"Lilloipop Man" seriously injured

Cunobelin · May 2007

Story here

Is nothing sacred?

Lollipop man in bright yellow clothing, with a big "FO" lollipop stick, and some clown breaks both his legs, his ankles and causes a head injury!

I think the comments say it all - my favourite:
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">i know the driver well, it was bound to happen should never have been given a license<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

However I dare say she was driving within a safe speed aand within her judgement of the road conditions and hazards!

Comments?

He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.
(Unattributed Trad.)

andy_wrx · May 2007

Ho hum, here we go again, all drivers are murders, two wheels good four wheels bad, etc, etc.

I don't know what happened here, this report doesn't say, so I'm not going to jump to any biased/prejudiced conclusion as to whose fault it was.

*Some* drivers ought not to be on the road, *some* lollipop men/women are a road hazard rather than safety feature.

Dunno, can't tell from this story. The reporter is clearly sticking to unambiguos facts and hence not telling us a lot at all.

But the comments by locals who presumably do know what happened, about this 'Christine' are quite amusing/shocking...

Time to dig-out the Summer bike (why's it just started raining ? Is it something I said ?)

gavintc · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by andy_wrx

Ho hum, here we go again, all drivers are murders, two wheels good four wheels bad, etc, etc.

I don't know what happened here, this report doesn't say, so I'm not going to jump to any biased/prejudiced conclusion as to whose fault it was.

*Some* drivers ought not to be on the road, *some* lollipop men/women are a road hazard rather than safety feature.

Time to dig-out the Summer bike (why's it just started raining ? Is it something I said ?)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You are taking the urine here. How can a lollipop man ever be a hazard??

Joe Sacco · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by gavintc

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by andy_wrx

Ho hum, here we go again, all drivers are murders, two wheels good four wheels bad, etc, etc.

I don't know what happened here, this report doesn't say, so I'm not going to jump to any biased/prejudiced conclusion as to whose fault it was.

*Some* drivers ought not to be on the road, *some* lollipop men/women are a road hazard rather than safety feature.

Time to dig-out the Summer bike (why's it just started raining ? Is it something I said ?)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You are taking the urine here. How can a lollipop man ever be a hazard??
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

If he stands in the middle lane of a motorway? Did I get it right?

Mister Paul · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by andy_wrx

Ho hum, here we go again, all drivers are murders,....

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

And again, who is saying this?

Why so defensive?

__________________________________________________________
Road Safety Expert

Tourist Tony · May 2007

Yawn.

If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or Dick

Asterixcp · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by andy_wrx

Ho hum, here we go again, all drivers are murders, two wheels good four wheels bad, etc, etc.

I don't know what happened here, this report doesn't say, so I'm not going to jump to any biased/prejudiced conclusion as to whose fault it was.

Dunno, can't tell from this story. The reporter is clearly sticking to unambiguos facts and hence not telling us a lot at all.

But the comments by locals who presumably do know what happened, about this 'Christine' are quite amusing/shocking...

Time to dig-out the Summer bike (why's it just started raining ? Is it something I said ?)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

May I suggest you avoid taking any IQ tests as they would seriously damage your ego?

linfordlunchbox · May 2007

I got to disagree on this one Andy. If the lollipop man is working, then there is a good chance there are small kids about. She should have been taking it steady regardless riding pas the school, and the lollipop workers I've seen/had contact with over the years are very aware of their own vulnerability when stepping out in the road to stop the traffic.

nortones2 · May 2007

One of the reasons the LA has difficulty finding people to do the job locally, is the result of aggressive/impatient motorists. Police only take driving incidents seriously when they have little choice, when the coroner is involved. No concept of the "accident triangle", therefore no active investigation into near misses, first aid injury etc. The fatal event may be a culmination of habitual risk taking - much of which could be prevented if the police were positively led.

The Bosscp · May 2007

Slightly off-topic but I can never understand why they often have a lollipop man/lady on a pelican crossing. What's the point in both together?

One of my ex-neighbours was a lollipop lady who'd been knocked over years ago and was seemingly fine physicaly but was living off the compo for all the years we knew her.

Uncle Mort · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

Slightly off-topic but I can never understand why they often have a lollipop man/lady on a pelican crossing. What's the point in both together?

One of my ex-neighbours was a lollipop lady who'd been knocked over years ago and was seemingly fine physicaly but was living off the compo for all the years we knew her.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Because some motorists (and cyclists) ignore pelican crossings.

__________________
Six foot six he stood on the ground. He weighed two hundred and thirty five pounds
But I saw that giant of a man brought down by a baby elephant

Jon G · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

Slightly off-topic but I can never understand why they often have a lollipop man/lady on a pelican crossing. What's the point in both together?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Partly to stop children from crossing when the lights are against them.

The Bosscp · May 2007

Little jaywalking gets that they are.

Archcp · May 2007

No such thing as jaywalking in this country as far as I know...

If I had a baby elephant, it could help me clean the car. If I had a car.

The Bosscp · May 2007

There is such thing, it's just not illegal in UK.

Asterixcp · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

Slightly off-topic but I can never understand why they often have a lollipop man/lady on a pelican crossing. What's the point in both together?

One of my ex-neighbours was a lollipop lady who'd been knocked over years ago and was seemingly fine physicaly but was living off the compo for all the years we knew her.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Hi Bonj, didn't you know Bruce Springsteen is The Boss, not you? Why aren't you Ben any more - have you been banned for misbehaviour again? Little get that you are[;)]

Pour vivre heureux, vivons le v‚lo..

Unknown · May 2007

If this women had been paying attention to the road in front of her, not speeding and didn't suffer a mechanical defect then I cannot see under what circumstances she can hit a lollipop man ?!?!?!?

As an aside, an ex colleague's wife hit and killed a road worker holding a stop sign at temporary road works. I think she received a œ300 fine. That'll teach her [:(!]

bad company · May 2007

We don't know too much about this yet but I can't see how such severe injuries could have been caused if the car was not going too fast. I would hazzard rather more than a guess the driver was not going at a 'SafeSpeed'.

I have posted before that passing schools when the kids are about (and lollipop men\women) IMO there should be a temporary 10 mph limit.

I AM THE STIG - HONEST

Mister Paul · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by bad company

We don't know too much about this yet but I can't see how such severe injuries could have been caused if the car was not going too fast. I would hazzard rather more than a guess the driver was not going at a 'SafeSpeed'.
I have posted before that passing schools when the kids are about (and lollipop men\women) IMO there should be a temporary 10 mph limit.

I AM THE STIG - HONEST
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

But the crucial question, at the heart of whether 'SafeSpeed' is a real possibility or just a proposterous suggestion, is whether or not the driver thought that she was driving at a safe speed.

She obviously thought that it was safe to herself, otherwise she wouldn't have been at that speed. So we can conclude that the latter is the case.

Argument over in 3 sentences. What a shame. All those thousands of hours wasted.

__________________________________________________________
Road Safety Expert

bad company · May 2007

Mr P - There will always be a minority of mindless drivers who do not drive at safe speeds whatever the prevailing limit. What would you do about this tiny but highly dangerous minority?

Sorry but your last sentence does not make sense. At the end of the day only the driver can possible decide on a safe speed. The prevailing speed limit is just that.

I AM THE STIG - HONEST

Mister Paul · May 2007

BC

How do you know it's a tiny minority? It isn't, and you know it isn't. That's just one of the phrases that speed apologists use. They think it softens the blow.

The fact is that at the moment, with people only able to choose their safe speed above the limit illegally (and let's all be honest here, the whole campaign has nothing to do with below speed driving), it doesn't work. Give PS his way and the roads would become a whole lot more dangerous. And who would you/he blame then?

There is no evidence that drivers are able to judge their own safe speed enough to change the limits, and blaming the infrastructure and policy is weak, as this suggests that the very drivers who you think should be allowed to choose their (faster) speed don't have the skills required at the moment.

And we go back to my original point, which responded to but missed. Everyone thinks that they are a safe driver.

__________________________________________________________
Road Safety Expert

nortones2 · May 2007

There is no evidence of ANY thought by the driver - that would be par for the course.

andy_wrx · May 2007

Where is the evidence of anything ?

Read the story from Portsmouth Today.

It says that a car has collided with a lollipop man. It says the man was badly injured, the car windscreen was broken. It doesn't say whose fault it was, it doesn't actually say what happened except that there was a collision.

The reporter is very careful to simply report facts, not suppositions.

It doesn't say anything about the car speeding - except for a comment from someone at the school saying that cars often speed down that road. She did not say this car was speeding.

The comments someone had left there yesterday about the driver 'Christine' have been removed and marked as 'unsuitable', by the paper presumably.

Yet you lot have judge-jury-and-executioner decided that the driver was at fault and was speeding.

Perhaps we should leave that to the police & court system, not act like a lynch mob ?

Time to dig-out the Summer bike (why's it just started raining ? Is it something I said ?)

dondare · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by andy_wrx

Where is the evidence of anything ?

Read the story from Portsmouth Today.

It says that a car has collided with a lollipop man. It says the man was badly injured, the car windscreen was broken. It doesn't say whose fault it was, it doesn't actually say what happened except that there was a collision.

The reporter is very careful to simply report facts, not suppositions.

It doesn't say anything about the car speeding - except for a comment from someone at the school saying that cars often speed down that road. She did not say this car was speeding.

The comments someone had left there yesterday about the driver 'Christine' have been removed and marked as 'unsuitable', by the paper presumably.

Yet you lot have judge-jury-and-executioner decided that the driver was at fault and was speeding.

Perhaps we should leave that to the police & court system, not act like a lynch mob ?

Time to dig-out the Summer bike (why's it just started raining ? Is it something I said ?)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The police and courts are useless when it comes to dealing with dangerous drivers.

I don't support Mr. Blankety Blank's main issue, but I believe that as well as wanting Gatsos scrapped he's advocating better driver training, ongoing training for existing drivers, and effective policing on the roads by real policemen. These are things that I can agree with.

Baby elephants? Pah!!

Pringlecp · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

BC

How do you know it's a tiny minority? It isn't, and you know it isn't. That's just one of the phrases that speed apologists use. They think it softens the blow.

The fact is that at the moment, with people only able to choose their safe speed above the limit illegally (and let's all be honest here, the whole campaign has nothing to do with below speed driving), it doesn't work. Give PS his way and the roads would become a whole lot more dangerous. And who would you/he blame then?

There is no evidence that drivers are able to judge their own safe speed enough to change the limits, and blaming the infrastructure and policy is weak, as this suggests that the very drivers who you think should be allowed to choose their (faster) speed don't have the skills required at the moment.

And we go back to my original point, which responded to but missed. Everyone thinks that they are a safe driver.

__________________________________________________________
Road Safety Expert
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I'd be quite happy for drivers to make a judgement about their own S.S.. IF they fully faced the consequences of their actions.

No seatbelts and a 10 inch razor sharp spike sticking out of the steering wheel - I'd be happy to let the driver of that vehicle pick their own S.S..

Surrounded by crumple zones and airbags etc, and coupled with the fact that if you kill a ped or cyclist you might risk a fine of a few quid and a couple of points, I thinks one's judgment re safety is seriously impaired

Another year older, another Budweiser

windyphil · May 2007

you know the signs that the lollipops hold - there's a big black bar across the middle. This was originally used with chalk for writing down the number plates of drivers who didn't stop...some things never change!

If only the legs were as good as the bike....

natureboyz · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by andy_wrx

Where is the evidence of anything ?

Read the story from Portsmouth Today.

It says that a car has collided with a lollipop man. It says the man was badly injured, the car windscreen was broken. It doesn't say whose fault it was, it doesn't actually say what happened except that there was a collision.

The reporter is very careful to simply report facts, not suppositions.

It doesn't say anything about the car speeding - except for a comment from someone at the school saying that cars often speed down that road. She did not say this car was speeding.

The comments someone had left there yesterday about the driver 'Christine' have been removed and marked as 'unsuitable', by the paper presumably.

Yet you lot have judge-jury-and-executioner decided that the driver was at fault and was speeding.

Perhaps we should leave that to the police & court system, not act like a lynch mob ?

Time to dig-out the Summer bike (why's it just started raining ? Is it something I said ?)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
You misunderstand andy .It involves a car, ergo the driver is to blame.
Simple really.
Mister Paul will be along shortly to explain things in detail to you ,closely followed by Jaded, Tone and Rothbook.
Oh and it's all PSmiths fault.

nortones2 · May 2007

Lets see from the facts so far: the lollipop man (LM) wearing day-glo jacket and carrying a large sign, shepherded children across the street. After they were out of reach of traffic, traffic hit the LM and broke numerous bones. Leaving aside the possibility that LM took on the traffic in an aggresive manner, leading with his ankles or head, the likely cause of his injuries was being run over by traffic whilst in the course of his official duties. Is this simple enough for SS acolytes?

Asterixcp · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by natureboyz

You misunderstand andy .It involves a car, ergo the driver is to blame.
Simple really.
Mister Paul will be along shortly to explain things in detail to you ,closely followed by Jaded, Tone and Rothbook.
Oh and it's all PSmiths fault.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

They don't need to offer any further explanation, as nortones says. Most normal people can make their own minds up regarding events such as these. Their are too many incidents where drivers prove incapable of judging an appropriate speed even when the streets are crowded with children on their way to or from school.

Unfortunately the selfish minority such as andy-wrx and natureboys are always ready to use enormous effort trying to defend the indefensible.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> Lets see from the facts so far: the lollipop man (LM) wearing day-glo jacket and carrying a large sign, shepherded children across the street. After they were out of reach of traffic, traffic hit the LM and broke numerous bones. Leaving aside the possibility that LM took on the traffic in an aggresive manner, leading with his ankles or head, the likely cause of his injuries was being run over by traffic whilst in the course of his official duties. Is this simple enough for SS acolytes? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Pour vivre heureux, vivons le v‚lo..

"Lilloipop Man" seriously injured

Comments

Categories