G
Greg
Guest
"Dave H" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Where do you get this fact from ?
Try Googling, but you don't seriously expect the government to record
statistics that don't suit them do you
> Your quotation from the url you posted -"Rising bollards should not
normally
> be sited close to or at signalled junctions or pedestrian crossings." says
> should not normally how do you know MCC do not have permission for siting
> them there. I dont think this quote makes them illegal do you ?
Most of the traffic laws are grey not black an white, this one will
presumably get tested in court when people sue the Councils. What's more
likely to be the question is whether they've met their duty of care, which
surely they haven't when it's not only blindingly obvious that they
shouldn't be where they are but the government's own recomendations say they
shouldn't. Remenber that they will get sued in civil courts where less
rigorous proof is needed.
> You miss my point by a very wide mark. NO TRAFFIC is allowed down this
part
> of Corporation Street EXCEPT for buses and I presume Post Office van.
Those
> cars should not have been there. FULL STOP
Agreed, and you miss my point, is the punishmenet appropriate for the
crime?. Remember we're not talking about speeding as these things don't
measure speed, we're not talking about violating a pedestrian area (in most
cases) because people are expecting busses, so is it a capital crime for
some extra vehicle to be there?
> There are NO ENTRY signs at least a quarter of a mile before those
bollards
> in both directions.
I don't disagree.
> The pedestrian crossing has no light controls for stop
> or go (I think but I'll check tomorrow on my lunch). Its part of
Manchester
> City Councils attempt to make it safer for the pedestrian. I'll ask the
> question is it a 'legal' pedestrian crossing as its just a red painted
> surface.
It doesn't matter, if people believe it to be and cross in large numbers, as
can be seen from the video, then it's clearly stupid to place such a thing
where they have.
> What 30 MPH flashing signs ???
Those ones springing up all over the place that flash when you do 32 in a 30
area, you've seen a sign warning you that you're breaking the law so why
shouldn't you be punished in the same way?, after all you are speeding which
has got to be more serious than following a bus!. That's the argument that
people are making, so long as there are warning signs they can execute
you...
> Oh yes on many occasions but I can recognise a sign that says NO ENTRY
> except for buses and follow the road markings that take me away from this
> street.
Well you may be absolutely confident you'll never be confused but I'm not,
and I don't see why I should be executed by the government if I am.
> If you make a simple mistake here, at these bollards and realise you cant
> get through, hey turn around and go back the way you came. Its that
simple.
No it isn't, if you're following a bus in traffic and you miss the "no-entry
to anyone but buses, taxis, the post office and anyone else duley
authorised" sign then you can't see the bollards, the first you know is they
rise under your car and bring you to a very abrupt halt, bypassing the
crumple zones and possibly ingressing into the foorwells.
> Good god Greg, you really are on one about this subject. Do you live in
> Manchester, have you been affected by this directly ? if not then what
have
> you to worry about.
The first person to be killed by one was actually in Cambridge, why do I
have to wait until they come to my town to object to them?
> You obviuosly dont give a damn about safety to the pedestrian and you do
> seem to care loads for the driver who can't read signs and get their just
> reward (IMHO).
Death is a just reward for missing a sign?
> Ohh just realised the Police could make a fortune by giving
> the car drivers Fixed Penalties and a fine for being somewhere they
> shouldn't be.
They are doing, if you ram one of these you are likely to be fined for the
violation AND have to pay a fixed sum which is typically £2500 for the
'repairs', even though the makers claim them to virtually indestructable and
only have to be 'reset' after a crash.
> Please in reply dont snip out the bits you dont want to reply and slightly
> disfigure my replies to you.
Please don't start that old Usenet silliness that we have to repost every
single word everyone says...
Greg
news:[email protected]...
> Where do you get this fact from ?
Try Googling, but you don't seriously expect the government to record
statistics that don't suit them do you
> Your quotation from the url you posted -"Rising bollards should not
normally
> be sited close to or at signalled junctions or pedestrian crossings." says
> should not normally how do you know MCC do not have permission for siting
> them there. I dont think this quote makes them illegal do you ?
Most of the traffic laws are grey not black an white, this one will
presumably get tested in court when people sue the Councils. What's more
likely to be the question is whether they've met their duty of care, which
surely they haven't when it's not only blindingly obvious that they
shouldn't be where they are but the government's own recomendations say they
shouldn't. Remenber that they will get sued in civil courts where less
rigorous proof is needed.
> You miss my point by a very wide mark. NO TRAFFIC is allowed down this
part
> of Corporation Street EXCEPT for buses and I presume Post Office van.
Those
> cars should not have been there. FULL STOP
Agreed, and you miss my point, is the punishmenet appropriate for the
crime?. Remember we're not talking about speeding as these things don't
measure speed, we're not talking about violating a pedestrian area (in most
cases) because people are expecting busses, so is it a capital crime for
some extra vehicle to be there?
> There are NO ENTRY signs at least a quarter of a mile before those
bollards
> in both directions.
I don't disagree.
> The pedestrian crossing has no light controls for stop
> or go (I think but I'll check tomorrow on my lunch). Its part of
Manchester
> City Councils attempt to make it safer for the pedestrian. I'll ask the
> question is it a 'legal' pedestrian crossing as its just a red painted
> surface.
It doesn't matter, if people believe it to be and cross in large numbers, as
can be seen from the video, then it's clearly stupid to place such a thing
where they have.
> What 30 MPH flashing signs ???
Those ones springing up all over the place that flash when you do 32 in a 30
area, you've seen a sign warning you that you're breaking the law so why
shouldn't you be punished in the same way?, after all you are speeding which
has got to be more serious than following a bus!. That's the argument that
people are making, so long as there are warning signs they can execute
you...
> Oh yes on many occasions but I can recognise a sign that says NO ENTRY
> except for buses and follow the road markings that take me away from this
> street.
Well you may be absolutely confident you'll never be confused but I'm not,
and I don't see why I should be executed by the government if I am
.> If you make a simple mistake here, at these bollards and realise you cant
> get through, hey turn around and go back the way you came. Its that
simple.
No it isn't, if you're following a bus in traffic and you miss the "no-entry
to anyone but buses, taxis, the post office and anyone else duley
authorised" sign then you can't see the bollards, the first you know is they
rise under your car and bring you to a very abrupt halt, bypassing the
crumple zones and possibly ingressing into the foorwells.
> Good god Greg, you really are on one about this subject. Do you live in
> Manchester, have you been affected by this directly ? if not then what
have
> you to worry about.
The first person to be killed by one was actually in Cambridge, why do I
have to wait until they come to my town to object to them?
> You obviuosly dont give a damn about safety to the pedestrian and you do
> seem to care loads for the driver who can't read signs and get their just
> reward (IMHO).
Death is a just reward for missing a sign?
> Ohh just realised the Police could make a fortune by giving
> the car drivers Fixed Penalties and a fine for being somewhere they
> shouldn't be.
They are doing, if you ram one of these you are likely to be fined for the
violation AND have to pay a fixed sum which is typically £2500 for the
'repairs', even though the makers claim them to virtually indestructable and
only have to be 'reset' after a crash.
> Please in reply dont snip out the bits you dont want to reply and slightly
> disfigure my replies to you.
Please don't start that old Usenet silliness that we have to repost every
single word everyone says...
Greg
