Advantages to route and traction learning

On 22 Apr, 16:08, Charles Ellson <char...@ellson.> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 05:24:45 -0700 (PDT), MIG
>
>
>
>
>
> <googles...@doreenbird.co.uk> wrote:
> >On 22 Apr, 12:13, David Hansen <SENDdavidNOhS...@spidacom.co.uk>
> >wrote:
> >> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 03:47:38 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be MIG
> >> <googles...@doreenbird.co.uk> wrote this:-
>
> >> >I don't see the problem with fixed bollards* enforcing a
> >> >pedestrianised area, but since they were rising bollards, the area
> >> >can't have been pedestrianised (or restricted to bikes).  So the
> >> >impression of those pedestrians was rather unfortunate.
>
> >> Not in the least.
>
> >> The area has been pedestrianised, but with access permitted to bike
> >> riders at all times and access permitted to motor vehicle operators
> >> (to access buildings) at certain times of the day. Nothing
> >> particularly unusual about this. It was and is all clearly indicated
> >> by signs, but the unacceptable face of motoring were convinced that
> >> they are above the law. The bollards have curbed their enthusiasm
> >> for breaking the law, which is excellent. More please.
>
> >> There are some videos on-line about criminals trying to break the
> >> law in Manchester and being arrested by similar bollards. Excellent.
>
> >One of which shows a small child in a buggy being yanked out of the
> >way of a crashing car.  Hilarious.  The bollards concerned are on a
> >bus route, so not in any way protecting a pedestrianised area.
>
> >Again, punishment is the job of the courts.  Why stop at bollards?
> >Why not just fire a machine gun in the general direction of any
> >criminal and anyone standing nearby?
>
> Is it "punishment" if a careless driver damages his vehicle on a kerb,
> central barrier or various other obstructions used to limit the free
> movement of motor vehicles ?

Of course not. Why on Earth would it be?

In message <n9vr045gderppjtnm2cabq1n2mpre7l7hu@>, at 15:59:28 on
Tue, 22 Apr 2008, Charles Ellson <charles@ellson.> remarked:
>>Some of the armchair "executioners" who have taken great
>>delight in the 'Manchester videos' note how one of the drivers hit his
>>head quite badly on the windscreen.
>>
>Which suggests a further offence of not wearing a seatbelt.

I believe he was already leaning forward.
--
Roland Perry

On 22 Apr, 16:43, Charles Ellson <char...@ellson.> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 08:20:30 -0700 (PDT), MIG
>
>
>
>
>
> <googles...@doreenbird.co.uk> wrote:
> >On 22 Apr, 16:08, Charles Ellson <char...@ellson.> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 05:24:45 -0700 (PDT), MIG
>
> >> <googles...@doreenbird.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >On 22 Apr, 12:13, David Hansen <SENDdavidNOhS...@spidacom.co.uk>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 03:47:38 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be MIG
> >> >> <googles...@doreenbird.co.uk> wrote this:-
>
> >> >> >I don't see the problem with fixed bollards* enforcing a
> >> >> >pedestrianised area, but since they were rising bollards, the area
> >> >> >can't have been pedestrianised (or restricted to bikes).  So the
> >> >> >impression of those pedestrians was rather unfortunate.
>
> >> >> Not in the least.
>
> >> >> The area has been pedestrianised, but with access permitted to bike
> >> >> riders at all times and access permitted to motor vehicle operators
> >> >> (to access buildings) at certain times of the day. Nothing
> >> >> particularly unusual about this. It was and is all clearly indicated
> >> >> by signs, but the unacceptable face of motoring were convinced that
> >> >> they are above the law. The bollards have curbed their enthusiasm
> >> >> for breaking the law, which is excellent. More please.
>
> >> >> There are some videos on-line about criminals trying to break the
> >> >> law in Manchester and being arrested by similar bollards. Excellent.
>
> >> >One of which shows a small child in a buggy being yanked out of the
> >> >way of a crashing car.  Hilarious.  The bollards concerned are on a
> >> >bus route, so not in any way protecting a pedestrianised area.
>
> >> >Again, punishment is the job of the courts.  Why stop at bollards?
> >> >Why not just fire a machine gun in the general direction of any
> >> >criminal and anyone standing nearby?
>
> >> Is it "punishment" if a careless driver damages his vehicle on a kerb,
> >> central barrier or various other obstructions used to limit the free
> >> movement of motor vehicles ?
>
> >Of course not.  Why on Earth would it be?
>
> Ditto for moveable obstructions then.

I see a clear difference between hit by something and hitting
something. If you don't, then so be it: we disagree.

The question remains as to whether the enforcement is a greater danger
to the public than the crime. I think that in the Manchester cases,
where cars were crashed in order to enforce rules about congestion, it
was.

If someone managed to tailgate an ambulance into a pedestrianised
area, it might be rather different.

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:50:47 +0100, Stimpy <stimpy1997ukm>
wrote:

>On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 08:21:03 +0100, David Hansen wrote
>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 23:46:36 +0100 someone who may be Charles Ellson
>> <charles@ellson.> wrote this:-
>>
>>> No it isn't, the offence(s) is/are failing to obey a road sign and/or
>>> driving without due care and attention which are matters of national
>>> traffic legislation. The local authority involvement is in originating
>>> a relevant Traffic Order not a byelaw.
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>> I wonder if the same desperate argument would be advanced to claim
>> that it was not a criminal offence not to obey some other road sign,
>> speed limits and one way signs to take two examples, on the basis
>> that they were actually council bylaws?
>
>But they aren't council by-laws, are they?
>
Not in this instance but that could be the case in some places where
e.g. the road is not a highway for vehicular traffic, such as IIRC
some shopping precincts or bus stations. The catch for drivers is that
various road traffic offences apply in all public places, not just on
highways.