 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / UK Car Forums / Driving (UK group) / April 2004Magnetic hazards?
Has anybody ever been near a school at about 8:45? I go past one on the way to work every day and it's a nightmare. For some strange reason the parents always have to park in dangerous places. It is really weird, and what makes it worse is that there are usually some nearby spaces which are safe and sensible. They seem to break the law, make the roads slow and dangerous, just so that their kids don't get an extra bit of excercise. Do the junctions and bends have magnets in them? They don't even understand that it's dangerous or illegal. I bet most of them would even consider themselves to be law abiding citizens. Oh, don't even think about telling me to walk or get a bike again! > Oh, don't even think about telling me to walk or get a bike again! Quite right, it's those schoolkids who should be walking and biking to school. Get some exercise into them. I also travel past a school at about 8:45 some mornings, and it's pretty dire. To make matters worse it's on a hill with a speed camera at the bottom, so while you want to be watching out for the kids, you end up spending more time making sure your speed hasn't drifted over 30. Yay for road 'safety'. >> Oh, don't even think about telling me to walk or get a bike again! > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > end up spending more time making sure your speed hasn't drifted over > 30. Yay for road 'safety'. But if you are passing a school at turning out time shouldn't you be travelling slowly anyway and therefore the posted speed limit should be irrelevant? > >> Oh, don't even think about telling me to walk or get a bike again! > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > travelling slowly anyway and therefore the posted speed limit should be > irrelevant? Good point. Speed limits *can* cause danger. Matt B -- > >> Oh, don't even think about telling me to walk or get a bike again! > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > travelling slowly anyway and therefore the posted speed limit should be > irrelevant? Erm, schools start in the morning, not end. The strange thing is that you don't see kids running everywhere! The road I go along is quite wide and if you keep a cars distance away from the parked cars then it's pretty safe. I don't know why there are so few kids, there are more cars than kids and I rarely see cars pulling away. > But if you are passing a school at turning out time shouldn't you be > travelling slowly anyway and therefore the posted speed limit should > be irrelevant? I tend to be travelling at about 25 mph at the top of the hill, which is a safe speed for the width and conditions of the road. However, then without touching the gas, it's quite easy to have drifted over 30 by the bottom of the hill because of the gradient, so checking the speedo does come into play, and it's a dangerous distraction. > Has anybody ever been near a school at about 8:45? Tell me about it, I live across from a junior school and it's just stupid especially in the afternoon when some parents turn up more than three quarters of an hour before the school ends. Makes getting on and off the drive almost impossible for the best part of 2 hours a day since they closed the other entrances, to make matters worse they are expanding the school so as to close another local school so that it can be sold of and demolished for housing. > > Has anybody ever been near a school at about 8:45? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > on and off the drive almost impossible for the best part of 2 hours a > day A friend of mine had a parent block his drive in the evening during a school performance of some sort. He demanded the head teacher got the owner to move the car immediately (thus interupting the performance) or he would do it himself (interupting that is, then probably moving it if nobody responded ;-) I used to pass one on my way to work, although no parking on the road I used, you could see them all lined up in their 6 litre 4x4s trying to pull out onto the main road - you have to laugh. > Has anybody ever been near a school at about 8:45? I go past one on > the way to work every day and it's a nightmare. For some strange [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > illegal. I bet most of them would even consider themselves to be law > abiding citizens. Perhaps councils/police need new powers to close roads by schools at arriving and leaving times with one-way access only to drop children off safely. It is the impatient through traffic which causes the danger. Matt B -- > Perhaps councils/police need new powers to close roads by schools at > arriving and leaving times with one-way access only to drop children off > safely. It is the impatient through traffic which causes the danger. Exsqueeze me?? Because one small section of society can't be arsed to obey the rules of the road, the road should be denied to everybody else? Not all schools are on small back roads - many are on major routes. > > Perhaps councils/police need new powers to close roads by schools at > > arriving and leaving times with one-way access only to drop children off [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Because one small section of society can't be arsed to obey the rules of > the road, the road should be denied to everybody else? No. If the requirements of the community (to drop their kids off close to school) are obviously not being met, then something needs to done about it. > Not all schools are on small back roads - many are on major routes. Where there's a will there's a way. Matt B -- > > Matt B (matt.bourkeNOT@london.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like > they [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > No. If the requirements of the community (to drop their kids off close to > school) are obviously not being met, then something needs to done about it. Don't today's kids have legs then? > > Not all schools are on small back roads - many are on major routes. > > Where there's a will there's a way. When I went to school that way was school buses / bikes / feet. I know its a slightly different world 20 years on, but surely lots more parents could walk their kids to school instead of sticking them in the back of their 4WD. > Matt B > -- > > > Matt B (matt.bourkeNOT@london.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like > > they [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > No. If the requirements of the community (to drop their kids off close to > > school) are obviously not being met, then something needs to done about it. > Don't today's kids have legs then? Whether they have or not, and how they use them is nobody else's business. > > > Not all schools are on small back roads - many are on major routes. > > Where there's a will there's a way. > > When I went to school that way was school buses / bikes / feet. I know its > a slightly different world 20 years on, but surely lots more parents could > walk their kids to school instead of sticking them in the back of their 4WD. If they want to they can. Why deny the choice? If enough people want to use cars make it safe and easy for them, not difficult. The government/council is there to serve the people, not the other way round. Matt B -- > If they want to they can. Why deny the choice? If enough people want to > use cars make it safe and easy for them, not difficult. The > government/council is there to serve the people, not the other way round. I often see children who blame other people for not letting them do things. Sooner or later they realise that some constraints are just there because of real physical limitations that noone is really in control of. It appears that you would like people to have the freedom to place several vehicles in the same physical space. BTW: you were denying a more basic freedom before - ie using a road for what it is supposed to be for. > > If they want to they can. Why deny the choice? If enough people want to > > use cars make it safe and easy for them, not difficult. The [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It appears that you would like people to have the freedom to place several > vehicles in the same physical space. Have you ever noticed how a taxi-rank works at an airport. The taxi arrives, the people get out, the taxi leaves. No big deal. > BTW: you were denying a more basic freedom before - ie using a road for what > it is supposed to be for. Remind me. Matt B -- > > > If they want to they can. Why deny the choice? If enough people want > to [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Have you ever noticed how a taxi-rank works at an airport. The taxi > arrives, the people get out, the taxi leaves. No big deal. They do not have the same peak periods as a school. What about passenger set down (and worse - pick up) at airports by private cars. A right complicated mess requiring "security" (ie old bouncers) to get people to go to the right places (esp Luton). A big deal. > > BTW: you were denying a more basic freedom before - ie using a road for > what > > it is supposed to be for. > > Remind me. "Perhaps councils/police need new powers to close roads!" Goldfish remember far far more details than that through the course of one day. [...] > > Have you ever noticed how a taxi-rank works at an airport. The taxi > > arrives, the people get out, the taxi leaves. No big deal. > They do not have the same peak periods as a school. > What about passenger set down (and worse - pick up) at airports by private > cars. A right complicated mess requiring "security" (ie old bouncers) to get > people to go to the right places (esp Luton). OK. Imagine it as a McDonald's drive-thru. I know some will struggle until they understand the idea - but there you go :-) > A big deal. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Remind me. > "Perhaps councils/police need new powers to close roads!" No big deal either. Every set of traffic lights stops the flow for certain people at certain times. Bus lanes don't allow certain types of traffic at certain times. Zebra crossings the same. Have you ever seen the "access only" signs. Use some imagination and common sense :-) Imagine some sort of "school drop-off/pick-up zone" coloured hatching on the road, plates at each entry describing operational times (like some pedestrian zones). During operational times only traffic dropping-off or picking-up kids is allowed to enter the zone with a strict speed limit and maximum stopping time specified. > Goldfish remember far far more details than that through the course of one > day. Sorry, it was your obtuse reference, I like it straight :-( Matt B -- > [...] > > > Have you ever noticed how a taxi-rank works at an airport. The taxi [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > OK. Imagine it as a McDonald's drive-thru. I know some will struggle until > they understand the idea - but there you go :-) Go and see the kiddies coming out of school. It doesn't work like takeaway food. > > A big deal. > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > No big deal either. What are roads for? > > [...] > > > > Have you ever noticed how a taxi-rank works at an airport. The taxi [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > > > Remind me. > > > "Perhaps councils/police need new powers to close roads!" Why did you snip the comparisons with currently tolerated examples of use of these type of powers? > > No big deal either. > > What are roads for? For whatever the community at large want them for? We have a road near us which is closed to all traffic every weekend to allow a market to take place. Is that the sort of thing you mean? Matt B -- > [...] > > > Have you ever noticed how a taxi-rank works at an airport. The taxi [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > allowed to enter the zone with a strict speed limit and maximum stopping > time specified. How many people obey the laws though, it's clear that very few school parents obeyb the laws. > > Goldfish remember far far more details than that through the course of one > > day. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Matt B > -- > > > "Matt B" <matt.bourkeNOT@london.com> wrote in message [...] > > > "Perhaps councils/police need new powers to close roads!" > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > How many people obey the laws though, it's clear that very few school > parents obeyb the laws. If there is nowhere to stop to drop the kids off what are they supposed to do? What is the problem with designing-in some sort of drop-off point? Matt B -- > > How many people obey the laws though, it's clear that very few school > > parents obeyb the laws. > > If there is nowhere to stop to drop the kids off what are they supposed to > do? Walk? Cycle? All children without LA provided transport are within 2 miles of school. > If there is nowhere to stop to drop the kids off what are they supposed to > do? drive to a point where they can legally park, or park without causing an obstruction. It isn't rocket science. If it was there wouldn't be half as many muppets on the road. Making driving a rocket science may just be a good thing.  SignatureThe poster formerly known as Skodapilot. http://www.bouncing-czechs.com > > "Matt B" <matt.bourkeNOT@london.com> wrote in message > news:<c63dke$7egjm$1@ID-216520.news.uni-berlin.de>... [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > If there is nowhere to stop to drop the kids off what are they supposed to > do? What is the problem with designing-in some sort of drop-off point? Oh yeah, in that case it's OK to break the law isn't it? When somebody's standing in my way I'll kill 'em and say 'What was I supposed to do?'. There are places to stop to drop kids off, just a few meters from where they were stopped. You can even see the school entrance from the safe places, but they just don't use them! 'What are they supposed to do?' is just stupid though. A drop off point would cost a lot and all they need to do is park further down the road! > Matt B > -- > > > If they want to they can. Why deny the choice? If enough people want > to [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Have you ever noticed how a taxi-rank works at an airport. The taxi > arrives, the people get out, the taxi leaves. No big deal. That's a good point (the best thing you've said so far). Why is it that the cars are parked? Can't they just pull up for 30 seconds and then leave? I never see the park or unpark when I go past, they seem to be permanently parked or something. > > BTW: you were denying a more basic freedom before - ie using a road for > what [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Matt B > -- > > > > If they want to they can. Why deny the choice? If enough people want > > to [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > then leave? I never see the park or unpark when I go past, they seem > to be permanently parked or something. Yes as I said earlier some of them turn up 45 mins before the school chucks the children out. Just so they can get the closest spots to avoid there little children having to walk more than 100 yards in a day. > Have you ever noticed how a taxi-rank works at an airport. The taxi > arrives, the people get out, the taxi leaves. No big deal. And exactly how would that work for parents picking kids up from school? Dropping off maybe, but home time creates the biggest jams. > > Have you ever noticed how a taxi-rank works at an airport. The taxi > > arrives, the people get out, the taxi leaves. No big deal. > > And exactly how would that work for parents picking kids up from school? > Dropping off maybe, but home time creates the biggest jams. Home time is at 3:30, not at rush hour, I'm fortunate enough to not be on the roads at that time :-P > Home time is at 3:30, not at rush hour, I'm fortunate enough to not be > on the roads at that time :-P Funny how rush hour is so much busier during school terms, then... > > Home time is at 3:30, not at rush hour, I'm fortunate enough to not be > > on the roads at that time :-P > > Funny how rush hour is so much busier during school terms, then... I dunno, I never get stuck in traffic on my way home. Never noticed a difference at 5:30. > > > use cars make it safe and easy for them, not difficult. The > > > government/council is there to serve the people, not the other way [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Have you ever noticed how a taxi-rank works at an airport. The taxi > arrives, the people get out, the taxi leaves. No big deal. Then maybe little Jimmy's mum should take little Johny home cos she and he were first in the line and little Johny's dad should take little Lolita? > Then maybe little Jimmy's mum should take little Johny home cos she and > he were first in the line and little Johny's dad should take little > Lolita? But tha would leave poor kylie getting her "little miss slapper age range 6-10" junior designer hot pants soaked in the rain. :) SignatureThe poster formerly known as Skodapilot. http://www.bouncing-czechs.com <snip> >> > No. If the requirements of the community (to drop their kids off >> > close to school) are obviously not being met, then something needs [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Whether they have or not, and how they use them is nobody else's > business. Oh dear - more fat people on the way! >> > > Not all schools are on small back roads - many are on major >> > > routes. Where there's a will there's a way. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > If they want to they can. Why deny the choice? The fat kid problem needs addressing. > If enough people want to use cars make it safe and easy for them, not > difficult. The more difficult the better - thats the only way to get them to use their legs! MrBitsy. > >> > No. If the requirements of the community (to drop their kids off > >> > close to school) are obviously not being met, then something needs [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > The more difficult the better - thats the only way to get them to use > their legs! Were you an admirer of the Soviet system? Matt B -- > > >> > No. If the requirements of the community (to drop their kids off > > >> > close to school) are obviously not being met, then something needs [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Were you an admirer of the Soviet system? Ah so you are a typical capitalist pig. > > > The more difficult the better - thats the only way to get them to use > > > their legs! > > > > Were you an admirer of the Soviet system? > > Ah so you are a typical capitalist pig. I wish :-) > > > > Matt B (matt.bourkeNOT@london.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like > they [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Whether they have or not, and how they use them is nobody else's business. Yes, but it's not the governments responsibility to put parking spaces near schools. > > > > Not all schools are on small back roads - many are on major routes. > > > Where there's a will there's a way. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > use cars make it safe and easy for them, not difficult. The > government/council is there to serve the people, not the other way round. They can drive 4WD's, but the should still follow the Highway code and all taffic laws. I think you've missed the point that parking on bends and near junctions is dangerous. They're making the roads dangerous! The government serve people lol. What have they ever done for us that was any good? They certainly don't do anything useful where I live. > Matt B > -- [...] > > > Don't today's kids have legs then? > > Whether they have or not, and how they use them is nobody else's business. > > Yes, but it's not the governments responsibility to put parking spaces > near schools. The local council's probably. The government could help by making the provision of safe drop-off and pick-up points mandatory. [...] > > > When I went to school that way was school buses / bikes / feet. I know > > its [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > bends and near junctions is dangerous. They're making the roads > dangerous! Not because they are inherantly bad, but because the councils are not providing adequate safe access for parents using cars. > The government serve people lol. What have they ever done for us that > was any good? They certainly don't do anything useful where I live. True. Wishfull thinking, I guess :-( Matt B -- > > "Matt B" <matt.bourkeNOT@london.com> wrote in message > news:<c635hn$7jrfe$1@ID-216520.news.uni-berlin.de>... [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > The local council's probably. The government could help by making the > provision of safe drop-off and pick-up points mandatory. government and local authority policy appears to be - provide transport to those living a substantial distance away from the school and encourage non motorised methods of transport for those living closer - in line with the wider issues > [...] > > > > When I went to school that way was school buses / bikes / feet. I [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Not because they are inherantly bad, but because the councils are not > providing adequate safe access for parents using cars. because it is environmentally, safety and developmentally unacceptable, particularly if the sole purpose of the journey, which by defintion will be less than 4 miles round trip for primary school children and less than 6 miles for secondary school children , is to deliver the child to school > > The government serve people lol. What have they ever done for us that > > was any good? They certainly don't do anything useful where I live. > > True. Wishfull thinking, I guess :-( so you have no health services, no fire+ rescue or police services, no rubbish collection, roads, streetlighting, emergency planning , benefits, schools, colleges and adult education , social services , ..... > > > "Matt B" <matt.bourkeNOT@london.com> wrote in message > news:<c635hn$7jrfe$1@ID-216520.news.uni-berlin.de>... [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > rubbish collection, roads, streetlighting, emergency planning , benefits, > schools, colleges and adult education , social services , ..... We do have them, although most are rubbish! As for benefits, that's just unfair, I don't want my taxes going to some unemployed person. Police don't do much and I've never had a fire. University's also rubbish! > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.648 / Virus Database: 415 - Release Date: 31/03/2004 > University's also rubbish! You're doing it wrong then :-) (I suppose living with one's parents does take away a lot of the good bits of being at university...) cheers, clive > > "Matt B" <matt.bourkeNOT@london.com> wrote in message > news:<c635hn$7jrfe$1@ID-216520.news.uni-berlin.de>... [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > The local council's probably. The government could help by making the > provision of safe drop-off and pick-up points mandatory. There are safe places to drop-off and pick-up, but I've never seen anyone use them! > [...] > > > > When I went to school that way was school buses / bikes / feet. I [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Matt B > -- > They can drive 4WD's, but the should still follow the Highway code and > all taffic laws. I think you've missed the point that parking on > bends and near junctions is dangerous. They're making the roads > dangerous! Now there is something I hadn't taken into account the proliferation of "off road" vehicles. As most schools still have some form of playing fields why not make that into Matt's drop off zone? > Now there is something I hadn't taken into account the proliferation > of "off road" vehicles. As most schools still have some form of > playing fields why not make that into Matt's drop off zone? Because they don't still have playing fields? Besides, most school-run 4x4s would get stranded crossing the white lines, let alone a playing field... > > Don't today's kids have legs then? > > Whether they have or not, and how they use them is nobody else's business. Why the hell not? > > > > Not all schools are on small back roads - many are on major routes. > > > Where there's a will there's a way. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > use cars make it safe and easy for them, not difficult. The > government/council is there to serve the people, not the other way round. You want to deny everyone else a choice to use the roads which are being blocked by these people. > Matt B > -- > > > Don't today's kids have legs then? > > Whether they have or not, and how they use them is nobody else's business. > > Why the hell not? You think that how I use my legs *is* someone else's business? [...] > > > When I went to school that way was school buses / bikes / feet. I know > > its [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > You want to deny everyone else a choice to use the roads which are being > blocked by these people. NO. Do I need to say it again... I am suggesting that safe provision *can* be made to accommodate parents wishing to bring their kids to school by car. McDonald's manage to provide drive-thru access to many of their restaurants. It is not rocket science. Where there's a will there's a way. Matt B -- >> > > Don't today's kids have legs then? >> > Whether they have or not, and how they use them is nobody else's >> > business. >> Why the hell not? > You think that how I use my legs *is* someone else's business? Where it starts to inconvenience me, yes. >> You want to deny everyone else a choice to use the roads which are >> being blocked by these people. > NO. Do I need to say it again... Obviously. Let me point you to this direct cut'n'paste quote from you :- > > > Perhaps councils/police need new powers to close roads by schools at > > > arriving and leaving times with one-way access only to drop children > > > off safely. > > You think that how I use my legs *is* someone else's business? > > Where it starts to inconvenience me, yes. Do you think that the road past a school is *only* for people *not* using the school? > >> You want to deny everyone else a choice to use the roads which are > >> being blocked by these people. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > > > arriving and leaving times with one-way access only to drop children > > > > off safely. Let me explain... In 100's of places in 10000's of towns the road is "closed" to some extent, to traffic every day. The "closure" duration ranges from 30s or so at traffic lights to 12hrs in some town centre "pedestrianised zones". The amount "closed" ranges from a part of the width for buses, cyclists etc to the whole width for other reasons. Outside schools the road could have a 1/2hr full closure or a special "parents only" lane or funny traffic lights like outside some fire stations or any number of other arrangements to temporarily make it safer for children. The set-up would be site specific. Why not? Matt B -- >> > You think that how I use my legs *is* someone else's business? >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > stations or any number of other arrangements to temporarily make it > safer for children. The set-up would be site specific. Why not? Because its not required. Parents should be encouraged to get their offspring to walk to school. Hell, our next door neighbour drives her kids to school and its just 500 yards? The roads around the school snarl up for 30 minutes, twice a day - I wonder why? There is no way any extra provision could be made for motorists, as the school is in the middle of a housing estate, with only small roads leading to it. MrBitsy >> > You think that how I use my legs *is* someone else's business? >> Where it starts to inconvenience me, yes. > Do you think that the road past a school is *only* for people *not* > using the school? No. I'm not the one planning to deny it's use to anybody, though. > >> > You think that how I use my legs *is* someone else's business? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > No. I'm not the one planning to deny it's use to anybody, though. Are you suggesting someone else is? I've suggested that in problem areas some sort of controls could be introduced to alleviate traffic conflicts. These don't *deny* use they attempt to ensure safe shared use for all that need it. Matt B -- >> >> > You think that how I use my legs *is* someone else's business? >> >> Where it starts to inconvenience me, yes. >> > Do you think that the road past a school is *only* for people *not* >> > using the school? >> No. I'm not the one planning to deny it's use to anybody, though. > Are you suggesting someone else is? Yes, I am. You suggested precisely that. > I've suggested that in problem areas some sort of controls could be > introduced to alleviate traffic conflicts. By closing the road for half an hour or more at each end of the school day. > These don't *deny* use they attempt to ensure safe shared > use for all that need it. You explicitly stated that you would deny access to all except those that "need" the road to access the school - If that isn't denying access to those who "need" to use it for other reasons, what is it? Builders, deliveries, removal vans, other residents? Have you considered becoming a politician, Matt? Your skills in weaselling and u-turns when forced to face the inappropriateness of your idea suggest you could have a fine future ahead of you. [...] > > I've suggested that in problem areas some sort of controls could be > > introduced to alleviate traffic conflicts. > > By closing the road for half an hour or more at each end of the school day. Not necessarily the whole width in both directions. > > These don't *deny* use they attempt to ensure safe shared > > use for all that need it. > > You explicitly stated that you would deny access to all except those that > "need" the road to access the school In as much as traffic lights deny access if yours happen to be red, or bus lanes deny access to non-buses at specified times, yes. > - If that isn't denying access to > those who "need" to use it for other reasons, what is it? Builders, > deliveries, removal vans, other residents? Share and share alike. Don't condem school-runners, accommodate them SAFELY. > Have you considered becoming a politician, Matt? Your skills in weaselling > and u-turns when forced to face the inappropriateness of your idea suggest > you could have a fine future ahead of you. No comment ;-) Matt B -- > NO. Do I need to say it again... I am suggesting that safe provision *can* > be made to accommodate parents wishing to bring their kids to school by car. > McDonald's manage to provide drive-thru access to many of their restaurants. > It is not rocket science. Where there's a will there's a way. http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert-20040417.html seems to have a gentleman with your grasp of reality. clive > > NO. Do I need to say it again... I am suggesting that safe provision > *can* [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > seems to have a gentleman with your grasp of reality. LOL. Pity James Dyson, Sir Clive Sinclair, Trevor Baylis and their ilk didn't have your optimism :-) Matt B -- > > NO. Do I need to say it again... I am suggesting that safe provision > *can* [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > seems to have a gentleman with your grasp of reality. No surprise that it's management. > > > > Don't today's kids have legs then? > > > Whether they have or not, and how they use them is nobody else's [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > McDonald's manage to provide drive-thru access to many of their restaurants. > It is not rocket science. Where there's a will there's a way. schools have a very specific set of needs in terms of flow management as it is tightly packed around 2 times in the day, no other organisation nor service has such a set of needs. it also has to be remembered that by definition journeys to school to drop children off are less than 4 or 6 miles round trip ( depending on the age of the child ) as those living further away are ordinarily eligible for education dept funded transport drive through restaurants can end up causing traffic chaos if the kitchen doesn't keep pace > > > You want to deny everyone else a choice to use the roads which are being > > > blocked by these people. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > is tightly packed around 2 times in the day, no other organisation nor > service has such a set of needs. McDonald's, lunch-time and tea-time. > it also has to be remembered that by definition journeys to school to drop > children off are less than 4 or 6 miles round trip ( depending on the age > of the child ) as those living further away are ordinarily eligible for > education dept funded transport Funded transport is optional. People drop kids off for a variety of reasons - they're going to work, they don't trust the ancient clapped-out buses, bullying, etc etc. We are not all idealised anti-car clones :-) > drive through restaurants can end up causing traffic chaos if the kitchen > doesn't keep pace Yes? Matt B -- > > > > You want to deny everyone else a choice to use the roads which are > being [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > McDonald's, lunch-time and tea-time. a period of approximately 2.5 - 3 hours duration Not everyone arriving at of just before a fixed time and wanting to leve very sonn after > > it also has to be remembered that by definition journeys to school to drop > > children off are less than 4 or 6 miles round trip ( depending on the age [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Funded transport is optional. People drop kids off for a variety of > reasons - they're going to work, depite many work in completely the opposite direction ? >they don't trust the ancient clapped-out > buses, you obviously know very little firstly of the required standards of PCVs , and of the checks that LAs / PTEs run on the people who win the contracts for schools transport >bullying, etc etc. We are not all idealised anti-car clones :-) > > > drive through restaurants can end up causing traffic chaos if the kitchen > > doesn't keep pace > > Yes? your suggestion that the drive through restaurant as an ideal model falls down doesn't it [...] > > > it also has to be remembered that by definition journeys to school to > drop [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > depite many work in completely the opposite direction ? How is that relevant? You can still go via the school if you find it convenient. Unlike PT, you can tailor your journey to suit your needs. > >they don't trust the ancient clapped-out > > buses, > > you obviously know very little firstly of the required standards of PCVs , > and of the checks that LAs / PTEs run on the people who win the contracts > for schools transport How can you assert that based on the preceeding comment? > >bullying, etc etc. We are not all idealised anti-car clones :-) > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > your suggestion that the drive through restaurant as an ideal model falls > down doesn't it I don't remember proclaiming it "ideal". I was pointing out that in other situations with similar problems solutions are sought and attempted. They don't roll-over and call for a ban on all private cars, especially ostentatious ones. Matt B -- > > blocked by these people. > > NO. Do I need to say it again... I am suggesting that safe provision *can* > be made to accommodate parents wishing to bring their kids to school by car. > McDonald's manage to provide drive-thru access to many of their restaurants. > It is not rocket science. Where there's a will there's a way. How long do you think M would last if you could stay in the drive in line and pick and choose which burger you wanted to take home? Drive ins work by giving the next in line the next in line. >>> > Don't today's kids have legs then? >>> Whether they have or not, and how they use them is nobody else's [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Matt B Okay. Let's look at my local Junior school. It has no provision for drop-off and no space to provide any. Parents therefore park in the residential streets around - no problem with that as long as they are considerate in their parking. The problem is that they park opposite each other narrowing the road to such an extent that they would prevent access by emergency vehicles; park so close to driveways that turning in or out of them is nigh on impossible and park half-way round the corners onto the main-road, totally blocking any view of oncoming traffic for someone waiting to pull out of the side roads. Provision of a drop-off and pick up point would involve preventing local residents (with no off-road parking) from parking outside their own houses or would involve restricting traffic along the main road. My solution would simply be to ticket every badly parked vehicle every day until the parents learn to park properly. There is adequate space to park properly, but they just won't walk the extra 50 or sixty yards. Just to deviate from the topic slightly - there is a local convenience store near my parents' house. Shop is on the side road, which tees into the main road. People park on both sides of the side road to go to the shop, narrowing the road to a single car's width. This means that cars waiting to pull out of the side road block cars that have turned into it, leaving them with their rear end stuck out onto the main road on the blind-side of a hump-back bridge! There is a car-park on the opposite side of the main road - and I mean "directly opposite" and it's even got a zebra crossing to make it easy and safe to use. These people are creating a dangerous situation every day and yet not one of them is ever ticketed - in fact the local police even park there to get their shopping! Steve W > "Matt B" <matt.bourkeNOT@london.com> wrote in message > news:c635hn$7jrfe$1@ID-216520.news.uni-berlin.de... [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > main-road, totally blocking any view of oncoming traffic for someone > waiting to pull out of the side roads. So there is room it just needs managing properly? > Provision of a drop-off and pick up point would involve preventing local > residents (with no off-road parking) from parking outside their own houses Which is actually public highway which they have no more right to hog than anyone else? > or would involve restricting traffic along the main road. Like at lots of other places? > My solution would simply be to ticket every badly parked vehicle every day > until the parents learn to park properly. There is adequate space to park > properly, but they just won't walk the extra 50 or sixty yards. Fine if it solves the problem, and all the parents "buy-in". Matt B -- >> My solution would simply be to ticket every badly parked vehicle >> every day until the parents learn to park properly. There is adequate >> space to park properly, but they just won't walk the extra 50 or >> sixty yards. > Fine if it solves the problem, and all the parents "buy-in". Since when did people have to "buy-in" to the Highway Code? http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/22.shtml#217 and 218 >> "Matt B" <matt.bourkeNOT@london.com> wrote in message >> news:c635hn$7jrfe$1@ID-216520.news.uni-berlin.de... [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > Matt B So you're saying that local residents should have to make sure that their cars are moved from outside their doors by half past eight in the morning so that parents can park there for ten minutes, even though there is enough space along the road for the parents to always find a safe parking place. The available space is there, it just isn't right at the end that the parents want to park at. I don't see why the residents at that end should have a controlled parking zone outside their doors causing them to have to park in the spaces that the parents could have used anyway! I have no objection to parents parking for a short time outside my house - I do however object if they block my driveway or make it difficult to get in and out of the road by parking inappropriately. It's simple consideration - I've been driving for eighteen years and have never parked up on yellow lines; near a school entrance; on a corner; blocking someones drive; opposite another parked car (on roads so narrow as to cause an obstruction by this); at a bus stop or any of the myriad of daft places that I see people parked. Every time I park or even stop to drop-off or pick someone up, I look what problems I could be causing and do my best to avoid them. All I ask is that the idiots amongst those on the school run do the same. There may indeed be schools where special drop-off or even parking facilities are required, but my local school is not one of them. On the other hand, all schools need parents to use some common sense about parking. Steve W > >> My solution would simply be to ticket every badly parked vehicle every day > >> until the parents learn to park properly. There is adequate space to park [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > so that parents can park there for ten minutes, even though there is enough > space along the road for the parents to always find a safe parking place. The solution in this case seems obvious :-) The residents park along the road, leaving the school entrance clear. > The available space is there, it just isn't right at the end that the > parents want to park at. I don't see why the residents at that end should [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > my best to avoid them. All I ask is that the idiots amongst those on the > school run do the same. I am the same, and I've been "not doing it" for even longer :-( The anti-social law-breakers always spoil it for the law-obeyers. But rather than having a heart attack over it I'm thinking about a pragmatic solution that doesn't cost even more money to enforce and cause even more nuisance to everyone concerned. > There may indeed be schools where special drop-off or even parking > facilities are required, but my local school is not one of them. On the > other hand, all schools need parents to use some common sense about > parking. Matt B -- >>>> My solution would simply be to ticket every badly parked vehicle every > day [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > Matt B But your pragmatic solution inconveniences the local households to provide a facility for the current lawbreakers. What's wrong with inconveniencing the lawbreakers by ticketing them until they stop breaking the law? It's not as if they've no alternative place to park here, they're just too lazy to walk that tiny extra bit. Forcing the householders to park elsewhere means them moving their cars first thing in the morning, moving them back, doing the same at lunchtime and again at the end of the day, either that or they have to park outside someone elses house all day, inconveniencing another household. All this so that a parent doesn't have to spend a total of one extra minute parking and walking a few houses further down the road. I'm not joking or exagerating here - I live at number 12, and parents park *on* the corners at the end of the road, even though there are free spaces from number 16 onwards! Steve W > > When I went to school that way was school buses / bikes / feet. I know > its [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > use cars make it safe and easy for them, not difficult. The > government/council is there to serve the people, not the other way round. And the majority of "people" are those passing through, not those clogging the road, shouldn't they be served? > > Not all schools are on small back roads - many are on major routes. > > Where there's a will there's a way. So which do you suggest moving? The road or the school? SignatureThe poster formerly known as Skodapilot. http://www.bouncing-czechs.com > > > Not all schools are on small back roads - many are on major routes. > > > > Where there's a will there's a way. > > So which do you suggest moving? The road or the school? Depends on the case. There might be enough land in the school to provide a drop-off circuit. The road might be wide enough to mark-off a special lane. Their might be the possibility of routing the traffic around adjacent streets at the appropriate hours... Some imagination might be required. Matt B -- > Depends on the case. There might be enough land in the school to provide a > drop-off circuit. The road might be wide enough to mark-off a special lane. > Their might be the possibility of routing the traffic around adjacent > streets at the appropriate hours... Some imagination might be required. We could also supply children with computerised rocket packs to take them straight home. > > Depends on the case. There might be enough land in the school to provide > a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > We could also supply children with computerised rocket packs to take them > straight home. How about overhead ski lifts. They just hook their back packs over one shoulder (as they do) and hold the other strap in the air over their heads, an the drag lift would hook them up like a mail sack. Oh jet and no nasty jet fuel residue pollution either. SignatureThe poster formerly known as Skodapilot. http://www.bouncing-czechs.com > > > Depends on the case. There might be enough land in the school to provide > > a [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > them up like a mail sack. Oh jet and no nasty jet fuel residue pollution > either. Lefty greeny git. That sounds far too much like some form of public transport. What would we be teaching our children. What about walking to and from school - so easy to do! > What about walking to and from school - so easy to do! Indeed, when I was at school, my primary school was about an hour and a half walk away. My secondary was about the same time in the other direction. If we stay where we are now, my daughter will _definitely_ be walking to school, because it's about 150 yards away :-) Pete. SignatureNOTE! Email address is spamtrapped. Any email will be bounced to you Remove the news and underscore from my address to reply by mail > > What about walking to and from school - so easy to do! > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Pete. I deliberately chose the primary school that was easiest for my daughter to walk to rather than the slightly more prestigious school which was a little further away and where she would have had to cross a nasty roundabout. This was because I wanted her to travel independently as soon as she could. Also 2 years later when I wanted to transfer her I couldn't because of lack of availablity of places. Some of the driving problem is caused by parents desperation to enrol their children in the school with the best reputation rather than the one closest to home. > > > > Not all schools are on small back roads - many are on major routes. > > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Matt B > -- I concede that the second one may work, but the first one wouldn't. In may cases, school grounds used to have tamac playgrounds and sports fields to see out of the window. Now they have housing estates and shopping centres and hotels. SignatureThe poster formerly known as Skodapilot. http://www.bouncing-czechs.com > > > > Not all schools are on small back roads - many are on major routes. > > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Depends on the case. There might be enough land in the school to provide a > drop-off circuit. There were these things at quite a few local schools they have all been closed off now with electric barriers with key card entry for the teachers to park in. It's possibly a security system to stop the tens or thousands of gangs of roving paedophiles that some people seem to think rove the land. >> > > Not all schools are on small back roads - many are on major >> > > routes. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > around adjacent streets at the appropriate hours... Some imagination > might be required. Cheapest, easiest to implement and healthiest is to get the children to walk. MrBitsy. >>> > Not all schools are on small back roads - many are on major routes. >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Matt B As I've said in a reply to one of your previous posts. My local school has no space to provide a drop-off point. The side road that the school is on is extremely narrow - ie if you drive in, you'll have to reverse out if anyone is coming the other way (it's a dead end, so they've got nowhere else to go. The main road is narrow enough already. The surrounding residential streets have no spare space for drop-off points without "severely" impacting local residents - there is spare space to park, but marking out an area specifically for it would require the residents adjacent to the designated area to move their vehicles from outside their own front doors at set times every day no matter what inconvenience this caused them. I can't see how you can close off even one direction of the main road through the area without causing massive traffic chaos - recent roadworks with traffic lights caused huge queues all day every day. There is not a sensible route around without hitting a number of junctions which are very difficult to get out of in rush hour. As I said in my other post - what's needed it to ticket all those that park badly. They'll soon learn that it's no great hardship to walk an extra 50 or 60 yards instead of parking on the corner or in the bus-stop. If some have to walk another 200 yards, is this such a hardship that we the local residents and all the people that have to pass through this area should be inconvenienced for the sake of an incosiderate minority? Steve W >> > Perhaps councils/police need new powers to close roads by schools >> > at arriving and leaving times with one-way access only to drop >> > children off safely. It is the impatient through traffic which >> > causes the danger. >> Because one small section of society can't be arsed to obey the rules >> of the road, the road should be denied to everybody else? > No. If the requirements of the community (to drop their kids off > close to school) are obviously not being met, then something needs to > done about it. It's not the whole community's needs - it's not actually ANYBODY's needs. It's the PREFERENCE of a small group of parents, who are too f'ing idle to park properly a short distance further away from the school, assuming there is an actual necessity to drive them. >> Not all schools are on small back roads - many are on major routes. > Where there's a will there's a way. What do you suggest for a school directly on a three-digit A-road which is the main route for several towns to the M25? There are no viable alternative routes for HGVs due to low railway bridges and narrow lanes, without a long detour. Besides, if you did make it one-way, you'd piss half the parents off by definition. > >> > Perhaps councils/police need new powers to close roads by schools > >> > at arriving and leaving times with one-way access only to drop [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > It's not the whole community's needs Same with all facilities and services provided to the community. Some will use it some won't. > - it's not actually ANYBODY's needs. Just like swimming baths, zebra crossings, shopping precincts etc. > It's the PREFERENCE of a small group of parents, who are too f'ing idle to > park properly a short distance further away from the school, assuming there > is an actual necessity to drive them. So their preferences should be completely disregarded? Do they not have *any* say in what facilities are provided? > >> Not all schools are on small back roads - many are on major routes. > > Where there's a will there's a way. > What do you suggest for a school directly on a three-digit A-road which is > the main route for several towns to the M25? There are no viable > alternative routes for HGVs due to low railway bridges and narrow lanes, > without a long detour. The solution might need a bit of imagination, agreed. But I suspect in most cases better solutions could be provided. > Besides, if you did make it one-way, you'd piss half the parents off by > definition. Depends how far round it is:-) Matt B -- >> >> > Perhaps councils/police need new powers to close roads by >> >> > schools at arriving and leaving times with one-way access only >> >> > to drop children off safely. It is the impatient through >> >> > traffic which causes the danger. >> >> Because one small section of society can't be arsed to obey the >> >> rules of the road, the road should be denied to everybody else? >> > No. If the requirements of the community (to drop their kids off >> > close to school) are obviously not being met, then something needs >> > to done about it. >> It's not the whole community's needs > Same with all facilities and services provided to the community. Some > will use it some won't. And yet you want to massively inconvenience everybody else to facilitate a minority. >> - it's not actually ANYBODY's needs. > Just like swimming baths, zebra crossings, shopping precincts etc. None of which close roads on a daily basis for a couple of hours. >> It's the PREFERENCE of a small group of parents, who are too f'ing >> idle to park properly a short distance further away from the school, >> assuming there is an actual necessity to drive them. > So their preferences should be completely disregarded? Do they not > have *any* say in what facilities are provided? Yes, they do. They do not have the right to have their inconsideration massively inconvenience everybody else, though. > The solution might need a bit of imagination, agreed. But I suspect > in most cases better solutions could be provided. Like a traffic warden or two. >> Besides, if you did make it one-way, you'd piss half the parents off >> by definition. > Depends how far round it is:-) Even 10 yards further than strictly necessary seems too much for many - otherwise this whole discussion wouldn't be happening... > >> >> > Perhaps councils/police need new powers to close roads by > >> >> > schools at arriving and leaving times with one-way access only [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > And yet you want to massively inconvenience everybody else to facilitate > a minority. Not at all. If it is properly done all would benefit. > >> - it's not actually ANYBODY's needs. > > Just like swimming baths, zebra crossings, shopping precincts etc. > > None of which close roads on a daily basis for a couple of hours. Some do some don't. In a town near us some streets are closed to traffic all day. > >> It's the PREFERENCE of a small group of parents, who are too f'ing > >> idle to park properly a short distance further away from the school, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Yes, they do. They do not have the right to have their inconsideration > massively inconvenience everybody else, though. Quite, which is why it is time to accommodate then properly, not to try to pretent that if we make it difficult for them they will disappear. > > The solution might need a bit of imagination, agreed. But I suspect > > in most cases better solutions could be provided. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Even 10 yards further than strictly necessary seems too much for many - > otherwise this whole discussion wouldn't be happening... Ho ho. Matt B -- >>>> > Perhaps councils/police need new powers to close roads by schools >>>> > at arriving and leaving times with one-way access only to drop [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > So their preferences should be completely disregarded? Do they not have > *any* say in what facilities are provided? It's called the greatest good of the greatest number. A small number of inconsiderate parents who will not make the slightest effort to park safely and without causing obstruction should not be allowed to dictate the way that the majority of people in and passing through the area can live their lives. We're not calling for parents to be banned from driving to schools, just that they park *PROPERLY* when they get there. Unless either the parent or child is disabled, there is no need whatsoever to park within 50 yards of the school's front door! >>>> Not all schools are on small back roads - many are on major routes. >>> Where there's a will there's a way. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Depends how far round it is:-) > Matt B Steve W <snip> > No. If the requirements of the community (to drop their kids off > close to school) are obviously not being met, then something needs to > done about it. Sure does - make the kids walk or cycle to school. That would help traffic flow and get the fat off the kids. MrBitsy > > No. If the requirements of the community (to drop their kids off > > close to school) are obviously not being met, then something needs to > > done about it. > > Sure does - make the kids walk or cycle to school. That would help traffic > flow and get the fat off the kids. More trying to escape the reality that people want private, not public, transport and more nanny-statism :-( Matt B -- > > > No. If the requirements of the community (to drop their kids off > > > close to school) are obviously not being met, then something needs to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > More trying to escape the reality that people want private, not public, > transport and more nanny-statism :-( I must have missed the nationalisation of bikes then. Shoes and bikes are both in the private ownership of the user in the same way the average car is. > > Sure does - make the kids walk or cycle to school. That would help traffic > > flow and get the fat off the kids. > > More trying to escape the reality that people want private, not public, > transport and more nanny-statism :-( You can't get more private than walking. >> > No. If the requirements of the community (to drop their kids off >> > close to school) are obviously not being met, then something needs [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Matt B > -- Few kids need any sort of transport, just their legs. Making them walk or cycle is good for congestion, health of the childrun and the enviroment. MrBitsy. >>> No. If the requirements of the community (to drop their kids off >>> close to school) are obviously not being met, then something needs to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Matt B Walking and cycling are both forms of *private* transport - my legs definitely belonged to me the last time I looked :) Steve W >>Walking and cycling are both forms of *private* transport - my legs >>definitely belonged to me the last time I looked :) If some parents parked further away than 50m they would be further from school than just walking the whole way. My daughters school has a very small catchment area, all walkable in 10 minutes but the majority arrive in cars even though it would be quicker to walk > > Perhaps councils/police need new powers to close roads by schools at > > arriving and leaving times with one-way access only to drop children off > > safely. It is the impatient through traffic which causes the danger. How come children end up going to schools further away than the nearest one to where they live? I think parents should be fined if they are found to have lied about where they live in order to get their child into their choice of school. > > Matt B (matt.bourkeNOT@london.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like > they [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > How come children end up going to schools further away than the nearest one > to where they live? Because it's the one their parents want them to go to probably. > I think parents should be fined if they are found to have lied about where > they live in order to get their child into their choice of school. Very compassionate aren't you. I think that parents should be able to send their kids to the school of their choice. If it is oversubscribed a lottery should be used, not geography. Why should you have to move to get your kid into a good school? What if the catchment area is outside your budget? Matt B -- >> How come children end up going to schools further away than the >> nearest one to where they live? > Because it's the one their parents want them to go to probably. Oh, you *are* funny... >> I think parents should be fined if they are found to have lied about >> where they live in order to get their child into their choice of >> school. Lying about your home address is pretty damn difficult. Lying about your religious affiliation to get into a church school is a lot more common. > >> How come children end up going to schools further away than the > >> nearest one to where they live? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Lying about your home address is pretty damn difficult. all it needs is a friend or relative who does live in the catchments area to collude with you and allow you to use their address on paperwork . pass on any post > If it is oversubscribed a lottery should be used, not geography. > Why should you have to move to get your kid So, you'd bus a kid 2 miles to the next school when he lives right next door to his local school and all his friends go there, just so someone living 30 miles away can get a place? A non-geographical basis for selection is simply unworkable. Christian. > > If it is oversubscribed a lottery should be used, not geography. > > Why should you have to move to get your kid > > So, you'd bus a kid 2 miles to the next school when he lives right next door > to his local school and all his friends go there, just so someone living 30 > miles away can get a place? Would you make a single-parent kid go to a poorly performing school because it was closer to his home than the excellent school all his friends in the posh houses go to? > A non-geographical basis for selection is simply unworkable. Where there's a will... Matt B -- > Why should you have to move to get your kid > into a good school? For the same reason that they should move to be nearer to work. I think that was how the arguement worked. SignatureThe poster formerly known as Skodapilot. http://www.bouncing-czechs.com > > Has anybody ever been near a school at about 8:45? I go past one on > > the way to work every day and it's a nightmare. For some strange [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > arriving and leaving times with one-way access only to drop children off > safely. It is the impatient through traffic which causes the danger. no, vastly extend the zigzags ( approximately half a mile in all directions from the school) and enforce them. -Primary school pupils who live more 2 miles from the school get free transport -secondary school pupils who live more than 3 miles away get free transport -if spare places exist those who live close to the limits can purchase places on the school transport -those who choose for attend non local schools can in certain circumstances get free transport -the PTE areas have subsidised non free transport > > > Has anybody ever been near a school at about 8:45? I go past one on > > > the way to work every day and it's a nightmare. For some strange [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > no, vastly extend the zigzags ( approximately half a mile in all directions > from the school) and enforce them. How would that make the process easier for those who wish to drop their children off at the door? > -Primary school pupils who live more 2 miles from the school get free > transport > -secondary school pupils who live more than 3 miles away get free transport So? Now, if the council provided free transport *door-to-door* for *all* pupils that might reduce the volume of traffic to be accommodated. That would be at their discretion. > -if spare places exist those who live close to the limits can purchase > places on the school transport Very generous, I'm sure. > -those who choose for attend non local schools can in certain circumstances > get free transport What point are you trying to make? > -the PTE areas have subsidised non free transport The more the better, I guess. Matt B -- > How would that make the process easier for those who wish to drop their > children off at the door? It doesn't. It makes it easier for those who want to send their children to school on foot or bike, so they can get some exercise and social contact without being gassed and run over by incompetent 4x4 drivers with a need to double park on junctions. Christian. > > How would that make the process easier for those who wish to drop their > > children off at the door? > > It doesn't. It makes it easier for those who want to send their children to > school on foot or bike, Live and let live. The two (or more) groups can co-exist with proper facilities provided. > so they can get some exercise and social contact > without being gassed and run over by incompetent 4x4 drivers with a need to > double park on junctions. Provide proper access and everyone will have more time for all those wonderful things. Double-parking etc is indicative of a bad council not providing the appropriate facilities where they are wanted. Matt B -- >> > How would that make the process easier for those who wish to drop >> > their children off at the door? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > wonderful things. Double-parking etc is indicative of a bad council > not providing the appropriate facilities where they are wanted. LOL! More down to bad parenting. Both my sons walk 1.5 miles each way to school, no bother at all. They get to burn off excess calories and I don't bung the road up making 2 extra drives per day. MrBitsy. > >> > How would that make the process easier for those who wish to drop > >> > their children off at the door? [...] > >> so they can get some exercise and social contact > >> without being gassed and run over by incompetent 4x4 drivers with a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > > LOL! Are you a councillor? > More down to bad parenting. Both my sons walk 1.5 miles each way to school, > no bother at all. That is *your/their* choice. No one is suggesting that *everone* has to drive to school. > They get to burn off excess calories and I don't bung the > road up making 2 extra drives per day. Fine if your lifestyle can accommodate it. You do it your way, but don't dictate how others do it. Matt B -- > Fine if your lifestyle can accommodate it. You do it your way, but don't > dictate how others do it. Don't dictate mine by polluting the roads, providing a road safety hazard and bringing up f.cked up agrophobic children who haven't left the house except in a glass bubble until their 21st birthday. These cocooned abused children are the serial killers of tomorrow. Let them walk. Let them get wet. Let them get cold. They'll be better more rounded people by 18 than your molly coddled 18 year old toddler. Christian. > > Fine if your lifestyle can accommodate it. You do it your way, but don't > > dictate how others do it. > > Don't dictate mine by polluting the roads, You don't use or consume anything that in anyway contributes to any form of pollution then? > providing a road safety hazard No, I am suggesting that, perhaps, the roads would be safer if we tried to accommodate, rather obstruct parents wishing to transport their kids to school by car. > and bringing up f.cked up agrophobic children who haven't left the house > except in a glass bubble until their 21st birthday. Now now. > These cocooned abused children are the serial killers of tomorrow. Oh dear. > Let them walk. Let them get wet. Let them get cold. > They'll be better more rounded people by 18 than your molly coddled > 18 year old toddler. I would suggest that demonstrating an open mind and a tolerance towards fellow citizens from all walks (sorry) of life would be a good start. Ther is plenty of time when they get older to assimilate bigotted views and ideas based on some sort of self-righteous idealism. Matt B -- > > These cocooned abused children are the serial killers of tomorrow. > > Oh dear. Hey, this is Usenet, you have to sound like a raving loony occasionally, you know! > I would suggest that demonstrating an open mind and a tolerance towards > fellow citizens from all walks (sorry) of life would be a good start. OK, what do you think of my idea elsewhere in this thread that a separate drop off point remote from the school is provided. This would preferably be in a supermarket car park or similar, which is set up to receive large numbers of vehicles. A supervised walking bus will escort the children to school, keeping them safe from paedophiles and whatever Mrs 4x4 is scared of. This will actually be more convenient for the car owner, as they can drop off slightly earlier and get to work earlier. The route will be less congested and it will remove the road safety danger from the cars congregating in the school area. The supermarket will be happy at the inevitable fact that half the parents will pop in for a sandwich or do the shopping. Christian. > > > These cocooned abused children are the serial killers of tomorrow. > > > > Oh dear. > > Hey, this is Usenet, you have to sound like a raving loony occasionally, you > know! I know! :-) > > I would suggest that demonstrating an open mind and a tolerance towards > > fellow citizens from all walks (sorry) of life would be a good start. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > school, keeping them safe from paedophiles and whatever Mrs 4x4 is scared > of. Sounds fantastic to me. I'm not too bothered exactly how far from the school it is, only that it caters for the parents who want to drive (for any of a number of good reasons and bad). > This will actually be more convenient for the car owner, as they can drop > off slightly earlier and get to work earlier. The route will be less > congested and it will remove the road safety danger from the cars > congregating in the school area. The supermarket will be happy at the > inevitable fact that half the parents will pop in for a sandwich or do the > shopping. Kills lots of birds with one stone :-) Now we're talking. Matt B -- > > More down to bad parenting. Both my sons walk 1.5 miles each way to > school, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Fine if your lifestyle can accommodate it. You do it your way, but don't > dictate how others do it. I want my child to be able to cycle to school without beingn bothered by soccer moms that can't drive in oversized 4x4s , that's " my way", why are you trying to dictate that my child can't because room has to be made for unsafe drivers? >> > More down to bad parenting. Both my sons walk 1.5 miles each way to >> school, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > why are you trying to dictate that my child can't because room has to > be made for unsafe drivers? Good god, I fully agree! I will not reply with 'I agree' in future, as I do not want to ruin your 'group cred'. :-) MrBitsy. > >> > More down to bad parenting. Both my sons walk 1.5 miles each way to > >> school, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Good god, I fully agree! Oh dear the 3 of us all agree on something all we need now is Conor and it could be the end of the world. ;) > Oh dear the 3 of us all agree on something all we need now is Conor and it could > be the end of the world. ;) Well, he can't fail to agree except on principle, because without the Safari experdition grade 4x4 driving Soccer moms, he would have no toruble getting his truck arround. SignatureThe poster formerly known as Skodapilot. http://www.bouncing-czechs.com > > > More down to bad parenting. Both my sons walk 1.5 miles each way to > > school, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I want my child to be able to cycle to school without beingn bothered by > soccer moms Then get your council to lay on the appropriate facilities without expecting others to leave the road free for your private vendetta. > that can't drive in oversized 4x4s, Driver training, not school run troubles. You can't ban *all* school runners because some have poor skills. > that's " my way", why > are you trying to dictate that my child can't because room has to be made > for unsafe drivers? I wouldn't dream of it - read it all again - and write 100 times "I don't own the road" ;-) Matt B -- "Matt B" <matt.bourkeNOT@london.com> wrote in news:c63g3r$7gs42$1@ID- 216520.news.uni-berlin.de: <snip> > Fine if your lifestyle can accommodate it. You do it your way, but don't > dictate how others do it. I know where your coming from unfortunately. My children have done their own ironing since age 13, cook their own meal 3 times a week since the same age, walk to school in all weathers, they have daily chores including washing up and vacuuming. Strangly, they are both normal weight for their height and I don't bung up the road with a useless drive. If only more parents would get their children to walk or cycle we wouldn't have to consider forcing them to do it. MrBitsy. > Live and let live. The two (or more) groups can co-exist with proper > facilities provided. No they can't. Driving to school should be made difficult to discourage it. Having mad incompetent drivers around the school gates at that time of day shouldn't be permitted. It is also bad for social and physical development to be cocooned all the time. > Provide proper access and everyone will have more time for all those > wonderful things. Double-parking etc is indicative of a bad council not > providing the appropriate facilities where they are wanted. Just because it is wanted, doesn't mean it should be provided. I would resent anything that spent my tax money making it easier for stuck up 4x4 owners to gas and run over my children. Christian. > > Live and let live. The two (or more) groups can co-exist with proper > > facilities provided. > > No they can't. Driving to school should be made difficult to discourage it. Here we go again. What about "driving to work", "driving to the shops" or even simply "driving". > Having mad incompetent drivers around the school gates at that time of day > shouldn't be permitted. Exactly. That is why we need to control access outside schools to allow only those who are dropping-off kids to go there. > It is also bad for social and physical development to be cocooned all the time. Yes. What relevance does that statement have to the discussion? > > Provide proper access and everyone will have more time for all those > > wonderful things. Double-parking etc is indicative of a bad council not [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > resent anything that spent my tax money making it easier for stuck up 4x4 > owners to gas and run over my children. So would I :-) I would be quite supportive though of measures to improve access and safety outside schools. I'm not from the "never mind if it stays dangerous, so long as we don't make it any easier for the motorists" brigade. Are you? Matt B -- > Exactly. That is why we need to control access outside schools to allow > only those who are dropping-off kids to go there. So what am I supposed to do if I'm coming home at half past three in the afternoon or just coming up to 9am? Why is an 8 year olds journey more important than my own? Ore do you intend to put a CPO on my house? > > Exactly. That is why we need to control access outside schools to allow > > only those who are dropping-off kids to go there. > > So what am I supposed to do if I'm coming home at half past three in the > afternoon or just coming up to 9am? Hope that the council design the access properly > Why is an 8 year olds journey more important > than my own? They are not, but you could equally argue the opposite, that is why the access needs to be designed to accommodate all. > Ore do you intend to put a CPO on my house? A what? Matt B -- > > > Exactly. That is why we need to control access outside schools to allow > > > only those who are dropping-off kids to go there. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Hope that the council design the access properly There would be no way to add any extra access without demolishing houses even the 2 other old entrances are now completely un accessible. > > Ore do you intend to put a CPO on my house? > > A what? Compulsory Purchase Order > > > > Exactly. That is why we need to control access outside schools to allow > > > > only those who are dropping-off kids to go there. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > There would be no way to add any extra access without demolishing houses even > the 2 other old entrances are now completely un accessible. A supermarket near us bought and demolished several houses to make safe access to their shop. Like I say, where there's a will there's a way. > > > Ore do you intend to put a CPO on my house? > > > > A what? > > Compulsory Purchase Order If it for the good of the community at large why not? :-) Matt B -- > > > Live and let live. The two (or more) groups can co-exist with proper > > > facilities provided. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Here we go again. What about "driving to work", "driving to the shops" or > even simply "driving". driving to work is discouraged driving to the shops - at least some ofthe shopping related stuff requires the car ( or an accomodating taxi /PHV driver) > > Having mad incompetent drivers around the school gates at that time of day > > shouldn't be permitted. > > Exactly. That is why we need to control access outside schools to allow > only those who are dropping-off kids to go there. the point being made is these 'mad , incopetent ' drivers are the Paretns collecting their offspring, their behaviour is well documented > > It is also bad for social and physical development to be cocooned all the > time. > > Yes. What relevance does that statement have to the discussion? driven to school and collected at the end of the day, they miss out on the social interaction that walking/cycling all or part of the way home with friends brings, also interaction with the wider community. not to mention the postive benefits of the physicla excercise > Double-parking etc is indicative of a bad council > not providing the appropriate facilities where they are wanted. In many cases, it's more indicative of inconsiderate parents. Like, I suspect, you. >>> How would that make the process easier for those who wish to drop their >>> children off at the door? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Matt B No, it's indicative of lack of thought and consideration by the parents concerned. As I've said elsewhere, there is sufficient space to park safely near to my local school, but parents will not walk their kids the extra 50 or 60 yards required. No extra facilities are required, other than parking wardens - which incidentaly could be redirected from around the local hospital half a mile away where they rigorously enforce 20 minute parking zones for the benefit of the, few, shops and to the detriment of residents who cannot park outside their own homes as they used to do. BTW the problem is lack of parking at the hospital - they've built more buildings on the car parks after selling off the old overflow carpark for housebuilding. Steve W > > Double-parking etc is indicative of a bad council not > > providing the appropriate facilities where they are wanted. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > near to my local school, but parents will not walk their kids the extra 50 > or 60 yards required. "Close enough" obviously isn't good enough. If you're lazy, or pushed for time, or it's raining, or whatever you want to be at the entrance :-) It's like when you go to buy shoes and they haven't got your size in the style of your choice, and come back with something else which happens to be your size. It is NOT the answer. If you want to go for a walk in the morning there is nothing stopping you. If you want to drive your kids to school why not cater for the need? Matt B -- >>> Double-parking etc is indicative of a bad council not >>> providing the appropriate facilities where they are wanted. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Matt B I don't expect to park outside the door of my bank; the railway station; any particular shop in the precinct or even the door of my place of work. I expect to be able to park somewhere close - indeed as close as possible - but without causing danger and annoyance to others. My son is as yet too young for school. When he goes he will very likely go to the Church school, not our local one and therefore, at least some of the time, will be driven (my wife has to pass the school at just the right time on the three days a week that she works). The difference is that we know that the school entrance is congested and is also a narrow road, so we will park on the main road (which is plenty wide enough - it does in fact have marked parking bays for the shops) and walk along the road that the school is on. A total walk of 100 to 200 yards depending which spaces are free. There is no hardship whatsoever in this. For the other two days a week, they'll walk, unless the weather's very bad. If you're so pushed for time that you can't walk an extra few yards, what are you going to do when you've left the school and the next set of traffic lights changes to red in front of you? If you have an appointment that is so critical that you *CANNOT* be a couple of minutes late, then you need to set out an hour or so early, in case you have a puncture; get held up in a jam due to a accident and then suddenly notice that you're low on petrol and will have to stop to fill up as well. Why do some parents feel that they must get right up to the door? What if the school were to be incorporated into a pedestrianised area, would you require special access at school times so that parents could park there? Steve W > > > > Has anybody ever been near a school at about 8:45? I go past one on > > > > the way to work every day and it's a nightmare. For some strange [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > How would that make the process easier for those who wish to drop their > children off at the door? It wouldn't but it would make the process of getting from A to B for the vast majority of people on the roads easier & quicker. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. > > > > > Has anybody ever been near a school at about 8:45? I go past one on > > > > > the way to work every day and it's a nightmare. For some strange [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > majority of people on the roads easier & quicker. The needs of the many outweigh > the needs of the few or the one. Better to design the system to accommodate them all? It only needs the will. Matt B -- > > It wouldn't but it would make the process of getting from A to B for the > vast [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Better to design the system to accommodate them all? It only needs the > will. Would you advocate raising income tax to pay for your grand plans? A couple of pence should do it. > > > It wouldn't but it would make the process of getting from A to B for the > > vast [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Would you advocate raising income tax to pay for your grand plans? A couple of > pence should do it. Being a safety issue perhaps some of "safety camera partnership" windfalls could be used? Matt B -- > Being a safety issue perhaps some of "safety camera partnership" windfalls > could be used? No, because they really make a pathetic (or no) amount of money > > Being a safety issue perhaps some of "safety camera partnership" windfalls > > could be used? > > No, because they really make a pathetic (or no) amount of money I'm not supervised, have you seen the overheads ( including the CEO wages)? > danger. > > > > no, vastly extend the zigzags ( approximately half a mile in all [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Better to design the system to accommodate them all? It only needs the > will. You have obviously never heard of the "X value" of a journey! Parents decide to drop off their kids or not ( and lots of other trips) depending on whether they consider it "worth it" in time/risk/money. If you reduce the Xvalue of a trip, then more people make the trip until the congestion balances the X value again. > > danger. > > > > > no, vastly extend the zigzags ( approximately half a mile in all [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > the Xvalue of a trip, then more people make the trip until the congestion > balances the X value again. It's called "latent demand". Imagine if internet network planners had your pessimism. Imagine if the national grid was designed that way. If improving something allows more people to benefit I'm all for it. Matt B -- > > > danger. > > > > > > no, vastly extend the zigzags ( approximately half a mile in all [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > pessimism. Imagine if the national grid was designed that way. If > improving something allows more people to benefit I'm all for it. Both seem to be working on the what we have will have to do system just as the road network is. The national grid has it's lowest reserves in the past 30 years and stations are still being closed, broad band ISPs are imposing new caps to allow them to resell the bandwidth despite bandwidth being at it's cheapest ever and we all know the road network needs a massive overhaul just to accommodate today's levels of traffic. [...] > > > > Better to design the system to accommodate them all? It only needs the > > > > will. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > road network is. The national grid has it's lowest reserves in the past 30 years > and stations are still being closed, I don't here of peak-time power cuts because we don't want to provide enough capacity for the demand - do you? > broad band ISPs are imposing new caps to > allow them to resell the bandwidth despite bandwidth being at it's cheapest ever Why is it cheap? Because of the massive infra-structure created recently to accommodate expected demand? > and we all know the road network needs a massive overhaul just to accommodate > today's levels of traffic. Because it is provided by the government and councils, not private enterprise? Matt B -- > in > > > message news:MPG.1aefbe9ad34d2edb989b8b@news.demon.co.uk... [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > I don't here of peak-time power cuts because we don't want to provide enough > capacity for the demand - do you? Not yet but you don't see them building new stations to cope with the demand that is forecasted to outstrip supply possibly within 10 years. > > broad band ISPs are imposing new caps to > > allow them to resell the bandwidth despite bandwidth being at it's > cheapest ever > > Why is it cheap? Because of the massive infra-structure created recently to > accommodate expected demand? No for the same redone almost everything electrical tends to get cheaper as time goes on, producing the hardware behind it gets progressively simpler and more can be done with the same or less. Though the companys that provide the bandwidth to ISPs have invested in the main limiting factors (cables to the US & Germany). > > and we all know the road network needs a massive overhaul just to > accommodate > > today's levels of traffic. > > Because it is provided by the government and councils, not private > enterprise? I don't see much of a distinction between a government and a private business with a virtual monopoly, take a look at the rail network as you have very little choice as to what brand of train you get from a to b and they have only the one possible rail network there is not competition from rivals there for all they need to do is keep the regulators happy. Things would be the same with a corporate road network as to go from say here to the supermarket there are only 2 relatively sensible routs and they share most of the same roads unless we end up with 2 companies building 2 roads between each point you will have the same situation as now due to the fact there are no alternatives short of investing in a tank to go over the moors. <snip> > Better to design the system to accommodate them all? It only needs > the will. You have just GOT TO BE against a food 'fat' tax! MrBitsy. > <snip> > > > > Better to design the system to accommodate them all? It only needs > > the will. > > You have just GOT TO BE against a food 'fat' tax! Of course ;-) Do you support discriminatory taxes? Matt B -- > > > > Has anybody ever been near a school at about 8:45? I go past one on > > > > the way to work every day and it's a nightmare. For some strange [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > How would that make the process easier for those who wish to drop their > children off at the door? it doesn't however it reduces ,pollution , congestion and dangerous parking , it also encourages a more ped friendly environment around the school , aswel las encouraging children and parents ot take more exercise > > -Primary school pupils who live more 2 miles from the school get free > > transport [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > pupils that might reduce the volume of traffic to be accommodated. That > would be at their discretion. at what cost? the point here is that those who do live a significant distance are currently covered by transport arrangements > > -if spare places exist those who live close to the limits can purchase > > places on the school transport > > Very generous, I'm sure. as it stands the transport is directly funded by locla authorities fro mtheir education budget - raised through both local and general taxation - provding services not mandated is not a popular policy in some council areas > > -those who choose for attend non local schools can in certain > circumstances > > get free transport > > What point are you trying to make? in that those parents who choose other schools for religoius / cultural reasons or becasue of their offspring's particular interests or aptitudes have little reason to suggest they are a special case for transport > > -the PTE areas have subsidised non free transport > > The more the better, I guess. one of the benefits of PTEs >>> > Has anybody ever been near a school at about 8:45? I go past one on >>> > the way to work every day and it's a nightmare. For some strange [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > How would that make the process easier for those who wish to drop their > children off at the door? But why does it have to be *at* the door when *near* to the door is surely close enough. When I go to my local shopping centre, I have to walk further from the car park to the shops than most parents around here would have to walk from a *safe* and *considerate* parking space to the school door, but instead they insist on parking halfway round corners and across people's driveways. >> -Primary school pupils who live more 2 miles from the school get free >> transport [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Matt B Steve W > -Primary school pupils who live more 2 miles from the school get free > transport If they are younger than 8, atm. > -secondary school pupils who live more than 3 miles away get free transport and primary school pupils > -if spare places exist those who live close to the limits can purchase > places on the school transport At 45p for a journey of 1.5 miles > At 45p for a journey of 1.5 miles I walked to school greater than that distance. I have never been fitter since. Driving those distances to school regularly is simply wrong, without extenuating circumstances (occasional mishaps, wheel chair users etc.) Christian. > > At 45p for a journey of 1.5 miles > > I walked to school greater than that distance. I cycled by the time I had to go that far; how old were you? >Driving those distances to school regularly is simply wrong, without > extenuating circumstances (occasional mishaps, wheel chair users etc.) 6 year old along 40mph road with no footway? > > > At 45p for a journey of 1.5 miles > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > 6 year old along 40mph road with no footway? supervised by a parent or responsible older ( secondary school age or adult ) sibling / family friend ? if the road has no footway it's unlikely to be a significant road, however this doesn't mean it's not busy - also is this the quickest route ? the quickest route to secondary school for me involved over half the route being on public FPs not along the side of a road > > > > At 45p for a journey of 1.5 miles > > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > supervised by a parent or responsible older ( secondary school age or > adult ) sibling / family friend ? Where the primary school is over 1.5 miles away with a bus provided, the secondary school is also likely to be a bus journey away (at a different time, in a different direction). How long do you estimate it takes for a 6 year old to walk 1.5 miles, and the parent to walk back again? Worth 45p? > if the road has no footway it's unlikely to be a significant road, however > this doesn't mean it's not busy It means it is not very wide. > - also is this the quickest route ? the quickest route to secondary school > for me involved over half the route being on public FPs not along the side > of a road The shortest route is across a muddy field. The quickest route is along NSL roads with no footway. The route the bus takes is the most walkable one. > > > At 45p for a journey of 1.5 miles > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > 6 year old along 40mph road with no footway? No foot path etc is indicative of a bad council not providing the appropriate facilities where they are wanted. > > 6 year old along 40mph road with no footway? > > No foot path etc is indicative of a bad council not providing the appropriate > facilities where they are wanted. There is a foot*path*, across a muddy field. The lack of footway indicates a narrow road. > > At 45p for a journey of 1.5 miles > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Christian. In some cases it may not be too bad. If the child is young and the parent doesn't have enough time then driving this distance may be an option. However if this is the case then they probably should've never had kids in the first place. > Perhaps councils/police need new powers to close roads by schools at > arriving and leaving times with one-way access only to drop children off > safely. It is the impatient through traffic which causes the danger. You've got something there, except that they should ban the dropping off. There should be a designated drop off zone at least half a mile from the school entrance to cater for those who live far away. Half a mile's walk is good for you. Anyone dropped off at an alternative site should face half an hour's detention and be named and shamed in the school newsletter. Obviously, special needs excluded. Then, given that most of those school runs are cretins living less than half a mile anyway, the vast majority of school traffic will disappear, making it safe to walk and take the bike. Christian. > > Perhaps councils/police need new powers to close roads by schools at > > arriving and leaving times with one-way access only to drop children off > > safely. It is the impatient through traffic which causes the danger. > > You've got something there, Ah, someone with a broader mind perhaps. > except that they should ban the dropping off. Er, second thoughts. > There should be a designated drop off zone at least half a mile from the > school entrance to cater for those who live far away. Half a mile's walk is > good for you. That's as maybe, but who are you to dictate anyone else's lifestyle? Half a mile in the rain with a heavy bag of books and a parent with a tight time-schedule don't make for a relaxed stroll at 8:15am. What planet are you from? > Anyone dropped off at an alternative site should face half an > hour's detention and be named and shamed in the school newsletter. How very tolerant and PC > Obviously, special needs excluded. Why, given the other draconian measures you prescribe? > Then, given that most of those school > runs are cretins living less than half a mile anyway, Do you have evidence? > the vast majority of > school traffic will disappear, making it safe to walk and take the bike. Ha ha . Matt B -- <snip> > Half a mile in the rain with a heavy bag of books Oh no - we can't have the poor dear getting wet! Proper bag and a coat - problem solved! MrBitsy. > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Proper bag and a coat - problem solved! exactly and (re)mandate schools to provide locker space for each and every pupil > That's as maybe, but who are you to dictate anyone else's lifestyle? Well the car drivers shouldn't dictate other's lifestyles by making such a nuisance at the school gates that people are afraid to walk or cycle. > and a parent with a tight time-schedule don't make for a relaxed > stroll at 8:15am. The parent should be involved with school transport at secondary school. Primary schools are normally close by. By Key Stage 2, they should be able to walk themselves, at least from the half mile drop off. I used to walk to school from around the age of 6. I was never run over or abducted. I probably would have been if I lived now as the fleets of polluting gas guzzlers used me as a speed bump in their haste to get the last available parking space on the zig zags. Christian. > The parent should be involved with school transport at secondary school. "shouldn't", of course... Christian. > > That's as maybe, but who are you to dictate anyone else's lifestyle? > > Well the car drivers shouldn't dictate other's lifestyles by making such a > nuisance at the school gates that people are afraid to walk or cycle. Exactly. That is why proper safe access needs to be provided. What is so difficult to understand about that? > > and a parent with a tight time-schedule don't make for a relaxed > > stroll at 8:15am. > > The parent should[n't] be involved with school transport at secondary school. Who says? > Primary schools are normally close by. By Key Stage 2, they should be able > to walk themselves, at least from the half mile drop off. Yes, of course, if that is what their parents want. However, for the rest, why not make it safe and convenient? > I used to walk to > school from around the age of 6. I was never run over or abducted. Glad to hear it :-) > I probably would have been if I lived now as the fleets of polluting gas > guzzlers used me as a speed bump in their haste to get the last available > parking space on the zig zags. So lets make their passage safer and more efficient. We can't/shouldn't try and stop them, so why not try, magnanimously, to accommodate them :-) Matt B -- > Exactly. That is why proper safe access needs to be provided. What is so > difficult to understand about that? It is not possible to provide 200 parking places required only for 5 minutes so stuck up parents can drop off their delicate little darlings who get a stitch by walking out to the car. Nor should we. Also, it isn't just the parking facilities. The sheer quantity of traffic makes it dificult and dangerous to cross the road. All these problems can be solved simply by preventing parents doing so. 20 years ago, parents didn't molly coddle their children like this. They should be prevented from doing so now for the benefit of their children. Christian. > > Exactly. That is why proper safe access needs to be provided. What is so > > difficult to understand about that? > > It is not possible to provide 200 parking places required only for 5 minutes > so stuck up parents can drop off their delicate little darlings who get a > stitch by walking out to the car. Why not? Airports, railway staions and the like manage it. > Nor should we. Why? > Also, it isn't just the parking facilities. The sheer quantity of traffic > makes it dificult and dangerous to cross the road. That isn't the traffic that is the road system. > All these problems can be > solved simply by preventing parents doing so. That would create others. Who decided that parents have no right to deliver their children by car? > 20 years ago, parents didn't > molly coddle their children like this. 20 years ago we didn't have a DVD player or dishwasher. Times change. > They should be prevented from doing so now for the benefit of their children. Is there a proven link between improved child welfare and prohibiting parental choice as to transport mode? Matt B -- > Why not? Airports, railway staions and the like manage it. So every school gets an airport sized car park? By my calculations a typical house plot around here provides parking for 6 cars. The house prices are around the 230K mark. This works out about 2 million quid's worth of houses must be bought up and bulldozed to make the car park per school. Christian. > > Why not? Airports, railway staions and the like manage it. > > So every school gets an airport sized car park? No, a drop-off/pick-up point. Parents don't need to leave their cars there all day! Matt B -- > > > Why not? Airports, railway staions and the like manage it. > > > > So every school gets an airport sized car park? > > No, a drop-off/pick-up point. Parents don't need to leave their cars there > all day! But if all they did now was just dropping off and picking up the problem would be much smaller than it is, at pick up times things are worse as parents don't arrive just for the schools to come out they try to get the best spot this involves getting there earlier than the competition, this is something that wouldn't change with your drop of point. > > > Exactly. That is why proper safe access needs to be provided. What is > so [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Why not? Airports, railway staions and the like manage it. with the exception of white elephants like Sheffield Ciuty Airport , most commercial airports have a steady stram of arrivals and departures either across the extended working day or round the clock, ditto for major rail and coach terminals > > Nor should we. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > That isn't the traffic that is the road system. not really if we suddenly add tens to hundreds of vehicles , lining the roads and often dangerously and /ot double parked it becomes a far more hazardous environment - hence the reasoning behind the protective markings across crossing points and access/ egress points of schools > > All these problems can be > > solved simply by preventing parents doing so. > > That would create others. Who decided that parents have no right to deliver > their children by car? there are systemic issues here , social, environment , educational and health there is a substantial body of anecdotal evidecne which suggests many of these journeys are solely to take the children to school and for no other purpose - and the journey wil lbe less than 2 miles in the case of primary schools due to the transport rules in force > > 20 years ago, parents didn't > > molly coddle their children like this. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Is there a proven link between improved child welfare and prohibiting > parental choice as to transport mode? not welfare per se , but in terms of social interaction, and levels of physical fitness I'm sure quite a lot of evidence could be presented > > > > Exactly. That is why proper safe access needs to be provided. What is so difficult to understand about that? > > > It is not possible to provide 200 parking places required only for 5 > > minutes... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > across the extended working day or round the clock, ditto for major rail and > coach terminals And it seems to work OK. > > > Also, it isn't just the parking facilities. The sheer quantity of > traffic [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > hazardous environment - hence the reasoning behind the protective markings > across crossing points and access/ egress points of schools Look at McDonald's or your average taxi rank. Mark off a queuing lane. Make the pick-up/drop-off point unambiguous. Prevent access other than at the designated place with railings or whatever. Have a warden to usher slow coaches along. What could be simpler? > > > All these problems can be > > > solved simply by preventing parents doing so. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > there are systemic issues here , social, environment , educational and > health Anti-car springs to the front of my mind. There are other things worse in all these areas which could be tackled first. > there is a substantial body of anecdotal evidecne which suggests many of > these journeys are solely to take the children to school and for no other > purpose - and the journey wil lbe less than 2 miles in the case of primary > schools due to the transport rules in force Provision of a free door-to-door chapperoned service would eradicate this. > > > 20 years ago, parents didn't > > > molly coddle their children like this. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > not welfare per se , but in terms of social interaction, and levels of > physical fitness I'm sure quite a lot of evidence could be presented I suspect cyclists would present a worse case here. Matt B -- > > > > > Exactly. That is why proper safe access needs to be provided. What > is so difficult to understand about that? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > And it seems to work OK. rather than packiing all the days 'departures' into 20 -30 mins around 0800 - 0915 depending on what time school starts and all the arrivals into the same time period at the end of the school day > > > > Also, it isn't just the parking facilities. The sheer quantity of > > traffic [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > the designated place with railings or whatever. Have a warden to usher slow > coaches along. What could be simpler? might work in the mornings but not at the end of school > > > > All these problems can be > > > > solved simply by preventing parents doing so. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Anti-car springs to the front of my mind. There are other things worse in > all these areas which could be tackled first. hardly environmental - short car journies are the most polluting as most vehicles runn less efficiently until warmed through - which you are not going to achieve in a sub 4 / 6 mile round trip with an appreciable dwell time wlking / cycling to school provides time for children and young people to interact with their ppeers time they are deprived of if collected and delivered to school by their parents , slightly differnet i suppose if car sharing takes place > > there is a substantial body of anecdotal evidecne which suggests many of > > these journeys are solely to take the children to school and for no other [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Provision of a free door-to-door chapperoned service would eradicate this. at what cost ? on what bsis are you suggesting this is needed > > > > 20 years ago, parents didn't > > > > molly coddle their children like this. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I suspect cyclists would present a worse case here. helmeted cyclists on a designated ( and separated from the carriage way ) cycle path ? risk to cyclists are over played and are compounded by poor practice on behalf of cyclists, ignoring traffic signals , riding irresponsibly ... if cyclists are appropriately lit, wearing appropriate PPE and separated from motor traffic the risk profile becomes very very different > risk to cyclists are over played and are compounded by poor practice on > behalf of cyclists, ignoring traffic signals , riding irresponsibly ... if > cyclists are appropriately lit, wearing appropriate PPE and separated from > motor traffic the risk profile becomes very very different Cyclists on cycle paths have a 7-1 accident rate compared with those on roads, for safety of cyclists and pedestrians cyclists belong on roads, with the rest of the traffic. > > risk to cyclists are over played and are compounded by poor practice on > > behalf of cyclists, ignoring traffic signals , riding irresponsibly ... if [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > roads, for safety of cyclists and pedestrians cyclists belong on roads, > with the rest of the traffic. cite please or is this a local statistic covering shared use paths ? cycle paths should be separated from both the footway and the road - to segregate the different users and their potential conflicts > > risk to cyclists are over played and are compounded by poor practice on > > behalf of cyclists, ignoring traffic signals , riding irresponsibly ... if [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > roads, for safety of cyclists and pedestrians cyclists belong on roads, > with the rest of the traffic. Out of these 7-1 accidents what percentage are fatal? I do agree though, cycle lanes probably aren't too great. > Look at McDonald's or your average taxi rank. Mark off a queuing > lane. Make the pick-up/drop-off point unambiguous. Prevent access > other than at the designated place with railings or whatever. Have a > warden to usher slow coaches along. What could be simpler? Have you ever been to the drop-off section at any airport terminal? It just doesn't work. > > > That's as maybe, but who are you to dictate anyone else's lifestyle? > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Who says? a 11 rising 12 year old child should be able to make their own way whether by foot, cycle, schools transport or public transport to school. it's a sad state of affairs if a nealr y 12 year old can't be trusted to be road aware, look after bus fare / bus pass etc > > Primary schools are normally close by. By Key Stage 2, they should be able > > to walk themselves, at least from the half mile drop off. > > Yes, of course, if that is what their parents want. However, for the rest, > why not make it safe and convenient? becasue of the wider issues - safety - if you make the environ of the school ped/ cyclist friendly it encourages use - especilly if the systemic improvements also exend to primary feeder routes for the catchment - environmental - short journies are more enivronmentally ( not to mention vehicle ) damaging - developmental - both the social interaction and the physical exercise aspects > > > > and a parent with a tight time-schedule don't make for a relaxed > > > > stroll at 8:15am. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > a 11 rising 12 year old child should be able to make their own way whether > by foot, cycle, schools transport or public transport to school. Assuming one of those options is available, possibly. But the choice surely should be with the parents, not the anti-car lobby? > it's a sad state of affairs if a nealr y 12 year old can't be trusted to be > road aware, look after bus fare / bus pass etc Nothing to do with trust. It is personal freedom of choice. > > > Primary schools are normally close by. By Key Stage 2, they should be > able [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > encourages use - especilly if the systemic improvements also exend to > primary feeder routes for the catchment It is down to design. Safety is not incompatible with car use. > - environmental - short journies are more enivronmentally ( not to mention > vehicle ) damaging Who is talking about short journeys? How do you know how long or short anyones journey is going to be. What you need is not a ban on school runs, but on "using cars for short journeys". > - developmental - both the social interaction and the physical exercise > aspects Purely personal. Some do it walking to school, some do it on the bus, others may do it with friends in a car. How can you say any method but driving is good for your development!!! :-) Matt B -- > > > > > and a parent with a tight time-schedule don't make for a relaxed > > > > > stroll at 8:15am. [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > anyones journey is going to be. What you need is not a ban on school runs, > but on "using cars for short journeys". the school run by definition is a short journey unless it is part of a longer journey e.g. a parent who commutes a substantial distance or requires the use oftheir vehicle for work dropping their child off en route > > - developmental - both the social interaction and the physical exercise > > aspects > > Purely personal. Some do it walking to school, some do it on the bus, > others may do it with friends in a car. How can you say any method but > driving is good for your development!!! :-) door to door delivery of the child by the parent does not promote social interaction with peers, very very few children live in a place where they pass none of their peers homes on the way to school physicla exercise - even if the child lives as little as 1/2 a mile from school encouraging them to walk or cycle to school is going to provide 20 minutes or so of gentle physicla exercise per person per day [...] > > How do you know how long or short > > anyones journey is going to be. What you need is not a ban on school [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > longer journey e.g. a parent who commutes a substantial distance or requires > the use oftheir vehicle for work dropping their child off en route "Unless" being the key word. Discriminating against the school run cannot be excused by pretending to be targetting "short journeys". If short journeys are the problem then come up with a pratical scheme to tackle them, whether they be "school run" or not. Matt B -- > Exactly. That is why proper safe access needs to be provided. What is so > difficult to understand about that? The access is safe, by foot and by cycle. It's those parents that insist on driving tarquin to school that make it unsafe. > Perhaps councils/police need new powers to close roads by schools at > arriving and leaving times with one-way access only to drop children off > safely. It is the impatient through traffic which causes the danger. That's as maybe, but who are you to dictate anyone else's lifestyle? > > Perhaps councils/police need new powers to close roads by schools at > > arriving and leaving times with one-way access only to drop children off > > safely. It is the impatient through traffic which causes the danger. > > That's as maybe, but who are you to dictate anyone else's lifestyle? Ha ha. Would you do away with all pedestrian crossings? Matt B -- > > > Perhaps councils/police need new powers to close roads by schools at > > > arriving and leaving times with one-way access only to drop children off [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Ha ha. Would you do away with all pedestrian crossings? Yes, if people can't cross the road safely without the aid of some paint and flashing lights they shouldn't be allowed out. Most pedestrians that get run over do so within 100 yards of a crossing so I guess they must be considered a danger. > That's as maybe, but who are you to dictate anyone else's lifestyle? Why should the car drivers dictate our lifestyles by making a dangerous nuisance? There has to be balance. That balance is that you only drive if you go over 1.5 miles. Even then, you should be made to walk a bit so that you don't get any advantage over someone living closer. Christian. > > Has anybody ever been near a school at about 8:45? I go past one on > > the way to work every day and it's a nightmare. For some strange [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > arriving and leaving times with one-way access only to drop children off > safely. It is the impatient through traffic which causes the danger. Ah how about providing parking spaces at the side of the road with tight enforcement. There would be a 5 min limit on parking in them and the size of the space would be limited by the number of kids to be dropped off. 1 or 2 children would get a space 390x200cm, 3-5 sprogs 430x200cm and 6-8 a large 470x240cm. Failing to park in a space would be a £50 fine + 2 points over staying the 5 min limit would be £20 per min + 2 points every 5. Would weed out those incapable of parallel parking along with the people who seem to feel a Ford Explorer is required to take 1 child to school it may also encourage people to share there cars. > Ah how about providing parking spaces at the side of the road with tight > enforcement. I would provide a few spaces. However, every single one should be a enforced disabled space. Drop off parking should be on a safe route to school at least half a mile away, perhaps starting from a supermarket car park, with a supervised walking bus connection if it is a primary school to allow Key Stage 1 types. The supermarket loses a few spaces for 15 minutes, but probably gains massively in custom from parents popping in. Christian. > > Has anybody ever been near a school at about 8:45? I go past one on > > the way to work every day and it's a nightmare. For some strange [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Matt B > -- That's stupid. It wouldn't be able to get to work. There's a school at the top of my road, a school at the bottom of my road and I pass at least three other schools on my 15 min drive to work. As somebody else has said, it's the parents that are breaking the laws. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.