IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Foot shooting time again!
On the edge
post Sep 24 2011, 07:33 PM
Post #1


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



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!


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_xjay1337_*
post Sep 24 2011, 07:40 PM
Post #2





Guests






Aw, well I drove through town around 5:30 and didn't see anything. Guess I missed it. *sad face*
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NWNREADER
post Sep 25 2011, 10:39 AM
Post #3


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,414
Joined: 20-November 10
Member No.: 1,265



QUOTE (On the edge @ Sep 24 2011, 08:33 PM) *
Did anyone else see the Police car with blue lights and siren on hurtle through the pedestrians in the Market today?


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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Sep 25 2011, 11:15 AM
Post #4


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Sep 25 2011, 11:39 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.


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.)


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NWNREADER
post Sep 25 2011, 12:07 PM
Post #5


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,414
Joined: 20-November 10
Member No.: 1,265



QUOTE (On the edge @ Sep 25 2011, 12:15 PM) *
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.)

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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Strafin
post Sep 25 2011, 12:08 PM
Post #6


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,930
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 55



Reporting the police to the police? That will get taken seriously then!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NWNREADER
post Sep 25 2011, 12:12 PM
Post #7


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,414
Joined: 20-November 10
Member No.: 1,265



QUOTE (Strafin @ Sep 25 2011, 01:08 PM) *
Reporting the police to the police? That will get taken seriously then!

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

Way ahead of investigating politicians, councillors, journalists........
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Sep 25 2011, 12:47 PM
Post #8


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Sep 25 2011, 01:12 PM) *
I'm led to believe it the the most intensely investigated sort of incident...........

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


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


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Sep 25 2011, 12:52 PM
Post #9


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Sep 25 2011, 01:07 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.


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.


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NWNREADER
post Sep 25 2011, 01:04 PM
Post #10


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,414
Joined: 20-November 10
Member No.: 1,265



QUOTE (On the edge @ Sep 25 2011, 01:52 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.


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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nothing Much
post Sep 25 2011, 01:09 PM
Post #11


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,690
Joined: 16-July 11
Member No.: 6,171



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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Biker1
post Sep 25 2011, 03:05 PM
Post #12


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 5,064
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 103



QUOTE (On the edge @ Sep 25 2011, 12:15 PM) *
So the facts of the matter are - 'we' (that is our community) yesterday wrote off a reasonably new and perfectly good car

????? blink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dodgys smarter b...
post Sep 25 2011, 03:24 PM
Post #13


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 462
Joined: 20-September 10
Member No.: 1,100



QUOTE (On the edge @ Sep 25 2011, 12:15 PM) *
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.


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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Sep 25 2011, 04:15 PM
Post #14


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (Dodgys smarter brother. @ Sep 25 2011, 04:24 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.


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!


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
user23
post Sep 25 2011, 04:30 PM
Post #15


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,025
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 50



QUOTE (On the edge @ Sep 25 2011, 05:15 PM) *
Yes, he ignored seven warning signs
I think this is all that needs to be repeated.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Strafin
post Sep 25 2011, 04:39 PM
Post #16


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,930
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 55



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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dodgys smarter b...
post Sep 25 2011, 04:48 PM
Post #17


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 462
Joined: 20-September 10
Member No.: 1,100



QUOTE (On the edge @ Sep 25 2011, 05:15 PM) *
Perhaps the timing was a little out - frankly the chronology matters to the point I raised.


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

QUOTE (On the edge @ Sep 25 2011, 05:15 PM) *
What a very spiteful and nasty response to someone who has committed a minor traffic offence.


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

QUOTE (On the edge @ Sep 25 2011, 05:15 PM) *
Speeding for instance? Is the destruction of a perfectly good car a satisfactory outcome for ignoring 10 / 20 repeater street signs?

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.

QUOTE (On the edge @ Sep 25 2011, 05:15 PM) *
As I thought, Newbury does not seem to be able to consider this issue rationally.

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.

QUOTE (On the edge @ Sep 25 2011, 05:15 PM) *
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.

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?

QUOTE (On the edge @ Sep 25 2011, 05:15 PM) *
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.


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...

QUOTE (Strafin @ Sep 25 2011, 05:39 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?

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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Sep 25 2011, 04:59 PM
Post #18


Advanced Member
***

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



QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Sep 25 2011, 01:07 PM) *
My only strong point is commenting on a forum changes nothing, now or for the future.

I have a hunch that this isn't strictly true. I'm sure that this forum does on occasion serve as a 'pressure group'.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Sep 25 2011, 05:30 PM
Post #19


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (Dodgys smarter brother. @ Sep 25 2011, 05:48 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.


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.


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NWNREADER
post Sep 25 2011, 05:33 PM
Post #20


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,414
Joined: 20-November 10
Member No.: 1,265



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 25 2011, 05:59 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'.


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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 27th November 2021 - 03:12 PM