Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: On the edge Sep 24 2011, 07:33 PM

Someone got caught on the bollards in the Wharf today. Won't make any other comment - at least no lives in the Market Place were put at risk.

Did anyone else see the Police car with blue lights and siren on hurtle through the pedestrians in the Market today? Must have been a massive issue if it was thought appropriate to do that, presumably far more lives at risk elsewhere?

How very odd! I'm sure our local spin doctors can explain!

Posted by: xjay1337 Sep 24 2011, 07:40 PM

Aw, well I drove through town around 5:30 and didn't see anything. Guess I missed it. *sad face*

Posted by: NWNREADER Sep 25 2011, 10:39 AM

Clearly the pedestrians did.... 'Hurtle'?

Do you mean it was travelling so fast people were leaping for safety?

".....in the Market"?

Do you mean it drove through the stalls, or on the pedestrianised roadway?

Dramatics are for the stage. If you felt the driving was inappropriate then the best remedy is to report what you saw. There may well be witnesses on here to back your view up (or contradict it) but by making a report then the situation can be properly reviewed and resolved.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 25 2011, 11:15 AM

Who is being dramatic? Just because you clearly have a strong opinion, you don't need to personalise straight-way - unless you feel your argument doesn't stand of course!

This has, as previous threads show here been an emotive issue locally. Two sides. I'm simply pointing out the irony with the latest. That is:-

1. The 'for' view core argument revolves round stopping drivers who cannot apparently see road signs getting into an area full of pedestrians - where only apparently first rate and slow drivers are permitted.

2. The 'anti' view says that given that safety is seriously compromised when any driver is let loose in this area, the offence is, at best, a minor infringement. Therefore it is wholly inappropriate and unsustainable to effectively write off a driver's vehicle for making the mistake.

There has been much discussion and debate in recent times about the dangers caused by emergency service vehicles using lights and sirens going about their business. Indeed there have been several fatalities - even locally.

So the facts of the matter are - 'we' (that is our community) yesterday wrote off a reasonably new and perfectly good car almost immediately after one of the acceptable drivers went through the town with siren and lights flashing. I have no way of knowing what speed and as far as I could observe, the driver seemed alert and was driving well.

Think about it!

So then, will I report this? Why should I, and go round gathering witnesses statements; although there were plenty of them? Presumably that's what this forum is all about - community opinion. However, I suspect that as there has been no other mention, no one else gives a dam - so I won't either.

Nice place Newbury!


(NB - Look up the word hurtle - it fits.)

Posted by: NWNREADER Sep 25 2011, 12:07 PM

Sorry, but I haven't a scooby what you are on about, let alone what the point is intended to be. My only strong point is commenting on a forum changes nothing, now or for the future.

Posted by: Strafin Sep 25 2011, 12:08 PM

Reporting the police to the police? That will get taken seriously then!

Posted by: NWNREADER Sep 25 2011, 12:12 PM

I'm led to believe it the the most intensely investigated sort of incident...........

Way ahead of investigating politicians, councillors, journalists........

Posted by: On the edge Sep 25 2011, 12:47 PM

Suspect we must be in a parallel universe - I'm sure that's the case in yours!

Posted by: On the edge Sep 25 2011, 12:52 PM

Really? Suspect that isn't the case simply another, but apparently nice way, of closing a debate.

You are quite right, forums don't change anything - perhaps only thing they can do is permit those who want to test issues or try opinion.

Posted by: NWNREADER Sep 25 2011, 01:04 PM

What 'debate'? The validity of the bollard system? The authority for emergency services to travel through the pedestrian area?

The bollard system has been done to death, but no problem with talking more. I fed an idea in to WBC: I haven't a clue if my comment made a difference to the plans but a similar change was made and the frequency of 'problems' has since reduced...

With the numbers of people in the area, CCTV etc (and I think the vehicle has a monitoring system) Finding out if the driving was inappropriate would be straightforward. A debate about the standard of emergency service driving is quite valid, and we can come up with opinions, but if there is a real issue, and it needs to lead to change, it has to involve the appropriate organisation....

I don't seek to close the debate, just steer it towards a meaningful outcome.

Posted by: Nothing Much Sep 25 2011, 01:09 PM

Actually police cars can hurtle, and even take off.
Across Tottenham Court Rd.London. There are a number of one way roads. A Police car passed us by at speed.
No Markets,cyclists,pedestrians were injured I hasten to add.
The road had a minor dip and a rise .All four wheels left the ground. Jeremy C would have been proud.
I bet they do it all the time for fun . Of course I have no witnesses apart from "Astonished" from Islington.

I mentioned on another thread that the google streetview car failed to pass the bollards.
OK I did review the signs and they are pretty easy to see and one would eventually say"shucks I've got myself in a pickle."
Is the council not responsible for the damage to cars. Barrieres at Supermarkets have been sued for coming down too soon.
As are dodgy pavements. I left the spello above as it sounded nice!

Streetview even managed to blank out the face of the plastic gent outside the cafe.
ce

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 25 2011, 03:05 PM

?????

Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Sep 25 2011, 03:24 PM

Are you on drugs?...or maybe you need some.

The 'facts' as you describe them are well wide of the mark.

The incident at the Museum did NOT happen almost immediately after a police car went through town "with siren and lights flashing" Wrong Wrong Wrong.

"'we' did not write off a reasonably new and perfectly good car" - the gentleman driving without due care and attention (self-evidently), and who had ignored SEVEN warning signs hit some bollards that he had been told were there and were likely to cause damage if he did. Just maybe he has some idea of who was controlling the car at the time it met the bollards.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 25 2011, 04:15 PM

Perhaps the timing was a little out - frankly the chronology matters to the point I raised.

What a very spiteful and nasty response to someone who has committed a minor traffic offence.

Yes, he ignored seven warning signs (which frankly are not particular clear against the street environment, in some cases almost almost an essay! However, what about similar breaches of road traffic law, many of which are far more dangerous? Speeding for instance? Is the destruction of a perfectly good car a satisfactory outcome for ignoring 10 / 20 repeater street signs?

As I thought, Newbury does not seem to be able to consider this issue rationally. Our representatives are therefore driven to keep the expensive and unnecessary bollards in place - when a simple camera / fines regime would be just as effective.

The point I was attempting to make was if it is really so dangerous to let drivers loose in the semi pedestrian area - why is there no consistency? Emergency vehicles travelling in 'siren and lights' mode are recognised to represent a major danger - yet that this is apparently permitted.

Drugs, no not me - but might be worth you investigating as they might give some relief to your over active bile duct!

Posted by: user23 Sep 25 2011, 04:30 PM

I think this is all that needs to be repeated.

Posted by: Strafin Sep 25 2011, 04:39 PM

He ignored seven signs so he should have his car written off? Do 60 through a school zone and get 3 points, punch someone, and receive a small fine or perhaps a caution. Drink driving? Fine and a ban, go near to pedestrian zone though and expect the costs to be in the thousands. Where is the consistency there?

Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Sep 25 2011, 04:48 PM

This makes no sense, but somehow that's strangely in keeping.



I was responding to YOU, so unless you're the chappie who was driving, that makes no sense.


If someone chooses to ignore speeding signs and ends up totalling their car, that's a matter for them, they can't blame 'Society' or 'The Community'. To suggest otherwise, makes no sense.


ALL of Newbury? You can't possibly know that and shouldn't pretend you speak for others. It makes no sense. Ah.....oh, I see what you've been doing here, you've been spouting nonsense to try and sucker others in, ok, hands, up, I admit I fell for it, the joke's on me..I really thought you were serious.


No they won't. Many of the events in the Market place have to be covered by'Public Liabliity' insurance, and those premiums and the ability to actually get insurance are based on it being a no-go area for non-authorised vehicles. But you knew that you little sausage didn't you?



Well. we've covered the fact that it is a pedestrianised area during certain times and events. So, should anyone get mugged, robbed, or have a heart attack in Northbrook Street, or the Market Place are you suggesting that emergency vehicles shouldn't be allowed through, becasue it might upset those who can't get through the bollards outside the Museum? Makes no sense, but then again...


Good point, if someone gets caught doing 60 in a School Zone (as you put it) why not take the car off them and crush it? I think you've got something there. I for one support your campaign for tougher measures for people speeding outside schools. Let's get the ball rolling on this one. Over to you.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 25 2011, 04:59 PM

I have a hunch that this isn't strictly true. I'm sure that this forum does on occasion serve as a 'pressure group'.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 25 2011, 05:30 PM

Very little seems to make sense to you - is that why you mentioned drugs originally? Hope you can get some help - seriously, there's a lot of repressed anger there.

Posted by: NWNREADER Sep 25 2011, 05:33 PM

The action is outwith the forum. the forum/membership may well spark something (the water wheel, for one) but there is no change purely as a result of a comment on here.

My view, may be wrong - it happens

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 25 2011, 06:56 PM

That is hard to prove either way, but I doubt anyone wishes to actually change anything by simply posting here. It is outside its design brief. It would be interesting to understand the affect this and other forums have though.

The regret I have is the reluctance of councillors to engage on here directly in some of the threads.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 25 2011, 07:36 PM

Yes it would be interesting to understand the dynamics. I've seen a fair amount of commercial research and study; mainly concerned with the gathering of valid customer reactions from electronic sites other than that provided by the host.

To an extent, can understand the reluctance of Councillors. The most obvious pressure against is lack of time. Particularly if you've ever seen the masses of information they get set 'officially' - party and authority. Plus in this case posters anonymity works against.

To some extent, the way most of the threads go is fairly predictable - but that's another thread!

Posted by: xjay1337 Sep 25 2011, 08:43 PM

Anyway about this forum being a pressure group, I doubt it. Most likely, no-one bothers to pay any attention at all, at least from the places that matter. After all, it's just a forum for discussions of this pokey town most of us are unfortunate enough to have to live in.

Posted by: user23 Sep 25 2011, 08:56 PM

What's a pokey town?

Posted by: spartacus Sep 25 2011, 09:15 PM

The 'O' is next to the 'I' on the keyboard..... I suspect a typo.....

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 25 2011, 09:22 PM

"I'm sure that this forum does on occasion serve as a 'pressure group'."

I have seen things happen as a result of things that have been discussed on here. I am certain the town council's opinion of the development in the park has come about because of discussions on here. I have seen other things that I cannot recall now, but I do remember the mini Tesco/triangle roundabout lane getting a left turn arrow shortly after a discussion on here, after years of not having one. I'm sure things on this site influenced the local lazy Lib Dems to question the CCTV hand-over.

It might not draught policy, but I am certain the powers that be keep on eye on this place and opposition parties have been motivated by some of the things posted here..

Posted by: xjay1337 Sep 25 2011, 09:54 PM

Oh well, in that case...LOWER MY COUNCIL TAX YOU *****.

Clear enough?

Also how about resurfacing, oh - say... 95% of Newbury since it's so bouncy even my mildly lowered car crashs and scrapes its nose. Also please fix my "drive" (I should say entry to the residential parking on my flat), it's about a 30 degree angle to the road and most 4x4's have enough trouble getting up it, let alone a car, LET ALONE a lowered car.

I didn't even think of that one. Quality.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 26 2011, 10:06 AM

Depends where you have been before I suppose. I was rasied in Guildford - even today considered an 'aspirational' town by many. Frankly, I wouldn't ever want to go back, not even in a wooden box. Its now a shabby South London suburb. Another career choice and I could have been living in Wigan. So, I feel fortunate having landed in Newbury! Doesn't mean I don't want to make it better...

Posted by: Jayjay Sep 26 2011, 12:36 PM

Well Adrian Edwards reads these posts. He called posters misguided and ill informned as I recall.

Posted by: NWNREADER Sep 26 2011, 12:46 PM

Which could actually mean he does not read the posts........

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 26 2011, 12:48 PM

Could be some of the same people that voted for him.

Posted by: xjay1337 Sep 26 2011, 04:15 PM

[quote name='Jayjay' date='Sep 26 2011, 01:36 PM' post='46792']
misguided and ill informned

Like most politicians.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 26 2011, 08:03 PM

Good lad - at least he made a hot comment!

Was it Oscar Wilde who said 'There is only one thing worse than being talked about and that's not being talked about'