Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: GMR Aug 21 2015, 03:55 PM

Today I witnessed a police car speeding from the Clock Tower towards town (lights flashing, so obviously there was an emergency) and then had to do a quick swerve, mount the pavement - pedestrians had to move quickly out of the way - and continue to their destination. The police car had to mount the pavement because the bollards were up and it would have taken them too long to put their card into the machine and then wait for the bollards to lower into the ground. On another occasion - this was awhile back - I noticed a police car speeding towards town, immediately stop (because of the bollards), two officers got out of the police car and run all the away to a shop near WHSmiths.

They are no good to the police, fire brigade or ambulance if there is an emergency (they are a hindrance). Those few minutes - being held up by the bollards - could mean failure to reach their target.

There is also the danger of mounting the pavement and hitting a pedestrian.

When I spoke to various officials I was told that they knew there was a problem, but financial considerations prevented them from sorting it out. I know that some in the emergency services are not very happy. I suppose it will either take an accident (because of mounting the kerb) and hitting somebody, or that somebody dies because of their delay.

http://postimage.org/
http://postimage.org/

http://postimage.org/
http://postimage.org/

Posted by: user23 Aug 21 2015, 04:33 PM

I would have thought the main danger here is cars speeding through a pedestrianised area.

Posted by: GMR Aug 21 2015, 04:52 PM

Basically you are saying that one supersedes the other? Camera's could deal with speeding cars or unauthorised vehicles at certain times. Another point; electronic buttons installed in emergency cars can be operated when a vehicle is nearby - once pressed - will lower the barriers so that when the vehicle approaches they can go straight through. I believe there are areas in this country, and abroad, that have them.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 21 2015, 05:06 PM

Or link up the barrier control to the emergency service's control rooms.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Aug 21 2015, 05:33 PM

A simple transponder in the vehicle takes care of the problem.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 21 2015, 06:06 PM

Absolutely right.

It would be interesting to know exactly where they were going and what was the emergency. Arguably, they should not be putting other lives at risk; simply to save another.

Posted by: Strafin Aug 21 2015, 06:30 PM

They're the police, they do what they want and get away with it. There probably is no reason for them to have been going through town at all.

Posted by: GMR Aug 21 2015, 06:42 PM

They get away with it until a death occurs by their actions.

Posted by: GMR Aug 21 2015, 07:07 PM

But that is another matter; until we know differently or can prove otherwise then we must accept that is was an emergency; which then takes up back to the question of bollards and the police not getting through.

Posted by: GMR Aug 21 2015, 07:09 PM

Simple to you and I, but not to the council or police authorities. That will have to wait until a death is caused or a late arrival happens because of the bollards, for that bit of logic to be forced up the agenda.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 21 2015, 07:49 PM

Still don't agree that the Emergency services should be able to override traffic safety regulations.

Posted by: user23 Aug 21 2015, 08:00 PM

Surely it only takes a few seconds for the bollards to go down, I can't see a technical reason why it would take minutes.

Posted by: GMR Aug 21 2015, 08:06 PM

You have to present your card, then wait until the bollards go down before you can proceed. This takes valuable time. They have their lights flashing and in a hurry for a reason.

Posted by: user23 Aug 21 2015, 08:08 PM

That's about 20 seconds, tops. What's the problem?

They're entering a pedestrianised area with a 20 MPH limit, they can't in that much of a rush.

Posted by: GMR Aug 21 2015, 08:12 PM

I disagree. If it is an emergency then they should. If it was my child or even yours and they had died or suffered because they didn't over ride safety traffic regulations we wouldn't be sitting around and saying they did the right thing. We would be going for the jugular, and rightly so.

Posted by: GMR Aug 21 2015, 08:15 PM

Actually it takes a lot longer than that. And in an emergency they would be going a lot faster than 20 miles an hour. And in the case I saw they were going faster than the speed limit.

Posted by: user23 Aug 21 2015, 08:21 PM

Actually it doesn't, it takes about 20 seconds.

So now we've established that, the real issue is should people be speeding in a pedestrianised area?

Posted by: On the edge Aug 21 2015, 08:26 PM

Not if they have bumped off other innocent members of the public. Sadly, they have done that too many times and even round here. That they managed to easily circumnavigate the bollards demonstrates there is no problem for them in emergency situations. In this case, they would have met a good many confused pedestrians as they wended their way through the pedestrian area; so would have necessarily been slow.

So again, what type of emergency needed such a response; life and death? No that would be an ambulance, fire? No that would be a fire engine, a hold up; lights and siren would be counter productive.....

Posted by: GMR Aug 21 2015, 08:29 PM

First; I've timed it, secondly I've had it confirmed by a police officer. Now we've confirmed and verified this another issue we can add is that if the police are speeding in a certain area pedestrians get out of the way fast, just as they do an any vehicle road.

Posted by: user23 Aug 21 2015, 08:30 PM

Exactly how long did it take?

Why did you need a police officer to confirm something you'd seen with your own eyes?

Posted by: GMR Aug 21 2015, 08:56 PM

Well over a minute.



I didn't, it was the other way around.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 21 2015, 09:00 PM

All this is why I suggested that the emergency services have control from the control room so that they can be lowered in a timely manner (at the time the alert is sent).

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 21 2015, 10:41 PM

You actually asked a police office responding to an emergency to time the lowering of the bollards?

Posted by: spartacus Aug 21 2015, 11:56 PM

Check with WBC Highways if you want but here are four facts:

Berkshire Fire & Rescue have been issued transponders which operate the rising bollards for the pedestrian zone and on Kennet Heath in Thatcham - FACT

Berkshire Ambulance Service have been issued transponders which operate the rising bollards for the pedestrian zone and on Kennet Heath in Thatcham - FACT

Thames Valley Police have been issued transponders which operate the rising bollards for the pedestrian zone and on Kennet Heath - FACT

Some coppers get all excited when responding to a shout that they forget that they still have to drive up to the receiving unit in order to activate the mechanism which drops the bollards (well within 20 seconds) and instead think there should be a magic invisible zone for 100 metres in front of their panda car clearing their path even when rushing to pick up some fish and chips. Some coppers (edit) are dickheads need additional training - FACT

Posted by: nerc Aug 22 2015, 04:21 AM

There are only 2 rising bollards, the other 2 (on Macdonalds side) are plastic are are put in place by the green meanies every day.
They are not fixed and can be move just by nudging them with a car so why couldnt the police car move them.

Posted by: spartacus Aug 22 2015, 05:11 AM

Rubbish. Responding to 'Emergency A' as quickly as possible doesn't mean you should leave a trail of 'Emergency B's, 'C's and 'D's in your wake for others to deal with. If they put pedestrians at risk in an area and at a time when vehicles are not meant to be there, especially if there could be elderly or deaf people walking about, then they shouldn't be behind the wheel of a police vehicle.

Being a police response vehicle driver means making judgement calls and balancing risks. Speeding through a pedestrian area isn't clever if you want to keep your police pension. If the area was clear because it was raining and most shoppers were inside that may be worth the risk. Otherwise, you enter the area on 'blues' and sirens but travel slowly and assume someone might accidentally step into your path.

Are you sure these were proper policemen you saw and it wasn't some Keystone Cops Re-enactment Society members larking about? Are PCSOs allowed to drive police cars?

Posted by: spartacus Aug 22 2015, 05:28 AM

I hope those people that had to dive out of the way make a complaint to the Chief Constable. Sounds like that police driver was acting irresponsibly and was probably driving under the influence of caffeine and jam doughnuts. A post-Tesco shopping trip 'sugar rush' for bored police on duty is like an adrenalin rush for normal people. The police car should be impounded and the steering wheel checked for traces of strawberry jam or castor sugar....

Posted by: GMR Aug 22 2015, 06:05 AM

Don't be stupid. I doubt very much a police officer would answer such a question during an emergency.

Posted by: GMR Aug 22 2015, 06:07 AM

I can only answer to what I saw.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 22 2015, 06:14 AM

I see. So when you said that a police officer had confirmed your timing, that didn't happen? Or was it that the police car was't actually on an emergency call and so didn't need to lower the bollards?

Posted by: GMR Aug 22 2015, 06:23 AM

Did I say that? I said they happened, but I didn't say they happen at the same time. As for the police car; I can only go by the flashing lights and driving around the bollards, on to the pavement and then to their destination.

The emergency happened when I said. Asking the officer happened on another day when I was having a conversation with him.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 22 2015, 06:38 AM

Have you actually timed the lowering of the bollards under emergency conditions with a constable there to verify your timing?

Posted by: GMR Aug 22 2015, 06:44 AM

First of all I timed them when I saw them being used; it was an of chance. If you are suggesting that the action is very quick then why didn't the police go through the proper procedure? It wasn't the first time they couldn't wait.

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 22 2015, 07:02 AM

This debate could take us back to the level crossing issue.
Emergency vehicles are always going to come up against obstacles, bollards in the town just one of many.
What if your emergency was on the other side of a closed level crossing?
An issue raised in the level crossing debate threads before.
I would suggest that much more time is lost by avoiding jammed traffic on the A339.
Even more when another unnecessary roundabout and lights are installed!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 22 2015, 07:19 AM

I'm not suggesting anything, I'm trying to establish your scientific method. You claimed that a police officer had verified your timing experiment and you implied the timing was performed under emergency conditions but that seemed to me unlikely and what seemed more plausible was that you'd made some kind of guestimation of the timing and then separately engaged an officer in a bollard-related discussion in which the officer had offered her subjective view that, in the same way a watched kettle will never boil, so the bollards appear to her to take forever to descend when she's on an emergency call and, pumped with adrenalin, desparately waiting for the bollards to lower. That or the officer just politely agreed with you. Either way it wasn't the objective validation of your experimental evidence that you made it out to be. So then I'd ask why, if your scientific method was sound, would you try and bolster it with an unsubstantiated claim that it had been independently verified by a Thames Valley Police observer, and the most likely answer is a lack of soundness.

You made a specific claim about timing which has been disputed and I'm just trying to see if your claim has substance.

Posted by: spartacus Aug 22 2015, 08:16 AM

^

Posted by: spartacus Aug 22 2015, 08:38 AM

In answer to the question 'what is the point of them in an emergency', the point is that there are procedures in place to allow them to be lowered in an emergency but these procedures need to be followed. This information either is no longer passed across to new police officers patrolling in Newbury on their shift change or is being forgotten in the heat of the moment during a response.

There is no machine for the police to have to push a ticket into. All they have to do is dig the transponder (credit card sized piece of plastic) out of their glove box and wave it at the receiving unit while the car is on the vehicle detection loop and the bollards will lower. It takes seconds.

Posted by: user23 Aug 22 2015, 12:59 PM

As I asked before, how long did it take?

You don't have to be exact, to the nearest second will do.

Posted by: blackdog Aug 22 2015, 01:46 PM

This is not really the answer - the answer to "What is the point of the bollards in an emergency?" Is either that they have no point in an emergency, their point is to stop traffic using Northbrook Street - or - by preventing traffic from entering Northbrook Street they ensure that emergency vehicles are not stuck in a traffic jam in Northbrook Street and thus enable them to get to the emergency more quickly.

What is the issue - police car drives on pavement to get to emergency - the whole of Northbrook Street is a pavement when the bollards are up, so what's so special about the bit around the bollards? I've watched them drive round the bollards - pedestrians seemed to get the idea and get out of the way pretty sharpish!

Posted by: HJD Aug 22 2015, 03:09 PM

They are not fool proof though ! As I witnessed a while ago when a couple of P.C's. were frantically waving their Zapper to no avail at the Bollard's in Braemore Close. They didn't look too amused, as with Siren wailing they had to do a U turn & zoom off from whence they came !!

Posted by: Strafin Aug 23 2015, 07:46 AM

I can't find any videos of the Newbury bollards, but these ones in Manchester take seconds to rise and lower. http://youtu.be/PRCA8MvedIo

Posted by: HeatherW Aug 23 2015, 07:59 AM

I spoke to a friend of mine who is a police officer and he said that from stopping, to presenting your card (ID), to the bollards going up can take too long. Probably over a minute. That is why they go around them, instead of waiting. I've often seen the police car going around the bollards to get to their destination quickly. Delay in time could mean serious consequences.

Posted by: HeatherW Aug 23 2015, 08:03 AM

Whether rubbish or not, this is happening. As I pointed out in another post a police officers priority is to get to their destination double quick.

I can't speak for GMR or anybody else, but I can say that I have seen the police go around those bollards on numerous occasions. And this was confirmed to me by various people.

Posted by: HeatherW Aug 23 2015, 08:07 AM

I don't think the question should be how long do they take to go up. But how long does the procedure take from the police car speeding to its destiny, stopping quickly, presenting their ID and then waiting for the bollards to rise. From what I've been told it can take anything from a minute to two minutes. I say two minutes, as ones ID doesn't always register straight away.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 23 2015, 08:10 AM

....more haste, less speed.

I would really worry if I heard a Police driver saying things like this. Yes, they have to get to the scene quickly BUT safely.

Posted by: HeatherW Aug 23 2015, 08:13 AM

Actually you are wrong. I used to work for the local council many years ago and a road is a road and a pavement is a pavement. The same applies in Northbrook Street. The Pedestrian walk way in Northbrook street is only for people. Not cars or bikes. The cobbled road is for cars at certain times, and beyond that bikes, people and emergency vehicles. But the pavement is the safe point for pedestrians. the only reason an emergency service would and should use a designated pavement is when it is obstructed.

Posted by: HeatherW Aug 23 2015, 08:15 AM

But if they have to use the pavement then who said they weren't using it safely? Don't forget the police are trained for all sorts of situations, unlike the public.

Posted by: Petra Aug 23 2015, 10:35 AM

I think the point was made excellently by HeatherW. It is not about how long it takes for the bollards to be raise, but how long it takes from quickly stopping, presenting their transponder and then waiting for the bollards to rise. Even presenting their ID, it doesn’t always accept and has to be tried on several occasions, which could end up taking the whole process minutes. That is why the police ignore them and go around.

I’ve had many discussions, in my various rolls, about this problem, the trouble is the authorities won’t authorise spending to deal with this issue. And it is a long standing concern. There is a whiff of turning a blind eye and hoping that everything will be ok. But that is not a criticism, just acknowledging the modern and economic environment that was created in 2008.With the tight squeeze on budges etc., certain, shall we say observations, are put on the backburner in the hope that it won’t be an issue that brings the authorities into disrepute. I must concur with this as there is never a problem until a problem becomes an issue. Then it is dealt with as best as possible.

Yours,

Petra

Posted by: Spider Aug 23 2015, 10:48 AM

My job is driving lorries, so I often have to go through bollards. I noticed that they differ, depending on which ones you use. But they can take up to a few minutes, and in some cases longer, depending if they click into action straight away. I’ve never used the bollards in Newbury, but mainly areas like Reading or further out. My cousin is an ambulance driver, unfortunately, he says, that an ambulance can’t go around the bollards so have to go through the procedure. This is fine in some bollard operational areas, while others could take minutes. There has been issues arising over bollard times, but there is a unwillingness to put money into the problem to solve it. I must say I have witnessed a police car and a small ambulance car (which is preferably used when being called out in Newbury town centre, if possible) going around the bollards. Even though I haven’t personally timed them, in Newbury, they do seem to take the police car ages to get through.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 23 2015, 01:08 PM

If a Police car can use the pavement safely, then there is no issue with them not being able to operate the bollards! After all. Once through the bollards, they are going to confront exactly the same situation as they found on the pavement. When the bollards are up, it is intrinsically dangerous to drive through Northbrook Street, even more so at speed. Ironically, they'd be better off on foot, running.

A good few years back, the emergency service control centres had to record when their vehicles used lights and sirens in an attempt to ensure this was only done in the case of real emergencies; real ones, which really need such a rapid reaction, are nowhere near as common as might be imagined.

Posted by: Mr Brown Aug 23 2015, 01:48 PM

I can't see why they'd want to drive through Northbrook Street in an emergency anyway. Even for a town centre shout, they would have been far better off down a Parkway, or the road that runs down to the Swimming Pool. From either access to the centre is simple.

Posted by: GMR Aug 23 2015, 03:38 PM

There was noscientific method. And I never claimed that a police officer confirmed anything. All I said was that I observed it by glancing at my watch when I saw a vehicle use the bollards. But as other people have confirmed the times vary. Also; it is doesn't matter if it took 1 second, my point was the police had to go around it.

Certainly my timing has been disputed on here; most have said a lot longer. And it isn't an issue how long they take to go up, but from the time the police stopping, presenting their ID or whatever you call it (if it works the first time) and then the bollards actually going down and then the police going on their merry way towards their emergency.

Posted by: GMR Aug 23 2015, 03:39 PM

I think I answered that.

Posted by: GMR Aug 23 2015, 03:41 PM

There was never any issues - as far as I could tell - whether they could operate the bollards or not, the issue was over timing.

I doubt they would agree with you that they would be better off on foot, however, I am sure they are better placed to judge than us.

Posted by: Ruth Aug 23 2015, 03:48 PM

I would have thought that if the police had to go around the bollards then they did it for a reason. I've watched the buses use them and they seem to take a long time. I know I've been on a bus and heard drivers moan about the time it takes for them to lower. I must admit I've never seen a police car or even an ambulance go around them, but if they have to then something must be done as the bollards are inadequate.

If the bollards can't stop a police car then they couldn't stop any sort of car, then I can't see much use for them. As far as I can see they are a waste of money. I'll tell you what I have seen though. I am often in Newbury and workmen seem to be always working on them.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 23 2015, 06:19 PM

Of course we wouldn't need bollards if Thames Valley's finest were willing to do a bit of real community policing now and again. Then again, I'm really finding it hard to understand exactly what crisis occurred to make a couple of apparently sane coppers think it was right and acceptable to drive at speed through what is a pedestrian precinct?

Posted by: GMR Aug 23 2015, 06:27 PM

The freedom of information act should answer that one

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 23 2015, 06:30 PM

You said "first; I've timed it, secondly I've had it confirmed by a police officer.", and you also said it took "well over a minute", but when you were asked specifically how long it had taken you couldn't say. Anyhoo, I'll leave it there.

Posted by: GMR Aug 23 2015, 06:36 PM

Actually I didn't say I couldn't say, only that I answered it (actually I said it was under two minutes). When I said I had it confirmed, I meant by asking a police officer how long it normally took them, that was when I was in a conversation with an officer. Not that one or the other was looking over the others shoulder to confirm anything. Besides, it is all academic now as others have jumped in with their anecdotal evidence. Besides, timing never was the issue, but why they did it or had to do it.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 23 2015, 07:00 PM

Who said they drove at speed?

Posted by: blackdog Aug 23 2015, 07:01 PM

Has anyone said they drove at speed? The time I saw them drive round the bollards they proceeded quite circumspectly down Northbrook St.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 23 2015, 09:11 PM

No they haven't, but there has been talk of the bollards being a barrier in an emergency - which indicates speed. If they bypass the bollards and drive at slow speed down the street, (I.e not an emergency) it makes even less sense, they would be better off walking.

Posted by: spartacus Aug 23 2015, 10:59 PM

What on earth are you dribbling on about woman?

Posted by: spartacus Aug 23 2015, 11:45 PM

I imagine the number of times the police have really NEEDED to access the Pedestrian Zone in the last four years in order to respond to a shout and get there in the most efficient manner could be counted on the fingers of one hand, when actually they could quite as easily have used the Robin Hood or Parkway Bridge.

Removing the bollards or keeping them lowered permanently just to cater for these one-off events would raise the risk on a daily (or hourly) basis for all pedestrians, as we'd be back to the days of blind drivers not noticing the signs and a continual line of dim, dumb, or just plain objectionable drivers using this area as a shortcut. (If they could take out some chuggers while passing through it might be acceptable though....)

Posted by: spartacus Aug 24 2015, 12:25 AM

....and before someone says "use CCTV" or camera enforcement, that could only be done (ie installed, operated and enforced) by the police. Under Decriminalisation powers the council can enforce bus lanes (so Parkway Bridge is enforced by WBC for instance). They wouldn't be legally permitted to do the same with the Pedestrian Zone as that sort of traffic offence is not covered by the decriminalisation powers....

I doubt whether Thames Valley's finest would have the spare manpower, finance or inclination to want to enforce on vehicles driving through the town centre area. The only option would be for WBC to fund it and pay for a couple of police civilian operators to enforce on it. The problem would be that it would be relatively expensive and all prosecutions and fines would go to police funds, NOT back to WBC..... despite them funding it......

As a council tax payer would you be happy for that arrangement or would you rather the bollards remain? (which would be more cost effective)

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 24 2015, 06:34 AM

The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 controls the release of non-native species such as budgies. Do keep up at the back.

Posted by: spartacus Aug 24 2015, 07:26 AM

ah yes... I imagine parakeets are also getting the tight squeeze treatment then.....

Posted by: Petra Aug 24 2015, 07:43 AM

Mr Spartacus,

Are you as dim-witted as you make out to be? It is pretty obvious the word you highlighted was supposed to be “budget” and not “budgies”. I did mention this before, however, for your limited abilities at recall I’ll repeat myself again. I, and I doubt I am the only one, reply and rely on my iPhone when writing on this forum and other situations. Now I don’t know if you know, but an iPhone has a very small screen and because of this mistakes, yes, spelling mistakes, happen. Nothing to do with ones grammatical or spelling abilities, however, I couldn’t argue against ones dexterity in trying to navigate around a small keyboard and screen. If a mistake happens, as you so kindly pointed out, it is very hard to go back and correct them. I normally presume, and yes, probably stupidly, because I give you lot more credit than the average Orang-utan, that the people on here have more than one brain cell to work things out for themselves. I am presuming, to be fair, that as you were not alone in working out such gaffs, that everybody else was an idiot, but as you were the only one to point the mistake out, maybe I was being unfair in my assumption and that only you are the only **** at misunderstanding such dexterity issues that can occur with either iPhones or Tablets (and I am not talking Moses here). At the moment I am on my way to work, in a taxi, so I am answering on my iPhone. Does your limited abilities now understand what I was on about (when I mistakenly said “budgies“), or would you prefer I drop you a written reply (on note paper), in crayon, so that you would understand better and, I am sure, also make you feel at home.

Don’t bother to apologise, just look at it as a public service to one of the unfortunates in our community. I think it is called care in the community, what I have done for your benefit, and others that question such mistakes popping up from time to team (there is one there, did you spot it? It should have been “time“ and not “team“, Silly me).

Yours,

Petra

Posted by: JaneGibbs Aug 24 2015, 08:05 AM

You will find this happens quite a lot on here. People have nothing better to do than point out peoples mistakes and make a fuss about it, instead of saying something intelligent that would add to the debate. Or even trying to use their own brains and working out what the right word should be. You do wonder if this forum is connected to some local institution or something with the amount of idiots on here.

Posted by: GMR Aug 24 2015, 08:15 AM

Get used to it Petra, some people think they are so clever and perfect that they have to point out peoples mistakes. I think it gives them a whiff of superiority. If that makes them happy, then so be it. This forum is for all types from Newbury, even the pedantic elements who think that they are teachers and forums, such as this, are their classrooms. They have no concept of iPhone or tablet writings. They probably presume that, like them, that they sit all day on computers going over every drop of what they write themselves, that others are the same, and if not, then they are the ones who are idiots.

Posted by: spartacus Aug 24 2015, 09:47 AM

How long did it take you to type that out you daft bat? My eyes glazed over halfway through....
oh anyway this place seems to be a humour free zone so I suppose I should have expected some humourless comments back from you in particular, especially with your rather stilted, formal contributions to date....

Anyway, must fly... ciao for now

Much love
S

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 24 2015, 10:20 AM

There is a difference between (intelligent) humour and pointed insults.
Trying to gain superiority with name calling and put-me-downs is not humour.
(Except maybe in an infant school.)

Posted by: GMR Aug 24 2015, 11:04 AM

I don't think what you wrote was supposed to be humorous, but now it was pointed out to you, you were being funny. Actually, forum etiquette means that if you want to be taken as funny you use a smilie. It seems now you are back tracking and everybody is wrong but yourself.

To many aceholes (yes, I said 'aceholes') think they are clever by pointing out mistakes, rather than engaging their brain and trying to work it out for themselves.

I am not surprised that your eyes glazed over, anything more than one sentence must confuse the brain

Posted by: GMR Aug 24 2015, 11:05 AM

I presume that was addressed at our resident comedian Spartacus?

Posted by: Ruth Aug 24 2015, 11:22 AM

I agree with you, if people want to use humour then they should show it is humour. That is use smilies. The written word in the cold light of day, without no emotions attached (or emoticons), can't be separated from a straight reply and a humours reply. I read what S wrote as he didn't understand what Petra wrote because she made a spelling mistake. I think now he is trying to save face.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 24 2015, 11:29 AM

Similarly, I'm not aware of any injuries from general traffic that has strayed into the 'zone' since the by-pass opened.

Posted by: GMR Aug 24 2015, 11:51 AM

You don't travel through Newbury town very much, do you? I go through town every day and within a month I can count, on one hand, every time the police and ambulance, with their flashing lights, are in the high street. And I am only in town - usually in the morning - for only about 5 to 10 minutes.

Posted by: Berkshirelad Aug 24 2015, 12:49 PM

Maybe not, but the TROs are clearly written to state that they don't apply to a a vehicle on Police business

Posted by: Berkshirelad Aug 24 2015, 12:51 PM

Actually, they are not.

It is a traffic-restricted area, not a pedestrian only area

Posted by: GMR Aug 24 2015, 01:26 PM

And only restricted at certain times. When it is restricted certain authorised vehicles are allowed. And of course cyclists. You often have lorries, BT vans, ice cream vans etc use it at restricted times.

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 24 2015, 03:36 PM

The signs say "Pedestrian Area".

Posted by: On the edge Aug 24 2015, 03:41 PM

I'm aware of that and sadly am also aware of the significant dangers this produces along with the woefully inadequate instruction and training given to the staff. Still, the press reports of coppers apparently 'testing high speed motors' without telling anyone about it is always good good for a laugh! ....and we complain about 'elf and safety!!!

Posted by: GMR Aug 24 2015, 04:19 PM

Whatever the signs says, I am sure you must be aware that at certain times of day cars use it. And of course, as I pointed out, police, ambulance and other authorised vehicles can use it at other times.

Posted by: spartacus Aug 24 2015, 04:35 PM

[serious font on]They can also travel the wrong way down a one way street, go the wrong way around a roundabout, jump red lights, SPEED, or even...... (wait for it.....) enter Pedestrian Zones in response to an emergency. But it doesn't follow that they SHOULD do any of those things if it presents an unreasonable risk and they could still be facing prosecution themselves if an incident took place when they may have used poor judgement.

Did they need to enter the pedestrian zone? [/serious font off]

Posted by: GMR Aug 24 2015, 04:39 PM

Obviously they did, otherwise they wouldn't have.

Posted by: Berkshirelad Aug 24 2015, 07:31 PM

WBC versus signage...mmmm

Posted by: spartacus Aug 24 2015, 08:13 PM

HGVs aren't permitted to access the area after 10am and the bollards won't be lowered for them either. They can however drive in at 09:55 and stay in the are all day long if they are loading/unloading all day.

Posted by: GMR Aug 24 2015, 08:32 PM

Exactly.

Posted by: Strafin Aug 24 2015, 08:41 PM

I'm pretty sure they can't, what's the loading restriction on double yellows?

Posted by: spartacus Aug 24 2015, 09:24 PM

Double yellows prevent you waiting (or 'parking'). They don't prevent you from loading or unloading. There is a separate marking for areas where you are prevented from loading.

.. ...aagh... I'm getting sucked back into this website.....!

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 25 2015, 04:54 AM

OK so it says it is but it's not.
Thanks, got that!!

Posted by: Exhausted Aug 25 2015, 07:14 PM

Spelling mistake there I'm afraid.

Posted by: spartacus Aug 25 2015, 10:49 PM

You are of course correct.

I have edited my post below and will now proceed to the garden to immolate myself using barbecue lighter fluid.


Edit:


My untimely death will, of course, be blamed ON YOU.

Goodbye, cruel world.........

Posted by: On the edge Aug 26 2015, 07:32 AM

Sigh.

Couldn't you have waited 'till morning, then we could have had the Fire Engine test the bollards on the way to the blaze.

Posted by: GMR Aug 26 2015, 04:35 PM

Watch out that Spartacus doesn't here about this, he doesn't tolerate mistakes and takes the piss out of anybody who does make them. Oh, you are Spartacus, maybe I am thinking of another Spartacus.

Posted by: Exhausted Aug 26 2015, 07:19 PM

hear hear.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Aug 27 2015, 11:13 PM

"No! I am Spartacus!"

Posted by: MontyPython Aug 27 2015, 11:32 PM

What are you getting all inflamed about?

Posted by: Nothing Much Aug 30 2015, 12:39 PM

That's a dodgy trick. I got set on fire by my 'beloved' older brother.
(We still talk.) Just a garden stuff bonfire.I think he was a bit shocked after.
Before he shot me with his air rifle. Thankfully I was wearing corduroy shorts.
Live long and multiply....
ce

Posted by: On the edge Aug 30 2015, 02:37 PM

CE, does your brother want a job?

Posted by: Nothing Much Aug 30 2015, 03:53 PM

Probably as he is 70s a jab rather than a job would be beneficial....and he still has the air rifle.
I think I would look daft in my school uniform today.