Originally Posted by salus.populi

Highway Code states if there's a crossing nearby you should use it.

Pedestrians contravene the Highway Code more than cyclists.

But pedestrians don't walk in the road at the speed of a bike, ignoring red lights putting other road users at risk!

Not using a crossing, on what is now a relatively quieter road than it was, is hardly the most serious crime. It is however, the cyclists demand for infrastructure that has directly led to this lady's injuries!

I hope the lady concerned makes a good recovery.


Must be hard to negotiate all the places we take for granted with a sight difficulty.

Originally Posted by local

I hope the lady concerned makes a good recovery.


Must be hard to negotiate all the places we take for granted with a sight difficulty.

Maybe I am missing something or read it wrong but .. has she got a sight difficulty?, and if so was this the cause of her mishap?. The only reference I can see reported here to a sight difficulty is this

“ For an elderley person or anyone with sight issues it is clear to see that these bollards could be a cause of accidents to pedestrians.”

The way this is worded seems to me to be a blanket statement assuming all elderly folk have sight issues, and this fall COULD be to do with sight issues. This statement about the elderly having sight issues may be the case to differing degrees but this far from states she in fact had sight issues or her fall was caused by sight issues.

Anyway I hope she recovers as soon as possible and is aware that half the town wish her well .

Originally Posted by libraryguy

But pedestrians don't walk in the road at the speed of a bike, ignoring red lights putting other road users at risk!

Not using a crossing, on what is now a relatively quieter road than it was, is hardly the most serious crime. It is however, the cyclists demand for infrastructure that has directly led to this lady's injuries!

It's not all about existing cyclists, it's also about all those who would cycle if it was perfectly safe to do so. The number one reason motorists give for not cycling when you ask them - is fear of traffic. That will never change, so long as the media keeps reporting stories of cyclists being knocked off.......Only way to improve the situation, is by providing separate tarmac for those who want to ride.

Originally Posted by libraryguy

But pedestrians don't walk in the road at the speed of a bike, ignoring red lights putting other road users at risk!

Not using a crossing, on what is now a relatively quieter road than it was, is hardly the most serious crime. It is however, the cyclists demand for infrastructure that has directly led to this lady's injuries!

You constantly cry about cyclists not obeying the Highway Code so why do you excuse pedestrians doing the same?
Had the unfortunate lady used a crosssing as she should have done she wouldnt have tripped over cycling infrastructure.

Originally Posted by salus.populi

You constantly cry about cyclists not obeying the Highway Code so why do you excuse pedestrians doing the same?
Had the unfortunate lady used a crosssing as she should have done she wouldnt have tripped over cycling infrastructure.

I don't see where I excused the lady from using a crossing. However, it is only advisory that pedestrians cross at a crossing.

Ignoring a red stop light is just downright dangerous and can cause an accident where the cyclist always sustains the majority of injuries.

Why do they do it? You want to be safe, ask for your own lanes, but purposely put yourself in harms way.

Originally Posted by libraryguy

I don't see where I excused the lady from using a crossing. However, it is only advisory that pedestrians cross at a crossing.

Ignoring a red stop light is just downright dangerous and can cause an accident where the cyclist always sustains the majority of injuries.

Why do they do it? You want to be safe, ask for your own lanes, but purposely put yourself in harms way.

I refer you back to the news article in which a lady was seriously injured due to not taking the advice of the Highway Code
If it had been a story about a cyclist being injured after not obeying the Highway Code we'd have had endless hysteria from you. When a little old lady puts herself purposely in harms way and ends up in hospital it seems its not her own fault in your book.

In Balham a couple of days ago a cyclist was killed on a cycle lane after colliding with another cyclist. No engine two wheels colliding with another two wheeled engineless mode of transport sort of shows the constant rubbish spouted by unohoo is not only annoying to every law abiding motorist but blinkered to the utmost.

I think it’s a bit raw to say she purposely put herself in harms way or it was her own fault, not everyone goes right out of their way halfway up the street to use a crossing, she got to 86 crossing roads including that one probably thousands of times safely until they started putting blocks of concrete obstacle’s in the way.

And in answer to another post I think the majority don’t ride cycles because they just can’t be arsed with them and they don’t find them practical not while shopping or in the rain or peddling the damned contraptions, MOST folk simply haven’t got the fascination or interest for this outdated form of transport that some show on here.

Originally Posted by salus.populi

I refer you back to the news article in which a lady was seriously injured due to not taking the advice of the Highway Code
If it had been a story about a cyclist being injured after not obeying the Highway Code we'd have had endless hysteria from you. When a little old lady puts herself purposely in harms way and ends up in hospital it seems its not her own fault in your book.

If it is true as stated that she was only a few yards away from a crossing it begs the question 'should she even be out by herself?'
Crossing are there for a number of purposes, to make it safer for all road users and to make the traffic flow better. If people can't / won't follow the advice to try to save a few seconds they have only themselves to blame

Originally Posted by MICK/GILLY

I think it’s a bit raw to say she purposely put herself in harms way or it was her own fault, not everyone goes right out of their way halfway up the street to use a crossing, she got to 86 crossing roads including that one probably thousands of times safely until they started putting blocks of concrete obstacle’s in the way.
.

What most people do and what the Highway Code says they should do are indeed quite different. That doesn't excuse anyone from self inflicted misfortune.
Perhaps pedestrians should have to take a regular refresher course in the green cross code and have insurance instead of burdening the NHS due to their misadventure.

Maybe the news headlines should have been ..

Infirm 86 yr old jaywalking traffic hazard with sight difficulties purposely harms herself and puts herself and others in danger while attempting to cross the road illegally or immorally and without her carers .
No I don’t think so ..
While it looks to me there has been no other suggestion that she had sight problems, or has carers, isn’t supposed to be out alone or unsteady on her feet or of diminished mental capacity, not all 86 yr olds are not with it some are quite capable of shopping alone you only have to look at any 9 am bus to see that. Maybe she just wasn’t expecting great lumps of concrete to be littering the road in her path.
I am not a fan of compensation culture but after having to have surgery for breaking her nose in two places and having her face bruised up like that and the shock of it all through no fault of her own and not purposely or through fault of her own I hope she gets proper compensation without argument like the nonesense that’s come up on here . Let’s see if this lane and it’s hazards claim another victim

These bollards make things safer for Cyclists but more dangerous for Pedestrians; Drivers and Motor Cyclists.Did Sefton do a risk assessment before introducing them?

Originally Posted by MICK/GILLY

Maybe she just wasn’t expecting great lumps of concrete to be littering the road in her path.

If she couldn't see these great lumps of concrete in her path it just proves my point.

Originally Posted by salus.populi

If she couldn't see these great lumps of concrete in her path it just proves my point.

Sefton should have done a risk assessment. No matter how hard you try, there will always be someone who (for whatever reason) does not want to use a crossing. There is no law against crossing the road where you want to!

They know Southport has a higher population of more senior and therefore statistically more infirm people.

You don't put ruddy huge trip hazards in the road. They're not even painted white, grey is hardly a stand-out colour.

And when the plastic bollard eventually goes missing - which it will - there's be less of a marker to inform people where these effing things are.

Sefton are going to have a massive bill for compensation with the amount of people getting hurt tripping over them and motor vehicles driving over / bashing wheels on them.

Then again, what do you come to expect form the idiots in Bootle Town Hall.

Of course... one day a cyclist is going to come a cropper on these. We wait in anticipation. It WILL happen.