Cardboard Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 If you think cars changing direction into oncoming traffic is a good thing then thumbs up for speed humps! That wasn't the complaint in the OP. The complaint was about having to drive over the tallest part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cardboard Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 I might have done explain please.. You said ...The lines there as an idiots guide to the road side,and for you to lead people to think that it is illegal to park on them is wrong... but Planner1 never said it was illegal to park on them? Quite the opposite actually. Am I missing something? Or was it just a typo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newvanandman Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 That wasn't the complaint in the OP. The complaint was about having to drive over the tallest part. the last part of paddy's post was "Does anyone know what the single white line at the pavement edge next to the speed humps means? Is it for no parking?"planners reply was i belive to that... "It's to indicate that you should avoid parking there, but it's advisory and carries no legal status." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cardboard Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 the last part of paddy's post was "Does anyone know what the single white line at the pavement edge next to the speed humps means? Is it for no parking?"planners reply was i belive to that... "It's to indicate that you should avoid parking there, but it's advisory and carries no legal status." Nope, sorry - you've lost me now.... I see what you have said above, but then you said that "...The lines there as an idiots guide to the road side,and for you to lead people to think that it is illegal to park on them is wrong...", and as mentioned before, Planner 1 never said it was illegal... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newvanandman Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 Nope, sorry - you've lost me now.... I see what you have said above, but then you said that "...The lines there as an idiots guide to the road side,and for you to lead people to think that it is illegal to park on them is wrong...", and as mentioned before, Planner 1 never said it was illegal...:huh: And i never said he did!..................lead people to think that it is illegal to park on them is wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heyesey Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 And i never said he did!..................lead people to think that it is illegal to park on them is wrong And nobody has led anyone to that conclusion. Since you agree with Planner1, why are you lambasting him? Or are you really so utterly stupid that you don't realise your comments are identical to his? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cardboard Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 And i never said he did!..................lead people to think that it is illegal to park on them is wrong ...and for you to lead people to think that it is illegal to park on them is wrong. but that comment shows you accusing him of 'leading people to think that its illegal to park on them'?!! We've gone completely off topic, but nevermind, this is more fun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newvanandman Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 but that comment shows you accusing him of 'leading people to think that its illegal to park on them'?!! We've gone completely off topic, but nevermind, this is more fun ................:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darbees Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 but that comment shows you accusing him of 'leading people to think that its illegal to park on them'?!! We've gone completely off topic, but nevermind, this is more fun As ever the point is being missed here in favour of folk having a dig at each other. Although Planner said it is advisable not to park there, there is no explanation as to why it is such nor is there any explanation that I am aware of in the highway code. If it is "inadvisable", I wonder why double yellows aren't there, it should be one or the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obase Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 Just to bring slightly back on topic, but only a bit, and just for you speed hump haters out there ….. When our road came up for humping a few years ago, the residents were sent quite a bit of stuff, and the council wanted to obtain residents approval on the road humps and a few other alterations before commencing. I sent my stuff back saying I didn’t want road humps on our road, and all the neighbours I spoke to said the same. A few weeks later we got information to say that due to overwhelming rejection of the road humps by the residents at the top of the road, they were not going to put any in, but they were going to continue with the plans at the bottom of the road. What was this sort of majority I thought? Well the information was published later after the road humps had been implemented. All the residents that had replied at the top of the road had rejected the scheme, every one, and all but 3 had rejected the scheme at the bottom of the road. I remember thinking, 3, THREE, is that it? Three approve, and the vast majority reject, and yet that’s not enough? I can only imagine that once road humps have been offered, only a 100% rejection can stop them, because the council risk liability from the minority that wanted them if there is an accident. So when you complain about residents parking on road humps, remember that they probably never wanted them in the first place, and yet have to live with them 24/7. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.