First picture of City of York Council's school 'spy van'

'Spy van' will crack down on dangerous parking near schools

'Spy van' will crack down on dangerous parking near schools

Updated in News York Press: Photograph of the Author by

A NEW safety scheme is using CCTV to help keep children safer on their journey to school.

City of York Council is launching a new camera car which patrols outside schools around the city at pick-up and drop-off times, to crack down on cars parked illegally and unsafely.

The scheme, which is supported by North Yorkshire Police, was brought about after head teachers complained about dangerous parking outside their schools, and staff in the car can issue £70 Fixed Penalty Notices to badly parked cars from next month.

Jane Nellar, head teacher of St.Lawrence C of E VA Primary School, said: “We all want our children to be safe.

“If this initiative saves the life, or prevents the injury, of even one child and makes drivers think carefully about where to park, then it will have had a great impact.”

Deputy Chief Constable Tim Madgwick, of North Yorkshire Police, said: “I am very pleased that North Yorkshire Police are supporting this campaign which I know is very important to parents with young children at school.

“It is really important that the roads around schools are as safe as possible and hopefully this campaign will prompt people to be more considerate and bear the safety of children in mind.”

The council has also launched the Parents’ Parking Pledge which encourages parents and carers across York to pledge their support to parking safely and considerately when taking their children to and from school.

Councillor Janet Looker, cabinet member for children’s service, said: “In York around 30 per cent of primary and 10 per cent of secondary school children are now driven to school, the majority of these journeys are less than one mile.

“Working with schools and parents we hope to further highlight that there are other options available than driving to school, but if parents choose this option then we want to encourage them to do this safely and join this scheme to make children feel safer on their way to and from school.”

Comments (79)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:40am Fri 28 Feb 14

Dr Brian says...

Big Brother is watching You!
Big Brother is watching You! Dr Brian
  • Score: 11

11:42am Fri 28 Feb 14

vax2002 says...

The vast majority of penalties issued by these vans are illegal.
The law allows drivers to disembark and collect passengers anywhere on a road that is not covered by a no stopping traffic regulation order.
Victims should seek advice from a motorists defence forum such as PePiPoo.
Assisting motorists to defend illegal charges is upholding the law !
The vast majority of penalties issued by these vans are illegal. The law allows drivers to disembark and collect passengers anywhere on a road that is not covered by a no stopping traffic regulation order. Victims should seek advice from a motorists defence forum such as PePiPoo. Assisting motorists to defend illegal charges is upholding the law ! vax2002
  • Score: -16

11:46am Fri 28 Feb 14

lezyork1966 says...

oh my god i'm in favour of something the councils done.... my worlds upside down....
oh my god i'm in favour of something the councils done.... my worlds upside down.... lezyork1966
  • Score: -1

11:49am Fri 28 Feb 14

Halifaxbomber says...

A good idea but one van only?
A good idea but one van only? Halifaxbomber
  • Score: -8

11:59am Fri 28 Feb 14

Hicarrumba says...

Stopping near a school to disembark is legal, however still needs to be done safely, if the motorist decides that a corner is convenient then they are doing wrong as its not safe to block a corner or a junction, zig zags and no stopping is exactly what it means do not stop here.

Good on you council, although I feel that the local roads off main streets will be brimming, and the Nimbys will play up.
Stopping near a school to disembark is legal, however still needs to be done safely, if the motorist decides that a corner is convenient then they are doing wrong as its not safe to block a corner or a junction, zig zags and no stopping is exactly what it means do not stop here. Good on you council, although I feel that the local roads off main streets will be brimming, and the Nimbys will play up. Hicarrumba
  • Score: 21

12:06pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Happy Chappie says...

Not before time.
Not before time. Happy Chappie
  • Score: 11

12:08pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Overproof says...

Kerrchingggggg ......
Kerrchingggggg ...... Overproof
  • Score: -1

12:34pm Fri 28 Feb 14

BL2 says...

What a pathetic waste of money and invasion of privacy!
What a pathetic waste of money and invasion of privacy! BL2
  • Score: -36

12:36pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Brighouse Lad says...

I support this action. I drop my child off at school in the mornings simply because its on my way to work. I park in a safe way and I go a few minutes early to avoid the rush. I cant believe the ways some parents park dangerously.

At the end of the day if you park in a safe way and not on zig zags etc you wont get penalised so you've nothing to fear.
I support this action. I drop my child off at school in the mornings simply because its on my way to work. I park in a safe way and I go a few minutes early to avoid the rush. I cant believe the ways some parents park dangerously. At the end of the day if you park in a safe way and not on zig zags etc you wont get penalised so you've nothing to fear. Brighouse Lad
  • Score: 34

12:37pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Ignatius Lumpopo says...

Good old council providing yet another vehicle adding to the chaos at pick-up and drop-off times. Whatever happened to that ancient concept "The Traffic Warden"? Or do people have to sit down in the warm to do their jobs these days?

And what about the CCTV identifying children? If strangers can't video children in Nativity Plays, how come this van can in the street?
Good old council providing yet another vehicle adding to the chaos at pick-up and drop-off times. Whatever happened to that ancient concept "The Traffic Warden"? Or do people have to sit down in the warm to do their jobs these days? And what about the CCTV identifying children? If strangers can't video children in Nativity Plays, how come this van can in the street? Ignatius Lumpopo
  • Score: -16

12:42pm Fri 28 Feb 14

wisemonkey3 says...

Firstly I don't think it's helpful for the press to refer to the 'safety car' as a 'spy' van. And for anyone concerned about receiving a penalty notice, don't park inconsiderately or illegally around schools and you wont get one! Simples ....

Well done CYC.
Firstly I don't think it's helpful for the press to refer to the 'safety car' as a 'spy' van. And for anyone concerned about receiving a penalty notice, don't park inconsiderately or illegally around schools and you wont get one! Simples .... Well done CYC. wisemonkey3
  • Score: 25

12:54pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

lets get one thing right... this van is not to improve safety.....When was the last time a child was hurt due to a car being parked on a double yellow?
lets get one thing right... this van is not to improve safety.....When was the last time a child was hurt due to a car being parked on a double yellow? Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: -21

1:04pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

Brighouse Lad wrote:
I support this action. I drop my child off at school in the mornings simply because its on my way to work. I park in a safe way and I go a few minutes early to avoid the rush. I cant believe the ways some parents park dangerously. At the end of the day if you park in a safe way and not on zig zags etc you wont get penalised so you've nothing to fear.
it said that if you park on double yellows you will get a fine in an earlier article.
[quote][p][bold]Brighouse Lad[/bold] wrote: I support this action. I drop my child off at school in the mornings simply because its on my way to work. I park in a safe way and I go a few minutes early to avoid the rush. I cant believe the ways some parents park dangerously. At the end of the day if you park in a safe way and not on zig zags etc you wont get penalised so you've nothing to fear.[/p][/quote]it said that if you park on double yellows you will get a fine in an earlier article. Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: 2

1:17pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Dan Atkinson says...

I'm glad that something will be done as, especially where I live, a lot of parents seem to think it's acceptable to block the roads around Westfield Primary School in Acomb.

They drive slowly, waiting for a spot or give up and park at corners or junctions.

And heaven forbid you ask them politely to move as they're blocking the narrow road.
I'm glad that something will be done as, especially where I live, a lot of parents seem to think it's acceptable to block the roads around Westfield Primary School in Acomb. They drive slowly, waiting for a spot or give up and park at corners or junctions. And heaven forbid you ask them politely to move as they're blocking the narrow road. Dan Atkinson
  • Score: 25

1:20pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Aprilshowers says...

This is Badger Hill School!
This is Badger Hill School! Aprilshowers
  • Score: 0

1:24pm Fri 28 Feb 14

bjb says...

What is it about keeping school children safe that some of the posters don't understand. All this clap trap about snooping and infringing rights to do what we please regardless of the law or common sense is unbelievable. Great job council. If this is proved to work, and I am sure it will, they should add more vehicles to the operation. Only the late or lazy have anything to worry about, and they will pay the price unless they learn that they can not do as they like at the expense of everyone else.

If everyone in the past had observed the rules of road safety and the law, these measures would not have been necessary.
What is it about keeping school children safe that some of the posters don't understand. All this clap trap about snooping and infringing rights to do what we please regardless of the law or common sense is unbelievable. Great job council. If this is proved to work, and I am sure it will, they should add more vehicles to the operation. Only the late or lazy have anything to worry about, and they will pay the price unless they learn that they can not do as they like at the expense of everyone else. If everyone in the past had observed the rules of road safety and the law, these measures would not have been necessary. bjb
  • Score: 2

1:29pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

Archiebold the 1st wrote:
lets get one thing right... this van is not to improve safety.....When was the last time a child was hurt due to a car being parked on a double yellow?
I'm seeing a lot of negative votes but why? Can any of you who are voting negative explain how this van will improve safety when there are no accidents? You are all naive its a money making scheme from the scum in charge. If you think its going to work you are all misled. After all council working hours are 9-12 14-16.... How will it get around all schools? Traffic is bedlam due to their current road layouts! We are paying for a van with CCTV for a guy to visit one school on a morning and one on an evening to improve "safety".... sorry but i thought we had traffic wardens who were actually paid to do this! a camera and a printer does then just fine! Just another waste of MY money! If it saved lifes i'd be the first to vote for it! but the fact is it wont! its a glorified traffic warden!
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: lets get one thing right... this van is not to improve safety.....When was the last time a child was hurt due to a car being parked on a double yellow?[/p][/quote]I'm seeing a lot of negative votes but why? Can any of you who are voting negative explain how this van will improve safety when there are no accidents? You are all naive its a money making scheme from the scum in charge. If you think its going to work you are all misled. After all council working hours are 9-12 14-16.... How will it get around all schools? Traffic is bedlam due to their current road layouts! We are paying for a van with CCTV for a guy to visit one school on a morning and one on an evening to improve "safety".... sorry but i thought we had traffic wardens who were actually paid to do this! a camera and a printer does then just fine! Just another waste of MY money! If it saved lifes i'd be the first to vote for it! but the fact is it wont! its a glorified traffic warden! Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: -15

1:33pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

bjb wrote:
What is it about keeping school children safe that some of the posters don't understand. All this clap trap about snooping and infringing rights to do what we please regardless of the law or common sense is unbelievable. Great job council. If this is proved to work, and I am sure it will, they should add more vehicles to the operation. Only the late or lazy have anything to worry about, and they will pay the price unless they learn that they can not do as they like at the expense of everyone else. If everyone in the past had observed the rules of road safety and the law, these measures would not have been necessary.
How is implementing a retrospective punishment going to improve safety? If someone’s safety is at risk surly sending a fine at a later date isn’t the best way to improve safety as you put it? If something is un safe it needs addressing there and then!
[quote][p][bold]bjb[/bold] wrote: What is it about keeping school children safe that some of the posters don't understand. All this clap trap about snooping and infringing rights to do what we please regardless of the law or common sense is unbelievable. Great job council. If this is proved to work, and I am sure it will, they should add more vehicles to the operation. Only the late or lazy have anything to worry about, and they will pay the price unless they learn that they can not do as they like at the expense of everyone else. If everyone in the past had observed the rules of road safety and the law, these measures would not have been necessary.[/p][/quote]How is implementing a retrospective punishment going to improve safety? If someone’s safety is at risk surly sending a fine at a later date isn’t the best way to improve safety as you put it? If something is un safe it needs addressing there and then! Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: -16

1:34pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Ignatius Lumpopo says...

... and will it get fined if it crosses Lendal Bridge during the afternoon?
... and will it get fined if it crosses Lendal Bridge during the afternoon? Ignatius Lumpopo
  • Score: 13

1:44pm Fri 28 Feb 14

bjb says...

Archiebold the 1st wrote:
bjb wrote:
What is it about keeping school children safe that some of the posters don't understand. All this clap trap about snooping and infringing rights to do what we please regardless of the law or common sense is unbelievable. Great job council. If this is proved to work, and I am sure it will, they should add more vehicles to the operation. Only the late or lazy have anything to worry about, and they will pay the price unless they learn that they can not do as they like at the expense of everyone else. If everyone in the past had observed the rules of road safety and the law, these measures would not have been necessary.
How is implementing a retrospective punishment going to improve safety? If someone’s safety is at risk surly sending a fine at a later date isn’t the best way to improve safety as you put it? If something is un safe it needs addressing there and then!
What is there about 'against the law' or causing an obstruction you don't understand? By the way, they have not been called 'traffic wardens' for a long time. It has also been proved more cost effective by the police that the use of camera evidence is far cheaper and efficient than having to stop every car on the road to ask every driver for there insurance and check their tax disk.

Archiebold the 1st now is it. Your list of ever growing aliases is getting quite long. Whatever happened to your last one, did you get banned again?
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bjb[/bold] wrote: What is it about keeping school children safe that some of the posters don't understand. All this clap trap about snooping and infringing rights to do what we please regardless of the law or common sense is unbelievable. Great job council. If this is proved to work, and I am sure it will, they should add more vehicles to the operation. Only the late or lazy have anything to worry about, and they will pay the price unless they learn that they can not do as they like at the expense of everyone else. If everyone in the past had observed the rules of road safety and the law, these measures would not have been necessary.[/p][/quote]How is implementing a retrospective punishment going to improve safety? If someone’s safety is at risk surly sending a fine at a later date isn’t the best way to improve safety as you put it? If something is un safe it needs addressing there and then![/p][/quote]What is there about 'against the law' or causing an obstruction you don't understand? By the way, they have not been called 'traffic wardens' for a long time. It has also been proved more cost effective by the police that the use of camera evidence is far cheaper and efficient than having to stop every car on the road to ask every driver for there insurance and check their tax disk. Archiebold the 1st now is it. Your list of ever growing aliases is getting quite long. Whatever happened to your last one, did you get banned again? bjb
  • Score: 10

1:51pm Fri 28 Feb 14

mjgyork says...

As I leaned to my cost outside St. Lawrence School, trying to appeal to those parking simply results in abuse. It is not only the children who endangered either. They park both sides of the road, on the zig-zag area and totally ignore the cycle lane. You are then forced to use the pavement and of course suffer more abuse. You cannot appeal to their 'reasonableness'! No point in appealing to the Police either! Hit them in the pocket, it is the only thing that they will understand. And get more of them!
As I leaned to my cost outside St. Lawrence School, trying to appeal to those parking simply results in abuse. It is not only the children who endangered either. They park both sides of the road, on the zig-zag area and totally ignore the cycle lane. You are then forced to use the pavement and of course suffer more abuse. You cannot appeal to their 'reasonableness'! No point in appealing to the Police either! Hit them in the pocket, it is the only thing that they will understand. And get more of them! mjgyork
  • Score: 25

1:53pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

bjb wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
bjb wrote: What is it about keeping school children safe that some of the posters don't understand. All this clap trap about snooping and infringing rights to do what we please regardless of the law or common sense is unbelievable. Great job council. If this is proved to work, and I am sure it will, they should add more vehicles to the operation. Only the late or lazy have anything to worry about, and they will pay the price unless they learn that they can not do as they like at the expense of everyone else. If everyone in the past had observed the rules of road safety and the law, these measures would not have been necessary.
How is implementing a retrospective punishment going to improve safety? If someone’s safety is at risk surly sending a fine at a later date isn’t the best way to improve safety as you put it? If something is un safe it needs addressing there and then!
What is there about 'against the law' or causing an obstruction you don't understand? By the way, they have not been called 'traffic wardens' for a long time. It has also been proved more cost effective by the police that the use of camera evidence is far cheaper and efficient than having to stop every car on the road to ask every driver for there insurance and check their tax disk. Archiebold the 1st now is it. Your list of ever growing aliases is getting quite long. Whatever happened to your last one, did you get banned again?
It's against the law to speed but I bet you do? My point is what good is it recording an dangerous occurrence and driving away leaving it there? Is that making the area safer? No!!! Plain and simple no! And yes the police said it's cheaper because they don't want anything to do with it! Oh sorry I got a job title wrong... Jesus that must flaw my entire argument! So when was the last accident that was caused by a parked car? What is the difference between this job role and a traffic warden?

And maybe lay off the hemp as I've had this name since 2009?
[quote][p][bold]bjb[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bjb[/bold] wrote: What is it about keeping school children safe that some of the posters don't understand. All this clap trap about snooping and infringing rights to do what we please regardless of the law or common sense is unbelievable. Great job council. If this is proved to work, and I am sure it will, they should add more vehicles to the operation. Only the late or lazy have anything to worry about, and they will pay the price unless they learn that they can not do as they like at the expense of everyone else. If everyone in the past had observed the rules of road safety and the law, these measures would not have been necessary.[/p][/quote]How is implementing a retrospective punishment going to improve safety? If someone’s safety is at risk surly sending a fine at a later date isn’t the best way to improve safety as you put it? If something is un safe it needs addressing there and then![/p][/quote]What is there about 'against the law' or causing an obstruction you don't understand? By the way, they have not been called 'traffic wardens' for a long time. It has also been proved more cost effective by the police that the use of camera evidence is far cheaper and efficient than having to stop every car on the road to ask every driver for there insurance and check their tax disk. Archiebold the 1st now is it. Your list of ever growing aliases is getting quite long. Whatever happened to your last one, did you get banned again?[/p][/quote]It's against the law to speed but I bet you do? My point is what good is it recording an dangerous occurrence and driving away leaving it there? Is that making the area safer? No!!! Plain and simple no! And yes the police said it's cheaper because they don't want anything to do with it! Oh sorry I got a job title wrong... Jesus that must flaw my entire argument! So when was the last accident that was caused by a parked car? What is the difference between this job role and a traffic warden? And maybe lay off the hemp as I've had this name since 2009? Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: -16

2:07pm Fri 28 Feb 14

bjb says...

Archiebold the 1st wrote:
bjb wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
bjb wrote: What is it about keeping school children safe that some of the posters don't understand. All this clap trap about snooping and infringing rights to do what we please regardless of the law or common sense is unbelievable. Great job council. If this is proved to work, and I am sure it will, they should add more vehicles to the operation. Only the late or lazy have anything to worry about, and they will pay the price unless they learn that they can not do as they like at the expense of everyone else. If everyone in the past had observed the rules of road safety and the law, these measures would not have been necessary.
How is implementing a retrospective punishment going to improve safety? If someone’s safety is at risk surly sending a fine at a later date isn’t the best way to improve safety as you put it? If something is un safe it needs addressing there and then!
What is there about 'against the law' or causing an obstruction you don't understand? By the way, they have not been called 'traffic wardens' for a long time. It has also been proved more cost effective by the police that the use of camera evidence is far cheaper and efficient than having to stop every car on the road to ask every driver for there insurance and check their tax disk. Archiebold the 1st now is it. Your list of ever growing aliases is getting quite long. Whatever happened to your last one, did you get banned again?
It's against the law to speed but I bet you do? My point is what good is it recording an dangerous occurrence and driving away leaving it there? Is that making the area safer? No!!! Plain and simple no! And yes the police said it's cheaper because they don't want anything to do with it! Oh sorry I got a job title wrong... Jesus that must flaw my entire argument! So when was the last accident that was caused by a parked car? What is the difference between this job role and a traffic warden?

And maybe lay off the hemp as I've had this name since 2009?
Yes I did get caught speeding once. I was doing 35 in a 30 limit. It cost me a day off work, a journey of 90 miles and a fee of £90 for a speed awareness course. I have never speeded again. I learned through my pocket, as a previous poster has said should happen here.

Are you saying you are waiting for a child to be killed before something should be done to try to prevent it?
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bjb[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bjb[/bold] wrote: What is it about keeping school children safe that some of the posters don't understand. All this clap trap about snooping and infringing rights to do what we please regardless of the law or common sense is unbelievable. Great job council. If this is proved to work, and I am sure it will, they should add more vehicles to the operation. Only the late or lazy have anything to worry about, and they will pay the price unless they learn that they can not do as they like at the expense of everyone else. If everyone in the past had observed the rules of road safety and the law, these measures would not have been necessary.[/p][/quote]How is implementing a retrospective punishment going to improve safety? If someone’s safety is at risk surly sending a fine at a later date isn’t the best way to improve safety as you put it? If something is un safe it needs addressing there and then![/p][/quote]What is there about 'against the law' or causing an obstruction you don't understand? By the way, they have not been called 'traffic wardens' for a long time. It has also been proved more cost effective by the police that the use of camera evidence is far cheaper and efficient than having to stop every car on the road to ask every driver for there insurance and check their tax disk. Archiebold the 1st now is it. Your list of ever growing aliases is getting quite long. Whatever happened to your last one, did you get banned again?[/p][/quote]It's against the law to speed but I bet you do? My point is what good is it recording an dangerous occurrence and driving away leaving it there? Is that making the area safer? No!!! Plain and simple no! And yes the police said it's cheaper because they don't want anything to do with it! Oh sorry I got a job title wrong... Jesus that must flaw my entire argument! So when was the last accident that was caused by a parked car? What is the difference between this job role and a traffic warden? And maybe lay off the hemp as I've had this name since 2009?[/p][/quote]Yes I did get caught speeding once. I was doing 35 in a 30 limit. It cost me a day off work, a journey of 90 miles and a fee of £90 for a speed awareness course. I have never speeded again. I learned through my pocket, as a previous poster has said should happen here. Are you saying you are waiting for a child to be killed before something should be done to try to prevent it? bjb
  • Score: 16

2:07pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Yeller Belly says...

Isn't this van going to take up a lawful parking space which could otherwise be used by a parent dropping their kids off?
Isn't this van going to take up a lawful parking space which could otherwise be used by a parent dropping their kids off? Yeller Belly
  • Score: -21

2:11pm Fri 28 Feb 14

whitehorse says...

Providing that fines are only issued when the 'unsafe' parking is outside the boundaries of the law, then I can support this action. However, if people who happen to live in a school area use this van to maintain the sanctity of their streets and act like NIMBYs I won't support it. The council will be nice and happy to react to resident concerns when it nets them good money. And out of interest- how will the car be able to define between a parent and someone who is visiting in the local area and who's car has been in the same position since well before the school run?
Providing that fines are only issued when the 'unsafe' parking is outside the boundaries of the law, then I can support this action. However, if people who happen to live in a school area use this van to maintain the sanctity of their streets and act like NIMBYs I won't support it. The council will be nice and happy to react to resident concerns when it nets them good money. And out of interest- how will the car be able to define between a parent and someone who is visiting in the local area and who's car has been in the same position since well before the school run? whitehorse
  • Score: 1

2:37pm Fri 28 Feb 14

JHardacre says...

Dropping off near to a school - or anywhere without specific and well defined instructions to the contrary is legal. The Fixed Penalty Notices are not fines as they are not issued by a court and are actually an 'invitation to pay'. Suggest you ignore the notices and see them in court.
Dropping off near to a school - or anywhere without specific and well defined instructions to the contrary is legal. The Fixed Penalty Notices are not fines as they are not issued by a court and are actually an 'invitation to pay'. Suggest you ignore the notices and see them in court. JHardacre
  • Score: 2

3:28pm Fri 28 Feb 14

MouseHouse says...

This is excellent. There are numerous alternatives to driving children to school, not all will suit everybody but where there's a will there's a way.

Cycle
Walk
Scooter
Walking Bus
Let them walk by themselves (it really is safe out there)
Park & Stride
Lift Sharing

Infant and junior schools tend to be close to home so give yourself a nice start to the day and don't drive to school. It's generally easy to do.
This is excellent. There are numerous alternatives to driving children to school, not all will suit everybody but where there's a will there's a way. Cycle Walk Scooter Walking Bus Let them walk by themselves (it really is safe out there) Park & Stride Lift Sharing Infant and junior schools tend to be close to home so give yourself a nice start to the day and don't drive to school. It's generally easy to do. MouseHouse
  • Score: 14

3:35pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

bjb wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
bjb wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
bjb wrote: What is it about keeping school children safe that some of the posters don't understand. All this clap trap about snooping and infringing rights to do what we please regardless of the law or common sense is unbelievable. Great job council. If this is proved to work, and I am sure it will, they should add more vehicles to the operation. Only the late or lazy have anything to worry about, and they will pay the price unless they learn that they can not do as they like at the expense of everyone else. If everyone in the past had observed the rules of road safety and the law, these measures would not have been necessary.
How is implementing a retrospective punishment going to improve safety? If someone’s safety is at risk surly sending a fine at a later date isn’t the best way to improve safety as you put it? If something is un safe it needs addressing there and then!
What is there about 'against the law' or causing an obstruction you don't understand? By the way, they have not been called 'traffic wardens' for a long time. It has also been proved more cost effective by the police that the use of camera evidence is far cheaper and efficient than having to stop every car on the road to ask every driver for there insurance and check their tax disk. Archiebold the 1st now is it. Your list of ever growing aliases is getting quite long. Whatever happened to your last one, did you get banned again?
It's against the law to speed but I bet you do? My point is what good is it recording an dangerous occurrence and driving away leaving it there? Is that making the area safer? No!!! Plain and simple no! And yes the police said it's cheaper because they don't want anything to do with it! Oh sorry I got a job title wrong... Jesus that must flaw my entire argument! So when was the last accident that was caused by a parked car? What is the difference between this job role and a traffic warden? And maybe lay off the hemp as I've had this name since 2009?
Yes I did get caught speeding once. I was doing 35 in a 30 limit. It cost me a day off work, a journey of 90 miles and a fee of £90 for a speed awareness course. I have never speeded again. I learned through my pocket, as a previous poster has said should happen here. Are you saying you are waiting for a child to be killed before something should be done to try to prevent it?
"Are you saying you are waiting for a child to be killed before something should be done to try to prevent it?"

Sorry but it’s your idea that is suggesting that, im saying retrospective action to health and safety is the worst approach! As all this van will do is film.... what if its blatantly obvious there is a risk? he/she wont do anything? it is retrospective action (which means noting is done there and then!!!) If it was me i would have it enforced by the police? That way risks would be reduced straight away!

As for learning through their pockets a lot of families don’t have the money to do that and I’d rather a officer stopped them explained the risks instead of them going to get a payday loan and ending up in debt with the children suffering.

But back to my original point... how many accidents have there been? You haven’t answered yet?? Wonder why??
[quote][p][bold]bjb[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bjb[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bjb[/bold] wrote: What is it about keeping school children safe that some of the posters don't understand. All this clap trap about snooping and infringing rights to do what we please regardless of the law or common sense is unbelievable. Great job council. If this is proved to work, and I am sure it will, they should add more vehicles to the operation. Only the late or lazy have anything to worry about, and they will pay the price unless they learn that they can not do as they like at the expense of everyone else. If everyone in the past had observed the rules of road safety and the law, these measures would not have been necessary.[/p][/quote]How is implementing a retrospective punishment going to improve safety? If someone’s safety is at risk surly sending a fine at a later date isn’t the best way to improve safety as you put it? If something is un safe it needs addressing there and then![/p][/quote]What is there about 'against the law' or causing an obstruction you don't understand? By the way, they have not been called 'traffic wardens' for a long time. It has also been proved more cost effective by the police that the use of camera evidence is far cheaper and efficient than having to stop every car on the road to ask every driver for there insurance and check their tax disk. Archiebold the 1st now is it. Your list of ever growing aliases is getting quite long. Whatever happened to your last one, did you get banned again?[/p][/quote]It's against the law to speed but I bet you do? My point is what good is it recording an dangerous occurrence and driving away leaving it there? Is that making the area safer? No!!! Plain and simple no! And yes the police said it's cheaper because they don't want anything to do with it! Oh sorry I got a job title wrong... Jesus that must flaw my entire argument! So when was the last accident that was caused by a parked car? What is the difference between this job role and a traffic warden? And maybe lay off the hemp as I've had this name since 2009?[/p][/quote]Yes I did get caught speeding once. I was doing 35 in a 30 limit. It cost me a day off work, a journey of 90 miles and a fee of £90 for a speed awareness course. I have never speeded again. I learned through my pocket, as a previous poster has said should happen here. Are you saying you are waiting for a child to be killed before something should be done to try to prevent it?[/p][/quote]"Are you saying you are waiting for a child to be killed before something should be done to try to prevent it?" Sorry but it’s your idea that is suggesting that, im saying retrospective action to health and safety is the worst approach! As all this van will do is film.... what if its blatantly obvious there is a risk? he/she wont do anything? it is retrospective action (which means noting is done there and then!!!) If it was me i would have it enforced by the police? That way risks would be reduced straight away! As for learning through their pockets a lot of families don’t have the money to do that and I’d rather a officer stopped them explained the risks instead of them going to get a payday loan and ending up in debt with the children suffering. But back to my original point... how many accidents have there been? You haven’t answered yet?? Wonder why?? Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: -3

3:42pm Fri 28 Feb 14

taffywilliams says...

Goodness me what next! Another blow for residents as the worst drivers are by far the parents/carers who drop their treasured children off though you wouldn't know they have precious cargo with their appalling driving with no thoughts to other road users. They are blinkered with one thing in mind, drop off and then the day is theirs usually to have nails done etc. Also why do they drive 4x4 that they cannot handle?
I just feel this is another revenue venture for the council and they don't really care about safety. And safety starts at home so think on you selfish parents.
Goodness me what next! Another blow for residents as the worst drivers are by far the parents/carers who drop their treasured children off though you wouldn't know they have precious cargo with their appalling driving with no thoughts to other road users. They are blinkered with one thing in mind, drop off and then the day is theirs usually to have nails done etc. Also why do they drive 4x4 that they cannot handle? I just feel this is another revenue venture for the council and they don't really care about safety. And safety starts at home so think on you selfish parents. taffywilliams
  • Score: 1

4:21pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Yeller Belly says...

taffywilliams wrote:
Goodness me what next! Another blow for residents as the worst drivers are by far the parents/carers who drop their treasured children off though you wouldn't know they have precious cargo with their appalling driving with no thoughts to other road users. They are blinkered with one thing in mind, drop off and then the day is theirs usually to have nails done etc. Also why do they drive 4x4 that they cannot handle?
I just feel this is another revenue venture for the council and they don't really care about safety. And safety starts at home so think on you selfish parents.
Beyond parody. Well done.
[quote][p][bold]taffywilliams[/bold] wrote: Goodness me what next! Another blow for residents as the worst drivers are by far the parents/carers who drop their treasured children off though you wouldn't know they have precious cargo with their appalling driving with no thoughts to other road users. They are blinkered with one thing in mind, drop off and then the day is theirs usually to have nails done etc. Also why do they drive 4x4 that they cannot handle? I just feel this is another revenue venture for the council and they don't really care about safety. And safety starts at home so think on you selfish parents.[/p][/quote]Beyond parody. Well done. Yeller Belly
  • Score: 2

4:28pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Igiveinthen says...

bjb wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
bjb wrote:
What is it about keeping school children safe that some of the posters don't understand. All this clap trap about snooping and infringing rights to do what we please regardless of the law or common sense is unbelievable. Great job council. If this is proved to work, and I am sure it will, they should add more vehicles to the operation. Only the late or lazy have anything to worry about, and they will pay the price unless they learn that they can not do as they like at the expense of everyone else. If everyone in the past had observed the rules of road safety and the law, these measures would not have been necessary.
How is implementing a retrospective punishment going to improve safety? If someone’s safety is at risk surly sending a fine at a later date isn’t the best way to improve safety as you put it? If something is un safe it needs addressing there and then!
What is there about 'against the law' or causing an obstruction you don't understand? By the way, they have not been called 'traffic wardens' for a long time. It has also been proved more cost effective by the police that the use of camera evidence is far cheaper and efficient than having to stop every car on the road to ask every driver for there insurance and check their tax disk.

Archiebold the 1st now is it. Your list of ever growing aliases is getting quite long. Whatever happened to your last one, did you get banned again?
Don't think it's called a 'tax disc' either, it's a 'vehicle excise duty' disc, but I still call it a tax disc as well.
To me it's a pity they have to resort to these measures, but because the 'zig zags' are totally ignored, I think the school run parents have only themselves to blame, and of course if you don't park on them you won't get fined, simple init!
[quote][p][bold]bjb[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bjb[/bold] wrote: What is it about keeping school children safe that some of the posters don't understand. All this clap trap about snooping and infringing rights to do what we please regardless of the law or common sense is unbelievable. Great job council. If this is proved to work, and I am sure it will, they should add more vehicles to the operation. Only the late or lazy have anything to worry about, and they will pay the price unless they learn that they can not do as they like at the expense of everyone else. If everyone in the past had observed the rules of road safety and the law, these measures would not have been necessary.[/p][/quote]How is implementing a retrospective punishment going to improve safety? If someone’s safety is at risk surly sending a fine at a later date isn’t the best way to improve safety as you put it? If something is un safe it needs addressing there and then![/p][/quote]What is there about 'against the law' or causing an obstruction you don't understand? By the way, they have not been called 'traffic wardens' for a long time. It has also been proved more cost effective by the police that the use of camera evidence is far cheaper and efficient than having to stop every car on the road to ask every driver for there insurance and check their tax disk. Archiebold the 1st now is it. Your list of ever growing aliases is getting quite long. Whatever happened to your last one, did you get banned again?[/p][/quote]Don't think it's called a 'tax disc' either, it's a 'vehicle excise duty' disc, but I still call it a tax disc as well. To me it's a pity they have to resort to these measures, but because the 'zig zags' are totally ignored, I think the school run parents have only themselves to blame, and of course if you don't park on them you won't get fined, simple init! Igiveinthen
  • Score: 9

5:23pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Table leg says...

Can its first call be Clifton with Rawcliffe Primary School? Double parking city means a nightmare for buses, paths being blocked and traffic chaos. Not to mention the danger to pedestrians!!
Can its first call be Clifton with Rawcliffe Primary School? Double parking city means a nightmare for buses, paths being blocked and traffic chaos. Not to mention the danger to pedestrians!! Table leg
  • Score: 4

5:26pm Fri 28 Feb 14

aitch11 says...

Once the little treasures are safely in school,could this van be used to catch people parking cars with 2 or 4 wheels on the footpath?Wheelchair users and mums with pushchairs have use the road to get past these lazy s**s!!
Once the little treasures are safely in school,could this van be used to catch people parking cars with 2 or 4 wheels on the footpath?Wheelchair users and mums with pushchairs have use the road to get past these lazy s**s!! aitch11
  • Score: 13

6:04pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Bo Jolly says...

The council is only linking this parking enforcement van to schools as a smokescreen. It's political spin, no more. Outside of school run times this van will just be a revenue raising scheme for the council.

You may think that's fine, but these vans have been so unpopular in other local authorities that the government have said they intend to ban them. They work by videoing entire areas with limited discrimination and issuing tickets to all the vehicles, innocent or guilty. You then have to appeal the ticket to establish your innocence - like the driver recently in the BBC news who had to appeal his ticket to show that, yes, he was technically 'stopped in a bus stop', but only because he was in a traffic queue at the time (for any non-drivers, that's perfectly legal).
The council is only linking this parking enforcement van to schools as a smokescreen. It's political spin, no more. Outside of school run times this van will just be a revenue raising scheme for the council. You may think that's fine, but these vans have been so unpopular in other local authorities that the government have said they intend to ban them. They work by videoing entire areas with limited discrimination and issuing tickets to all the vehicles, innocent or guilty. You then have to appeal the ticket to establish your innocence - like the driver recently in the BBC news who had to appeal his ticket to show that, yes, he was technically 'stopped in a bus stop', but only because he was in a traffic queue at the time (for any non-drivers, that's perfectly legal). Bo Jolly
  • Score: 5

6:37pm Fri 28 Feb 14

eeoodares says...

Archiebold the 1st wrote:
bjb wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
bjb wrote: What is it about keeping school children safe that some of the posters don't understand. All this clap trap about snooping and infringing rights to do what we please regardless of the law or common sense is unbelievable. Great job council. If this is proved to work, and I am sure it will, they should add more vehicles to the operation. Only the late or lazy have anything to worry about, and they will pay the price unless they learn that they can not do as they like at the expense of everyone else. If everyone in the past had observed the rules of road safety and the law, these measures would not have been necessary.
How is implementing a retrospective punishment going to improve safety? If someone’s safety is at risk surly sending a fine at a later date isn’t the best way to improve safety as you put it? If something is un safe it needs addressing there and then!
What is there about 'against the law' or causing an obstruction you don't understand? By the way, they have not been called 'traffic wardens' for a long time. It has also been proved more cost effective by the police that the use of camera evidence is far cheaper and efficient than having to stop every car on the road to ask every driver for there insurance and check their tax disk. Archiebold the 1st now is it. Your list of ever growing aliases is getting quite long. Whatever happened to your last one, did you get banned again?
It's against the law to speed but I bet you do? My point is what good is it recording an dangerous occurrence and driving away leaving it there? Is that making the area safer? No!!! Plain and simple no! And yes the police said it's cheaper because they don't want anything to do with it! Oh sorry I got a job title wrong... Jesus that must flaw my entire argument! So when was the last accident that was caused by a parked car? What is the difference between this job role and a traffic warden?

And maybe lay off the hemp as I've had this name since 2009?
They used to run awareness campaigns warning children of the dangers of crossing the road between parked vehicles.

What about cars parked on bends, double yellows, next to Zebra crossings, Pelican crossings, Parked Ice cream vans, busses, coaches....in fact the list of dangers around parked vehicles goes on and on. Now think of these parked in front of a school. Can you really not see ANY DANGERS? how many accidents/deaths should happen before you would take action?
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bjb[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bjb[/bold] wrote: What is it about keeping school children safe that some of the posters don't understand. All this clap trap about snooping and infringing rights to do what we please regardless of the law or common sense is unbelievable. Great job council. If this is proved to work, and I am sure it will, they should add more vehicles to the operation. Only the late or lazy have anything to worry about, and they will pay the price unless they learn that they can not do as they like at the expense of everyone else. If everyone in the past had observed the rules of road safety and the law, these measures would not have been necessary.[/p][/quote]How is implementing a retrospective punishment going to improve safety? If someone’s safety is at risk surly sending a fine at a later date isn’t the best way to improve safety as you put it? If something is un safe it needs addressing there and then![/p][/quote]What is there about 'against the law' or causing an obstruction you don't understand? By the way, they have not been called 'traffic wardens' for a long time. It has also been proved more cost effective by the police that the use of camera evidence is far cheaper and efficient than having to stop every car on the road to ask every driver for there insurance and check their tax disk. Archiebold the 1st now is it. Your list of ever growing aliases is getting quite long. Whatever happened to your last one, did you get banned again?[/p][/quote]It's against the law to speed but I bet you do? My point is what good is it recording an dangerous occurrence and driving away leaving it there? Is that making the area safer? No!!! Plain and simple no! And yes the police said it's cheaper because they don't want anything to do with it! Oh sorry I got a job title wrong... Jesus that must flaw my entire argument! So when was the last accident that was caused by a parked car? What is the difference between this job role and a traffic warden? And maybe lay off the hemp as I've had this name since 2009?[/p][/quote]They used to run awareness campaigns warning children of the dangers of crossing the road between parked vehicles. What about cars parked on bends, double yellows, next to Zebra crossings, Pelican crossings, Parked Ice cream vans, busses, coaches....in fact the list of dangers around parked vehicles goes on and on. Now think of these parked in front of a school. Can you really not see ANY DANGERS? how many accidents/deaths should happen before you would take action? eeoodares
  • Score: 7

7:31pm Fri 28 Feb 14

courier46 says...

I also am finding this hard to say but well done to the council for setting this up,if you don't do wrong you wont get a ticket
I also am finding this hard to say but well done to the council for setting this up,if you don't do wrong you wont get a ticket courier46
  • Score: 12

7:50pm Fri 28 Feb 14

catty69 says...

Another waste of money by CYC. Hasn't Lendal bridge brought in enough money? Better option would be the use of a "traffic enforcer" or whatever they are called these days, to stand near a traffic blackspot. Surely no one would park when they run the risk of a ticket. Im all for childrens safety, but this is just a revenue racket!
Another waste of money by CYC. Hasn't Lendal bridge brought in enough money? Better option would be the use of a "traffic enforcer" or whatever they are called these days, to stand near a traffic blackspot. Surely no one would park when they run the risk of a ticket. Im all for childrens safety, but this is just a revenue racket! catty69
  • Score: -8

8:04pm Fri 28 Feb 14

JHardacre says...

courier46 wrote:
I also am finding this hard to say but well done to the council for setting this up,if you don't do wrong you wont get a ticket
What 'wrong' would they be doing exactly?
[quote][p][bold]courier46[/bold] wrote: I also am finding this hard to say but well done to the council for setting this up,if you don't do wrong you wont get a ticket[/p][/quote]What 'wrong' would they be doing exactly? JHardacre
  • Score: -3

8:08pm Fri 28 Feb 14

AngelinaSpongebum says...

I live next to a school and I battle with the parkers on a daily basis. I hope the van can tell the difference between the school runners and those that live here.
I live next to a school and I battle with the parkers on a daily basis. I hope the van can tell the difference between the school runners and those that live here. AngelinaSpongebum
  • Score: 15

8:20pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Igiveinthen says...

Re my previous comment which was --- To me it's a pity they have to resort to these measures, but because the 'zig zags' are totally ignored, I think the school run parents have only themselves to blame, and of course if you don't park on them you won't get fined, simple init!

Since I watched 'Look North' on BBC1 tonight and listened to what the former traffic officer had to say and also what the government thought of these types of van, it has now given me some serious doubts, and I am now wondering what other use will this underhanded council use this 'Spy Van' for?
Re my previous comment which was --- To me it's a pity they have to resort to these measures, but because the 'zig zags' are totally ignored, I think the school run parents have only themselves to blame, and of course if you don't park on them you won't get fined, simple init! Since I watched 'Look North' on BBC1 tonight and listened to what the former traffic officer had to say and also what the government thought of these types of van, it has now given me some serious doubts, and I am now wondering what other use will this underhanded council use this 'Spy Van' for? Igiveinthen
  • Score: 2

8:32pm Fri 28 Feb 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

Igiveinthen wrote:
Re my previous comment which was --- To me it's a pity they have to resort to these measures, but because the 'zig zags' are totally ignored, I think the school run parents have only themselves to blame, and of course if you don't park on them you won't get fined, simple init!

Since I watched 'Look North' on BBC1 tonight and listened to what the former traffic officer had to say and also what the government thought of these types of van, it has now given me some serious doubts, and I am now wondering what other use will this underhanded council use this 'Spy Van' for?
You'd be absolutely right to have doubts, it is a convenient method being used to ease in another anti car agenda activity.

If safety was the issue this van would be low on the list of effective measures.
[quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: Re my previous comment which was --- To me it's a pity they have to resort to these measures, but because the 'zig zags' are totally ignored, I think the school run parents have only themselves to blame, and of course if you don't park on them you won't get fined, simple init! Since I watched 'Look North' on BBC1 tonight and listened to what the former traffic officer had to say and also what the government thought of these types of van, it has now given me some serious doubts, and I am now wondering what other use will this underhanded council use this 'Spy Van' for?[/p][/quote]You'd be absolutely right to have doubts, it is a convenient method being used to ease in another anti car agenda activity. If safety was the issue this van would be low on the list of effective measures. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: 2

9:03pm Fri 28 Feb 14

only human says...

why not just onstall strategically placed cctv at the entrances to all schools who have this problem and after identifying the culprits they can issue a written warning followed by a fine for repeat offenders
why not just onstall strategically placed cctv at the entrances to all schools who have this problem and after identifying the culprits they can issue a written warning followed by a fine for repeat offenders only human
  • Score: 8

9:12pm Fri 28 Feb 14

yawn.. says...

Well, it get's my vote. Give them a meaningful fine to help **** their consciences if they have any. Of course they can afford a fine, they pay through the nose to keep the car on the road and in everyone's way in the first place. There are zigzags and letters spelling 'SCHOOL - KEEP CLEAR' there for a reason - because it's dangerous to park there not only for the other children going to school but for every other road user who's way and has been impeded and vision seriously restricted.
Well, it get's my vote. Give them a meaningful fine to help **** their consciences if they have any. Of course they can afford a fine, they pay through the nose to keep the car on the road and in everyone's way in the first place. There are zigzags and letters spelling 'SCHOOL - KEEP CLEAR' there for a reason - because it's dangerous to park there not only for the other children going to school but for every other road user who's way and has been impeded and vision seriously restricted. yawn..
  • Score: 8

9:37pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Igiveinthen says...

yawn.. wrote:
Well, it get's my vote. Give them a meaningful fine to help **** their consciences if they have any. Of course they can afford a fine, they pay through the nose to keep the car on the road and in everyone's way in the first place. There are zigzags and letters spelling 'SCHOOL - KEEP CLEAR' there for a reason - because it's dangerous to park there not only for the other children going to school but for every other road user who's way and has been impeded and vision seriously restricted.
Well all I can say is that I had that kind of knee jerk reaction, but as my above comment says, I now have doubts as to what further use it will be put, as 'only human' said it would be better to identy those habitual individuals who don't take notice, and issue a warning followed by a fine as a last resort, as again I have to say the more I think about it I think there is somthing sinister about this 'spy van'.
[quote][p][bold]yawn..[/bold] wrote: Well, it get's my vote. Give them a meaningful fine to help **** their consciences if they have any. Of course they can afford a fine, they pay through the nose to keep the car on the road and in everyone's way in the first place. There are zigzags and letters spelling 'SCHOOL - KEEP CLEAR' there for a reason - because it's dangerous to park there not only for the other children going to school but for every other road user who's way and has been impeded and vision seriously restricted.[/p][/quote]Well all I can say is that I had that kind of knee jerk reaction, but as my above comment says, I now have doubts as to what further use it will be put, as 'only human' said it would be better to identy those habitual individuals who don't take notice, and issue a warning followed by a fine as a last resort, as again I have to say the more I think about it I think there is somthing sinister about this 'spy van'. Igiveinthen
  • Score: 1

10:22pm Fri 28 Feb 14

gurgles says...

gosh what a fuss . . . we all walked half an hour to school and back no lifts from frantic partents very few cars around then somehow my generation survived the 'trauma' of not getting a car ride to school . . . how will the little darlings and there parents cope does not bear thinking about . . .
gosh what a fuss . . . we all walked half an hour to school and back no lifts from frantic partents very few cars around then somehow my generation survived the 'trauma' of not getting a car ride to school . . . how will the little darlings and there parents cope does not bear thinking about . . . gurgles
  • Score: 8

10:43pm Fri 28 Feb 14

JHardacre says...

gurgles wrote:
gosh what a fuss . . . we all walked half an hour to school and back no lifts from frantic partents very few cars around then somehow my generation survived the 'trauma' of not getting a car ride to school . . . how will the little darlings and there parents cope does not bear thinking about . . .
"Walked to school"
"very few cars around then"

I think you've answered your own question there. If you engaged your brain you might see the link between the two statements.
[quote][p][bold]gurgles[/bold] wrote: gosh what a fuss . . . we all walked half an hour to school and back no lifts from frantic partents very few cars around then somehow my generation survived the 'trauma' of not getting a car ride to school . . . how will the little darlings and there parents cope does not bear thinking about . . .[/p][/quote]"Walked to school" "very few cars around then" I think you've answered your own question there. If you engaged your brain you might see the link between the two statements. JHardacre
  • Score: -1

11:09pm Fri 28 Feb 14

MouseHouse says...

JHardacre wrote:
gurgles wrote:
gosh what a fuss . . . we all walked half an hour to school and back no lifts from frantic partents very few cars around then somehow my generation survived the 'trauma' of not getting a car ride to school . . . how will the little darlings and there parents cope does not bear thinking about . . .
"Walked to school"
"very few cars around then"

I think you've answered your own question there. If you engaged your brain you might see the link between the two statements.
...but if more parents made their children walk to school there would be fewer cars. The irony is it is the parents who drive their children to school "because its dangerous" who are causing the danger.

Something has to be done to get children out of cars and on their feet. Arriving at school after a fifteen minute walk gets the blood circulating, awakens the senses and I am sure helps the children learn. On the way they can learn to cross roads, see the trees change colour, watch the bulbs pop up that bit more day-by-day, play in the snow etc. Falling out of a car and plodding into class teaches them nothing.
[quote][p][bold]JHardacre[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gurgles[/bold] wrote: gosh what a fuss . . . we all walked half an hour to school and back no lifts from frantic partents very few cars around then somehow my generation survived the 'trauma' of not getting a car ride to school . . . how will the little darlings and there parents cope does not bear thinking about . . .[/p][/quote]"Walked to school" "very few cars around then" I think you've answered your own question there. If you engaged your brain you might see the link between the two statements.[/p][/quote]...but if more parents made their children walk to school there would be fewer cars. The irony is it is the parents who drive their children to school "because its dangerous" who are causing the danger. Something has to be done to get children out of cars and on their feet. Arriving at school after a fifteen minute walk gets the blood circulating, awakens the senses and I am sure helps the children learn. On the way they can learn to cross roads, see the trees change colour, watch the bulbs pop up that bit more day-by-day, play in the snow etc. Falling out of a car and plodding into class teaches them nothing. MouseHouse
  • Score: 12

1:11am Sat 1 Mar 14

civicduty says...

.It is, without question, that the safety of our children, is uppermost in our communities.In the light of recent press, regarding such cctv vehicles, being branded "cash cows" and purchased by many councils (,well done the firm that pitched this idea to them ,)I have a couple of very important facts to tell you all about !1.the issue of parents parking has been raised at every school since vehicles became a feature of day to day living ie YEARS ...2 Each school, will now have allocated a PCSO,sometimes local PC ,.acting as a liason regarding current crime trends ,crime prevention ,drug awareness schemes and other issues ,one of which is the continued complaint of parents car parking .often this results in the officer being tasked to check at key times and act on breaches by way of advice and or fines .reporting back to the school and PTA'S.3.This method of reducing incidents has worked day in and day out for quite some time and actually improves driver awareness than banding tickets out willy nilly (lendall bridge anyone !)NOW THE IMPORTANT BIT. Any cctv scheme run by an authority immediately falls into the human rights act ,namely the article right to private life etc.so when you see cctv cameras being erected in the towns and villages there has been prior to this, a great deal of work carried out, to establish that there will be intrusion into peoples lives ,balanced against what the cctv is intended for.So York council here is your chance to tell us all what policies you have in place for this work and the HRA.regarding the use of such equipment .I know that you will have looked at every school in york and carried out a detailed survey of where you can park your new ..expensive..cctv camers and have documented any intrusions .sight lines etc.etc wont you ???Once you have done all that work then perhaps you may want to take a look at the legislation regarding directed surveillance .because you will be watching people who's details have been given to you so you can film them "breaching " driver regulations .Now that one is a REAL Biggy .Oh ,on gumtree i believe there is going to be a van for sale ,hardly used with onboard entertainment !!
.It is, without question, that the safety of our children, is uppermost in our communities.In the light of recent press, regarding such cctv vehicles, being branded "cash cows" and purchased by many councils (,well done the firm that pitched this idea to them ,)I have a couple of very important facts to tell you all about !1.the issue of parents parking has been raised at every school since vehicles became a feature of day to day living ie YEARS ...2 Each school, will now have allocated a PCSO,sometimes local PC ,.acting as a liason regarding current crime trends ,crime prevention ,drug awareness schemes and other issues ,one of which is the continued complaint of parents car parking .often this results in the officer being tasked to check at key times and act on breaches by way of advice and or fines .reporting back to the school and PTA'S.3.This method of reducing incidents has worked day in and day out for quite some time and actually improves driver awareness than banding tickets out willy nilly (lendall bridge anyone !)NOW THE IMPORTANT BIT. Any cctv scheme run by an authority immediately falls into the human rights act ,namely the article right to private life etc.so when you see cctv cameras being erected in the towns and villages there has been prior to this, a great deal of work carried out, to establish that there will be intrusion into peoples lives ,balanced against what the cctv is intended for.So York council here is your chance to tell us all what policies you have in place for this work and the HRA.regarding the use of such equipment .I know that you will have looked at every school in york and carried out a detailed survey of where you can park your new ..expensive..cctv camers and have documented any intrusions .sight lines etc.etc wont you ???Once you have done all that work then perhaps you may want to take a look at the legislation regarding directed surveillance .because you will be watching people who's details have been given to you so you can film them "breaching " driver regulations .Now that one is a REAL Biggy .Oh ,on gumtree i believe there is going to be a van for sale ,hardly used with onboard entertainment !! civicduty
  • Score: 4

1:23am Sat 1 Mar 14

civicduty says...

https://www.cctvuser
group.com/art.php?ar
t=39
Apologies .I am unable to provide a link, but above is a splendid site to enable some,to get their teeth into,regarding cctv and HRA ,right to private life .I thought i better support my observations with actual fact .thanks for your time and i guess ..watch this story spirral !!
https://www.cctvuser group.com/art.php?ar t=39 Apologies .I am unable to provide a link, but above is a splendid site to enable some,to get their teeth into,regarding cctv and HRA ,right to private life .I thought i better support my observations with actual fact .thanks for your time and i guess ..watch this story spirral !! civicduty
  • Score: 3

1:49am Sat 1 Mar 14

civicduty says...

https://www.gov.uk/g
overnment/uploads/sy
stem/uploads/attachm
ent_data/file/97960/
code-of-practice-cov
ert.pdf.
Apologies again .Here is the legal govt document regarding Directed Surveillance .*****
Example: A local police team receive information that an individual
suspected of committing thefts from motor vehicles is known to be
in a town centre area. A decision is taken to use the town centre
CCTV system to conduct surveillance against that individual such
that he remains unaware that there may be any specific interest in
him. This targeted, covert use of the overt town centre CCTV
system to monitor and/or record that individual’s movements
should be considered for authorisation as directed surveillance. ******
In the example if you substitute the police for York Council and the offence of vehicle obstruction for thefts from motor vehicles and finally individual called mrs Miggins who drops her kids off 10 min before bell then you have a issue...///legal argument anyone ??
https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/uploads/sy stem/uploads/attachm ent_data/file/97960/ code-of-practice-cov ert.pdf. Apologies again .Here is the legal govt document regarding Directed Surveillance .***** Example: A local police team receive information that an individual suspected of committing thefts from motor vehicles is known to be in a town centre area. A decision is taken to use the town centre CCTV system to conduct surveillance against that individual such that he remains unaware that there may be any specific interest in him. This targeted, covert use of the overt town centre CCTV system to monitor and/or record that individual’s movements should be considered for authorisation as directed surveillance. ****** In the example if you substitute the police for York Council and the offence of vehicle obstruction for thefts from motor vehicles and finally individual called mrs Miggins who drops her kids off 10 min before bell then you have a issue...///legal argument anyone ?? civicduty
  • Score: 1

6:47am Sat 1 Mar 14

pedalling paul says...

I walked to school when I was a lad......it was uphill all the way!
I walked to school when I was a lad......it was uphill all the way! pedalling paul
  • Score: -3

7:41am Sat 1 Mar 14

JHardacre says...

MouseHouse wrote:
JHardacre wrote:
gurgles wrote:
gosh what a fuss . . . we all walked half an hour to school and back no lifts from frantic partents very few cars around then somehow my generation survived the 'trauma' of not getting a car ride to school . . . how will the little darlings and there parents cope does not bear thinking about . . .
"Walked to school"
"very few cars around then"

I think you've answered your own question there. If you engaged your brain you might see the link between the two statements.
...but if more parents made their children walk to school there would be fewer cars. The irony is it is the parents who drive their children to school "because its dangerous" who are causing the danger.

Something has to be done to get children out of cars and on their feet. Arriving at school after a fifteen minute walk gets the blood circulating, awakens the senses and I am sure helps the children learn. On the way they can learn to cross roads, see the trees change colour, watch the bulbs pop up that bit more day-by-day, play in the snow etc. Falling out of a car and plodding into class teaches them nothing.
I'm sure that my son would have been most refreshed after his ten mile walk to school.
Don't judge everyone by your little lives.
[quote][p][bold]MouseHouse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JHardacre[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gurgles[/bold] wrote: gosh what a fuss . . . we all walked half an hour to school and back no lifts from frantic partents very few cars around then somehow my generation survived the 'trauma' of not getting a car ride to school . . . how will the little darlings and there parents cope does not bear thinking about . . .[/p][/quote]"Walked to school" "very few cars around then" I think you've answered your own question there. If you engaged your brain you might see the link between the two statements.[/p][/quote]...but if more parents made their children walk to school there would be fewer cars. The irony is it is the parents who drive their children to school "because its dangerous" who are causing the danger. Something has to be done to get children out of cars and on their feet. Arriving at school after a fifteen minute walk gets the blood circulating, awakens the senses and I am sure helps the children learn. On the way they can learn to cross roads, see the trees change colour, watch the bulbs pop up that bit more day-by-day, play in the snow etc. Falling out of a car and plodding into class teaches them nothing.[/p][/quote]I'm sure that my son would have been most refreshed after his ten mile walk to school. Don't judge everyone by your little lives. JHardacre
  • Score: 1

8:46am Sat 1 Mar 14

Caecilius says...

JHardacre wrote:
gurgles wrote:
gosh what a fuss . . . we all walked half an hour to school and back no lifts from frantic partents very few cars around then somehow my generation survived the 'trauma' of not getting a car ride to school . . . how will the little darlings and there parents cope does not bear thinking about . . .
"Walked to school"
"very few cars around then"

I think you've answered your own question there. If you engaged your brain you might see the link between the two statements.
If you engaged yours, you might note that a large proportion of the cars around when children are going to or coming from school are driven by parents doing the school run. It's a circular argument: many parents drive their children to school because it's "not safe" for them to walk, because there's so much traffic, because so many parents drive their children to school..... And, regarding your later patronising comment about "little lives", from the age of 11 I too attended a secondary school ten miles away from home, in a city. I walked to the station, caught a train, crossed busy roads outside the main line station in town and caught a bus the rest of the way. In 7 years, I could probably count the number of times I got a lift on the fingers of one hand. Plenty of others had similar journeys, and I've seen youngsters today who clearly travel into York by train and walk from the station to their school.
[quote][p][bold]JHardacre[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gurgles[/bold] wrote: gosh what a fuss . . . we all walked half an hour to school and back no lifts from frantic partents very few cars around then somehow my generation survived the 'trauma' of not getting a car ride to school . . . how will the little darlings and there parents cope does not bear thinking about . . .[/p][/quote]"Walked to school" "very few cars around then" I think you've answered your own question there. If you engaged your brain you might see the link between the two statements.[/p][/quote]If you engaged yours, you might note that a large proportion of the cars around when children are going to or coming from school are driven by parents doing the school run. It's a circular argument: many parents drive their children to school because it's "not safe" for them to walk, because there's so much traffic, because so many parents drive their children to school..... And, regarding your later patronising comment about "little lives", from the age of 11 I too attended a secondary school ten miles away from home, in a city. I walked to the station, caught a train, crossed busy roads outside the main line station in town and caught a bus the rest of the way. In 7 years, I could probably count the number of times I got a lift on the fingers of one hand. Plenty of others had similar journeys, and I've seen youngsters today who clearly travel into York by train and walk from the station to their school. Caecilius
  • Score: 2

9:29am Sat 1 Mar 14

sniper 9964 says...

It is illegal to stop on zig zag lines
It is illegal to stop on zig zag lines sniper 9964
  • Score: 5

9:29am Sat 1 Mar 14

TheManor says...

I am surprised that the comments on here are overwhelmingly pro-camera. The government is planning to ban these vans because they do not have the discretion that is required to give an enforceable fine - there are examples of drivers being booked when they had pulled over to vomit, had shattered windscreens, etc. and they do not allow for a reasonable drop-off period on double yellow lines, which again is perfectly lawful. I agree that child safety is a smokescreen - I have personally witnessed more collisions between pedestrians and cyclists than between cars and children.
As for calls for more children to cycle to school, have you ever travelled down Huntington Road in a morning? Children riding on the cycle path on the wrong side of the road, with mates sat on handlebars and crossbars, cycling alongside each other to block the road to other vehicles, swerving into traffic, etc.
I am surprised that the comments on here are overwhelmingly pro-camera. The government is planning to ban these vans because they do not have the discretion that is required to give an enforceable fine - there are examples of drivers being booked when they had pulled over to vomit, had shattered windscreens, etc. and they do not allow for a reasonable drop-off period on double yellow lines, which again is perfectly lawful. I agree that child safety is a smokescreen - I have personally witnessed more collisions between pedestrians and cyclists than between cars and children. As for calls for more children to cycle to school, have you ever travelled down Huntington Road in a morning? Children riding on the cycle path on the wrong side of the road, with mates sat on handlebars and crossbars, cycling alongside each other to block the road to other vehicles, swerving into traffic, etc. TheManor
  • Score: 7

10:10am Sat 1 Mar 14

Igiveinthen says...

sniper 9964 wrote:
It is illegal to stop on zig zag lines
Now tells us something we don't know!.
There are other ways of enforcing this parking, and I would be in favour of a FIXED cctv system outside the school gates, can't you see as I have done that there could be other uses this 'SPY VAN' could and most likley will be put to, I only hope the council have gone down the correct procedures with regard to civil liberties, and can justify its procurment with documents to prove it.
[quote][p][bold]sniper 9964[/bold] wrote: It is illegal to stop on zig zag lines[/p][/quote]Now tells us something we don't know!. There are other ways of enforcing this parking, and I would be in favour of a FIXED cctv system outside the school gates, can't you see as I have done that there could be other uses this 'SPY VAN' could and most likley will be put to, I only hope the council have gone down the correct procedures with regard to civil liberties, and can justify its procurment with documents to prove it. Igiveinthen
  • Score: 6

10:56am Sat 1 Mar 14

JHardacre says...

Caecilius wrote:
JHardacre wrote:
gurgles wrote:
gosh what a fuss . . . we all walked half an hour to school and back no lifts from frantic partents very few cars around then somehow my generation survived the 'trauma' of not getting a car ride to school . . . how will the little darlings and there parents cope does not bear thinking about . . .
"Walked to school"
"very few cars around then"

I think you've answered your own question there. If you engaged your brain you might see the link between the two statements.
If you engaged yours, you might note that a large proportion of the cars around when children are going to or coming from school are driven by parents doing the school run. It's a circular argument: many parents drive their children to school because it's "not safe" for them to walk, because there's so much traffic, because so many parents drive their children to school..... And, regarding your later patronising comment about "little lives", from the age of 11 I too attended a secondary school ten miles away from home, in a city. I walked to the station, caught a train, crossed busy roads outside the main line station in town and caught a bus the rest of the way. In 7 years, I could probably count the number of times I got a lift on the fingers of one hand. Plenty of others had similar journeys, and I've seen youngsters today who clearly travel into York by train and walk from the station to their school.
They were different times. Would you want your 11 year old daughter getting lifts from a stranger these days? And what stranger would actually stop today. Not me for sure. Too risky.
[quote][p][bold]Caecilius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JHardacre[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gurgles[/bold] wrote: gosh what a fuss . . . we all walked half an hour to school and back no lifts from frantic partents very few cars around then somehow my generation survived the 'trauma' of not getting a car ride to school . . . how will the little darlings and there parents cope does not bear thinking about . . .[/p][/quote]"Walked to school" "very few cars around then" I think you've answered your own question there. If you engaged your brain you might see the link between the two statements.[/p][/quote]If you engaged yours, you might note that a large proportion of the cars around when children are going to or coming from school are driven by parents doing the school run. It's a circular argument: many parents drive their children to school because it's "not safe" for them to walk, because there's so much traffic, because so many parents drive their children to school..... And, regarding your later patronising comment about "little lives", from the age of 11 I too attended a secondary school ten miles away from home, in a city. I walked to the station, caught a train, crossed busy roads outside the main line station in town and caught a bus the rest of the way. In 7 years, I could probably count the number of times I got a lift on the fingers of one hand. Plenty of others had similar journeys, and I've seen youngsters today who clearly travel into York by train and walk from the station to their school.[/p][/quote]They were different times. Would you want your 11 year old daughter getting lifts from a stranger these days? And what stranger would actually stop today. Not me for sure. Too risky. JHardacre
  • Score: 1

11:15am Sat 1 Mar 14

roskoboskovic says...

after the revelations about our corrupt council in yesterdays press they should at least have the good grace to come out and admit that this is just another money generating exercise.the fact that one van is supposed to patrol all of york would suggest that safety isn t the priority.
after the revelations about our corrupt council in yesterdays press they should at least have the good grace to come out and admit that this is just another money generating exercise.the fact that one van is supposed to patrol all of york would suggest that safety isn t the priority. roskoboskovic
  • Score: 4

11:57am Sat 1 Mar 14

voiceofnormalpeople says...

I've got to laugh at all you people claiming this is a money making scheme and claiming the fines are illegal. I think you people are the one who park on these double yellow lines because you believe normal rules don't apply to you. the lazy gits that can not be bothered to park in a space if its a little distance from where you want to be. You people I recon will also be the ones who speed every where and break constant traffic laws as again you believe you are above the reem of what every body else deems to be safe and lawful.

I am in favour as these people are a nuisance. not only do their vehicles cause obstructions and cause delays due to being parked in the flow of traffic, but they also stop you from seeing the children crossing the roads because they are in the way.

Stop parking in the way you selfish prats.
I've got to laugh at all you people claiming this is a money making scheme and claiming the fines are illegal. I think you people are the one who park on these double yellow lines because you believe normal rules don't apply to you. the lazy gits that can not be bothered to park in a space if its a little distance from where you want to be. You people I recon will also be the ones who speed every where and break constant traffic laws as again you believe you are above the reem of what every body else deems to be safe and lawful. I am in favour as these people are a nuisance. not only do their vehicles cause obstructions and cause delays due to being parked in the flow of traffic, but they also stop you from seeing the children crossing the roads because they are in the way. Stop parking in the way you selfish prats. voiceofnormalpeople
  • Score: 2

12:00pm Sat 1 Mar 14

leehpool says...

This will be a massive cash cow for York City Council, not only will they be using the van for school patrols, they will then realise that they can use it out of school hours scouring the streets for people that haven't parked their cars properly. I live in Hartlepool and have had this vehicle for 2 years now and it made £160k in the first year for the council and that's just in a small town so times that by 10 for a place like York.
This will be a massive cash cow for York City Council, not only will they be using the van for school patrols, they will then realise that they can use it out of school hours scouring the streets for people that haven't parked their cars properly. I live in Hartlepool and have had this vehicle for 2 years now and it made £160k in the first year for the council and that's just in a small town so times that by 10 for a place like York. leehpool
  • Score: 1

1:30pm Sat 1 Mar 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

eeoodares wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
bjb wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
bjb wrote: What is it about keeping school children safe that some of the posters don't understand. All this clap trap about snooping and infringing rights to do what we please regardless of the law or common sense is unbelievable. Great job council. If this is proved to work, and I am sure it will, they should add more vehicles to the operation. Only the late or lazy have anything to worry about, and they will pay the price unless they learn that they can not do as they like at the expense of everyone else. If everyone in the past had observed the rules of road safety and the law, these measures would not have been necessary.
How is implementing a retrospective punishment going to improve safety? If someone’s safety is at risk surly sending a fine at a later date isn’t the best way to improve safety as you put it? If something is un safe it needs addressing there and then!
What is there about 'against the law' or causing an obstruction you don't understand? By the way, they have not been called 'traffic wardens' for a long time. It has also been proved more cost effective by the police that the use of camera evidence is far cheaper and efficient than having to stop every car on the road to ask every driver for there insurance and check their tax disk. Archiebold the 1st now is it. Your list of ever growing aliases is getting quite long. Whatever happened to your last one, did you get banned again?
It's against the law to speed but I bet you do? My point is what good is it recording an dangerous occurrence and driving away leaving it there? Is that making the area safer? No!!! Plain and simple no! And yes the police said it's cheaper because they don't want anything to do with it! Oh sorry I got a job title wrong... Jesus that must flaw my entire argument! So when was the last accident that was caused by a parked car? What is the difference between this job role and a traffic warden?

And maybe lay off the hemp as I've had this name since 2009?
They used to run awareness campaigns warning children of the dangers of crossing the road between parked vehicles.

What about cars parked on bends, double yellows, next to Zebra crossings, Pelican crossings, Parked Ice cream vans, busses, coaches....in fact the list of dangers around parked vehicles goes on and on. Now think of these parked in front of a school. Can you really not see ANY DANGERS? how many accidents/deaths should happen before you would take action?
No I can't? You are making it out to be bedlam! It isn't! Parked cars cause and obstruction. Any parent who is with their child and walks out behind an obstruction is irresponsible! Double yellows are not marked for danger! Children need to be taught road safety or this needs enforcing by the police as is mentioned above. Taking a video then going away to see how many fines you can make up is not productive! Can anyone tell me how many children have been injured due to this? It seems like people are just annoyed at unconvince. We will see if this works to improve accidents but my feeling is it won't. It's just a parking money cow. And I suspect the teachers are in favour as there will be some coin thrown their way out of the cash bag. £70 for parking on a double yellow to drop a kid off is out of order! Teach the parents don't just record them! Does anyone know anything about actual h&s on this site? Imagine if I was on site and just recorded a load of hazards then went back and fined the staff responsible! I'd be taken to the judge! Hazards need addressing there and then how many times do I need to express this?!
[quote][p][bold]eeoodares[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bjb[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bjb[/bold] wrote: What is it about keeping school children safe that some of the posters don't understand. All this clap trap about snooping and infringing rights to do what we please regardless of the law or common sense is unbelievable. Great job council. If this is proved to work, and I am sure it will, they should add more vehicles to the operation. Only the late or lazy have anything to worry about, and they will pay the price unless they learn that they can not do as they like at the expense of everyone else. If everyone in the past had observed the rules of road safety and the law, these measures would not have been necessary.[/p][/quote]How is implementing a retrospective punishment going to improve safety? If someone’s safety is at risk surly sending a fine at a later date isn’t the best way to improve safety as you put it? If something is un safe it needs addressing there and then![/p][/quote]What is there about 'against the law' or causing an obstruction you don't understand? By the way, they have not been called 'traffic wardens' for a long time. It has also been proved more cost effective by the police that the use of camera evidence is far cheaper and efficient than having to stop every car on the road to ask every driver for there insurance and check their tax disk. Archiebold the 1st now is it. Your list of ever growing aliases is getting quite long. Whatever happened to your last one, did you get banned again?[/p][/quote]It's against the law to speed but I bet you do? My point is what good is it recording an dangerous occurrence and driving away leaving it there? Is that making the area safer? No!!! Plain and simple no! And yes the police said it's cheaper because they don't want anything to do with it! Oh sorry I got a job title wrong... Jesus that must flaw my entire argument! So when was the last accident that was caused by a parked car? What is the difference between this job role and a traffic warden? And maybe lay off the hemp as I've had this name since 2009?[/p][/quote]They used to run awareness campaigns warning children of the dangers of crossing the road between parked vehicles. What about cars parked on bends, double yellows, next to Zebra crossings, Pelican crossings, Parked Ice cream vans, busses, coaches....in fact the list of dangers around parked vehicles goes on and on. Now think of these parked in front of a school. Can you really not see ANY DANGERS? how many accidents/deaths should happen before you would take action?[/p][/quote]No I can't? You are making it out to be bedlam! It isn't! Parked cars cause and obstruction. Any parent who is with their child and walks out behind an obstruction is irresponsible! Double yellows are not marked for danger! Children need to be taught road safety or this needs enforcing by the police as is mentioned above. Taking a video then going away to see how many fines you can make up is not productive! Can anyone tell me how many children have been injured due to this? It seems like people are just annoyed at unconvince. We will see if this works to improve accidents but my feeling is it won't. It's just a parking money cow. And I suspect the teachers are in favour as there will be some coin thrown their way out of the cash bag. £70 for parking on a double yellow to drop a kid off is out of order! Teach the parents don't just record them! Does anyone know anything about actual h&s on this site? Imagine if I was on site and just recorded a load of hazards then went back and fined the staff responsible! I'd be taken to the judge! Hazards need addressing there and then how many times do I need to express this?! Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: 1

9:09pm Sat 1 Mar 14

courier46 says...

JHardacre wrote:
courier46 wrote:
I also am finding this hard to say but well done to the council for setting this up,if you don't do wrong you wont get a ticket
What 'wrong' would they be doing exactly?
I hope you dont drive if you dont know right from wrong!
[quote][p][bold]JHardacre[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]courier46[/bold] wrote: I also am finding this hard to say but well done to the council for setting this up,if you don't do wrong you wont get a ticket[/p][/quote]What 'wrong' would they be doing exactly?[/p][/quote]I hope you dont drive if you dont know right from wrong! courier46
  • Score: 3

3:09am Sun 2 Mar 14

Magicman! says...

Hicarrumba wrote:
Stopping near a school to disembark is legal, however still needs to be done safely, if the motorist decides that a corner is convenient then they are doing wrong as its not safe to block a corner or a junction, zig zags and no stopping is exactly what it means do not stop here.

Good on you council, although I feel that the local roads off main streets will be brimming, and the Nimbys will play up.
You should come and see what the lovely parents who have kids in Yearsley Grove school do then. There is a small un-named link road between Whenby Grove and Anthea Drive - by 3pm that road has got parked cars right from the corner of Whenby to the corner of Anthea, uninterrupted, and sometimes on both sides of the road; the cars then park on both corners of that link road on Whenby Grove and opposite the exit of that link road, in addition to parking uninterrupted along the full length of Yearsley Grove itself. The road is on a slight hill and curve, so at one end of the "alley" created by the double parking, you cannot see if a vehicle is coming the other way.... and once you commit to entering "the alley" and a vehicle is coming the other way, you then have nowhere to go as there are no passing points other than the entrance to the school itself.

And the thing is, about half an hour later I can see most of these cars within a 5 minute cycle ride of the school gates, all parked up on driveways where the parents obviously live.
[quote][p][bold]Hicarrumba[/bold] wrote: Stopping near a school to disembark is legal, however still needs to be done safely, if the motorist decides that a corner is convenient then they are doing wrong as its not safe to block a corner or a junction, zig zags and no stopping is exactly what it means do not stop here. Good on you council, although I feel that the local roads off main streets will be brimming, and the Nimbys will play up.[/p][/quote]You should come and see what the lovely parents who have kids in Yearsley Grove school do then. There is a small un-named link road between Whenby Grove and Anthea Drive - by 3pm that road has got parked cars right from the corner of Whenby to the corner of Anthea, uninterrupted, and sometimes on both sides of the road; the cars then park on both corners of that link road on Whenby Grove and opposite the exit of that link road, in addition to parking uninterrupted along the full length of Yearsley Grove itself. The road is on a slight hill and curve, so at one end of the "alley" created by the double parking, you cannot see if a vehicle is coming the other way.... and once you commit to entering "the alley" and a vehicle is coming the other way, you then have nowhere to go as there are no passing points other than the entrance to the school itself. And the thing is, about half an hour later I can see most of these cars within a 5 minute cycle ride of the school gates, all parked up on driveways where the parents obviously live. Magicman!
  • Score: 0

3:12am Sun 2 Mar 14

Magicman! says...

Ignatius Lumpopo wrote:
Good old council providing yet another vehicle adding to the chaos at pick-up and drop-off times. Whatever happened to that ancient concept "The Traffic Warden"? Or do people have to sit down in the warm to do their jobs these days?

And what about the CCTV identifying children? If strangers can't video children in Nativity Plays, how come this van can in the street?
Oh don't play the "oooh CCTV and paedo's spying on children" card. Schools have CCTV inside them now, and if the school is run by the council then the CCTV is controlled by the same people who control the CCTV on the van. and in the case of some city centre schools, there is CCTV on the streets directly outside the school too.
[quote][p][bold]Ignatius Lumpopo[/bold] wrote: Good old council providing yet another vehicle adding to the chaos at pick-up and drop-off times. Whatever happened to that ancient concept "The Traffic Warden"? Or do people have to sit down in the warm to do their jobs these days? And what about the CCTV identifying children? If strangers can't video children in Nativity Plays, how come this van can in the street?[/p][/quote]Oh don't play the "oooh CCTV and paedo's spying on children" card. Schools have CCTV inside them now, and if the school is run by the council then the CCTV is controlled by the same people who control the CCTV on the van. and in the case of some city centre schools, there is CCTV on the streets directly outside the school too. Magicman!
  • Score: 0

3:17am Sun 2 Mar 14

Magicman! says...

mjgyork wrote:
As I leaned to my cost outside St. Lawrence School, trying to appeal to those parking simply results in abuse. It is not only the children who endangered either. They park both sides of the road, on the zig-zag area and totally ignore the cycle lane. You are then forced to use the pavement and of course suffer more abuse. You cannot appeal to their 'reasonableness'! No point in appealing to the Police either! Hit them in the pocket, it is the only thing that they will understand. And get more of them!
And this is also why 'traffic wardens' on foot wouldn't work either... because there will be some who would not have any inhibitions and would get out of the car and punch the warden. The van is much safer, and I'm sure it will patrol all the schools in a completely random fashion.
[quote][p][bold]mjgyork[/bold] wrote: As I leaned to my cost outside St. Lawrence School, trying to appeal to those parking simply results in abuse. It is not only the children who endangered either. They park both sides of the road, on the zig-zag area and totally ignore the cycle lane. You are then forced to use the pavement and of course suffer more abuse. You cannot appeal to their 'reasonableness'! No point in appealing to the Police either! Hit them in the pocket, it is the only thing that they will understand. And get more of them![/p][/quote]And this is also why 'traffic wardens' on foot wouldn't work either... because there will be some who would not have any inhibitions and would get out of the car and punch the warden. The van is much safer, and I'm sure it will patrol all the schools in a completely random fashion. Magicman!
  • Score: -1

3:21am Sun 2 Mar 14

Magicman! says...

taffywilliams wrote:
Goodness me what next! Another blow for residents as the worst drivers are by far the parents/carers who drop their treasured children off though you wouldn't know they have precious cargo with their appalling driving with no thoughts to other road users. They are blinkered with one thing in mind, drop off and then the day is theirs usually to have nails done etc. Also why do they drive 4x4 that they cannot handle?
I just feel this is another revenue venture for the council and they don't really care about safety. And safety starts at home so think on you selfish parents.
On a bike, I can tell you that Vauxhall Zafira's are often driven without care and attention to other road users.... funnily enough, they appear a lot on the congested streets at school closing time.
[quote][p][bold]taffywilliams[/bold] wrote: Goodness me what next! Another blow for residents as the worst drivers are by far the parents/carers who drop their treasured children off though you wouldn't know they have precious cargo with their appalling driving with no thoughts to other road users. They are blinkered with one thing in mind, drop off and then the day is theirs usually to have nails done etc. Also why do they drive 4x4 that they cannot handle? I just feel this is another revenue venture for the council and they don't really care about safety. And safety starts at home so think on you selfish parents.[/p][/quote]On a bike, I can tell you that Vauxhall Zafira's are often driven without care and attention to other road users.... funnily enough, they appear a lot on the congested streets at school closing time. Magicman!
  • Score: -3

3:24am Sun 2 Mar 14

Magicman! says...

AngelinaSpongebum wrote:
I live next to a school and I battle with the parkers on a daily basis. I hope the van can tell the difference between the school runners and those that live here.
I expect the van will have ANPR fitted, which will read the reg of a vehicle and if it aligns with the keepers' address of the vehicle and the address where it is parked then it will be seen as 'at home'.
[quote][p][bold]AngelinaSpongebum[/bold] wrote: I live next to a school and I battle with the parkers on a daily basis. I hope the van can tell the difference between the school runners and those that live here.[/p][/quote]I expect the van will have ANPR fitted, which will read the reg of a vehicle and if it aligns with the keepers' address of the vehicle and the address where it is parked then it will be seen as 'at home'. Magicman!
  • Score: -3

3:29am Sun 2 Mar 14

Magicman! says...

MouseHouse wrote:
JHardacre wrote:
gurgles wrote:
gosh what a fuss . . . we all walked half an hour to school and back no lifts from frantic partents very few cars around then somehow my generation survived the 'trauma' of not getting a car ride to school . . . how will the little darlings and there parents cope does not bear thinking about . . .
"Walked to school"
"very few cars around then"

I think you've answered your own question there. If you engaged your brain you might see the link between the two statements.
...but if more parents made their children walk to school there would be fewer cars. The irony is it is the parents who drive their children to school "because its dangerous" who are causing the danger.

Something has to be done to get children out of cars and on their feet. Arriving at school after a fifteen minute walk gets the blood circulating, awakens the senses and I am sure helps the children learn. On the way they can learn to cross roads, see the trees change colour, watch the bulbs pop up that bit more day-by-day, play in the snow etc. Falling out of a car and plodding into class teaches them nothing.
True... I was late on occasions and had to run from Muncastergate to Huntington School when I was a kid. Certainly woke me up and got my mind going! And I was one of those students where the English teacher said to my parents "he is one of only 6 or 7 in the class of 32 who actually want to learn" - and oddly enough, the others in that class who knuckled down were often seen walking away from school in the afternoon rather than hopping into a car.
[quote][p][bold]MouseHouse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JHardacre[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gurgles[/bold] wrote: gosh what a fuss . . . we all walked half an hour to school and back no lifts from frantic partents very few cars around then somehow my generation survived the 'trauma' of not getting a car ride to school . . . how will the little darlings and there parents cope does not bear thinking about . . .[/p][/quote]"Walked to school" "very few cars around then" I think you've answered your own question there. If you engaged your brain you might see the link between the two statements.[/p][/quote]...but if more parents made their children walk to school there would be fewer cars. The irony is it is the parents who drive their children to school "because its dangerous" who are causing the danger. Something has to be done to get children out of cars and on their feet. Arriving at school after a fifteen minute walk gets the blood circulating, awakens the senses and I am sure helps the children learn. On the way they can learn to cross roads, see the trees change colour, watch the bulbs pop up that bit more day-by-day, play in the snow etc. Falling out of a car and plodding into class teaches them nothing.[/p][/quote]True... I was late on occasions and had to run from Muncastergate to Huntington School when I was a kid. Certainly woke me up and got my mind going! And I was one of those students where the English teacher said to my parents "he is one of only 6 or 7 in the class of 32 who actually want to learn" - and oddly enough, the others in that class who knuckled down were often seen walking away from school in the afternoon rather than hopping into a car. Magicman!
  • Score: -3

3:33am Sun 2 Mar 14

Magicman! says...

JHardacre wrote:
MouseHouse wrote:
JHardacre wrote:
gurgles wrote:
gosh what a fuss . . . we all walked half an hour to school and back no lifts from frantic partents very few cars around then somehow my generation survived the 'trauma' of not getting a car ride to school . . . how will the little darlings and there parents cope does not bear thinking about . . .
"Walked to school"
"very few cars around then"

I think you've answered your own question there. If you engaged your brain you might see the link between the two statements.
...but if more parents made their children walk to school there would be fewer cars. The irony is it is the parents who drive their children to school "because its dangerous" who are causing the danger.

Something has to be done to get children out of cars and on their feet. Arriving at school after a fifteen minute walk gets the blood circulating, awakens the senses and I am sure helps the children learn. On the way they can learn to cross roads, see the trees change colour, watch the bulbs pop up that bit more day-by-day, play in the snow etc. Falling out of a car and plodding into class teaches them nothing.
I'm sure that my son would have been most refreshed after his ten mile walk to school.
Don't judge everyone by your little lives.
Well if all the parents who live just a 2 minute drive from the school let/made their kids walk, there would be enough *safe* parking space for parents who live several miles away to drop off or pick up their kids.
[quote][p][bold]JHardacre[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MouseHouse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JHardacre[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gurgles[/bold] wrote: gosh what a fuss . . . we all walked half an hour to school and back no lifts from frantic partents very few cars around then somehow my generation survived the 'trauma' of not getting a car ride to school . . . how will the little darlings and there parents cope does not bear thinking about . . .[/p][/quote]"Walked to school" "very few cars around then" I think you've answered your own question there. If you engaged your brain you might see the link between the two statements.[/p][/quote]...but if more parents made their children walk to school there would be fewer cars. The irony is it is the parents who drive their children to school "because its dangerous" who are causing the danger. Something has to be done to get children out of cars and on their feet. Arriving at school after a fifteen minute walk gets the blood circulating, awakens the senses and I am sure helps the children learn. On the way they can learn to cross roads, see the trees change colour, watch the bulbs pop up that bit more day-by-day, play in the snow etc. Falling out of a car and plodding into class teaches them nothing.[/p][/quote]I'm sure that my son would have been most refreshed after his ten mile walk to school. Don't judge everyone by your little lives.[/p][/quote]Well if all the parents who live just a 2 minute drive from the school let/made their kids walk, there would be enough *safe* parking space for parents who live several miles away to drop off or pick up their kids. Magicman!
  • Score: 0

3:37am Sun 2 Mar 14

Magicman! says...

TheManor wrote:
I am surprised that the comments on here are overwhelmingly pro-camera. The government is planning to ban these vans because they do not have the discretion that is required to give an enforceable fine - there are examples of drivers being booked when they had pulled over to vomit, had shattered windscreens, etc. and they do not allow for a reasonable drop-off period on double yellow lines, which again is perfectly lawful. I agree that child safety is a smokescreen - I have personally witnessed more collisions between pedestrians and cyclists than between cars and children.
As for calls for more children to cycle to school, have you ever travelled down Huntington Road in a morning? Children riding on the cycle path on the wrong side of the road, with mates sat on handlebars and crossbars, cycling alongside each other to block the road to other vehicles, swerving into traffic, etc.
Ideally there would be some space away from the road where a safe cycle route could be built... a route that could roughly follow the course of Huntington Road (in either direction) towards the school but without other traffic using it and thus making it safe for the kids to use. usually this sort of space which hasn't been blocked off by developments would be something like a small river with a path that could be widened to become a cycle route and have rails fitted by the side of the river itself. If there is a river which hasn't had a cycle route put beside it for kids going to/from Huntington School, then the "cycling city" council haven't done their job properly.
[quote][p][bold]TheManor[/bold] wrote: I am surprised that the comments on here are overwhelmingly pro-camera. The government is planning to ban these vans because they do not have the discretion that is required to give an enforceable fine - there are examples of drivers being booked when they had pulled over to vomit, had shattered windscreens, etc. and they do not allow for a reasonable drop-off period on double yellow lines, which again is perfectly lawful. I agree that child safety is a smokescreen - I have personally witnessed more collisions between pedestrians and cyclists than between cars and children. As for calls for more children to cycle to school, have you ever travelled down Huntington Road in a morning? Children riding on the cycle path on the wrong side of the road, with mates sat on handlebars and crossbars, cycling alongside each other to block the road to other vehicles, swerving into traffic, etc.[/p][/quote]Ideally there would be some space away from the road where a safe cycle route could be built... a route that could roughly follow the course of Huntington Road (in either direction) towards the school but without other traffic using it and thus making it safe for the kids to use. usually this sort of space which hasn't been blocked off by developments would be something like a small river with a path that could be widened to become a cycle route and have rails fitted by the side of the river itself. If there is a river which hasn't had a cycle route put beside it for kids going to/from Huntington School, then the "cycling city" council haven't done their job properly. Magicman!
  • Score: 0

6:38am Sun 2 Mar 14

HoofHearteds says...

As a cost saving measure, they should combine these vans as mobile truant catcher vans also. That way you get double the value and give out a warning to other louts that, jig the school and you will be caught and dealt with accordingly. > > > D minor > > > We don't need no education > > D minor >> We don't need no thought control > > G > > Hey, Teacher! Leave them kids alone!! > > F > > All in all it's just an - other money making game
As a cost saving measure, they should combine these vans as mobile truant catcher vans also. That way you get double the value and give out a warning to other louts that, jig the school and you will be caught and dealt with accordingly. > > > D minor > > > We don't need no education > > D minor >> We don't need no thought control > > G > > Hey, Teacher! Leave them kids alone!! > > F > > All in all it's just an - other money making game HoofHearteds
  • Score: 33

8:23am Sun 2 Mar 14

Igiveinthen says...

Magicman! wrote:
taffywilliams wrote:
Goodness me what next! Another blow for residents as the worst drivers are by far the parents/carers who drop their treasured children off though you wouldn't know they have precious cargo with their appalling driving with no thoughts to other road users. They are blinkered with one thing in mind, drop off and then the day is theirs usually to have nails done etc. Also why do they drive 4x4 that they cannot handle?
I just feel this is another revenue venture for the council and they don't really care about safety. And safety starts at home so think on you selfish parents.
On a bike, I can tell you that Vauxhall Zafira's are often driven without care and attention to other road users.... funnily enough, they appear a lot on the congested streets at school closing time.
I live near a school, from 08.30 to 09.15 and again 14.45 to 15.15 cars parked all over the place,and whoe betide if you meet some of thev mum's head on as I have done, hands in the air, the look of why are you driving in my space!, I can see that something needs to be done, but this 'Spy Van' is to me not the answer, it will work there is no doubt about that, but it is what it is used for when not doing school runs, it can't tell the difference between a traffic violation and someone stopped for a valid reason, I just hope that this is not going to turn into another Lendal Bridge fiasco.
[quote][p][bold]Magicman![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]taffywilliams[/bold] wrote: Goodness me what next! Another blow for residents as the worst drivers are by far the parents/carers who drop their treasured children off though you wouldn't know they have precious cargo with their appalling driving with no thoughts to other road users. They are blinkered with one thing in mind, drop off and then the day is theirs usually to have nails done etc. Also why do they drive 4x4 that they cannot handle? I just feel this is another revenue venture for the council and they don't really care about safety. And safety starts at home so think on you selfish parents.[/p][/quote]On a bike, I can tell you that Vauxhall Zafira's are often driven without care and attention to other road users.... funnily enough, they appear a lot on the congested streets at school closing time.[/p][/quote]I live near a school, from 08.30 to 09.15 and again 14.45 to 15.15 cars parked all over the place,and whoe betide if you meet some of thev mum's head on as I have done, hands in the air, the look of why are you driving in my space!, I can see that something needs to be done, but this 'Spy Van' is to me not the answer, it will work there is no doubt about that, but it is what it is used for when not doing school runs, it can't tell the difference between a traffic violation and someone stopped for a valid reason, I just hope that this is not going to turn into another Lendal Bridge fiasco. Igiveinthen
  • Score: 5

10:54am Sun 2 Mar 14

Pinza-C55 says...

pedalling paul wrote:
I walked to school when I was a lad......it was uphill all the way!
You went to school ? 8-0
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: I walked to school when I was a lad......it was uphill all the way![/p][/quote]You went to school ? 8-0 Pinza-C55
  • Score: 0

1:14pm Sun 2 Mar 14

mjgyork says...

leehpool wrote:
This will be a massive cash cow for York City Council, not only will they be using the van for school patrols, they will then realise that they can use it out of school hours scouring the streets for people that haven't parked their cars properly. I live in Hartlepool and have had this vehicle for 2 years now and it made £160k in the first year for the council and that's just in a small town so times that by 10 for a place like York.
If these measures make money for the council, good thing! Do not park where you are not supposed to and without consideration of the inconsideration of other road users ( like cyclists BRILLIANT!
[quote][p][bold]leehpool[/bold] wrote: This will be a massive cash cow for York City Council, not only will they be using the van for school patrols, they will then realise that they can use it out of school hours scouring the streets for people that haven't parked their cars properly. I live in Hartlepool and have had this vehicle for 2 years now and it made £160k in the first year for the council and that's just in a small town so times that by 10 for a place like York.[/p][/quote]If these measures make money for the council, good thing! Do not park where you are not supposed to and without consideration of the inconsideration of other road users ( like cyclists BRILLIANT! mjgyork
  • Score: -2

1:34pm Sun 2 Mar 14

mjgyork says...

Saying that you are in favour of 'child safety' is a bit like saying I am against burglary., or OAP's should be better treated. You have already lost the argument..
Saying that you are in favour of 'child safety' is a bit like saying I am against burglary., or OAP's should be better treated. You have already lost the argument.. mjgyork
  • Score: -3

12:30am Mon 3 Mar 14

MouseHouse says...

Magicman! wrote:
JHardacre wrote:
MouseHouse wrote:
JHardacre wrote:
gurgles wrote:
gosh what a fuss . . . we all walked half an hour to school and back no lifts from frantic partents very few cars around then somehow my generation survived the 'trauma' of not getting a car ride to school . . . how will the little darlings and there parents cope does not bear thinking about . . .
"Walked to school"
"very few cars around then"

I think you've answered your own question there. If you engaged your brain you might see the link between the two statements.
...but if more parents made their children walk to school there would be fewer cars. The irony is it is the parents who drive their children to school "because its dangerous" who are causing the danger.

Something has to be done to get children out of cars and on their feet. Arriving at school after a fifteen minute walk gets the blood circulating, awakens the senses and I am sure helps the children learn. On the way they can learn to cross roads, see the trees change colour, watch the bulbs pop up that bit more day-by-day, play in the snow etc. Falling out of a car and plodding into class teaches them nothing.
I'm sure that my son would have been most refreshed after his ten mile walk to school.
Don't judge everyone by your little lives.
Well if all the parents who live just a 2 minute drive from the school let/made their kids walk, there would be enough *safe* parking space for parents who live several miles away to drop off or pick up their kids.
I agree. But the number of parents who live "several miles" away to their infant and / or junior school is not reflected in the numbers of vehicles congregating outside such schools. This is down to laziness for some and a necessity for others.

If' it's simple bone idleness then the parents should hang their heads in shame.
[quote][p][bold]Magicman![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JHardacre[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MouseHouse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JHardacre[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gurgles[/bold] wrote: gosh what a fuss . . . we all walked half an hour to school and back no lifts from frantic partents very few cars around then somehow my generation survived the 'trauma' of not getting a car ride to school . . . how will the little darlings and there parents cope does not bear thinking about . . .[/p][/quote]"Walked to school" "very few cars around then" I think you've answered your own question there. If you engaged your brain you might see the link between the two statements.[/p][/quote]...but if more parents made their children walk to school there would be fewer cars. The irony is it is the parents who drive their children to school "because its dangerous" who are causing the danger. Something has to be done to get children out of cars and on their feet. Arriving at school after a fifteen minute walk gets the blood circulating, awakens the senses and I am sure helps the children learn. On the way they can learn to cross roads, see the trees change colour, watch the bulbs pop up that bit more day-by-day, play in the snow etc. Falling out of a car and plodding into class teaches them nothing.[/p][/quote]I'm sure that my son would have been most refreshed after his ten mile walk to school. Don't judge everyone by your little lives.[/p][/quote]Well if all the parents who live just a 2 minute drive from the school let/made their kids walk, there would be enough *safe* parking space for parents who live several miles away to drop off or pick up their kids.[/p][/quote]I agree. But the number of parents who live "several miles" away to their infant and / or junior school is not reflected in the numbers of vehicles congregating outside such schools. This is down to laziness for some and a necessity for others. If' it's simple bone idleness then the parents should hang their heads in shame. MouseHouse
  • Score: -1

1:04pm Mon 3 Mar 14

Cheeky face says...

There is a fear the vans will be utilised outside school starting and finishing times for other reasons. Quite right if they are used for road safety.

Regarding parking on pavements with two wheels; there is a precedent on Bishopthorpe Rd, York between Campleshon Road and Balmoral Terrace, which the council agreed with residents/tenants many years ago!

The council and the schools SHOULD HAVE ALREADY DECIDED if warnings are in order for first offences; and where any ensuing priofits are posted in "cost centres". .
There is a fear the vans will be utilised outside school starting and finishing times for other reasons. Quite right if they are used for road safety. Regarding parking on pavements with two wheels; there is a precedent on Bishopthorpe Rd, York between Campleshon Road and Balmoral Terrace, which the council agreed with residents/tenants many years ago! The council and the schools SHOULD HAVE ALREADY DECIDED if warnings are in order for first offences; and where any ensuing priofits are posted in "cost centres". . Cheeky face
  • Score: 0

3:41pm Mon 3 Mar 14

catty69 says...

voiceofnormalpeople wrote:
I've got to laugh at all you people claiming this is a money making scheme and claiming the fines are illegal. I think you people are the one who park on these double yellow lines because you believe normal rules don't apply to you. the lazy gits that can not be bothered to park in a space if its a little distance from where you want to be. You people I recon will also be the ones who speed every where and break constant traffic laws as again you believe you are above the reem of what every body else deems to be safe and lawful.

I am in favour as these people are a nuisance. not only do their vehicles cause obstructions and cause delays due to being parked in the flow of traffic, but they also stop you from seeing the children crossing the roads because they are in the way.

Stop parking in the way you selfish prats.
I am against this, but the "prat" is you. How dare you assume that I speed everywhere, drive my child to school , and am a nuisance! I have never broken a traffic law, nor do I park my vehicle in a place causing an obstruction. I walk my child to school. Just because I do not agree with something, does not give you the right to infer I am a criminal!
[quote][p][bold]voiceofnormalpeople[/bold] wrote: I've got to laugh at all you people claiming this is a money making scheme and claiming the fines are illegal. I think you people are the one who park on these double yellow lines because you believe normal rules don't apply to you. the lazy gits that can not be bothered to park in a space if its a little distance from where you want to be. You people I recon will also be the ones who speed every where and break constant traffic laws as again you believe you are above the reem of what every body else deems to be safe and lawful. I am in favour as these people are a nuisance. not only do their vehicles cause obstructions and cause delays due to being parked in the flow of traffic, but they also stop you from seeing the children crossing the roads because they are in the way. Stop parking in the way you selfish prats.[/p][/quote]I am against this, but the "prat" is you. How dare you assume that I speed everywhere, drive my child to school , and am a nuisance! I have never broken a traffic law, nor do I park my vehicle in a place causing an obstruction. I walk my child to school. Just because I do not agree with something, does not give you the right to infer I am a criminal! catty69
  • Score: 2

9:10pm Mon 3 Mar 14

dudbertman says...

Another stupid council action. Vote this anti motorist council out. Kids have to be taken to school and picked up in the society we now live in. How many of these vans are there? I think there will have to be a lot of fines to pay for these and the operators!!
Another stupid council action. Vote this anti motorist council out. Kids have to be taken to school and picked up in the society we now live in. How many of these vans are there? I think there will have to be a lot of fines to pay for these and the operators!! dudbertman
  • Score: -1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree