|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Do *You* Hate Motorists? Take The Test
Brimstone wrote:
Doug wrote: On 1 May, 15:40, "Brimstone" wrote: mileburner wrote: Our former head said exactly the same. But now there is one and the road has become difficult for traffic to navigate. My personal feeling is that that the school *should* take responsibility for the traffic it generates and deal with it accordingly. However, we always seem to end up with an eternal triangle of blame dodging: The school say it is a police matter, the police say it is a council matter and the council say it is a school matter. ******s - the lot of 'em. And yet if it were a commercial company/s at the centre of such congestion then the authorities would be down on them like a ton of bricks. As you say, ******s. No the problem is that the car culture is so powerful and has permeated every aspect of our society that nobody, apart from a few like me, dare oppose it. Don't forget too that those ******s are statistically more than likely to be motorists themselves. Two schools near me have large free car parks for their teachers and virtually no cycle parking. Here is evidence that Doug will never allow anyone to agree with him... ....unless they are wishing him well after being injured - an occasion when he let his guard slip for a short while. |
Ads |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Do *You* Hate Motorists? Take The Test
JNugent wrote:
"Virtually" must be one of the most poorly-understood and most-frequently misused words in English. It ranks alongside "unique" in the "misused words" chart. |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Do *You* Hate Motorists? Take The Test
On Apr 29, 6:50*pm, thaksin wrote:
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote: On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 09:06:53 +0000, (Roger Merriman) wrote: get a client that auto kills all followups then? thats what mine does, as nuxxy is not as nasty as judit i tend to just put him in a rolling 30 days when he gets too much. For values of "not as nasty" that include phoning in the small hours to shout "murderer". *In terms of malice I don't think there is a lot to choose between the two. *Actually since both of them are fact-blind agenda-driven nutcases it is not even that interesting to speculate on what differences there might be, I suspect. You really are determined to provoke, aren't you Guy? Lets hope you still feel smug when your scattergun unpleasantness hits a _real_ "nasty" person and they pay you a visit, eh? Couldn't agree more, but it's useless trying to tell him. "Scattergun unpleasantness" is an excellent way of describing him though. Oh BTW, you'll now be branded a "troll" for daring to disagree with the URC "moderator". (I of course made no such phone calls, and he has no proof otherwise. I've commenced legal action against him for his continued slander to the contrary.) |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Do *You* Hate Motorists? Take The Test
On Apr 27, 6:46*pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote: On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 12:44:43 +0100, Peter Clinch wrote: Given the options of lots of people being in denial or the cameras that caught them being wrong, he seems to think the former option is considerably more likely. You know, I really think he might be onto something there... But you would say that, since you have a vested interest in cameras' continued operation. You would sooner advocate killing people than turn on your beloved cameras. Oh wait...you already do that. |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Do *You* Hate Motorists? Take The Test
Do you think your father is a dangerous or reckless driver?
Do you believe that he was driving dangerously or recklessly at the time of the "offence"? Does he? |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Do *You* Hate Motorists? Take The Test
Nuxx Bar wrote:
On Apr 29, 6:50 pm, thaksin wrote: Just zis Guy, you know? wrote: On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 09:06:53 +0000, (Roger Merriman) wrote: get a client that auto kills all followups then? thats what mine does, as nuxxy is not as nasty as judit i tend to just put him in a rolling 30 days when he gets too much. For values of "not as nasty" that include phoning in the small hours to shout "murderer". In terms of malice I don't think there is a lot to choose between the two. Actually since both of them are fact-blind agenda-driven nutcases it is not even that interesting to speculate on what differences there might be, I suspect. You really are determined to provoke, aren't you Guy? Lets hope you still feel smug when your scattergun unpleasantness hits a _real_ "nasty" person and they pay you a visit, eh? Couldn't agree more, but it's useless trying to tell him. "Scattergun unpleasantness" is an excellent way of describing him though. Oh BTW, you'll now be branded a "troll" for daring to disagree with the URC "moderator". (I of course made no such phone calls, and he has no proof otherwise. I've commenced legal action against him for his continued slander to the contrary.) Far be it from me to suggest such a thing, but I would have been busy telling all my mates that I am Nuxx and encouraging them to read this group. If you don't get why that would be 'useful', just ask and I'll tell you, but I'm sure you know the point I was making |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Do *You* Hate Motorists? Take The Test
On Sun, 3 May 2009 06:06:25 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
wrote: On Apr 29, 6:50*pm, thaksin wrote: Just zis Guy, you know? wrote: On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 09:06:53 +0000, (Roger Merriman) wrote: get a client that auto kills all followups then? thats what mine does, as nuxxy is not as nasty as judit i tend to just put him in a rolling 30 days when he gets too much. For values of "not as nasty" that include phoning in the small hours to shout "murderer". *In terms of malice I don't think there is a lot to choose between the two. *Actually since both of them are fact-blind agenda-driven nutcases it is not even that interesting to speculate on what differences there might be, I suspect. You really are determined to provoke, aren't you Guy? Lets hope you still feel smug when your scattergun unpleasantness hits a _real_ "nasty" person and they pay you a visit, eh? Couldn't agree more, but it's useless trying to tell him. "Scattergun unpleasantness" is an excellent way of describing him though. Oh BTW, you'll now be branded a "troll" for daring to disagree with the URC "moderator". (I of course made no such phone calls, and he has no proof otherwise. I've commenced legal action against him for his continued slander to the contrary.) I must admit - when he said that it was you who had phoned him during the middle of the night - and knowing your real identity - I really believed that it was indeed you - despite it being totally out of character. I am pleased to hear that it was not you - I am sorry for doubting your character. I would be willing to support any action you take against him - contact by e-mail please. -- I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman) I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman) I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman) I pointed out the web page He then quickly changed the web page - but "forgot" to change the date of last amendment so it looked like the change had been there for years. |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Do *You* Hate Motorists? Take The Test
On Fri, 1 May 2009 15:31:17 +0100, "mileburner"
wrote: "Mark" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 16:19:56 +0100, "mileburner" wrote: The issues are complex because solving one problem can lead to another. For example, if you remove the parked cars, (legal or not), you end up with increased traffic speeds. Indeed and more traffic too I would suspect. That's one reason we are in favour of road closure at school times. The main problem is that there is too much traffic for the narrow roads to cope with. One road is single lane at one point and this is always a problem area. I cannot see that any LA (or whoever would be responsible) would have the balls to allow a road to be closed to traffic for a limited period for the safety of pedestians, even if they are schoolchildren. You would need several fatal accidents before they took the issue *that* seriously. They have admitted as much. However we are determined and I have succeeded in other areas where all around have told me it was impossible. There was a huge delivery lorry parked there this morning completely blocking the pavement and leaving pedestrians and cars to squeeze through the same small gap (i.e. the road). This is not an unusual problem. I have also seen this type of thing occur and it can actually improve safety by making the traffic standstill. In fact, the school previously was in a no through road and regularly became so jammed up that the pedestrians would be clear of the area before the drivers could unblock themselves. I can assure you that this did *NOT* improve safety as the cars were still able to drive along the road and the pedestrians had to fit through the same gap. The biggest problem (and the one which can most easily be tackled) is the school eliminating the problem of parents driving their children right up to the school. This is an argument I frequently hear as an excuse to do nothing IMHO. Yes, some parents are part of the problem but we have no special control over the them. Apart from closing the school I cannot see any way we can stop parents who are determined to drive their kids right to the school gate. We frequently send out letters reminding them of the alternatives, warning about specific problems but it has not helped. The fact is that teaching staff are scared ****less to do anything which *might* upset parents. They *could* speak to parents about this at parent/teacher evenings. They *could* speak to prospective parents about this when they visit the school prior to their children joining and they *could* raise awareness amongst the children by raising the subject at school assemblies. But they don't. Instead they bleat that it's not their responsibility. You are making wild assumptions here. The school staff that I know are not afraid to inform parents. They regularly send out letters to parents about road safety issues. Children are educated about road safety and they do nag their parents. Children have designed posters which are displayed around the area. Classes get awards for the most children walking or cycling to school. There is a strong culture of walking and cycling here. We are planning more walking and cycling initiatives in the near future. What this *will* do is have a major impact in the volume of traffic itself. Another thing that has worked well outside my childrens school is they have painted a cycle lane. This has stopped parents stopping and parking in it and the pedestrians now use it as additional footway - oh yes, the cyclists just ride out wider into the ever narrowing road. As a result of the ever narrowing road, the amount of traffic which now try to use it as a rat-run has decreased sharply. There would not be room for a cycle lane in the roads nearest the schools, they are too narrow. Our former head said exactly the same. But now there is one and the road has become difficult for traffic to navigate. My personal feeling is that that the school *should* take responsibility for the traffic it generates and deal with it accordingly. However, we always seem to end up with an eternal triangle of blame dodging: The school say it is a police matter, the police say it is a council matter and the council say it is a school matter. ******s - the lot of 'em. Your experience is obviously not the same as mine. -- (\__/) M. (='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and (")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by everyone you will need use a different method of posting. |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Do *You* Hate Motorists? Take The Test
"Mark" wrote in message ... On Fri, 1 May 2009 15:31:17 +0100, "mileburner" wrote: I cannot see that any LA (or whoever would be responsible) would have the balls to allow a road to be closed to traffic for a limited period for the safety of pedestians, even if they are schoolchildren. You would need several fatal accidents before they took the issue *that* seriously. They have admitted as much. However we are determined and I have succeeded in other areas where all around have told me it was impossible. Good luck and keep pressing on. One of the obsticles the LA frequently use is that "local residents will object". It might take a bit of footwork but if you can get a pettition signed by all the people who live on the road where it is intended to be closed, it blows that argument out of the water. You will also be surprised that the majority of local residents will actually support traffic reduction and road safety measures. They get just as ****ed off with the school traffic as the parents do. I can assure you that this did *NOT* improve safety as the cars were still able to drive along the road and the pedestrians had to fit through the same gap. If you have that situation occur, it is better to stand in the road to direct and block *all* the traffic so that people do not get hit by it. It might be radical, it might not even be legal, but it could avoid a serious accident. I do this when there are a lot of children trying to cross the road and the traffic is stop start. I just walk into the middle of the road, stop the traffic, let the kids cross safely. You are making wild assumptions here. The school staff that I know are not afraid to inform parents. They regularly send out letters to parents about road safety issues. There is a big difference between informing parents and writing generic "hand-out" style letters to parents. Personally I find that if you approach somone who is illegally parked and say something like "Excuse me, sorry to trouble you, but don't parking restictions apply to you? There is a school here, and these marking which say "keep clear" in big yellow letters actually mean that you are not supposed to park here because it is dangerous". That usually does the trick! But I would not expect teaching staff to be quite so bold, hence my suggestion that they *could* approach them at parent teacher meetings and prior to their children starting that school - but they don't, do they? rhetorical Children are educated about road safety and they do nag their parents. Children have designed posters which are displayed around the area. Classes get awards for the most children walking or cycling to school. There is a strong culture of walking and cycling here. We are planning more walking and cycling initiatives in the near future. Goody good good good. But you also need to go for the jugular as well, and that means tackling Mr or Mrs F*c*wit-Scumbag and point this out to them too. You can have all the police support, traffic calming, children nagging, safety campaigns and posters you like but you also have to deal with the root of the problem too and that means you need to speak to the people who are the problem. Your experience is obviously not the same as mine. A lot of it is down to the Head. If the head has some balls (metaphorically) things will happen. If they don't it won't. But we seem to have gone from an era where school Heads were in charge and to be obeyed to one where teaching staff bleat out reasons why they can't have that authority. |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Do *You* Hate Motorists? Take The Test
On Tue, 5 May 2009 11:00:44 +0100, "mileburner"
wrote: "Mark" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 1 May 2009 15:31:17 +0100, "mileburner" wrote: I cannot see that any LA (or whoever would be responsible) would have the balls to allow a road to be closed to traffic for a limited period for the safety of pedestians, even if they are schoolchildren. You would need several fatal accidents before they took the issue *that* seriously. They have admitted as much. However we are determined and I have succeeded in other areas where all around have told me it was impossible. Good luck and keep pressing on. One of the obsticles the LA frequently use is that "local residents will object". It might take a bit of footwork but if you can get a pettition signed by all the people who live on the road where it is intended to be closed, it blows that argument out of the water. You will also be surprised that the majority of local residents will actually support traffic reduction and road safety measures. They get just as ****ed off with the school traffic as the parents do. The last time no reason was given for the opposition to road closure IIRC. We were told that if we proceeded to ask for this the local council would oppose *all* our other proposals too. However this was a long time ago and all those councillors are long gone. I can assure you that this did *NOT* improve safety as the cars were still able to drive along the road and the pedestrians had to fit through the same gap. If you have that situation occur, it is better to stand in the road to direct and block *all* the traffic so that people do not get hit by it. It might be radical, it might not even be legal, but it could avoid a serious accident. I do this when there are a lot of children trying to cross the road and the traffic is stop start. I just walk into the middle of the road, stop the traffic, let the kids cross safely. I have done this in the past. This time I was not early for work so I telephoned the police. The lorry had gone by the time they attended though. You are making wild assumptions here. The school staff that I know are not afraid to inform parents. They regularly send out letters to parents about road safety issues. There is a big difference between informing parents and writing generic "hand-out" style letters to parents. Personally I find that if you approach somone who is illegally parked and say something like "Excuse me, sorry to trouble you, but don't parking restictions apply to you? There is a school here, and these marking which say "keep clear" in big yellow letters actually mean that you are not supposed to park here because it is dangerous". That usually does the trick! We just need to find people who are willing and able to do this. I think I am about the only person who would be prepared to do this! And I am not there all the time. But I would not expect teaching staff to be quite so bold, hence my suggestion that they *could* approach them at parent teacher meetings and prior to their children starting that school - but they don't, do they? rhetorical Children are educated about road safety and they do nag their parents. Children have designed posters which are displayed around the area. Classes get awards for the most children walking or cycling to school. There is a strong culture of walking and cycling here. We are planning more walking and cycling initiatives in the near future. Goody good good good. But you also need to go for the jugular as well, and that means tackling Mr or Mrs F*c*wit-Scumbag and point this out to them too. You can have all the police support, traffic calming, children nagging, safety campaigns and posters you like but you also have to deal with the root of the problem too and that means you need to speak to the people who are the problem. The PCSOs tell me that some pavement parkers actually drive at them when they are trying to advise them not to park there! Your experience is obviously not the same as mine. A lot of it is down to the Head. If the head has some balls (metaphorically) things will happen. If they don't it won't. But we seem to have gone from an era where school Heads were in charge and to be obeyed to one where teaching staff bleat out reasons why they can't have that authority. It takes time to change attitudes. The tide is changing. The heads all now want to be seen to be encouraging walking/cycling. -- (\__/) M. (='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and (")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by everyone you will need use a different method of posting. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Chapman's OWN Web Page: "I Hate Motorists" | Chapman Is A Liar | UK | 15 | October 22nd 08 04:29 AM |
I Still Hate Motorists, Even Though I've Just Changed My Site To Attempt To Cover It Up | Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_] | UK | 7 | October 19th 08 11:32 PM |
I Hate Motorists | _[_4_] | UK | 4 | October 10th 08 06:57 PM |
Testosterone test: isotope test | gabriel faure | Racing | 66 | August 3rd 06 09:15 PM |
Motorists will even hate us more now | Peter Wilson | Australia | 8 | August 5th 05 03:17 AM |