[David9694]

A new catch-all Tea Shop thread for those miscellaneous new stories that don’t quite fit with parking, crashing into buildings or trapped/prisoners in their homes. 

Topic

[stonojnr]

the Sheringham “mountain”, a

the Sheringham “mountain”, a new speed bump in a car has put motorists in a spin, apparently.

https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/24913234.tesco-speed-mountain-sheringham-motorists-spin/

[stonojnr]

but I thought dogs were

but I thought dogs were required to be under control in public places, which generally means kept on a lead,preferably short, or at least responding to an owners voice commands. The owner here admits they didnt even know where there dog was till it yelped when it was hit, so how is that under control ?

[David9694]

It’s desperate, desperate

It’s desperate, desperate stuff. 

older readers will remember ‘So we ran the gas board; they told us, “I’m sorry, but this has nothing to do with us”‘

The Southern Daily Echo is packing in story after story on Portswood Broadway and the comments are off the chart. Goodness knows what it’ll be like when 2030 comes. . 

[the little onion]

This is an absolutely

This is an absolutely brilliant escalation of motor-normativity from the BBC. Not content with driverless cars – your classic “car drives into bollard” – they have now gone for blaming the bollards themselves, as active things that tend to crash. The headline of this article is “Infamous crash-prone bollards to remain on road”.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/cn0ynrwjy4go

 

It’s amazing – despite being heavy lumps of metal embedded in concrete and tarmac, these bollards have become sentient enough to be active participants in crashes, but not intelligent enough to avoid crashing. Maybe these bollards need to have a registration plate, and sit some kind of exam in how to stand very still, embedded in concrete and tarmac, without causing crashes.

[Jogle]

Buggy hit by car blamed on

[b]Buggy hit by car blamed on traffic scheme[/b]

Yes, yes, of course it’s the traffic scheme that’s the issue. Oh, and that both cars involved didn’t have drivers. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c77r544ymxdo

[Hirsute]

This highways roadwork

This highways roadwork protection vehicle should have been wearing hi viz

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyer0ny3x7o

[Rendel Harris]

No no, with dear old Flinty

No no, with dear old Flinty it was always “LAYBAH” 

[the little onion]

brooksby wrote:

And if it is a designated cycle path but also a footpath then isn’t it what we call a “shared use path” and doesn’t the HC to keep your dog on a lead regardless of any council guidance…

 

you would think so, but no. You can have places which are called a shared path, have signage to that effect, and form part of the Notional Cycling Network by Sustrans and the local council, but are not actually shared use, in the Highway Code sense. IIRC, the local council has to use a special statutory instrument for it to be legally classed as “shared use”, and thus require dogs to be on leads. It’s a farce.

[chrisonabike]

brooksby wrote:

brooksby wrote:

And if it is a designated cycle path but also a footpath then isn’t it what we call a “shared use path” and doesn’t the HC to keep your dog on a lead regardless of any council guidance…

I shared all your questions.  But the part above – what’s the percentage that do keep their dog on a lead?  And – when they do – does it help?

On balance I’d probably rather someone be carrying a lead (not attached to dog) – then I know there are dogs about.  There are quite a few with extendable leads which present another hazard.  The dogs have as much or more sense than some owners e.g. I’ve had the “I’ll stand on one side and call the dog across the path”…

Of course if there are a couple of dogs present that’s a social occasion and everything – humans included – gets ignored.

[brooksby]

I agree that it’s pretty

I agree that it’s pretty awful to just ride off (perhaps in fear of the unnamed bloke who’d grabbed his bike to tell him to slow down?)(I mean, motorists never ever hit and run, do they?)

I’m reading the news article and I’m confused, though: were her three dogs on a lead at the time? If not, why not? IMO If she didn’t actually see what happened then they can’t have been on a lead.

And if it is a designated cycle path but also a footpath then isn’t it what we call a “shared use path” and doesn’t the HC to keep your dog on a lead regardless of any council guidance…

[David9694]

Pensioner left with £1,300

Pensioner left with £1,300 vet bill after cyclist ran over dog in Swalecliffe, near Whitstable, and fled

No driver directly involved here.  I’ve had a little go at a pastiche of this story if it had have been car related. Curiously, the BTL comments do not support her.

As she didn’t see a thing, we’ve got this unnamed man who put his hands on the bars of this speeding cyclist, and thankfully a dog with no serious injuries.  She’s not reporting it to the police and doesn’t want compensation. 

Finally, I’d love to see a sign that asked drivers to take a hike. 

https://www.kentonline.co.uk/whitstable/news/cyclist-ran-over-my-dog-didn-t-stop-and-left-me-with-1-3k-319843/

Pensioner left with £1,300 vet bill after dog injured on path  in Swalecliffe, near Whitstable

A pensioner has told how a dog was run over and left her with a £1,300 vet bill.

Justine Gill was walking in Swalecliffe, near Whitstable, when she heard “screaming” before turning to see her Chihuahua, called Bonnie, “squirming on the ground in terrible pain”.

Mrs Gill, 63, scooped Bonnie up and, fearing her pet’s spine had been broken, rushed to the vet.

The retired English teacher had been walking her three dogs – two Chihuahuas and a Jack Russell-cross – on Thursday morning when the alleged incident occurred.

“I heard one of my dogs screaming in pain,” she said.

“I turned around to see my white Chihuahua – who is about three kilos – squirming on the ground in terrible pain.”

Police wish to trace another man who put his hands on the bonnet of a vehicle.

I didn’t see what happened so the man came up to me telling me a car ran over her back with two wheels,” Mrs Gill added.

Mrs Gill had been on the Oyster Bay Trail – a footpath surrounding the outskirts of an area which is subject to a Public Spaces Protection Order at the Long Rock Nature Reserve.

In this area, dogs must be kept on a lead or owners face being fined £100.

A sign at Long Rock asks cyclists to “please walk your bike on footpaths”.

However, the public footpath Mrs Gill was walking along is also a designated cyclepath.

“I am a very moderate person and not someone who swears at people or who is baying for blood,” she said.

“But it struck me the car had clearly injured my dog and he couldn’t stop for more than 10 seconds.”

Mrs Gill took the injured Chihuahua to the vet and says poor Bonnie went into shock.

“They had her for the whole day and did X-rays checking for ruptured organs or a broken spine,” she added.

“She was put on oxygen and medication for shock.

“I collected her at 6.30pm and the bill was £1,300. I’m not insured which is my own choice so I paid it.

“But I really felt the person who did this took no responsibility and more importantly, took no care.

“He didn’t seem concerned he had hurt an animal.”

Mrs Gill says she will not be reporting the incident to police and is not seeking for the car owner to cover the vet bill.

[chrisonabike]

David9694 wrote:

David9694 wrote:

one more lane, bro 
 

I feel Flintshire Lad’s response – “A LABOUR councillor (candidate)!”

Strange tho – many (most?) people will say stuff about “environment” and “nicer places” and “won’t you think of the children, the old, the disabled” … and yet in each *specific* case it turns out that the only sensible, “everyone agrees” thing to do is make more space for motoring?

[David9694]

Sir – THE commoning community

carbrain says what

Sir – THE commoning community often rightly criticise some other Forest users for their lack of concern regarding road safety and their livestock. I regularly use the roads frequently involved in these incidents. Recently I conducted a simple observational survey on the number of animals (excluding cattle) wearing a reflective collar. I estimate I’ve seen at least 60 different animals in varying locations. Of these only 55% of ponies and almost all the donkeys either did not have one or were wearing ones in a very poor condition. The chief agister featured in last week’s BBC Country File programme on the New Forest very strongly recommended and endorsed these collars’ use for preventing accidents in poor visibility. Why do his colleagues in the commoning community not exercise a greater responsibility for the safety of their livestock by adopting his advice and employ this cheap and simple measure to a far greater degree than they seem to be doing at present?

Peter Williams Lymington

https://www.advertiserandtimes.co.uk/people/letter-reflecting-on-animal-safety-in-the-new-forest-9403065/

[David9694]

mdavidford wrote:

I think you intended this link: https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/24919319.calls-made-widen-busy-didcot-road-near-orchard-centre/

(The one you have is about 100mph ebikes in Broad Street.)

 

thanks – amended 

[David9694]

one more lane, bro 

one more lane, bro 
 

Laura Greatrex, Labour’s candidate for Didcot West, added: “It really isn’t that difficult to see what needs to be done, yet the Liberal Democrat councils are ignoring the voices of residents.

“Why haven’t they considered a solution that works for private cars, and why has it taken them so long to bring about the changes Didcot deserves?

“The current situation isn’t just causing delays and congestion.

“It’s dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists too because drivers mount the pavement to get past the traffic jams.”

https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/24919319.calls-made-widen-busy-didcot-road-near-orchard-centre/

[Author]

Replies