Not a victim but a criminal hell bent on wiping out people in Newbury and willing to take any risks to get through the bollards.
That's a bit harsh. They're just poor innocent folk from out of town, trying their best to help the hard pressed traders of Newbury who are seeing their futures screwed by WBC, by shopping in town. In every other town they can drive through pedestrian zones, ignore road signs and park outside their shop of choice. It's only Newbury that has such draconian measures when it comes to cars/parking/pedestrian zones.
That's a bit harsh. They're just poor innocent folk from out of town, trying their best to help the hard pressed traders of Newbury who are seeing their futures screwed by WBC, by shopping in town. In every other town they can drive through pedestrian zones, ignore road signs and park outside their shop of choice. It's only Newbury that has such draconian measures when it comes to cars/parking/pedestrian zones.
Actually, that would be interesting if WBC published a list of addresses where the nasty evil people lived. Not a street address after all we don't want to encourage lynchings by the WBC employees that frequent this website and the other one, but just towns and villages and so on. Perhaps also get them to sit an IQ test. From that we can determine whether they are indeed lemmings that knew about the bollards or whether they are folk of average intelligence that missed the signs. Now that would at least settle the debate for most of us. Obviously the WBC staff would still want to lynch them.
The "nasty evil people" are those in the council who think that such a draconian action is required for such a minor infringement of the rules/law.
I'm all for enforcing the pedestrian area, if thats what is required, but would rather have a camera and fine, and maybe points (if that is permissable under law?) system that will discourage people from breaking the rules without breaking their cars, I wonder how many of these people (local or not) who have vowed never to return to the town because of these bollards.
Surely its better to have a £60-£100 fine rather than have to spend 100's or 1000's to repair/replace your car?
It is also a gross example of double standards, because its a govenrment body it can get away with these draconian tactics, if you tried to emply similar logic to your home security you'd be in court in a flash.
Niceguyeddie sounds anything but nice, and if these people were "hell bent on wiping out people in Newbury" they could do that without entering the pedestrian zone. There are 4 crossing points between Barclays Bank and Bart St, yet lots of people still seem to want to try and cross the road either when the crossing is against them, or at any other point along that stretch of road, its seems some days that these people are determined to get run over.
Presumably another blind driver following a bus? Soon be sorted once they ban buses and taxis entirely from being able to lower the bollards during the day
Yes it is, and let us all thank the council that they have smashed the shit out of any driver's vehicle that should chose to do so.
Who had their foot on the pedal? The Council?? <edited by rabid council employee blindly supporting any initiative implemented by the council.... Long Live Local Government!>
Missing seven warning signs is hardly a minor infringement.
It's driving without due care and attention at the very least.
And that gives the council the right to invoke IRA type tactics, does it?
Go on, say "they did'nt blow it up!" They may as well have done, as a great majority of vehicles caught by these bollards are probably write-offs!
The driver may well have missed the signage, but committing a "due care and attention" offence, but how that gives the council the right to potentially destroy his vehicle, is beyond me!
Harsh penalty, for a somewhat minor offence.
Those who gloat at someone else's misfortune, are no better than the offender!
It obviously is not the best solution to restricting traffic from the pedestrianised zones, when so many have been "speared" by the bollards, and I don't think that many were just chancers!
And that gives the council the right to invoke IRA type tactics, does it?
I spot a 'rabid post'.... Are you a WBC employee in disguise?
Anyway, I wouldn't say getting driver's to ram their cars into metal posts was one of the more recognised tactics employed by the irish boys in balaclavas... although perhaps their modus operandi has changed in recent years? And I'd say the comparison is just ever so slightly over the top and distasteful given the recent bombing.
The driver may well have missed the signage, but committing a "due care and attention" offence, but how that gives the council the right to potentially destroy his vehicle, is beyond me!
The Council didn't destroy it. The driver committed the offence of driving without due care and attention, Self evident by his / her ignoring / missing seven warning signs about the bollards and several about the Pedestrianised area. The dirvers own in-attention and lack of care caused them to drive into a set of bollards put there to stop them.
Just to take it to it's logical conclusion, if the driver hit a small child that was standing in the road, would it be the parents fault for putting the kid there, the kids fault for believing it was a pedestrianised zone, or the drivers fault for driving without due care and attention? We can prove that the driver was not using due care and attention can't we?
Not sure when it happened, but sometime over the last twenty years, many people have begun to think they are the centre of the universe, that the world revolves around them. They have become so far 'up themselves' that they cannot in any way shape or form be responsible for anything that happens to them and are often prepared to sue just about anyone to prove that whatever has happened MUST be someone elses fault, - and certainly not as a result of their own clumsiness, stupidity, inattention or carelessness.
It's about time some people started taking responsibility for their own actions. If you drive around either ignoring or choosing not to see warning signs, driving through pedestrianised zones, or failing to stop when you're confused, then maybe, just maybe, you should have the car taken off you. It's a dangerous weapon after all, and the rest of us could well be safer if you didn't have it.
Just to take it to it's logical conclusion, if the driver hit a small child that was standing in the road, would it be the parents fault for putting the kid there, the kids fault for believing it was a pedestrianised zone, or the drivers fault for driving without due care and attention? We can prove that the driver was not using due care and attention can't we?
One has to ask: how dangerous is a car that is following a bus through the 'mixed usage' zone?
One has to ask: how dangerous is a car that is following a bus through the 'mixed usage' zone?
Obviously Very dangerous indeed according to the council as it needs to disable the car instantly by writing it off? Or at least causing hundreds of pounds worth of damage. It must be very serious for the council to miss the chance of collecting a nice tidy sum of a fine for the coffers surely?
It must be very serious for the council to miss the chance of collecting a nice tidy sum of a fine for the coffers surely?
Collect a fine for what? Driving through the area (assuming the bollards weren't there)? Only the police are able to prosecute drivers for contravening the 'No Motor Vehicles' sign. And it would have to be a 'proper copper' who prosecuted, not one of those PCSOs either as even they don't have the powers.... If it was ever enforced (it never is and never was when Newbury was bollard-less) any money from fines would go to Central Govt.
And that gives the council the right to invoke IRA type tactics, does it?
Go on, say "they did'nt blow it up!" They may as well have done, as a great majority of vehicles caught by these bollards are probably write-offs!
The driver may well have missed the signage, but committing a "due care and attention" offence, but how that gives the council the right to potentially destroy his vehicle, is beyond me!
Harsh penalty, for a somewhat minor offence.
Those who gloat at someone else's misfortune, are no better than the offender!
It obviously is not the best solution to restricting traffic from the pedestrianised zones, when so many have been "speared" by the bollards, and I don't think that many were just chancers!
My word, we've had the council compared to the Gestapo and now the IRA in recent weeks. Both comparisons are pretty sick in my view and done tastelessly by people who have probably never experienced the horror caused by the actions of either group.
Truth is ignoring seven warning signs and driving one's vehicle into rising bollards is it's more like Dangerous Driving which is no minor offence and is punishable by a maximum of two years in prison. The Police should be handing out this sort of penalty to the reckless motorists involved.
Truth ignoring seven warning signs and driving one's vehicle into rising bollards is it's more like Dangerous Driving which is no minor offence and is punishable by a maximum of two years in prison. The Police should be handing out this sort of penalty to the reckless motorists involved.
If it is classified as dangerous driving, then they should be prosecuted. I suspect though, that it is not considered dangerous driving.
Taxi, bus, whatever. They will follow anything with their myopic vision that can only see about 6 inches of road surface in front of their bonnet. To their left, to their right, behind them, above them, diagonally off to the side, it's all invisible and a total mystery to them. Road signs giving orders definitely are.
Yesterday I witnessed one driver sail past the huge red NO ENTRY road sign from the wharf towards Parkway. Immediately followed by second, even more sheeplike driver close behind. The first driver did stop and put their car into reverse. The second driver then had a puzzled look until they'd backed up enough so I could point out the no entry sign to them.
What's worse is this sign wasn't in the slightest bit confusing. It is a standard, huge, f-off no entry sign with no ambiguity over whether it applies to pubic service vehicles or buses or taxis, or access only or bikes or whether your watch is running one minute fast or you're a visitor from out of town so exempt from local road laws etc. Seriously if you cannot observe basic road signs (and a no entry sign must be one of the most basic) then you really have no rights to be using the road and your vehicle should be confiscated and crushed and you certainly deserve an accident if you ignore road signs and then drive into or onto bollards.
If that were true, why do we still get collisions? Anyway, once these enemies of the state and the free world are destroyed, who's next?
It's not true though (obviously). We don't have the anywhere near tough enough punishments which would encourage motorists to improve their observation & driving skills.
It's not true though (obviously). We don't have the anywhere near tough enough punishments which would encourage motorists to improve their observation & driving skills.
Well WBC employ a 'stop with extreme malice' method, yet people still try it on, or miss the signs; or if they do see the signs, don't know what to do when realisation dawns.
The thing I don't get is why the council are not able to recover all costs when someone collides with the bollards.
*jumping up and down with hand in the air* ....oo...ooo.....please sir......me sir......Can it be caravans? Threep
I baggsie cars with loud exhausts and tear away making wheels spin late at night. Bring the hammer down I say! Then I'd go after BMW and Audi drivers. Eventually we'll only have people on the road that are as kind and considerate as me, and the world will be a much better place.
The thing I don't get is why the council are not able to recover all costs when someone collides with the bollards.
It was explained to me by a chappie from the WBC legal department (so make of this what you will) getting the insurance company to pay up is not without the usual hassels, (if the council have all the details and if the car is insured) but in the end the company stumps up. However, most policies have an 'excess' clause where the car owner / driver has to pay an excess amount. This may have to be recovered from them themselves and therein lies the problem.
It was explained to me by a chappie from the WBC legal department (so make of this what you will) getting the insurance company to pay up is not without the usual hassels, (if the counil have all the details and if the car is insured) but in the end the company stumps up. However, most policies have an 'excess' clause where the car owner / driver has to pay an excess amount. This may have to be recovered from them themselves and therein lies the problem.
Threep.
I see, so it would cost more to retrieve the £200.00-400.00, or whatever, than to just let is rest.
My word, we've had the council compared to the Gestapo and now the IRA in recent weeks. Both comparisons are pretty sick in my view and done tastelessly by people who have probably never experienced the horror caused by the actions of either group.
Truth is ignoring seven warning signs and driving one's vehicle into rising bollards is it's more like Dangerous Driving which is no minor offence and is punishable by a maximum of two years in prison. The Police should be handing out this sort of penalty to the reckless motorists involved.
Someone called me a Nazi the other day
The majority of drivers who "make contact" with the bollards are not local.
Indeed! How can we expect people from out of town to either read or obey road signs that they are required to follow in every other part of the country?
Under new measures, motorists could be issued with fines of at least £80 and three points if they tail-gate, undertake or cut others up.
Well that pretty much describes 50% of motorists on the daily commuter trek on the motorways..... (and some of my naughtier driving techniques so I'm screwed)
Quoted Text
Mr Hammond said: “Where road users make low level mistakes or display poor skills we intend to divert them in to a greater range of educational courses to help develop safer skills and attitudes. We will extend this approach to careless driving through the introduction of a new fixed penalty notice as well as new remedial educational courses. We need to re-balance road safety enforcement away from a narrow focus on camera-enforced speed policing, to address the wider range of behaviours that create risk on the roads.
Aaah. It becomes clearer now. A strategy has been put in place to help protect the brothers in arms of the boys in blue who have so recently received their P45s. "You're no longer a proper copper.... but we've sorted out something to keep you busy if you want to be a 'Road Safety Educationalist' and with all the money pouring in from the £80 on the spots you'll still be able to come to the Christmas parties"
http://www.policeprofessional.com/news.aspx?id=12653 Aaah. It becomes clearer now. A strategy has been put in place to help protect the brothers in arms of the boys in blue who have so recently received their P45s. "You're no longer a proper copper.... but we've sorted out something to keep you busy if you want to be a 'Road Safety Educationalist' and with all the money pouring in from the £80 on the spots you'll still be able to come to the Christmas parties"
These courses are what makes it attractive to enforce - fines go to the Treasury, course fees go to the police force.
Logged
Male
