Not a victim but a criminal hell bent on wiping out people in Newbury and willing to take any risks to get through the bollards.
That's a bit harsh. They're just poor innocent folk from out of town, trying their best to help the hard pressed traders of Newbury who are seeing their futures screwed by WBC, by shopping in town. In every other town they can drive through pedestrian zones, ignore road signs and park outside their shop of choice. It's only Newbury that has such draconian measures when it comes to cars/parking/pedestrian zones.
That's a bit harsh. They're just poor innocent folk from out of town, trying their best to help the hard pressed traders of Newbury who are seeing their futures screwed by WBC, by shopping in town. In every other town they can drive through pedestrian zones, ignore road signs and park outside their shop of choice. It's only Newbury that has such draconian measures when it comes to cars/parking/pedestrian zones.
Actually, that would be interesting if WBC published a list of addresses where the nasty evil people lived. Not a street address after all we don't want to encourage lynchings by the WBC employees that frequent this website and the other one, but just towns and villages and so on. Perhaps also get them to sit an IQ test. From that we can determine whether they are indeed lemmings that knew about the bollards or whether they are folk of average intelligence that missed the signs. Now that would at least settle the debate for most of us. Obviously the WBC staff would still want to lynch them.
The "nasty evil people" are those in the council who think that such a draconian action is required for such a minor infringement of the rules/law.
I'm all for enforcing the pedestrian area, if thats what is required, but would rather have a camera and fine, and maybe points (if that is permissable under law?) system that will discourage people from breaking the rules without breaking their cars, I wonder how many of these people (local or not) who have vowed never to return to the town because of these bollards.
Surely its better to have a £60-£100 fine rather than have to spend 100's or 1000's to repair/replace your car?
It is also a gross example of double standards, because its a govenrment body it can get away with these draconian tactics, if you tried to emply similar logic to your home security you'd be in court in a flash.
Niceguyeddie sounds anything but nice, and if these people were "hell bent on wiping out people in Newbury" they could do that without entering the pedestrian zone. There are 4 crossing points between Barclays Bank and Bart St, yet lots of people still seem to want to try and cross the road either when the crossing is against them, or at any other point along that stretch of road, its seems some days that these people are determined to get run over.
Presumably another blind driver following a bus? Soon be sorted once they ban buses and taxis entirely from being able to lower the bollards during the day
Yes it is, and let us all thank the council that they have smashed the shit out of any driver's vehicle that should chose to do so.
Who had their foot on the pedal? The Council?? <edited by rabid council employee blindly supporting any initiative implemented by the council.... Long Live Local Government!>
Missing seven warning signs is hardly a minor infringement.
It's driving without due care and attention at the very least.
And that gives the council the right to invoke IRA type tactics, does it?
Go on, say "they did'nt blow it up!" They may as well have done, as a great majority of vehicles caught by these bollards are probably write-offs!
The driver may well have missed the signage, but committing a "due care and attention" offence, but how that gives the council the right to potentially destroy his vehicle, is beyond me!
Harsh penalty, for a somewhat minor offence.
Those who gloat at someone else's misfortune, are no better than the offender!
It obviously is not the best solution to restricting traffic from the pedestrianised zones, when so many have been "speared" by the bollards, and I don't think that many were just chancers!
And that gives the council the right to invoke IRA type tactics, does it?
I spot a 'rabid post'.... Are you a WBC employee in disguise?
Anyway, I wouldn't say getting driver's to ram their cars into metal posts was one of the more recognised tactics employed by the irish boys in balaclavas... although perhaps their modus operandi has changed in recent years? And I'd say the comparison is just ever so slightly over the top and distasteful given the recent bombing.
The driver may well have missed the signage, but committing a "due care and attention" offence, but how that gives the council the right to potentially destroy his vehicle, is beyond me!
The Council didn't destroy it. The driver committed the offence of driving without due care and attention, Self evident by his / her ignoring / missing seven warning signs about the bollards and several about the Pedestrianised area. The dirvers own in-attention and lack of care caused them to drive into a set of bollards put there to stop them.
Just to take it to it's logical conclusion, if the driver hit a small child that was standing in the road, would it be the parents fault for putting the kid there, the kids fault for believing it was a pedestrianised zone, or the drivers fault for driving without due care and attention? We can prove that the driver was not using due care and attention can't we?
Not sure when it happened, but sometime over the last twenty years, many people have begun to think they are the centre of the universe, that the world revolves around them. They have become so far 'up themselves' that they cannot in any way shape or form be responsible for anything that happens to them and are often prepared to sue just about anyone to prove that whatever has happened MUST be someone elses fault, - and certainly not as a result of their own clumsiness, stupidity, inattention or carelessness.
It's about time some people started taking responsibility for their own actions. If you drive around either ignoring or choosing not to see warning signs, driving through pedestrianised zones, or failing to stop when you're confused, then maybe, just maybe, you should have the car taken off you. It's a dangerous weapon after all, and the rest of us could well be safer if you didn't have it.
Logged
Male
