Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Jamoza Aug 6 2009, 10:36 AM

Newbury man vows to steer clear of town from now on following smash with notorious bollards

Where has he been for the last few years? & he didn't know they were there. Doesn't he read the news? Everyone in the town knows they are there!



There is plenty of signage!

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article.aspx?articleID=10709

Posted by: Gumbo Aug 6 2009, 11:22 AM

Well not everybody who lives in and around Newbury is obsessed with bollards. The person in question may not read this forum or the NWN. They probably also don't spend hours debating the pros and cons of bollards down the pub with their mates or when they spend time with family and friends. Also they may not often drive in town i.e. this person lives quite close and may walk in more often than not.

Posted by: GMR Aug 6 2009, 11:31 AM

... basically what yo are saying is that he has got a life

Posted by: GMR Aug 6 2009, 11:36 AM

Says who?




Management system; run by morons for morons. Basically they haven’t got a clue.

Posted by: Andy Aug 6 2009, 12:22 PM

What it should read is "Another idiot, tailgating, lazy, inattentive, bad driver, who can't read huge signs and warnings, smashes car and then wants to blame anyone and anything for HIS c*ck up" hits bollards.

Posted by: Iommi Aug 6 2009, 12:38 PM

If he had been caught wilfully doing 40 in a 30, he would gave got a ~£60 fine.

Posted by: Andy1 Aug 6 2009, 12:42 PM

According to Top Gear, which has been voted best factual program I believe on numerus occaisions. Video footage was shown of a person tail gating a Bus and then getting bit by rising Bollards, was classed as bad driving.

Posted by: Iommi Aug 6 2009, 12:47 PM

It is hardly going to be classified as good driving, basically it looked like the bloke (with child and presumably its mother on board) tried to rush the bollards. One cannot have any sympathy for a driver that is wilfully doing things like that. I do have some sympathy though for people who make a rather innocuous error, being punished so savagely.

Posted by: GMR Aug 6 2009, 01:02 PM

Don’t we all make errors? It is only others that see it as foolish

Posted by: Gumbo Aug 6 2009, 01:11 PM

And we are off again, pro-bollard vs anti-bollard, get your verbal abuses and weapons ready

Posted by: Bill1 Aug 6 2009, 01:32 PM

Forgetting the typo GMR I think calling them morons is more than a tad offensive.

The morons are the ones who don't read traffic signs, like those who STILL drive right up to the cinema works and sometimes even try to drive round/through them!

Posted by: JeffG Aug 6 2009, 02:45 PM

Umm. Phil Spray?

Posted by: GMR Aug 6 2009, 02:48 PM

Fair point; however I am sure you would agree with me that such places do have their fair share of morons?

I am sure there are hard working people within such organisations, sadly they get overlooked by the more stupid elements. Many council workers, even on here, have acknowledged this. I’ve even worked for companies where the public believed that we were all morons; and they based that assumption on the people who follow the company policies/ rules verbatim. Irrespective of common sense, emotion or even understanding. In fact I would go one step further - judging by my own experience - and say that such companies employee a certain type of automaton to fit into their company philosophy.

Posted by: GMR Aug 6 2009, 02:48 PM

Posted by: Darren Aug 6 2009, 03:33 PM

Umm, how does someone who lives in Newbury plan to stay clear of the town?

Posted by: Bill1 Aug 6 2009, 03:48 PM

Not me!

Posted by: Jamoza Aug 6 2009, 03:52 PM

Considering he lives quite close to the town, i don't know

Posted by: Bill1 Aug 6 2009, 03:54 PM

Next we'll be hearing his neighbour has been involved in an accident while cycling the wrong way up a one way street

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 6 2009, 04:19 PM

Wheyhey!!!!!!!!! it's a new "bollards" thread!!


At least it doesn't say they "rose up" under the car, although it does in the NWN.
(I won't go into that again )

At least it's another crap driver who won't blight the town again!

P.S. How did they manage to get a new car they "couldn't afford"?

Posted by: Hugh Saskin Aug 6 2009, 06:11 PM

Or, and, potentially far more dangerous - driving whilst using a mobile, with the tariff at just 3 points and 60 sovs. Far, far, too little a punishment, IMHO - if anyone deserves to have their cars taken and crushed it is these seriously anti-social people. Saw some pillock executing a right hand turn on a dual carriageway yesterday one handed with a phone stuck to his ear - grrrrrrrr!

Posted by: GMR Aug 6 2009, 06:49 PM

I'll keep out of this one

Posted by: GMR Aug 6 2009, 07:13 PM

I wouldn't for one minute to put you in such a group; you are far too articulate and intelligent to be an automaton. A rarity indeed for the council!

Posted by: Roost Aug 6 2009, 07:13 PM

So far, I've been quite a good boy about bollards and bollard related threads. I read a lot more than I post and on occasion have a chuckle at how irate people get. Now, I've had enough. This is ridiculous.
Absolutely no-one can realistically argue that there is not enough signage for the bollards at any location in Newbury. They could possibly argue that there is too much and that this confuses them (if they are only capable of processing one thought a millisecond!).
People do indeed make mistakes, but it is crassly unfair to blame these on other people / organisations when the mistake is clearly theirs. I would suggest that the latest Newbury resident involved did, indeed read either these pages or those of the NWN (how on Earth is ot possible to see neither?!), made their error and decided to jump on the bandwagon that bizarrely enough managed to avoid aforementioned bollards!

Posted by: Strafin Aug 6 2009, 08:30 PM

In the article, it says that Mr. Hederson had only just got his confidence back. From what? Had he had a previous accident that had shaken him? At 65, it might be time for him to give up not just driving into town, but driving altogether.

Posted by: Iommi Aug 6 2009, 08:38 PM

The article says, 'it has taken a while for him to get his confidence back'. I read this to mean it has taken a while (since the accident) to get his confidence back. If she had used the word 'had', then it would imply that there was a period where he had to recover his confidence before the collision with the bollards.

Amen.

Posted by: Strafin Aug 6 2009, 08:45 PM

You're right, I stand corrected. On another point this happened 3 weeks ago, how come it's only just come up?

Posted by: JeffG Aug 6 2009, 08:45 PM

Why not say what you really mean and just euthanise all over-65's because they are a useless and expensive burden on society and are hardly able to string two syllables together, let alone drive (or use a computer keyboard)?

Posted by: Roost Aug 6 2009, 08:47 PM

Hmm, bandwagon, lots of threads and interest on the online forum.....
I too wonder why this has cropped up now.........

Posted by: Iommi Aug 6 2009, 09:02 PM

I'd just like to re-post what I said earlier, "One cannot have any sympathy for a driver that is wilfully doing things like that. I do have some sympathy though for people who make a rather innocuous error, being punished so savagely."

I know people can say, 'it could have been a child', but I don't buy that argument, its not like people have driven into fully extended bollards (well I know one has). I think the areas have rather confusing road layouts, but it is clear that there is enough signage. What is evident, however, is that it might not always be effective.

Posted by: GMR Aug 6 2009, 09:04 PM

Yes, I think he had hit another bollard in another town and he was hoping that Newbury was less bollard-proof. Sadly he is now bollardied (only joking )

Posted by: GMR Aug 6 2009, 09:06 PM

He only just got his memory back after having suffered an accident sky diving....

Posted by: Iommi Aug 6 2009, 09:07 PM

Padding (for the forum and paper).

Posted by: Chesapeake Aug 7 2009, 07:57 AM

And what about my husband?

Posted by: regor Aug 7 2009, 08:09 AM

As a local taxpayer I must own a very small part of each bollard and I am sick to death of these people damaging MY bollards.

Throw the book at 'em!

If that fails - throw rocks at 'em!!!!!

and Oi! GMR and others - lay of us over 65's, we are effin brilliant at everything!

Posted by: JeffG Aug 7 2009, 08:34 AM

It was Strafin who made that highly offensive remark, which I replied to, but there has been no apology forthcoming so far.

Posted by: Gumbo Aug 7 2009, 08:48 AM

And how did you come to that conclusion?

Posted by: Andy1 Aug 7 2009, 09:15 AM

Doesn't make a difference. If you're that close to a Bus or Taxi to obscure your view, it's bad driving. Yes I've driven close to a bus so yes, that makes me a bad driver, no I haven't hit bollards, yes I have sympathy for those that have but it's still bad driving

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Aug 7 2009, 09:36 AM

Its quite simple.

If a motorist makes a mistake - like speeding, driving without dure care and attention, driving whilst using a mobile etc etc then they should have their driving license removed for life.

This would cut Carbon emissions and make all drivers think a little more.

Posted by: Iommi Aug 7 2009, 09:40 AM

As well as make loads of people redundant.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Aug 7 2009, 09:46 AM

Not me. I'm 'Carbon Neutral' and don't drive.

Posted by: GMR Aug 7 2009, 10:42 AM

It goes without saying. If your husband is married to you - and obviously he is otherwise he wouldn't be your husband - he must be intelligent; like goes with like I am sure if he wasn’t intelligent when you first met him you would have knocked him into shape by now.

Posted by: GMR Aug 7 2009, 10:45 AM

I won’t argue with you there… I will be there soon… well, in another 11 years… so I’ve got a few years to go yet before I am senile

Posted by: GMR Aug 7 2009, 10:49 AM

Well spotted. I almost dived onto my sword before I noticed your reply. Then I had to read back. I usually get blamed for everything so I take it in my stride. It is nice to know it wasn’t me this time. Obviously my time for the rope around the neck wasn't yet

Posted by: Bloggo Aug 7 2009, 10:52 AM

There are some over 65s who shouldn't be driving but there are also a lot of under 25s also who shouldn't be on the road too.
I think this old boy thought he could beat the bollards just like most of the others and came unstuck.

Posted by: GMR Aug 7 2009, 10:57 AM

I think he was tailgating and didn’t see the signs; that is why they are always hit.

I agree about some of the young; they shouldn’t be on the road.

Posted by: Wicca Aug 7 2009, 01:09 PM

It's not just the young or the old, every age band has it's bad drivers. I got cut up on the sainsbury's roundabout to town a few days ago by some git in the wrong lane, he kind of gave away his intention though when he raced off the line.

Posted by: lordtup Aug 7 2009, 04:28 PM

So do you have a thing against morons ? Even morons have feelings don't you know.
Poor bunnies , lets all befriend one and say nice things about him / her / it.

Posted by: Strafin Aug 7 2009, 05:39 PM

It wasn't offensive, it was a question and included one 65 year old, not all of them. I also agree that there are young drivers who are bad, men who are bad, women who are bad and some who are good in all these groups.

Posted by: user23 Aug 7 2009, 06:47 PM

Are we to understand from this report that the offender is still driving?

Surely he should be charged with dangerous driving, or at the very least an assessment of whether he is fit to drive should be taken.

Don't forget this could have been an animal or worse yet, a small child. Do we really want local drivers with this sort of blatant disregard for safety on our roads?

I vote NO. How about you?

Posted by: Chesapeake Aug 7 2009, 06:50 PM

On this particular matter I have to ask "do we really care if they ever come to Newbury again?" seeing as they are quite obviously trying to cover their stupidity with the old "It wasn't my fault guv, it was every one elses fault!" attitude !!! Grrrrrr

You are the WEAKEST link, Goodbyyyyyyyyyyyye......................

Posted by: GMR Aug 7 2009, 06:54 PM

I agree... maybe we could have a day marked out for them

Posted by: GMR Aug 7 2009, 06:57 PM

Of course we care otherwise we'd have nothing to write about

Posted by: user23 Aug 7 2009, 07:17 PM

When she says "He had no idea these wretched things were there", those who don't live in Newbury might not realise:

1) It is a 0.6 mile drive from http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=Railway+Road+newbury&daddr=wharf+street+newbury&geocode=&hl=en&mra=ls&sll=51.399842,-1.317919&sspn=0.005522,0.013937&ie=UTF8&z=17

2) As the piece says, the first bollards were installed 10 years ago.

So unless they are new to the area I find her statement fairly surprising, at best.

Posted by: JeffG Aug 7 2009, 07:34 PM

Well, perhaps you should choose your words a bit more carefully. You said "At 65, it might be time for him to give up not just driving into town, but driving altogether.", which implies that he is too old to drive because he is 65. If being 65 is a reason to stop driving, then that seems a pretty general statement to me.

Posted by: Bill1 Aug 7 2009, 07:42 PM

OK lordtup I'll start by offering you my freindship

Posted by: GMR Aug 7 2009, 08:03 PM

That's it Billy, I see you are in fine spirits... keep up the good work

Posted by: Strafin Aug 8 2009, 11:41 AM

I do think people should think about giving up all sorts of things at 65 including driving, especially if they have just driven into a pedestrian zone as they weren't aware of it, despite living in the town. I think there should be a test of competence at 65, not a full driving test, but one that will test the basic skills of a driver and make sure they are still safe behind a wheel.

Posted by: Iommi Aug 8 2009, 11:59 AM

How many 65s, or over, have run over rising bollards in Newbury? Indeed, the highest risk age group are new drivers, perhaps they should give-up or be re-tested as soon as they are tested!

Posted by: JeffG Aug 8 2009, 02:10 PM

This is precisely the point I was trying to make to Strafin. Age has nothing to do with competence to drive (or to do anything else), and to mention it at all shows an ageist attitude whether intended or not. What is relevant at any age is physical capacity, mental capacity (reaction time, decision making) and mental attitude (bravado, sense of invulnerability, sheer bloodymindedness, whatever).

On the attitude point, there is a well-known aviation saying: There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots.

Posted by: GMR Aug 8 2009, 06:10 PM

We’ve all got to remember that we are going towards the age of 65 whether we like it or not – unless we decide to jump ship! – so we better look at it with a twinkle in our eyes and through kaleidoscope lenses. So think positive here and if we find it necessary to condemn any age group then it would be wise to condemn the under 21; as we will never see that particular light again, so there wellbeing is not our concerns.

Posted by: JeffG Aug 8 2009, 06:59 PM

A well thought out and logical post, GMR

The only flaw in your argument is: the under-21s are the over-65s of the future.

Posted by: GMR Aug 8 2009, 08:13 PM

Not in my bloody time frame they ain't