IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

26 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> More than 2,000 fined for crossing Park Way bridge
Andy Capp
post Jan 26 2012, 01:02 AM
Post #1


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



Cllr David Betts (Con, Purley on Thames) celebrates making money out of 'stupid' Newbury shoppers!

This is a bit more like it! Had the council installed cameras in place of bollards, they could have made a killing! All together now: "We're in the money, we're money!"

"At a rate of £60 per fine - reduced to £30 if it is paid within 14 days - the council stands to have received up to £136,440 from the fines issued since the bridge reopened to traffic in November, although the council said it was unable to disclose what the exact revenue collected from the fines was as the NWN went to press yesterday (Wednesday)."

On top of that, the council come out fighting!

The West Berkshire councillor responsible for highways, David Betts (Con, Purley on Thames) said the drivers had only themselves to blame. “Some people just drive about with their eyes shut,” he said. “It is a very high number of people getting caught, but there are many drivers who just do not read the signs and who ‘try it on’, thinking they will get away with it.” He denied that the camera was installed to catch people as a money spinner for the council: “The reasons for the changes in traffic flow on the bridge are very clear, it is part of the town centre traffic reorganisation scheme to get buses out of the pedestrian part of town, but if people are stupid enough to ignore the signs and we make money, that is a bonus.”


That's the spirit! laugh.gif




Cllr David Betts (Con, Purley on Thames) finally
has something to cheer about as he celebrates the
profits from a lucrative traffic order violations initiative.
"... if people are stupid enough to ignore the signs
and we make money, that is a bonus!"
He chortled.
tongue.gif

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article...articleID=19000
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Darren
post Jan 26 2012, 05:51 AM
Post #2


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,251
Joined: 15-May 09
Member No.: 61



QUOTE
“Some people just drive about with their eyes shut,”

Very very true.


and how many of those "Never saw the rising bollards, guv"?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GrumblingAgain
post Jan 26 2012, 08:44 AM
Post #3


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 151
Joined: 13-May 09
Member No.: 15



People never have a problem turning to their local newspaper when *they* have been caught out not driving according to the rules of the road, but they do seem to have failed to spot the same newspaper detailing the new rules over the bridge over the past few month, or describing all the changes to the area over the last few years - Parkway, the bridge, the bollards, Northbrook Street. I am sorry but I do not buy any Newbury/Thatcham motorist claiming that they had no idea cars were now banned from crossing the bridge, especially as the bridge had been closed for the best part of a year.

Besides, what part of "Except buses and taxis" on a road sign don't they get? No - they know what the rules are, they simply think they can get away with it, no one looking, it's just tiny distance, the traffic lights mean I won't meet anything coming the other way.....

Out of interest, what kind of warning do they want then if standard, approved, road signs aren't clear enough? Sixty foot high signs, lit up with 1000watt flood lights, a man in front waving a flag drawing attention to the signs, a leaflet drop to their car first, a text message to their phone as they approach, barriers, bollards!!!!!, a 24/7 policeman on duty? What is needed then before they actually start using their eyes and observing what is in front of them?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_xjay1337_*
post Jan 26 2012, 09:06 AM
Post #4





Guests






Yo, wagwarn wid de thread Andy, my bretherin from another motherin. tink dis is a likcle bit of a topic for discussion mwan.

Do you ever realise if you can "Bacon" in a Jamaican accent it sounds like something different all together? Plus if you hook your fingers into the both sides of your mouth and pull, so you're stretching your mouth, and try to say "Bucket" it also sounds completely different.

I think a sign at a "normal" height, perhaps 6ft, would be clearer, accompanied by another sign at eye level on the entrace to the bridge. I haven't seen these signs which are too high to see (probably because they are too high) so I can't comment, I'd have to look which I might do when I get some time (just for sh*ts and giggles)

Although at their calcs, every single person paid the full £60 fine...convenient eh?
Plus Barrie Singleton is wrong. Blue signs do not "usually give positive instructions". Typical "old person, no driving ability" because he can't understand the bloody highway code!!

QUOTE
Blue signs with white text and white borders are found on motorways, where all direction signing uses this colour scheme.

On non-motorway roads, the same colour scheme is occasionally used for signs bearing miscellaneous written information (such as advance warnings of weight restrictions). They are also used for direction signs for pedestrians and cyclists (which are always accompanied by a pedestrian or cycle symbol).


What is positive about that? It's certainly not giving you a pat on the head that's for sure. Nearly all of the lane restriction signs, and "no entry between blah am and blah pm" signs are blue. What a moron.

Besides David Betts is right, after all if you are stupid enough to not see road signs then that's your fault. Yes, I appreciate sometimes everyone makes a wrong turn or something and that's fine, and if you do then all you get is a £30 fine.
Something most people could afford in a heartbeat. Perhaps signage does need to be improved, as said I've not looked but you get the point.
Too many people drive with blinkers on, staring only straight ahead and incapable of adapting to new road layouts or unfamiliar areas because they simply aren't very good drivers. You can tell these people because when you look at them they are staring straight ahead, never check their mirrors.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post Jan 26 2012, 09:07 AM
Post #5


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Jan 26 2012, 01:02 AM) *
- the council stands to have received up to £136,440 from the fines


Or, in reality £68,220 plus a few £30s from those foolish enough not to pay up promptly.

I remember pointing the signs out to one driver queuing to cross the bridge, only to watch the driver ignore both me and the signs - I can't say that I am sorry to hear they were probably fined.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Jan 26 2012, 09:09 AM
Post #6


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



People being fined like this seems to be the norm these days and can only be expected from the 'Germanic' society we live in, however; what I think is wholly inappropriate is the language of Cllr David Betts (unsurprisingly a Tory). While these people might be 'stupid', for a councillor to gloat in such a way and use language about his constituents like he has is ugly. If I were head of the Newbury Tory party I would feel embarrassed over his comments.

I suppose he is entitled to feel over-the-moon at the moment as he is now able to make the money out of the motorist he has been so desperate to achieve (and hitherto failed to do).


BTW - Failing to see a sign is not proof of stupidity, but one of inattentiveness, however; driving over the bridge knowing you are not entitled to IS stupid.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_xjay1337_*
post Jan 26 2012, 09:55 AM
Post #7





Guests






Agreed Andy, failing to see something is not stupid. But driving and not being attentive to the road, local restrictions, etc, is stupid.

Shall we play some Cluedo? I'm bored.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sherlock
post Jan 26 2012, 10:09 AM
Post #8


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 359
Joined: 12-January 12
Member No.: 8,467



QUOTE (blackdog @ Jan 26 2012, 09:07 AM) *
Or, in reality £68,220 plus a few £30s from those foolish enough not to pay up promptly.

I remember pointing the signs out to one driver queuing to cross the bridge, only to watch the driver ignore both me and the signs - I can't say that I am sorry to hear they were probably fined.


I've seen drivers stop and read the signs and then drive on regardless, presumably thinking it's worth chancing it. Let's increase the fines and think of it as a moron tax.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post Jan 26 2012, 10:20 AM
Post #9


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,056
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51



Blue signs do not "usually give positive instructions"


err, yes they do.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_xjay1337_*
post Jan 26 2012, 10:23 AM
Post #10





Guests






http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/gr...t/dg_191955.pdf

Page 9

They give instructions or information, yes - but not positive instructions "please turn left my good man, excellently negotiated that speedbump I must say".

Mandatory is not "positve" in my eyes. And yes I'm aware that on page 11 or whatever it says "positive". I was not being literal but nevermind you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post Jan 26 2012, 10:33 AM
Post #11


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,056
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51



QUOTE (xjay1337 @ Jan 26 2012, 10:23 AM) *
http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/gr...t/dg_191955.pdf

Page 9

They give instructions or information, yes - but not positive instructions "please turn left my good man, excellently negotiated that speedbump I must say".

Mandatory is not "positve" in my eyes. And yes I'm aware that on page 11 or whatever it says "positive". I was not being literal but nevermind you.

Mill lane - see those white arrows on a blue background - a mandatory sign & giving a positive instruction as to the direction of traffic flow, and thus the direction the driver should travel.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JeffG
post Jan 26 2012, 10:39 AM
Post #12


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,762
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 56



Err, xjay: positive means "do something" (e.g. turn left) as opposed to negative which means "don't do something" (e.g. no entry).

[English 101]
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_xjay1337_*
post Jan 26 2012, 10:45 AM
Post #13





Guests






dry.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Jan 26 2012, 11:14 AM
Post #14


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (JeffG @ Jan 26 2012, 10:39 AM) *
Err, xjay: positive means "do something" (e.g. turn left) as opposed to negative which means "don't do something" (e.g. no entry). [English 101]

Turn Left also means don't turn right, and No Entry also means use another route! tongue.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wahian
post Jan 26 2012, 11:18 AM
Post #15


Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 20-January 10
Member No.: 652



Mr Singleton has quoted verbatim about blue signs from the Highway Code but may have overlooked their sign example giving "positive instruction" to the vehicles ( cyclists/buses) shown on it, just as the Park Way bridge sign does, which includes Taxis. But, from drivers who have stopped me to ask if they're allowed over the bridge?, does seem to show some drivers don't understand the signage---Cyclists, Buses, Taxis Only. An Enforcement camera sign immediately below does indicate something is being enforced. Do they wonder about that too?
Mr Singleton seems dismayed there are no 'no entry' signs anywhere, but should there be? As he'd like to see one of some sort with a red border, which sign might that be that doesn't contradict the blue one at the same time?

Maybe what's needed near the bridge is rising bollards with more signs to understand and perhaps not see?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
massifheed
post Jan 26 2012, 12:15 PM
Post #16


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 443
Joined: 1-November 10
Member No.: 1,215



I like the fact that the picture of the disgruntled motorist in the article shows the signs which he is complaining about, clearly visible in the background.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Jan 26 2012, 12:42 PM
Post #17


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



Never mind, the council have got themselves a nice little earner to make-up for their failure to profit from people parking illegally. Cllr Betts must be chuffed, to be able to make money from Newbury's 'stupid' people! laugh.gif


Although not the coucnil's fault, I do think signage designs are starting to become ambiguous. It would be better to have the 'traditional' No Entry sign with 'Except for buses, cycles and taxis' beneath. The blue signs look too benign. Perhaps it is an insidious rouse by the government to facilitate more fines and revenue for local authorities! unsure.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_xjay1337_*
post Jan 26 2012, 12:53 PM
Post #18





Guests






QUOTE (massifheed @ Jan 26 2012, 12:15 PM) *
I like the fact that the picture of the disgruntled motorist in the article shows the signs which he is complaining about, clearly visible in the background.


laugh.gif laugh.gif Even I missed that. What a jockey.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post Jan 26 2012, 01:00 PM
Post #19


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,056
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51



When the tickets for my daughters came through the door, I thought it was just their bad driving,”

Priceless.

anywhay, where is RG to launch an immediate investigation & start a campaign? Not even a quote from him in the story.....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Adrian Hollister
post Jan 26 2012, 01:10 PM
Post #20


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 299
Joined: 6-January 10
Member No.: 613



Not really fair looking at this as a cash cow. Greedy and arrogant. Best to warn people first and chase up repeat offenders. We should give the cash back and perhaps issue a 'smug tax' on councillors gloating like this to make up the difference. Seriously though, give the cash back, issue warnings (always best to educate people before punishing them) and never look on fines as income - they are a penalty and not a tax.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

26 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th January 2022 - 02:45 AM