| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/22/2011 10:55:23 AM · #1 |
Originally posted by MarioPierre:
There is risk in everything we do, as soon as you get into a car you're taking a risk............ |
Mario, given that you still don't get it (mind you the op already got it)and in accordance with Darwin's theories I would support and actually encourage your right (Darwin's hard core believers may say your obligation) to take life-threatening risks any time you wish, in fact, it may be more effective if you did it several times a day. |
|
|
|
12/22/2011 10:11:35 AM · #2 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by robs:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
There are reasons why permits are issued... to ensure that incompetent people do not undertake activities they are not qualified to do in the first place. |
Mostly for revenue purposes.... I have had a lot of work done by various contractors... a lot of which required a "permit" to be pulled. Clearly there is no competence check. |
No competence checks in the realm of construction... really now. Where exactly is it that you live... I will strive to avoid standing next to any structures if that is the case.
The issuance of the permit ensures that the work performed is inspected and meets prescribed norms.
Ray |
Not always. ;D I had a new hot water heater installed over the summer. It took about a month of various people coming out, then they finally came and did it. (They whole thing was about the way the one already in there was vented). About a month later I got a call from the township to come pick up the permit. I called them and they were like, "don't tell them it's already done, we'll pick it up". About a month after that they dropped it off to me. It was never inspected. |
That's illegal and unethical. It's the permitting process, including the inspections that insure the work meets standards.
When I built my own garage, I pulled the permits and most of the work myself. I had inspectors come out 4 times twice for the structural work and twice for the electrical work. |
Heh. My husband checked out the electrical work and made them send a different electrician to fix something (don't remember what it was). |
The building inspector came out once before the foundation was in and again to inspect the completed structure. The electrical inspector came out to inspect the installation of the service from the main house to the garage and again to inspect the wiring from the garage panel to the lights, outlets and door opener. I remember the electrical inspector telling me that he wished ALL the electricians did their work the way I did. |
|
|
|
12/22/2011 09:31:43 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by robs:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
There are reasons why permits are issued... to ensure that incompetent people do not undertake activities they are not qualified to do in the first place. |
Mostly for revenue purposes.... I have had a lot of work done by various contractors... a lot of which required a "permit" to be pulled. Clearly there is no competence check. |
No competence checks in the realm of construction... really now. Where exactly is it that you live... I will strive to avoid standing next to any structures if that is the case.
The issuance of the permit ensures that the work performed is inspected and meets prescribed norms.
Ray |
Not always. ;D I had a new hot water heater installed over the summer. It took about a month of various people coming out, then they finally came and did it. (They whole thing was about the way the one already in there was vented). About a month later I got a call from the township to come pick up the permit. I called them and they were like, "don't tell them it's already done, we'll pick it up". About a month after that they dropped it off to me. It was never inspected. |
That's illegal and unethical. It's the permitting process, including the inspections that insure the work meets standards.
When I built my own garage, I pulled the permits and most of the work myself. I had inspectors come out 4 times twice for the structural work and twice for the electrical work. |
Heh. My husband checked out the electrical work and made them send a different electrician to fix something (don't remember what it was). |
|
|
|
12/22/2011 09:26:50 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by robs:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
There are reasons why permits are issued... to ensure that incompetent people do not undertake activities they are not qualified to do in the first place. |
Mostly for revenue purposes.... I have had a lot of work done by various contractors... a lot of which required a "permit" to be pulled. Clearly there is no competence check. |
No competence checks in the realm of construction... really now. Where exactly is it that you live... I will strive to avoid standing next to any structures if that is the case.
The issuance of the permit ensures that the work performed is inspected and meets prescribed norms.
Ray |
Not always. ;D I had a new hot water heater installed over the summer. It took about a month of various people coming out, then they finally came and did it. (They whole thing was about the way the one already in there was vented). About a month later I got a call from the township to come pick up the permit. I called them and they were like, "don't tell them it's already done, we'll pick it up". About a month after that they dropped it off to me. It was never inspected. |
That's illegal and unethical. It's the permitting process, including the inspections that insure the work meets standards.
When I built my own garage, I pulled the permits and most of the work myself. I had inspectors come out 4 times twice for the structural work and twice for the electrical work. |
|
|
|
12/22/2011 08:20:02 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by robs:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
There are reasons why permits are issued... to ensure that incompetent people do not undertake activities they are not qualified to do in the first place. |
Mostly for revenue purposes.... I have had a lot of work done by various contractors... a lot of which required a "permit" to be pulled. Clearly there is no competence check. |
No competence checks in the realm of construction... really now. Where exactly is it that you live... I will strive to avoid standing next to any structures if that is the case.
The issuance of the permit ensures that the work performed is inspected and meets prescribed norms.
Ray |
Not always. ;D I had a new hot water heater installed over the summer. It took about a month of various people coming out, then they finally came and did it. (They whole thing was about the way the one already in there was vented). About a month later I got a call from the township to come pick up the permit. I called them and they were like, "don't tell them it's already done, we'll pick it up". About a month after that they dropped it off to me. It was never inspected. |
|
|
|
12/22/2011 05:26:18 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by robs:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
There are reasons why permits are issued... to ensure that incompetent people do not undertake activities they are not qualified to do in the first place. |
Mostly for revenue purposes.... I have had a lot of work done by various contractors... a lot of which required a "permit" to be pulled. Clearly there is no competence check. |
No competence checks in the realm of construction... really now. Where exactly is it that you live... I will strive to avoid standing next to any structures if that is the case.
The issuance of the permit ensures that the work performed is inspected and meets prescribed norms.
Ray
Message edited by author 2011-12-22 05:27:18. |
|
|
|
12/21/2011 10:35:29 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by MarioPierre:
lol... wow!
Life's all about taking risks. Is this how tame society has gotten? Trust me, most Americans have way more chances of dying from coronary heart disease from all the fast food consumption than dying while taking a picture where this guy was standing. And if I'm going to be taking chances with my life I'd rather do what this guy.
To the person who took the shot I say cheers to you, it's a nice shot, well worth the 'risk'. |
Ultimately, aside from his loved ones no one really cares if the personal outcome of his risk is getting himself dead, I'm sure the guy who has to scrape him off the ground with a stick and spoon won't be too happy though.
If he wants to take risks, there are lots of ways to do that without endangering others. |
You forgot one utensil in your post...all you have to do is look at you name...  Spork99
|
|
|
|
12/21/2011 09:55:06 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by MarioPierre:
lol... wow!
Life's all about taking risks. Is this how tame society has gotten? Trust me, most Americans have way more chances of dying from coronary heart disease from all the fast food consumption than dying while taking a picture where this guy was standing. And if I'm going to be taking chances with my life I'd rather do what this guy.
To the person who took the shot I say cheers to you, it's a nice shot, well worth the 'risk'. |
Ultimately, aside from his loved ones no one really cares if the personal outcome of his risk is getting himself dead, I'm sure the guy who has to scrape him off the ground with a stick and spoon won't be too happy though.
If he wants to take risks, there are lots of ways to do that without endangering others. |
|
|
|
12/21/2011 08:50:55 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
There are reasons why permits are issued... to ensure that incompetent people do not undertake activities they are not qualified to do in the first place. |
Mostly for revenue purposes.... I have had a lot of work done by various contractors... a lot of which required a "permit" to be pulled. Clearly there is no competence check. |
|
|
|
12/21/2011 08:39:59 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by MarioPierre:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
If people want to sit on their couches and stuff their faces with fat foods till they drop like flies, the collateral damage is greatly minimized, and therein lies the difference.
Ray |
There is risk in everything we do, as soon as you get into a car you're taking a risk. I've lost friends in a car accident because the driver in the other land fell asleep at the wheel; does that mean we should make driving at night illegal? I mean, there are already way too many laws, soon we'll need a permit to fix our houses.. oh wait. Soon we'll need a permit to smoke weed.. oh wait. I mean, soon we'll need a permit to shoot pictures.. oh wait! |
There are reasons why permits are issued... to ensure that incompetent people do not undertake activities they are not qualified to do in the first place.
Would you have an unqualified person install your gas stove or furnace... of course not because the repercussions could be devastating. One does NOT need a permit to smoke weed, lots of people do that illegally, and I personally have no problems with a society that will grant licences to people who need it for medicinal purposes. The permit you allude to in this instance is no more of a restriction than you being required to have a driver's licence to drive a vehicle on the road.
With regards to needing a permit to shoot pictures... well I have not heard of that one being a requirement anywhere in Canada.
Originally posted by MarioPierre:
I was turned around at the US border because I had my camera with me. I inquired about shooting their country from my side of the border and of course; I need a permit for that too. It's beyond ridiculous... soon we'll need permits to breathe. |
I cross the border to the USA on a weekly basis and have traveled extensively to a myriad of countries and have never encountered a situation like that which you describe here, and yes I do have some of my camera gear with me whenever I travel. Are there any additional elements to your story that you did not mention?
Ray |
|
|
|
12/21/2011 08:27:59 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
If people want to sit on their couches and stuff their faces with fat foods till they drop like flies, the collateral damage is greatly minimized, and therein lies the difference.
Ray |
There is risk in everything we do, as soon as you get into a car you're taking a risk. I've lost friends in a car accident because the driver in the other land fell asleep at the wheel; does that mean we should make driving at night illegal? I mean, there are already way too many laws, soon we'll need a permit to fix our houses.. oh wait. Soon we'll need a permit to smoke weed.. oh wait. I mean, soon we'll need a permit to shoot pictures.. oh wait!
I was turned around at the US border because I had my camera with me. I inquired about shooting their country from my side of the border and of course; I need a permit for that too. It's beyond ridiculous... soon we'll need permits to breathe. |
|
|
|
12/21/2011 08:02:22 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by MarioPierre:
lol... wow!
Life's all about taking risks. Is this how tame society has gotten? Trust me, most Americans have way more chances of dying from coronary heart disease from all the fast food consumption than dying while taking a picture where this guy was standing. And if I'm going to be taking chances with my life I'd rather do what this guy.
To the person who took the shot I say cheers to you, it's a nice shot, well worth the 'risk'. |
... and I do believe that no one has a problem with anyone taking a risk, if that risk and the ensuing result affects only the person who takes it.
Over the years I have been called upon on numerous occasions to risk my own life, that of my crew to save some moron who thought that a daredevil activity might be fun. When the fun ceased and reality and the fear of dying came crashing down on them, then others had to save them.
Go ahead, have fun and risk everything... but do NOT look for compassion from me if things go wrong.
If people want to sit on their couches and stuff their faces with fat foods till they drop like flies, the collateral damage is greatly minimized, and therein lies the difference.
Ray |
|
|
|
12/21/2011 07:56:46 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by MarioPierre:
lol... wow!
Life's all about taking risks. Is this how tame society has gotten? Trust me, most Americans have way more chances of dying from coronary heart disease from all the fast food consumption than dying while taking a picture where this guy was standing. And if I'm going to be taking chances with my life I'd rather do what this guy.
To the person who took the shot I say cheers to you, it's a nice shot, well worth the 'risk'. |
I don't think anyone has objected to the photographer risking himself -- only to the described actions increasing the risk to uninvolved others ... |
|
|
|
12/21/2011 06:36:12 PM · #14 |
lol... wow!
Life's all about taking risks. Is this how tame society has gotten? Trust me, most Americans have way more chances of dying from coronary heart disease from all the fast food consumption than dying while taking a picture where this guy was standing. And if I'm going to be taking chances with my life I'd rather do what this guy.
To the person who took the shot I say cheers to you, it's a nice shot, well worth the 'risk'. |
|
|
|
12/21/2011 05:26:40 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by crowis:
Please let me add this as a mitigating factor. The bridge in question is not a limited access roadway. |
...and at 40mph, the cars would be traveling at a rate of what, 58/59ft/sec or so. Assuming one is in good physical condition, alert and with a quick response time, it normally takes a person something like 3/4 of a second to react during which time the car would have traveled almost 20feet.
That, road conditions and other factors could give rise to a very interesting situation.
Perhaps that might be one of the factors that those in authority considered in rendering their decision.
Just a thought,
Ray |
|
|
|
12/20/2011 09:46:42 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by crowis:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by MarioPierre:
How often to drivers hit the railway in the middle of the bridge? Ok.. perhaps quite often, I'll admit but that's the point, sitting there doesn't make anything worst. |
The idea behind limited access highways is to limit the distractions/obstacles for the driver to allow safe driving at a higher rate of speed.
The question really should be: "How often do drivers crash when distracted by someone's antics in the median or elsewhere?" |
Please let me add this as a mitigating factor. The bridge in question is not a limited access roadway. It is a 30 to 40mph city street (depending on which side you are on) brige crossing the Columbia River--city street speeds. The other bridge in town that serves this function IS a limited access bridge (no pedestrians etc.) that is a 55 mph continuation of the 395 highway. I know it may look like some impressive uber highway thing, but it is not--whil architecturally beautiful the cable bridge in essence is just a city street. |
I know that bridge (I'm from Pasco), and there is no way that I'd consider standing where you were safe at all. City speeds or not.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2011 06:40:04 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by MarioPierre:
...I guess we should ban sexy girls from walking down the street because I usually get very distracted by 'em.. XD |
Do let me know if you ever decide to come to Ottawa in the summer months so I can make sure I stay hidden behind some concrete barriers.
Ya see, in Ottawa, the ladies can roam about topless and it's legal.
I harbour great fears as to just how distracted you might be in such circumstances. :O)
Ray |
HAha, I already knew that for some reason and I visited in 06 but unfortunately, didn't see any topless hotties. :(
Maybe I would have died in a horrible car crash if I would have so perhaps it's for the best! lol. |
|
|
|
12/20/2011 06:22:07 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by MarioPierre:
...I guess we should ban sexy girls from walking down the street because I usually get very distracted by 'em.. XD |
Do let me know if you ever decide to come to Ottawa in the summer months so I can make sure I stay hidden behind some concrete barriers.
Ya see, in Ottawa, the ladies can roam about topless and it's legal.
I harbour great fears as to just how distracted you might be in such circumstances. :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
12/20/2011 06:17:39 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by JH:
Originally posted by MarioPierre:
How often to drivers hit the railway in the middle of the bridge? Ok.. perhaps quite often, I'll admit but that's the point, sitting there doesn't make anything worst. |
But it does make it worse for drivers. If you're driving along a motorway it's easy to start staring at something unusual (like someone sitting in the median) and get distracted.
If your eyes are looking out your driver window for even 5 seconds, that's a lot of ground covered at 80mph. It's that type of 'drive into the back of a traffic jam' accident that happens a lot.
And on the other carriageway the guys looking at the crash on your side end up crashing into each other as well.
But at least he got his shot. Just has to hope a 'motorway pile-up' speed challenge has started.
ETA: And if there was someone standing with a tripod and camera near a motorway, the first thing I'd think is 'speed camera' and slow down. Hoping the guy tailgating me slows down as well. |
I guess we should ban sexy girls from walking down the street because I usually get very distracted by 'em.. XD |
|
|
|
12/20/2011 11:33:37 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by crowis:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by MarioPierre:
How often to drivers hit the railway in the middle of the bridge? Ok.. perhaps quite often, I'll admit but that's the point, sitting there doesn't make anything worst. |
The idea behind limited access highways is to limit the distractions/obstacles for the driver to allow safe driving at a higher rate of speed.
The question really should be: "How often do drivers crash when distracted by someone's antics in the median or elsewhere?" |
Please let me add this as a mitigating factor. The bridge in question is not a limited access roadway. It is a 30 to 40mph city street (depending on which side you are on) brige crossing the Columbia River--city street speeds. The other bridge in town that serves this function IS a limited access bridge (no pedestrians etc.) that is a 55 mph continuation of the 395 highway. I know it may look like some impressive uber highway thing, but it is not--whil architecturally beautiful the cable bridge in essence is just a city street. |
My second statement still applies.
Message edited by author 2011-12-20 11:34:09. |
|
|
|
12/20/2011 11:15:34 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by MarioPierre:
How often to drivers hit the railway in the middle of the bridge? Ok.. perhaps quite often, I'll admit but that's the point, sitting there doesn't make anything worst. |
The idea behind limited access highways is to limit the distractions/obstacles for the driver to allow safe driving at a higher rate of speed.
The question really should be: "How often do drivers crash when distracted by someone's antics in the median or elsewhere?" |
Please let me add this as a mitigating factor. The bridge in question is not a limited access roadway. It is a 30 to 40mph city street (depending on which side you are on) brige crossing the Columbia River--city street speeds. The other bridge in town that serves this function IS a limited access bridge (no pedestrians etc.) that is a 55 mph continuation of the 395 highway. I know it may look like some impressive uber highway thing, but it is not--whil architecturally beautiful the cable bridge in essence is just a city street. |
|
|
|
12/20/2011 10:04:34 AM · #22 |
| Actually, on motorways here there's a sign on the slip-roads which says "motorway ahead, no pedestrians, horses, cyclists, learner drivers, vehicles under 50cc" |
|
|
|
12/20/2011 09:29:17 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by MarioPierre:
How often to drivers hit the railway in the middle of the bridge? Ok.. perhaps quite often, I'll admit but that's the point, sitting there doesn't make anything worst. |
The idea behind limited access highways is to limit the distractions/obstacles for the driver to allow safe driving at a higher rate of speed.
The question really should be: "How often do drivers crash when distracted by someone's antics in the median or elsewhere?" |
|
|
|
12/20/2011 09:10:16 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by MarioPierre:
How often to drivers hit the railway in the middle of the bridge? Ok.. perhaps quite often, I'll admit but that's the point, sitting there doesn't make anything worst. |
But it does make it worse for drivers. If you're driving along a motorway it's easy to start staring at something unusual (like someone sitting in the median) and get distracted.
If your eyes are looking out your driver window for even 5 seconds, that's a lot of ground covered at 80mph. It's that type of 'drive into the back of a traffic jam' accident that happens a lot.
And on the other carriageway the guys looking at the crash on your side end up crashing into each other as well.
But at least he got his shot. Just has to hope a 'motorway pile-up' speed challenge has started.
ETA: And if there was someone standing with a tripod and camera near a motorway, the first thing I'd think is 'speed camera' and slow down. Hoping the guy tailgating me slows down as well.
Message edited by author 2011-12-20 09:20:01. |
|
|
|
12/20/2011 09:03:11 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by crowis:
... I was nice to the officer, did not give him any "grief" over the incident and left. I just found it funny that setting up a camera in a median (a pretty wide one where I was standing) was considered so hazardous that the police felt they had to put a stop to it. |
This is what I'm finding the most interesting in this, thread ... the number of "incidents" where the police/security officer makes a reasonable and polite inquiry, and the situation is quickly and amicably resolved -- quite a refreshing change from the usual stories ... |
I had this recently when taking this shot:
When trying to take a similar image from within the bollards a security guard came up to me and informed me it was prohibited to take photos with a tripod here. I said okay and started collapsing my tripod and as I's doing this enquired "so this is private property then?". His reply was that anywhere within the bollards is, but I was welcome to take pictures from the other side of the bollards... but then also said if I come back later when there are less people about they probably won't mind me using a tripod from within the bollards. It's nice to have conduct like that from a security guard. |
|
