Circus acts? The big question has to be: who are the real clowns?
This BBC story reveals that Bristol has introduced a “car-free Sunday” scheme, where certain city centre roads are closed to traffic. Bristol Mayor, George Ferguson – trying hard to look casual by not wearing a tie and sporting horrendous green trousers – appears proud of his “Make Sunday Special” initiative.
Apparently, it works in Bogota – a city with one of the worst traffic congestion problems in the known universe. And in Bordeaux – an ancient city which is somewhat closer to the equator, and which has wall-to-wall sunshine most of the year. So it just has to work in Bristol, right?
Instead of cars, Bristol’s streets are being turned over to jugglers, a few more jugglers, acrobats who can juggle… oh, and then some more jugglers. Proving clearly that George Ferguson hasn’t got a bloody clue. Believe me, juggling gets old very fast indeed. Once you’ve seen one dreadlocked hippy juggling, you’ve seen them all, and the idea that the average juggler is going to keep performing for free while you pretend Bristol is the same as Bordeaux is just silly. It isn’t something you want in your way when you’re trying to get to the bloody shops to buy some milk and bread.
As you’d expect, Bristol’s motorists aren’t particularly impressed. And who can blame them.
And frighteningly, the report claims that “other councils” are watching closely.
I have long held the belief that councils are far more interested in their finances and petty one-upmanship against the motorist than they are in serving the people who elected them. For example, I recently reported that in the wake of impending changes to legislation, whereby police will be able to issue penalty charges (PCNs) and licence points to people who demonstrate careless driving, Nottingham City Council (NCC) announced that it is prepared to spend taxpayers’ money sending out a camera car to try and catch more of them in the act. It’s worth pointing out that they already have such a car, and they use it around the City Centre to patrol bus lanes and no stopping areas, though this doesn’t mean that they’d not willingly buy a fleet of the damned things were they to go ahead with this vendetta.
It’s hard to see what benefit this could have to NCC, since they themselves cannot gain financially, nor can they actually issue PCNs. In fact, it would cost an additional fortune for them to report any videoed instances and hope that the police followed it up, and quite frankly I doubt that NCC and the police have quite the same ideas about what constitutes sufficient infringement – particularly if the motorist appeals to the courts. And as I also mentioned in that previous article, NCC continues to completely ignore one of the biggest sources of bad driving – taxis – in order to further penalise the common driver. That’s because taxis are a major revenue stream for the council (i.e. they have to buy licences to operate), whereas motorists aren’t… yet. NCC has no interest in getting bad drivers off the road. If it did, it would target taxis (and all forms of bus) immediately.
Bus lanes are separate problem. I wrote recently about what to do if an emergency vehicle comes up behind and there’s a bus lane in operation alongside you. Any organisation which was staffed by at least one or two normal human beings would explicitly state in all its FAQs that you could drive in the bus lane to allow the emergency vehicle to pass. To be fair to NCC, it actually does say this on its website. However, Nottinghamshire County Council and numerous others around the country are all extremely careful not to say anything about it at all – thus leaving the door open to increase revenue from PCNs if they so choose. Some have absolute zero tolerance policies. And yet having (or not, as the case may be) an explicit statement concerning bus lanes is a matter of immense safety importance, often involving life or death situations. You’d expect it to be Item #1 on the FAQ list, yet these vile vultures carefully avoid addressing it so they can milk money from motorists in order to line their own pockets.
Of course, most of the foregoing might be seen as just a personal opinion. So it was interesting to see this article on the BBC website. Apparently, councils plan to install even more CCTV equipment at black spots in order to milk still more money from their victims.
One example in Basildon tells how the monkeys running the council have turned one particular road into a buses-only route. Buses don’t run on a Sunday, but cars still can’t use it. The idiots in charge reckon that they’d review the times if “the local community supported it”. Like I say: idiots.
Reading Borough Council (RBC) is apparently the worst county for issuing tickets. One clown who got voted into power says:
This allegation that somehow we put in cameras to raise money is nonsense… We put in cameras so that buses… run on time and the bus lanes do what they say.
Complete bollocks. The number of buses held up by cars using 24-hour or in-operation bus lanes can be counted on the fingers of one hand, figuratively speaking. And the difference between what it was like before Fascist-like enforcement and after would be smaller still. The idiot quoted would have us believe that until RBC started enforcing it, everyone drove in bus lanes. They didn’t – and those who did still do.
Bristol City Council (BCC), along with RBC, is seeking to gain extra powers so it can harvest money via other trumped-up infringements.
There is a particular box junction in London with CCTV, and this has snared 29,000 motorists in the year to March 2013. Do they really believe that 29,000 motorists are career criminals, or is it maybe a case that the policing of the junction in question might be a little over zealous?
One motorist who got mugged by the council at this junction put in a Freedom of Information (FOI) request asking for email exchanges within the traffic department responsible to be handed over. What he received makes very interesting reading. There was reference to financial targets, and comments such as:
Another record for us…
The late shift penalty charge notices helped matters so well done everyone…
A worrying start [to the financial period] as penalty charge notices seemed to reduce…
It is obvious that these vultures don’t want safety or congestion improvements. That second one reeks of “teamworking” – trust me, I’ve been there. I know how this will have been briefed to staff. Of course, the pond scum running the councils claim that all this was “office banter” – which is more bollocks. The “well done” comment is clearly from higher up, and the other two are not exactly something the average traffic warden would say.
And if you’re still not convinced, the reporter in question did an experiment where he put up signs on lamp posts warning drivers to obey the box junction rules. This caused a 25% reduction in drivers stopping in it. But of course, that meant a 25% reduction in revenue for the council – so Hammersmith and Fulham told him to remove them.
Yes. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt (an error on my part some years ago). Some councils even have mobile cameras in vans to catch you doing it (or other “road offences”).
You’d think that being caught drink driving would be a fairly simple matter to resolve. You know, some jerk drinks too much and drives erratically, then along comes Mr Plod and confirms he’d had too much. The courts then formally punish the miscreant. Job done.
Andrew Seeley, 32, obviously thinks differently. He was so drunk he didn’t know where he was going (in the news story’s own words). When he noticed he was being followed he tried to drive off at speed. When eventually stopped he was found to be more than 2½ times the legal limit. But then it gets amusing.
Seeley refused a second breath test (probably after realising how far over he was) on the grounds of having a collapsed lung from abusing aerosol gas when he was younger. He refused blood samples on the grounds of having a fear – no, a phobia – of needles. He denied driving under the influence of drink or drugs, smugly believing his wild stories would save him. He claimed that he had swerved across the road to avoid an unknown creature:
It was bigger than a cat. It was living. I can’t say what it was.
It reminds me of an old Marty Feldman sketch, where he’s in a vet’s waiting room with a large basket containing some unseen-but-monstrous creature. He says to a little old lady with a budgie in a cage:
I looked him up in the Cattle-breeder’s Guide – he wasn’t in there; I looked him up in the Standard Book of British Birds – he wasn’t in there either; I finally found him in the Book of Revelations.
The best part is that the Sheriff (this was in Scotland) ignored all that crap and found him guilty of drink driving. He was banned for four years and given 100 hours community service. The only thing the Sheriff said was that he couldn’t be sure if Seeley really did have a phobia about needles and so he didn’t find him guilty of refusing to provide a specimen.
Seeley obviously lives in a different world to normal people.
You have to laugh. Anna Louise Smith, 21, is a student studying nursing in Swansea. As a prank, she decided to move a friend’s car to make it look like it had been stolen.
You need to be a student to appreciate how “funny” this sort of prank is. However, you don’t need to be a student to appreciate how funny it is if the police turn up in the middle of your jolly wheeze, decide that you’re acting suspiciously, and subsequently discover that you’re also twice the legal limit as a result of having been to the annual Summer Ball. If you’re a student – and especially if you’re the student – this, of course, suddenly makes the whole affair distinctly unfunny,
Smith’s defence lawyer reckoned that she’d only moved the car around the corner, and that a ban would be particularly hard on his client. The magistrates ignored that crap and banned Smith from driving for 12 months and fined her over £200.
It’s worth bearing in mind that, at 21, she must only have passed within the last couple of years. I’m assuming that she’ll have to do it all again – with the associated expense.
I’m sure most people will have heard about the incident outside a school in South Wales, where a driver ploughed into children, hospitalizing several.
Now that things have calmed down a bit, the driver is claiming that he blacked out after coughing. I’m sure that the authorities themselves will decide if this is a valid excuse of not, but I find it difficult to accept that this could happen at all, or – at the very least – that someone to whom it could happen so easily should even be driving a car. Especially an Audi, which is designed to go fast in the first place.
There are also calls for the school crossing patroller to be “recognised” for attempting to shield the children from the rampaging car armed only with her patroller’s “lollipop”. She ended up with two broken knees, a broken shoulder, broken elbow, and cuts and bruises. All extremely painful, and all the kinds of injuries that take a long time to recover from – if at all. But it could all have been a whole lot worse.
A reader sent me this link from the BBC website. It tells how Ian Broughall, 56, caused chaos on the A14 near Cambridge by riding his mobility scooter on it. Note that the A14 has a speed limit of 70mph, and is one of the busiest roads in the country. Broughall’s scooter, on the other hand, had a top speed of 8mph along with the extra disadvantage of its driver.
Broughall seems to be one of those people who is an olive short of a pizza (which I’m sure he isn’t), and yet is still allowed out unsupervised (the world is full of that kind of person, unfortunately):
Mr Broughall said he was “usually very responsible”, but added he was “not stupid” and would find a different route next time he wanted to go out.
The problem is, he is also quoted as saying:
I’ve done it once before, and I was doing just fine until I saw all these flashing lights behind me – and that’s when the trouble started.
So he is clearly not as “not stupid” as he would have us believe! He is unable to distinguish between “doing fine” and being bloody lucky. He could have been killed – but worse, he could have caused many others to be killed if he hadn’t have been stopped. He is an irresponsible fool, and no amount of wishy-washy baby talk about it being a nice day and him wanting to take some pictures is going to alter that. He shouldn’t have been on that road, and he endangered the lives of many by doing so. It’s frightening to think that he may not accept this rap – either from the police, or from those who comment on the matter.
As if to emphasise the questionable mental state of some mobility scooter owners, there is a link to another BBC story from a few days ago where a very old (70-80) female rider knocked a cyclist into a river. She didn’t even stop – something which is common where elderly people are involved.
On the one hand, there is perhaps an argument for her receiving some sort of award in recognition of her choice of target. But on the other, more serious hand, her victim could have drowned. As it was, he suffered cuts and bruises.
Mayor John Windell said he had become “concerned” about the use of the scooters after hearing from pedestrians who had experienced “near escapes”.
Mind you, that’s about the limit of the sense he makes. After that he loses the plot completely, talking of making pavements wider, or having special lanes on roads. He stops short of suggesting that cars and pedestrians be banned from town centres.
Sometimes there is no solution that keeps everyone happy. You either accept that mobility scooters are going to keep getting involved in situations that will one day lead to a serious accident; or you insist that the people who use them have to pass fitness-to-ride tests, and revoke that licence if they fail.
EDIT: I have been “warned” of legal action for “slander” by the guy in the first story I referred to. He means “libel” (slander involves the spoken word).
He could have killed himself. He could have killed others. He is lucky that the only thing he has to worry about is being likened jokingly to a pizza with one of its toppings missing! I’d be surprised if his friends and family didn’t use far stronger words when he came home.
Another defence lawyer who isn’t very good at his job. Anthony Paul McNevin, 62, got into his car in the early hours and drove 200 yards to his house in Cornwall. Police saw him narrowly miss bollards and pulled him over. He was subsequently found to be more than twice the legal limit.
His defence, Mark Charnley, told magistrates that McNevin had made:
…the silliest decision of his life…
Not quite, Mr Charnley. The “silliest” decision (I prefer the word “stupidest”) would have been to have used the car in the first place for a 200 yard journey.
Damien Stansfield, 30, has been sent to prison after being caught driving whilst banned for the 14th time. His previous ban was only 18 months ago and was for 38 months, but Stansfield didn’t think it was necessary to wait out the whole ban.
His defence lawyer seems to be new to this game. Either that, or a worrying new path of blame is manifesting itself:
He was carrying out some work for a customer. He normally has a friend who would test-drive the vehicle but he was not available on that day. He was put under some pressure to return the vehicle as soon as possible.
He made a foolish decision to drive it. He accepts the offence and was fully co-operative at the police station. He accepts he needs some help and advice. He felt under pressure not to let the customer down.
He was let down by the person who normally does the driving.
So, Stansfield’s decision to drive whilst banned – for the 14th time, remember – was some other guy’s fault!
Fortunately, magistrates took this for the load of crap that it was and jailed Stansfield for 17 weeks. He was also banned from driving for 4 years this time.
This story in the news feed reports on how shop traders in the town of Crewkerne in Somerset are having their businesses destroyed by the local council.
There is a 30-minute parking limit – stupidly short in the first place – and yet wardens are parking for up to TWO HOURS while they hurry meet their quotas and try to ticket as many people as possible each day.
The Somerset County Council appears to be staffed by the usual crop of idiots. A spokeswoman says that wardens are “following the rules”.
Yes. That would be the rules set by the council, and which the council could change in the blink of an eye if it so wished. But it doesn’t want to change the rules, because that would cut revenue from PCNs. She adds:
There are circumstances where wardens are permitted to park in limited waiting zones and other restricted areas in order to carry out their duties.
So in other words, one rule for the council, and another for the common people. She doesn’t explain how the dire consequences of a member of the public overstaying their time is in any way less dangerous or inconsiderate than a spotty-faced oik employed by them would be.
It was exactly the same up this way when the Nottinghamshire County Council took over responsibility for parking tickets. The day it began, wardens were queued up like a pack of hyenas outside the now-defunct West Bridgford test centre trying to ticket people using the test centre.
Even today, most of them ride around on L-plated scooters as they scour every side road and alleyway, and they frequently ride like complete lunatics. I suppose you have to if you’re going to meet your weekly quota for people who have to be screwed out of their money on behalf of the Council.
This came through on the newsfeeds. It says that from next year, VOSA (or Vosa) and the DSA will merge into a single, yet-to-be-named organisation. Both agencies will continue in their current forms for at least the next 12 months.
There is mention of the possibility of “[reduced] fees” – and I take that to mean the possibility of cheaper driving tests and cheaper ADI licences. We’ll have to see.
Rosemary Thew, the current DSA Chief Executive, is leaving at the end of the month. No mention is made of why.
The merger appears to have come about as a result of the consultation on motoring services strategies which ran for 3 months from December 2012.
George Ferguson – trying hard to look casual by not wearing a tie and sporting horrendous green trousers – appears proud of his “Make Sunday Special” initiative.
penalty charges (PCNs) and licence points to people who demonstrate careless driving, Nottingham City Council (NCC) announced that it is prepared to spend taxpayers’ money sending out a camera car to try and catch more of them in the act. It’s worth pointing out that they already have such a car, and they use it around the City Centre to patrol bus lanes and no stopping areas, though this doesn’t mean that they’d not willingly buy a fleet of the damned things were they to go ahead with this vendetta.
into children, hospitalizing several.