Doug, was this you?

Matt B wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 18:28:48 +0100, Matt B
wrote:

Cars cannot be blamed for damaged pavements.

Nonsense.

Local to where I live is a pedestrian crossing.

For 20 metres either side of the crossing are railings that prevent
motorists mounting the pavement. The pavement is in good condition.
Further down in a kebab shop, and no railings. The pavement there is
in a lamentable state with cracked paving stones. This has been
caused by cars mounting the pavement, driving along the pavement,
before stopping on the pavement outside the kebab shop.

The pavements may well be damaged. The evidence may suggest (to you at
least) that cars have /caused/ the damage, but the _blame_ is with those
who under-specified or those who poorly constructed the pavement. I'd
expect pavements to be able to tolerate such light motor vehicle use
without suffering.

You might expect it but the pavment is specced for foot traffic.
Do you really think they would spec it for possible, maybe, well- just
might, you never know? --- big difference in cost.
Crossings are laid differently, I know this 'cos I've spoken to the
pavement guys about it. It takes longer and costs more.



--

Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.

Keitht wrote:
Matt B wrote:
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 23:14:55 +0100, Matt B
wrote:

Ask your council what is the main cause of damage to pavements.

And they'll inevitably say "cars" - rather than admit the true
reason. The real reason is usually poor installation.

No, the real reason is that it's cars (and lorries).

The evidence is that they are /also/ damaged in places where cars
cannot physically get. Take a look next time you are walking on
one. There will be cracked and uneven slabs behind telephone boxes,
in-between the two poles of road signs, behind bollards, up steps,
behind and between planters, under benches...

That would make sense if it were suggested that cars are the only
source of damage. They are not.

To blame cars is to attempt to create a scapegoat for bad
workmanship and poor maintenance.

No, you only need to look at the buiding standards for a motor road
and a pavement to realise that pavements are not built to take motor
traffic. You appear to want pavements to be built to motor road
standards. Are you willing to pay the extra in your taxes for that,
just so that the drivers who illegally mount the pavement don't damage
it so badly?

There is a difference between constant and high-speed motor traffic
use - particularly involving trucks and buses, and the occasional
incursion onto a pavement by a light vehicle. Road building standards
cater for the former, and a /correctly/ laid pavement should be
expected to tolerate the latter.

I expect my tax money to be spend wisely, and for pavements laid using
it to be able to withstand the odd Post Office van, council road
repair or sweeper vehicle being driven on it, without suffering any harm.

Cars cannot be blamed for damaged pavements.

********.

Let's see...

The standards for ordinary pavement sub-surface is completely different
from occasional vehicle use and footway use.

Do you have a reference for that?

Your expectations of councils spending money on things they are not
supposed to encourage (or can ticket drivers for) are rather wide.

Pavement cleaning? Repairs to adjacent properties? BT pole, box and
hole work? Not to mention the occasional use by say, an ambulance, fire
engine or even police car.

Is it not possible for Post Office drivers to use the road like ordinary
people?

Of course. But with most Post Offices and pillar boxes having
collections during the rush hour (5:30 pmish usually) when parking and
loading is often banned, it is completely to be expected and anticipated
that there is a chance that some of them will bump up onto the pavement
for a few minutes.

They've just finished re-doing the pavement near where I live.

Is it nice? Did they make it fit for anticipated use patterns as is
their duty?

We were asked about wanting to have pavement crossings as these would
require a bit of dosh from the residents in order to upgrade the
sub-surface from foot traffic to vehicular traffic.

Did you believe them? Did you consider that it was possibly a lame
excuse to excuse their anticipated poor quality work?

Car drivers ignore the double-yellow and park half up on the pavement
and already there are cracked slabs.

Possibly because of poor standards of work previously. Cars drivers are
being used as scapegoats to excuse poor maintenance.

I don't think it's the baby-buggies doing it or the pavement cyclists or
people with heavy bags of shopping - that tends to leave only the car
drivers and thier selfish habits of saying '**** you' to anyone else.

Are they in the way and completely blocking the way?

You are right it's notthe cars - just the drivers who don't give a toss
until thier dear old mum(tm) goes over.

If it is likely that motor vehicles may use the pavement occasionally,
then it should be fit for that purpose - there can be no excuses.

--
Matt B

Keitht wrote:
Matt B wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 18:28:48 +0100, Matt B
wrote:

Cars cannot be blamed for damaged pavements.

Nonsense.

Local to where I live is a pedestrian crossing.

For 20 metres either side of the crossing are railings that prevent
motorists mounting the pavement. The pavement is in good condition.
Further down in a kebab shop, and no railings. The pavement there is
in a lamentable state with cracked paving stones. This has been
caused by cars mounting the pavement, driving along the pavement,
before stopping on the pavement outside the kebab shop.

The pavements may well be damaged. The evidence may suggest (to you
at least) that cars have /caused/ the damage, but the _blame_ is with
those who under-specified or those who poorly constructed the
pavement. I'd expect pavements to be able to tolerate such light
motor vehicle use without suffering.

You might expect it but the pavment is specced for foot traffic.

Evidence. If it is - is it wise given the actual anticipated and
expected use?

Do you really think they would spec it for possible, maybe, well- just
might, you never know? --- big difference in cost.

Are you saying that they should under spec it - despite knowing how it
will be used. And to hell with the inevitable consequences and likely
maintenance implications?

Crossings are laid differently, I know this 'cos I've spoken to the
pavement guys about it. It takes longer and costs more.

Correctly laid pavements should not crack-up if a sweeper vehicle drives
along them once a week, or if the odd motor vehicle needs to go on them
occasionally. Anyone who says they should is possibly looking for excuses.

--
Matt B

Matt B wrote:
Keitht wrote:
Matt B wrote:
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 23:14:55 +0100, Matt B
wrote:

Ask your council what is the main cause of damage to pavements.

And they'll inevitably say "cars" - rather than admit the true
reason. The real reason is usually poor installation.

No, the real reason is that it's cars (and lorries).

The evidence is that they are /also/ damaged in places where cars
cannot physically get. Take a look next time you are walking on
one. There will be cracked and uneven slabs behind telephone
boxes, in-between the two poles of road signs, behind bollards, up
steps, behind and between planters, under benches...

That would make sense if it were suggested that cars are the only
source of damage. They are not.

To blame cars is to attempt to create a scapegoat for bad
workmanship and poor maintenance.

No, you only need to look at the buiding standards for a motor road
and a pavement to realise that pavements are not built to take motor
traffic. You appear to want pavements to be built to motor road
standards. Are you willing to pay the extra in your taxes for that,
just so that the drivers who illegally mount the pavement don't damage
it so badly?

There is a difference between constant and high-speed motor traffic
use - particularly involving trucks and buses, and the occasional
incursion onto a pavement by a light vehicle. Road building
standards cater for the former, and a /correctly/ laid pavement
should be expected to tolerate the latter.

I expect my tax money to be spend wisely, and for pavements laid
using it to be able to withstand the odd Post Office van, council
road repair or sweeper vehicle being driven on it, without suffering
any harm.

Cars cannot be blamed for damaged pavements.

********.

Let's see...

The standards for ordinary pavement sub-surface is completely
different from occasional vehicle use and footway use.

Do you have a reference for that?

Your expectations of councils spending money on things they are not
supposed to encourage (or can ticket drivers for) are rather wide.

Pavement cleaning? Repairs to adjacent properties? BT pole, box and
hole work? Not to mention the occasional use by say, an ambulance, fire
engine or even police car.

Is it not possible for Post Office drivers to use the road like
ordinary people?

Of course. But with most Post Offices and pillar boxes having
collections during the rush hour (5:30 pmish usually) when parking and
loading is often banned, it is completely to be expected and anticipated
that there is a chance that some of them will bump up onto the pavement
for a few minutes.

They've just finished re-doing the pavement near where I live.

Is it nice? Did they make it fit for anticipated use patterns as is
their duty?

We were asked about wanting to have pavement crossings as these would
require a bit of dosh from the residents in order to upgrade the
sub-surface from foot traffic to vehicular traffic.

Did you believe them? Did you consider that it was possibly a lame
excuse to excuse their anticipated poor quality work?

Car drivers ignore the double-yellow and park half up on the pavement
and already there are cracked slabs.

Possibly because of poor standards of work previously. Cars drivers are
being used as scapegoats to excuse poor maintenance.

I don't think it's the baby-buggies doing it or the pavement cyclists
or people with heavy bags of shopping - that tends to leave only the
car drivers and thier selfish habits of saying '**** you' to anyone else.

Are they in the way and completely blocking the way?

You are right it's notthe cars - just the drivers who don't give a
toss until thier dear old mum(tm) goes over.

If it is likely that motor vehicles may use the pavement occasionally,
then it should be fit for that purpose - there can be no excuses.

If the roads were made adequate in the first
place,there would be no problem,ieroper parking
areas etc.

Bod

On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 10:42:46 +0100
Keitht KeithT wrote:
Who do we ask to find out how much extra is lumped on our council tax to
pay for broken pavements caused by cars?

Judging by the amount of buggered up pavements in my area, very little.

B2003

On 21 Sep, 10:52, Keitht KeithT wrote:
Matt B wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 18:28:48 +0100, Matt B
wrote:

Cars cannot be blamed for damaged pavements.

Nonsense.

Local to where I live is a pedestrian crossing.

For 20 metres either side of the crossing are railings that prevent
motorists mounting the pavement. *The pavement is in good condition.
Further down in a kebab shop, and no railings. *The pavement there is
in a lamentable state with cracked paving stones. *This has been
caused by cars mounting the pavement, driving along the pavement,
before stopping on the pavement outside the kebab shop.

The pavements may well be damaged. *The evidence may suggest (to you at
least) that cars have /caused/ the damage, but the _blame_ is with those
who under-specified or those who poorly constructed the pavement. *I'd
expect pavements to be able to tolerate such light motor vehicle use
without suffering.

You might expect it but the pavment is specced for foot traffic.
Do you really think they would spec it for possible, maybe, well- just
might, you never know? * --- * big difference in cost.
Crossings are laid differently, I know this 'cos I've spoken to the

Maybe it's just shoddy workmanship? My mum's driven over the pavement
outside her house at least twice a day, probably nearly every day bar
when she's been on holiday, for the last 20 years. It's not damaged,
and it's still in the same state it was before she started. It's the
access to her garage, and there's no dropped kerb. The council granted
planning permission for a garage, but wouldn't let her put a dropped
kerb in. The road outside is unpaved and not a through road, she lives
30 yds from the end of it. The footpath is very wide as it was the
main route to the factories at the bottom of the hill, back when there
was a cotton industry in East Lancs. The footpath is split down the
middle, half of it is flagged with those old flags with grips in them
- it's on a steep hill - and half is just tarmac. It's never been
repaired as long as I can remember.

Mike P

On 21 Sep, 10:09, BrianW wrote:
On 21 Sep, 08:53, "Brimstone" wrote:

It is obviously assumed by the government that everyone should have
the right to own a car regardless of the circumstances and harmful
impact on others and despite not having somewhere to keep one.

Where did you keep yours when you owned cars Doug?-

Gollum actually dumped his Land Rover by the sie of the road when it
finally gave up the ghost. *What a revolting, hypocritical old turd he
is.

I wonder how long he kept it after rolling it over, and whether it was
in a safe condition to be used on the road after the accident?

Mike P

On 21 Sep, 08:53, "Brimstone" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 21 Sep, 08:34, "Brimstone" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 20 Sep, 14:09, John Wright wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 19 Sep, 13:51, Judith M Smith wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 05:23:49 -0700 (PDT), BrianW

wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...andorder/62070...
Are you *sure* you are not obsessed with him?

What is it - a sexual attraction?

Blackhead is blinded by obsessive love turned sour. So much so in
his confused state he has targeted the wrong person! There must
be a sexual component there surely?

Anyway, back on topic, I have been posting elsewhere about
discrimination against disabled cyclists and this case clearly
illustrates my point. Cars and mobility scooters on pavements are
much more dangerous that bicycles but all we seem to hear about is
cycling on pavements.

Cars don't drive on pavements unless something is seriously amiss
or there is a legal arrangement in place for them to drive over the
pavement.

Cyclists and mobility scooters appear to do it as a matter of
course.

But the least dangerous are cyclists.

Wrong again Doug. The least dangerous traffic are pedestrians.
Everything else can cause harm to others.

A car could easily run over a
small child and kill them even at very slow speed.

And a bicycle can knock down and kill an adult. Your point?

Dangerous cars are allowed on some pavements where disabled cyclists
are not.

What has cars being allowed got to do with bicycles not being?

I never cease to be amazed that motorists have been allowed to
street garage their cars 24/7 on public roads, often for free, but
allowing them legally on pavements is the giddy limit!

Places where they are legally allowed on the pavement are remarkably
few in the UK. I've never seen one.

There are plenty in London plus all the illegal ones too.

Which sounds like a good reason for not living in London.

is there a good reason *for* living in London?

Mike P

Mike P gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

My mum's driven over the pavement outside her house at least twice a
day, probably nearly every day bar when she's been on holiday, for the
last 20 years. It's not damaged, and it's still in the same state it
was before she started. It's the access to her garage, and there's no
dropped kerb. The council granted planning permission for a garage, but
wouldn't let her put a dropped kerb in.

So your mum's the one who illegally drives over pavements with no
vehicular access rights, then?

Just as well she's not a disabled cyclist, else she wouldn't be allowed
to do that. And that'd be discrimination. Apparently.

On 21 Sep, 15:00, Adrian wrote:
Mike P gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

My mum's driven over the pavement outside her house at least twice a
day, probably nearly every day bar when she's been on holiday, for the
last 20 years. It's not damaged, and it's still in the same state it
was before she started. *It's the access to her garage, and there's no
dropped kerb. The council granted planning permission for a garage, but
wouldn't let her put a dropped kerb in.

So your mum's the one who illegally drives over pavements with no
vehicular access rights, then?

Indeed, digusting isn't it. Though she does have vehicular access
rights, they just won't let her put a dropped kerb in. She owns the
road , but not the bit in between her house and the road. Is that
odd?

Just as well she's not a disabled cyclist, else she wouldn't be allowed
to do that. And that'd be discrimination. Apparently.

Good, the ****ers shouldn't be allowed to ride on pavements, and
certainley not on railway platforms where they could knock over
vunerable pedestrians.

Mike p