Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: GMR Jul 7 2011, 04:16 PM

Reading today's NWN (7 July) I wasn't surprised to read that a bus hit a kid. I've seen quite a few near misses in Northbrook street; buses/ pedestrians. In fact i reported it a few years ago - on this forum - but nothing was done. You can't mix pedestrians and buses as it will lead to a serious accident. The same applies to cycles and cycle paths. Cycles should be on cycle lanes and pedestrians should be on footpaths. I doubt any lessons will be learnt and I expect to read about another incident; I just hope it isn't fatal.


Some of those bus drivers - the way they drive - think they own the road.



As for 'calling for 5mph speed limit'; that won't work either and won't stop another person being hit. You need to remove buses altogether from Northbook street or forbid people walking on the roads... or using it as a footpath.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jul 7 2011, 04:23 PM

Today, 6 July? Hmmmm..... Groundhog?

So we know how the collision happened, do we? Not that I disagree mixing traffic and pedestrians is not the best idea a Highways Engineer ever had.

Posted by: GMR Jul 7 2011, 04:28 PM

It says the seventh, mainly because I changed it





It doesn't matter how it happened, it happened. And if you didn't mix buses and pedestrians then it wouldn't have happened. Simples!

Posted by: NWNREADER Jul 7 2011, 04:33 PM

For one mad moment I thought that was what I said.......

But still best to know what happened, as people get knocked over by traffic by stepping in the road too..... People going into traffic lanes is as bad as putting traffic into pedestrian areas, especially as the former traffic flow tends to be a lot faster moving.....

Posted by: GMR Jul 7 2011, 04:35 PM

I was clarifying





Agreed.

Posted by: spartacus Jul 7 2011, 06:44 PM

Phew..... !

'Accident waiting to happen' has at last 'happened'.... Thank Gawd for that. Now we can all get on with concentrating and fretting over another road that will be the target for hand-wringers and sooth-sayers ready to come forward and declare "I TOLD you that would happen didn't I!!" after some plonker with headphones get clipped by vehicle after stepping out into the road.. Well done GMR


Personally I'm waiting for the big one.... I mean - a 'double-decker' aeroplane that can take up to 850 passengers!!? It's a recipe for disaster and no mistake..... And let me tell you, when an accident should happen - and it will - I'll hope you will all remember that I told you so....

Posted by: user23 Jul 7 2011, 06:53 PM

You can't mix pedestrians and buses apparently, it's an accident waiting to happen. I'm not sure how people are supposed to get to the buses if they can't walk to them, but never mind.

You're right about 'double-decker' planes over Newbury too. Another accident waiting to happen. Why aren't the Town Council and the Police doing more to prevent it by limiting planes to 5mph when travelling through Newbury air-space?

Won't someone think of the children?

Posted by: Cognosco Jul 7 2011, 07:53 PM

You just wait until they build the new airport in Newbury! They will need these double decker planes to bring in all the new visitors to Park Way and the New Pavillion Pidgeon Loft.

Posted by: Darren Jul 7 2011, 08:19 PM

in my experience the majority of thses "near misses" are down to people walking along with earphones on, blasting away with some might class as music/noise*. Then crossing the road without so much as a glance.

This doesn't just apply to Northbrook St, but any road. Perhaps a few more getting knocked down will get some common sense into them.

Posted by: GMR Jul 7 2011, 08:34 PM

It doesn't matter whether some "blonker' stepped out in the 'road'.... and how could he step out when the road was a 'pedestrian walk-road'? If you allow pedestrians to walk on the road freely then the bus driver should have be aware... he wasn't and he was at fault.





Your sarcasm doesn't change what I said. It has been reported quite a lot that it was an 'accident waiting to happen'.

Posted by: GMR Jul 7 2011, 08:38 PM

user23, try using your intelligence. People get on the buses from the pavement.... and Northbrook street is a street that is used by cyclists, buses and pedestrians.




Your comments only show you up for what you are.

Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Jul 7 2011, 08:51 PM

Aircraft full of people are accidents just waiting to happen. They shouldn't be allowed to mix.

And these bus incidents, are not 'near misses'. Think about it, if something nearly misses something it must have hit it.

Posted by: user23 Jul 7 2011, 09:01 PM

I depends what they were trying to miss.

Posted by: HeatherW Jul 9 2011, 10:35 AM

I agree with GMR that it was an accident waiting to happen. I have personally witnessed near misses by buses on pedestrians. They should never have allowed both parties to inhabit the same space.

This could have been an very good and enlightening debate if it was not for the juvenile delinquents on here throwing their rattles out of their pram for attention. It is a problem and a serious one. Unless something is done to curb bus drivers attitude that they have a god given right to be Gods amongst the fish more accidents will happen. My boyfriend was nearly hit by a bus in Northbrook Street last year. It is not a laughing matter.

Posted by: user23 Jul 9 2011, 11:00 AM

The inevitable conclusion to your suggestion that buses and people shouldn't be able to inhabit the same space is that people should be banned from crossing the road.

This seems somewhat of an over reaction to me.

Posted by: spartacus Jul 9 2011, 12:05 PM

Well they've got to let pedestrians in coz it's a 'Pedestrian Zone'


oh.... you mean the buses don't you....

I assume I'm the juvenile delinquent? As an over 50 I don't know whether to be flattered or confused

oh I dunno... with my infantile brain cells I find just about anything to be a laughing matter

Posted by: HeatherW Jul 9 2011, 01:49 PM

This is not what I am saying, nor do I believe it was what the original creator of this thread was saying. Of course people will cross the road... and they should do it with care. But when that road has been changed to a pedestrian road - as Northbrook street has - then it is the duty of the buses or any other vehicle driver to take that little bit more care. In fact most areas that had a bus and predestrian area found out that that does not work and have stopped that situation. That is also why WBC are changing Northbrook Street to a pedestrian only road in October. Because of the fear of accidents.

Posted by: HeatherW Jul 9 2011, 01:52 PM

But you would. As you say "with [your] infantile brain". Could we expect anything more than a 50 something with an "infantile brain"? To be fair forums do attract all sorts and a free forum must mean "The good, the bad and the ugly".

Posted by: user23 Jul 9 2011, 02:10 PM

The incident happened between someone crossing the road who it seems wasn't looking where they were going and a bus. The pedestrian walked off unharmed but someone on the bus had to be treated for injuries when the bus took evasive action. In my view it's not the buses that need to take more care but the pedestrians.

I thought WBC are changing Northbrook Street to a pedestrian only road in October to coincide with the opening of Parkway.

Posted by: Cognosco Jul 9 2011, 02:32 PM

To try and make Park Way look busy ....?

Posted by: HeatherW Jul 9 2011, 04:35 PM

People who walk on a designated area - and free to do so by the council - will always be in the right. Buses who encroach that designated area must always do so with care and consideration. Children also use that area and do not always think. Again it is the buses responsibility to drive with care and consideration. The bus driver should have been aware of what was in front of him, beside him and at the back of him (he has mirrors to help). As the law dictates.



My understanding of it is that it was not always that way. Councillors on the council realised that vehicles and people do not mix easily and took a decision to change Northbrook street at the same time that Parkway shopping centre opened.

Posted by: user23 Jul 9 2011, 04:57 PM

I would guess the driver was aware of what was happening as the pedestrian walked away from the incident thanks to the driver's actions.

People who walk out in front of buses as seems to have happened in this case are not "in the right" and remember, it's not a pedestrianised area, it's an area restricted to certain types of traffic.

Posted by: On the edge Jul 9 2011, 05:33 PM

Like a Royal photographer of restricted growth! 'PC' applied to geography - love it!

Posted by: HeatherW Jul 9 2011, 05:47 PM

But an ambulance was called. Was it thanks to the bus driver or the pedestrian noticing something at the last minute and avoided a more serious accident?




It is a pedestrian area and it was made so by the council. If it is not then the council should stop the public using it as a pedestrian area. Talk to any police officer who is on the beat in Northbrook street and they will tell you they have as much right of way as do the buses and it is the buses who should be aware of their responsibility when conversing with the public in such a manner.

Posted by: user23 Jul 9 2011, 05:56 PM

An ambulance attended and aided the people on the bus who were hurt. The pedestrian shouldn't have noticed the bus a the last minute, if they did as seems to have happened then they're clearly in the wrong.

Posted by: HeatherW Jul 9 2011, 06:48 PM

How do you work that out? If they noticed the bus at the last moment does not make them guilty.

The council and police allow pedestrians to walk amongst the allowed vehicles. Because the bus is bigger and more dangerous then the bus driver should have taken more care, been more aware of unexpected situations. My boyfriend was driving his car in a non-designated pedestrian area when somebody walked out in front of him and his quick reflexes saved the day. He was aware of his responsibilities when driving such a dangerous vehicle. It says in the Highway code that one must always be alert all the time. The Bus driver was aware that he was driving in a designated pedestrian area and should have taken even more care. Whatever the pedestrian did or did not do the onus was on the bus driver.

Posted by: Jayjay Jul 9 2011, 06:59 PM

The bus was pulling into the bus stop, so speed was not an issue in this incident. Cars, buses and pedestrians will mingle before 10.00am and after 5.00pm when Parkway opens, just as they do now. If a pedestrian cannot see a large, noisy bus, why do we think he will see a small, quiet car?

Posted by: user23 Jul 9 2011, 07:11 PM

If the bus had time to get out of the way of the pedestrian surely the pedestrian had time to get out of the way of the bus? If they had done so perhaps they could have prevented the injuries sustained by those on the bus.

The "council and police" allow pedestrians to walk amongst the vehicles 24 hours a day on Northbrook Street and indeed most roads in the area. As I said previously, stopping people crossing the road seems a drastic measure.

Posted by: HeatherW Jul 9 2011, 08:15 PM

One of the problems here is psychological. If you are on a normal road your senses warn you of the dangers, however, in the case of a pedestrian orientated road - where everybody walks where or how they want - people thus will feel more relaxed and carefree in such circumstances. The pedestrian that was hit went with the flow and psychologically thought it was safe. That is why I said you can not mix pedestrians and vehicles together. It is an accident that was going to happen. This is not just my view, but others who are more familiar with such events.

Posted by: HeatherW Jul 9 2011, 08:21 PM

The two do not necessarily go together. Also and as I said in my previous post. Your guard drops when you think you are in a designated pedestrian area. If Northbrook street was a vehicle right of way only then the pedestrian probably would have took more care. A psychological factor is in play here.



That is not what I said. Northbrook Street between the hours of 10 and 6 is a pedestrian right of way and all vehicles are banned between these hours, apart from emergency vehicles and buses. So it is understandable people will walk across the road without fear of an approaching vehicle.

Posted by: gizmo Jul 9 2011, 10:53 PM

The link below is of the news report on the day this accident happened:

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article.aspx?articleID=17151

I noticed that in this report the accident happened at 1 in the afternoon on a Thursday, and the Pedestrian was a 15 year old boy. I also noticed that this was the day the Teachers were on Strike.

Had the Teachers (who have 14 weeks of school holidays per year) been at work, doing a job that they are well paid for, and a in a profession that they hopefully chose for the welfare and education of our future generations, then the 15 year old pedestrian should have been attending one of our great educational establishments.

Also it doesn't matter if they are in a pedestrianised zone or on the main through roads in town, the secondary school pupils I have seen have no road sense at all, they frequently cross the road at the junction of St Michaels Road and Bartholomew Street without even looking to see if any vehicles are around. Maybe in the pedestianised zone they have become too complacent, so they pay even less attention is to what is around them.

Posted by: Weavers Walk Jul 9 2011, 11:12 PM

Let's pretend that this H and S nonsense is valid. Since you say pedestrians and buses can't mix, and since the Ambulance was called to deal with those ON the bus, your logic dictates that we stop people getting on buses in case they get hurt. You're right, it's just accidents waiting to happen.

Posted by: user23 Jul 10 2011, 08:10 AM

1) Traffic is restricted between 9am and 5pm
2) Pedestrians do not have right of way
3) Some service providers, taxis and other vehicles have access are also allowed to use Northbrook Street

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 10 2011, 08:26 AM

Can you enlighten us as to where this is documented please as this is an important issue.
Thanks.

Posted by: HeatherW Jul 10 2011, 08:44 AM

That is not what I said, that is your interpretation of what I said. Pedestrians and buses cannot mix; i.e. using the road. People get on buses at the prescribed place; i.e. bus stop.

Posted by: HeatherW Jul 10 2011, 08:46 AM

If pedestrians do not have the right of way then why do not the police do something when they walk all over the place? Pedestrians do have the right of way and I have seen nothing to say otherwise.

Posted by: HeatherW Jul 10 2011, 08:47 AM

It is not documented. And if it was then the police are not enforcing it.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 10 2011, 08:49 AM

I understand that priority goes to the first user of the road (except motorways).

We signed an unratified convention that details: As a general rule, drivers are expected to avoid a collision with another vehicle and pedestrians, regardless of whether or not the applicable rules of the road allow them to be where they happen to be.


Good point; Jay walking, but it is not legally enforceable.

Posted by: HeatherW Jul 10 2011, 08:57 AM

It may not be "legally enforceable" but if the pedestrians were in the wrong the police would act, they do not because the pedestrians have a legal right of way on Northbrook Street between the hours of 9 and 5 or 6.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 10 2011, 08:59 AM

I don't think the police have the resources to focus on something that cannot utilise their 'power' in society.

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 10 2011, 08:59 AM

Then we have a problem as to proving fault in the case of an accident.
In this case I would err on the side of caution and assume that, if a pedestrian in the "pedestrian area", you DO NOT have priority over any vehicles who are legitimately there.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 10 2011, 09:02 AM

If a pedestrian is already ion the road before a vehicle, then the pedestrian has preference, but a pedestrian is obliged to cross a road with reasonable haste.

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 10 2011, 09:06 AM

I think it would be useful, with the current confusion, for the council or some legal body to clarify the situation regarding vehicles and pedestrians in the "pedestrian zone" as no one seems to know what, if any, rules apply.

Posted by: HeatherW Jul 10 2011, 09:07 AM

I disagree and so does the law. The onus is on the person behind the vehicle all the time. More so if that vehicle is conversing with the public in an area that allows the public to walk freely. If this was not the case then the law would act. There are many police officers in Northbrook Street and none have ever cautioned a pedestrian for walking or crossing the road improperly (as far as I know). Nothing has been written to say that the pedestrian would be in the wrong if an accident occurred. Plenty has been written about the responsibility of drivers of vehicles.

Posted by: HeatherW Jul 10 2011, 09:08 AM

That is a good point.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 10 2011, 09:11 AM

I don't think it is technicality a 'Pedestrian Zone'. It's mixed use.

Posted by: HeatherW Jul 10 2011, 09:15 AM

Whatever the "technicality's" are it is regarded as a "Pedestrian Zone" by the public. People I have talked to believe that they have the right of way over vehicles that are in that area, unless there is an emergency vehicle going to a call-out.

Posted by: Jayjay Jul 10 2011, 09:52 AM

I had tears rolling down my face reading this comment. Laughter and despair in equal measures.

Posted by: user23 Jul 10 2011, 11:04 AM

Because to use Police resources to stop people "walking all over the place" when there doesn't seem to be a problem here would probably draw the usual responses such as "why aren't they out catching real criminals". For once I would agree with anyone who said it too.

Can you post a link to where you've seen it says pedestrians do have the right of way?I think you're right here. It's not a referred to as a Pedestrian Zone in any official literature I've seen.

Posted by: HeatherW Jul 10 2011, 11:15 AM

I agree with you, but you did not read what I said properly. I said that police were on the beat in Northbrook street and do nothing where pedestrians are concerned. Also; there are cameras in Northbrook Street and if somebody were doing something dangerous then they could have dealt with it.



Can you produce a link that says Pedestrians do not have the right of way? The proof of the pudding, as my grandmother says, is in the eating. If pedestrians did not have the right of way then the police - when on the beat in Northbrook Street, would have/ should have stepped in.

I do not know where it is written, by what I do know is that - according to the police and WBC - the pedestrians do have a right of way. If you dispute this - working for the council yourself - then please show me where it say so. On top of that if you can produce something that says Pedestrians do not have a right of way then why is there not a warning sign up or police taking action? The public believe they have the right of way, so do the police. It would be criminal if this was not so. The public should be notified of the legal situation.

Posted by: user23 Jul 10 2011, 11:50 AM

Go on then, let's see some evidence to back this up. The burden of proof is on you to substantiate your statement.

Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Jul 10 2011, 12:00 PM

This is not true.

It is obviously causing you some confusion, so we'll go through it slowly ok?

West Berks Council paved over a section of Northbrook Street. They banned certain types of vehicle at certain times of the day. The others that they allowed to acccess the street they imposed a speed limit on. That's it. That's all. Deal with it.

At no time have they introduced new by-laws for pedestrians. One more time - No Rights of Way have been granted to pedestrians. Therefore, (and despite what your friends think) the normal rules of the road apply.

They resurfaced the street, prohibited certain types of vehicle at certain times, and gave the rest a speed limit. No more. No less. Nothing for or about pedestrians, no extra special Right of Way. Standard rules for pedestrians apply.

All that's happened is that if you do choose to act in an unthinking or careless manner then the vehicle that hits you won't be going as fast as it used to be.

Posted by: HeatherW Jul 10 2011, 01:16 PM

Actually you are wrong. The burden of proof is on the ones who say it is wrong. Nobody has come out and said that pedestrians who use Northbrook Street as a right of way are wrong. In fact when I have talked to people they have all come to that conclusion. Even the police. If we are all wrong then that is something serious and needs clearing up. Until we have confirmation one way or another then people will continue to use Northbrook Street between the hours of 9 and 5 as a pedestrian right of way walkway.

You work for the council so have daily access to their machine; maybe you can give us written clarification?

Posted by: HeatherW Jul 10 2011, 01:28 PM

There is no confusion on my part, but maybe you could give us something from the police and WBC that says this is the case. As I have said I have asked the police and talked to members of the council who have said that it is a pedestrian right of way between certain hours. If I am wrong - confused in your words - then I am not the only one. The public, the council and even the police are confused it seems. We also need clarification in such a way that the public must realise that when they walk on the road in Northbrook street they do not have the right of way. Apart from your words do you have anything substantial to back up what you say? This is not a battle of words by people like me, but just a seeker of what is a very confusing situation. If you are right then I will accept that. But you must show that you are correct and also answer the question why the council and police are also under the illusion that Northbrook Street is a Pedestrian area between certain hours.

If it is not a pedestrian area then what is it? All vehicles have been banned from Northbrook Street apart from emergency vehicles and buses.

Posted by: user23 Jul 10 2011, 01:29 PM

No it's not. For example if I say the Moon is made of cheese does everyone then assume that it is until someone else is able to prove otherwise, of course not, it's up to me to prove outrageous my claim. The same applies to you.

Nobody has "come out and said" the rules that apply to pedestrians who use Northbrook Street are any different to those that apply to any other road, unless you can prove otherwise, which you can't because as far as I know they haven't.This is incorrect as taxis, service vehicles such as Royal Mail, security companies and the like, and other selected vehicles are allowed to use Northbrook Street.

Posted by: Cognosco Jul 10 2011, 01:37 PM

Oh no Heather now you've gone and done it? You want clarification from the council? It will depend who you speak to. Each department that answers, if any, will give a completley contradictory answer. If wrong information given then that will be down to an external contractor or other organisation not the council. I don't know? What are things coming to in Newbury when you expect answers from the local authorities?

If normal rules of the road apply in Northbrook Street when can we expect the re-istallation of Zebra crossings or similar?

Posted by: HeatherW Jul 10 2011, 01:38 PM

If people are under the belief that it is a pedestrian walk way - and people believe that - then do you not agree - as a member of the council - that clarification is needed? More so before another accident happens.



I was told that Northbrook Street was a designated Pedestrian walk way between certain hours. In fact nobody has "officially" come out and said anything and if there is confusion then maybe they should.

You say that "nobody has "come out and said"" etc. Are you saying that in your official position as a member of the council?

This is not about "proof" but what is actually happening and what people actually believe. If that belief is wrong then we need clarification and signs up to say this is so.

Posted by: HeatherW Jul 10 2011, 01:39 PM

Thank you and good points.

Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Jul 10 2011, 02:24 PM

You seem sure there. Now you seem not so. That is why I said you were confused.

Let me just get this right. According to you, at 09.59 with a street full of cars and people, all is ok. Unless you have any reports of accidents we may have missed. But then, one minute later, with just Buses, the whole whole street is an accident waiting to happen?

As to the suggestion about re-installing Zebra crossings, perhaps you could tell us where these Zebras used to be?

Posted by: On the edge Jul 10 2011, 02:31 PM

If this really is the case - then its gross irresponsibility on behalf of the Council and yes, the pedestrian walkways should be put back. What utter nonsense!

The real reason why there are still vehicles in the Town centre is because of poor strategic planning. I seem to remember that immediately the area opened, people like the Post Office claimed to need special rights because Postmen had bones in their feet or something.

Cyclists can still ride through with impunity - try doing that in Kennet Centre; why no cycling in there; same difference.

In various other places, they have managed to merge traffic and people BUT the schemes are always well thought through and carefully implemented. Both attributes sadly lacking in Newbury.

If you want another example of arrogant engineer lead delivery - Blackboys Bridge is a good example. Where due again to poor planning, the pavement was turned into a sharp slope, handrails were left off. They were only put back after a vociferous campaign by the elderly. Why? Any modern design process would have picked that up at the start.

Lesson. If you happen to live in Newbury you do need to look out for yourself - can't expect the experts to help.

Posted by: HeatherW Jul 10 2011, 02:48 PM

I am sure in the sense that I was told it was so by the police and council. My observations also back that up. If I and others are wrong then this needs sorting out.

I do not think it makes any difference whether people think I am right or wrong, but what we do need is clarification.



If you have a situation where vehicles are free to travel on a road - and pedestrians act with caution because of this - and then suddenly that all changes at a prescribed time (it becomes a pedestrian walk way) then the vehicles that then travel in that area, and do not take extra precautions, then yes, there is a potential for an accident. And as we have seen on many occasions people have collided with buses.



Before people knew it was a road for vehicles only and took extra precautions. When that changed to a pedestrian walkway area those precautions relaxed. They relaxed because people, council and police believe they then had the right of way.

Posted by: HeatherW Jul 10 2011, 02:50 PM

I agee with you On the Edge.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jul 10 2011, 02:54 PM

Lots of certainty being expressed.....
Road Traffic Law would say a person in control of a vehicle always has to operate it safely, drive with due consideration, etc. That does not mean a pedestrian cannot cause a road incident with a vehicle. A pedestrian can obstruct the highway, and can certainly be civilly responsible for damage, injury.

I do not know what happened in this incident, and even on a good day the press report is not always 100% of the full story.

Posted by: HeatherW Jul 10 2011, 03:18 PM

I agree, on a normal road that is mainly used for vehicles to travel up and down on. Which used to happen in Northbrook Street and still does on certain hours. But when that is changed to a pedestrian walk-way with buses being allowed with caution then the onus is on the buses.



Whatever the true story is the bus drivers know that Northbrook street is a designated walk way between certain hours so the onus is on the buses to drive through Northbrook street with caution. That means being aware that on a public designated area the public could pop out at any time.

Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Jul 10 2011, 03:38 PM

Jeeezz, what new devilry is this you've come up with? "A Designated Walkway"?.

It is not now, nor ever has been a designated walk way. (whatever that is)

What don't you understand? There is no confusion here at all. The fact that it has a new or different surface is irrelevent. Certain vehicles are banned from using the street at certain times of the day. Those that are then still allowed to use it have a speed restriction. That's it.

Easy.

There is no 'designated walkway'

Victoria Park is designated for the use of the public. Northbrook Street isn't.

Posted by: user23 Jul 10 2011, 03:52 PM

If someone can't see a ten tonne bus headed for them what use is spending a few thousand quid on warning signs to tell them that a ten tonne bus might be headed for them going to do? Surely a bus is far more obvious than a warning sign about a bus?

Everyone I've spoken to about this has said it's probably a good idea to get out the way of vehicles if you're standing in the middle of the road and not have a debate about who has right of way, given the vehicle is almost likely to win.

What is "a designated walkway", by the way?

Posted by: HeatherW Jul 10 2011, 03:58 PM

Is used as a designated walk between certain hours. As On the Edge says. If there is confusion then it is because the police or the council do not know.

A designated area is where people can walk freely in a certain area. That is exactly what is happening in Northbrook Street between certain hours. It is you who does not get it.

Posted by: HeatherW Jul 10 2011, 04:03 PM

Using your logic then why are there road traffic signs up telling us that lorries frequent certain areas?



I totally agree. The same if a car mounts the pavement. You get out of the way. We are not talking about that. But about buses taking care in an area that is designated area or an area that is allowing people to walk freely in a certain area.



Northbrook Street.

Posted by: user23 Jul 10 2011, 04:14 PM

You seem to have invented a term "an area that is designated area" that actually has no meaning.

People are allowed to "walk around freely" in Northbrook Street 24 hours a day provided they stay out of the way of the traffic. Whether the traffic is restricted to emergency vehicles, taxis, buses, security vehicles, Post Office vehicles, Town Council vehicles and other designated vehicles as it is between certain hours or not should make no difference.

Surely no one needs an expert to tell them to get out the road when a ten tonne bus is headed for them?

Posted by: On the edge Jul 10 2011, 04:21 PM

You are quite right. That's another reason why its so silly that the railway keep the barriers at level crossings down for so long. Doesn't need an expert to tell you that a train won't stop...

Odd isn't it, road workers expect all sorts of barriers and signs apparently to prevent vehicles hitting them, but when it comes to something they've delivered...

Posted by: user23 Jul 10 2011, 04:26 PM

A bus travelling at a maximum of 20mph should be slightly easier to to spot a train doing 100mph.

Given (as far as I know) precisely zero pedestrians have been injured this year as a result of collisions with vehicles in Northbrook Street, putting up barriers to separate the traffic from the pedestrians seems a somewhat of an over reaction.

Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Jul 10 2011, 04:31 PM

A designated area can only be a designated area if it's been designated as such. NO-ONE, repeat NO-ONE has designated any part of the new Northbrook Street as one of these. Unless you know different. (and you don't because they haven't) So can you please stop it with this 'designated' nonsense?



The fact that certain people feel they can stagger around like the Zombies from Dawn of the Dead does not, thankfully make it a 'designated' area.

We'll try again....

It is a Street that at certain times of the day has different traffic regulations. Nothing to do at all with pedestrians, or designated walk ways or whatever else you come up with as a label.

Most of us walk up and down Northbrook Street after 10.00 knowing there may be a bus, or service vehicle about and keep an eye out. We rarely seem to get knocked down.

If you and your friends can't understand this, or can't see or recognise a large 40 foot 20 ton lump of bus trundling towards you, maybe you should confine yourselves to Kennet Shopping, who will be glad to see you, I'm sure.

Posted by: HeatherW Jul 10 2011, 04:39 PM

Actually I did not. I was told this was a designated area when I spoke to somebody from the council and recently when I spoke to a police officer on the beat in Northbrook street. I do not know what something is unless somebody in authority tells me it is so. Which happened in this case.


Are you telling me this in your official capacity as a council employee? If you are then it seems you lot better get your act together because you are the only 'official' member of authority who has said this. As I said; I do not know what Northbrook Street is supposed to be unless somebody has said it is so.



You've already said this and I said I agree. Wherever you are - even in your own home - and a ten ton truck is heading towards you you move out of the way. Try please reading what I said instead of making it up as you go along.

As i have asked you on many occasions. Are you talking in your official position as an employee of the council?

Posted by: HeatherW Jul 10 2011, 04:49 PM

If we put all the sarcasm to one side for a minute. Which is not very helpful and childish. I will repeat what I said. I do not know what Northbrook Street is supposed to be, but I was told by a council official and a police officer that Northbrook street is a pedestrian walk way between certain hours. I am nobody, but those people I have mentioned are people in authority. What is you position, do you work for the council and do you have it on strong authority that the advice I was given was utterly and totally wrong? Not only the advice that I was given but what many people believe it to be. So far the only council representative on here is User 23 (and he contradicts what I have been told). Are you somebody in authority telling me that the information that I and others have is wrong? If you are saying that then we have a whole set of new concerns.

I will repeat what I said. I am not pretending to know what Northbrook Street is or is not. I can only go by what people in authority have told me.

Posted by: user23 Jul 10 2011, 04:49 PM

A slightly different position to earlier when you said that people in the "designated walkway" (there's actually no such thing that I can see in the Highway Code) have right of way.

So we're agreed then, if you're in the road, get out of it if there's a vehicle headed towards you no matter what time of day it is. It doesn't need expensive signage, barriers along the whole road or a media campaign telling people to do so.

Thankfully, given (as far as I know) there have been no injuries to pedestrians in Northbrook Street this year everyone else also seems to agree.

Posted by: HeatherW Jul 10 2011, 04:54 PM

It was a word that was used by somebody from the council. I only repeated what I was told.



Of course I agree, but this was not what we have been talking about. Strewth, please read what I said. In an area that is a designated area, walk way or whatever you want to call it the onus is on the buses to take extra care.

I have always answered your questions honestly and politely. Can you please do me the same honour and answer what I ask you about your position concerning your employers?

Posted by: Bartholomew Jul 10 2011, 05:00 PM

No but there is a "pedestrianised area". Look at http://www.westberks.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=3811 and search for "pedestrianised". This refers to parts of Northbrook Street and Bartholomew Street. There is reference to removing buses from these areas.

Posted by: user23 Jul 10 2011, 05:00 PM

The bus did take extra care in this case, avoiding the individual who stepped out in front of it.

If anything this shows how safe it in Northbrook Street and that even if you're a numty that likes to walk in front of buses you'll probably be OK as the drivers are taking extra care.It becomes a pedestrianised area from October this year, doesn't it?

Posted by: HeatherW Jul 10 2011, 05:06 PM

Then it did what it was supposed to do, take care and pay attention.



And is this because the buses are aware of their responsibility? That when one travels in a pedestrian area one must take due care and pay attention.

I noticed that you did not answer my question about your "official" position as an employee of WBC. Maybe that is because you are not sure of your facts and is bluffing it.

Posted by: On the edge Jul 10 2011, 05:18 PM

To some extent I agree with the it's not an issue camp. However, I can't help seeing the irony in WBC permitting this situation - yet taking a wholly different stance when it comes to HSE matters elsewhere! Using 'safety' an excuse to charge organisations huge sums when they ask for road closures and such like - can't have your cake and eat it.

Just an aside - perhaps the lack of accidents involving buses is simply down to the paucity of such things in Newbury.

Anyway - I'm certainly looking forward to riding my motor scooter through the new road that opens in October - no potholes! Hope they install enough bike racks.

Posted by: Cognosco Jul 10 2011, 05:21 PM

And if it is the council then I repeat, each department will give you different adivice, User only acts as a Firewall for WBC, he only trys to deflect and obfuscate any posts that may damage the image of the council, and there are many.

Why do the council have designated cycle ways on pavements, that are marked with white lines, like on the A4 pavements between Thatcham and Newbury and many other pavements, seperating cyclists from pedestrians?
If Northbrook Street is not a pedestrian area during certain times why are there no controlled crossings? Either zebra or otherwise? Why is there no pavements marked with tactile areas for people with eye sight problems to warn them they are approaching an area where motirists are expected?

As for asking the council to clarify anything then please do not hold your breath as you will suffocate whilst waiting for an answer.

Posted by: Weavers Walk Jul 10 2011, 05:35 PM

Just came back from what should have been a great day at the Carnival. Alas ,the day was totally ruined when one of the First-Aiders down at Northcroft told me that they had had to deal with a child that had caught it's knee on the rear defender of a lorry that had been in the parade.

FOR GOD'S SAKE, will we never learn? How much longer must this suffering go on?, how many more little ones? how much of this carnage must we endure? we have the blood of the innocents on our hands, we are all guilty. What are the authorities doiing about it? nothing, that's what.

Lorries and people just don't mix. It's just an accident waiting to happen. They must be kept apart. We must ban the Carnival from the town centre. Make it go up and down the by-pass and keep the streets safe in the town.

If it saves just one childs life it will have been worth it. You know it, and I know it.

Please, lets end this pain NOW. No more tears in the eyes of the children, no more grieving parents. No more blood on our streets. It's not too much to ask is it? And that's before we get round to the partially sighted and hearing impaired. This menace must be stopped. Before it ends up killing someone.

People and Carnivals can never mix.

Why oh Why oh Why?

Posted by: user23 Jul 10 2011, 05:41 PM

So what's the problem then? If anything this confirms that the bus drivers are taking care and paying attention.

It's not a pedestrianised area by the way, just in case you missed it the fifteen times you've been told it by various people in this thread.I think you'll find this was a "designated carnival area" and as such, even if one ran head first into a moving vehicle changing course as the vehicle tried to swerve out the way, it would be the driver's fault.

Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Jul 10 2011, 05:50 PM

There are.

Posted by: HeatherW Jul 10 2011, 06:11 PM

I did not say there was a problem. I just commented on a post on here and the thread blossomed.



It has been told 'fifteen times' by the same people. Apart from you who works for the council the others are just blank faces. The problem is when what those 'fifteen times' faceless people tell you, which contradicts what people in authority have said.

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 10 2011, 06:41 PM

I hope you were being sarcastic here?

Posted by: Cognosco Jul 10 2011, 06:59 PM

Where in Nothbrook Street? Can you point me to them if someone with a sight problem needs to differentiate between pavement and road any where along Northbrook Street. Suppose they come out of Camp Hopsons and keep walking straight on how do they know when they have reached the edge of the pavement and are now entering the road?

Posted by: user23 Jul 10 2011, 07:29 PM

Almost all of us are just "blank faces" given it's an anonymous notice board.

Posted by: HeatherW Jul 10 2011, 07:37 PM

But you are not, you work for the council. The council and the police are not blank faces and it was them that said about Northbrook Street being a Pedestrian only area between certain times. With the exception of buses and emergency vehicles.

Posted by: On the edge Jul 10 2011, 07:56 PM

Me? Sarcastic? !!!

Posted by: user23 Jul 10 2011, 08:01 PM

Do I? Just because you keep repeating it doesn't make it true.

I'm sure you don't mean any malice but where I live, who I work for or anything about my family are none of your business and I'll not be answering any questions about any of them no matter how many times you ask.

Posted by: HeatherW Jul 10 2011, 09:01 PM

You are correct I do not mean any malice and I totally agree that your business is nobody else's. I only mentioned it because it is common knowledge on here and other places that you work for the council and you have never gone out of your way to deny it. As you have not here either. You also have come across as an authority of what the council does and does not do so i just wanted clarification of what I was told and what the police told me. I did not mean or wish to be offensive.

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 11 2011, 07:48 AM

Nice try, but there are some on here who could beat you hands down for sarcasm, and one is smarter than his brother!

Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Jul 11 2011, 11:35 AM

Oi! I resemble that remark..

Posted by: Strafin Jul 11 2011, 02:12 PM

How pedestrianised can it be if buses still use it? Also post vans, security vans and cyclists.

Posted by: GMR Jul 11 2011, 04:33 PM

Well i was in town today and according to WBC Northbrook Street is a pedestrianised area between certain hours. I also asked the PCSO who was also in Northbrook Street and he said the same thing and that "any vehicles that uses Northbrook street while Pedestrians are using it then those vehicle driver(s) are responsible for the safety of those walking in the street"; this is of course between certain hours.

Reading the posts above there seems some disagreement over this. We have on one hand anonymous posters saying one thing, while two authority figures say something totally different. If there is such confusion then clarification is needed. Otherwise both parties will use Northbrook street as if they have the upper hand. As i said; a recipe waiting to happen.

If those anonymous posters speak with authority (i.e. working for the council) then they should clarify their position and say exactly that.

Posted by: Jayjay Jul 11 2011, 04:43 PM

I haven't heard of anyone colliding with buses or buses colliding with pedestrians until last week. Is this your assumption or fact?

Posted by: GMR Jul 11 2011, 04:54 PM

I can't speak for HeatherW but it is fact. I reported exactly that on this forum about a year ago. I've also seen a few near misses. I also know that other incidents have been reported to either the police or council.

Posted by: Squelchy Jul 11 2011, 05:39 PM

At the risk of being accused of plagerism from another thread, a near miss is a hit. If you miss something you miss it. If you NEARLY miss something, then you've hit it.

"did you see those planes collide?"

"yes, but they nearly missed"

Use of language. So important don't you think?

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 11 2011, 05:47 PM

I have to disagree. Near miss doesn't always mean the same as nearly missed. A miss is a miss, whether it was near or far.

near miss
–noun
1. a strike by a missile that is not a direct hit but is close enough to damage the target.
2. an instance of two vehicles, aircraft, etc., narrowly avoiding a collision.
3. something that falls narrowly short of its object or of success: an interesting movie, but a near miss.

Posted by: GMR Jul 11 2011, 05:56 PM

what I reported was a hit, but not a bad one. Nobody was hurt.


I agree about a near miss... but what that tells you is that the next time it could be something serious.

Posted by: GMR Jul 11 2011, 05:57 PM

I didn't see this post before I replied, but you are right. A 'near miss' can be a hit, but not a drastic one. A hit means damage.

Posted by: JeffG Jul 11 2011, 06:38 PM

Putting my pedant's hat on (again ) for a mo, a "close encounter" of two aircraft is called an "air miss", not a "near miss". Presumably to avoid any confusion.

Posted by: GMR Jul 11 2011, 07:23 PM

At least you won't have that problem in Northbrook Street... we just have to worry about buses, carnivals, drunks, etc. Enough to worry about... let us keep the planes in the sky and the submarines down below

Posted by: NWNREADER Jul 11 2011, 07:47 PM

Call me a dinosaur, but I'm afraid I would be very reluctant to trust the word of a PCSO on the subtlety of Road Traffic law. No-one should ever use any road believing they have 'the upper hand'.

If a poster happens to work for any organisation and posts on a topic that organisation has an interest in, they only need to disclose that, IMHO, if they are speaking officially on behalf of their employer. If they are only expressing a personal opinion, even if based on some better knowledge (or even not!) then there is nothing to disclose.

Posted by: On the edge Jul 11 2011, 08:11 PM

Nor would I, or indeed of any Policeman (sorry Police person). A solicitor or a barrister perhaps. Nonetheless, what the PCSO apparently said is actually common sense - drivers using the area during the designated times would be expected to take more care than usual. Particularly as the risks would have been made known to them by the sign-age at the entry points and their employers exemption. The word 'responsible' may be a little out of place, but then that's me being a legal pedant!

Posted by: GMR Jul 11 2011, 08:35 PM

OK, you don't trust PCSO's... but what about our beloved, honest and trustworthy (not to forget elected by the good citizens of Newbury) WBC? Surely (don't call me Shirley) you can trust them?

Posted by: GMR Jul 11 2011, 08:37 PM

"Common sense" is sadly lacking in officialdom.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jul 11 2011, 08:57 PM

Or most other places.....
Except where I am, of course

Posted by: GMR Jul 11 2011, 09:02 PM

.... same here

Posted by: NWNREADER Jul 11 2011, 09:23 PM

The extent to which I 'trust' is varied, but almost never 100%.........
If I ask a clear question, of someone qualified, suitably informed, and authorised to answer, then I listen to the answer and it 'fits' I'd run with it until I found the answer wanting.

If I asked a Planning Officer about the budget for social services.............

Posted by: On the edge Jul 11 2011, 09:43 PM

Would that be a uniformed planning officer or a plain clothed one?

Posted by: GMR Jul 11 2011, 10:19 PM

Probably an invisible one i would imagine.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jul 12 2011, 11:45 AM

In a pedestrianised area such a Northbrook Street, Pedestrians have right of way over any vehicle.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 12 2011, 11:52 AM

And there is no greater authority than the mighty Richard Garvie...so there you have it.

PS - Richard, people have doubt so it might have been helpful to have qualified your post!

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 12 2011, 12:22 PM

Who says? (which seems to have been the main thrust of this thread that no one seems to be able to answer.)

Posted by: NWNREADER Jul 12 2011, 12:36 PM

You have a reference for that statement?

Would be nice to know

Posted by: GMR Jul 12 2011, 04:08 PM

I think that is what I've been saying. Which also supports what the police and council have said to me and others on here.

Posted by: GMR Jul 12 2011, 04:10 PM

But it has been answered. Not only I said it but i think it was HeatherW who also said it. The council and the police confirmed it. Others - anonymous members - just came on and mocked and thought their 'superior knowledge' was right, where in fact they new bugger all.

Posted by: GMR Jul 12 2011, 04:11 PM

Yes, the council. I believe they are the higher authority. To add to that the police concur as well.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jul 12 2011, 04:19 PM

In case I am misunderstood, I wish it is so that the pedestrians have right of way. I know a PCSO, and maybe an individual PC may have said so, and 'someone' at the Council, but as I disappear beneath the wheels of the bus/cycle/post office van etc I would like my wail of 'I have right of way!!' to be backed up by an extract from a Traffic Order rather than a well-intended opinion.

Posted by: GMR Jul 12 2011, 04:26 PM

Well... all the relevant people in authority were asked and if you don't believe any of them then who will you believe? And it wasn't one PCSO, but the police (according to another member) and various people at the council have said the same thing.

Posted by: dannyboy Jul 12 2011, 05:12 PM

Tell you waht - you stick to the idea that you have right of way as a pedestrian & I'll keep on treating it as a road. We'll see who lasts longer.

Sometimes, people say what they think others want to hear, just to get rid of them. Such as a PCSO when being asked about rights of way regarding a road that has vehicular restrictions at certain times of day.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jul 12 2011, 05:46 PM

Thank you for pointing that out. But the only certain reference is the Traffic Order. I have no plans to plant myself in front of a vehicle just because 'someone' says I have 'the right' (strange phrase) Just because someone says something doesn't make it right.

I want it to be so, but fear it may not be. The 'official' answers carry no weight as far as I can tell.

Posted by: GMR Jul 12 2011, 05:53 PM

Are you a bus driver? Also; whatever you are you are stating that you will deliberately maim somebody who gets in your way; that is how I read your post. That is criminal and your threats should be investigated by the police before somebody is killed by such a lunatic.



So you are saying that both the council, the police and PCSO's deliberately lied to members of the public?

Posted by: GMR Jul 12 2011, 05:55 PM

Whatever the answer is, it has been a good debate.... apart from somebody who seems to have threatened to maim somebody if they got in his way.

Posted by: dannyboy Jul 12 2011, 06:02 PM

In answer to you first question - no. But I see that you are sticking to the age old forum idea that anyone who posts in the positive must be working for the organization being berated. Well done.
When I said I'd treat it as a road I meant in the capacity as a pedestrian & the crossing of roads. You know, cross when the way is clear & there is no oncoming traffic. But you knew that.

A bus driver might have no option but to maim someone if that someone steps out in front of their bus in the belief they have right of way & expects the bus to stop for them, when it can't.

Posted by: GMR Jul 12 2011, 06:06 PM

That is not how I read your reply, but I can understand why you are now changing tune.





Where did I say that?



There is a difference between an accident and deliberately trying to maim; which you suggested. The onus is on bus driver to take care. If an accident does happen then an investigation will be held to find out if the bus driver did take care.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 12 2011, 06:06 PM

My belief is that pedestrians do not have priority beyond that which they would have any other time of the day. The reason for this is, if the pedestrian had 'right of way', then they could legitimately stop in the middle of the road and refuse to move for a bus, which don't seem right to me.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 12 2011, 06:09 PM

He said that he would continue to use the area as if it is a road. That isn't him saying he will be driving at the time; he could be a pedestrian. I'm sorry GMR, but I think you grabbed the end that is hot!

Posted by: GMR Jul 12 2011, 06:12 PM

Semantics. I read it differently.


This is what he said:
He separated pedestrian with him using the road... I inferred from that, that he will be driving.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 12 2011, 06:14 PM

Yes, grammatically ambiguous, but he didn't say that he would purposely hurt anyone either.

Posted by: spartacus Jul 12 2011, 06:17 PM

That made oi larf.......!!

Have you been in the pub since lunchtime?



The way I read it, the person who supposedly answered on behalf of the council probably wasn't the person to ask. Probably the same with the police. And as for PCSOs... ...well they're no more qualified to answer a question on traffic law than the checkout girl at Tescos. It's not their specialist subject.... (They don't have one )

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 12 2011, 06:19 PM

So going back to what I said earlier, I doubt pedestrians have any special privilege in Newbury's (mixed use) Pedestrian Zone.

Posted by: Cognosco Jul 12 2011, 06:26 PM

I suppose it boils down to when is a pavement not a pavement then?

Posted by: dannyboy Jul 12 2011, 06:30 PM

No tune change here. I'll treat it as a road.

You asked if I was a bus driver.

No I didn't. You assumed.

Posted by: dannyboy Jul 12 2011, 06:32 PM

and btw, are you the same GMR that used to call PCSOs 'Plastic Policemen'?

Posted by: GMR Jul 12 2011, 08:06 PM

As you said "grammatically ambiguous"; and the reason for that is he hopes to have a get out clause. Both words were separated so the intentions were clear. It would be interesting to see if he is a bus driver or something along the lines. Because he hinted he would use the road as he sees fit.... and the only way you can do that is drive on it. He knew we were talking about when Northbrook Street was a 'pedestrian area'.

Posted by: GMR Jul 12 2011, 08:08 PM

I am only here to please



Not then, but i have just come back from the pub just now.





At least the people who disagree are anonymous.

Posted by: GMR Jul 12 2011, 08:11 PM

In your bus?



And you are... or a taxi driver.





But you are not disagreeing... yet!

Posted by: GMR Jul 12 2011, 08:11 PM

No....

Posted by: On the edge Jul 12 2011, 09:02 PM

I love the contortions trying to describe the area now a 'mixed use pedestrian zone' is another good one. Worth 8 out of 10 at least. B****** Muddle would also be a good one - with the added advantage that visitors would think it was an ancient street name!

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 12 2011, 09:11 PM

In really can't see what the fuss is about. It isn't an ideal set-up, but the clock is ticking down on the arrangement.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jul 12 2011, 09:28 PM

Speak to the local highways authority, and they will confirm what the rules are. You obviously won't listen to me, so give them a call in the morning.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 12 2011, 09:32 PM

A few months back and according to the local authority, the CCTV system was working properly...allegedly.

What I would like to know is: what is a pedestrian 'right of way'?

Posted by: dannyboy Jul 12 2011, 09:38 PM

They'd be the same rules for any vehicle being driven where there are likely to be pedestrians crossing the road.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jul 13 2011, 12:30 PM

I'm guessing you didn't ring up then Danny?

Posted by: dannyboy Jul 13 2011, 12:35 PM

err, no I didn't.

If the pedestrians have the 'right of way' then the buses should not be able to actually make any progress down Northbrook St unless the way ahead is totally clear. On a busy day, with lots of pedestrians, the buses would come to a halt, having to give way to all & sundry. Yet they don't......

Posted by: dannyboy Jul 13 2011, 12:35 PM

btw - it is dannyboy, not Danny.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 13 2011, 01:17 PM

I have done a few minutes Googling and I can't find anything that explains what is special about a Pedestrian Zone. The only thing I can see is that it is an area that excludes some vehicles. I can find nothing that states pedestrians have priority. I notice in Europe they have Pedestrian Priority Zones, but not here it seems.


Rules for pedestrians (1-35)

General guidance
1 Pavements (including any path along the side of a road) should be used if provided. Where possible, avoid being next to the kerb with your back to the traffic. If you have to step into the road, look both ways first. Always show due care and consideration for others.

31 Emergency vehicles. If an ambulance, fire engine, police or other emergency vehicle approaches using flashing blue lights, headlights and/or sirens, keep off the road.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070108



Pedestrian zone

Pedestrian zone signs mark the start and end of the zone and show whether vehicles can enter. In some zones, certain types of vehicle may enter for loading or between certain times.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Knowyourtrafficsigns/DG_192207



General advice for drivers(144-158)

144

You MUST NOT

1 drive dangerously
2 drive without due care and attention
3 drive without reasonable consideration for other road users

[Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & RTA 1988 sect 34]

146 Try to anticipate what pedestrians and cyclists might do. If pedestrians, particularly children, are looking the other way, they may step out into the road without seeing you.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070309


Road junctions (170-183)
170 Take extra care at junctions. You should

watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, powered wheelchairs/mobility scooters and pedestrians as they are not always easy to see. Be aware that they may not have seen or heard you if you are approaching from behind

watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way

Posted by: Strafin Jul 13 2011, 05:54 PM

I have been googling as well and have only been able to find that same information.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 13 2011, 07:08 PM

The gist as far as I have read is that both types of road user should proceed with caution and respect each other's presence. Also, having right of way doesn't negate one's obligation toward common courtesy or sense.

Posted by: dannyboy Jul 13 2011, 07:14 PM

Also, having right of way doesn't negate one's obligation toward common courtesy or sense.

something most seem to have forgotten. Just because you do , or do not have right of way does not mean you can act with no regard for others.

hence my continued treating of Northbrook St as a road. Stop, Look, Listen!

Posted by: NWNREADER Jul 13 2011, 07:34 PM

Goodness, two consecutive sensible comments!! Is that a record? And neither written by me!

Being in the right isn't a lot of good when you are on your backside in the middle of the road.....

Posted by: On the edge Jul 13 2011, 07:52 PM

Sensible? The suggestion that it would be a good idea to treat Northbrook Street as a road is certainly safe. But sensible? If that really is the case, then we've wasted rather a large sum of money and caused rather a lot of disruption making it look like a builders display yard.

Posted by: dannyboy Jul 13 2011, 08:03 PM

Ah, but come October - when the buses are gone & there is no traffic during the day.......

Posted by: NWNREADER Jul 13 2011, 08:08 PM

Absolutely, love it......... smashing.....


Nope, you've totally lost me.
http://www.reclaimedbuildingmaterial.com/tourourshopimages/22340tourtheyard3a.jpg

Maybe you remember it looking like this:
http://www.newbury.net/blahdocs/uploads/northbrook_street_1890_b_1490.jpg

Posted by: On the edge Jul 13 2011, 09:37 PM

That's great - I really hope that day comes - honestly!! We'll then be able to enjoy what we've paid for. Does this really mean that there will be no traffic? No Mail vans, security vans, builders vans, 'emergency' vehicles taking a short cut....? I sure hope so

Posted by: JeffG Jul 14 2011, 09:16 AM

Of course, no traffic means no bikes. Will they be banned as well? I sincerely hope so. I've not seen a "Cyclists dismount" sign for a long while, either.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 14 2011, 11:27 AM

I presume the 'no bikes' people are happy for public money to be spent enforcing the policy?

Posted by: Squelchy Jul 14 2011, 03:16 PM

Why not? Public money is spent giving them all their cycling stuff anyway.

In 2006 / 7 the amount raised from Fuel Duty and Vehicle Excise Duty was £28.43bn. The amount spent on road and road projects was £8.78bn.

In 2008 they spent £4.8bn

Last year the Government took in £47bn and spent £12bn on the roads.

The motorist has paid for the roads many many times over. Including whatever facilities are being given to the pedal-pushers.

Yet still the two-wheeled brigade bleat. Maybe it's because deep down they feel like parasites leeching off of the monies provided by the motorists. Simple embarrassment perhaps?

Posted by: NWNREADER Jul 14 2011, 03:34 PM

The cost of enforcement will be borne locally, the money you refer to is central government. Very little connection

Posted by: Squelchy Jul 14 2011, 03:47 PM

Very little connection between Central Government and the Local Authority? If you say so.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 14 2011, 05:15 PM

I'm not sure what Squelchy's on, but the point I make is: if 'we' want a cycle-free zone, then 'we' would need to spend money on enforcement. Perhaps it would just be better to leave as is.

Posted by: GMR Jul 14 2011, 05:17 PM

it won't be enforced and cyclist will still ride in Northbrook Street.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jul 14 2011, 05:19 PM

Probably!!

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 14 2011, 05:21 PM

Exactly my point and why perhaps it might be better to leave as it is at the moment.

Posted by: On the edge Jul 14 2011, 07:29 PM

I didn't think PC Plod could discriminate and decide what they will or will not enforce. Or this this yet another case where some administrative numpty has recast the rules to extract a few more pence from local populations. The Police do little enough as it is! If what is being said is really true, then any motorist driving through Northbrook Street can do so with impunity?

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 14 2011, 09:18 PM

At the moment cyclists can ride through town. If they are forced to dismount, are you happy for the extra time and money to be spent enforcing a no-cycling zone? I'm not.

Posted by: JeffG Jul 14 2011, 09:21 PM

So it's one law for cyclists and another law for everyone else?

Posted by: user23 Jul 14 2011, 09:24 PM

Yes of course it is, in fact there are lots of laws that apply to motorists and not cyclists.

Posted by: On the edge Jul 14 2011, 09:48 PM

Most certainly. Several reasons, not least my mother's foot which has never healed since a bike hit her in Northbrook Street. Also, where do you draw the line? Flout the cycling regulations is OK, but parking on a yellow line isn't?? 'Tasting a few sweets' is OK, but nicking a Mars bar is different? Basingstoke's Mall seems to be able to stop cyclists with no worries about costs or who's job it is - have seen them do so several times.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 14 2011, 09:50 PM

Not if there isn't a law installed in the first place!

For heavens sake, where did these 'daft pills' come from?

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 14 2011, 10:02 PM

I don't expect a cycling prohibition notice would have stopped that happening, but even if it would have, I know many people who have had no problems with the people cycling in town.


Those laws are already in place. Cycling prohibition would be a new law, and one that would need enforcing should it be introduced, viz, the cost of policing the town goes up.


That is a fact is it?

Fair enough, you think it worth while, I don't, and 'never the twain shall meet'.

Posted by: On the edge Jul 14 2011, 10:09 PM

I can't see the point in having laws, rules and regulations if they are just to be broken with impunity. It would not take a new law to prevent cycling in Northbrook Street - that already exists. Yes, I also know lots of people who haven't had problems there, or for anything else. So does that mean we should abolish all law? Finally, for the record, yes it is a fact - would you like witness statements? I was actually with work colleagues on two separate occasions! Perhaps we ought to rename St Nicholas, St Thomas - would better suit our demands for 'proof' on this Forum!! Nonetheless as you say - never the twain

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 14 2011, 10:20 PM

That is my point.


I didn't know it was unlawful to cycle down Northbrook Street?


Now you are being daft.


I'm not saying that you haven't seen that. My question is whether it is true they have no problem enforcing no cycling zones, not to mention the cost of enforcement, which is my main objection.


Agreed.

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 15 2011, 04:44 AM

In general, cyclists take no notice of the law and seem to get away with it.
Hence any new "law" or regulation prohibiting them from the "pedestrian area"would be a waste of time, money etc.

Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Jul 15 2011, 02:12 PM

I guess there are none so blind as those who will not see,

One shop down from Camps, (outside Wilkinsons). There are tactile pavements both sides of the road.

Do pay attention.

Posted by: JeffG Jul 15 2011, 08:00 PM

You are twisting everybody's words. Of course it's not - AT THE MOMENT. Everyone else is talking about the future when other traffic is to be excluded from Northbrook Street (October, someone said?), and suggesting that cyclists should be included in the ban so that it becomes a true pedestrian zone.

Why is it so hard to make ones self understood (or is it deliberate)?

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 15 2011, 08:19 PM

I'm not twisting anything; it is you that is being, I'm afraid to say, dim. I know exactly what you and others are saying, but I say: don't bother loading the cost of effective policing of Northbrook Street by introducing a cycling ban. I think the police have bigger fish to fry.

OTE said that there was already a law about cycling in pedestrian zones, but that doesn't currently apply in Northbrook Street.

Posted by: JeffG Jul 15 2011, 09:19 PM

There are obviously different shades of dim. It was quite clear that OTE said that there would not need to be a new law to prevent cycling in Northbrook Street, as such a law currently exists and could be used. He didn't say it was currently unlawful.

Your point that the police have more important things to do than enforce a ban, therefore it shouldn't be banned, could be applied to anything.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 15 2011, 09:34 PM

Is this a 5 minute argument, or the full half hour?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM

His post was ambiguous, and my reply was ironic to highlight it.


Yes it could, to a point, but I am not about to suggest such a ludicrous thing.

Just for convenience, this was my original post on the subject.


At the moment, this is a cycleway connecting north and south of Newbury Town. To make people dismount who want to cycle through Newbury, would force them out on to the dual carriage way, and I would say that isn't the ideal road for the average cyclist.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jul 15 2011, 10:06 PM

And those coming from the east are just an occident waiting to happen.

Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Jul 15 2011, 10:11 PM

Is it not the case that so far, the only person to be hospitalised / seriously injured as a direct result of a collision in Northbook Street (in it's present state) was, in fact, run into by a cyclist who never stopped and was never caught?

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 15 2011, 11:24 PM

When was that?

The case for banning cyclists would be made if the area was to become over-run with casual cyclists who were continually endangering pedestrians. Laws, on the other-hand, never stopped the idiots.

Posted by: On the edge Jul 16 2011, 06:14 AM

And you think I'm confused!

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 16 2011, 08:33 AM

Do you need me to draw you a picture?

It is like banning hand guns. It removes them from the 'genuine' users, but diddly-squat to tame the hardened criminal/maniac.

Banning cycling will affect the careful rider, but nothing to stop the idiot cyclists; to do that would rise policing costs. Why not just leave it as it is? It's hardly carnage on the highstreet at the moment and I would imagine the justice system has better things to deal with.

Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Jul 16 2011, 09:04 AM

Here:

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article.aspx?articleID=7617


Curious what selective memories some people have. Bizzare that some of them feel they can get on a forum shouting the odds without all the facts.

Boy steps into path of bus which has almost stopped? "lets ban buses" - Cyclist sends child to hospital? - " lets do nothing"

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 16 2011, 09:12 AM

It is not selective, I remember this incident, but I fail to see how this materially changes my argument. I also seem to remember that the boy responsible was discovered.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 16 2011, 09:18 AM

I have explained almost to exhaustion: would banning cycles have prevented the incident you refer to? Also, the decision to remove bus routes from the highstreet was made before the incident with the boy at the bus-stop.

Posted by: user23 Jul 16 2011, 09:40 AM

It wouldn't. I nearly got knocked down by someone cycling on the pavement on Bart Street yesterday.

Given cycling on the pavement is banned yet this still occurred I agree with you and think banning cycling in Northbrook Street would have little effect unless we spent ten of thousands of our tax a year on enforcing it.

Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Jul 16 2011, 09:51 AM

I thought cyclists were law-abing citizens. Surely they would dismount when required? I suspect that whilst not removing the problem entirely, banning bikes would probably make it safer.

But then some of the arguments voiced here don't have any internal logic so following to a conclusion is pretty difficult.

Northbrook Street would actually be safer if they dug it up and put the road back as it was.

Posted by: Strafin Jul 16 2011, 10:20 AM

That's the most sensible post so far!

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 16 2011, 10:52 AM

You wot?

I'd say my point makes perfect sense. Yours; however; I have difficulty with. You think we should ban all cyclists because a minority are borderline reckless, a minority that will more than likely ignore a ban anyway - necessitating spending public money on enforcement?

How bad is the cycling menace at the moment anyway? You go on about facts, what are the facts about cycling in the highstreet. We have had barely a handful of isolated incidents in years. Must we make society so sterile that we need to be wrapped in cotton-wool everywhere we go?

I could understand if it could be demonstrated that the high-street is suffering in trade because of the bikes, or a vulnerable section of the community is too scared to use the town due to the bikes. I could understand if the town was over run with bikes, but I have no information that proves this is the case.

Buses will be stopped, but can we not just leave it there for a while to see how it goes, then if it becomes apparent that bike have to go, base it on a reasonable risk assessment and the cost of enforcement, rather than what appears to me to be little more than reasons of spite?

Not me.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 16 2011, 10:53 AM

The most sensible thing to do NOW, is NOTHING (the town has cost enough public money already). Stop being a bunch of 'girl's blouses'.

Posted by: HeatherW Jul 16 2011, 11:17 AM

Cyclists will never concur with the Highway code as they are not registered like other vehicles are. Trying to stop them from cycling in non cycle areas would mean more police patrols and that is not going to happen any time soon. The police have cameras up in Northbrook street and would be better to concentrate on bad cyclists who act dangerously.

I have had a few near misses from cyclists in town. When I have mentioned this to the police they just shrug their shoulders.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 16 2011, 11:20 AM

If it were 'me in charge', I'd have a law to identify the serial offenders and impound their bikes, or issue an ASBO from the town. Let's think of things that penalise the offenders but leave others alone.

Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Jul 16 2011, 11:22 AM

In the words of Captain Mainwaring "stupid Boy"

Yes, you probably would.
But isn't that EXACTLY the reason being given to ban ALL buses? Can't have it both ways.



So we should keep cyclists in Northbrook Street because they increase the danger element?

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 16 2011, 11:31 AM

You think I advocate banning buses? If they could remain, I'd suggest banning drivers that fall foul of driving inconsiderately. Does that not make sense, and something that should have been in place already, maybe?


No. I think cycles should remain because I think their 'danger' is over-hyped and a ban seems an over-reaction that will penalise the good and do little to stop the bad.

If there was a practical and convenient alternative route for buses and cyclists to the highstreet, that would be a different matter, but Newbury suffers from a paucity of north/south routes. While this is the case, I have little sympathy in banning these vehicles - especially bikes.

I now look forward to your next abusive post!

Posted by: HeatherW Jul 16 2011, 11:48 AM

The trouble is authorities do not think that way. When you talk to the police about such things they always say there are more important things to worry about. Reading all the shenanigans going on with the police and the press that is not really surprising. Police should concentrate on what they are paid for, not what they want to be paid for.

Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Jul 16 2011, 12:09 PM

Really?

Not having a pop at you at all, just that you wilfully seemed to think I was.

As I said, I was trying to follow the logic of some of the arguments on this board.

Which, if I read them right, is that: We ban all buses even though they haven't sent anyone to hospital. We allow the only things that have sent people to hospital to continue, and that's for two reasons, 1/ it increases the level of danger, and 2/ it would be too expensive to get them to stop.

Does that not sum it up?

Posted by: user23 Jul 16 2011, 12:15 PM

Digging up the road or the re-introduction of cars during the day would undoubtedly make it less safe given there have been no injuries to pedestrians this year.

Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Jul 16 2011, 12:37 PM

Apart from the kid who walked in front of the bus?

Posted by: user23 Jul 16 2011, 12:39 PM

Nope. He wasn't injured according to the report.

To say that the best thing for one of the safest roads in Newbury Town Centre would be to dig it up and allow cars to use it at all times, no doubt making it less safe, seems a bit strange to me.

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 16 2011, 12:50 PM

http://www.reading-berkshire.co.uk/central-reading-team-tackle-cyclist-in-reading-pedestrian-zones/

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 16 2011, 12:51 PM

It would seem that I might be wasting my time with the 'brighter' sibling, as no-matter what I post, he seems to ignore it, and maintain a line of thought that doesn't in most cases, exist.

Well, as your subsequent assertions read: you don't.


I don't know what the rational is, perhaps it might be because there is a more 'suitable' route now (baring in mind Parkway)?


Your words, not mine. I already said that I believe their danger to the public is over hyped by some.


I never said it was too expensive. Again, those are your words, not mine. I believe that police time would currently be better served doing other things. Putting a ban in place doesn't mean 'hospitalisations' will stop, unless we divert funds to effectively stop the cyclists. Is that really the best use of public money?


Clearly not.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 16 2011, 12:55 PM

I hate Reading Town with a passion and would never welcome 'my' town to become a clone. Oh, wait...!

Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Jul 16 2011, 01:43 PM

I never said you did. Why all this paranoia? It's not all about you. Calm down. Try not to get so vexed.

Merely following the input of others who seemed to believe that the old bill would be better employed doing other things, and we should let cyclists get up to whatever they wanted because it would be too costly to 'police' their antics.

I believe that to be a fair interpretation of what was being said by some.

There also seems to be a view on here that buses have to be banned, even though they aint done nuffin' yet, but cyclists are ok, even though they HAVE cause some grief.

I believe that to be a fair summation of what has been said by some.

Posted by: GMR Jul 16 2011, 01:43 PM

I wouldn't say I hate it, but I'd hate to live there. Many years ago I used to work in Reading; but to be fair it was a lot better back then.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 16 2011, 02:13 PM

Referring back to your last post but this, who has said that bikes should be kept in the highstreet to increase the danger, and who said policing would be too expensive?

Posted by: GMR Jul 16 2011, 03:59 PM

If the police that are there - occasional - did what they were supposed to do then we would have less bike accidents or abuses of the law. I've often seen cyclists ride dangerously while the police have been patrolling and totally ignored such antics. It is not a case of more police, just that the police that are there did what they were supposed to do.

Posted by: On the edge Jul 16 2011, 04:19 PM

Its rather a weird notion that we should only do things after a serious incident has occurred. That is the tenor of the doin't do anything - there hasn't been a reported accident this year.

The Council (quite rightly) are imposing health and safety rules. Their employees are not permitted to do anything unless an assessment has been carried out and they deem it safe to work.

So, at the school my niece attends, I observed three WBC employees dealing with a faulty light fitting. An electrician up a ladder, someone holding it and the school caretaker for some reason also watching.

If that's the standard our elected representatives are seeking to impose. i.e. eliminate all preventable risks - then they cannot permit cycling, or other wheeled traffic in Northbook Street etc. when its pedestrian.

Simple!

Posted by: user23 Jul 16 2011, 04:29 PM

It's not pedestrian if cycling or other wheeled traffic is permitted.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 16 2011, 04:35 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpzkfgGy9Cc

As far as I know, our elected representatives are not 'imposing' any health and safety regimes at WBC. I understand that obligation is 'imposed' by national government through safety at work directives.

You are right: cyclists will, from time to time, collide with pedestrians, but I'll take that risk if it saves tying down a police man's time administering a new policy on cycling in town. For the moment.

Posted by: On the edge Jul 16 2011, 06:11 PM

What wonderful spin!! In any event they are supposed to be implementing the HSE obligation. They are therefore imposing. If they objected, they have two choices - change the policy or resign. That's the honourable thing to do. Silence is agreement. Health and Safety is a big political issue - so Councillors simply can't abdicate responsibility - either for or against.

The risk isn't just yours to take. Would that it were - but we live in a community, not an hermetically sealed box.

Frankly I would like to see the Police enforcing the law without fear or favour - a couple of minutes shouting at some twit on a bike isn't going to overstretch them. You could argue that whenever the Police deal with some minor breach its 'tying them down'. Where do you draw the line then - littering, parking in prohibited zones, shop lifting, theft, GBH?

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 16 2011, 06:36 PM

The councillors that you and I elect are not the executive. I don't know what you are talking about.


All those things already exist, so you would like them to dilute their time so that they can prosecute people who are cycling down the highstreet? The line I draw is the one that exists now. I see no need to add to it.

Posted by: On the edge Jul 16 2011, 07:33 PM

Did you do 'British constitution at School? I don't know about you but I endeavour to elect a 'Councillor' - not a sheep, not a spin doctor for political nostrums, not a special sort of social worker, not a party PR man. Difficult I know in Newbury!! Over the years, yes, they've abdicated power and responsibility - doesn't mean they shouldn't get it back. Your thinking they have no power, which is felt by many, has got us into the mess we are in today.

What line exists today? Please explain? Are you actually saying that where cycling is prohibited the Police should turn a blind eye - simply let it pass? I'm not advocating any change - simply WBC come out of the long grass and say if its a pedestrian area or not - can't have it both ways.

If you really think about it, when Northbrook Street was paved over and the pedestrian idea implemented - the Police work diminished in your view. That's because it was previously illegal to cycle on the pavement and the Police should have and indeed did caution anyone caught so doing. So I'm not suggesting anything more.

Implementing your interpretation of the law would actually be far more difficult. How would you train someone with all the different conditions you'd necessarily need to attach?

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 16 2011, 07:48 PM

I don't know what you are on about and what has that got to do with H&S at work, as per your example? And when did I mention reduced power? All I meant was the councillors we elect are not responsible in drafting health and safety at work legislation, that's all.


No. I have explained quite clearly what I meant, but I'm beginning to think that you are incapable of understanding.


But you can. Pedestrian Zones are not necessarily exclusively pedestrian. Daft I know, but that is how it is. To ban AND prevent people cycling in the highstreet will make a change that will require extra money from the public purse. There's no getting away from it.


But I'm talking about 2011 and on-ward's budget. To ban AND prevent people cycling in the highstreet will make a change that will require extra money from the public purse.


What are you talking about? A picture will do.

Posted by: On the edge Jul 16 2011, 08:26 PM

Simply because you seem to be unable to accept anyone's views but your own you resort to personal abuse. Game over as far as I'm concerned.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 16 2011, 10:12 PM

A well reasoned argument would suffice. Anyway, that is unfair as I have already accepted that you would rather cycles were banned. Meanwhile; perhaps you could point me to anywhere you conceded to ANY of my views on the subject with grace? How can you turn my view that I'd rather police time wasn't tied up enforcing a bike ban in town to 'Are you actually saying that where cycling is prohibited the Police should turn a blind eye'? I have to question how tolerant you are of others' opinions as well. Where did you get the idea that I endorse police not doing their job? Taking into account how many times I've tried to explain my view, people like you (and others) get it wrong. I can only conclude you cannot (and others) understand it, or don't want to understand.


And seriously, your last sentence in your last post was nonsense as far as I'm concerned.

Posted by: On the edge Jul 17 2011, 07:34 AM

Like I said, not much point really. The argument has become circular. There seems to me no benefit in trying to justify or indeed correct a fundamentally poor decision made by an inept public authority. The people of Newbury elect their local politicians - we deserve what we get.

Posted by: user23 Jul 17 2011, 08:09 AM

Bloke steps in front of bus pulling into bus stop, local councillors get the blame.

You've got to love forums like this.

Posted by: GMR Jul 17 2011, 08:18 AM

You've got to love its members even more.

Posted by: Cognosco Jul 17 2011, 10:03 AM

Yes no doubt he risked life and limb just to try and embarress local councillors by jumping in front of a bus.
Local councillors pay a shed load of local taxpayers money to make a small market town a clone of others by bringing in bricklayers to pave over the main town throughfare and make it a pedestrian area. But then find that there is a problem with people visiting Newbury using public transport etc because there is no where for buses to pick up and drop off passengers. They allow certain vehicles to use it even though there is no deliniation between road and footpath therby causing a possible safety hazard to pedestrians and raising poor bus drivers stress levels.

You've got to love local authority employees and local councillors.
Good job we have forums like this to counteract the spin produced by local authority employees eh User.

Posted by: dannyboy Jul 17 2011, 12:45 PM

The problem is the pedestrians, not the cyclists/busses. If the pedestrians bothered to look before crossing from one side of Northbrook St to the other, there would be no problem....

Posted by: GMR Jul 17 2011, 12:59 PM

But the pedestrians have a stronger legal right of way; over buses and cyclists. However, I do agree with you.

Posted by: dannyboy Jul 17 2011, 01:19 PM

So that gives them the right not to take responsibility for their own safety?

No matter what the 'legal right of way' that does not give the right to do as one pleases.

Posted by: user23 Jul 17 2011, 01:24 PM

I don't see how there can be different levels of right of way; surely one either has right of way or not?

Posted by: Cognosco Jul 17 2011, 01:51 PM

Quite right! That is why it was plain to all apart from the local authorities. Why spend all that money making a pedestrian area that actually is not a pedestrian area? Oh yes it is! Oh no its not! It would have made more sense to increase the pavement area and left a single easily marked roadway with crossings for pedestrians and have the single carriageway controlled by traffic lights either end of Northbrook street. When two buses or vehicle pass in different directions at the moment it becomes seriously dangerous for pedestrians. Still this is Newbury so allowances have to be made for the thinking of our local authorities?

Posted by: On the edge Jul 17 2011, 01:54 PM

If the Council wants us to take responsibility for ourselves in Northbrook Street can it please butt out of interfering in the many other areas it sticks its long nose.

Posted by: user23 Jul 17 2011, 02:11 PM

I would suggest everyone should take responsibility for themselves when crossing the road everywhere in Newbury, not just Northbrook Street, unless they are mentally or physically incapable of doing so.

If you feel you cannot take responsibility for yourself when crossing the road in Northbrook Street or anywhere else in Newbury perhaps you should seek help?

Posted by: On the edge Jul 17 2011, 02:50 PM

I just find it strange that the Council who are so strict and so intent on 'health and safety' in everything else they do, can't see the irony of permitting the known risks in Northbrook Street. Simply not logical. After all, why do you need someone on the ground when a member of staff is up a ladder? Shouldn't the worker be a bit more responsible and keep a lookout?

As for me, I don't need any help. Nevertheless, its pretty clear that the Planning Engineers do - and serious help; they've demonstrated they are not up to the job. Another example - no handrails when Blackboys Bridge was re opened. S** it, only a few OAPs complained - why don't they take more responsibility and buy a walking frame?

Posted by: user23 Jul 17 2011, 03:04 PM

As far as I know there hasn't been one pedestrian hurt in Northbrook Street this year. What are these "known risks" you're talking about them permitting? You also seem to be confusing health and safety at work guidelines that apply to most organisations with road safety policy.

Here's a link to some information that might help you take responsibility for crossing the road yourself.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/think/education/early-years-and-primary/parents/7-to-11s/the-green-cross-code/

Posted by: On the edge Jul 17 2011, 04:38 PM

Oh I get it - sorry. Its just Health and Safety at work silly me! I didn't realise it was only for WBC staff.

Personally, I'm more than happy about taking responsibility for myself - ironically, even at work. So when I get old, you won't hear me twittering on about wanting handrails etc.

So then, lets just let things lie. I agree there hasn't been an accident; this seems to be a great concept for all traffic regulations.

So, for instance, I can't see what's wrong with driving using a mobile phone, I've never had an accident whilst doing so, nor has anyone else of my acquaintance.

Take it further, we could save on the costs we build into infrastructure to prevent suicides - after all, they have responsibilities as well.

Posted by: user23 Jul 17 2011, 04:41 PM

It's not, I quite clearly said that the health and safety at work guidelines apply to most organisations.

Now you're just being silly I'm afraid, unable to justify your point about "known risks" so going off on a tangent and creating a problem where none exists, so I'm leaving this conversion.

Posted by: On the edge Jul 17 2011, 05:00 PM

So they do - but most organisations I know entreat their staff to adopt them in their private lives as well. Sensible if you think about it.

The risks in Northbrook Street.

The lack of traffic and distinct pavements gives the impression that the area is vehicle free. Few vehicles actually use the route.
- Mothers with young children are likely to gain false confidence and pay less attention to their charges.
- Elderly people will stand and gossip in the vehicle path - hearing isn't good when you get old.
- People generally will congregate and concentrate on what each other are saying.
and
- Buses are rather quieter these days, so do not always announce their presence.
- Cyclists are known to take risks and cycle irresponsibly
- Cars and Vans are not expected.

Being responsible, I always walk along the route of the old pavement. Hence I'm the awkward one who tells the street musicians and poster sellers (outside Camps) to move on and stop blocking the path. Must say they get pretty upset sometimes.

NB - My Mother was hurt following a collision and 12 months later is still limping - an un reported accident. I know, an irresponsible old lady, as I keep telling her.

I'm sure you'll find a good few holes in that - happy hunting.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jul 17 2011, 07:26 PM

Sorry if I've missed this, but bicycles aren't currently banned from Northbrook Street, right?

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 17 2011, 07:34 PM

I agree with that but surely legitimate drivers who drive in the "pedestrian zone" should also drive with due responsibility for pedestrians while in this area? (I'm sure most do.)

Posted by: user23 Jul 17 2011, 07:37 PM

All legitimate drivers should drive with due responsibility on all roads in Newbury, not just Northbrook Street.

Posted by: On the edge Jul 17 2011, 07:39 PM

How do you account for the many accidents that occur then?

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 17 2011, 07:40 PM

Yes, I agree again, but the point I was trying to make is that drivers should be extra aware of the fact that many pedestrians in the "pedestrian area" think they have the right to be in the road as a priority and therefore drivers in this area should drive in a manner that reflects this.

Posted by: user23 Jul 17 2011, 07:43 PM

Very true and this is what seems to be happening now.

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 17 2011, 07:43 PM

Apart from a large number of cyclists!

Posted by: GMR Jul 17 2011, 07:44 PM

And there is more cyclists because the government would prefer us to use that mod of transport than using our cars.

Posted by: user23 Jul 17 2011, 07:46 PM

A large number? A few I'd say.

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 17 2011, 07:53 PM

We'll differ on that one then.

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 17 2011, 07:55 PM

When I say "a large number" I mean a large number of cyclists ride in the "pedestrian area" without due care for pedestrians.

Posted by: user23 Jul 17 2011, 08:06 PM

Fair enough. I don't find it any different to areas that aren't "pedestrianised" though.

A bloke on a bike on cycling the pavement on Bart Street nearly knocked me flying the other day.

Posted by: On the edge Jul 17 2011, 08:14 PM

Save for the fact there aren't any Post Office vans, Buses or Police Cars on pavements.

Posted by: On the edge Jul 17 2011, 08:15 PM

Which of course they always do....!!!

Posted by: HJD Jul 30 2011, 01:01 PM

I saw something in Northbrook St. this morning that has prompted me to reply to this thread.
At about 10.50am there was quite a gathering of people listening to some buskers by Wilko's. ( 'The Bucket Band', excellent ). Several people were standing & also walking by on the road, when a Double Decker 'Jet Black' bus came up the street, not sure of it's speed about 15mph i suspect, the driver never gave any warning & from the look on his face had no intention of slowing or stopping & as he came up behind a chap caught him a glancing blow on the nearside front wing almost knocking him over. The bus carried on so i can only assume the driver was unaware of what happened ! If it had been me he hit i think i would have informed him !!!

Posted by: NWNREADER Jul 30 2011, 01:05 PM

That describes an unacceptable incident, wherever it occurs and whatever is involved.

I would suggest a phone call or email to Simon at very least. Otherwise nothing at all can happen....

Posted by: GMR Jul 30 2011, 06:08 PM

This is a common occurrence. I've seen quite a few such incidents.

Posted by: GMR Jul 30 2011, 06:10 PM

A phone call is a waste of time. I know people who have reported such incidents and we are still getting near misses. One of the problems is the arrogance of the bus drivers.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jul 30 2011, 07:09 PM

While Simon is not a friend, I have had dealings with him and always found him receptive.

If he is not then there are higher levels that impact on him as well as the driver - who will be easily identified....

Posted by: Strafin Jul 31 2011, 10:13 AM

Who is this Simon that everyone feels the need to name drop every 5 minutes...?

Posted by: NWNREADER Jul 31 2011, 11:47 AM

Simon Weaver, owner of Weavaway Coaches, operator of the bus service mentioned.

Posted by: HJD Jul 31 2011, 04:51 PM

As i previously mentioned perhaps the driver was unaware of the incident, ( if not he will obviously deny it ). And as GMR said will it alter things anyway !.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jul 31 2011, 06:34 PM

Well, some people prefer to moan than do something.......

Posted by: GMR Aug 1 2011, 03:32 PM

But when people do something nothing happens; as in this case.

Posted by: NWNREADER Aug 1 2011, 03:48 PM

What has been done. who by?