289 drivers a day get Lendal Bridge fines

Lendal Bridge

Lendal Bridge

First published in News
Last updated
York Press: Photograph of the Author by , mark.stead@thepress.co.uk

ALMOST 300 drivers were told to pay fines for each day of a controversial six-month traffic trial on a York bridge.

Figures for the number of penalty charge notices (PCNs) issued between August 27 last year and February 27 this year - the official duration of the Lendal Bridge experiment, which has closed the route to private vehicles for six-and-a-half hours a day - show 53,521 fines were sent out for breaching its rules.

This equates to 289 penalties a day during the trial, and although The Press revealed last month that more than 10,000 drivers had appealed against their fines and most had won, City of York Council's total income from the trial at that point had hit £1.3 million, with between £650,000 and £750,000 expected to be ringfenced for traffic and transport schemes once the costs of the trial are taken off.

The restrictions have remained in force despite the scheme formally ending, with the authority set to make a decision on whether it is continued, abandoned or its hours extended on May 6 after an assessment of its impact is completed.

The council believes closing the bridge will improve bus journey times, reduce pollution and encourage more people to walk, cycle and use public transport, but the trial has been heavily criticised over claims it has damaged York's reputation because of the majority of fines being issued to visitors, harmed businesses and caused congestion elsewhere.

In their update on the final month of the trial period, council transport officials said average February journey times increased on six of York's ten Park&Ride routes into and out of the city, with three improving and one showing no change.

The officers have said the trial will have to be permanent and bus times altered before services can "take full advantage of the time savings".

Year-on-year statistics for the number of vehicles using key routes in York hourly during February showed a large increase over Clifton Bridge and a smaller increase on Shipton Road, but large decreases on the Outer Ring Road and Boroughbridge Road.

The report said that while more traffic was still using Foss Islands Road, the level of February's increase was less than the previous month and volumes were now similar to those before the trial started, saying: "Control room operators report an improvement on Foss Islands Road since the start of January."

Comments (110)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:17am Fri 21 Mar 14

imassey says...

...and once again the floodgates open. Expect the usual rush of comments, including "open it now", "vote the council out", "leave it closed", "harming the city centre", "tourists not coming back", "I need to drive", etc, etc.

Just one point (that I don't think I've seen anywhere else - forgive me if somebody has already suggested it) about the closure continuing after the six months. Surely it is the same principal as having a 20mph zone outside schools (before 20mph became the norm, anyway). Why have it all the time, even during school holidays/weekends/du
ring the night? Because it is confusing to keep changing things. IF (capitalisation intentional) the bridge was reopened at the end of the six months, allowing traffic across again, then closed again, people would have got used to crossing it again making it more difficult IF the closure was then made permanent.

Perhaps it should have been said that it was an eight month trial, with a two-month review process at the end of six, but that is just semantics.

It's similar with bus times - if bus timetables had been altered during the trial, then the bridge re-opened, they would have had to have been changed back.
...and once again the floodgates open. Expect the usual rush of comments, including "open it now", "vote the council out", "leave it closed", "harming the city centre", "tourists not coming back", "I need to drive", etc, etc. Just one point (that I don't think I've seen anywhere else - forgive me if somebody has already suggested it) about the closure continuing after the six months. Surely it is the same principal as having a 20mph zone outside schools (before 20mph became the norm, anyway). Why have it all the time, even during school holidays/weekends/du ring the night? Because it is confusing to keep changing things. IF (capitalisation intentional) the bridge was reopened at the end of the six months, allowing traffic across again, then closed again, people would have got used to crossing it again making it more difficult IF the closure was then made permanent. Perhaps it should have been said that it was an eight month trial, with a two-month review process at the end of six, but that is just semantics. It's similar with bus times - if bus timetables had been altered during the trial, then the bridge re-opened, they would have had to have been changed back. imassey
  • Score: 330

10:26am Fri 21 Mar 14

Lunatic says...

Just to clarify, that works out at twelve drivers every hour passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge.

That's one driver passing through a pedestrian-heavy area of our city, driving without due care and attention, every five minutes.
Just to clarify, that works out at twelve drivers every hour passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge. That's one driver passing through a pedestrian-heavy area of our city, driving without due care and attention, every five minutes. Lunatic
  • Score: 262

10:30am Fri 21 Mar 14

asd says...

Year-on-year statistics for the number of vehicles using key routes in York hourly during February showed a large increase over Clifton Bridge and a smaller increase on Shipton Road, but large decreases on the Outer Ring Road and Boroughbridge Road.

Really, Boroughbridge road and outer ring road decreased, when was it done, at 1:00am. I live in Acomb and its horrendous trying to get out of the place. I feel like there is some deceit going here.
Year-on-year statistics for the number of vehicles using key routes in York hourly during February showed a large increase over Clifton Bridge and a smaller increase on Shipton Road, but large decreases on the Outer Ring Road and Boroughbridge Road. Really, Boroughbridge road and outer ring road decreased, when was it done, at 1:00am. I live in Acomb and its horrendous trying to get out of the place. I feel like there is some deceit going here. asd
  • Score: -361

10:49am Fri 21 Mar 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

I don't believe in miracles so much as some depend upon the illusions of them.

The question has to be who is being fooled?.
I don't believe in miracles so much as some depend upon the illusions of them. The question has to be who is being fooled?. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: -348

11:11am Fri 21 Mar 14

Garrowby Turnoff says...

Foss Islands road is much much busier than ever before. Visits to Halfords, Morrisons and Waitrose are tedious due to the queue to get back out of the car parks.
Foss Islands road is much much busier than ever before. Visits to Halfords, Morrisons and Waitrose are tedious due to the queue to get back out of the car parks. Garrowby Turnoff
  • Score: -295

11:14am Fri 21 Mar 14

MarkyMarkMark says...

Sorry, but "Yawn".
It feels like the Press is now dribbling facts & reaction at us on a virtually daily basis in an attempt to stir up some comment.
Just leave it alone now until the 6th May, why don't you?
Sorry, but "Yawn". It feels like the Press is now dribbling facts & reaction at us on a virtually daily basis in an attempt to stir up some comment. Just leave it alone now until the 6th May, why don't you? MarkyMarkMark
  • Score: 6

11:19am Fri 21 Mar 14

Platform9 says...

I see the electronic sign hasnt been fixed yet on the approach from the station (wonder if this is intentional for more revenue?)
I see the electronic sign hasnt been fixed yet on the approach from the station (wonder if this is intentional for more revenue?) Platform9
  • Score: -69

11:23am Fri 21 Mar 14

Salsaman says...

I have asked Cllr Alexander to comment on what the council planns to do about the increased traffic on water end and Foss Island, no responce even when I repeated the requst for information.
I have asked Cllr Alexander to comment on what the council planns to do about the increased traffic on water end and Foss Island, no responce even when I repeated the requst for information. Salsaman
  • Score: -48

11:31am Fri 21 Mar 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

Lunatic wrote:
Just to clarify, that works out at twelve drivers every hour passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge.

That's one driver passing through a pedestrian-heavy area of our city, driving without due care and attention, every five minutes.
Just to clarify, that works out at nearer forty five drivers every hour during the restricted period passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge.

If it were due to driving without due care I feel sure the Police would be obliged to address the issue and prosecute the offenders. The penalties for which are far more severe than a £60/£30 fine (up to £2,500 Fine and/or 3 to 6 points).

If you have been accused of this offence (Section 3 Road Traffic Act 1988, Driving Without Due Care and Attention or Without Reasonable Consideration for Other Road Users), it means that the Police are suggesting that on a specific occasion that the standard of your driving fell below that of a reasonable and prudent driver in all the circumstances. You will defend this allegation if you cast a reasonable doubt on that suggestion or if you can show that in the specific circumstances of your case, any reasonable and prudent driver would have reacted/driven in the same way.

Regardless of whether you support or object to the Lendal restriction, people who are fined for crossing are not driving without due care, to suggest they are is nonsense.
[quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: Just to clarify, that works out at twelve drivers every hour passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge. That's one driver passing through a pedestrian-heavy area of our city, driving without due care and attention, every five minutes.[/p][/quote]Just to clarify, that works out at nearer forty five drivers every hour during the restricted period passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge. If it were due to driving without due care I feel sure the Police would be obliged to address the issue and prosecute the offenders. The penalties for which are far more severe than a £60/£30 fine (up to £2,500 Fine and/or 3 to 6 points). If you have been accused of this offence (Section 3 Road Traffic Act 1988, Driving Without Due Care and Attention or Without Reasonable Consideration for Other Road Users), it means that the Police are suggesting that on a specific occasion that the standard of your driving fell below that of a reasonable and prudent driver in all the circumstances. You will defend this allegation if you cast a reasonable doubt on that suggestion or if you can show that in the specific circumstances of your case, any reasonable and prudent driver would have reacted/driven in the same way. Regardless of whether you support or object to the Lendal restriction, people who are fined for crossing are not driving without due care, to suggest they are is nonsense. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: -36

11:34am Fri 21 Mar 14

strangebuttrue? says...

"The officers have said the trial will have to be permanent and bus times altered before services can "take full advantage of the time savings".

What!! How can that be a like for like comparison?? They were either running on time or not before the bridge closure now it appears on some routes they are even further behind their schedule if they are taking longer as they say. If you change the timetable from to get better results is that not misleading? Par for the course I suppose?
"The officers have said the trial will have to be permanent and bus times altered before services can "take full advantage of the time savings". What!! How can that be a like for like comparison?? They were either running on time or not before the bridge closure now it appears on some routes they are even further behind their schedule if they are taking longer as they say. If you change the timetable from to get better results is that not misleading? Par for the course I suppose? strangebuttrue?
  • Score: -32

11:39am Fri 21 Mar 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

Lunatic wrote:
Just to clarify, that works out at twelve drivers every hour passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge. That's one driver passing through a pedestrian-heavy area of our city, driving without due care and attention, every five minutes.
and yet there isn’t 12 people knocked down every hour? I’d suggest that driving and looking at every sign on the road is more dangerous then driving with your eyes on the road down a pedestrian area.
[quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: Just to clarify, that works out at twelve drivers every hour passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge. That's one driver passing through a pedestrian-heavy area of our city, driving without due care and attention, every five minutes.[/p][/quote]and yet there isn’t 12 people knocked down every hour? I’d suggest that driving and looking at every sign on the road is more dangerous then driving with your eyes on the road down a pedestrian area. Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: -29

11:41am Fri 21 Mar 14

strangebuttrue? says...

"Year-on-year statistics" blah blah "but large decreases on the Outer Ring Road and Boroughbridge Road".

What the outer ring road has less traffic!. When are they comparing that with the few weeks just before the trial when Clifton bridge was closed? You can see with your own eyes that the northern outer ring road is now solid all day long it was not like that before they closed Clifton Bridge and it never improved again when they reopened Clifton bridge and at the same time closed Lendal Bridge. Mind you they only said ring road not which part. Could be a bit more misleading.
"Year-on-year statistics" blah blah "but large decreases on the Outer Ring Road and Boroughbridge Road". What the outer ring road has less traffic!. When are they comparing that with the few weeks just before the trial when Clifton bridge was closed? You can see with your own eyes that the northern outer ring road is now solid all day long it was not like that before they closed Clifton Bridge and it never improved again when they reopened Clifton bridge and at the same time closed Lendal Bridge. Mind you they only said ring road not which part. Could be a bit more misleading. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: -34

11:46am Fri 21 Mar 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

"The council believes closing the bridge will improve bus journey times, reduce pollution and encourage more people to walk, cycle and use public transport, but the trial has been heavily criticised over claims it has damaged York's reputation because of the majority of fines being issued to visitors, harmed businesses and caused congestion elsewhere.”

No they don't? They kept it a secret that pollution wouldn't be reduced and offered no capacity increase for public transport so why would it increase? The bus travelling times have increased. As for walking over the bridge i liked it better with cars.. walking past 3 busses stuck in lights is just horrible.. they stink and you can feel them polluting your lungs. At least cars are quiet and their fumes arent pumped out to the pedestiran side of the road.

Hopefully they will all get promoted out of harms away and can solve the traffic issues on the isle of sky or similar.
"The council believes closing the bridge will improve bus journey times, reduce pollution and encourage more people to walk, cycle and use public transport, but the trial has been heavily criticised over claims it has damaged York's reputation because of the majority of fines being issued to visitors, harmed businesses and caused congestion elsewhere.” No they don't? They kept it a secret that pollution wouldn't be reduced and offered no capacity increase for public transport so why would it increase? The bus travelling times have increased. As for walking over the bridge i liked it better with cars.. walking past 3 busses stuck in lights is just horrible.. they stink and you can feel them polluting your lungs. At least cars are quiet and their fumes arent pumped out to the pedestiran side of the road. Hopefully they will all get promoted out of harms away and can solve the traffic issues on the isle of sky or similar. Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: -23

12:16pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Stevie D says...

strangebuttrue? wrote:
"The officers have said the trial will have to be permanent and bus times altered before services can "take full advantage of the time savings". What!! How can that be a like for like comparison?? They were either running on time or not before the bridge closure now it appears on some routes they are even further behind their schedule if they are taking longer as they say. If you change the timetable from to get better results is that not misleading? Par for the course I suppose?
Bus companies set their timetables to be realistic, bearing in mind normal traffic levels. In the past, that meant that they allowed about 3 hours to get from Gillygate to the station because that's how long it took (OK, slight exaggeration). Now that the bridge is closed to other traffic and they can whizz across it in 30 seconds flat, it just means that when they get to the other side of the bridge they then have to wait at the next stop for ages and ages, because they aren't allowed to leave a stop early.

So while the buses are still running to a pre-closure timetable, they aren't going to be able to run a whole lot quicker than they used to – they can get to some stops quicker but then have to wait for time meaning that overall the journey is not necessarily going to be any faster. They can only realise significant time savings if they change the timetables to knock out that dead time waiting at Station Avenue or Theatre Royal that they no longer need because they aren't stuck in traffic.
[quote][p][bold]strangebuttrue?[/bold] wrote: "The officers have said the trial will have to be permanent and bus times altered before services can "take full advantage of the time savings". What!! How can that be a like for like comparison?? They were either running on time or not before the bridge closure now it appears on some routes they are even further behind their schedule if they are taking longer as they say. If you change the timetable from to get better results is that not misleading? Par for the course I suppose?[/p][/quote]Bus companies set their timetables to be realistic, bearing in mind normal traffic levels. In the past, that meant that they allowed about 3 hours to get from Gillygate to the station because that's how long it took (OK, slight exaggeration). Now that the bridge is closed to other traffic and they can whizz across it in 30 seconds flat, it just means that when they get to the other side of the bridge they then have to wait at the next stop for ages and ages, because they aren't allowed to leave a stop early. So while the buses are still running to a pre-closure timetable, they aren't going to be able to run a whole lot quicker than they used to – they can get to some stops quicker but then have to wait for time meaning that overall the journey is not necessarily going to be any faster. They can only realise significant time savings if they change the timetables to knock out that dead time waiting at Station Avenue or Theatre Royal that they no longer need because they aren't stuck in traffic. Stevie D
  • Score: -49

12:30pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Platform9 says...

Do we have any statistics on how much "legal" traffic is using the bridge during the closure times? By legal I mean buses, taxi's etc;

I'm just wondering how much upheaval is being caused by x-amount of actual usage?
Do we have any statistics on how much "legal" traffic is using the bridge during the closure times? By legal I mean buses, taxi's etc; I'm just wondering how much upheaval is being caused by x-amount of actual usage? Platform9
  • Score: -43

12:55pm Fri 21 Mar 14

hokey cokey says...

And they thought they would get away with it.......tough!
And they thought they would get away with it.......tough! hokey cokey
  • Score: -38

1:16pm Fri 21 Mar 14

WhyEver says...

The number of penalties issued per week is no longer dropping, and has levelled out at about 1,600 per week throughout January and February. It's clear the council are unable to organise this properly, even after 6 months of trying.

Also note that the final figure is for the part-week to 28 Feb, when all the previous reports have been for 7 days. Some journalist at the Press should be asking if this means the council are going to stop publishing now the trial is "over".
The number of penalties issued per week is no longer dropping, and has levelled out at about 1,600 per week throughout January and February. It's clear the council are unable to organise this properly, even after 6 months of trying. Also note that the final figure is for the part-week to 28 Feb, when all the previous reports have been for 7 days. Some journalist at the Press should be asking if this means the council are going to stop publishing now the trial is "over". WhyEver
  • Score: -30

1:33pm Fri 21 Mar 14

readbeforeyouprint says...

You're perfectly correct YOUWILLDOASISAY regarding the offence of driving without due care and attention - anyone on all of the previous posts who criticised drivers for not paying attention is wrong.
However, "Failing to comply with road traffic signs is dealt with under section 36 of The Road Traffic Act 1988." and "Failing to comply with a road traffic sign will, on conviction, ordinarily result in the imposition of a fine of up to £1000. Where, however, the sign in question is a ‘Stop’ or ‘No entry’ sign then penalty points can also be imposed and a driver can even be disqualified from driving."
Now if you think CYC are raking in money from fines, wait until North Yorkshire Police cotton on...
You're perfectly correct YOUWILLDOASISAY regarding the offence of driving without due care and attention - anyone on all of the previous posts who criticised drivers for not paying attention is wrong. However, "Failing to comply with road traffic signs is dealt with under section 36 of The Road Traffic Act 1988." and "Failing to comply with a road traffic sign will, on conviction, ordinarily result in the imposition of a fine of up to £1000. Where, however, the sign in question is a ‘Stop’ or ‘No entry’ sign then penalty points can also be imposed and a driver can even be disqualified from driving." Now if you think CYC are raking in money from fines, wait until North Yorkshire Police cotton on... readbeforeyouprint
  • Score: -37

2:00pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Platform3 says...

Lunatic wrote:
Just to clarify, that works out at twelve drivers every hour passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge.

That's one driver passing through a pedestrian-heavy area of our city, driving without due care and attention, every five minutes.
You have a debatable point as to which law they have actually broken. Presume it is being treated the same way as cyclists who ignore red lights, stop signs, give way markings, foot street notices, one way signs and so on. There is an offence of cycling without due care and attention but I don't see it reported in the Press very often despite the thosands of times it occurs (using your reasoning) every week.
[quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: Just to clarify, that works out at twelve drivers every hour passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge. That's one driver passing through a pedestrian-heavy area of our city, driving without due care and attention, every five minutes.[/p][/quote]You have a debatable point as to which law they have actually broken. Presume it is being treated the same way as cyclists who ignore red lights, stop signs, give way markings, foot street notices, one way signs and so on. There is an offence of cycling without due care and attention but I don't see it reported in the Press very often despite the thosands of times it occurs (using your reasoning) every week. Platform3
  • Score: -24

2:20pm Fri 21 Mar 14

york_chap says...

Perhaps it's the way The Press reports things, or perhaps (more likely) the way the council presents their figures; but when reading these statistics re: increases/decreases in traffic using certain routes, it takes about 3 reads to ultimately deduce what they're actually saying.

Even then; as a user of the roads mentioned, (and like many others on here) I have to say that the figures just do not support reality. In the last 6 months congestion on Shipton Road in particular has become horrendous during the late afternoon. 35 minutes to get from the A1237 to the Clifton Green junction is just absurd. I gave up and followed many other drivers through Rawcliffe on one occasion a few weeks back, when at 4:55 pm the traffic heading INTO York was queued solid, all the way back to the park and ride site. Apart from one very snowy morning about 10 years ago, I've never, ever seen the traffic queued that far back. I feel sorry for anyone who lives along there or who has to use that route daily. Contrary to what the council might suppose, such congestion doesn't make me walk or cycle everywhere, it just makes me (and I imagine many others) find less congested alternative routes, usually through narrow residential streets which I'd ordinarily have no cause to drive down.

As for the huge fall in traffic on the outer-ring road; I think their traffic counter must be either faulty (if it's a machine) or asleep if it's a person. The sections of the road I use regularly are either equally congested or MORE congested than before the bridge trial.
Perhaps it's the way The Press reports things, or perhaps (more likely) the way the council presents their figures; but when reading these statistics re: increases/decreases in traffic using certain routes, it takes about 3 reads to ultimately deduce what they're actually saying. Even then; as a user of the roads mentioned, (and like many others on here) I have to say that the figures just do not support reality. In the last 6 months congestion on Shipton Road in particular has become horrendous during the late afternoon. 35 minutes to get from the A1237 to the Clifton Green junction is just absurd. I gave up and followed many other drivers through Rawcliffe on one occasion a few weeks back, when at 4:55 pm the traffic heading INTO York was queued solid, all the way back to the park and ride site. Apart from one very snowy morning about 10 years ago, I've never, ever seen the traffic queued that far back. I feel sorry for anyone who lives along there or who has to use that route daily. Contrary to what the council might suppose, such congestion doesn't make me walk or cycle everywhere, it just makes me (and I imagine many others) find less congested alternative routes, usually through narrow residential streets which I'd ordinarily have no cause to drive down. As for the huge fall in traffic on the outer-ring road; I think their traffic counter must be either faulty (if it's a machine) or asleep if it's a person. The sections of the road I use regularly are either equally congested or MORE congested than before the bridge trial. york_chap
  • Score: -80

2:40pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

readbeforeyouprint wrote:
You're perfectly correct YOUWILLDOASISAY regarding the offence of driving without due care and attention - anyone on all of the previous posts who criticised drivers for not paying attention is wrong. However, "Failing to comply with road traffic signs is dealt with under section 36 of The Road Traffic Act 1988." and "Failing to comply with a road traffic sign will, on conviction, ordinarily result in the imposition of a fine of up to £1000. Where, however, the sign in question is a ‘Stop’ or ‘No entry’ sign then penalty points can also be imposed and a driver can even be disqualified from driving." Now if you think CYC are raking in money from fines, wait until North Yorkshire Police cotton on...
But as stated previously the signs are not complying with the road traffic act. Therefore they can not punish anyone. Also as there are around 10 signs in that area (an area with busses pulling in and out of lane un sighting drivers and making the signs unreadable or even blocking them) the police could not prosecute anyone. Also a road traffic signs (as in the act you quote) are classed as signs giving orders eg 20mph. What the signage on the bridge is classed as is "information signs” this means that the above quoted act can not actually be used to prosecute people who go over the bridge.

I have said it before about 20 is plenty. The more signs you have in an area the more people ignore them as the mind can not process all 10 quickly enough.

Lets get one thing straight the people who go over the bridge are not driving without due care and attention and the police could not peruse anyone for this.
[quote][p][bold]readbeforeyouprint[/bold] wrote: You're perfectly correct YOUWILLDOASISAY regarding the offence of driving without due care and attention - anyone on all of the previous posts who criticised drivers for not paying attention is wrong. However, "Failing to comply with road traffic signs is dealt with under section 36 of The Road Traffic Act 1988." and "Failing to comply with a road traffic sign will, on conviction, ordinarily result in the imposition of a fine of up to £1000. Where, however, the sign in question is a ‘Stop’ or ‘No entry’ sign then penalty points can also be imposed and a driver can even be disqualified from driving." Now if you think CYC are raking in money from fines, wait until North Yorkshire Police cotton on...[/p][/quote]But as stated previously the signs are not complying with the road traffic act. Therefore they can not punish anyone. Also as there are around 10 signs in that area (an area with busses pulling in and out of lane un sighting drivers and making the signs unreadable or even blocking them) the police could not prosecute anyone. Also a road traffic signs (as in the act you quote) are classed as signs giving orders eg 20mph. What the signage on the bridge is classed as is "information signs” this means that the above quoted act can not actually be used to prosecute people who go over the bridge. I have said it before about 20 is plenty. The more signs you have in an area the more people ignore them as the mind can not process all 10 quickly enough. Lets get one thing straight the people who go over the bridge are not driving without due care and attention and the police could not peruse anyone for this. Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: -68

2:42pm Fri 21 Mar 14

old_geezer says...

Archiebold the 1st wrote:
"The council believes closing the bridge will improve bus journey times, reduce pollution and encourage more people to walk, cycle and use public transport, but the trial has been heavily criticised over claims it has damaged York's reputation because of the majority of fines being issued to visitors, harmed businesses and caused congestion elsewhere.”

No they don't? They kept it a secret that pollution wouldn't be reduced and offered no capacity increase for public transport so why would it increase? The bus travelling times have increased. As for walking over the bridge i liked it better with cars.. walking past 3 busses stuck in lights is just horrible.. they stink and you can feel them polluting your lungs. At least cars are quiet and their fumes arent pumped out to the pedestiran side of the road.

Hopefully they will all get promoted out of harms away and can solve the traffic issues on the isle of sky or similar.
The bit about stinky buses at least is nonsense - the number of buses is the same, and during restricted hours they aren't stuck on the bridge for ages amid loads of cars.
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: "The council believes closing the bridge will improve bus journey times, reduce pollution and encourage more people to walk, cycle and use public transport, but the trial has been heavily criticised over claims it has damaged York's reputation because of the majority of fines being issued to visitors, harmed businesses and caused congestion elsewhere.” No they don't? They kept it a secret that pollution wouldn't be reduced and offered no capacity increase for public transport so why would it increase? The bus travelling times have increased. As for walking over the bridge i liked it better with cars.. walking past 3 busses stuck in lights is just horrible.. they stink and you can feel them polluting your lungs. At least cars are quiet and their fumes arent pumped out to the pedestiran side of the road. Hopefully they will all get promoted out of harms away and can solve the traffic issues on the isle of sky or similar.[/p][/quote]The bit about stinky buses at least is nonsense - the number of buses is the same, and during restricted hours they aren't stuck on the bridge for ages amid loads of cars. old_geezer
  • Score: -76

2:51pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Holgate Rambler says...

"average February journey times increased on six of York's ten Park & Ride routes" - since when has York had ten Park & Ride routes? Only five last time I looked. Presume this refers to FY bus routes 1 - 10 but accuracy would be good.
"average February journey times increased on six of York's ten Park & Ride routes" - since when has York had ten Park & Ride routes? Only five last time I looked. Presume this refers to FY bus routes 1 - 10 but accuracy would be good. Holgate Rambler
  • Score: -69

2:52pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

old_geezer wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote: "The council believes closing the bridge will improve bus journey times, reduce pollution and encourage more people to walk, cycle and use public transport, but the trial has been heavily criticised over claims it has damaged York's reputation because of the majority of fines being issued to visitors, harmed businesses and caused congestion elsewhere.” No they don't? They kept it a secret that pollution wouldn't be reduced and offered no capacity increase for public transport so why would it increase? The bus travelling times have increased. As for walking over the bridge i liked it better with cars.. walking past 3 busses stuck in lights is just horrible.. they stink and you can feel them polluting your lungs. At least cars are quiet and their fumes arent pumped out to the pedestiran side of the road. Hopefully they will all get promoted out of harms away and can solve the traffic issues on the isle of sky or similar.
The bit about stinky buses at least is nonsense - the number of buses is the same, and during restricted hours they aren't stuck on the bridge for ages amid loads of cars.
No thats right... but they tend to flow in groups now... meaning that when there is a traffic (or a light is at red... yes this does still happen!) there are 3 in a row to walk past... but what would i know.. i only use the bridge every day for lunch...

Just because the bridge is shut to the public does not mean busses fly though and can dodge traffic lights.
[quote][p][bold]old_geezer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: "The council believes closing the bridge will improve bus journey times, reduce pollution and encourage more people to walk, cycle and use public transport, but the trial has been heavily criticised over claims it has damaged York's reputation because of the majority of fines being issued to visitors, harmed businesses and caused congestion elsewhere.” No they don't? They kept it a secret that pollution wouldn't be reduced and offered no capacity increase for public transport so why would it increase? The bus travelling times have increased. As for walking over the bridge i liked it better with cars.. walking past 3 busses stuck in lights is just horrible.. they stink and you can feel them polluting your lungs. At least cars are quiet and their fumes arent pumped out to the pedestiran side of the road. Hopefully they will all get promoted out of harms away and can solve the traffic issues on the isle of sky or similar.[/p][/quote]The bit about stinky buses at least is nonsense - the number of buses is the same, and during restricted hours they aren't stuck on the bridge for ages amid loads of cars.[/p][/quote]No thats right... but they tend to flow in groups now... meaning that when there is a traffic (or a light is at red... yes this does still happen!) there are 3 in a row to walk past... but what would i know.. i only use the bridge every day for lunch... Just because the bridge is shut to the public does not mean busses fly though and can dodge traffic lights. Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: -70

3:05pm Fri 21 Mar 14

MouseHouse says...

I was all in favour of the trial. You don't truly know what will happen until you try it for real. However something isn't working if that many people are using the bridge when they shouldn't. Options: A) scrap the closure, B) 24 x 7 closure for those vehicles already barred, C) bang the fine up by a factor of 10.

It's between a and b for me. I'll opt, narrowly, for A.
I was all in favour of the trial. You don't truly know what will happen until you try it for real. However something isn't working if that many people are using the bridge when they shouldn't. Options: A) scrap the closure, B) 24 x 7 closure for those vehicles already barred, C) bang the fine up by a factor of 10. It's between a and b for me. I'll opt, narrowly, for A. MouseHouse
  • Score: -72

3:28pm Fri 21 Mar 14

York2000 says...

Oh how the Press like to wind you all up. It works too.
Oh how the Press like to wind you all up. It works too. York2000
  • Score: -83

3:30pm Fri 21 Mar 14

againstthecuts says...

It's all to make money can anyone else see that?
It's all to make money can anyone else see that? againstthecuts
  • Score: -41

3:32pm Fri 21 Mar 14

YorkShrimper says...

"The officers have said the trial will have to be permanent and bus times altered before services can "take full advantage of the time savings".

Year-on-year statistics for the number of vehicles using key routes in York hourly during February showed a large increase over Clifton Bridge and a smaller increase on Shipton Road, but large decreases on the Outer Ring Road and Boroughbridge Road."

We are constantly being told that the closure must be made permanent so that bus times can be altered, but what commitment from the bus companies are there for this to occur. The number 6 currently sits in Rougier Street for a good 3 - 4 minutes each way during the peak morning rush hour with the bridge open so the current timings as a base point could be way off anyway.

With regards to traffic volumes - how is this measured? Is it the number of vehicles passing a set point through a certain period of time? Without having the addition of average speed through a location makes the volume a largely meaningless number.

I remain open-minded to the notion of a bridge closure, but the handling of this trial has been at best shambolic. The council have managed to back themselves into a corner and will be "damned if you, damned if you don't" around the final decision
"The officers have said the trial will have to be permanent and bus times altered before services can "take full advantage of the time savings". Year-on-year statistics for the number of vehicles using key routes in York hourly during February showed a large increase over Clifton Bridge and a smaller increase on Shipton Road, but large decreases on the Outer Ring Road and Boroughbridge Road." We are constantly being told that the closure must be made permanent so that bus times can be altered, but what commitment from the bus companies are there for this to occur. The number 6 currently sits in Rougier Street for a good 3 - 4 minutes each way during the peak morning rush hour with the bridge open so the current timings as a base point could be way off anyway. With regards to traffic volumes - how is this measured? Is it the number of vehicles passing a set point through a certain period of time? Without having the addition of average speed through a location makes the volume a largely meaningless number. I remain open-minded to the notion of a bridge closure, but the handling of this trial has been at best shambolic. The council have managed to back themselves into a corner and will be "damned if you, damned if you don't" around the final decision YorkShrimper
  • Score: -22

3:49pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Caecilius says...

Lunatic wrote:
Just to clarify, that works out at twelve drivers every hour passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge.

That's one driver passing through a pedestrian-heavy area of our city, driving without due care and attention, every five minutes.
Exactly. I wonder whether, by any chance, one of them was the bloke I witnessed yesterday attempting to drive his car into the grounds of the hospital past a prominent 'No entry' sign and an even more prominent black-on-yellow notice boldly proclaiming "EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY". And, when he found he couldn't get in, he reversed back out onto Wigginton Road straight in front of an elderly lady riding past in the cycle lane, who had to swerve out into the traffic to avoid being knocked off her bike.
Incidentally, I passed along Bootham at 8 a.m. today: the traffic was backed up from the Gillygate junction all the way to Clifton Green - at a time when Lendal Bridge is open. It really is so simple - it's the volume of traffic, particularly cars, that causes congestion. Disadvantaging everyone else to appease vocal motorists is futile, and the council should stick to its guns.
[quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: Just to clarify, that works out at twelve drivers every hour passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge. That's one driver passing through a pedestrian-heavy area of our city, driving without due care and attention, every five minutes.[/p][/quote]Exactly. I wonder whether, by any chance, one of them was the bloke I witnessed yesterday attempting to drive his car into the grounds of the hospital past a prominent 'No entry' sign and an even more prominent black-on-yellow notice boldly proclaiming "EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY". And, when he found he couldn't get in, he reversed back out onto Wigginton Road straight in front of an elderly lady riding past in the cycle lane, who had to swerve out into the traffic to avoid being knocked off her bike. Incidentally, I passed along Bootham at 8 a.m. today: the traffic was backed up from the Gillygate junction all the way to Clifton Green - at a time when Lendal Bridge is open. It really is so simple - it's the volume of traffic, particularly cars, that causes congestion. Disadvantaging everyone else to appease vocal motorists is futile, and the council should stick to its guns. Caecilius
  • Score: -29

3:56pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

Caecilius wrote:
Lunatic wrote: Just to clarify, that works out at twelve drivers every hour passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge. That's one driver passing through a pedestrian-heavy area of our city, driving without due care and attention, every five minutes.
Exactly. I wonder whether, by any chance, one of them was the bloke I witnessed yesterday attempting to drive his car into the grounds of the hospital past a prominent 'No entry' sign and an even more prominent black-on-yellow notice boldly proclaiming "EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY". And, when he found he couldn't get in, he reversed back out onto Wigginton Road straight in front of an elderly lady riding past in the cycle lane, who had to swerve out into the traffic to avoid being knocked off her bike. Incidentally, I passed along Bootham at 8 a.m. today: the traffic was backed up from the Gillygate junction all the way to Clifton Green - at a time when Lendal Bridge is open. It really is so simple - it's the volume of traffic, particularly cars, that causes congestion. Disadvantaging everyone else to appease vocal motorists is futile, and the council should stick to its guns.
that’s because they queue up to get over lendal at those times. They're not going to queue go that way if they can’t go over it are they.
[quote][p][bold]Caecilius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: Just to clarify, that works out at twelve drivers every hour passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge. That's one driver passing through a pedestrian-heavy area of our city, driving without due care and attention, every five minutes.[/p][/quote]Exactly. I wonder whether, by any chance, one of them was the bloke I witnessed yesterday attempting to drive his car into the grounds of the hospital past a prominent 'No entry' sign and an even more prominent black-on-yellow notice boldly proclaiming "EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY". And, when he found he couldn't get in, he reversed back out onto Wigginton Road straight in front of an elderly lady riding past in the cycle lane, who had to swerve out into the traffic to avoid being knocked off her bike. Incidentally, I passed along Bootham at 8 a.m. today: the traffic was backed up from the Gillygate junction all the way to Clifton Green - at a time when Lendal Bridge is open. It really is so simple - it's the volume of traffic, particularly cars, that causes congestion. Disadvantaging everyone else to appease vocal motorists is futile, and the council should stick to its guns.[/p][/quote]that’s because they queue up to get over lendal at those times. They're not going to queue go that way if they can’t go over it are they. Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: 0

4:11pm Fri 21 Mar 14

JHardacre says...

Here's an idea folks. Given that many streets in York are not suitable for both pedestrians on wheels (cyclists) and pedestrians in cars (drivers) why not ban cycles from those streets. More people drive into York than cycle so the majority will be happy. Sorted!
Here's an idea folks. Given that many streets in York are not suitable for both pedestrians on wheels (cyclists) and pedestrians in cars (drivers) why not ban cycles from those streets. More people drive into York than cycle so the majority will be happy. Sorted! JHardacre
  • Score: -2

4:25pm Fri 21 Mar 14

jake777 says...

asd wrote:
Year-on-year statistics for the number of vehicles using key routes in York hourly during February showed a large increase over Clifton Bridge and a smaller increase on Shipton Road, but large decreases on the Outer Ring Road and Boroughbridge Road.

Really, Boroughbridge road and outer ring road decreased, when was it done, at 1:00am. I live in Acomb and its horrendous trying to get out of the place. I feel like there is some deceit going here.
That is at rush hours, not when the bridge is closed.
[quote][p][bold]asd[/bold] wrote: Year-on-year statistics for the number of vehicles using key routes in York hourly during February showed a large increase over Clifton Bridge and a smaller increase on Shipton Road, but large decreases on the Outer Ring Road and Boroughbridge Road. Really, Boroughbridge road and outer ring road decreased, when was it done, at 1:00am. I live in Acomb and its horrendous trying to get out of the place. I feel like there is some deceit going here.[/p][/quote]That is at rush hours, not when the bridge is closed. jake777
  • Score: -78

4:27pm Fri 21 Mar 14

jake777 says...

Platform9 wrote:
I see the electronic sign hasnt been fixed yet on the approach from the station (wonder if this is intentional for more revenue?)
it is working.
[quote][p][bold]Platform9[/bold] wrote: I see the electronic sign hasnt been fixed yet on the approach from the station (wonder if this is intentional for more revenue?)[/p][/quote]it is working. jake777
  • Score: -264

4:27pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Barstool Knowall says...

Holgate Rambler wrote:
"average February journey times increased on six of York's ten Park & Ride routes" - since when has York had ten Park & Ride routes? Only five last time I looked. Presume this refers to FY bus routes 1 - 10 but accuracy would be good.
I think the Council in their efforts to juggle statistics count the inbound and outbound journeys of the Park and Ride services as separate journeys, hence ten.
The Council grip desperately to the mantra that by closing Lendal Bridge they have found the solution to Yorks traffic problems and at a stroke have made York a much nicer place to be.
Yes perhaps it looks like it if you are a tourist walking from the Station to the City Centre, but the traffic had to go somewhere, The Council have simply made travelling around York more difficult, time wasting and pollution creating, on the only other practical routes around and through the City ie; Clifton Bridge and Foss Islands.
I'm sure many motorists have noticed a slight improvement to traffic over the past couple of months, nothing to do with the scheme, just simply from a tourist and shopping point of view it's York's quietest two months of the year (Jan/Feb), always have been and always will be.
[quote][p][bold]Holgate Rambler[/bold] wrote: "average February journey times increased on six of York's ten Park & Ride routes" - since when has York had ten Park & Ride routes? Only five last time I looked. Presume this refers to FY bus routes 1 - 10 but accuracy would be good.[/p][/quote]I think the Council in their efforts to juggle statistics count the inbound and outbound journeys of the Park and Ride services as separate journeys, hence ten. The Council grip desperately to the mantra that by closing Lendal Bridge they have found the solution to Yorks traffic problems and at a stroke have made York a much nicer place to be. Yes perhaps it looks like it if you are a tourist walking from the Station to the City Centre, but the traffic had to go somewhere, The Council have simply made travelling around York more difficult, time wasting and pollution creating, on the only other practical routes around and through the City ie; Clifton Bridge and Foss Islands. I'm sure many motorists have noticed a slight improvement to traffic over the past couple of months, nothing to do with the scheme, just simply from a tourist and shopping point of view it's York's quietest two months of the year (Jan/Feb), always have been and always will be. Barstool Knowall
  • Score: -113

4:30pm Fri 21 Mar 14

jake777 says...

YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
Lunatic wrote:
Just to clarify, that works out at twelve drivers every hour passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge.

That's one driver passing through a pedestrian-heavy area of our city, driving without due care and attention, every five minutes.
Just to clarify, that works out at nearer forty five drivers every hour during the restricted period passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge.

If it were due to driving without due care I feel sure the Police would be obliged to address the issue and prosecute the offenders. The penalties for which are far more severe than a £60/£30 fine (up to £2,500 Fine and/or 3 to 6 points).

If you have been accused of this offence (Section 3 Road Traffic Act 1988, Driving Without Due Care and Attention or Without Reasonable Consideration for Other Road Users), it means that the Police are suggesting that on a specific occasion that the standard of your driving fell below that of a reasonable and prudent driver in all the circumstances. You will defend this allegation if you cast a reasonable doubt on that suggestion or if you can show that in the specific circumstances of your case, any reasonable and prudent driver would have reacted/driven in the same way.

Regardless of whether you support or object to the Lendal restriction, people who are fined for crossing are not driving without due care, to suggest they are is nonsense.
You are wrong.
[quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: Just to clarify, that works out at twelve drivers every hour passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge. That's one driver passing through a pedestrian-heavy area of our city, driving without due care and attention, every five minutes.[/p][/quote]Just to clarify, that works out at nearer forty five drivers every hour during the restricted period passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge. If it were due to driving without due care I feel sure the Police would be obliged to address the issue and prosecute the offenders. The penalties for which are far more severe than a £60/£30 fine (up to £2,500 Fine and/or 3 to 6 points). If you have been accused of this offence (Section 3 Road Traffic Act 1988, Driving Without Due Care and Attention or Without Reasonable Consideration for Other Road Users), it means that the Police are suggesting that on a specific occasion that the standard of your driving fell below that of a reasonable and prudent driver in all the circumstances. You will defend this allegation if you cast a reasonable doubt on that suggestion or if you can show that in the specific circumstances of your case, any reasonable and prudent driver would have reacted/driven in the same way. Regardless of whether you support or object to the Lendal restriction, people who are fined for crossing are not driving without due care, to suggest they are is nonsense.[/p][/quote]You are wrong. jake777
  • Score: -70

4:36pm Fri 21 Mar 14

jake777 says...

Archiebold the 1st wrote:
"The council believes closing the bridge will improve bus journey times, reduce pollution and encourage more people to walk, cycle and use public transport, but the trial has been heavily criticised over claims it has damaged York's reputation because of the majority of fines being issued to visitors, harmed businesses and caused congestion elsewhere.”

No they don't? They kept it a secret that pollution wouldn't be reduced and offered no capacity increase for public transport so why would it increase? The bus travelling times have increased. As for walking over the bridge i liked it better with cars.. walking past 3 busses stuck in lights is just horrible.. they stink and you can feel them polluting your lungs. At least cars are quiet and their fumes arent pumped out to the pedestiran side of the road.

Hopefully they will all get promoted out of harms away and can solve the traffic issues on the isle of sky or similar.
Yawn Yawn Yawn get a life.
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: "The council believes closing the bridge will improve bus journey times, reduce pollution and encourage more people to walk, cycle and use public transport, but the trial has been heavily criticised over claims it has damaged York's reputation because of the majority of fines being issued to visitors, harmed businesses and caused congestion elsewhere.” No they don't? They kept it a secret that pollution wouldn't be reduced and offered no capacity increase for public transport so why would it increase? The bus travelling times have increased. As for walking over the bridge i liked it better with cars.. walking past 3 busses stuck in lights is just horrible.. they stink and you can feel them polluting your lungs. At least cars are quiet and their fumes arent pumped out to the pedestiran side of the road. Hopefully they will all get promoted out of harms away and can solve the traffic issues on the isle of sky or similar.[/p][/quote]Yawn Yawn Yawn get a life. jake777
  • Score: -27

4:45pm Fri 21 Mar 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

jake777 wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
Lunatic wrote:
Just to clarify, that works out at twelve drivers every hour passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge.

That's one driver passing through a pedestrian-heavy area of our city, driving without due care and attention, every five minutes.
Just to clarify, that works out at nearer forty five drivers every hour during the restricted period passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge.

If it were due to driving without due care I feel sure the Police would be obliged to address the issue and prosecute the offenders. The penalties for which are far more severe than a £60/£30 fine (up to £2,500 Fine and/or 3 to 6 points).

If you have been accused of this offence (Section 3 Road Traffic Act 1988, Driving Without Due Care and Attention or Without Reasonable Consideration for Other Road Users), it means that the Police are suggesting that on a specific occasion that the standard of your driving fell below that of a reasonable and prudent driver in all the circumstances. You will defend this allegation if you cast a reasonable doubt on that suggestion or if you can show that in the specific circumstances of your case, any reasonable and prudent driver would have reacted/driven in the same way.

Regardless of whether you support or object to the Lendal restriction, people who are fined for crossing are not driving without due care, to suggest they are is nonsense.
You are wrong.
Yes, your probably right, after all we should beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance, so in your opinion I'm more dangerous than you.
[quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: Just to clarify, that works out at twelve drivers every hour passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge. That's one driver passing through a pedestrian-heavy area of our city, driving without due care and attention, every five minutes.[/p][/quote]Just to clarify, that works out at nearer forty five drivers every hour during the restricted period passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge. If it were due to driving without due care I feel sure the Police would be obliged to address the issue and prosecute the offenders. The penalties for which are far more severe than a £60/£30 fine (up to £2,500 Fine and/or 3 to 6 points). If you have been accused of this offence (Section 3 Road Traffic Act 1988, Driving Without Due Care and Attention or Without Reasonable Consideration for Other Road Users), it means that the Police are suggesting that on a specific occasion that the standard of your driving fell below that of a reasonable and prudent driver in all the circumstances. You will defend this allegation if you cast a reasonable doubt on that suggestion or if you can show that in the specific circumstances of your case, any reasonable and prudent driver would have reacted/driven in the same way. Regardless of whether you support or object to the Lendal restriction, people who are fined for crossing are not driving without due care, to suggest they are is nonsense.[/p][/quote]You are wrong.[/p][/quote]Yes, your probably right, after all we should beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance, so in your opinion I'm more dangerous than you. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: -56

4:51pm Fri 21 Mar 14

jake777 says...

Caecilius wrote:
Lunatic wrote:
Just to clarify, that works out at twelve drivers every hour passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge.

That's one driver passing through a pedestrian-heavy area of our city, driving without due care and attention, every five minutes.
Exactly. I wonder whether, by any chance, one of them was the bloke I witnessed yesterday attempting to drive his car into the grounds of the hospital past a prominent 'No entry' sign and an even more prominent black-on-yellow notice boldly proclaiming "EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY". And, when he found he couldn't get in, he reversed back out onto Wigginton Road straight in front of an elderly lady riding past in the cycle lane, who had to swerve out into the traffic to avoid being knocked off her bike.
Incidentally, I passed along Bootham at 8 a.m. today: the traffic was backed up from the Gillygate junction all the way to Clifton Green - at a time when Lendal Bridge is open. It really is so simple - it's the volume of traffic, particularly cars, that causes congestion. Disadvantaging everyone else to appease vocal motorists is futile, and the council should stick to its guns.
hear hear.
[quote][p][bold]Caecilius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: Just to clarify, that works out at twelve drivers every hour passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge. That's one driver passing through a pedestrian-heavy area of our city, driving without due care and attention, every five minutes.[/p][/quote]Exactly. I wonder whether, by any chance, one of them was the bloke I witnessed yesterday attempting to drive his car into the grounds of the hospital past a prominent 'No entry' sign and an even more prominent black-on-yellow notice boldly proclaiming "EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY". And, when he found he couldn't get in, he reversed back out onto Wigginton Road straight in front of an elderly lady riding past in the cycle lane, who had to swerve out into the traffic to avoid being knocked off her bike. Incidentally, I passed along Bootham at 8 a.m. today: the traffic was backed up from the Gillygate junction all the way to Clifton Green - at a time when Lendal Bridge is open. It really is so simple - it's the volume of traffic, particularly cars, that causes congestion. Disadvantaging everyone else to appease vocal motorists is futile, and the council should stick to its guns.[/p][/quote]hear hear. jake777
  • Score: -107

4:52pm Fri 21 Mar 14

meme says...

If they have all this money as a windfall why not use it to finish the James st link road and complete this vital link to help Foss islands road etc......Because they are not listening that's why!!
If they have all this money as a windfall why not use it to finish the James st link road and complete this vital link to help Foss islands road etc......Because they are not listening that's why!! meme
  • Score: 17

4:54pm Fri 21 Mar 14

jake777 says...

Archiebold the 1st wrote:
Caecilius wrote:
Lunatic wrote: Just to clarify, that works out at twelve drivers every hour passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge. That's one driver passing through a pedestrian-heavy area of our city, driving without due care and attention, every five minutes.
Exactly. I wonder whether, by any chance, one of them was the bloke I witnessed yesterday attempting to drive his car into the grounds of the hospital past a prominent 'No entry' sign and an even more prominent black-on-yellow notice boldly proclaiming "EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY". And, when he found he couldn't get in, he reversed back out onto Wigginton Road straight in front of an elderly lady riding past in the cycle lane, who had to swerve out into the traffic to avoid being knocked off her bike. Incidentally, I passed along Bootham at 8 a.m. today: the traffic was backed up from the Gillygate junction all the way to Clifton Green - at a time when Lendal Bridge is open. It really is so simple - it's the volume of traffic, particularly cars, that causes congestion. Disadvantaging everyone else to appease vocal motorists is futile, and the council should stick to its guns.
that’s because they queue up to get over lendal at those times. They're not going to queue go that way if they can’t go over it are they.
Read it again you are wrong.
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Caecilius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: Just to clarify, that works out at twelve drivers every hour passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge. That's one driver passing through a pedestrian-heavy area of our city, driving without due care and attention, every five minutes.[/p][/quote]Exactly. I wonder whether, by any chance, one of them was the bloke I witnessed yesterday attempting to drive his car into the grounds of the hospital past a prominent 'No entry' sign and an even more prominent black-on-yellow notice boldly proclaiming "EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY". And, when he found he couldn't get in, he reversed back out onto Wigginton Road straight in front of an elderly lady riding past in the cycle lane, who had to swerve out into the traffic to avoid being knocked off her bike. Incidentally, I passed along Bootham at 8 a.m. today: the traffic was backed up from the Gillygate junction all the way to Clifton Green - at a time when Lendal Bridge is open. It really is so simple - it's the volume of traffic, particularly cars, that causes congestion. Disadvantaging everyone else to appease vocal motorists is futile, and the council should stick to its guns.[/p][/quote]that’s because they queue up to get over lendal at those times. They're not going to queue go that way if they can’t go over it are they.[/p][/quote]Read it again you are wrong. jake777
  • Score: -57

4:59pm Fri 21 Mar 14

jake777 says...

YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
jake777 wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
Lunatic wrote:
Just to clarify, that works out at twelve drivers every hour passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge.

That's one driver passing through a pedestrian-heavy area of our city, driving without due care and attention, every five minutes.
Just to clarify, that works out at nearer forty five drivers every hour during the restricted period passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge.

If it were due to driving without due care I feel sure the Police would be obliged to address the issue and prosecute the offenders. The penalties for which are far more severe than a £60/£30 fine (up to £2,500 Fine and/or 3 to 6 points).

If you have been accused of this offence (Section 3 Road Traffic Act 1988, Driving Without Due Care and Attention or Without Reasonable Consideration for Other Road Users), it means that the Police are suggesting that on a specific occasion that the standard of your driving fell below that of a reasonable and prudent driver in all the circumstances. You will defend this allegation if you cast a reasonable doubt on that suggestion or if you can show that in the specific circumstances of your case, any reasonable and prudent driver would have reacted/driven in the same way.

Regardless of whether you support or object to the Lendal restriction, people who are fined for crossing are not driving without due care, to suggest they are is nonsense.
You are wrong.
Yes, your probably right, after all we should beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance, so in your opinion I'm more dangerous than you.
Yes.
[quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: Just to clarify, that works out at twelve drivers every hour passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge. That's one driver passing through a pedestrian-heavy area of our city, driving without due care and attention, every five minutes.[/p][/quote]Just to clarify, that works out at nearer forty five drivers every hour during the restricted period passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge. If it were due to driving without due care I feel sure the Police would be obliged to address the issue and prosecute the offenders. The penalties for which are far more severe than a £60/£30 fine (up to £2,500 Fine and/or 3 to 6 points). If you have been accused of this offence (Section 3 Road Traffic Act 1988, Driving Without Due Care and Attention or Without Reasonable Consideration for Other Road Users), it means that the Police are suggesting that on a specific occasion that the standard of your driving fell below that of a reasonable and prudent driver in all the circumstances. You will defend this allegation if you cast a reasonable doubt on that suggestion or if you can show that in the specific circumstances of your case, any reasonable and prudent driver would have reacted/driven in the same way. Regardless of whether you support or object to the Lendal restriction, people who are fined for crossing are not driving without due care, to suggest they are is nonsense.[/p][/quote]You are wrong.[/p][/quote]Yes, your probably right, after all we should beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance, so in your opinion I'm more dangerous than you.[/p][/quote]Yes. jake777
  • Score: 55

5:00pm Fri 21 Mar 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

jake777 wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
jake777 wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
Lunatic wrote:
Just to clarify, that works out at twelve drivers every hour passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge.

That's one driver passing through a pedestrian-heavy area of our city, driving without due care and attention, every five minutes.
Just to clarify, that works out at nearer forty five drivers every hour during the restricted period passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge.

If it were due to driving without due care I feel sure the Police would be obliged to address the issue and prosecute the offenders. The penalties for which are far more severe than a £60/£30 fine (up to £2,500 Fine and/or 3 to 6 points).

If you have been accused of this offence (Section 3 Road Traffic Act 1988, Driving Without Due Care and Attention or Without Reasonable Consideration for Other Road Users), it means that the Police are suggesting that on a specific occasion that the standard of your driving fell below that of a reasonable and prudent driver in all the circumstances. You will defend this allegation if you cast a reasonable doubt on that suggestion or if you can show that in the specific circumstances of your case, any reasonable and prudent driver would have reacted/driven in the same way.

Regardless of whether you support or object to the Lendal restriction, people who are fined for crossing are not driving without due care, to suggest they are is nonsense.
You are wrong.
Yes, your probably right, after all we should beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance, so in your opinion I'm more dangerous than you.
Yes.
I think you need to go back and read my reply again, you have clearly missed the point I made.
[quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: Just to clarify, that works out at twelve drivers every hour passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge. That's one driver passing through a pedestrian-heavy area of our city, driving without due care and attention, every five minutes.[/p][/quote]Just to clarify, that works out at nearer forty five drivers every hour during the restricted period passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge. If it were due to driving without due care I feel sure the Police would be obliged to address the issue and prosecute the offenders. The penalties for which are far more severe than a £60/£30 fine (up to £2,500 Fine and/or 3 to 6 points). If you have been accused of this offence (Section 3 Road Traffic Act 1988, Driving Without Due Care and Attention or Without Reasonable Consideration for Other Road Users), it means that the Police are suggesting that on a specific occasion that the standard of your driving fell below that of a reasonable and prudent driver in all the circumstances. You will defend this allegation if you cast a reasonable doubt on that suggestion or if you can show that in the specific circumstances of your case, any reasonable and prudent driver would have reacted/driven in the same way. Regardless of whether you support or object to the Lendal restriction, people who are fined for crossing are not driving without due care, to suggest they are is nonsense.[/p][/quote]You are wrong.[/p][/quote]Yes, your probably right, after all we should beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance, so in your opinion I'm more dangerous than you.[/p][/quote]Yes.[/p][/quote]I think you need to go back and read my reply again, you have clearly missed the point I made. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: -58

5:03pm Fri 21 Mar 14

mmarshal says...

Despite these figures, CYC spokeman (DE) continues to assert that the closure is well signposted.
Whilst I'm sure there is an element of drivers who see the signs and choose to ignore them, I would suggest that for an overwhelming majority total confusion is more likely, i.e. the sign before Clifton Green still shows straight on for the City Centre and National Railway Museum. Thereafter signs indicate that Lendal Bridge is subject to restricted access. Visitors (and indeed several CYC council workers) don't know where Lendal Bridge is.
If the HM Forces can manage to get whole convoys from A to B using little black arrows, it beggars belief that CYC can't get clear signposting that doesn't funnel visiting traffic into Museum Street.
Despite these figures, CYC spokeman (DE) continues to assert that the closure is well signposted. Whilst I'm sure there is an element of drivers who see the signs and choose to ignore them, I would suggest that for an overwhelming majority total confusion is more likely, i.e. the sign before Clifton Green still shows straight on for the City Centre and National Railway Museum. Thereafter signs indicate that Lendal Bridge is subject to restricted access. Visitors (and indeed several CYC council workers) don't know where Lendal Bridge is. If the HM Forces can manage to get whole convoys from A to B using little black arrows, it beggars belief that CYC can't get clear signposting that doesn't funnel visiting traffic into Museum Street. mmarshal
  • Score: -53

5:08pm Fri 21 Mar 14

ouseswimmer says...

In order to make changes to roads such as say installing a zebra crossing a lot of legal work has to be carried out basically to say that what once was a road now has a point whereby motorists can be fined etc for not letting pedestrians cross in a safe manner. Similar legalities have been needed for this trial. The question though is were the legalities instituted for the trial period or far beyond it? If just for the trial then all fines since the trial ended are null and void.
In order to make changes to roads such as say installing a zebra crossing a lot of legal work has to be carried out basically to say that what once was a road now has a point whereby motorists can be fined etc for not letting pedestrians cross in a safe manner. Similar legalities have been needed for this trial. The question though is were the legalities instituted for the trial period or far beyond it? If just for the trial then all fines since the trial ended are null and void. ouseswimmer
  • Score: -56

5:12pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Igiveinthen says...

Lunatic wrote:
Just to clarify, that works out at twelve drivers every hour passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge.

That's one driver passing through a pedestrian-heavy area of our city, driving without due care and attention, every five minutes.
By gum there's no flys on you, did you come top of the class in sums then?, I see your still banging on about 'driving without due care and attention', you'll have to get a police traffic patrol officer to explain the correct meaning of the wording to you.
[quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: Just to clarify, that works out at twelve drivers every hour passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge. That's one driver passing through a pedestrian-heavy area of our city, driving without due care and attention, every five minutes.[/p][/quote]By gum there's no flys on you, did you come top of the class in sums then?, I see your still banging on about 'driving without due care and attention', you'll have to get a police traffic patrol officer to explain the correct meaning of the wording to you. Igiveinthen
  • Score: -52

5:21pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Ichabod76 says...

YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
jake777 wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
jake777 wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
Lunatic wrote:
Just to clarify, that works out at twelve drivers every hour passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge.

That's one driver passing through a pedestrian-heavy area of our city, driving without due care and attention, every five minutes.
Just to clarify, that works out at nearer forty five drivers every hour during the restricted period passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge.

If it were due to driving without due care I feel sure the Police would be obliged to address the issue and prosecute the offenders. The penalties for which are far more severe than a £60/£30 fine (up to £2,500 Fine and/or 3 to 6 points).

If you have been accused of this offence (Section 3 Road Traffic Act 1988, Driving Without Due Care and Attention or Without Reasonable Consideration for Other Road Users), it means that the Police are suggesting that on a specific occasion that the standard of your driving fell below that of a reasonable and prudent driver in all the circumstances. You will defend this allegation if you cast a reasonable doubt on that suggestion or if you can show that in the specific circumstances of your case, any reasonable and prudent driver would have reacted/driven in the same way.

Regardless of whether you support or object to the Lendal restriction, people who are fined for crossing are not driving without due care, to suggest they are is nonsense.
You are wrong.
Yes, your probably right, after all we should beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance, so in your opinion I'm more dangerous than you.
Yes.
I think you need to go back and read my reply again, you have clearly missed the point I made.
Jake's not a bright man I'm afraid !
[quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: Just to clarify, that works out at twelve drivers every hour passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge. That's one driver passing through a pedestrian-heavy area of our city, driving without due care and attention, every five minutes.[/p][/quote]Just to clarify, that works out at nearer forty five drivers every hour during the restricted period passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge. If it were due to driving without due care I feel sure the Police would be obliged to address the issue and prosecute the offenders. The penalties for which are far more severe than a £60/£30 fine (up to £2,500 Fine and/or 3 to 6 points). If you have been accused of this offence (Section 3 Road Traffic Act 1988, Driving Without Due Care and Attention or Without Reasonable Consideration for Other Road Users), it means that the Police are suggesting that on a specific occasion that the standard of your driving fell below that of a reasonable and prudent driver in all the circumstances. You will defend this allegation if you cast a reasonable doubt on that suggestion or if you can show that in the specific circumstances of your case, any reasonable and prudent driver would have reacted/driven in the same way. Regardless of whether you support or object to the Lendal restriction, people who are fined for crossing are not driving without due care, to suggest they are is nonsense.[/p][/quote]You are wrong.[/p][/quote]Yes, your probably right, after all we should beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance, so in your opinion I'm more dangerous than you.[/p][/quote]Yes.[/p][/quote]I think you need to go back and read my reply again, you have clearly missed the point I made.[/p][/quote]Jake's not a bright man I'm afraid ! Ichabod76
  • Score: -2

5:52pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Ichabod76 says...

Lunatic wrote:
Just to clarify, that works out at twelve drivers every hour passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge.

That's one driver passing through a pedestrian-heavy area of our city, driving without due care and attention, every five minutes.
erm, I dont know where you went to school but its closer to 44 an hour !!!

289 divided by 6.5 hours = 44.46
or 7 every 10 mins

approximately 55 drivers have made successful appeals every day or 8 an hour, when they have challenged the signs ( because the council dare not set a precedent )

so about 19% are winning appeals based on signage every day
sounds like a lot too me
[quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: Just to clarify, that works out at twelve drivers every hour passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge. That's one driver passing through a pedestrian-heavy area of our city, driving without due care and attention, every five minutes.[/p][/quote]erm, I dont know where you went to school but its closer to 44 an hour !!! 289 divided by 6.5 hours = 44.46 or 7 every 10 mins approximately 55 drivers have made successful appeals every day or 8 an hour, when they have challenged the signs ( because the council dare not set a precedent ) so about 19% are winning appeals based on signage every day sounds like a lot too me Ichabod76
  • Score: -55

6:10pm Fri 21 Mar 14

strangebuttrue? says...

Stevie D wrote:
strangebuttrue? wrote:
"The officers have said the trial will have to be permanent and bus times altered before services can "take full advantage of the time savings". What!! How can that be a like for like comparison?? They were either running on time or not before the bridge closure now it appears on some routes they are even further behind their schedule if they are taking longer as they say. If you change the timetable from to get better results is that not misleading? Par for the course I suppose?
Bus companies set their timetables to be realistic, bearing in mind normal traffic levels. In the past, that meant that they allowed about 3 hours to get from Gillygate to the station because that's how long it took (OK, slight exaggeration). Now that the bridge is closed to other traffic and they can whizz across it in 30 seconds flat, it just means that when they get to the other side of the bridge they then have to wait at the next stop for ages and ages, because they aren't allowed to leave a stop early.

So while the buses are still running to a pre-closure timetable, they aren't going to be able to run a whole lot quicker than they used to – they can get to some stops quicker but then have to wait for time meaning that overall the journey is not necessarily going to be any faster. They can only realise significant time savings if they change the timetables to knock out that dead time waiting at Station Avenue or Theatre Royal that they no longer need because they aren't stuck in traffic.
That may be so but this is what the council are saying they are measuring for the purpose of the trial and I recall reliability was the main plank of their argument at first: -
1. "Change in bus reliability"
2. "Change in journey time"

So if the buses were not reliable, as the council have claimed and many say they are not, then the closure should show if that has improved. If you now change the timetable to suit the current traffic then that is a fiddle or cooking the books. The journey time may improve by a couple of minutes for those buses which go over Lendal Bridge but it does not help anything if they get stuck in the congestion created elsewhere on their routes caused by the closure. You also cannot dismiss the fact that the council say that most bus routes now have longer journey times.

And anyway what is a couple of minutes? The council play this down when they talk about the extended journey times for all other motor vehicles caused by this bridge closure so how come it is so important for an almost empty bus?

Also why have they changed their focus to journey time?
What are the reliability numbers?
[quote][p][bold]Stevie D[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]strangebuttrue?[/bold] wrote: "The officers have said the trial will have to be permanent and bus times altered before services can "take full advantage of the time savings". What!! How can that be a like for like comparison?? They were either running on time or not before the bridge closure now it appears on some routes they are even further behind their schedule if they are taking longer as they say. If you change the timetable from to get better results is that not misleading? Par for the course I suppose?[/p][/quote]Bus companies set their timetables to be realistic, bearing in mind normal traffic levels. In the past, that meant that they allowed about 3 hours to get from Gillygate to the station because that's how long it took (OK, slight exaggeration). Now that the bridge is closed to other traffic and they can whizz across it in 30 seconds flat, it just means that when they get to the other side of the bridge they then have to wait at the next stop for ages and ages, because they aren't allowed to leave a stop early. So while the buses are still running to a pre-closure timetable, they aren't going to be able to run a whole lot quicker than they used to – they can get to some stops quicker but then have to wait for time meaning that overall the journey is not necessarily going to be any faster. They can only realise significant time savings if they change the timetables to knock out that dead time waiting at Station Avenue or Theatre Royal that they no longer need because they aren't stuck in traffic.[/p][/quote]That may be so but this is what the council are saying they are measuring for the purpose of the trial and I recall reliability was the main plank of their argument at first: - 1. "Change in bus reliability" 2. "Change in journey time" So if the buses were not reliable, as the council have claimed and many say they are not, then the closure should show if that has improved. If you now change the timetable to suit the current traffic then that is a fiddle or cooking the books. The journey time may improve by a couple of minutes for those buses which go over Lendal Bridge but it does not help anything if they get stuck in the congestion created elsewhere on their routes caused by the closure. You also cannot dismiss the fact that the council say that most bus routes now have longer journey times. And anyway what is a couple of minutes? The council play this down when they talk about the extended journey times for all other motor vehicles caused by this bridge closure so how come it is so important for an almost empty bus? Also why have they changed their focus to journey time? What are the reliability numbers? strangebuttrue?
  • Score: -51

6:25pm Fri 21 Mar 14

HoofHearteds says...

More of the same old. In contrast to the bridge closure; I think it's time for some open and imaginative ways to spend ones lives. This can't be conducive to good mental health and happiness.
More of the same old. In contrast to the bridge closure; I think it's time for some open and imaginative ways to spend ones lives. This can't be conducive to good mental health and happiness. HoofHearteds
  • Score: 8

7:41pm Fri 21 Mar 14

WhyEver says...

The council keep saying it's not about raising money and are desparately trying to hide how much they are making. £3,200,000 in fines issued. Discounts and appeals means £1,300,000 income for the council. Costs of running the trial were said to be £170,000 last year - so there should be £1,130,000 surplus.

Now apparently £750,000 is the most that will be available. So who spent the other £380,000 - and what on?
The council keep saying it's not about raising money and are desparately trying to hide how much they are making. £3,200,000 in fines issued. Discounts and appeals means £1,300,000 income for the council. Costs of running the trial were said to be £170,000 last year - so there should be £1,130,000 surplus. Now apparently £750,000 is the most that will be available. So who spent the other £380,000 - and what on? WhyEver
  • Score: -46

7:51pm Fri 21 Mar 14

pedalling paul says...

meme wrote:
If they have all this money as a windfall why not use it to finish the James st link road and complete this vital link to help Foss islands road etc......Because they are not listening that's why!!
No, its because new roads will ultimately encourage more use of cars....you end up with bigger jams on bigger roads.

Not just the Press that winds you up......nah nah... na na nah.....!
[quote][p][bold]meme[/bold] wrote: If they have all this money as a windfall why not use it to finish the James st link road and complete this vital link to help Foss islands road etc......Because they are not listening that's why!![/p][/quote]No, its because new roads will ultimately encourage more use of cars....you end up with bigger jams on bigger roads. Not just the Press that winds you up......nah nah... na na nah.....! pedalling paul
  • Score: 68

8:07pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Igiveinthen says...

pedalling paul wrote:
meme wrote:
If they have all this money as a windfall why not use it to finish the James st link road and complete this vital link to help Foss islands road etc......Because they are not listening that's why!!
No, its because new roads will ultimately encourage more use of cars....you end up with bigger jams on bigger roads.

Not just the Press that winds you up......nah nah... na na nah.....!
No you end up with bigger jams on the existing roads, because of your short sighted theories, also your refusal to accept that people will keep buying cars.
It's down to people like you and your stupidity in not accepting that by widening the roads you increase the flow rate, wider and better roads on the outskirts of the city would take a lot of traffic away from city roads.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]meme[/bold] wrote: If they have all this money as a windfall why not use it to finish the James st link road and complete this vital link to help Foss islands road etc......Because they are not listening that's why!![/p][/quote]No, its because new roads will ultimately encourage more use of cars....you end up with bigger jams on bigger roads. Not just the Press that winds you up......nah nah... na na nah.....![/p][/quote]No you end up with bigger jams on the existing roads, because of your short sighted theories, also your refusal to accept that people will keep buying cars. It's down to people like you and your stupidity in not accepting that by widening the roads you increase the flow rate, wider and better roads on the outskirts of the city would take a lot of traffic away from city roads. Igiveinthen
  • Score: -44

8:52pm Fri 21 Mar 14

nowthen says...

Coun Alexander suggested Coun Merrett should not do a TV interview about the scheme and another cabinet member should step in, saying: “I would try and share it out – we can’t have the scheme look attached to myself or Dave personally”. They not only know that it's been a farce they're petrified it's going to destroy their careers. They couldn't give a flying proverbial about York's residents, it's all about the socialist mantra ; prohibit and control , prohibit and control.
Coun Alexander suggested Coun Merrett should not do a TV interview about the scheme and another cabinet member should step in, saying: “I would try and share it out – we can’t have the scheme look attached to myself or Dave personally”. They not only know that it's been a farce they're petrified it's going to destroy their careers. They couldn't give a flying proverbial about York's residents, it's all about the socialist mantra ; prohibit and control , prohibit and control. nowthen
  • Score: -69

10:06pm Fri 21 Mar 14

nowthen says...

Coun Alexander suggested Coun Merrett should not do a TV interview about the scheme and another cabinet member should step in, saying: “I would try and share it out – we can’t have the scheme look attached to myself or Dave personally”.
Coun Alexander suggested Coun Merrett should not do a TV interview about the scheme and another cabinet member should step in, saying: “I would try and share it out – we can’t have the scheme look attached to myself or Dave personally”. nowthen
  • Score: -39

10:27pm Fri 21 Mar 14

piaggio1 says...

Nice to know some of this illegally obtained money/cash is payin for the guy who lives out at barmby ont marsh to travel in to york.as in 40+miles a day.250 a week. How on earth do.s this corrupt council justify this
Nice to know some of this illegally obtained money/cash is payin for the guy who lives out at barmby ont marsh to travel in to york.as in 40+miles a day.250 a week. How on earth do.s this corrupt council justify this piaggio1
  • Score: -48

10:43pm Fri 21 Mar 14

jay, york says...

Igiveinthen wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
meme wrote: If they have all this money as a windfall why not use it to finish the James st link road and complete this vital link to help Foss islands road etc......Because they are not listening that's why!!
No, its because new roads will ultimately encourage more use of cars....you end up with bigger jams on bigger roads. Not just the Press that winds you up......nah nah... na na nah.....!
No you end up with bigger jams on the existing roads, because of your short sighted theories, also your refusal to accept that people will keep buying cars. It's down to people like you and your stupidity in not accepting that by widening the roads you increase the flow rate, wider and better roads on the outskirts of the city would take a lot of traffic away from city roads.
Yes but we do not have them. If only CYC had thought this through properly, these would have been in place BEFORE the closure of part of Yoriks Inner Ring Road. It doesnt matter if its called Lendal Bridge or not - if you close part of an inner ring road it is going to cause no end of problems and push congstion elsewher.
[quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]meme[/bold] wrote: If they have all this money as a windfall why not use it to finish the James st link road and complete this vital link to help Foss islands road etc......Because they are not listening that's why!![/p][/quote]No, its because new roads will ultimately encourage more use of cars....you end up with bigger jams on bigger roads. Not just the Press that winds you up......nah nah... na na nah.....![/p][/quote]No you end up with bigger jams on the existing roads, because of your short sighted theories, also your refusal to accept that people will keep buying cars. It's down to people like you and your stupidity in not accepting that by widening the roads you increase the flow rate, wider and better roads on the outskirts of the city would take a lot of traffic away from city roads.[/p][/quote]Yes but we do not have them. If only CYC had thought this through properly, these would have been in place BEFORE the closure of part of Yoriks Inner Ring Road. It doesnt matter if its called Lendal Bridge or not - if you close part of an inner ring road it is going to cause no end of problems and push congstion elsewher. jay, york
  • Score: -31

11:14pm Fri 21 Mar 14

jay, york says...

HoofHearteds wrote:
More of the same old. In contrast to the bridge closure; I think it's time for some open and imaginative ways to spend ones lives. This can't be conducive to good mental health and happiness.
But you have had to have your say again - are you one of the council members?
[quote][p][bold]HoofHearteds[/bold] wrote: More of the same old. In contrast to the bridge closure; I think it's time for some open and imaginative ways to spend ones lives. This can't be conducive to good mental health and happiness.[/p][/quote]But you have had to have your say again - are you one of the council members? jay, york
  • Score: -34

12:07am Sat 22 Mar 14

far2bizzy says...

MouseHouse wrote:
I was all in favour of the trial. You don't truly know what will happen until you try it for real. However something isn't working if that many people are using the bridge when they shouldn't. Options: A) scrap the closure, B) 24 x 7 closure for those vehicles already barred, C) bang the fine up by a factor of 10.

It's between a and b for me. I'll opt, narrowly, for A.
No no no! Don’t abandon your principles simply because a policy is difficult to implement. Is the closure of the bridge right for the future of the City? Yes. Has the roll-out of the trail been trouble free? No. But that doesn’t mean it is the right thing to do. I’ve no doubt that if the closure is made permanent then more robust measures can be put in place to ensure that there are not so many transgressors. Stick with it!
[quote][p][bold]MouseHouse[/bold] wrote: I was all in favour of the trial. You don't truly know what will happen until you try it for real. However something isn't working if that many people are using the bridge when they shouldn't. Options: A) scrap the closure, B) 24 x 7 closure for those vehicles already barred, C) bang the fine up by a factor of 10. It's between a and b for me. I'll opt, narrowly, for A.[/p][/quote]No no no! Don’t abandon your principles simply because a policy is difficult to implement. Is the closure of the bridge right for the future of the City? Yes. Has the roll-out of the trail been trouble free? No. But that doesn’t mean it is the right thing to do. I’ve no doubt that if the closure is made permanent then more robust measures can be put in place to ensure that there are not so many transgressors. Stick with it! far2bizzy
  • Score: 8

12:48am Sat 22 Mar 14

strangebuttrue? says...

far2bizzy says...
"No no no! Don’t abandon your principles"

Where did principles come into this?
far2bizzy says... "No no no! Don’t abandon your principles" Where did principles come into this? strangebuttrue?
  • Score: -20

6:50am Sat 22 Mar 14

HoofHearteds says...

jay, york wrote:
HoofHearteds wrote:
More of the same old. In contrast to the bridge closure; I think it's time for some open and imaginative ways to spend ones lives. This can't be conducive to good mental health and happiness.
But you have had to have your say again - are you one of the council members?
Are not public forums on the internet there to have ones say?

In answer to your question, am I one of the council members. There's a lot of things typed and assumed on this forum, the vast majority of it being opinion and bluster. If you hold a view that doesn't tune into the negative waves coming from a few, then they attack and assassinate the opinion maker. Because of the insane banality and off the wall attacks from those who dislike a positive and opposite opinion to theirs, I won't answer the question so as to keep the swirling vortex of banality wondering longer. Take Air!
[quote][p][bold]jay, york[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HoofHearteds[/bold] wrote: More of the same old. In contrast to the bridge closure; I think it's time for some open and imaginative ways to spend ones lives. This can't be conducive to good mental health and happiness.[/p][/quote]But you have had to have your say again - are you one of the council members?[/p][/quote]Are not public forums on the internet there to have ones say? In answer to your question, am I one of the council members. There's a lot of things typed and assumed on this forum, the vast majority of it being opinion and bluster. If you hold a view that doesn't tune into the negative waves coming from a few, then they attack and assassinate the opinion maker. Because of the insane banality and off the wall attacks from those who dislike a positive and opposite opinion to theirs, I won't answer the question so as to keep the swirling vortex of banality wondering longer. Take Air! HoofHearteds
  • Score: 161

7:13am Sat 22 Mar 14

Igiveinthen says...

I am a york resident and I still maintain it is confusing for strangers to work out what to do whilst trying to read the signs, decipher the meaning of the arrow on the matrix sign, keep out of the bus lane all in such a short distance.
I personally stopped a visitor, who was driving in front of me from going over the bridge during the restricted times, he was obviously confused and in the end made a manoeuvre to go over the bridge, I blew my horn and flashed my lights, which stopped him, I then pointed to the signs and indicated that he should go down rougier street, which he did, unfortunately the car behind took no notice and went across, so he's now going have a fine sent to him.
What if anything is going to be done to stop all this happening when the council announce the success of this trial and make it permanent, or are they just going to continue collecting fines 'ad infinitum'.
I am a york resident and I still maintain it is confusing for strangers to work out what to do whilst trying to read the signs, decipher the meaning of the arrow on the matrix sign, keep out of the bus lane all in such a short distance. I personally stopped a visitor, who was driving in front of me from going over the bridge during the restricted times, he was obviously confused and in the end made a manoeuvre to go over the bridge, I blew my horn and flashed my lights, which stopped him, I then pointed to the signs and indicated that he should go down rougier street, which he did, unfortunately the car behind took no notice and went across, so he's now going have a fine sent to him. What if anything is going to be done to stop all this happening when the council announce the success of this trial and make it permanent, or are they just going to continue collecting fines 'ad infinitum'. Igiveinthen
  • Score: -138

7:35am Sat 22 Mar 14

jay, york says...

HoofHearteds wrote:
jay, york wrote:
HoofHearteds wrote: More of the same old. In contrast to the bridge closure; I think it's time for some open and imaginative ways to spend ones lives. This can't be conducive to good mental health and happiness.
But you have had to have your say again - are you one of the council members?
Are not public forums on the internet there to have ones say? In answer to your question, am I one of the council members. There's a lot of things typed and assumed on this forum, the vast majority of it being opinion and bluster. If you hold a view that doesn't tune into the negative waves coming from a few, then they attack and assassinate the opinion maker. Because of the insane banality and off the wall attacks from those who dislike a positive and opposite opinion to theirs, I won't answer the question so as to keep the swirling vortex of banality wondering longer. Take Air!
Calm down dear and put you rattle back in your pram!! Sadly, the tone of your response seems to typify the attitude of CYC - do what I say and shut up. You still represent the Council outside business hours and as such as you should be made to stand to account for this sort of unwarranted outburst to such a simple question. A succesful business does not treat their customers with contempt - but CYC seem to think they can and get away with it.

Oh and by the way, the"negative waves" as you call them)come from the MAJORITY - despite what your score "adjusters" are doing.
[quote][p][bold]HoofHearteds[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jay, york[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HoofHearteds[/bold] wrote: More of the same old. In contrast to the bridge closure; I think it's time for some open and imaginative ways to spend ones lives. This can't be conducive to good mental health and happiness.[/p][/quote]But you have had to have your say again - are you one of the council members?[/p][/quote]Are not public forums on the internet there to have ones say? In answer to your question, am I one of the council members. There's a lot of things typed and assumed on this forum, the vast majority of it being opinion and bluster. If you hold a view that doesn't tune into the negative waves coming from a few, then they attack and assassinate the opinion maker. Because of the insane banality and off the wall attacks from those who dislike a positive and opposite opinion to theirs, I won't answer the question so as to keep the swirling vortex of banality wondering longer. Take Air![/p][/quote]Calm down dear and put you rattle back in your pram!! Sadly, the tone of your response seems to typify the attitude of CYC - do what I say and shut up. You still represent the Council outside business hours and as such as you should be made to stand to account for this sort of unwarranted outburst to such a simple question. A succesful business does not treat their customers with contempt - but CYC seem to think they can and get away with it. Oh and by the way, the"negative waves" as you call them)come from the MAJORITY - despite what your score "adjusters" are doing. jay, york
  • Score: -399

7:39am Sat 22 Mar 14

HoofHearteds says...

jay, york wrote:
HoofHearteds wrote:
jay, york wrote:
HoofHearteds wrote: More of the same old. In contrast to the bridge closure; I think it's time for some open and imaginative ways to spend ones lives. This can't be conducive to good mental health and happiness.
But you have had to have your say again - are you one of the council members?
Are not public forums on the internet there to have ones say? In answer to your question, am I one of the council members. There's a lot of things typed and assumed on this forum, the vast majority of it being opinion and bluster. If you hold a view that doesn't tune into the negative waves coming from a few, then they attack and assassinate the opinion maker. Because of the insane banality and off the wall attacks from those who dislike a positive and opposite opinion to theirs, I won't answer the question so as to keep the swirling vortex of banality wondering longer. Take Air!
Calm down dear and put you rattle back in your pram!! Sadly, the tone of your response seems to typify the attitude of CYC - do what I say and shut up. You still represent the Council outside business hours and as such as you should be made to stand to account for this sort of unwarranted outburst to such a simple question. A succesful business does not treat their customers with contempt - but CYC seem to think they can and get away with it.

Oh and by the way, the"negative waves" as you call them)come from the MAJORITY - despite what your score "adjusters" are doing.
What a rant lol Do you feel better now you "think" youve ranted at someone you think works for the council?

haha I'll keep you chewing and frothing at the bit some more
[quote][p][bold]jay, york[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HoofHearteds[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jay, york[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HoofHearteds[/bold] wrote: More of the same old. In contrast to the bridge closure; I think it's time for some open and imaginative ways to spend ones lives. This can't be conducive to good mental health and happiness.[/p][/quote]But you have had to have your say again - are you one of the council members?[/p][/quote]Are not public forums on the internet there to have ones say? In answer to your question, am I one of the council members. There's a lot of things typed and assumed on this forum, the vast majority of it being opinion and bluster. If you hold a view that doesn't tune into the negative waves coming from a few, then they attack and assassinate the opinion maker. Because of the insane banality and off the wall attacks from those who dislike a positive and opposite opinion to theirs, I won't answer the question so as to keep the swirling vortex of banality wondering longer. Take Air![/p][/quote]Calm down dear and put you rattle back in your pram!! Sadly, the tone of your response seems to typify the attitude of CYC - do what I say and shut up. You still represent the Council outside business hours and as such as you should be made to stand to account for this sort of unwarranted outburst to such a simple question. A succesful business does not treat their customers with contempt - but CYC seem to think they can and get away with it. Oh and by the way, the"negative waves" as you call them)come from the MAJORITY - despite what your score "adjusters" are doing.[/p][/quote]What a rant lol Do you feel better now you "think" youve ranted at someone you think works for the council? haha I'll keep you chewing and frothing at the bit some more HoofHearteds
  • Score: 1

8:02am Sat 22 Mar 14

piaggio1 says...

Well.!!!! IF you are employed by this bunch .I hope you ain.t doing this in works time............
Well.!!!! IF you are employed by this bunch .I hope you ain.t doing this in works time............ piaggio1
  • Score: -294

8:51am Sat 22 Mar 14

Scores On The Doors says...

HoofHearteds wrote:
jay, york wrote:
HoofHearteds wrote:
More of the same old. In contrast to the bridge closure; I think it's time for some open and imaginative ways to spend ones lives. This can't be conducive to good mental health and happiness.
But you have had to have your say again - are you one of the council members?
Are not public forums on the internet there to have ones say?

In answer to your question, am I one of the council members. There's a lot of things typed and assumed on this forum, the vast majority of it being opinion and bluster. If you hold a view that doesn't tune into the negative waves coming from a few, then they attack and assassinate the opinion maker. Because of the insane banality and off the wall attacks from those who dislike a positive and opposite opinion to theirs, I won't answer the question so as to keep the swirling vortex of banality wondering longer. Take Air!
Clearly a council knuckle dragger.
[quote][p][bold]HoofHearteds[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jay, york[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HoofHearteds[/bold] wrote: More of the same old. In contrast to the bridge closure; I think it's time for some open and imaginative ways to spend ones lives. This can't be conducive to good mental health and happiness.[/p][/quote]But you have had to have your say again - are you one of the council members?[/p][/quote]Are not public forums on the internet there to have ones say? In answer to your question, am I one of the council members. There's a lot of things typed and assumed on this forum, the vast majority of it being opinion and bluster. If you hold a view that doesn't tune into the negative waves coming from a few, then they attack and assassinate the opinion maker. Because of the insane banality and off the wall attacks from those who dislike a positive and opposite opinion to theirs, I won't answer the question so as to keep the swirling vortex of banality wondering longer. Take Air![/p][/quote]Clearly a council knuckle dragger. Scores On The Doors
  • Score: -350

11:40am Sat 22 Mar 14

johnwill says...

Walking over Lendal Bridge this morning and just seen a couple had a near miss with a briskly driven Taxi, Its neither pedestrianised nor traffic free but sometimes appears to be , a confusing situation for many who don't know the area.
Walking over Lendal Bridge this morning and just seen a couple had a near miss with a briskly driven Taxi, Its neither pedestrianised nor traffic free but sometimes appears to be , a confusing situation for many who don't know the area. johnwill
  • Score: 8

1:07pm Sat 22 Mar 14

eboricana says...

They have only got about 14 months left so why don't we all go to the count at Holgate to see Crisp, Alexander and Levene get kicked out and we can have a street party?
They have only got about 14 months left so why don't we all go to the count at Holgate to see Crisp, Alexander and Levene get kicked out and we can have a street party? eboricana
  • Score: 6

1:17pm Sat 22 Mar 14

Lunatic says...

YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
Lunatic wrote:
Just to clarify, that works out at twelve drivers every hour passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge.

That's one driver passing through a pedestrian-heavy area of our city, driving without due care and attention, every five minutes.
Just to clarify, that works out at nearer forty five drivers every hour during the restricted period passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge.

If it were due to driving without due care I feel sure the Police would be obliged to address the issue and prosecute the offenders. The penalties for which are far more severe than a £60/£30 fine (up to £2,500 Fine and/or 3 to 6 points).

If you have been accused of this offence (Section 3 Road Traffic Act 1988, Driving Without Due Care and Attention or Without Reasonable Consideration for Other Road Users), it means that the Police are suggesting that on a specific occasion that the standard of your driving fell below that of a reasonable and prudent driver in all the circumstances. You will defend this allegation if you cast a reasonable doubt on that suggestion or if you can show that in the specific circumstances of your case, any reasonable and prudent driver would have reacted/driven in the same way.

Regardless of whether you support or object to the Lendal restriction, people who are fined for crossing are not driving without due care, to suggest they are is nonsense.
I'm not saying that people who cross the bridge are driving without due care and attention. I'm saying that people who make it all the way to the bridge without taking note of road markings and road signs are driving without due care and attention. Which is the case.

Failure to see road signs and markings is not a valid excuse for breaking the rules of the road.
[quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: Just to clarify, that works out at twelve drivers every hour passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge. That's one driver passing through a pedestrian-heavy area of our city, driving without due care and attention, every five minutes.[/p][/quote]Just to clarify, that works out at nearer forty five drivers every hour during the restricted period passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge. If it were due to driving without due care I feel sure the Police would be obliged to address the issue and prosecute the offenders. The penalties for which are far more severe than a £60/£30 fine (up to £2,500 Fine and/or 3 to 6 points). If you have been accused of this offence (Section 3 Road Traffic Act 1988, Driving Without Due Care and Attention or Without Reasonable Consideration for Other Road Users), it means that the Police are suggesting that on a specific occasion that the standard of your driving fell below that of a reasonable and prudent driver in all the circumstances. You will defend this allegation if you cast a reasonable doubt on that suggestion or if you can show that in the specific circumstances of your case, any reasonable and prudent driver would have reacted/driven in the same way. Regardless of whether you support or object to the Lendal restriction, people who are fined for crossing are not driving without due care, to suggest they are is nonsense.[/p][/quote]I'm not saying that people who cross the bridge are driving without due care and attention. I'm saying that people who make it all the way to the bridge without taking note of road markings and road signs are driving without due care and attention. Which is the case. Failure to see road signs and markings is not a valid excuse for breaking the rules of the road. Lunatic
  • Score: 38

1:21pm Sat 22 Mar 14

Lunatic says...

Archiebold the 1st wrote:
Lunatic wrote:
Just to clarify, that works out at twelve drivers every hour passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge. That's one driver passing through a pedestrian-heavy area of our city, driving without due care and attention, every five minutes.
and yet there isn’t 12 people knocked down every hour? I’d suggest that driving and looking at every sign on the road is more dangerous then driving with your eyes on the road down a pedestrian area.
The claim isn't that they should see every sign on the road. Straw manning my argument may make it easier to attack, but it also thoroughly invalidates your own point.

You could say that it's safer that way, but it would be nonsensically asinine. If you find yourself driving down a pedestrian zone at all, having ignored all the road signs, then you're demonstrating a degree of incompetency that is clearly a hazard to those around you and you should be rightly fined.
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: Just to clarify, that works out at twelve drivers every hour passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge. That's one driver passing through a pedestrian-heavy area of our city, driving without due care and attention, every five minutes.[/p][/quote]and yet there isn’t 12 people knocked down every hour? I’d suggest that driving and looking at every sign on the road is more dangerous then driving with your eyes on the road down a pedestrian area.[/p][/quote]The claim isn't that they should see every sign on the road. Straw manning my argument may make it easier to attack, but it also thoroughly invalidates your own point. You could say that it's safer that way, but it would be nonsensically asinine. If you find yourself driving down a pedestrian zone at all, having ignored all the road signs, then you're demonstrating a degree of incompetency that is clearly a hazard to those around you and you should be rightly fined. Lunatic
  • Score: 40

1:26pm Sat 22 Mar 14

Lunatic says...

Ichabod76 wrote:
Lunatic wrote:
Just to clarify, that works out at twelve drivers every hour passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge.

That's one driver passing through a pedestrian-heavy area of our city, driving without due care and attention, every five minutes.
erm, I dont know where you went to school but its closer to 44 an hour !!!

289 divided by 6.5 hours = 44.46
or 7 every 10 mins

approximately 55 drivers have made successful appeals every day or 8 an hour, when they have challenged the signs ( because the council dare not set a precedent )

so about 19% are winning appeals based on signage every day
sounds like a lot too me
It's simple, really. I didn't divide by 6.5. If you reverse the maths you may just be able to figure out what I actually did divide by, and then if you put just a little bit more thought into it you may even be able to figure out why I did it.

A couple of things that may help you with the latter part:
1. I'm against the closure.
2. I believe the drivers who cross the bridge whilst it is closed have nobody to blame but themselves and their own incompetency.

Good luck!
[quote][p][bold]Ichabod76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: Just to clarify, that works out at twelve drivers every hour passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge. That's one driver passing through a pedestrian-heavy area of our city, driving without due care and attention, every five minutes.[/p][/quote]erm, I dont know where you went to school but its closer to 44 an hour !!! 289 divided by 6.5 hours = 44.46 or 7 every 10 mins approximately 55 drivers have made successful appeals every day or 8 an hour, when they have challenged the signs ( because the council dare not set a precedent ) so about 19% are winning appeals based on signage every day sounds like a lot too me[/p][/quote]It's simple, really. I didn't divide by 6.5. If you reverse the maths you may just be able to figure out what I actually did divide by, and then if you put just a little bit more thought into it you may even be able to figure out why I did it. A couple of things that may help you with the latter part: 1. I'm against the closure. 2. I believe the drivers who cross the bridge whilst it is closed have nobody to blame but themselves and their own incompetency. Good luck! Lunatic
  • Score: 36

1:29pm Sat 22 Mar 14

Igiveinthen says...

Lunatic wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
Lunatic wrote:
Just to clarify, that works out at twelve drivers every hour passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge.

That's one driver passing through a pedestrian-heavy area of our city, driving without due care and attention, every five minutes.
Just to clarify, that works out at nearer forty five drivers every hour during the restricted period passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge.

If it were due to driving without due care I feel sure the Police would be obliged to address the issue and prosecute the offenders. The penalties for which are far more severe than a £60/£30 fine (up to £2,500 Fine and/or 3 to 6 points).

If you have been accused of this offence (Section 3 Road Traffic Act 1988, Driving Without Due Care and Attention or Without Reasonable Consideration for Other Road Users), it means that the Police are suggesting that on a specific occasion that the standard of your driving fell below that of a reasonable and prudent driver in all the circumstances. You will defend this allegation if you cast a reasonable doubt on that suggestion or if you can show that in the specific circumstances of your case, any reasonable and prudent driver would have reacted/driven in the same way.

Regardless of whether you support or object to the Lendal restriction, people who are fined for crossing are not driving without due care, to suggest they are is nonsense.
I'm not saying that people who cross the bridge are driving without due care and attention. I'm saying that people who make it all the way to the bridge without taking note of road markings and road signs are driving without due care and attention. Which is the case.

Failure to see road signs and markings is not a valid excuse for breaking the rules of the road.
Can some body clarify this claim that 'Lunatic' keeps banging on about, my understanding is that the bridge restrictions are not subject to road traffic regulations that are enforced by the police, therefore, he can't claim that they are 'driving without due care and attention', otherwise there would be a police presence at each end of the bridge, stopping those vehicles banned from using the bridge during the restricted times. Am I right or am I wrong?
[quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: Just to clarify, that works out at twelve drivers every hour passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge. That's one driver passing through a pedestrian-heavy area of our city, driving without due care and attention, every five minutes.[/p][/quote]Just to clarify, that works out at nearer forty five drivers every hour during the restricted period passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge. If it were due to driving without due care I feel sure the Police would be obliged to address the issue and prosecute the offenders. The penalties for which are far more severe than a £60/£30 fine (up to £2,500 Fine and/or 3 to 6 points). If you have been accused of this offence (Section 3 Road Traffic Act 1988, Driving Without Due Care and Attention or Without Reasonable Consideration for Other Road Users), it means that the Police are suggesting that on a specific occasion that the standard of your driving fell below that of a reasonable and prudent driver in all the circumstances. You will defend this allegation if you cast a reasonable doubt on that suggestion or if you can show that in the specific circumstances of your case, any reasonable and prudent driver would have reacted/driven in the same way. Regardless of whether you support or object to the Lendal restriction, people who are fined for crossing are not driving without due care, to suggest they are is nonsense.[/p][/quote]I'm not saying that people who cross the bridge are driving without due care and attention. I'm saying that people who make it all the way to the bridge without taking note of road markings and road signs are driving without due care and attention. Which is the case. Failure to see road signs and markings is not a valid excuse for breaking the rules of the road.[/p][/quote]Can some body clarify this claim that 'Lunatic' keeps banging on about, my understanding is that the bridge restrictions are not subject to road traffic regulations that are enforced by the police, therefore, he can't claim that they are 'driving without due care and attention', otherwise there would be a police presence at each end of the bridge, stopping those vehicles banned from using the bridge during the restricted times. Am I right or am I wrong? Igiveinthen
  • Score: -10

1:34pm Sat 22 Mar 14

Pinza-C55 says...

eboricana wrote:
They have only got about 14 months left so why don't we all go to the count at Holgate to see Crisp, Alexander and Levene get kicked out and we can have a street party?
Who are you going to vote for, and why?
[quote][p][bold]eboricana[/bold] wrote: They have only got about 14 months left so why don't we all go to the count at Holgate to see Crisp, Alexander and Levene get kicked out and we can have a street party?[/p][/quote]Who are you going to vote for, and why? Pinza-C55
  • Score: 7

2:45pm Sat 22 Mar 14

eboricana says...

In response to Pinza-C55 For the first time in my life ( I will be 65 in July) I will absolutely NOT be voting labour and I will absolutely NOT be voting for any of the three main parties as they all completely corrupt! If there is Independent candidate in my ward New Earswick and Huntingdon they will get my vote,
In response to Pinza-C55 For the first time in my life ( I will be 65 in July) I will absolutely NOT be voting labour and I will absolutely NOT be voting for any of the three main parties as they all completely corrupt! If there is Independent candidate in my ward New Earswick and Huntingdon they will get my vote, eboricana
  • Score: 2

3:01pm Sat 22 Mar 14

Pinza-C55 says...

eboricana wrote:
In response to Pinza-C55 For the first time in my life ( I will be 65 in July) I will absolutely NOT be voting labour and I will absolutely NOT be voting for any of the three main parties as they all completely corrupt! If there is Independent candidate in my ward New Earswick and Huntingdon they will get my vote,
And what if there is no Independent candidate or they are an "independent tory"? You obviously can't vote for the Green party as they support the restrictions.
Furthermore, if Labour are re-elected will that mean that you were wrong?
[quote][p][bold]eboricana[/bold] wrote: In response to Pinza-C55 For the first time in my life ( I will be 65 in July) I will absolutely NOT be voting labour and I will absolutely NOT be voting for any of the three main parties as they all completely corrupt! If there is Independent candidate in my ward New Earswick and Huntingdon they will get my vote,[/p][/quote]And what if there is no Independent candidate or they are an "independent tory"? You obviously can't vote for the Green party as they support the restrictions. Furthermore, if Labour are re-elected will that mean that you were wrong? Pinza-C55
  • Score: -3

3:08pm Sat 22 Mar 14

HoofHearteds says...

Igiveinthen wrote:
Lunatic wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
Lunatic wrote:
Just to clarify, that works out at twelve drivers every hour passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge.

That's one driver passing through a pedestrian-heavy area of our city, driving without due care and attention, every five minutes.
Just to clarify, that works out at nearer forty five drivers every hour during the restricted period passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge.

If it were due to driving without due care I feel sure the Police would be obliged to address the issue and prosecute the offenders. The penalties for which are far more severe than a £60/£30 fine (up to £2,500 Fine and/or 3 to 6 points).

If you have been accused of this offence (Section 3 Road Traffic Act 1988, Driving Without Due Care and Attention or Without Reasonable Consideration for Other Road Users), it means that the Police are suggesting that on a specific occasion that the standard of your driving fell below that of a reasonable and prudent driver in all the circumstances. You will defend this allegation if you cast a reasonable doubt on that suggestion or if you can show that in the specific circumstances of your case, any reasonable and prudent driver would have reacted/driven in the same way.

Regardless of whether you support or object to the Lendal restriction, people who are fined for crossing are not driving without due care, to suggest they are is nonsense.
I'm not saying that people who cross the bridge are driving without due care and attention. I'm saying that people who make it all the way to the bridge without taking note of road markings and road signs are driving without due care and attention. Which is the case.

Failure to see road signs and markings is not a valid excuse for breaking the rules of the road.
Can some body clarify this claim that 'Lunatic' keeps banging on about, my understanding is that the bridge restrictions are not subject to road traffic regulations that are enforced by the police, therefore, he can't claim that they are 'driving without due care and attention', otherwise there would be a police presence at each end of the bridge, stopping those vehicles banned from using the bridge during the restricted times. Am I right or am I wrong?
Wrong! Failure to observe road signs is driving without due care and PAYING attention!

Due to failing to PAY attention properly, the result is, they PAY a fine and hopefully the next time they climb into their fume Guffing tin box, they PAY proper attention to the road signs,

Simple really. No guess work needed.

Now let's keep things calm and try to prevent the insane abusive ramblings on here. The Bridge closure has been an overwhelming success and only a hand full of internet trolls disagree with this. Oh, and a lot of poor drivers who weren't paying attention properly to the signs that are on show.
[quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: Just to clarify, that works out at twelve drivers every hour passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge. That's one driver passing through a pedestrian-heavy area of our city, driving without due care and attention, every five minutes.[/p][/quote]Just to clarify, that works out at nearer forty five drivers every hour during the restricted period passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge. If it were due to driving without due care I feel sure the Police would be obliged to address the issue and prosecute the offenders. The penalties for which are far more severe than a £60/£30 fine (up to £2,500 Fine and/or 3 to 6 points). If you have been accused of this offence (Section 3 Road Traffic Act 1988, Driving Without Due Care and Attention or Without Reasonable Consideration for Other Road Users), it means that the Police are suggesting that on a specific occasion that the standard of your driving fell below that of a reasonable and prudent driver in all the circumstances. You will defend this allegation if you cast a reasonable doubt on that suggestion or if you can show that in the specific circumstances of your case, any reasonable and prudent driver would have reacted/driven in the same way. Regardless of whether you support or object to the Lendal restriction, people who are fined for crossing are not driving without due care, to suggest they are is nonsense.[/p][/quote]I'm not saying that people who cross the bridge are driving without due care and attention. I'm saying that people who make it all the way to the bridge without taking note of road markings and road signs are driving without due care and attention. Which is the case. Failure to see road signs and markings is not a valid excuse for breaking the rules of the road.[/p][/quote]Can some body clarify this claim that 'Lunatic' keeps banging on about, my understanding is that the bridge restrictions are not subject to road traffic regulations that are enforced by the police, therefore, he can't claim that they are 'driving without due care and attention', otherwise there would be a police presence at each end of the bridge, stopping those vehicles banned from using the bridge during the restricted times. Am I right or am I wrong?[/p][/quote]Wrong! Failure to observe road signs is driving without due care and PAYING attention! Due to failing to PAY attention properly, the result is, they PAY a fine and hopefully the next time they climb into their fume Guffing tin box, they PAY proper attention to the road signs, Simple really. No guess work needed. Now let's keep things calm and try to prevent the insane abusive ramblings on here. The Bridge closure has been an overwhelming success and only a hand full of internet trolls disagree with this. Oh, and a lot of poor drivers who weren't paying attention properly to the signs that are on show. HoofHearteds
  • Score: 45

3:50pm Sat 22 Mar 14

m dee says...

The Labour-run council has said the scheme will speed up bus journeys, improve air quality and encourage more people to walk and cycle

The question now is has it achieved this and if so what are the clear understandable numbers ???
The Labour-run council has said the scheme will speed up bus journeys, improve air quality and encourage more people to walk and cycle The question now is has it achieved this and if so what are the clear understandable numbers ??? m dee
  • Score: 4

4:15pm Sat 22 Mar 14

Pinza-C55 says...

HoofHearteds wrote:
Igiveinthen wrote:
Lunatic wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
Lunatic wrote:
Just to clarify, that works out at twelve drivers every hour passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge.

That's one driver passing through a pedestrian-heavy area of our city, driving without due care and attention, every five minutes.
Just to clarify, that works out at nearer forty five drivers every hour during the restricted period passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge.

If it were due to driving without due care I feel sure the Police would be obliged to address the issue and prosecute the offenders. The penalties for which are far more severe than a £60/£30 fine (up to £2,500 Fine and/or 3 to 6 points).

If you have been accused of this offence (Section 3 Road Traffic Act 1988, Driving Without Due Care and Attention or Without Reasonable Consideration for Other Road Users), it means that the Police are suggesting that on a specific occasion that the standard of your driving fell below that of a reasonable and prudent driver in all the circumstances. You will defend this allegation if you cast a reasonable doubt on that suggestion or if you can show that in the specific circumstances of your case, any reasonable and prudent driver would have reacted/driven in the same way.

Regardless of whether you support or object to the Lendal restriction, people who are fined for crossing are not driving without due care, to suggest they are is nonsense.
I'm not saying that people who cross the bridge are driving without due care and attention. I'm saying that people who make it all the way to the bridge without taking note of road markings and road signs are driving without due care and attention. Which is the case.

Failure to see road signs and markings is not a valid excuse for breaking the rules of the road.
Can some body clarify this claim that 'Lunatic' keeps banging on about, my understanding is that the bridge restrictions are not subject to road traffic regulations that are enforced by the police, therefore, he can't claim that they are 'driving without due care and attention', otherwise there would be a police presence at each end of the bridge, stopping those vehicles banned from using the bridge during the restricted times. Am I right or am I wrong?
Wrong! Failure to observe road signs is driving without due care and PAYING attention!

Due to failing to PAY attention properly, the result is, they PAY a fine and hopefully the next time they climb into their fume Guffing tin box, they PAY proper attention to the road signs,

Simple really. No guess work needed.

Now let's keep things calm and try to prevent the insane abusive ramblings on here. The Bridge closure has been an overwhelming success and only a hand full of internet trolls disagree with this. Oh, and a lot of poor drivers who weren't paying attention properly to the signs that are on show.
"the insane abusive ramblings on here."
Welcome back HoofHearteds.
"internet trolls "
We missed you.
[quote][p][bold]HoofHearteds[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: Just to clarify, that works out at twelve drivers every hour passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge. That's one driver passing through a pedestrian-heavy area of our city, driving without due care and attention, every five minutes.[/p][/quote]Just to clarify, that works out at nearer forty five drivers every hour during the restricted period passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge. If it were due to driving without due care I feel sure the Police would be obliged to address the issue and prosecute the offenders. The penalties for which are far more severe than a £60/£30 fine (up to £2,500 Fine and/or 3 to 6 points). If you have been accused of this offence (Section 3 Road Traffic Act 1988, Driving Without Due Care and Attention or Without Reasonable Consideration for Other Road Users), it means that the Police are suggesting that on a specific occasion that the standard of your driving fell below that of a reasonable and prudent driver in all the circumstances. You will defend this allegation if you cast a reasonable doubt on that suggestion or if you can show that in the specific circumstances of your case, any reasonable and prudent driver would have reacted/driven in the same way. Regardless of whether you support or object to the Lendal restriction, people who are fined for crossing are not driving without due care, to suggest they are is nonsense.[/p][/quote]I'm not saying that people who cross the bridge are driving without due care and attention. I'm saying that people who make it all the way to the bridge without taking note of road markings and road signs are driving without due care and attention. Which is the case. Failure to see road signs and markings is not a valid excuse for breaking the rules of the road.[/p][/quote]Can some body clarify this claim that 'Lunatic' keeps banging on about, my understanding is that the bridge restrictions are not subject to road traffic regulations that are enforced by the police, therefore, he can't claim that they are 'driving without due care and attention', otherwise there would be a police presence at each end of the bridge, stopping those vehicles banned from using the bridge during the restricted times. Am I right or am I wrong?[/p][/quote]Wrong! Failure to observe road signs is driving without due care and PAYING attention! Due to failing to PAY attention properly, the result is, they PAY a fine and hopefully the next time they climb into their fume Guffing tin box, they PAY proper attention to the road signs, Simple really. No guess work needed. Now let's keep things calm and try to prevent the insane abusive ramblings on here. The Bridge closure has been an overwhelming success and only a hand full of internet trolls disagree with this. Oh, and a lot of poor drivers who weren't paying attention properly to the signs that are on show.[/p][/quote]"the insane abusive ramblings on here." Welcome back HoofHearteds. "internet trolls " We missed you. Pinza-C55
  • Score: -35

4:52pm Sat 22 Mar 14

jake777 says...

Ichabod76 wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
jake777 wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
jake777 wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
Lunatic wrote:
Just to clarify, that works out at twelve drivers every hour passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge.

That's one driver passing through a pedestrian-heavy area of our city, driving without due care and attention, every five minutes.
Just to clarify, that works out at nearer forty five drivers every hour during the restricted period passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge.

If it were due to driving without due care I feel sure the Police would be obliged to address the issue and prosecute the offenders. The penalties for which are far more severe than a £60/£30 fine (up to £2,500 Fine and/or 3 to 6 points).

If you have been accused of this offence (Section 3 Road Traffic Act 1988, Driving Without Due Care and Attention or Without Reasonable Consideration for Other Road Users), it means that the Police are suggesting that on a specific occasion that the standard of your driving fell below that of a reasonable and prudent driver in all the circumstances. You will defend this allegation if you cast a reasonable doubt on that suggestion or if you can show that in the specific circumstances of your case, any reasonable and prudent driver would have reacted/driven in the same way.

Regardless of whether you support or object to the Lendal restriction, people who are fined for crossing are not driving without due care, to suggest they are is nonsense.
You are wrong.
Yes, your probably right, after all we should beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance, so in your opinion I'm more dangerous than you.
Yes.
I think you need to go back and read my reply again, you have clearly missed the point I made.
Jake's not a bright man I'm afraid !
lot brighter than you thanks.
[quote][p][bold]Ichabod76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: Just to clarify, that works out at twelve drivers every hour passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge. That's one driver passing through a pedestrian-heavy area of our city, driving without due care and attention, every five minutes.[/p][/quote]Just to clarify, that works out at nearer forty five drivers every hour during the restricted period passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge. If it were due to driving without due care I feel sure the Police would be obliged to address the issue and prosecute the offenders. The penalties for which are far more severe than a £60/£30 fine (up to £2,500 Fine and/or 3 to 6 points). If you have been accused of this offence (Section 3 Road Traffic Act 1988, Driving Without Due Care and Attention or Without Reasonable Consideration for Other Road Users), it means that the Police are suggesting that on a specific occasion that the standard of your driving fell below that of a reasonable and prudent driver in all the circumstances. You will defend this allegation if you cast a reasonable doubt on that suggestion or if you can show that in the specific circumstances of your case, any reasonable and prudent driver would have reacted/driven in the same way. Regardless of whether you support or object to the Lendal restriction, people who are fined for crossing are not driving without due care, to suggest they are is nonsense.[/p][/quote]You are wrong.[/p][/quote]Yes, your probably right, after all we should beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance, so in your opinion I'm more dangerous than you.[/p][/quote]Yes.[/p][/quote]I think you need to go back and read my reply again, you have clearly missed the point I made.[/p][/quote]Jake's not a bright man I'm afraid ![/p][/quote]lot brighter than you thanks. jake777
  • Score: 33

8:40pm Sat 22 Mar 14

Igiveinthen says...

HoofHearteds wrote:
Igiveinthen wrote:
Lunatic wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
Lunatic wrote:
Just to clarify, that works out at twelve drivers every hour passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge.

That's one driver passing through a pedestrian-heavy area of our city, driving without due care and attention, every five minutes.
Just to clarify, that works out at nearer forty five drivers every hour during the restricted period passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge.

If it were due to driving without due care I feel sure the Police would be obliged to address the issue and prosecute the offenders. The penalties for which are far more severe than a £60/£30 fine (up to £2,500 Fine and/or 3 to 6 points).

If you have been accused of this offence (Section 3 Road Traffic Act 1988, Driving Without Due Care and Attention or Without Reasonable Consideration for Other Road Users), it means that the Police are suggesting that on a specific occasion that the standard of your driving fell below that of a reasonable and prudent driver in all the circumstances. You will defend this allegation if you cast a reasonable doubt on that suggestion or if you can show that in the specific circumstances of your case, any reasonable and prudent driver would have reacted/driven in the same way.

Regardless of whether you support or object to the Lendal restriction, people who are fined for crossing are not driving without due care, to suggest they are is nonsense.
I'm not saying that people who cross the bridge are driving without due care and attention. I'm saying that people who make it all the way to the bridge without taking note of road markings and road signs are driving without due care and attention. Which is the case.

Failure to see road signs and markings is not a valid excuse for breaking the rules of the road.
Can some body clarify this claim that 'Lunatic' keeps banging on about, my understanding is that the bridge restrictions are not subject to road traffic regulations that are enforced by the police, therefore, he can't claim that they are 'driving without due care and attention', otherwise there would be a police presence at each end of the bridge, stopping those vehicles banned from using the bridge during the restricted times. Am I right or am I wrong?
Wrong! Failure to observe road signs is driving without due care and PAYING attention!

Due to failing to PAY attention properly, the result is, they PAY a fine and hopefully the next time they climb into their fume Guffing tin box, they PAY proper attention to the road signs,

Simple really. No guess work needed.

Now let's keep things calm and try to prevent the insane abusive ramblings on here. The Bridge closure has been an overwhelming success and only a hand full of internet trolls disagree with this. Oh, and a lot of poor drivers who weren't paying attention properly to the signs that are on show.
By your a bit of terrier aren't you, can't you be civil at least, I asked a question but didn't expect to be told in that manner.
So then, what your saying is by failing to observe 'a road sign' its deemed to be 'driving without due care and attention' so by that assumption all those driving over the bridge should then have been issued with a 'ticket' by the police as it is clearly a road traffic offence according to you, instead of been issued with a 'ticket' by the company that has been engaged by the council, am I right or am I wrong?
[quote][p][bold]HoofHearteds[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: Just to clarify, that works out at twelve drivers every hour passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge. That's one driver passing through a pedestrian-heavy area of our city, driving without due care and attention, every five minutes.[/p][/quote]Just to clarify, that works out at nearer forty five drivers every hour during the restricted period passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge. If it were due to driving without due care I feel sure the Police would be obliged to address the issue and prosecute the offenders. The penalties for which are far more severe than a £60/£30 fine (up to £2,500 Fine and/or 3 to 6 points). If you have been accused of this offence (Section 3 Road Traffic Act 1988, Driving Without Due Care and Attention or Without Reasonable Consideration for Other Road Users), it means that the Police are suggesting that on a specific occasion that the standard of your driving fell below that of a reasonable and prudent driver in all the circumstances. You will defend this allegation if you cast a reasonable doubt on that suggestion or if you can show that in the specific circumstances of your case, any reasonable and prudent driver would have reacted/driven in the same way. Regardless of whether you support or object to the Lendal restriction, people who are fined for crossing are not driving without due care, to suggest they are is nonsense.[/p][/quote]I'm not saying that people who cross the bridge are driving without due care and attention. I'm saying that people who make it all the way to the bridge without taking note of road markings and road signs are driving without due care and attention. Which is the case. Failure to see road signs and markings is not a valid excuse for breaking the rules of the road.[/p][/quote]Can some body clarify this claim that 'Lunatic' keeps banging on about, my understanding is that the bridge restrictions are not subject to road traffic regulations that are enforced by the police, therefore, he can't claim that they are 'driving without due care and attention', otherwise there would be a police presence at each end of the bridge, stopping those vehicles banned from using the bridge during the restricted times. Am I right or am I wrong?[/p][/quote]Wrong! Failure to observe road signs is driving without due care and PAYING attention! Due to failing to PAY attention properly, the result is, they PAY a fine and hopefully the next time they climb into their fume Guffing tin box, they PAY proper attention to the road signs, Simple really. No guess work needed. Now let's keep things calm and try to prevent the insane abusive ramblings on here. The Bridge closure has been an overwhelming success and only a hand full of internet trolls disagree with this. Oh, and a lot of poor drivers who weren't paying attention properly to the signs that are on show.[/p][/quote]By your a bit of terrier aren't you, can't you be civil at least, I asked a question but didn't expect to be told in that manner. So then, what your saying is by failing to observe 'a road sign' its deemed to be 'driving without due care and attention' so by that assumption all those driving over the bridge should then have been issued with a 'ticket' by the police as it is clearly a road traffic offence according to you, instead of been issued with a 'ticket' by the company that has been engaged by the council, am I right or am I wrong? Igiveinthen
  • Score: -42

8:54pm Sat 22 Mar 14

Denis E says...

Lunatic wrote:
Just to clarify, that works out at twelve drivers every hour passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge.

That's one driver passing through a pedestrian-heavy area of our city, driving without due care and attention, every five minutes.
Somebody has got their sums wrong. The bridge is shut for six and a half hours a day. This means 45 drivers an hour not in peak times driving through an illegal and unenforceable bus lane. That is why many thousands have appealed successfully.
[quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: Just to clarify, that works out at twelve drivers every hour passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge. That's one driver passing through a pedestrian-heavy area of our city, driving without due care and attention, every five minutes.[/p][/quote]Somebody has got their sums wrong. The bridge is shut for six and a half hours a day. This means 45 drivers an hour not in peak times driving through an illegal and unenforceable bus lane. That is why many thousands have appealed successfully. Denis E
  • Score: -44

9:06pm Sat 22 Mar 14

jay, york says...

Igiveinthen wrote:
HoofHearteds wrote:
Igiveinthen wrote:
Lunatic wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
Lunatic wrote: Just to clarify, that works out at twelve drivers every hour passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge. That's one driver passing through a pedestrian-heavy area of our city, driving without due care and attention, every five minutes.
Just to clarify, that works out at nearer forty five drivers every hour during the restricted period passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge. If it were due to driving without due care I feel sure the Police would be obliged to address the issue and prosecute the offenders. The penalties for which are far more severe than a £60/£30 fine (up to £2,500 Fine and/or 3 to 6 points). If you have been accused of this offence (Section 3 Road Traffic Act 1988, Driving Without Due Care and Attention or Without Reasonable Consideration for Other Road Users), it means that the Police are suggesting that on a specific occasion that the standard of your driving fell below that of a reasonable and prudent driver in all the circumstances. You will defend this allegation if you cast a reasonable doubt on that suggestion or if you can show that in the specific circumstances of your case, any reasonable and prudent driver would have reacted/driven in the same way. Regardless of whether you support or object to the Lendal restriction, people who are fined for crossing are not driving without due care, to suggest they are is nonsense.
I'm not saying that people who cross the bridge are driving without due care and attention. I'm saying that people who make it all the way to the bridge without taking note of road markings and road signs are driving without due care and attention. Which is the case. Failure to see road signs and markings is not a valid excuse for breaking the rules of the road.
Can some body clarify this claim that 'Lunatic' keeps banging on about, my understanding is that the bridge restrictions are not subject to road traffic regulations that are enforced by the police, therefore, he can't claim that they are 'driving without due care and attention', otherwise there would be a police presence at each end of the bridge, stopping those vehicles banned from using the bridge during the restricted times. Am I right or am I wrong?
Wrong! Failure to observe road signs is driving without due care and PAYING attention! Due to failing to PAY attention properly, the result is, they PAY a fine and hopefully the next time they climb into their fume Guffing tin box, they PAY proper attention to the road signs, Simple really. No guess work needed. Now let's keep things calm and try to prevent the insane abusive ramblings on here. The Bridge closure has been an overwhelming success and only a hand full of internet trolls disagree with this. Oh, and a lot of poor drivers who weren't paying attention properly to the signs that are on show.
By your a bit of terrier aren't you, can't you be civil at least, I asked a question but didn't expect to be told in that manner. So then, what your saying is by failing to observe 'a road sign' its deemed to be 'driving without due care and attention' so by that assumption all those driving over the bridge should then have been issued with a 'ticket' by the police as it is clearly a road traffic offence according to you, instead of been issued with a 'ticket' by the company that has been engaged by the council, am I right or am I wrong?
You are absolutely correct about both points.
!. It is the police who issue "tickets" for driving offences - being trapped by confusing road signs is not classed as a driving offence. These fines are issued by the company the Council have decided to use to do their dirty work.

2. the council member in question seems unable to respond to anything in a civil manner - and a user name like HoofHearteds just says it all - full of hot air and not much else!
[quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HoofHearteds[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: Just to clarify, that works out at twelve drivers every hour passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge. That's one driver passing through a pedestrian-heavy area of our city, driving without due care and attention, every five minutes.[/p][/quote]Just to clarify, that works out at nearer forty five drivers every hour during the restricted period passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge. If it were due to driving without due care I feel sure the Police would be obliged to address the issue and prosecute the offenders. The penalties for which are far more severe than a £60/£30 fine (up to £2,500 Fine and/or 3 to 6 points). If you have been accused of this offence (Section 3 Road Traffic Act 1988, Driving Without Due Care and Attention or Without Reasonable Consideration for Other Road Users), it means that the Police are suggesting that on a specific occasion that the standard of your driving fell below that of a reasonable and prudent driver in all the circumstances. You will defend this allegation if you cast a reasonable doubt on that suggestion or if you can show that in the specific circumstances of your case, any reasonable and prudent driver would have reacted/driven in the same way. Regardless of whether you support or object to the Lendal restriction, people who are fined for crossing are not driving without due care, to suggest they are is nonsense.[/p][/quote]I'm not saying that people who cross the bridge are driving without due care and attention. I'm saying that people who make it all the way to the bridge without taking note of road markings and road signs are driving without due care and attention. Which is the case. Failure to see road signs and markings is not a valid excuse for breaking the rules of the road.[/p][/quote]Can some body clarify this claim that 'Lunatic' keeps banging on about, my understanding is that the bridge restrictions are not subject to road traffic regulations that are enforced by the police, therefore, he can't claim that they are 'driving without due care and attention', otherwise there would be a police presence at each end of the bridge, stopping those vehicles banned from using the bridge during the restricted times. Am I right or am I wrong?[/p][/quote]Wrong! Failure to observe road signs is driving without due care and PAYING attention! Due to failing to PAY attention properly, the result is, they PAY a fine and hopefully the next time they climb into their fume Guffing tin box, they PAY proper attention to the road signs, Simple really. No guess work needed. Now let's keep things calm and try to prevent the insane abusive ramblings on here. The Bridge closure has been an overwhelming success and only a hand full of internet trolls disagree with this. Oh, and a lot of poor drivers who weren't paying attention properly to the signs that are on show.[/p][/quote]By your a bit of terrier aren't you, can't you be civil at least, I asked a question but didn't expect to be told in that manner. So then, what your saying is by failing to observe 'a road sign' its deemed to be 'driving without due care and attention' so by that assumption all those driving over the bridge should then have been issued with a 'ticket' by the police as it is clearly a road traffic offence according to you, instead of been issued with a 'ticket' by the company that has been engaged by the council, am I right or am I wrong?[/p][/quote]You are absolutely correct about both points. !. It is the police who issue "tickets" for driving offences - being trapped by confusing road signs is not classed as a driving offence. These fines are issued by the company the Council have decided to use to do their dirty work. 2. the council member in question seems unable to respond to anything in a civil manner - and a user name like HoofHearteds just says it all - full of hot air and not much else! jay, york
  • Score: -44

9:27pm Sat 22 Mar 14

jay, york says...

Seems the score adjuster is doing the nightshift again - going to be busy night trying to match the numbers who voted today in support of opening Lendal Bridge - in the thousands. Amazing! And funnily enough that was after the arrogant and rude comments of the said council member. Mark this as you wish, but at least we all know now that you are a joke and doing nothing to support your council.
Seems the score adjuster is doing the nightshift again - going to be busy night trying to match the numbers who voted today in support of opening Lendal Bridge - in the thousands. Amazing! And funnily enough that was after the arrogant and rude comments of the said council member. Mark this as you wish, but at least we all know now that you are a joke and doing nothing to support your council. jay, york
  • Score: -19

9:32pm Sat 22 Mar 14

Igiveinthen says...

Thank you 'jay, york' at least someone can be civil
Thank you 'jay, york' at least someone can be civil Igiveinthen
  • Score: -30

9:32pm Sat 22 Mar 14

JasBro says...

m dee wrote:
The Labour-run council has said the scheme will speed up bus journeys, improve air quality and encourage more people to walk and cycle

The question now is has it achieved this and if so what are the clear understandable numbers ???
Well the council's own figures show that most bus routes are actually slower, but they claim this is due to timetables, not the extra congestion.

Regarding air quality, it was stated at the beginning of the trial that this could only be judged over a number of years, no meaningful judgements could be made in just six months, due to the variation in atmospheric conditions.

As for encouraging people to cycle and walk, again there is no way to judge, due to seasonal variations. What is undeniable is that despite all the extra cycling facilities and the extra money pumped in to encourage people to cycle, the numbers of cyclists have actually dropped in the last decade.

Basically the council made sure that they did not set any criteria by which the "trial" could be judged independently.
[quote][p][bold]m dee[/bold] wrote: The Labour-run council has said the scheme will speed up bus journeys, improve air quality and encourage more people to walk and cycle The question now is has it achieved this and if so what are the clear understandable numbers ???[/p][/quote]Well the council's own figures show that most bus routes are actually slower, but they claim this is due to timetables, not the extra congestion. Regarding air quality, it was stated at the beginning of the trial that this could only be judged over a number of years, no meaningful judgements could be made in just six months, due to the variation in atmospheric conditions. As for encouraging people to cycle and walk, again there is no way to judge, due to seasonal variations. What is undeniable is that despite all the extra cycling facilities and the extra money pumped in to encourage people to cycle, the numbers of cyclists have actually dropped in the last decade. Basically the council made sure that they did not set any criteria by which the "trial" could be judged independently. JasBro
  • Score: -29

9:33pm Sat 22 Mar 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

jay, york wrote:
Igiveinthen wrote:
HoofHearteds wrote:
Igiveinthen wrote:
Lunatic wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
Lunatic wrote: Just to clarify, that works out at twelve drivers every hour passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge. That's one driver passing through a pedestrian-heavy area of our city, driving without due care and attention, every five minutes.
Just to clarify, that works out at nearer forty five drivers every hour during the restricted period passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge. If it were due to driving without due care I feel sure the Police would be obliged to address the issue and prosecute the offenders. The penalties for which are far more severe than a £60/£30 fine (up to £2,500 Fine and/or 3 to 6 points). If you have been accused of this offence (Section 3 Road Traffic Act 1988, Driving Without Due Care and Attention or Without Reasonable Consideration for Other Road Users), it means that the Police are suggesting that on a specific occasion that the standard of your driving fell below that of a reasonable and prudent driver in all the circumstances. You will defend this allegation if you cast a reasonable doubt on that suggestion or if you can show that in the specific circumstances of your case, any reasonable and prudent driver would have reacted/driven in the same way. Regardless of whether you support or object to the Lendal restriction, people who are fined for crossing are not driving without due care, to suggest they are is nonsense.
I'm not saying that people who cross the bridge are driving without due care and attention. I'm saying that people who make it all the way to the bridge without taking note of road markings and road signs are driving without due care and attention. Which is the case. Failure to see road signs and markings is not a valid excuse for breaking the rules of the road.
Can some body clarify this claim that 'Lunatic' keeps banging on about, my understanding is that the bridge restrictions are not subject to road traffic regulations that are enforced by the police, therefore, he can't claim that they are 'driving without due care and attention', otherwise there would be a police presence at each end of the bridge, stopping those vehicles banned from using the bridge during the restricted times. Am I right or am I wrong?
Wrong! Failure to observe road signs is driving without due care and PAYING attention! Due to failing to PAY attention properly, the result is, they PAY a fine and hopefully the next time they climb into their fume Guffing tin box, they PAY proper attention to the road signs, Simple really. No guess work needed. Now let's keep things calm and try to prevent the insane abusive ramblings on here. The Bridge closure has been an overwhelming success and only a hand full of internet trolls disagree with this. Oh, and a lot of poor drivers who weren't paying attention properly to the signs that are on show.
By your a bit of terrier aren't you, can't you be civil at least, I asked a question but didn't expect to be told in that manner. So then, what your saying is by failing to observe 'a road sign' its deemed to be 'driving without due care and attention' so by that assumption all those driving over the bridge should then have been issued with a 'ticket' by the police as it is clearly a road traffic offence according to you, instead of been issued with a 'ticket' by the company that has been engaged by the council, am I right or am I wrong?
You are absolutely correct about both points.
!. It is the police who issue "tickets" for driving offences - being trapped by confusing road signs is not classed as a driving offence. These fines are issued by the company the Council have decided to use to do their dirty work.

2. the council member in question seems unable to respond to anything in a civil manner - and a user name like HoofHearteds just says it all - full of hot air and not much else!
It's obvious that the legal test required to prove driving without due care/careless driving would fail.

Over 53,000 other drivers show that in the specific circumstances of any potential Lendal case, reasonable and prudent drivers have reacted/driven in the same way (compelling and tangeble evidence).

The council has video evidence of all so called offences, send a few test cases to the Police, they work hard enough and could do with a laugh.

jay, york is quite right to label Lendal a trap, and a very damaging one for our city.
[quote][p][bold]jay, york[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HoofHearteds[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: Just to clarify, that works out at twelve drivers every hour passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge. That's one driver passing through a pedestrian-heavy area of our city, driving without due care and attention, every five minutes.[/p][/quote]Just to clarify, that works out at nearer forty five drivers every hour during the restricted period passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge. If it were due to driving without due care I feel sure the Police would be obliged to address the issue and prosecute the offenders. The penalties for which are far more severe than a £60/£30 fine (up to £2,500 Fine and/or 3 to 6 points). If you have been accused of this offence (Section 3 Road Traffic Act 1988, Driving Without Due Care and Attention or Without Reasonable Consideration for Other Road Users), it means that the Police are suggesting that on a specific occasion that the standard of your driving fell below that of a reasonable and prudent driver in all the circumstances. You will defend this allegation if you cast a reasonable doubt on that suggestion or if you can show that in the specific circumstances of your case, any reasonable and prudent driver would have reacted/driven in the same way. Regardless of whether you support or object to the Lendal restriction, people who are fined for crossing are not driving without due care, to suggest they are is nonsense.[/p][/quote]I'm not saying that people who cross the bridge are driving without due care and attention. I'm saying that people who make it all the way to the bridge without taking note of road markings and road signs are driving without due care and attention. Which is the case. Failure to see road signs and markings is not a valid excuse for breaking the rules of the road.[/p][/quote]Can some body clarify this claim that 'Lunatic' keeps banging on about, my understanding is that the bridge restrictions are not subject to road traffic regulations that are enforced by the police, therefore, he can't claim that they are 'driving without due care and attention', otherwise there would be a police presence at each end of the bridge, stopping those vehicles banned from using the bridge during the restricted times. Am I right or am I wrong?[/p][/quote]Wrong! Failure to observe road signs is driving without due care and PAYING attention! Due to failing to PAY attention properly, the result is, they PAY a fine and hopefully the next time they climb into their fume Guffing tin box, they PAY proper attention to the road signs, Simple really. No guess work needed. Now let's keep things calm and try to prevent the insane abusive ramblings on here. The Bridge closure has been an overwhelming success and only a hand full of internet trolls disagree with this. Oh, and a lot of poor drivers who weren't paying attention properly to the signs that are on show.[/p][/quote]By your a bit of terrier aren't you, can't you be civil at least, I asked a question but didn't expect to be told in that manner. So then, what your saying is by failing to observe 'a road sign' its deemed to be 'driving without due care and attention' so by that assumption all those driving over the bridge should then have been issued with a 'ticket' by the police as it is clearly a road traffic offence according to you, instead of been issued with a 'ticket' by the company that has been engaged by the council, am I right or am I wrong?[/p][/quote]You are absolutely correct about both points. !. It is the police who issue "tickets" for driving offences - being trapped by confusing road signs is not classed as a driving offence. These fines are issued by the company the Council have decided to use to do their dirty work. 2. the council member in question seems unable to respond to anything in a civil manner - and a user name like HoofHearteds just says it all - full of hot air and not much else![/p][/quote]It's obvious that the legal test required to prove driving without due care/careless driving would fail. Over 53,000 other drivers show that in the specific circumstances of any potential Lendal case, reasonable and prudent drivers have reacted/driven in the same way (compelling and tangeble evidence). The council has video evidence of all so called offences, send a few test cases to the Police, they work hard enough and could do with a laugh. jay, york is quite right to label Lendal a trap, and a very damaging one for our city. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: -24

9:38pm Sat 22 Mar 14

sniper 9964 says...

Its the same mentally of car driver's. I ll drive my car where ever I want.
well lets hope the ban stays and in stead of PCNs the cars are taken off these idiots
Its the same mentally of car driver's. I ll drive my car where ever I want. well lets hope the ban stays and in stead of PCNs the cars are taken off these idiots sniper 9964
  • Score: 40

9:47pm Sat 22 Mar 14

JasBro says...

jay, york wrote:
HoofHearteds wrote:
More of the same old. In contrast to the bridge closure; I think it's time for some open and imaginative ways to spend ones lives. This can't be conducive to good mental health and happiness.
But you have had to have your say again - are you one of the council members?
Yes, spot on!

This is the quality of person we have running this city.

She's been banned before, for racism, ageism and multiple accounts, now back with a slightly altered name.
[quote][p][bold]jay, york[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HoofHearteds[/bold] wrote: More of the same old. In contrast to the bridge closure; I think it's time for some open and imaginative ways to spend ones lives. This can't be conducive to good mental health and happiness.[/p][/quote]But you have had to have your say again - are you one of the council members?[/p][/quote]Yes, spot on! This is the quality of person we have running this city. She's been banned before, for racism, ageism and multiple accounts, now back with a slightly altered name. JasBro
  • Score: -75

9:52pm Sat 22 Mar 14

jay, york says...

My comments are not as a car driver - just someone who can see how flawed this scheme is. As others have said before - wrong bridge and wrong time.
My comments are not as a car driver - just someone who can see how flawed this scheme is. As others have said before - wrong bridge and wrong time. jay, york
  • Score: -98

9:58pm Sat 22 Mar 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

When all else fails mark the scores down, how weak.

The Mark-Down Mongrel is unable to compete intellectually.

Crack on, Woof, Woof.
When all else fails mark the scores down, how weak. The Mark-Down Mongrel is unable to compete intellectually. Crack on, Woof, Woof. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: -45

10:08pm Sat 22 Mar 14

nowthen says...

JasBro wrote:
jay, york wrote:
HoofHearteds wrote:
More of the same old. In contrast to the bridge closure; I think it's time for some open and imaginative ways to spend ones lives. This can't be conducive to good mental health and happiness.
But you have had to have your say again - are you one of the council members?
Yes, spot on!

This is the quality of person we have running this city.

She's been banned before, for racism, ageism and multiple accounts, now back with a slightly altered name.
You forgot to mention condoning fuel theft from people she classified as well off. Dolly Dumpling is an all round bad apple.
[quote][p][bold]JasBro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jay, york[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HoofHearteds[/bold] wrote: More of the same old. In contrast to the bridge closure; I think it's time for some open and imaginative ways to spend ones lives. This can't be conducive to good mental health and happiness.[/p][/quote]But you have had to have your say again - are you one of the council members?[/p][/quote]Yes, spot on! This is the quality of person we have running this city. She's been banned before, for racism, ageism and multiple accounts, now back with a slightly altered name.[/p][/quote]You forgot to mention condoning fuel theft from people she classified as well off. Dolly Dumpling is an all round bad apple. nowthen
  • Score: -107

10:10pm Sat 22 Mar 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

Next year following the local elections there should be an immediate referendum for a council tax increase of 5%. The money will be needed to put all the things right that this inexperienced and quite frankly reckless administration have ruined in our city.

I will vote yes, so long as it's not a Labour Council.

Here mark this down Mark-Down Mongrel.
Next year following the local elections there should be an immediate referendum for a council tax increase of 5%. The money will be needed to put all the things right that this inexperienced and quite frankly reckless administration have ruined in our city. I will vote yes, so long as it's not a Labour Council. Here mark this down Mark-Down Mongrel. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: -131

10:30pm Sat 22 Mar 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
Next year following the local elections there should be an immediate referendum for a council tax increase of 5%. The money will be needed to put all the things right that this inexperienced and quite frankly reckless administration have ruined in our city.

I will vote yes, so long as it's not a Labour Council.

Here mark this down Mark-Down Mongrel.
I'm guessing I might even support a 7.5% increase, you see that kind of money could do some genuine good in our city if we get the right people in place.

Crack on Mark-Down Mongrel.


Woof, Woof.
[quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: Next year following the local elections there should be an immediate referendum for a council tax increase of 5%. The money will be needed to put all the things right that this inexperienced and quite frankly reckless administration have ruined in our city. I will vote yes, so long as it's not a Labour Council. Here mark this down Mark-Down Mongrel.[/p][/quote]I'm guessing I might even support a 7.5% increase, you see that kind of money could do some genuine good in our city if we get the right people in place. Crack on Mark-Down Mongrel. Woof, Woof. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: -42

6:08am Sun 23 Mar 14

HoofHearteds says...

The paranoid brigade are back i see. Hoofhearted is cllr crisp, LOL Deranged and delusional and that's just over the bridge. Jasbro with his clip board sat on Garfield Terrace, tutting and frowning at every car that passes. And now we have a new fellow paranoid to keep Jasbros dark imaginings company. Jay and Jas the paranoid twins, staring deeply into the screen names on the York press website and ticking off who they think they are. You couldn't make it up LOL
The paranoid brigade are back i see. Hoofhearted is cllr crisp, LOL Deranged and delusional and that's just over the bridge. Jasbro with his clip board sat on Garfield Terrace, tutting and frowning at every car that passes. And now we have a new fellow paranoid to keep Jasbros dark imaginings company. Jay and Jas the paranoid twins, staring deeply into the screen names on the York press website and ticking off who they think they are. You couldn't make it up LOL HoofHearteds
  • Score: 89

8:47am Sun 23 Mar 14

JV1966 says...

"...reduced traffic on outer ring road" is just not credible. Any review of traffic while roadworks at the A59 roundabout are going on is also flawed.
"...reduced traffic on outer ring road" is just not credible. Any review of traffic while roadworks at the A59 roundabout are going on is also flawed. JV1966
  • Score: -26

10:17am Sun 23 Mar 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

HoofHearteds wrote:
The paranoid brigade are back i see. Hoofhearted is cllr crisp, LOL Deranged and delusional and that's just over the bridge. Jasbro with his clip board sat on Garfield Terrace, tutting and frowning at every car that passes. And now we have a new fellow paranoid to keep Jasbros dark imaginings company. Jay and Jas the paranoid twins, staring deeply into the screen names on the York press website and ticking off who they think they are. You couldn't make it up LOL
People with Paranoid Personality Disorder often have very little insight or ability to see how their own behaviors may make them more hostile and unfriendly toward others. Instead, they place the blame upon others. In this way, people with Paranoid Personality Disorder are negatively narcissistic: they believe that everyone dislikes them.

(Narcissistic). Currently it is used to describe the pursuit of gratification from vanity, or egotistic admiration of one's own physical or mental attributes, that derive from arrogant pride.

An example of a paranoid person would be the Mark-Down Mongrel (Woof, Woof). Feels theatened interprets benign events or remarks as malicious or threatening, they might even describe opposing views as the actions of trolls or use some other description. Paranoid people suffer from improper perception of attacks against character and are quick to counter-attack.

I don't think Jasbro or Jay are paranoid, although it is evident that a very small number of posters have the hallmarks of a paranoid attitude.
[quote][p][bold]HoofHearteds[/bold] wrote: The paranoid brigade are back i see. Hoofhearted is cllr crisp, LOL Deranged and delusional and that's just over the bridge. Jasbro with his clip board sat on Garfield Terrace, tutting and frowning at every car that passes. And now we have a new fellow paranoid to keep Jasbros dark imaginings company. Jay and Jas the paranoid twins, staring deeply into the screen names on the York press website and ticking off who they think they are. You couldn't make it up LOL[/p][/quote]People with Paranoid Personality Disorder often have very little insight or ability to see how their own behaviors may make them more hostile and unfriendly toward others. Instead, they place the blame upon others. In this way, people with Paranoid Personality Disorder are negatively narcissistic: they believe that everyone dislikes them. (Narcissistic). Currently it is used to describe the pursuit of gratification from vanity, or egotistic admiration of one's own physical or mental attributes, that derive from arrogant pride. An example of a paranoid person would be the Mark-Down Mongrel (Woof, Woof). Feels theatened interprets benign events or remarks as malicious or threatening, they might even describe opposing views as the actions of trolls or use some other description. Paranoid people suffer from improper perception of attacks against character and are quick to counter-attack. I don't think Jasbro or Jay are paranoid, although it is evident that a very small number of posters have the hallmarks of a paranoid attitude. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: -204

11:22am Sun 23 Mar 14

JasBro says...

The trial has been a failure, and no amount of personal abuse will stop me from reminding the council of that.

I'll leave the lies, the bullying and the name calling to the politicians.
The trial has been a failure, and no amount of personal abuse will stop me from reminding the council of that. I'll leave the lies, the bullying and the name calling to the politicians. JasBro
  • Score: -95

12:49pm Sun 23 Mar 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
HoofHearteds wrote:
The paranoid brigade are back i see. Hoofhearted is cllr crisp, LOL Deranged and delusional and that's just over the bridge. Jasbro with his clip board sat on Garfield Terrace, tutting and frowning at every car that passes. And now we have a new fellow paranoid to keep Jasbros dark imaginings company. Jay and Jas the paranoid twins, staring deeply into the screen names on the York press website and ticking off who they think they are. You couldn't make it up LOL
People with Paranoid Personality Disorder often have very little insight or ability to see how their own behaviors may make them more hostile and unfriendly toward others. Instead, they place the blame upon others. In this way, people with Paranoid Personality Disorder are negatively narcissistic: they believe that everyone dislikes them.

(Narcissistic). Currently it is used to describe the pursuit of gratification from vanity, or egotistic admiration of one's own physical or mental attributes, that derive from arrogant pride.

An example of a paranoid person would be the Mark-Down Mongrel (Woof, Woof). Feels theatened interprets benign events or remarks as malicious or threatening, they might even describe opposing views as the actions of trolls or use some other description. Paranoid people suffer from improper perception of attacks against character and are quick to counter-attack.

I don't think Jasbro or Jay are paranoid, although it is evident that a very small number of posters have the hallmarks of a paranoid attitude.
Looks like my post has be visited by a paranoid person.

I rest my case.

Woof, Woof.
[quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HoofHearteds[/bold] wrote: The paranoid brigade are back i see. Hoofhearted is cllr crisp, LOL Deranged and delusional and that's just over the bridge. Jasbro with his clip board sat on Garfield Terrace, tutting and frowning at every car that passes. And now we have a new fellow paranoid to keep Jasbros dark imaginings company. Jay and Jas the paranoid twins, staring deeply into the screen names on the York press website and ticking off who they think they are. You couldn't make it up LOL[/p][/quote]People with Paranoid Personality Disorder often have very little insight or ability to see how their own behaviors may make them more hostile and unfriendly toward others. Instead, they place the blame upon others. In this way, people with Paranoid Personality Disorder are negatively narcissistic: they believe that everyone dislikes them. (Narcissistic). Currently it is used to describe the pursuit of gratification from vanity, or egotistic admiration of one's own physical or mental attributes, that derive from arrogant pride. An example of a paranoid person would be the Mark-Down Mongrel (Woof, Woof). Feels theatened interprets benign events or remarks as malicious or threatening, they might even describe opposing views as the actions of trolls or use some other description. Paranoid people suffer from improper perception of attacks against character and are quick to counter-attack. I don't think Jasbro or Jay are paranoid, although it is evident that a very small number of posters have the hallmarks of a paranoid attitude.[/p][/quote]Looks like my post has be visited by a paranoid person. I rest my case. Woof, Woof. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: -119

1:18pm Sun 23 Mar 14

tommytuckamotor says...

jay, york wrote:
HoofHearteds wrote:
jay, york wrote:
HoofHearteds wrote: More of the same old. In contrast to the bridge closure; I think it's time for some open and imaginative ways to spend ones lives. This can't be conducive to good mental health and happiness.
But you have had to have your say again - are you one of the council members?
Are not public forums on the internet there to have ones say? In answer to your question, am I one of the council members. There's a lot of things typed and assumed on this forum, the vast majority of it being opinion and bluster. If you hold a view that doesn't tune into the negative waves coming from a few, then they attack and assassinate the opinion maker. Because of the insane banality and off the wall attacks from those who dislike a positive and opposite opinion to theirs, I won't answer the question so as to keep the swirling vortex of banality wondering longer. Take Air!
Calm down dear and put you rattle back in your pram!! Sadly, the tone of your response seems to typify the attitude of CYC - do what I say and shut up. You still represent the Council outside business hours and as such as you should be made to stand to account for this sort of unwarranted outburst to such a simple question. A succesful business does not treat their customers with contempt - but CYC seem to think they can and get away with it.

Oh and by the way, the"negative waves" as you call them)come from the MAJORITY - despite what your score "adjusters" are doing.
Score adjusters have been working overtime on your post..... Again ! So corrupt tut tut yorkpress !
[quote][p][bold]jay, york[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HoofHearteds[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jay, york[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HoofHearteds[/bold] wrote: More of the same old. In contrast to the bridge closure; I think it's time for some open and imaginative ways to spend ones lives. This can't be conducive to good mental health and happiness.[/p][/quote]But you have had to have your say again - are you one of the council members?[/p][/quote]Are not public forums on the internet there to have ones say? In answer to your question, am I one of the council members. There's a lot of things typed and assumed on this forum, the vast majority of it being opinion and bluster. If you hold a view that doesn't tune into the negative waves coming from a few, then they attack and assassinate the opinion maker. Because of the insane banality and off the wall attacks from those who dislike a positive and opposite opinion to theirs, I won't answer the question so as to keep the swirling vortex of banality wondering longer. Take Air![/p][/quote]Calm down dear and put you rattle back in your pram!! Sadly, the tone of your response seems to typify the attitude of CYC - do what I say and shut up. You still represent the Council outside business hours and as such as you should be made to stand to account for this sort of unwarranted outburst to such a simple question. A succesful business does not treat their customers with contempt - but CYC seem to think they can and get away with it. Oh and by the way, the"negative waves" as you call them)come from the MAJORITY - despite what your score "adjusters" are doing.[/p][/quote]Score adjusters have been working overtime on your post..... Again ! So corrupt tut tut yorkpress ! tommytuckamotor
  • Score: -36

1:18pm Sun 23 Mar 14

tommytuckamotor says...

jay, york wrote:
HoofHearteds wrote:
jay, york wrote:
HoofHearteds wrote: More of the same old. In contrast to the bridge closure; I think it's time for some open and imaginative ways to spend ones lives. This can't be conducive to good mental health and happiness.
But you have had to have your say again - are you one of the council members?
Are not public forums on the internet there to have ones say? In answer to your question, am I one of the council members. There's a lot of things typed and assumed on this forum, the vast majority of it being opinion and bluster. If you hold a view that doesn't tune into the negative waves coming from a few, then they attack and assassinate the opinion maker. Because of the insane banality and off the wall attacks from those who dislike a positive and opposite opinion to theirs, I won't answer the question so as to keep the swirling vortex of banality wondering longer. Take Air!
Calm down dear and put you rattle back in your pram!! Sadly, the tone of your response seems to typify the attitude of CYC - do what I say and shut up. You still represent the Council outside business hours and as such as you should be made to stand to account for this sort of unwarranted outburst to such a simple question. A succesful business does not treat their customers with contempt - but CYC seem to think they can and get away with it.

Oh and by the way, the"negative waves" as you call them)come from the MAJORITY - despite what your score "adjusters" are doing.
Score adjusters have been working overtime on your post..... Again ! So corrupt tut tut yorkpress !
[quote][p][bold]jay, york[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HoofHearteds[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jay, york[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HoofHearteds[/bold] wrote: More of the same old. In contrast to the bridge closure; I think it's time for some open and imaginative ways to spend ones lives. This can't be conducive to good mental health and happiness.[/p][/quote]But you have had to have your say again - are you one of the council members?[/p][/quote]Are not public forums on the internet there to have ones say? In answer to your question, am I one of the council members. There's a lot of things typed and assumed on this forum, the vast majority of it being opinion and bluster. If you hold a view that doesn't tune into the negative waves coming from a few, then they attack and assassinate the opinion maker. Because of the insane banality and off the wall attacks from those who dislike a positive and opposite opinion to theirs, I won't answer the question so as to keep the swirling vortex of banality wondering longer. Take Air![/p][/quote]Calm down dear and put you rattle back in your pram!! Sadly, the tone of your response seems to typify the attitude of CYC - do what I say and shut up. You still represent the Council outside business hours and as such as you should be made to stand to account for this sort of unwarranted outburst to such a simple question. A succesful business does not treat their customers with contempt - but CYC seem to think they can and get away with it. Oh and by the way, the"negative waves" as you call them)come from the MAJORITY - despite what your score "adjusters" are doing.[/p][/quote]Score adjusters have been working overtime on your post..... Again ! So corrupt tut tut yorkpress ! tommytuckamotor
  • Score: -26

1:34pm Sun 23 Mar 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

Here we have an individual accusing posters of being paranoid when they are merely speculating. And yet the real paranoids spend hours every week marking down posts they disagree with on the basis that they are incapable of meeting challenge intellectually.

So for the Mark-Down Mongrels, I guess your finding it difficult due to your inadequacies, do you loose sleep (probably) do you have irrational thoughts of what you would really like to inflict on those who you feel are attacking you. Do you practice in your head telling people off. I guess you really need help, living with failure and feelings of insecurity, imagining the world from your narrow field of view and shallowness is causing you harm.

Your more to be pitied than scolded, but don't despair there are people who can help you.
Here we have an individual accusing posters of being paranoid when they are merely speculating. And yet the real paranoids spend hours every week marking down posts they disagree with on the basis that they are incapable of meeting challenge intellectually. So for the Mark-Down Mongrels, I guess your finding it difficult due to your inadequacies, do you loose sleep (probably) do you have irrational thoughts of what you would really like to inflict on those who you feel are attacking you. Do you practice in your head telling people off. I guess you really need help, living with failure and feelings of insecurity, imagining the world from your narrow field of view and shallowness is causing you harm. Your more to be pitied than scolded, but don't despair there are people who can help you. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: -56

2:39pm Sun 23 Mar 14

mjgyork says...

On Low Petergate last night after 11:00 pm. in the space of ten minutes I tried to explain to five drivers that they had ignored the one way street signs. They ignored me and went on any way. Fine the transgressors and use the money to fill in pot-holes.
On Low Petergate last night after 11:00 pm. in the space of ten minutes I tried to explain to five drivers that they had ignored the one way street signs. They ignored me and went on any way. Fine the transgressors and use the money to fill in pot-holes. mjgyork
  • Score: 44

2:57pm Sun 23 Mar 14

Ichabod76 says...

Lunatic wrote:
Ichabod76 wrote:
Lunatic wrote:
Just to clarify, that works out at twelve drivers every hour passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge.

That's one driver passing through a pedestrian-heavy area of our city, driving without due care and attention, every five minutes.
erm, I dont know where you went to school but its closer to 44 an hour !!!

289 divided by 6.5 hours = 44.46
or 7 every 10 mins

approximately 55 drivers have made successful appeals every day or 8 an hour, when they have challenged the signs ( because the council dare not set a precedent )

so about 19% are winning appeals based on signage every day
sounds like a lot too me
It's simple, really. I didn't divide by 6.5. If you reverse the maths you may just be able to figure out what I actually did divide by, and then if you put just a little bit more thought into it you may even be able to figure out why I did it.

A couple of things that may help you with the latter part:
1. I'm against the closure.
2. I believe the drivers who cross the bridge whilst it is closed have nobody to blame but themselves and their own incompetency.

Good luck!
it still doesn't make any sense !

if you divided 289
(the number of private vehicles crossing the bridge during the restricted hours)
by 24 the number of hours in a day, we get to your figure of 12 per hour.
(even though the bridge is only restricted for 6.5 hours)

The only conclusion I can come to is that you did it to intentionally mislead as 12 vehicles per hour breaching the restrictions sounds better than 44,
we don't know how many other vehicles use the bridge for the other 17.5 hours, so your equation doesn't make sense !
[quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ichabod76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lunatic[/bold] wrote: Just to clarify, that works out at twelve drivers every hour passing all the signs and road markings and crossing the bridge. That's one driver passing through a pedestrian-heavy area of our city, driving without due care and attention, every five minutes.[/p][/quote]erm, I dont know where you went to school but its closer to 44 an hour !!! 289 divided by 6.5 hours = 44.46 or 7 every 10 mins approximately 55 drivers have made successful appeals every day or 8 an hour, when they have challenged the signs ( because the council dare not set a precedent ) so about 19% are winning appeals based on signage every day sounds like a lot too me[/p][/quote]It's simple, really. I didn't divide by 6.5. If you reverse the maths you may just be able to figure out what I actually did divide by, and then if you put just a little bit more thought into it you may even be able to figure out why I did it. A couple of things that may help you with the latter part: 1. I'm against the closure. 2. I believe the drivers who cross the bridge whilst it is closed have nobody to blame but themselves and their own incompetency. Good luck![/p][/quote]it still doesn't make any sense ! if you divided 289 (the number of private vehicles crossing the bridge during the restricted hours) by 24 the number of hours in a day, we get to your figure of 12 per hour. (even though the bridge is only restricted for 6.5 hours) The only conclusion I can come to is that you did it to intentionally mislead as 12 vehicles per hour breaching the restrictions sounds better than 44, we don't know how many other vehicles use the bridge for the other 17.5 hours, so your equation doesn't make sense ! Ichabod76
  • Score: -34

2:58pm Sun 23 Mar 14

jay, york says...

JasBro wrote:
The trial has been a failure, and no amount of personal abuse will stop me from reminding the council of that. I'll leave the lies, the bullying and the name calling to the politicians.
Totally agree.

Let them carry on with the lies, bullying and the name calling - it seems to be the only thing they can actually do - albeit totally unprofessional. The more they do it they are making themselves look even more foolish to even more people - and it will be remembered.

And heaven help us, cos they're supposed to be running this fine City
[quote][p][bold]JasBro[/bold] wrote: The trial has been a failure, and no amount of personal abuse will stop me from reminding the council of that. I'll leave the lies, the bullying and the name calling to the politicians.[/p][/quote]Totally agree. Let them carry on with the lies, bullying and the name calling - it seems to be the only thing they can actually do - albeit totally unprofessional. The more they do it they are making themselves look even more foolish to even more people - and it will be remembered. And heaven help us, cos they're supposed to be running this fine City jay, york
  • Score: -17

2:58pm Sun 23 Mar 14

Bridehopper says...

YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
Here we have an individual accusing posters of being paranoid when they are merely speculating. And yet the real paranoids spend hours every week marking down posts they disagree with on the basis that they are incapable of meeting challenge intellectually.

So for the Mark-Down Mongrels, I guess your finding it difficult due to your inadequacies, do you loose sleep (probably) do you have irrational thoughts of what you would really like to inflict on those who you feel are attacking you. Do you practice in your head telling people off. I guess you really need help, living with failure and feelings of insecurity, imagining the world from your narrow field of view and shallowness is causing you harm.

Your more to be pitied than scolded, but don't despair there are people who can help you.
Hoof are you talking about, not the ignorant arrogant one
[quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: Here we have an individual accusing posters of being paranoid when they are merely speculating. And yet the real paranoids spend hours every week marking down posts they disagree with on the basis that they are incapable of meeting challenge intellectually. So for the Mark-Down Mongrels, I guess your finding it difficult due to your inadequacies, do you loose sleep (probably) do you have irrational thoughts of what you would really like to inflict on those who you feel are attacking you. Do you practice in your head telling people off. I guess you really need help, living with failure and feelings of insecurity, imagining the world from your narrow field of view and shallowness is causing you harm. Your more to be pitied than scolded, but don't despair there are people who can help you.[/p][/quote]Hoof are you talking about, not the ignorant arrogant one Bridehopper
  • Score: -3

3:33pm Sun 23 Mar 14

Pinza-C55 says...

mjgyork wrote:
On Low Petergate last night after 11:00 pm. in the space of ten minutes I tried to explain to five drivers that they had ignored the one way street signs. They ignored me and went on any way. Fine the transgressors and use the money to fill in pot-holes.
Funnily enough a friend (not from York) and I were walking over Lendal Bridge a couple of weeks ago. A car was just about to pass the ANPR cameras (it was behind a van) and my pal warned the driver he was about to get a £60 fine and the driver said "Oh, cheers" and did a U turn and went back the other way. At the other end outside the Red House antique shop there were 2 cars waiting at the lights so he went over and warned the front driver who said "I know". We watched him as he turned left to the Minster, then came back and.....carried on his merry way past the sign and over the bridge. There's no way you can help somebody that stupid.
[quote][p][bold]mjgyork[/bold] wrote: On Low Petergate last night after 11:00 pm. in the space of ten minutes I tried to explain to five drivers that they had ignored the one way street signs. They ignored me and went on any way. Fine the transgressors and use the money to fill in pot-holes.[/p][/quote]Funnily enough a friend (not from York) and I were walking over Lendal Bridge a couple of weeks ago. A car was just about to pass the ANPR cameras (it was behind a van) and my pal warned the driver he was about to get a £60 fine and the driver said "Oh, cheers" and did a U turn and went back the other way. At the other end outside the Red House antique shop there were 2 cars waiting at the lights so he went over and warned the front driver who said "I know". We watched him as he turned left to the Minster, then came back and.....carried on his merry way past the sign and over the bridge. There's no way you can help somebody that stupid. Pinza-C55
  • Score: -2

4:28pm Sun 23 Mar 14

mjgyork says...

Pinza-C55 wrote:
mjgyork wrote:
On Low Petergate last night after 11:00 pm. in the space of ten minutes I tried to explain to five drivers that they had ignored the one way street signs. They ignored me and went on any way. Fine the transgressors and use the money to fill in pot-holes.
Funnily enough a friend (not from York) and I were walking over Lendal Bridge a couple of weeks ago. A car was just about to pass the ANPR cameras (it was behind a van) and my pal warned the driver he was about to get a £60 fine and the driver said "Oh, cheers" and did a U turn and went back the other way. At the other end outside the Red House antique shop there were 2 cars waiting at the lights so he went over and warned the front driver who said "I know". We watched him as he turned left to the Minster, then came back and.....carried on his merry way past the sign and over the bridge. There's no way you can help somebody that stupid.
No one has ever gone bankrupt by over-estermating the intelligence of the the vox populi
[quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mjgyork[/bold] wrote: On Low Petergate last night after 11:00 pm. in the space of ten minutes I tried to explain to five drivers that they had ignored the one way street signs. They ignored me and went on any way. Fine the transgressors and use the money to fill in pot-holes.[/p][/quote]Funnily enough a friend (not from York) and I were walking over Lendal Bridge a couple of weeks ago. A car was just about to pass the ANPR cameras (it was behind a van) and my pal warned the driver he was about to get a £60 fine and the driver said "Oh, cheers" and did a U turn and went back the other way. At the other end outside the Red House antique shop there were 2 cars waiting at the lights so he went over and warned the front driver who said "I know". We watched him as he turned left to the Minster, then came back and.....carried on his merry way past the sign and over the bridge. There's no way you can help somebody that stupid.[/p][/quote]No one has ever gone bankrupt by over-estermating the intelligence of the the vox populi mjgyork
  • Score: 13

4:42pm Sun 23 Mar 14

mjgyork says...

Pinza-C55 wrote:
eboricana wrote:
They have only got about 14 months left so why don't we all go to the count at Holgate to see Crisp, Alexander and Levene get kicked out and we can have a street party?
Who are you going to vote for, and why?
Then we can spend a fortune on buses too big for the roads, create on-road parking spaces, all at great expense, And this was a solution? Maybe not!
[quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]eboricana[/bold] wrote: They have only got about 14 months left so why don't we all go to the count at Holgate to see Crisp, Alexander and Levene get kicked out and we can have a street party?[/p][/quote]Who are you going to vote for, and why?[/p][/quote]Then we can spend a fortune on buses too big for the roads, create on-road parking spaces, all at great expense, And this was a solution? Maybe not! mjgyork
  • Score: 26

8:33pm Sun 23 Mar 14

Igiveinthen says...

sniper 9964 wrote:
Igiveinthen wrote:
sniper 9964 wrote:
Its the same mentally of car driver's. I ll drive my car where ever I want.
well lets hope the ban stays and in stead of PCNs the cars are taken off these idiots
Can't be done, all yer trying to do is stir the s.h.1.t, instead of making an intelligent comment.
When I want your opinion. I'll give it to you ;-)
Shouldn't that have been - 'When I want your opinion I'll ask for it' - still you know my opinion and it hasn't changed, I repeat, all yer trying to do is stir the s.h.1.t, instead of making an intelligent comment.
[quote][p][bold]sniper 9964[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sniper 9964[/bold] wrote: Its the same mentally of car driver's. I ll drive my car where ever I want. well lets hope the ban stays and in stead of PCNs the cars are taken off these idiots[/p][/quote]Can't be done, all yer trying to do is stir the s.h.1.t, instead of making an intelligent comment.[/p][/quote]When I want your opinion. I'll give it to you ;-)[/p][/quote]Shouldn't that have been - 'When I want your opinion I'll ask for it' - still you know my opinion and it hasn't changed, I repeat, all yer trying to do is stir the s.h.1.t, instead of making an intelligent comment. Igiveinthen
  • Score: -54

4:04pm Mon 24 Mar 14

long distance depressive says...

Forget all the stats...take a drive around the outer ringroad between Strensall and Acomb and then say the figures are down. The number of tickets issued for driving over Lendal Bridge also prove one thing..the signage is insufficient and most visitors to York probably won't know where Lendal Bridge is until they are on it. Visitors travelling up Gillygate to the junction with Bootham are probably overloaded with signs anyway so once turned left towards the Theatre it's probably too late to avoid Lendal Bridge anyway.
Just admit the scheme was wrong and move on for God's sake and turn the Council Office lights out when you give up the day jobs!
Forget all the stats...take a drive around the outer ringroad between Strensall and Acomb and then say the figures are down. The number of tickets issued for driving over Lendal Bridge also prove one thing..the signage is insufficient and most visitors to York probably won't know where Lendal Bridge is until they are on it. Visitors travelling up Gillygate to the junction with Bootham are probably overloaded with signs anyway so once turned left towards the Theatre it's probably too late to avoid Lendal Bridge anyway. Just admit the scheme was wrong and move on for God's sake and turn the Council Office lights out when you give up the day jobs! long distance depressive
  • Score: 5

8:35pm Mon 24 Mar 14

Thunderblade says...

pedalling paul wrote:
meme wrote:
If they have all this money as a windfall why not use it to finish the James st link road and complete this vital link to help Foss islands road etc......Because they are not listening that's why!!
No, its because new roads will ultimately encourage more use of cars....you end up with bigger jams on bigger roads.

Not just the Press that winds you up......nah nah... na na nah.....!
Yes Paul, this does wind me up. The Pro cycling lobby keep on quoting ridiculous untruths to justify their own views. This being the most ridiculous statement constantly trotted out by these people. Using this analogy, does the building of more hospitals mean more sick people will use them?
No of course not
Pauls argument that any new roads will soon become grid locked themselves is another statement often quoted. It may be true, but where will these cars come from? Will there suddenly be a rush of people buying cars to drive on the new road? No these cars will come from other areas thus reducing the overall congestion.

"Try telling them that and they wont believe you."
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]meme[/bold] wrote: If they have all this money as a windfall why not use it to finish the James st link road and complete this vital link to help Foss islands road etc......Because they are not listening that's why!![/p][/quote]No, its because new roads will ultimately encourage more use of cars....you end up with bigger jams on bigger roads. Not just the Press that winds you up......nah nah... na na nah.....![/p][/quote]Yes Paul, this does wind me up. The Pro cycling lobby keep on quoting ridiculous untruths to justify their own views. This being the most ridiculous statement constantly trotted out by these people. Using this analogy, does the building of more hospitals mean more sick people will use them? No of course not Pauls argument that any new roads will soon become grid locked themselves is another statement often quoted. It may be true, but where will these cars come from? Will there suddenly be a rush of people buying cars to drive on the new road? No these cars will come from other areas thus reducing the overall congestion. "Try telling them that and they wont believe you." Thunderblade
  • Score: 6

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