge
carrying rail lines, and would use "vehicular bridge" for the sort
you're describing.

As I said elsethread, yes. But I've seen no evidence that this is
pondian.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Steve Hayes
And once they questioned me in broad daylight in Merstham,
Surrey, when I was taking a photo of a train from a railway
bridge, like they thought I was a spy photographing a top-secret
installation...

Um, you were trespassing on the railway and putting yourself in
danger if a train used the bridge before you could get off it? I
can't say what the attitude of British police to that would be,
but.I like to think they'd have something to say about it.

The bridge was used by cars and pedestrians to cross the railway line.

Are we talking about a pondian difference here? My usage agrees with
yours, but perhaps Mark reserves the term "railway bridge" for a bridge
carrying rail lines, and would use "vehicular bridge" for the sort
you're describing.

Quite possibly.

Things I remember from my childhood:

A bridge was a kind of generic thing, but applied mainly to structures
that carried roads or railway lines over rivers.

A bridge that carried a road over a dry valley was a viaduct.

A place where a road dipped down to go under a railway line was called
a subway, whether for vehicular or foot passengers.

Post by Peter Moylan
I certainly use "pedestrian bridge" and "pedestrian underpass" for the
facilities that are for the use of pedestrians only. (And perhaps also
bicycles.)

[lar3ryca]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Steve Hayes
And once they questioned me in broad daylight in Merstham,
Surrey, when I was taking a photo of a train from a railway
bridge, like they thought I was a spy photographing a top-secret
installation...

Um, you were trespassing on the railway and putting yourself in
danger if a train used the bridge before you could get off it? I
can't say what the attitude of British police to that would be,
but.I like to think they'd have something to say about it.

The bridge was used by cars and pedestrians to cross the railway line.

Are we talking about a pondian difference here? My usage agrees with
yours, but perhaps Mark reserves the term "railway bridge" for a bridge
carrying rail lines, and would use "vehicular bridge" for the sort
you're describing.

Quite possibly.
A bridge was a kind of generic thing, but applied mainly to structures
that carried roads or railway lines over rivers.
A bridge that carried a road over a dry valley was a viaduct.
A place where a road dipped down to go under a railway line was called
a subway, whether for vehicular or foot passengers.

In MyE, A bridge with train track on it is a railway bridge.
A roadway or path that goes over or under a railway bridge is an
overpass or an underpass, and a subway is the entirety of an underground
railway.

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Peter Moylan
I certainly use "pedestrian bridge" and "pedestrian underpass" for the
facilities that are for the use of pedestrians only. (And perhaps also
bicycles.)

[jerryfriedman]

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Steve Hayes
And once they questioned me in broad daylight in Merstham,
Surrey, when I was taking a photo of a train from a railway
bridge, like they thought I was a spy photographing a top-secret
installation...

Um, you were trespassing on the railway and putting yourself in
danger if a train used the bridge before you could get off it? I
can't say what the attitude of British police to that would be,
but.I like to think they'd have something to say about it.

The bridge was used by cars and pedestrians to cross the railway line.

Are we talking about a pondian difference here? My usage agrees with
yours, but perhaps Mark reserves the term "railway bridge" for a bridge
carrying rail lines, and would use "vehicular bridge" for the sort
you're describing.

Quite possibly.
A bridge was a kind of generic thing, but applied mainly to structures
that carried roads or railway lines over rivers.
A bridge that carried a road over a dry valley was a viaduct.
A place where a road dipped down to go under a railway line was called
a subway, whether for vehicular or foot passengers.

In MyE, A bridge with train track on it is a railway bridge.
A roadway or path that goes over or under a railway bridge is an
overpass or an underpass, and a subway is the entirety of an underground
railway.

..

Same for me down here, if you change "railway" to
"railroad" and allow "subway" to also mean the train
that runs on that underground railroad.

"Railroad bridge" is the same in Langston Hughes's AAVE:

De Railroad bridge’s
A sad song in de air.
De railroad bridge’s
A sad song in de air.
Every time de trains pass
I wants to go somewhere.

https://poets.org/poem/homesick-blues

--
Jerry Friedman

--

[Mark Brader]

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by lar3ryca
In MyE, A bridge with train track on it is a railway bridge.
A roadway or path that goes over or under a railway bridge is an
overpass or an underpass, and a subway is the entirety of an underground
railway.

..
Same for me down here, if you change "railway" to
"railroad"

For me "railway" and "railroad" are exact synonyms. Some of then
use one word in their names; some use the other; and then there's
the LIRR, which uniquely uses "rail road".

Of course "railroad" has been lost in British usage.

Post by jerryfriedman
and allow "subway" to also mean the train that runs on that
underground railroad.

I say that's a common error, but the thing is a train or specifically
a subway train.

Incidentally, the Mayor of Toronto recently happily announced that
arrangements had been made to fund the purchase of "55 new subway
cars" to replace the aging fleet on one of our lines. I found this
mind-boggling until I cross-checked other sources and found that it
was 55 new *trains*, which would be 330 cars if they're made up the
way I expect.

But she's a non-native English speaker (born in Hong Kong). I can
forgive her, but whoever prepared that announcement is another matter.

[Janet]

In article

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Steve Hayes
And once they questioned me in broad daylight in Merstham, Surrey,
when I was taking a photo of a train from a railway bridge, like they
thought I was a spy photographing a top-secret installation...

Um, you were trespassing on the railway and putting yourself in danger
if a train used the bridge before you could get off it?

Bridges (and railtracks) are common suicide locations
in UK.

Janet.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by Janet

Post by Mark Brader
Um, you were trespassing on the railway and putting yourself in danger
if a train used the bridge before you could get off it?

Bridges (and railtracks) are common suicide locations
in UK.

Doing suicide on rails is extremely egoistic. Train drivers[1] are
traumatised every time it happens, and some of them can't work with
trains after just one incidence.

[1] I need a couple of words. In Denmark two people are responsible for
driving an ordinary train. Small trains are driven by only one person.

The person in the cockpit (?) is called "loko-fører" (locomotive
driver). The other person is called "tog-fører" (train driver) and is in
the passenger section checking passengers, and on the platform giving
start signal when the train is ready to leave the station.

What are they called in English? I have of course checked dictionaries,
but I'm not sure what precise functions are described.

Is "cockpit" correct? I know that it is understandable.

[Hibou]

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Janet
[...]

Post by Mark Brader
Um, you were trespassing on the railway and putting yourself in danger
if a train used the bridge before you could get off it?

Bridges (and railtracks) are common suicide locations
in UK.

Yes, travelling by rail in Britain is enough to make anyone desperate.

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
Doing suicide on rails is extremely egoistic. Train drivers[1] are
traumatised every time it happens, and some of them can't work with
trains after just one incidence.
[1] I need a couple of words. In Denmark two people are responsible for
driving an ordinary train. Small trains are driven by only one person.
The person in the cockpit (?) is called "loko-fører" (locomotive
driver). The other person is called "tog-fører" (train driver) and is in
the passenger section checking passengers, and on the platform giving
start signal when the train is ready to leave the station.
What are they called in English? I have of course checked dictionaries,
but I'm not sure what precise functions are described.
Is "cockpit" correct? I know that it is understandable.

I think I'd say 'cab'.

[Chris Elvidge]

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Janet

Post by Mark Brader
Um, you were trespassing on the railway and putting yourself in danger
if a train used the bridge before you could get off it?

Bridges (and railtracks) are common suicide locations
in UK.

Doing suicide on rails is extremely egoistic. Train drivers[1] are
traumatised every time it happens, and some of them can't work with
trains after just one incidence.
[1] I need a couple of words. In Denmark two people are responsible for
driving an ordinary train. Small trains are driven by only one person.
The person in the cockpit (?) is called "loko-fører" (locomotive
driver).

Locomotive / Engine / Cab(in?) = (Locomotive|Engine) Driver

The other person is called "tog-fører" (train driver) and is in

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
the passenger section checking passengers, and on the platform giving
start signal when the train is ready to leave the station.

Guard (old definition) signals train start signal, and Ticket Inspector
(also old) checks passenger tickets.
Now (probably) Customer Service Operative (when actually there)
Called other rude names by passengers

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
What are they called in English? I have of course checked dictionaries,
but I'm not sure what precise functions are described.
Is "cockpit" correct? I know that it is understandable.

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 12:29:08 +0000

Post by Chris Elvidge

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Janet

Post by Mark Brader
Um, you were trespassing on the railway and putting yourself in danger
if a train used the bridge before you could get off it?

Bridges (and railtracks) are common suicide locations
in UK.

Doing suicide on rails is extremely egoistic. Train drivers[1] are
traumatised every time it happens, and some of them can't work with
trains after just one incidence.
[1] I need a couple of words. In Denmark two people are responsible for
driving an ordinary train. Small trains are driven by only one person.
The person in the cockpit (?) is called "loko-fører" (locomotive
driver).

Locomotive / Engine / Cab(in?) = (Locomotive|Engine) Driver
The other person is called "tog-fører" (train driver) and is in

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
the passenger section checking passengers, and on the platform giving
start signal when the train is ready to leave the station.

Guard (old definition) signals train start signal, and Ticket Inspector
(also old) checks passenger tickets.
Now (probably) Customer Service Operative (when actually there)

I've heard "Train Manager"

Post by Chris Elvidge
Called other rude names by passengers

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
What are they called in English? I have of course checked dictionaries,
but I'm not sure what precise functions are described.
Is "cockpit" correct? I know that it is understandable.

--
Chris Elvidge, England
I WILL NOT TORMENT THE EMOTIONALLY FRAIL

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 12:41:38 +0100, Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Janet

Post by Mark Brader
Um, you were trespassing on the railway and putting yourself in danger
if a train used the bridge before you could get off it?

Bridges (and railtracks) are common suicide locations
in UK.

Doing suicide on rails is extremely egoistic. Train drivers[1] are
traumatised every time it happens, and some of them can't work with
trains after just one incidence.
[1] I need a couple of words. In Denmark two people are responsible for
driving an ordinary train. Small trains are driven by only one person.
The person in the cockpit (?)

The "cab" in US English.

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
is called "loko-fører" (locomotive
driver). The other person is called "tog-fører" (train driver) and is in
the passenger section checking passengers, and on the platform giving
start signal when the train is ready to leave the station.

I'm not current with the terminology, but I think it's just "engineer"
and "fireman" for the two in the cab. "Fireman" survives as the title
even though the person no longer shovels coal into the fire.

While modern locomotives can be operated by one person, the unions
have managed to require an engineer and a fireman.

When trains still included a "caboose", the "flagman" or "brakeman"
rode there. That was the person who gave the signal for the train to
move.

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
What are they called in English? I have of course checked dictionaries,
but I'm not sure what precise functions are described.
Is "cockpit" correct? I know that it is understandable.

[Snidely]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 12:41:38 +0100, Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Janet

Post by Mark Brader
Um, you were trespassing on the railway and putting yourself in danger
if a train used the bridge before you could get off it?

Bridges (and railtracks) are common suicide locations
in UK.

Doing suicide on rails is extremely egoistic. Train drivers[1] are
traumatised every time it happens, and some of them can't work with
trains after just one incidence.
[1] I need a couple of words. In Denmark two people are responsible for
driving an ordinary train. Small trains are driven by only one person.
The person in the cockpit (?)

The "cab" in US English.

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
is called "loko-fører" (locomotive
driver). The other person is called "tog-fører" (train driver) and is in
the passenger section checking passengers, and on the platform giving
start signal when the train is ready to leave the station.

I'm not current with the terminology, but I think it's just "engineer"
and "fireman" for the two in the cab. "Fireman" survives as the title
even though the person no longer shovels coal into the fire.
While modern locomotives can be operated by one person, the unions
have managed to require an engineer and a fireman.

Freight trains nowadays, the conductor rides in the cab, there is no
fireman, and if the train has brakemen, they ride in the cab. [I can't
recall an explicitly non-gendered form, although there are a few women
working as brakemen]. Cabs that hold 4 people, some in comfort, are
common.

On Amtrak (and other North American passenger trains, AFAIK, and that
includes commuter rail] the conductor rides in the passenger cars; the
ticket checking may be handled by crew not under the conductor's
management, although the conductor's calls on safety procedures are
paramount. On Amtrak specifically, the engineer and conductor are
provided by the host railroad, and the passenger service agents are
provided by Amtrak. A long train may have a brakeman added to ensure
that stops are handled correctly. I think the railroad also provides
the crew that switches cars to make up the train, but the car cleaners
are hired by Amtrak. There are a few hundred miles of track where
Amtrak itself is the host railroad, and car repairs are generally done
in Amtrak shops around the country.

Post by Tony Cooper
When trains still included a "caboose", the "flagman" or "brakeman"
rode there. That was the person who gave the signal for the train to
move.

At that time, the conductor rode in the caboose; it was his office
space. He was responsible for giving the signal for the train to move.
The brakeman would be additional eyes and ears, and of course would be
handling the levers and airhoses when coupling and uncoupling. If you
go far enough back (before Westinghouse made a practical triple valve),
the brakemen would be scampering along car tops to set and release
brakes with a handcrank (the crank was operated by a brake wheel).

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
What are they called in English? I have of course checked dictionaries,
but I'm not sure what precise functions are described.
Is "cockpit" correct? I know that it is understandable.

Cockpit gets used for planes, boats, and F1 race cars. Cabin is used
for passenger cars, and cab for trucks and trains.

Cabooses were sometimes called cabin cars, IIRC.

/dps

[lar3ryca]

Post by Snidely

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 12:41:38 +0100, Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Mark Brader
Um, you were trespassing on the railway and putting yourself in danger
if a train used the bridge before you could get off it?

   Bridges (and railtracks) are common suicide locations in UK.

Doing suicide on rails is extremely egoistic. Train drivers[1] are
traumatised every time it happens, and some of them can't work with
trains after just one incidence.
[1] I need a couple of words. In Denmark two people are responsible for
driving an ordinary train. Small trains are driven by only one person.
The person in the cockpit (?)

The "cab" in US English.

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
is called "loko-fører" (locomotive
driver). The other person is called "tog-fører" (train driver) and is in
the passenger section checking passengers, and on the platform giving
start signal when the train is ready to leave the station.

I'm not current with the terminology, but I think it's just "engineer"
and "fireman" for the two in the cab.  "Fireman" survives as the title
even though the person no longer shovels coal into the fire.
While modern locomotives can be operated by one person, the unions
have managed to require an engineer and a fireman.

Freight trains nowadays, the conductor rides in the cab, there is no
fireman, and if the train has brakemen, they ride in the cab.  [I can't
recall an explicitly non-gendered form, although there are a few women
working as brakemen].  Cabs that hold 4 people, some in comfort, are
common.
On Amtrak (and other North American passenger trains, AFAIK, and that
includes commuter rail] the conductor rides in the passenger cars; the
ticket checking may be handled by crew not under the conductor's
management, although the conductor's calls on safety procedures are
paramount.   On Amtrak specifically, the engineer and conductor are
provided by the host railroad, and the passenger service agents are
provided by Amtrak.  A long train may have a brakeman added to ensure
that stops are handled correctly.  I think the railroad also provides
the crew that switches cars to make up the train, but the car cleaners
are hired by Amtrak.  There are a few hundred miles of track where
Amtrak itself is the host railroad, and car repairs are generally done
in Amtrak shops around the country.

Post by Tony Cooper
When trains still included a "caboose", the "flagman" or "brakeman"
rode there.  That was the person who gave the signal for the train to
move.

At that time, the conductor rode in the caboose; it was his office
space.  He was responsible for giving the signal for the train to move.
The brakeman would be additional eyes and ears, and of course would be
handling the levers and airhoses when coupling and uncoupling.  If you
go far enough back (before Westinghouse made a practical triple valve),
the brakemen would be scampering along car tops to set and release
brakes with a handcrank (the crank was operated by a brake wheel).

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
What are they called in English? I have of course checked dictionaries,
but I'm not sure what precise functions are described.
Is "cockpit" correct? I know that it is understandable.

Cockpit gets used for planes, boats, and F1 race cars.  Cabin is used
for passenger cars, and cab for trucks and trains.
Cabooses were sometimes called cabin cars, IIRC.

Interestingly, 'Caboose' can refer to an enclosed horse-drawn sleigh.
They were common on the Canadian Prairies at one time. They usually had
provision for a fire to warm the riders.

A Google Image search
on google.ca will show many.

[Hibou]

Post by Snidely
Freight trains nowadays, the conductor rides in the cab, there is no
fireman, and if the train has brakemen, they ride in the cab.  [I can't
recall an explicitly non-gendered form, although there are a few women
working as brakemen]. [...]

I think 'brakeman' is fine. 'Brakewoman', 'brakeperson', 'brakepeople',
and - shudder - 'the braking community' should be strangled before birth.

The 'man' in 'brakeman', 'chairman', 'banksman', etc. must have its
original Anglo-Saxon meaning of 'human being', since women can perfectly
well have these jobs. I well remember Victoria Coren Mitchell, who is
undoubtedly a woman, declaring on television that she was a man in this
sense¹.

All that's required when handling such terms is a little mental
flexibility (an antonym of 'mental flexibility' may well be 'political
correctness'). There are many words that have several related meanings,
and we mostly handle them quite well ('quite' is one such word).

One short word for Man, one rather longer one for personkind.


¹She was presenting a series of programmes about the OED.

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Hibou

Post by Snidely
Freight trains nowadays, the conductor rides in the cab, there is no
fireman, and if the train has brakemen, they ride in the cab.  [I
can't recall an explicitly non-gendered form, although there are a few
women working as brakemen]. [...]

I think 'brakeman' is fine. 'Brakewoman', 'brakeperson', 'brakepeople',
and - shudder - 'the braking community' should be strangled before birth.

A woman who worked as a brakeman would be an early example of gender
fluidity - shifting between on and off duty roles.

[Hibou]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Hibou

Post by Snidely
Freight trains nowadays, the conductor rides in the cab, there is no
fireman, and if the train has brakemen, they ride in the cab.  [I
can't recall an explicitly non-gendered form, although there are a
few women working as brakemen]. [...]

I think 'brakeman' is fine. 'Brakewoman', 'brakeperson',
'brakepeople', and - shudder - 'the braking community' should be
strangled before birth.

A woman who worked as a brakeman would be an early example of gender
fluidity - shifting between on and off duty roles.

<Smile.> Only if one interprets the 'man' in 'brakeman' to mean 'adult
male human being'. I was arguing that its meaning must be 'human being'
(Old English 'mann').

"The Germanic word developed into Old English /mann/. In Old English,
the word still primarily meant "person" or "human," and was used for
men, women, and children alike" -
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_(word)>

Words often have more than one meaning, which context makes clear - bow
and bow, lead and lead, row and row, bark and bark, season (weather) and
season (cooking), racket and racket, bootless (sans boots) and bootless
(useless).... If we have trouble with 'man', it's only because for some
people it's become politically charged.

[Silvano]

Post by Hibou

Post by Sam Plusnet
A woman who worked as a brakeman would be an early example of gender
fluidity - shifting between on and off duty roles.

<Smile.> Only if one interprets the 'man' in 'brakeman' to mean 'adult
male human being'. I was arguing that its meaning must be 'human being'
(Old English 'mann').
"The Germanic word developed into Old English /mann/. In Old English,
the word still primarily meant "person" or "human," and was used for
men, women, and children alike" -
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_(word)>

Do you still speak Old English? Do native English speakers in 2024 use
"man" primarily with the meaning "human being"? Just asking, as a
non-native speaker.

Post by Hibou
Words often have more than one meaning, which context makes clear - bow
and bow, lead and lead, row and row, bark and bark, season (weather) and
season (cooking), racket and racket, bootless (sans boots) and bootless
(useless).... If we have trouble with 'man', it's only because for some
people it's become politically charged.

I think the real reason is that x% of English speakers do not interpret
the word "man" as meaning "human being". Please write the number you
deem appropriate in place of my x%.

[Hibou]

Post by Silvano

Post by Hibou

Post by Sam Plusnet
A woman who worked as a brakeman would be an early example of gender
fluidity - shifting between on and off duty roles.

<Smile.> Only if one interprets the 'man' in 'brakeman' to mean 'adult
male human being'. I was arguing that its meaning must be 'human being'
(Old English 'mann').
"The Germanic word developed into Old English /mann/. In Old English,
the word still primarily meant "person" or "human," and was used for
men, women, and children alike" -
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_(word)>

Do you still speak Old English?

You are begging the question. I have never spoken Old English.

Post by Silvano
Do native English speakers in 2024 use
"man" primarily with the meaning "human being"? Just asking, as a
non-native speaker.

In certain contexts, it must have that sense - brakeman, dustman, bin
man etc.. I don't think statistics have much to do with it. Which is
commoner, bark meaning tree skin or bark meaning woof! It doesn't
matter; one sense being commoner doesn't invalidate the other.

Post by Silvano

Post by Hibou
Words often have more than one meaning, which context makes clear - bow
and bow, lead and lead, row and row, bark and bark, season (weather) and
season (cooking), racket and racket, bootless (sans boots) and bootless
(useless).... If we have trouble with 'man', it's only because for some
people it's become politically charged.

I think the real reason is that x% of English speakers do not interpret
the word "man" as meaning "human being". Please write the number you
deem appropriate in place of my x%.

I think the real reason is that most English speakers don't think about
their language, and fail to appreciate when man means male human being
and when it means human being. In the latter case, it is gender neutral.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by Silvano
Do you still speak Old English? Do native English speakers in 2024 use
"man" primarily with the meaning "human being"? Just asking, as a
non-native speaker.

One small step for man.

[Hibou]

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Silvano
Do you still speak Old English? Do native English speakers in 2024 use
"man" primarily with the meaning "human being"? Just asking, as a
non-native speaker.

One small step for man.

Well, yes, but that was a while ago now, and on another planet. ;-)

There are contexts where 'man' had better mean male...

There are 70 million men in Britain, and 35 million women, totalling 105
million.

Perhaps not - and the problem is even more obvious in French:

Il y a 70 millions de Français et 35 millions de Françaises, soit 105
millions au total.

I think political correctness often forgets that people are clever. We
understand, can resolve ambiguity, and are often amused by it.

[Ross Clark]

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Silvano
Do you still speak Old English? Do native English speakers in 2024 use
"man" primarily with the meaning "human being"? Just asking, as a
non-native speaker.

One small step for man.

I thought it had been established that Armstrong slightly mis-spoke this
-- it was meant to be "for a man" nicely contrasted with "for mankind"
in the following phrase.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by Ross Clark

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Silvano
Do you still speak Old English? Do native English speakers in 2024 use
"man" primarily with the meaning "human being"? Just asking, as a
non-native speaker.

One small step for man.

I thought it had been established that Armstrong slightly mis-spoke this
-- it was meant to be "for a man" nicely contrasted with "for mankind"
in the following phrase.

That may be - I wouldn't know - but the line is what has become famous.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Ross Clark

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Silvano
Do you still speak Old English? Do native English speakers in 2024 use
"man" primarily with the meaning "human being"? Just asking, as a
non-native speaker.

One small step for man.

I thought it had been established that Armstrong slightly mis-spoke
this -- it was meant to be "for a man" nicely contrasted with "for
mankind" in the following phrase.

Yes, as otherwise it makes little sense.

[Janet]

Post by Silvano

Post by Hibou

Post by Sam Plusnet
A woman who worked as a brakeman would be an early example of gender
fluidity - shifting between on and off duty roles.

<Smile.> Only if one interprets the 'man' in 'brakeman' to mean 'adult
male human being'. I was arguing that its meaning must be 'human being'
(Old English 'mann').
"The Germanic word developed into Old English /mann/. In Old English,
the word still primarily meant "person" or "human," and was used for
men, women, and children alike" -
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_(word)>

Do you still speak Old English? Do native English speakers in 2024 use
"man" primarily with the meaning "human being"? Just asking, as a
non-native speaker.

certainly used in collective contexts

"Man" encompassing all human ages and genders
occurs frequently in media reports and documentaries
about natural history, wildlife, environment, climate
change, world history, scientific progress etc.

"That's one small step for man, one giant leap for
mankind"

<https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262690270/mans-impact-on-
the-global-environment/>

Janet

Post by Silvano

Post by Hibou
Words often have more than one meaning, which context makes clear - bow
and bow, lead and lead, row and row, bark and bark, season (weather) and
season (cooking), racket and racket, bootless (sans boots) and bootless
(useless).... If we have trouble with 'man', it's only because for some
people it's become politically charged.

I think the real reason is that x% of English speakers do not interpret
the word "man" as meaning "human being". Please write the number you
deem appropriate in place of my x%.

<1%

"No man is an island, entire of itself, every man is a
piece of the continent, a part of the main".

Janet

[Hibou]

Post by Janet

Post by Silvano
I think the real reason is that x% of English speakers do not interpret
the word "man" as meaning "human being". Please write the number you
deem appropriate in place of my x%.

<1%
"No man is an island, entire of itself, every man is a
piece of the continent, a part of the main".

Yes, classic stuff from Donne.

Yet Hamlet seems to slide from one sense to the other:

"What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason! How infinite in
faculties! In form and moving how express and admirable! In action how
like an angel! In apprehension how like a god! The beauty of the world!
The paragon of animals! And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of
dust? Man delights not me - nor woman neither...."

I think he was having a bad day.

[jerryfriedman]

On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 13:02:01 +0000, Hibou wrote:

[man]

Post by Hibou
"What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason! How infinite in
faculties! In form and moving how express and admirable! In action how
like an angel! In apprehension how like a god! The beauty of the world!
The paragon of animals! And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of
dust? Man delights not me - nor woman neither...."

That's how he seems to a modern person, but I suspect
that to many people at the time, women and children
could not be described as noble in reason, infinite
in faculties (as an exaggeration), in action like an
angel, in apprehension like a god, or the paragon of
animals. The beauty of the world, maybe.

Post by Hibou
I think he was having a bad day.

I don't think he had any good ones during the play.

--
Jerry Friedman

--

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Janet
"No man is an island, entire of itself, every man is a
piece of the continent, a part of the main".

No, Man is an island.

[jerryfriedman]

Post by Janet

Post by Silvano

Post by Hibou

Post by Sam Plusnet
A woman who worked as a brakeman would be an early example of gender
fluidity - shifting between on and off duty roles.

<Smile.> Only if one interprets the 'man' in 'brakeman' to mean 'adult
male human being'. I was arguing that its meaning must be 'human being'
(Old English 'mann').
"The Germanic word developed into Old English /mann/. In Old English,
the word still primarily meant "person" or "human," and was used for
men, women, and children alike" -
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_(word)>

Do you still speak Old English? Do native English speakers in 2024 use
"man" primarily with the meaning "human being"? Just asking, as a
non-native speaker.

certainly used in collective contexts
"Man" encompassing all human ages and genders
occurs frequently in media reports and documentaries
about natural history, wildlife, environment, climate
change, world history, scientific progress etc.
"That's one small step for man, one giant leap for
mankind"
<https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262690270/mans-impact-on-
the-global-environment/>

You could probably find examples more recent than
1970.

Post by Janet

Post by Silvano

Post by Hibou
Words often have more than one meaning, which context makes clear - bow
and bow, lead and lead, row and row, bark and bark, season (weather) and
season (cooking), racket and racket, bootless (sans boots) and bootless
(useless).... If we have trouble with 'man', it's only because for some
people it's become politically charged.

I think the real reason is that x% of English speakers do not interpret
the word "man" as meaning "human being". Please write the number you
deem appropriate in place of my x%.

<1%
"No man is an island, entire of itself, every man is a
piece of the continent, a part of the main".

I agree that less than 1% of the population has any
trouble interpreting "No man is an island", "man's
impact on the environment", etc. But there's a far
greater percentage who wouldn't say "man's impact on
the environment". I wouldn't care to estimate it.

--
Jerry Friedman

--

[Steve Hayes]

On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 09:50:22 +0100, Silvano

Post by Silvano

Post by Hibou

Post by Sam Plusnet
A woman who worked as a brakeman would be an early example of gender
fluidity - shifting between on and off duty roles.

<Smile.> Only if one interprets the 'man' in 'brakeman' to mean 'adult
male human being'. I was arguing that its meaning must be 'human being'
(Old English 'mann').
"The Germanic word developed into Old English /mann/. In Old English,
the word still primarily meant "person" or "human," and was used for
men, women, and children alike" -
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_(word)>

Do you still speak Old English? Do native English speakers in 2024 use
"man" primarily with the meaning "human being"? Just asking, as a
non-native speaker.

I do.

[Steve Hayes]

On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 09:50:22 +0100, Silvano

Post by Silvano

Post by Hibou

Post by Sam Plusnet
A woman who worked as a brakeman would be an early example of gender
fluidity - shifting between on and off duty roles.

<Smile.> Only if one interprets the 'man' in 'brakeman' to mean 'adult
male human being'. I was arguing that its meaning must be 'human being'
(Old English 'mann').
"The Germanic word developed into Old English /mann/. In Old English,
the word still primarily meant "person" or "human," and was used for
men, women, and children alike" -
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_(word)>

Do you still speak Old English? Do native English speakers in 2024 use
"man" primarily with the meaning "human being"? Just asking, as a
non-native speaker.

The problem with insisting on only the restrictive use of "man", you
are left with with a gap for the non-restrictive usage.

So it would be better to revive "werman" for the restrictive usage.

But it seems that Wikipedia still uses "man" in the non-restrictive
sense, for example here:

"Homo homini lupus, or in its unabridged form Homo homini lupus est,
is a Latin proverb meaning literally "Man to man is wolf". It is used
to refer to situations where a person has behaved comparably to a
wolf."

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by Steve Hayes
So it would be better to revive "werman" for the restrictive usage.

It's a problem that the pronunciation is not far from "women".

[lar3ryca]

Post by Silvano

Post by Hibou

Post by Sam Plusnet
A woman who worked as a brakeman would be an early example of gender
fluidity - shifting between on and off duty roles.

<Smile.> Only if one interprets the 'man' in 'brakeman' to mean 'adult
male human being'. I was arguing that its meaning must be 'human being'
(Old English 'mann').
"The Germanic word developed into Old English /mann/. In Old English,
the word still primarily meant "person" or "human," and was used for
men, women, and children alike" -
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_(word)>

Do you still speak Old English? Do native English speakers in 2024 use
"man" primarily with the meaning "human being"? Just asking, as a
non-native speaker.

If I use 'man' by itself, I usually mean an adult male.
When it's part of a word, it doesn't mean anything. The entire word has
a meaning. Yes, it probably once meant an adult male in a particular
profession, for example, but now it just means a person holding that
particular position.

To me, saying 'chairman' is no different than considering the 'man' is
'semantics' or 'human' to just be part of a word with a meaning
unrelated to sex

Post by Silvano

Post by Hibou
Words often have more than one meaning, which context makes clear - bow
and bow, lead and lead, row and row, bark and bark, season (weather) and
season (cooking), racket and racket, bootless (sans boots) and bootless
(useless).... If we have trouble with 'man', it's only because for some
people it's become politically charged.

I think the real reason is that x% of English speakers do not interpret
the word "man" as meaning "human being". Please write the number you
deem appropriate in place of my x%.

[lar3ryca]

Post by Silvano

Post by Hibou

Post by Sam Plusnet
A woman who worked as a brakeman would be an early example of gender
fluidity - shifting between on and off duty roles.

<Smile.> Only if one interprets the 'man' in 'brakeman' to mean 'adult
male human being'. I was arguing that its meaning must be 'human being'
(Old English 'mann').
"The Germanic word developed into Old English /mann/. In Old English,
the word still primarily meant "person" or "human," and was used for
men, women, and children alike" -
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_(word)>

Do you still speak Old English? Do native English speakers in 2024 use
"man" primarily with the meaning "human being"? Just asking, as a
non-native speaker.

If I use 'man' by itself, I usually mean an adult male.
When it's part of a word, it doesn't mean anything. The entire word has
a meaning. Yes, it probably once meant an adult male in a particular
profession, for example, but now it just means a person holding that
particular position.

To me, saying 'chairman' is no different than considering the 'man' is
'semantics' or 'human' to just be part of a word with a meaning
unrelated to sex

Post by Silvano

Post by Hibou
Words often have more than one meaning, which context makes clear - bow
and bow, lead and lead, row and row, bark and bark, season (weather) and
season (cooking), racket and racket, bootless (sans boots) and bootless
(useless).... If we have trouble with 'man', it's only because for some
people it's become politically charged.

I think the real reason is that x% of English speakers do not interpret
the word "man" as meaning "human being". Please write the number you
deem appropriate in place of my x%.

[jerryfriedman]

Post by Hibou

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Hibou

Post by Snidely
Freight trains nowadays, the conductor rides in the cab, there is no
fireman, and if the train has brakemen, they ride in the cab.  [I
can't recall an explicitly non-gendered form, although there are a
few women working as brakemen]. [...]

I think 'brakeman' is fine. 'Brakewoman', 'brakeperson',
'brakepeople', and - shudder - 'the braking community' should be
strangled before birth.

A woman who worked as a brakeman would be an early example of gender
fluidity - shifting between on and off duty roles.

<Smile.> Only if one interprets the 'man' in 'brakeman' to mean 'adult
male human being'. I was arguing that its meaning must be 'human being'
(Old English 'mann').
"The Germanic word developed into Old English /mann/. In Old English,
the word still primarily meant "person" or "human," and was used for
men, women, and children alike" -
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_(word)>
Words often have more than one meaning, which context makes clear - bow
and bow, lead and lead, row and row, bark and bark, season (weather) and
season (cooking), racket and racket, bootless (sans boots) and bootless
(useless).... If we have trouble with 'man', it's only because for some
people it's become politically charged.

It became so a long time ago, and I'm not sure the charge
was political. The OED doesn't say when "-woman" was
first substituted for "-man" in compounds such as
"brakeman", but one early use is

1440
Contremann, or womann, /compatriota./
Promptorium Parvulorum (Harley MS. 221) 109/2

There are two in

1564
Your mother was a good horse woman, and loued ridyng
well, as any gentle woman that euer I knewe in my life.
W. Bullein, Dialogue against Fever Pestilence f. 43

On the other hand, I've learned here that in Britain,
"chairman" can mean either a man or a woman.

Back to "man" by itself, the OED says

"I.1.b.
Old English–
"As a general or indefinite designation, esp. with
determiners such as /every, any, no,/ etc., and in
plural, esp. with /all, any, some, many, few,/ etc.:
a person.

"Since the generalization of the sense ‘adult male
human being’ this use has been apprehended as
primarily denoting the male sex, though by
implication referring also to women. The gradual
development of the use of genderless synonyms
/body, person, one,/ and (for the plural)
/folk(s), people,/ greatly narrowed the currency
of /man/ in this sense, which by the 19th cent.
was literary and proverbial rather than colloquial."

Considering the chronology, I have trouble believing
that the increasing but not complete avoidance of
"man" in genderless senses is purely political. Why
is it happening with "man" but not with other words?
That's another question. Maybe the possibility of
misunderstanding is part of it, and maybe the
importance of gender categories to many people is
part of it. Random find at Google Books:

“I heard you fell on hard times with Warren being
an embezzler and all, but . . . you're a repo man?”

“Do I look like a man to you, Larry?"

--Jane Graves, /Hot Wheels and High Heels/ (2007)

--
Jerry Friedman

--

[Hibou]

Post by Hibou
Words often have more than one meaning, which context makes clear - bow
and bow, lead and lead, row and row, bark and bark, season (weather) and
season (cooking), racket and racket, bootless (sans boots) and bootless
(useless).... If we have trouble with 'man', it's only because for some
people it's become politically charged.

[...] Considering the chronology, I have trouble believing
that the increasing but not complete avoidance of
"man" in genderless senses is purely political.  Why
is it happening with "man" but not with other words?
That's another question.  Maybe the possibility of
misunderstanding is part of it, and maybe the
importance of gender categories to many people is
“I heard you fell on hard times with Warren being
an embezzler and all, but . . . you're a repo man?”
“Do I look like a man to you, Larry?"
--Jane Graves, /Hot Wheels and High Heels/ (2007)

Perhaps I should say that I have a wide view of politics, and think of
it as the art of power, be it in public life, office, or home. It
encompasses the management of perception, others' and one's own, and
words play their part in this.

One can perhaps be too sensitive. If a girl has her heart set on a
career in dust, is she really going to be put off by the word 'dustman',
especially if she understands that 'man' here is Anglo-Saxon and
gender-neutral? Might the ribbing and ridicule that go with 'refuse
operative' not be more off-putting?

We must all overcome obstacles in life, and I think it's wrong to think
of women as curling stones, who will move forward only if their path is
swept completely free of... er, dust.

[lar3ryca]

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Janet

Post by Mark Brader
Um, you were trespassing on the railway and putting yourself in danger
if a train used the bridge before you could get off it?

Bridges (and railtracks) are common suicide locations
in UK.

Doing suicide on rails is extremely egoistic. Train drivers[1] are
traumatised every time it happens, and some of them can't work with
trains after just one incidence.
[1] I need a couple of words. In Denmark two people are responsible for
driving an ordinary train. Small trains are driven by only one person.
The person in the cockpit (?) is called "loko-fører" (locomotive
driver). The other person is called "tog-fører" (train driver) and is in
the passenger section checking passengers, and on the platform giving
start signal when the train is ready to leave the station.

In Canada, and perhaps the USA, The driver of the train is called an
Engineer. The person checking tickets is called a Conductor.

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
What are they called in English? I have of course checked dictionaries,
but I'm not sure what precise functions are described.
Is "cockpit" correct? I know that it is understandable.

Cab.

[lar3ryca]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I had occasion today to lookup Atherton, California,on Wikipedia. I was
surprised to read this: "The town's zoning regulations permit only one
single-family home per acre, and prohibit sidewalks."
I suppose one single-family home per acre is OK if you have plenty of
space, but no sidewalks? Is it illegal to go from one house to another
other than in a car?
I first experienced the American horror of pedestrians one evening in
1969 in Barstow, California. We were on our way to the Grand Canyon, and
planned to spend a night in Barstow. We parked about 5 minutes walk from
the motel. I needed to get something from the car so I walked to it. On
the way back a police car drove past me very slowly, did a U-turn and
passed me a second time very slowly, did another U-turn and passed me a
third time very slowly. That was it: they didn't haul me off to prison
for not being in my car, but it was obvious that they thought it
extremely suspicious to be walking in Barstow.

I live on a 'Bay', which is very much like a crescent, and we have no
sidewalks. We are fine with that. Doesn't bother us at all. yes, we do
walk, but there is very little traffic.

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I had occasion today to lookup Atherton, California,on Wikipedia. I
was surprised to read this: "The town's zoning regulations permit only
one single-family home per acre, and prohibit sidewalks."
I suppose one single-family home per acre is OK if you have plenty of
space, but no sidewalks? Is it illegal to go from one house to another
other than in a car?
I first experienced the American horror of pedestrians one evening in
1969 in Barstow, California. We were on our way to the Grand Canyon,
and planned to spend a night in Barstow. We parked about 5 minutes
walk from the motel. I needed to get something from the car so I
walked to it. On the way back a police car drove past me very slowly,
did a U-turn and passed me a second time very slowly, did another U-
turn and passed me a third time very slowly. That was it: they didn't
haul me off to prison for not being in my car, but it was obvious that
they thought it extremely suspicious to be walking in Barstow.

I live on a 'Bay', which is very much like a crescent, and we have no
sidewalks. We are fine with that. Doesn't bother us at all. yes, we do
walk, but there is very little traffic.

I tried, and failed, to imagine anything like that here in the UK.
(Cue posts by several UK-based people who live in such an arrangement.)

[lar3ryca]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I had occasion today to lookup Atherton, California,on Wikipedia. I
was surprised to read this: "The town's zoning regulations permit
only one single-family home per acre, and prohibit sidewalks."
I suppose one single-family home per acre is OK if you have plenty of
space, but no sidewalks? Is it illegal to go from one house to
another other than in a car?
I first experienced the American horror of pedestrians one evening in
1969 in Barstow, California. We were on our way to the Grand Canyon,
and planned to spend a night in Barstow. We parked about 5 minutes
walk from the motel. I needed to get something from the car so I
walked to it. On the way back a police car drove past me very slowly,
did a U-turn and passed me a second time very slowly, did another U-
turn and passed me a third time very slowly. That was it: they didn't
haul me off to prison for not being in my car, but it was obvious
that they thought it extremely suspicious to be walking in Barstow.

I live on a 'Bay', which is very much like a crescent, and we have no
sidewalks. We are fine with that. Doesn't bother us at all. yes, we do
walk, but there is very little traffic.

I tried, and failed, to imagine anything like that here in the UK.
(Cue posts by several UK-based people who live in such an arrangement.)

Is it the 'Bay' you are having trouble with? Or is it the 'crescent' or
lack of sidewalks.

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I had occasion today to lookup Atherton, California,on Wikipedia. I
was surprised to read this: "The town's zoning regulations permit
only one single-family home per acre, and prohibit sidewalks."
I suppose one single-family home per acre is OK if you have plenty
of space, but no sidewalks? Is it illegal to go from one house to
another other than in a car?
I first experienced the American horror of pedestrians one evening
in 1969 in Barstow, California. We were on our way to the Grand
Canyon, and planned to spend a night in Barstow. We parked about 5
minutes walk from the motel. I needed to get something from the car
so I walked to it. On the way back a police car drove past me very
slowly, did a U-turn and passed me a second time very slowly, did
they didn't haul me off to prison for not being in my car, but it
was obvious that they thought it extremely suspicious to be walking
in Barstow.

I live on a 'Bay', which is very much like a crescent, and we have no
sidewalks. We are fine with that. Doesn't bother us at all. yes, we
do walk, but there is very little traffic.

I tried, and failed, to imagine anything like that here in the UK.
(Cue posts by several UK-based people who live in such an arrangement.)

Is it the 'Bay' you are having trouble with? Or is it the 'crescent' or
lack of sidewalks.

Sorry, I should have been more specific.
The concept of a residential area being built without pavements/sidewalks.
(Although I haven't come across the term "bay" for a crescent in the UK.)

[Tony Cooper]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I had occasion today to lookup Atherton, California,on Wikipedia. I
was surprised to read this: "The town's zoning regulations permit
only one single-family home per acre, and prohibit sidewalks."
I suppose one single-family home per acre is OK if you have plenty
of space, but no sidewalks? Is it illegal to go from one house to
another other than in a car?
I first experienced the American horror of pedestrians one evening
in 1969 in Barstow, California. We were on our way to the Grand
Canyon, and planned to spend a night in Barstow. We parked about 5
minutes walk from the motel. I needed to get something from the car
so I walked to it. On the way back a police car drove past me very
slowly, did a U-turn and passed me a second time very slowly, did
they didn't haul me off to prison for not being in my car, but it
was obvious that they thought it extremely suspicious to be walking
in Barstow.

I live on a 'Bay', which is very much like a crescent, and we have no
sidewalks. We are fine with that. Doesn't bother us at all. yes, we
do walk, but there is very little traffic.

I tried, and failed, to imagine anything like that here in the UK.
(Cue posts by several UK-based people who live in such an arrangement.)

Is it the 'Bay' you are having trouble with? Or is it the 'crescent' or
lack of sidewalks.

Sorry, I should have been more specific.
The concept of a residential area being built without pavements/sidewalks.
(Although I haven't come across the term "bay" for a crescent in the UK.)

I don't know how it works in the UK, but not all residential areas are
layed out and built as a specific entity. In the US, there are many
formerly semi-rural areas where a population has expanded over time
and houses have been built in what was farmland or otherwise
undeveloped area.

As individuals buy property and build houses on them,
sidewalks/pavements are not part of what was built.

My former house was in what is called "unincorporated Seminole
County". ("Unincorporated" means not within any city limits) No
single developer built the houses there. Each house was individually
constructed by the property buyer.

It was on a golf course in an area with dirt roads. In this part of
Florida, the weather is such that a hard-packed dirt road is not
disadvantageous. It was actually considered to be an advantage in
that it didn't encourage non-local traffic and cars drove slower on
sometimes uneven dirt roads.

The County maintained the roads and periodically graded them.
Eventually, the County offered to pave the roads, but the cost of
paving was passed on to the homeowners. It required a vote, and the
ballot was either 1) pave the roads, or 2) pave the roads and add
sidewalks. The homeowners voted to just pave the roads.

We were offered to either pay the cost in one lump sum or have the
cost added to our real estate taxes over the next ten years. That was
sometime in the late 80's and I've forgotten how much the tax increase
was.

We never regretted not having sidewalks.

[Snidely]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I had occasion today to lookup Atherton, California,on Wikipedia. I was
surprised to read this: "The town's zoning regulations permit only one
single-family home per acre, and prohibit sidewalks."
I suppose one single-family home per acre is OK if you have plenty of
space, but no sidewalks? Is it illegal to go from one house to another
other than in a car?
I first experienced the American horror of pedestrians one evening in
1969 in Barstow, California. We were on our way to the Grand Canyon, and
planned to spend a night in Barstow. We parked about 5 minutes walk from
the motel. I needed to get something from the car so I walked to it. On
the way back a police car drove past me very slowly, did a U-turn and
passed me a second time very slowly, did another U- turn and passed me a
third time very slowly. That was it: they didn't haul me off to prison
for not being in my car, but it was obvious that they thought it
extremely suspicious to be walking in Barstow.

I live on a 'Bay', which is very much like a crescent, and we have no
sidewalks. We are fine with that. Doesn't bother us at all. yes, we do
walk, but there is very little traffic.

I tried, and failed, to imagine anything like that here in the UK.
(Cue posts by several UK-based people who live in such an arrangement.)

Is it the 'Bay' you are having trouble with? Or is it the 'crescent' or
lack of sidewalks.

Sorry, I should have been more specific.
The concept of a residential area being built without pavements/sidewalks.
(Although I haven't come across the term "bay" for a crescent in the UK.)

In the US, sidewalks in residential areas started becoming common in
the '30s (at least, I know of more neighborhoods where the sidewalks
were built in the '30s than earlier), but mainly in the "fully
populated" zones. Postwar, it became common in larger new
developments. But sidewalks seem to be rare any place where the houses
were individually "developed", especially if it took several years to
fill in a block.

/dps

[Mike Spencer]

Post by Snidely
In the US, sidewalks in residential areas started becoming common in
the '30s (at least, I know of more neighborhoods where the sidewalks
were built in the '30s than earlier), but mainly in the "fully
populated" zones. Postwar, it became common in larger new
developments. But sidewalks seem to be rare any place where the houses
were individually "developed", especially if it took several years to
fill in a block.

I've heard an account reporting that sometime in the 30s, Los Angeles
decided to install sidewalks in (some?) areas that had none. Made a
lot of people angry because the homeowners were compulsorily dunned to
pay for them. Not a time when it was easy to come up with a few extra
bucks.

[Snidely]

Post by Mike Spencer

Post by Snidely
In the US, sidewalks in residential areas started becoming common in
the '30s (at least, I know of more neighborhoods where the sidewalks
were built in the '30s than earlier), but mainly in the "fully
populated" zones. Postwar, it became common in larger new
developments. But sidewalks seem to be rare any place where the houses
were individually "developed", especially if it took several years to
fill in a block.

I've heard an account reporting that sometime in the 30s, Los Angeles
decided to install sidewalks in (some?) areas that had none. Made a
lot of people angry because the homeowners were compulsorily dunned to
pay for them. Not a time when it was easy to come up with a few extra
bucks.

Much of my authority on that period of Los Angeles comes from
/Chinatown/, which is actually set a bit later. I'm a little more
solid on the growth of Portland from Stump Town, having been exposed to
that lore on frequent basis as a yungun.

/dps

[Mike Spencer]

Post by Snidely
Much of my authority on that period of Los Angeles comes from
/Chinatown/, which is actually set a bit later. I'm a little more
solid on the growth of Portland from Stump Town, having been exposed to
that lore on frequent basis as a yungun.

My authority on Los Angeles, such as it is, derives mostly from my
mother who lived there from age 13 to 1944. I only lived there until
age 2 plus another year for first year of grade school. So it's
pretty anecdotal, fragmentary authority.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by Mike Spencer
My authority on Los Angeles, such as it is, derives mostly from my
mother who lived there from age 13 to 1944.

Impressive.

[lar3ryca]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I had occasion today to lookup Atherton, California,on Wikipedia. I
was surprised to read this: "The town's zoning regulations permit
only one single-family home per acre, and prohibit sidewalks."
I suppose one single-family home per acre is OK if you have plenty
of space, but no sidewalks? Is it illegal to go from one house to
another other than in a car?
I first experienced the American horror of pedestrians one evening
in 1969 in Barstow, California. We were on our way to the Grand
Canyon, and planned to spend a night in Barstow. We parked about 5
minutes walk from the motel. I needed to get something from the car
so I walked to it. On the way back a police car drove past me very
slowly, did a U-turn and passed me a second time very slowly, did
another U- turn and passed me a third time very slowly. That was
it: they didn't haul me off to prison for not being in my car, but
it was obvious that they thought it extremely suspicious to be
walking in Barstow.

I live on a 'Bay', which is very much like a crescent, and we have
no sidewalks. We are fine with that. Doesn't bother us at all. yes,
we do walk, but there is very little traffic.

I tried, and failed, to imagine anything like that here in the UK.
(Cue posts by several UK-based people who live in such an arrangement.)

Is it the 'Bay' you are having trouble with? Or is it the 'crescent'
or lack of sidewalks.

Sorry, I should have been more specific.
The concept of a residential area being built without pavements/sidewalks.

Our house was built in, I think, 1959, and sidewalks were not generally
put in on new developments at that time. Residents of any given street
could ask the city to put in sidewalks, but whether or not they were put
in was up to the entire affected area, and residents would vote of it.
If sidewalks were put in, the affected residences' property taxes would
increase substantially until the sidewalks were paid off.

Post by Sam Plusnet
(Although I haven't come across the term "bay" for a crescent in the UK.)

We were surprised that our street was called a BAY, because it
definitely is more like a crescent.

A crescent normally has houses on both sides of the street, while a Bay
normally has houses on only one side. If you look down the street of a
crescent, you only see (about) one half of it. If you look down the
street of a Bay, you see the entire (single-lane) roadway which loops
around a central grassy 'median, often with plants and trees.

This is different again from a cul-de-sac, which has only one (two-lane)
roadway to access it, with a loop at the end.

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 01:01:00 -0600

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I had occasion today to lookup Atherton, California,on Wikipedia. I
was surprised to read this: "The town's zoning regulations permit
only one single-family home per acre, and prohibit sidewalks."
I suppose one single-family home per acre is OK if you have plenty
of space, but no sidewalks? Is it illegal to go from one house to
another other than in a car?
I first experienced the American horror of pedestrians one evening
in 1969 in Barstow, California. We were on our way to the Grand
Canyon, and planned to spend a night in Barstow. We parked about 5
minutes walk from the motel. I needed to get something from the car
so I walked to it. On the way back a police car drove past me very
slowly, did a U-turn and passed me a second time very slowly, did
another U- turn and passed me a third time very slowly. That was
it: they didn't haul me off to prison for not being in my car, but
it was obvious that they thought it extremely suspicious to be
walking in Barstow.

I live on a 'Bay', which is very much like a crescent, and we have
no sidewalks. We are fine with that. Doesn't bother us at all. yes,
we do walk, but there is very little traffic.

I tried, and failed, to imagine anything like that here in the UK.
(Cue posts by several UK-based people who live in such an arrangement.)

Is it the 'Bay' you are having trouble with? Or is it the 'crescent'
or lack of sidewalks.

Sorry, I should have been more specific.
The concept of a residential area being built without pavements/sidewalks.

Our house was built in, I think, 1959, and sidewalks were not generally
put in on new developments at that time. Residents of any given street
could ask the city to put in sidewalks, but whether or not they were put
in was up to the entire affected area, and residents would vote of it.
If sidewalks were put in, the affected residences' property taxes would
increase substantially until the sidewalks were paid off.

Post by Sam Plusnet
(Although I haven't come across the term "bay" for a crescent in the UK.)

We were surprised that our street was called a BAY, because it
definitely is more like a crescent.
A crescent normally has houses on both sides of the street, while a Bay
normally has houses on only one side. If you look down the street of a
crescent, you only see (about) one half of it. If you look down the
street of a Bay, you see the entire (single-lane) roadway which loops
around a central grassy 'median, often with plants and trees.
This is different again from a cul-de-sac, which has only one (two-lane)
roadway to access it, with a loop at the end.

So the famous Royal Crescent in Bath would be a Bay in US terms?
Outrageous!

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 01:01:00 -0600

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Sam Plusnet

I had occasion today to lookup Atherton, California,on Wikipedia. I>

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
was surprised to read this: "The town's zoning regulations

permit> >>>>> only one single-family home per acre, and prohibit
sidewalks."
I suppose one single-family home per acre is OK if you have plenty>

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
of space, but no sidewalks? Is it illegal to go from one house

to> >>>>> another other than in a car?
I first experienced the American horror of pedestrians one evening>

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
in 1969 in Barstow, California. We were on our way to the Grand>
Canyon, and planned to spend a night in Barstow. We parked about

5> >>>>> minutes walk from the motel. I needed to get something from
the car> >>>>> so I walked to it. On the way back a police car drove
past me very> >>>>> slowly, did a U-turn and passed me a second time
very slowly, did> >>>>> another U- turn and passed me a third time very
slowly. That was> >>>>> it: they didn't haul me off to prison for not
being in my car, but> >>>>> it was obvious that they thought it
extremely suspicious to be> >>>>> walking in Barstow.

I live on a 'Bay', which is very much like a crescent, and we have>

Post by lar3ryca
no sidewalks. We are fine with that. Doesn't bother us at all.

yes,> >>>> we do walk, but there is very little traffic.

I tried, and failed, to imagine anything like that here in the UK.
(Cue posts by several UK-based people who live in such an arrangement.)

Is it the 'Bay' you are having trouble with? Or is it the 'crescent'>

Post by Sam Plusnet

or lack of sidewalks.

Sorry, I should have been more specific.
The concept of a residential area being built without pavements/sidewalks.

Our house was built in, I think, 1959, and sidewalks were not
generally> put in on new developments at that time. Residents of any
given street> could ask the city to put in sidewalks, but whether or
not they were put> in was up to the entire affected area, and residents
would vote of it.
If sidewalks were put in, the affected residences' property taxes
would> increase substantially until the sidewalks were paid off.

Post by Sam Plusnet
(Although I haven't come across the term "bay" for a crescent in the UK.)

We were surprised that our street was called a BAY, because it>
definitely is more like a crescent.
A crescent normally has houses on both sides of the street, while a
Bay> normally has houses on only one side. If you look down the street
of a> crescent, you only see (about) one half of it. If you look down
the> street of a Bay, you see the entire (single-lane) roadway which
loops> around a central grassy 'median, often with plants and trees.
This is different again from a cul-de-sac, which has only one
(two-lane)> roadway to access it, with a loop at the end.

So the famous Royal Crescent in Bath would be a Bay in US terms?
Outrageous!

When I went to stay with my aunt in London in 1951 she lived at 1 Park
Crescent (an address that Google Maps claims is in North London, but it
wasn't then; it was across the road from Regent's Park; maybe they've
done some renumbering). It was in a bulding now inhabited by the likes
of Elon Musk, but in 1951 it was very run down, like much of London. My
aunt had a flat rented from a Mrs Volkov, probably a refugee from
Russia -- anyway, not someone that billionaires would know.

[Tony Cooper]

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 01:01:00 -0600

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I had occasion today to lookup Atherton, California,on Wikipedia. I
was surprised to read this: "The town's zoning regulations permit
only one single-family home per acre, and prohibit sidewalks."
I suppose one single-family home per acre is OK if you have plenty
of space, but no sidewalks? Is it illegal to go from one house to
another other than in a car?
I first experienced the American horror of pedestrians one evening
in 1969 in Barstow, California. We were on our way to the Grand
Canyon, and planned to spend a night in Barstow. We parked about 5
minutes walk from the motel. I needed to get something from the car
so I walked to it. On the way back a police car drove past me very
slowly, did a U-turn and passed me a second time very slowly, did
another U- turn and passed me a third time very slowly. That was
it: they didn't haul me off to prison for not being in my car, but
it was obvious that they thought it extremely suspicious to be
walking in Barstow.

I live on a 'Bay', which is very much like a crescent, and we have
no sidewalks. We are fine with that. Doesn't bother us at all. yes,
we do walk, but there is very little traffic.

I tried, and failed, to imagine anything like that here in the UK.
(Cue posts by several UK-based people who live in such an arrangement.)

Is it the 'Bay' you are having trouble with? Or is it the 'crescent'
or lack of sidewalks.

Sorry, I should have been more specific.
The concept of a residential area being built without pavements/sidewalks.

Our house was built in, I think, 1959, and sidewalks were not generally
put in on new developments at that time. Residents of any given street
could ask the city to put in sidewalks, but whether or not they were put
in was up to the entire affected area, and residents would vote of it.
If sidewalks were put in, the affected residences' property taxes would
increase substantially until the sidewalks were paid off.

Post by Sam Plusnet
(Although I haven't come across the term "bay" for a crescent in the UK.)

We were surprised that our street was called a BAY, because it
definitely is more like a crescent.
A crescent normally has houses on both sides of the street, while a Bay
normally has houses on only one side. If you look down the street of a
crescent, you only see (about) one half of it. If you look down the
street of a Bay, you see the entire (single-lane) roadway which loops
around a central grassy 'median, often with plants and trees.
This is different again from a cul-de-sac, which has only one (two-lane)
roadway to access it, with a loop at the end.

So the famous Royal Crescent in Bath would be a Bay in US terms?
Outrageous!

There has been no mention of "Bay" used in the US to describe a
street. Lar3ryca posts from Canada.

I have not seen/heard "Bay" or "Crescent" used to describe street in
the US. "Cul-de-sac", yes.

[jerryfriedman]

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 01:01:00 -0600

..

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John

Post by lar3ryca
We were surprised that our street was called a BAY, because it
definitely is more like a crescent.
A crescent normally has houses on both sides of the street, while a Bay
normally has houses on only one side. If you look down the street of a
crescent, you only see (about) one half of it. If you look down the
street of a Bay, you see the entire (single-lane) roadway which loops
around a central grassy 'median, often with plants and trees.
This is different again from a cul-de-sac, which has only one (two-lane)
roadway to access it, with a loop at the end.

So the famous Royal Crescent in Bath would be a Bay in US terms?
Outrageous!

Larry is Canadian. I'm not aware of those distinctions
in U.S. English, though they could exist without notifying
me. The exception is "cul-de-sac", where my experience
agrees with Larry's: it's specifically a dead end with a
loop.

--
Jerry Friedman

--

[Snidely]

Post by Sam Plusnet
(Although I haven't come across the term "bay" for a crescent in the UK.)

We were surprised that our street was called a BAY, because it definitely is
more like a crescent.
A crescent normally has houses on both sides of the street, while a Bay
normally has houses on only one side. If you look down the street of a
crescent, you only see (about) one half of it. If you look down the street of
a Bay, you see the entire (single-lane) roadway which loops around a central
grassy 'median, often with plants and trees.
This is different again from a cul-de-sac, which has only one (two-lane)
roadway to access it, with a loop at the end.

An interesting distinction I haven't run across before.

/dps

[LionelEdwards]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I had occasion today to lookup Atherton, California,on Wikipedia. I was
surprised to read this: "The town's zoning regulations permit only one
single-family home per acre..."

One house per acre is normal for the UK. Have you never
lived in St George's Hill?