Pavement motorists wreck house for second time!

On 01/06/2012 21:16, Mike P wrote:
....
The house in the video - well, the wall appears to me made out of
****e breeze-block for a start. There also does not appear to be a
STOP or give way sign at the T-junction, so anyone unfamiliar with the
area might be surprised to find it there, especially at night..


It is an urban area and the road with priority is neither a trunk road
nor a principle road, so a Give Way sign would not be required by
Chapter 3 of the Traffic Signs Manual. In any case, at 20mph it should
not be a problem.

Colin Bignell

On Jun 1, 6:30*am, Doug wrote:
Presumably someone in the house owns a bicycle and was put at risk.
The video says the family will be homeless for as much as six months.

"A family's home in Barry has been wrecked by a speeding car for the
second time in four years.

Caroline Broad, says she is convinced someone will die unless further
measures are introduced to slow down traffic.

The Vale of Glamorgan council says a 20mph (32km/h) speed limit has
already been introduced. Nick Palit reports.

See video...http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-18290352

I don't think you actually believe any of this **** any more, Gollum.
I've been away from the group for a while now. I've just popped back,
and I see you are still posting the same old rubbish, but it just
reads like it's half-hearted now. In your senile old age (you are now
over 80, aren't you?), you've just become a troll.

On Jun 2, 11:20*am, Nightjar
wrote:
On 01/06/2012 21:16, Mike P wrote:
...

The house in the video - well, the wall appears to me made out of
****e breeze-block for a start. There also does not appear to be a
STOP or give way sign at the T-junction, so anyone unfamiliar with the
area might be surprised to find it there, especially at night..

It is an urban area and the road with priority is neither a trunk road
nor a principle road, so a Give Way sign would not be required by
Chapter 3 of the Traffic Signs Manual. In any case, at 20mph it should
not be a problem.

I take your point Colin, but you are presuming that every driver on
the road has a good level of observation, when sadly this is not the
case.

On Jun 2, 9:20*am, "Norman Wells" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Jun 1, 9:28 am, "Norman Wells" wrote:
Should we demolish all houses near road junctions? Ban all motorised
transport
with immediate effect? Or what?

Just up the punishments for drivers so that they will think twice
before allowing themselves to lose control of their vehicles in
future.

It's a good principle.

How about upping the penalties too for obstructing the police, criminal
damage, conspiracy to blackmail, squatting, aggravated trespass, and all
the other offences you routinely support? *That would be a good way of
reducing the number of such offences committed, wouldn't it?

In many cases the penalties are already high enough, such as 11 years
for conspiracy to blackmail and six months for stealing a bottle of
water. Sometimes motorists are even allowed to kill with little or no
penalty at all!

Also cars should be banned from pavements.

I think you'll find it is generally illegal to drive along them already.

But not across them and cars are often driven along pavements for
short distances and sometimes parking of cars on pavements is allowed.
The point is that pavement motoring can be very dangerous and
destructive, much more so than pavement cycling, which is often done
to avoid the danger from cars being driven badly on roads.

-- .
A driving licence is sometimes a licence to kill.

Doug wrote:
On Jun 2, 9:20 am, "Norman Wells" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Jun 1, 9:28 am, "Norman Wells" wrote:
Should we demolish all houses near road junctions? Ban all
motorised transport
with immediate effect? Or what?

Just up the punishments for drivers so that they will think twice
before allowing themselves to lose control of their vehicles in
future.

It's a good principle.

How about upping the penalties too for obstructing the police,
criminal damage, conspiracy to blackmail, squatting, aggravated
trespass, and all the other offences you routinely support? That
would be a good way of reducing the number of such offences
committed, wouldn't it?

In many cases the penalties are already high enough, such as 11 years
for conspiracy to blackmail and six months for stealing a bottle of
water.

Whether the penalties are high enough depends on whether the current
ones have prevented or sufficiently discouraged those activities. If
they have, then the penalties are just right. If they haven't, they
need to be increased.

On what basis do you say the penalties are too high? Has conspiracy to
blackmail completely ceased? Has theft?

Sometimes motorists are even allowed to kill with little or no
penalty at all!

Usually only if they've been killed themselves, in which case further
punishment may be considered a bit harsh, or if it's the dead person's
own fault, rank stupidity on the part of someone else, or if it's
something that's occurred that could not have been predicted or guarded
against.

Also cars should be banned from pavements.

I think you'll find it is generally illegal to drive along them
already.

But not across them and cars are often driven along pavements for
short distances and sometimes parking of cars on pavements is allowed.

I don't think a car parked on a pavement has ever killed anyone, but I'm
ready as ever to be surprised. Perhaps you can provide some examples?

The point is that pavement motoring can be very dangerous and
destructive, much more so than pavement cycling, which is often done
to avoid the danger from cars being driven badly on roads.

It's only possible to discourage what little of it happens if it's
within the driver's ability not to do it. And that is very rarely the
case.

But you of course know different, so perhaps you'd enlighten us.

Doug wrote:
Presumably someone in the house owns a bicycle and was put at risk.
The video says the family will be homeless for as much as six months.

"A family's home in Barry has been wrecked by a speeding car for the
second time in four years.

It would not matter how draconian the punishment, it would not stop or
reduce crashes like these occurring. No one deliberately drives a
motorised vehicle into a house, nor along pavements, and only very rarely do
they deliberately run someone over.

So if you can suggest a practical way to improve the situation then go
ahead.

On 03/06/2012 01:40, Mike P wrote:
On Jun 2, 11:20 am,
wrote:
On 01/06/2012 21:16, Mike P wrote:
...

The house in the video - well, the wall appears to me made out of
****e breeze-block for a start. There also does not appear to be a
STOP or give way sign at the T-junction, so anyone unfamiliar with the
area might be surprised to find it there, especially at night..

It is an urban area and the road with priority is neither a trunk road
nor a principle road, so a Give Way sign would not be required by
Chapter 3 of the Traffic Signs Manual. In any case, at 20mph it should
not be a problem.

I take your point Colin, but you are presuming that every driver on
the road has a good level of observation, when sadly this is not the
case.

In this case the driver has failed to notice a wall across the end of
the road, so I doubt a road sign would be much more help.

Colin Bignell

On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 11:20:22 +0100, Nightjar hollered:

On 03/06/2012 01:40, Mike P wrote:
On Jun 2, 11:20 am, wrote:
On 01/06/2012 21:16, Mike P wrote:
...

The house in the video - well, the wall appears to me made out of
****e breeze-block for a start. There also does not appear to be a
STOP or give way sign at the T-junction, so anyone unfamiliar with
the area might be surprised to find it there, especially at night..

It is an urban area and the road with priority is neither a trunk road
nor a principle road, so a Give Way sign would not be required by
Chapter 3 of the Traffic Signs Manual. In any case, at 20mph it should
not be a problem.

I take your point Colin, but you are presuming that every driver on the
road has a good level of observation, when sadly this is not the case.

In this case the driver has failed to notice a wall across the end of
the road, so I doubt a road sign would be much more help.

Grey wall, grey road, grey sky, grey footpath, not paying complete
attention...it all blends in to one if you take your eyes off the road
for a second.

There's a few junctions round here where it's not obvious it's a
crossroads until you are 20 yards from them because of a slight rise/dip
in the road. There's a bloody great big chequer board to warn you the
road is coming to an end.. such as this one in Shurlock Row

http://tinyurl.com/7opjaeb








--
Mike P

Mike P wrote:

There's a bloody great big chequer board to warn you the
road is coming to an end.. such as this one in Shurlock Row

http://tinyurl.com/7opjaeb

Probably everyone was getting distracted by that blurry house on the
right of the road.

On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 22:16:59 +0100, Andy Burns
wrote:

Mike P wrote:

There's a bloody great big chequer board to warn you the
road is coming to an end.. such as this one in Shurlock Row

http://tinyurl.com/7opjaeb

Probably everyone was getting distracted by that blurry house on the
right of the road.

It's not so blury here, but it is foggy:
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-...-24481666.html