"Yokel" wrote in message
...
"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
...
| On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 12:53:56 GMT, (Neil
| Williams) wrote:
|
|The only problem with them was that they were all right handed (for
obvious reasons) ...
|
|

The proportion of "lefty"s in the population is much higher than the
proportion of "disabled" people who have to be accommodated by law, so how
come we get no consideration? In fact we don't get any consideration
anywhere (except as below), so that must make us the last group you can
legally discriminate against or disregard. This may be related to the
fact
that, according to the Church, even God is right-handed (which must raise
the question of whether a spiritual being has hands), and I could quote
you
Bible verses and even hymn titles to back this.

Fortunately, most "lefty"s are more adaptable than most "righty"s - again
for obvious reasons - so we get by. But there are some severely left
handed
people who can do little with the right hand and they must struggle with
ticket barriers and the like. And at my workplace we did until a couple
of
years ago have a water heater over the sink with a tap fitted in such a
position that to use it with your left hand was to risk dislocating your
wrist.

I suppose the problem is that with these things there has to be a
convention
or chaos results and so the majority are favoured. It is similar to the
Pony Club, where if you want to join in the games on horseback you have to
do them right-handed because most of the games involve exchanging items
between riders passing each other. I remember seeing one team lose in the
Pony Club games at the National Horse Show because one of their team
members
was a "lefty" and was obviously struggling with the "exchanges".

Some do care - the Nationwide building society does (or did until
recently)
have two pens for customer use at each position, so you could fill out
your
form comfortably whichever hand you chose to use.
--
- Yokel -

"Yokel" posts via a spam-trap account which is not read.



I think, Yokel, that there are more colour-blind (colour vision impaired, or
colour-challenged) people around than southpaws (lefties, mollydookers). You
can get a job in railway operations as a left-hander but not if you're
standard red-green "colour-blind". Haven't found a way around it, yet. I
understand the incidence of colour vision impairment is around 25% of males
and a low % of females, maybe 13% of the total population. Likewise, it's
amazing how many maps are hard to read for this 13%, how many documents use
nice red script over a beautiful verdant green tree background - even our
local RAC has managed that one.

DW downunder

DW downunder wrote:

You can get a job in railway operations as a
left-hander but not if you're standard red-green "colour-blind".

That would explain why there are so many red-green colour blind people
driving buses.

--
We are the Strasbourg. Referendum is futile.

"DW downunder" noname wrote in message
u...
|
....
|I understand the incidence of colour vision impairment is around 25% of
males
|and a low % of females, maybe 13% of the total population. Likewise, it's
|amazing how many maps are hard to read for this 13%, how many documents use
|nice red script over a beautiful verdant green tree background - even our
|local RAC has managed that one.
|

Is it as high as that? That means you would expect two or three people in
each cricket team to be affected, but in all the time I have been at Cadnam
(over 30 years) only one person told me that they had a problem. Trying to
pick a red cricket ball off a green pitch when both appear to be the same
colour (as I understand it, very few people see in black and white, most
colour-blind people see fewer different colours than the rest of us) must be
a challenge. I have enough trouble and my colour vision is good (it was
tested when I joined the railway). Perhaps many people either learn how to
deal with it (a normal red ball is a significantly darker shade than the
pitch, unless the grass has been left very lush) or they take up sports
other than cricket.

But if your figures are correct, then about the same proportion of the
population are affected by each "problem". I have seen somewhere that
left-handedness is also more prevalent in males although nowhere near to the
extent as colour blindness, which is carried on the "X" chromosome so women
have got two chances of having the genes for correct colour vision whilst us
men only have one.

BTW there is DDA guidance on what colour combinations should be used. I can
remember this from my time as a announcer at Southampton Central, where we
has rules as to what colour combinations we should and should not use on
display screens. Red on green is definitely a no-no and even people with
normal colour vision may struggle with this as the clash of bright colours
confuses the eye.

Unfortunately, because of the amount of information you need to get on a
map, and so the need to colour code some of it, it is much harder to avoid
problems there. But different companies use different colour schemes so
shopping around might find one which works for you.
--
- Yokel -

"Yokel" posts via a spam-trap account which is not read.

In message , DW
downunder writes

I understand the incidence of colour vision impairment is around 25% of
males and a low % of females, maybe 13% of the total population.

Do you have a citation for that? The figures quoted for all types of
colour blindness in most studies are 8% male and only 0.5% female - see
the Wiki article, which cites various studies to that effect.
--
Paul Terry

On Feb 2, 8:46*am, "DW downunder" noname wrote:
"Yokel" wrote in message

...





"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
.. .
| On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 12:53:56 GMT, (Neil
| Williams) wrote:
|
|The only problem with them was that they were all right handed (for
obvious reasons) ...
|
|

The proportion of "lefty"s in the population is much higher than the
proportion of "disabled" people who have to be accommodated by law, so how
come we get no consideration? *In fact we don't get any consideration
anywhere (except as below), so that must make us the last group you can
legally discriminate against or disregard. *This may be related to the
fact
that, according to the Church, even God is right-handed (which must raise
the question of whether a spiritual being has hands), and I could quote
you
Bible verses and even hymn titles to back this.

Fortunately, most "lefty"s are more adaptable than most "righty"s - again
for obvious reasons - so we get by. *But there are some severely left
handed
people who can do little with the right hand and they must struggle with
ticket barriers and the like. *And at my workplace we did until a couple
of
years ago have a water heater over the sink with a tap fitted in such a
position that to use it with your left hand was to risk dislocating your
wrist.

I suppose the problem is that with these things there has to be a
convention
or chaos results and so the majority are favoured. *It is similar to the
Pony Club, where if you want to join in the games on horseback you have to
do them right-handed because most of the games involve exchanging items
between riders passing each other. *I remember seeing one team lose in the
Pony Club games at the National Horse Show because one of their team
members
was a "lefty" and was obviously struggling with the "exchanges".

Some do care - the Nationwide building society does (or did until
recently)
have two pens for customer use at each position, so you could fill out
your
form comfortably whichever hand you chose to use.
--
* * * * * * * *- Yokel -

"Yokel" posts via a spam-trap account which is not read.

I think, Yokel, that there are more colour-blind (colour vision impaired, or
colour-challenged) people around than southpaws (lefties, mollydookers). You
can get a job in railway operations as a left-hander but not if you're
standard red-green "colour-blind". Haven't found a way around it, yet. I
understand the incidence of colour vision impairment is around 25% of males
and a low % of females, maybe 13% of the total population. Likewise, it's
amazing how many maps are hard to read for this 13%, how many documents use
nice red script over a beautiful verdant green tree background - even our
local RAC has managed that one.


As others have pointed out, 25% is about five times too high. The NHS
website quotes a number of about 1 in 20 male and 1 in 200 female.

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Colour-...iciency/Pages/
Introduction.aspx

The percentage of left handed people is harder to estimate, as
environment as a child pays a large role in which hand is used for
writing etc.

On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 18:56:26 -0000, "Yokel"
wrote:

"DW downunder" noname wrote in message
. au...
|
...
|I understand the incidence of colour vision impairment is around 25% of
males
|and a low % of females, maybe 13% of the total population. Likewise, it's
|amazing how many maps are hard to read for this 13%, how many documents use
|nice red script over a beautiful verdant green tree background - even our
|local RAC has managed that one.
|

Is it as high as that? That means you would expect two or three people in
each cricket team to be affected, but in all the time I have been at Cadnam
(over 30 years) only one person told me that they had a problem.

tested when I joined the railway). Perhaps many people either learn how to
deal with it

I once worked in a Brewery in the Town just over a couple of hills
from you. One chap I worked with arrived and promptly painted the
lovely oak paneling in his office bright yellow which we thought was
strange. Later in the week in he presented me with a 13 amp on a flex
without the top and asked "is this wired correctly?" He then
explained that he was colour blind and could not be sure of the
correct colours on the wires. It was a long time ago so it is possible
the flex had a green only wire.
Apart from that he seemed to cope quite well even though he was
actually a chemist and at some point in his career must have done
titrations etc.

G.Harman

On 01.02.10 14:17, Mizter T wrote:

On Feb 1, 12:29 pm, "Paul
wrote:

Mizter T wrote:
(Of course they could have chosen to retain them as an 'internal
gateline', akin to the situation at the Stratford Jubilee line
platforms, but they didn't - the Stratford arrangement is thus unique.
As is this new no-mans land arrangement at Southwark/ Waterloo East.)

The Stratford internal gateline has been out of use since before Christmas -
any news on it being fully removed?

Well, that just shows how out of touch I am!

Last time I was at Stratford station was way back in September - it
was a Jubilee line closure weekend, so the 'internal gateline' was out
of use, however I did see (and took a few bad photos of) some insane
arrangement cobbled together there whereby there were pink Oyster
route validators immediately next to a few of the gates, which
mindboggled me completely! Unfortunately I never got round to sharing
that here at the time (life got v busy) - I dare say it was noted and
discussed by others. I'll try and dig said fuzzy photos up.

I saw those validators as I passed through Highbury & Islington on the NLL.

Are there many of them around?

Not quite sure what their purpose is.

wrote in message
...
On 01.02.10 14:17, Mizter T wrote:

On Feb 1, 12:29 pm, "Paul
wrote:

Last time I was at Stratford station was way back in September - it
was a Jubilee line closure weekend, so the 'internal gateline' was out
of use, however I did see (and took a few bad photos of) some insane
arrangement cobbled together there whereby there were pink Oyster
route validators immediately next to a few of the gates, which
mindboggled me completely! Unfortunately I never got round to sharing
that here at the time (life got v busy) - I dare say it was noted and
discussed by others. I'll try and dig said fuzzy photos up.

I saw those validators as I passed through Highbury & Islington on the
NLL.

Are there many of them around?

Not quite sure what their purpose is.

Route validator. Use them when changing trains using Oyster PAYG. It proves
you didn't go via Zone 1, so you only get charged for the zones you actually
used. See page 9 on this:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa...nuary-2010.pdf

Peter

On Feb 3, 7:21*pm, "
wrote:

On 01.02.10 14:17, Mizter T wrote:
[snip mention of pink Oyster valdators]

I saw those validators as I passed through Highbury & Islington on the NLL.

Are there many of them around?

Not quite sure what their purpose is.

The pink ones are "Oyster route validators" - they basically enable
you to confirm that you have travelled one way - the cheaper way,
avoiding zone 1 - as opposed to the more direct albeit more expensive
way via zone 1.

A couple of examples that include H&I...

Seven Sisters to West Brompton is normally assumed to be a journey
that goes via zone 1 journey (and is therefore charged as such), but
if you touch on a pink route validator at H&I then that tells the
system you're going via the NLL and WLL and are avoiding zone 1 (thus
you'll be charged the cheaper non-z1 fare, plus you'll also remain
eligible for the cheaper zones 2-6 daily cap, or, indeed, the zones
2&3 peak cap).

Cockfosters to Wembley Central is again normally assumed to be a via
zone 1 journey, but if you touch on a pink route validator at H&I then
you'll be charged the cheaper non-zone 1 fare (and again remain
eligible for the cheaper non-zone 1 daily cap).

Probably could have come up with better examples, but you get the
drift!

The route validator concept is explained under the heading "Oyster
route validators" on this webpage:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tickets/oysteronline/12421.aspx

If you put a journey into the TfL Fare Finder that has two fares, a
'via zone 1' fare and a cheaper fare that avoids zone 1, then the
basic results will show a button that says "Alternative fares" - click
on that and you'll see both the fare for the more direct/
straightforward via z1 route, and also the cheaper non-z1 route. It'll
also tell you where you need to touch your Oyster card on a pink
reader in order to qualify for that cheaper fare (e.g. Highbury &
Islington).

The TfL Fare Finder is he
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/tickets/fa...inder/current/

On Feb 3, 5:56*am, "Yokel" wrote:
"DW downunder" noname wrote in message

u...
|
...
|I understand the incidence of colour vision impairment is around 25% of
males
|and a low % of females, maybe 13% of the total population. Likewise, it's
|amazing how many maps are hard to read for this 13%, how many documents use
|nice red script over a beautiful verdant green tree background - even our
|local RAC has managed that one.
|

Is it as high as that? *That means you would expect two or three people in
each cricket team to be affected, but in all the time I have been at Cadnam
(over 30 years) only one person told me that they had a problem. *Trying to
pick a red cricket ball off a green pitch when both appear to be the same
colour (as I understand it, very few people see in black and white, most
colour-blind people see fewer different colours than the rest of us) must be
a challenge. *I have enough trouble and my colour vision is good (it was
tested when I joined the railway). *Perhaps many people either learn how to
deal with it (a normal red ball is a significantly darker shade than the
pitch, unless the grass has been left very lush) or they take up sports
other than cricket.

I'm red-green colour blind, and played cricket without any issues for
40 years. Seeing the red ball *moving* is easy. What was a challenge
sometimes was at practice, when fetching a ball hit into the outfield.
Once it stopped, if I took my eyes off it for any reason (often a call
from somebody else to field their ball) then I had difficulty finding
the ball.

I cannot readily see red flowers against green leaves (the poppies in
Belgium being a prime example, or the typical Australian flowering
gum) without stopping, perhaps having them pointed out to me, at which
stage, knowing what they look to my eye, I can see them easily enough
afterwards. Until next time...

Can't get a job involving safe-working on any railway - not even a
tourist (preserved) line.

John