It's also not right that lawful shoppers have to pay markedly higher prices because of these thieves.
Who could possibly have imagined that taking out half the staff and asking customers to do their own tills would possibly lead to increased shop lifting.
In our local (small) supermarket they have put the self-serve tills directly between the manned tills and the door.
So people walk past the manned tills, fiddle mildly convincingly with the self-serve tills, transfer the shopping to their bags, and walk out.
Who could possibly have seen that coming etc. etc.
It’s more to do with the fact that both staff and security guards are forbidden from physically stopping shoplifters.
If the company doesn’t do that, they are legally liable for injuries, charges of assault etc.
When you combine it with a policy of not prosecuting for shop lifting, there is nothing stopping shop lifters.
So they don’t stop.
Day before I left I saw the most brazen shoplifting ever on Camden parkway. Two guys simply walked in to the co-op, swept several shelves of wine and food, and walked out
The guard stood there sheepishly, doing nothing
The thieves didn’t look like the normal pallid desperate junkies either. They looked healthy and determined. So I reckon it is gang organised shoplifting, to order
The stores seem helpless
The only solution is going to be locking everything up, and it doesn't open until you've already paid.
Other solutions: - living with it - better enforcement - delivery - entry only to identified customers
Living with it? I don't understand how that would work. Companies are not going to put up with being robbed indefinitely.
Shops have always experienced theft. The cost of doing something about it has to be lower than the status quo for it to be worthwhile.
But always before shops have been allowed to stop shoplifters, now they cant because of insurance and health and safety. Also before the police might actually turn up. It is no longer shoplifting now but systemized looting because shops arent allowed to do anything. Desertification is already occuring in the us because of much the same reasons where shops are pulling out of areas. It will be coming here too before long
did anyone have:
-it's health and safety gone mad -things were better in my youth -it's the end of everything we hold dear
on their bingo cards?
If they are being childish.
The point is to understand that a series of actions were taken, from the best possible motives, quite often. The next result of these actions is a further problem.
1) Shops became liable for injury to staff for tackling shoplifters and other criminals. 2) Shops therefore introduced strict policies of not tacking shop lifters and other criminals. 3) This was extended to security staff. 4) In addition, there issues about restraining suspected shoplifters being assault. 5) So security staff won't stop or restrain shop lifters either. 6) Magistrates guidelines were changed to reduce the number of people going to prison for short sentences. 7) Penal reformers argued that shop lifting is a minor crime, and that the perpetrators are often poor, drug addict or have mental issues. So the problem is really one of social work.
When you add everything of these worthy actions together, the net effect is to remove most of the barriers to shop lifting.
Actions have consequences.
One of the problems in policy making is that people take no responsibility or even interest in the secondary or tertiary results of their actions and changes.
The reason, for example, we have a law that allows the Home Sec to deprive people of citizenship at the stroke of a pen, was in reaction to the long, comic saga of Abu Hook Hand.
It's also not right that lawful shoppers have to pay markedly higher prices because of these thieves.
Who could possibly have imagined that taking out half the staff and asking customers to do their own tills would possibly lead to increased shop lifting.
In our local (small) supermarket they have put the self-serve tills directly between the manned tills and the door.
So people walk past the manned tills, fiddle mildly convincingly with the self-serve tills, transfer the shopping to their bags, and walk out.
Who could possibly have seen that coming etc. etc.
It’s more to do with the fact that both staff and security guards are forbidden from physically stopping shoplifters.
If the company doesn’t do that, they are legally liable for injuries, charges of assault etc.
When you combine it with a policy of not prosecuting for shop lifting, there is nothing stopping shop lifters.
So they don’t stop.
Day before I left I saw the most brazen shoplifting ever on Camden parkway. Two guys simply walked in to the co-op, swept several shelves of wine and food, and walked out
The guard stood there sheepishly, doing nothing
The thieves didn’t look like the normal pallid desperate junkies either. They looked healthy and determined. So I reckon it is gang organised shoplifting, to order
The stores seem helpless
The only solution is going to be locking everything up, and it doesn't open until you've already paid.
Other solutions: - living with it - better enforcement - delivery - entry only to identified customers
Living with it? I don't understand how that would work. Companies are not going to put up with being robbed indefinitely.
Of course they do. So long as it's not at a level of genuine inconvenience to their bottom line companies will put it down as the price of doing business.
That's bad, but part of general sense of crapness.
Many of them are responding by closing stores altogether.
“Representatives from Walgreens said that thefts at its stores in San Francisco were four times the chain’s national average, and that it had closed 17 stores, largely because the scale of thefts had made business untenable,” the New York Times reported.
@rcs1000 has given me 20/1 on Con 3rd in mid Beds.
That's a very interesting bet. For choice you have the value in my view, but anything involving Smithsons and LDs tends to be well priced.
I reckon it being fairly close to a 3 way tie. OGH reckons that could put the Cons back, but equally it could put Con 3rd, particularly with the farcical behaviour of Nadine over the summer.
It's also not right that lawful shoppers have to pay markedly higher prices because of these thieves.
Who could possibly have imagined that taking out half the staff and asking customers to do their own tills would possibly lead to increased shop lifting.
In our local (small) supermarket they have put the self-serve tills directly between the manned tills and the door.
So people walk past the manned tills, fiddle mildly convincingly with the self-serve tills, transfer the shopping to their bags, and walk out.
Who could possibly have seen that coming etc. etc.
It’s more to do with the fact that both staff and security guards are forbidden from physically stopping shoplifters.
If the company doesn’t do that, they are legally liable for injuries, charges of assault etc.
When you combine it with a policy of not prosecuting for shop lifting, there is nothing stopping shop lifters.
So they don’t stop.
Day before I left I saw the most brazen shoplifting ever on Camden parkway. Two guys simply walked in to the co-op, swept several shelves of wine and food, and walked out
The guard stood there sheepishly, doing nothing
The thieves didn’t look like the normal pallid desperate junkies either. They looked healthy and determined. So I reckon it is gang organised shoplifting, to order
The stores seem helpless
The only solution is going to be locking everything up, and it doesn't open until you've already paid.
Other solutions: - living with it - better enforcement - delivery - entry only to identified customers
Living with it? I don't understand how that would work. Companies are not going to put up with being robbed indefinitely.
Shops have always experienced theft. The cost of doing something about it has to be lower than the status quo for it to be worthwhile.
But always before shops have been allowed to stop shoplifters, now they cant because of insurance and health and safety. Also before the police might actually turn up. It is no longer shoplifting now but systemized looting because shops arent allowed to do anything. Desertification is already occuring in the us because of much the same reasons where shops are pulling out of areas. It will be coming here too before long
did anyone have:
-it's health and safety gone mad -things were better in my youth -it's the end of everything we hold dear
on their bingo cards?
If they are being childish.
The point is to understand that a series of actions were taken, from the best possible motives, quite often. The next result of these actions is a further problem.
1) Shops became liable for injury to staff for tackling shoplifters and other criminals. 2) Shops therefore introduced strict policies of not tacking shop lifters and other criminals. 3) This was extended to security staff. 4) In addition, there issues about restraining suspected shoplifters being assault. 5) So security staff won't stop or restrain shop lifters either. 6) Magistrates guidelines were changed to reduce the number of people going to prison for short sentences. 7) Penal reformers argued that shop lifting is a minor crime, and that the perpetrators are often poor, drug addict or have mental issues. So the problem is really one of social work.
When you add everything of these worthy actions together, the net effect is to remove most of the barriers to shop lifting.
Actions have consequences.
One of the problems in policy making is that people take no responsibility or even interest in the secondary or tertiary results of their actions and changes.
The reason, for example, we have a law that allows the Home Sec to deprive people of citizenship at the stroke of a pen, was in reaction to the long, comic saga of Abu Hook Hand.
And so on.
Farooq is obviously one of the stores should just suck it up people. He will however be the first to complain when stores shut in high theft areas and cut off the poor from shopping therefore. No doubt he will be back with a rant about supermarkets need to be forced to serve areas or some such shit
On this Biden impeachment inquiry stuff, is McCarthy just really dumb or something? I get he's beholden to the extreme wing (such as that is a thing, there doesn't appear to be much separating 90% of them from one another), but why say something like this less than 2 weeks ago, when it would be pretty clear by that point if he had the votes at that point, and if he was going to have to do otherwise?
It's also not right that lawful shoppers have to pay markedly higher prices because of these thieves.
Who could possibly have imagined that taking out half the staff and asking customers to do their own tills would possibly lead to increased shop lifting.
In our local (small) supermarket they have put the self-serve tills directly between the manned tills and the door.
So people walk past the manned tills, fiddle mildly convincingly with the self-serve tills, transfer the shopping to their bags, and walk out.
Who could possibly have seen that coming etc. etc.
It’s more to do with the fact that both staff and security guards are forbidden from physically stopping shoplifters.
If the company doesn’t do that, they are legally liable for injuries, charges of assault etc.
When you combine it with a policy of not prosecuting for shop lifting, there is nothing stopping shop lifters.
So they don’t stop.
Day before I left I saw the most brazen shoplifting ever on Camden parkway. Two guys simply walked in to the co-op, swept several shelves of wine and food, and walked out
The guard stood there sheepishly, doing nothing
The thieves didn’t look like the normal pallid desperate junkies either. They looked healthy and determined. So I reckon it is gang organised shoplifting, to order
The stores seem helpless
The only solution is going to be locking everything up, and it doesn't open until you've already paid.
Other solutions: - living with it - better enforcement - delivery - entry only to identified customers
Living with it? I don't understand how that would work. Companies are not going to put up with being robbed indefinitely.
Shops have always experienced theft. The cost of doing something about it has to be lower than the status quo for it to be worthwhile.
But always before shops have been allowed to stop shoplifters, now they cant because of insurance and health and safety. Also before the police might actually turn up. It is no longer shoplifting now but systemized looting because shops arent allowed to do anything. Desertification is already occuring in the us because of much the same reasons where shops are pulling out of areas. It will be coming here too before long
did anyone have:
-it's health and safety gone mad -things were better in my youth -it's the end of everything we hold dear
on their bingo cards?
Don't be so pathetic....20 years ago if you were sighted shop lifting security would grab you....now they cant because of liability insurance and health and safety......do you deny that as even your favourite rag the guardian admits thats true...
20 years ago the police would turn up to deal with that person security had caught shoplifting....even your favourite rag admits it
Shops are shutting because they can no longer make a profit due to organised shoplifting....these shops are usually in poorer areas forcing the poorer people to have to travel and adding cost to shopping....even the guardian admits it
I guess you don't care if the poor have to travel further to shop because the local shops have shuttered as no longer viable
It's also not right that lawful shoppers have to pay markedly higher prices because of these thieves.
Who could possibly have imagined that taking out half the staff and asking customers to do their own tills would possibly lead to increased shop lifting.
In our local (small) supermarket they have put the self-serve tills directly between the manned tills and the door.
So people walk past the manned tills, fiddle mildly convincingly with the self-serve tills, transfer the shopping to their bags, and walk out.
Who could possibly have seen that coming etc. etc.
It’s more to do with the fact that both staff and security guards are forbidden from physically stopping shoplifters.
If the company doesn’t do that, they are legally liable for injuries, charges of assault etc.
When you combine it with a policy of not prosecuting for shop lifting, there is nothing stopping shop lifters.
So they don’t stop.
Day before I left I saw the most brazen shoplifting ever on Camden parkway. Two guys simply walked in to the co-op, swept several shelves of wine and food, and walked out
The guard stood there sheepishly, doing nothing
The thieves didn’t look like the normal pallid desperate junkies either. They looked healthy and determined. So I reckon it is gang organised shoplifting, to order
The stores seem helpless
The only solution is going to be locking everything up, and it doesn't open until you've already paid.
Other solutions: - living with it - better enforcement - delivery - entry only to identified customers
Living with it? I don't understand how that would work. Companies are not going to put up with being robbed indefinitely.
Of course they do. So long as it's not at a level of genuine inconvenience to their bottom line companies will put it down as the price of doing business.
That's bad, but part of general sense of crapness.
This has been going on for years.
Some years back a friend went down in the world, quite hard. He ended up living in the JoyJoy of one of those concrete Brutalist estates that are our gift to the Lower Orders.
The local cornershop became plagued by the local druggies robbing it.
After going to the police etc resulted in a revolving door court appearance for said druggies, a regular customer of the corner shop offered a solution.
The owner was invited to join the customer's social club down the road. Because he was a nice chap, he was firmly advised never to actually visit said social club. Just pay the monthly dues.
Some of the drug addicts were a bit slow to get the news, apparently. Which was painful for them.
But thefts from the shop, apparently, dropped to near zero. The shop keeper and and the owner of the social club were from different immigrant communities, so we can say that cross immunity outreach resulted in Restorative Community Justice*
It's also not right that lawful shoppers have to pay markedly higher prices because of these thieves.
Who could possibly have imagined that taking out half the staff and asking customers to do their own tills would possibly lead to increased shop lifting.
In our local (small) supermarket they have put the self-serve tills directly between the manned tills and the door.
So people walk past the manned tills, fiddle mildly convincingly with the self-serve tills, transfer the shopping to their bags, and walk out.
Who could possibly have seen that coming etc. etc.
It’s more to do with the fact that both staff and security guards are forbidden from physically stopping shoplifters.
If the company doesn’t do that, they are legally liable for injuries, charges of assault etc.
When you combine it with a policy of not prosecuting for shop lifting, there is nothing stopping shop lifters.
So they don’t stop.
Day before I left I saw the most brazen shoplifting ever on Camden parkway. Two guys simply walked in to the co-op, swept several shelves of wine and food, and walked out
The guard stood there sheepishly, doing nothing
The thieves didn’t look like the normal pallid desperate junkies either. They looked healthy and determined. So I reckon it is gang organised shoplifting, to order
The stores seem helpless
The only solution is going to be locking everything up, and it doesn't open until you've already paid.
Other solutions: - living with it - better enforcement - delivery - entry only to identified customers
Living with it? I don't understand how that would work. Companies are not going to put up with being robbed indefinitely.
Of course they do. So long as it's not at a level of genuine inconvenience to their bottom line companies will put it down as the price of doing business.
That's bad, but part of general sense of crapness.
This has been going on for years.
Some years back a friend went down in the world, quite hard. He ended up living in the JoyJoy of one of those concrete Brutalist estates that are our gift to the Lower Orders.
The local cornershop became plagued by the local druggies robbing it.
After going to the police etc resulted in a revolving door court appearance for said druggies, a regular customer of the corner shop offered a solution.
The owner was invited to join the customer's social club down the road. Because he was a nice chap, he was firmly advised never to actually visit said social club. Just pay the monthly dues.
Some of the drug addicts were a bit slow to get the news, apparently. Which was painful for them.
But thefts from the shop, apparently, dropped to near zero. The shop keeper and and the owner of the social club were from different immigrant communities, so we can say that cross immunity outreach resulted in Restorative Community Justice*
*Trade marked from Northern Ireland.
This is quite common back when I lived in slough, you got burgled and wanted your stuff back there were people to talk to that weren't the police you only bothered with them if you needed a crime number
It's also not right that lawful shoppers have to pay markedly higher prices because of these thieves.
Who could possibly have imagined that taking out half the staff and asking customers to do their own tills would possibly lead to increased shop lifting.
In our local (small) supermarket they have put the self-serve tills directly between the manned tills and the door.
So people walk past the manned tills, fiddle mildly convincingly with the self-serve tills, transfer the shopping to their bags, and walk out.
Who could possibly have seen that coming etc. etc.
It’s more to do with the fact that both staff and security guards are forbidden from physically stopping shoplifters.
If the company doesn’t do that, they are legally liable for injuries, charges of assault etc.
When you combine it with a policy of not prosecuting for shop lifting, there is nothing stopping shop lifters.
So they don’t stop.
Day before I left I saw the most brazen shoplifting ever on Camden parkway. Two guys simply walked in to the co-op, swept several shelves of wine and food, and walked out
The guard stood there sheepishly, doing nothing
The thieves didn’t look like the normal pallid desperate junkies either. They looked healthy and determined. So I reckon it is gang organised shoplifting, to order
The stores seem helpless
The only solution is going to be locking everything up, and it doesn't open until you've already paid.
Other solutions: - living with it - better enforcement - delivery - entry only to identified customers
Living with it? I don't understand how that would work. Companies are not going to put up with being robbed indefinitely.
Shops have always experienced theft. The cost of doing something about it has to be lower than the status quo for it to be worthwhile.
I went into B & Q last week for some cable ties and every box had been tampered with and some removed.
As I only wanted a small amount, I took a pre packed packet to the counter and remarked on it to the staff
They said it is not just cable ties but most every box on their shelves is being tampered with and theft is endemic
It really does make you wonder when even small quantities of cable ties are being stolen
That awful cyclist death which was much discussed on here - as said by (I think) @JosiasJessop - and contrary to the judge's summing up for the jury - it was not a shared path:
"A new report from Cambridgeshire County Council said the path where the incident happened had never been shown as a cycle route, or a shared use path. The report said: “The footway on the north side of Nursery Road has never been signed as shared use and is not shown as a cycle route on the Cambridgeshire County Council cycle maps, printed or online.""
The council gave vague answer regarding this in court. If they had produced the statement above in court could the verdict have differed or if not would the accused, Auriol Grey, have successfully appealed?
Interesting. I seem to recall there was some ambiguity - the path on the other side was shared, I think, by signage and on the side in question appeared to be shared in practice. A lot of people appeared to view it as shared, but not - it would seem - the lady who was convicted.
Nonetheless, IANAL, but if the judge's summing up contained a relevant inaccuracy, could be grounds for appeal?
Is the footpath on the other side of the joining road (i.e. 180deg from this view) also shared?
At what point does this shared path (in the same direction as original view) stop being shared?
For the first, the answer is yes, as there is a shared use sign some way further along on the other side of the joining road, but it's not obvious and not visible to cyclists heading south as they cross that road. For the second, I've no idea. The time I went along this I rejoined the road at the next set of traffic lights by the brick wall as I wasn't sure and I could see the footpath narrowed ahead and, in my opinion, wasn't suitable for shared use beyond that point.
ETA: Actually, looking at the city cycle map, it ends at the start of that brick wall, with the height-restricted entry on the left. But there's no sign saying it ends (and no sign saying it starts, if you're heading south) at that point.
The judge was categorical that it was a shared path, despite vague answers from both the council and the police.
Given the clarity of the council's statement now, why didn't this come out in court? It is obvious that it is not a shared path as there was (and is) nothing to indicate that it was. The police should have given a clear answer on this and instead - I suspect - they hid behind the council's vague response as this was the best course to not prejudice the prosecution's case.
The police and council employees have questions to answer, at the very least.
Does it being shared or not-shared make much difference to the case?
Just because someone is where they shouldn't be doesn't mean you can push them into the road.
She did not push the cyclist into the road. Who knows whether the fact that it was not a shared path vs the judge's clear and incorrect instruction that it was shared would have influenced the jurors?
Rather than wishing to reopen the debate I want to know why the council and police didn't give honest answers.
I'm ignoring the first question, and not reopening that beyond noting that the Jury briefing was careful and the verdict unanimous.
I can't answer that last question in less length than a header, beyond what I commented above.
But the review is interesting - normally from a normal Council I would expect a sticky plaster (eg a pedestrian cage along the kerb to 'keep pedestrians out of the way'), move on and hope that no one notices.
The safety issue here is road design that places vulnerable road users too close to traffic moving at high speed (ie 30mph+), and a need to separate the two (or three if we count mobility infra and pedestrian infra as separate items). I think 30mph is the speed limit.
In modern terms and to meet current standards you either:
a) - Slow the traffic down to 20mph and reduce it enough to a minority of
Oh, ffs. It's an 'old' road. In an 'old' town. With private land all along it. The council could spend millions - literally - providing multi-user paths along there, or - and this seems to be a strange concept for some people - expect people to act sensibly and reasonably in relation to other road users.
"the road design profession still needs a thorough re-education."
I think that's a bit of a sh*t assumption by you. Even when I touched on this stuff at uni, thirty years ago, it was known. The major problem is *cost*. Road layouts have constraints, and it becomes a question of how much can be spent to make a road 'safe', for increasingly obscure scenarios as the cost increases.
The 'road design professionals' you disparage will know this. They don't have an unlimited budget to work with.
As ever, it's about compromises.
(For anyone wondering what we're wittering on about, this is where I believe the tragic situation occurred, on the pavement on the left: https://goo.gl/maps/yruCEwENxym2cGa48 A pavement some silly people think was a cycle path...)
It's also not right that lawful shoppers have to pay markedly higher prices because of these thieves.
Who could possibly have imagined that taking out half the staff and asking customers to do their own tills would possibly lead to increased shop lifting.
In our local (small) supermarket they have put the self-serve tills directly between the manned tills and the door.
So people walk past the manned tills, fiddle mildly convincingly with the self-serve tills, transfer the shopping to their bags, and walk out.
Who could possibly have seen that coming etc. etc.
It’s more to do with the fact that both staff and security guards are forbidden from physically stopping shoplifters.
If the company doesn’t do that, they are legally liable for injuries, charges of assault etc.
When you combine it with a policy of not prosecuting for shop lifting, there is nothing stopping shop lifters.
So they don’t stop.
Day before I left I saw the most brazen shoplifting ever on Camden parkway. Two guys simply walked in to the co-op, swept several shelves of wine and food, and walked out
The guard stood there sheepishly, doing nothing
The thieves didn’t look like the normal pallid desperate junkies either. They looked healthy and determined. So I reckon it is gang organised shoplifting, to order
The stores seem helpless
The only solution is going to be locking everything up, and it doesn't open until you've already paid.
Other solutions: - living with it - better enforcement - delivery - entry only to identified customers
Living with it? I don't understand how that would work. Companies are not going to put up with being robbed indefinitely.
Shops have always experienced theft. The cost of doing something about it has to be lower than the status quo for it to be worthwhile.
But always before shops have been allowed to stop shoplifters, now they cant because of insurance and health and safety. Also before the police might actually turn up. It is no longer shoplifting now but systemized looting because shops arent allowed to do anything. Desertification is already occuring in the us because of much the same reasons where shops are pulling out of areas. It will be coming here too before long
did anyone have:
-it's health and safety gone mad -things were better in my youth -it's the end of everything we hold dear
on their bingo cards?
Don't be so pathetic....20 years ago if you were sighted shop lifting security would grab you....now they cant because of liability insurance and health and safety......do you deny that as even your favourite rag the guardian admits thats true...
20 years ago the police would turn up to deal with that person security had caught shoplifting....even your favourite rag admits it
Shops are shutting because they can no longer make a profit due to organised shoplifting....these shops are usually in poorer areas forcing the poorer people to have to travel and adding cost to shopping....even the guardian admits it
I guess you don't care if the poor have to travel further to shop because the local shops have shuttered as no longer viable
It's also not right that lawful shoppers have to pay markedly higher prices because of these thieves.
Who could possibly have imagined that taking out half the staff and asking customers to do their own tills would possibly lead to increased shop lifting.
In our local (small) supermarket they have put the self-serve tills directly between the manned tills and the door.
So people walk past the manned tills, fiddle mildly convincingly with the self-serve tills, transfer the shopping to their bags, and walk out.
Who could possibly have seen that coming etc. etc.
It’s more to do with the fact that both staff and security guards are forbidden from physically stopping shoplifters.
If the company doesn’t do that, they are legally liable for injuries, charges of assault etc.
When you combine it with a policy of not prosecuting for shop lifting, there is nothing stopping shop lifters.
So they don’t stop.
Day before I left I saw the most brazen shoplifting ever on Camden parkway. Two guys simply walked in to the co-op, swept several shelves of wine and food, and walked out
The guard stood there sheepishly, doing nothing
The thieves didn’t look like the normal pallid desperate junkies either. They looked healthy and determined. So I reckon it is gang organised shoplifting, to order
The stores seem helpless
The only solution is going to be locking everything up, and it doesn't open until you've already paid.
Other solutions: - living with it - better enforcement - delivery - entry only to identified customers
Living with it? I don't understand how that would work. Companies are not going to put up with being robbed indefinitely.
Shops have always experienced theft. The cost of doing something about it has to be lower than the status quo for it to be worthwhile.
I went into B & Q last week for some cable ties and every box had been tampered with and some removed.
As I only wanted a small amount, I took a pre packed packet to the counter and remarked on it to the staff
They said it is not just cable ties but most every box on their shelves is being tampered with and theft is endemic
It really does make you wonder when even small quantities of cable ties are being stolen
Lots of stag and hen parties in Llandudno, though.
It's also not right that lawful shoppers have to pay markedly higher prices because of these thieves.
Who could possibly have imagined that taking out half the staff and asking customers to do their own tills would possibly lead to increased shop lifting.
In our local (small) supermarket they have put the self-serve tills directly between the manned tills and the door.
So people walk past the manned tills, fiddle mildly convincingly with the self-serve tills, transfer the shopping to their bags, and walk out.
Who could possibly have seen that coming etc. etc.
It’s more to do with the fact that both staff and security guards are forbidden from physically stopping shoplifters.
If the company doesn’t do that, they are legally liable for injuries, charges of assault etc.
When you combine it with a policy of not prosecuting for shop lifting, there is nothing stopping shop lifters.
So they don’t stop.
Day before I left I saw the most brazen shoplifting ever on Camden parkway. Two guys simply walked in to the co-op, swept several shelves of wine and food, and walked out
The guard stood there sheepishly, doing nothing
The thieves didn’t look like the normal pallid desperate junkies either. They looked healthy and determined. So I reckon it is gang organised shoplifting, to order
The stores seem helpless
The only solution is going to be locking everything up, and it doesn't open until you've already paid.
Other solutions: - living with it - better enforcement - delivery - entry only to identified customers
Living with it? I don't understand how that would work. Companies are not going to put up with being robbed indefinitely.
Shops have always experienced theft. The cost of doing something about it has to be lower than the status quo for it to be worthwhile.
But always before shops have been allowed to stop shoplifters, now they cant because of insurance and health and safety. Also before the police might actually turn up. It is no longer shoplifting now but systemized looting because shops arent allowed to do anything. Desertification is already occuring in the us because of much the same reasons where shops are pulling out of areas. It will be coming here too before long
did anyone have:
-it's health and safety gone mad -things were better in my youth -it's the end of everything we hold dear
on their bingo cards?
Don't be so pathetic....20 years ago if you were sighted shop lifting security would grab you....now they cant because of liability insurance and health and safety......do you deny that as even your favourite rag the guardian admits thats true...
20 years ago the police would turn up to deal with that person security had caught shoplifting....even your favourite rag admits it
Shops are shutting because they can no longer make a profit due to organised shoplifting....these shops are usually in poorer areas forcing the poorer people to have to travel and adding cost to shopping....even the guardian admits it
I guess you don't care if the poor have to travel further to shop because the local shops have shuttered as no longer viable
It's also not right that lawful shoppers have to pay markedly higher prices because of these thieves.
Who could possibly have imagined that taking out half the staff and asking customers to do their own tills would possibly lead to increased shop lifting.
In our local (small) supermarket they have put the self-serve tills directly between the manned tills and the door.
So people walk past the manned tills, fiddle mildly convincingly with the self-serve tills, transfer the shopping to their bags, and walk out.
Who could possibly have seen that coming etc. etc.
It’s more to do with the fact that both staff and security guards are forbidden from physically stopping shoplifters.
If the company doesn’t do that, they are legally liable for injuries, charges of assault etc.
When you combine it with a policy of not prosecuting for shop lifting, there is nothing stopping shop lifters.
So they don’t stop.
Day before I left I saw the most brazen shoplifting ever on Camden parkway. Two guys simply walked in to the co-op, swept several shelves of wine and food, and walked out
The guard stood there sheepishly, doing nothing
The thieves didn’t look like the normal pallid desperate junkies either. They looked healthy and determined. So I reckon it is gang organised shoplifting, to order
The stores seem helpless
The only solution is going to be locking everything up, and it doesn't open until you've already paid.
Other solutions: - living with it - better enforcement - delivery - entry only to identified customers
Living with it? I don't understand how that would work. Companies are not going to put up with being robbed indefinitely.
Shops have always experienced theft. The cost of doing something about it has to be lower than the status quo for it to be worthwhile.
But always before shops have been allowed to stop shoplifters, now they cant because of insurance and health and safety. Also before the police might actually turn up. It is no longer shoplifting now but systemized looting because shops arent allowed to do anything. Desertification is already occuring in the us because of much the same reasons where shops are pulling out of areas. It will be coming here too before long
did anyone have:
-it's health and safety gone mad -things were better in my youth -it's the end of everything we hold dear
on their bingo cards?
Don't be so pathetic....20 years ago if you were sighted shop lifting security would grab you....now they cant because of liability insurance and health and safety......do you deny that as even your favourite rag the guardian admits thats true...
20 years ago the police would turn up to deal with that person security had caught shoplifting....even your favourite rag admits it
Shops are shutting because they can no longer make a profit due to organised shoplifting....these shops are usually in poorer areas forcing the poorer people to have to travel and adding cost to shopping....even the guardian admits it
I guess you don't care if the poor have to travel further to shop because the local shops have shuttered as no longer viable
It's also not right that lawful shoppers have to pay markedly higher prices because of these thieves.
Who could possibly have imagined that taking out half the staff and asking customers to do their own tills would possibly lead to increased shop lifting.
In our local (small) supermarket they have put the self-serve tills directly between the manned tills and the door.
So people walk past the manned tills, fiddle mildly convincingly with the self-serve tills, transfer the shopping to their bags, and walk out.
Who could possibly have seen that coming etc. etc.
It’s more to do with the fact that both staff and security guards are forbidden from physically stopping shoplifters.
If the company doesn’t do that, they are legally liable for injuries, charges of assault etc.
When you combine it with a policy of not prosecuting for shop lifting, there is nothing stopping shop lifters.
So they don’t stop.
Day before I left I saw the most brazen shoplifting ever on Camden parkway. Two guys simply walked in to the co-op, swept several shelves of wine and food, and walked out
The guard stood there sheepishly, doing nothing
The thieves didn’t look like the normal pallid desperate junkies either. They looked healthy and determined. So I reckon it is gang organised shoplifting, to order
The stores seem helpless
The only solution is going to be locking everything up, and it doesn't open until you've already paid.
Other solutions: - living with it - better enforcement - delivery - entry only to identified customers
Living with it? I don't understand how that would work. Companies are not going to put up with being robbed indefinitely.
Shops have always experienced theft. The cost of doing something about it has to be lower than the status quo for it to be worthwhile.
But always before shops have been allowed to stop shoplifters, now they cant because of insurance and health and safety. Also before the police might actually turn up. It is no longer shoplifting now but systemized looting because shops arent allowed to do anything. Desertification is already occuring in the us because of much the same reasons where shops are pulling out of areas. It will be coming here too before long
did anyone have:
-it's health and safety gone mad -things were better in my youth -it's the end of everything we hold dear
on their bingo cards?
Don't be so pathetic....20 years ago if you were sighted shop lifting security would grab you....now they cant because of liability insurance and health and safety......do you deny that as even your favourite rag the guardian admits thats true...
20 years ago the police would turn up to deal with that person security had caught shoplifting....even your favourite rag admits it
Shops are shutting because they can no longer make a profit due to organised shoplifting....these shops are usually in poorer areas forcing the poorer people to have to travel and adding cost to shopping....even the guardian admits it
I guess you don't care if the poor have to travel further to shop because the local shops have shuttered as no longer viable
It's also not right that lawful shoppers have to pay markedly higher prices because of these thieves.
Who could possibly have imagined that taking out half the staff and asking customers to do their own tills would possibly lead to increased shop lifting.
In our local (small) supermarket they have put the self-serve tills directly between the manned tills and the door.
So people walk past the manned tills, fiddle mildly convincingly with the self-serve tills, transfer the shopping to their bags, and walk out.
Who could possibly have seen that coming etc. etc.
It’s more to do with the fact that both staff and security guards are forbidden from physically stopping shoplifters.
If the company doesn’t do that, they are legally liable for injuries, charges of assault etc.
When you combine it with a policy of not prosecuting for shop lifting, there is nothing stopping shop lifters.
So they don’t stop.
Day before I left I saw the most brazen shoplifting ever on Camden parkway. Two guys simply walked in to the co-op, swept several shelves of wine and food, and walked out
The guard stood there sheepishly, doing nothing
The thieves didn’t look like the normal pallid desperate junkies either. They looked healthy and determined. So I reckon it is gang organised shoplifting, to order
The stores seem helpless
The only solution is going to be locking everything up, and it doesn't open until you've already paid.
Other solutions: - living with it - better enforcement - delivery - entry only to identified customers
Living with it? I don't understand how that would work. Companies are not going to put up with being robbed indefinitely.
Shops have always experienced theft. The cost of doing something about it has to be lower than the status quo for it to be worthwhile.
I went into B & Q last week for some cable ties and every box had been tampered with and some removed.
As I only wanted a small amount, I took a pre packed packet to the counter and remarked on it to the staff
They said it is not just cable ties but most every box on their shelves is being tampered with and theft is endemic
It really does make you wonder when even small quantities of cable ties are being stolen
Lots of stag and hen parties in Llandudno, though.
Actually I meant 'clips' but as for your query I really have no idea whether Llandudno is above or below average on that count
I'm not sure enforced tech standards are a good thing. Is 240v the best? Are 3pin plugs good?
I get pretty annoyed at having to pay Apple 20 quid for a charging cable (Quite why the ostensible cheaper versions don't work escapes me - and I don't think it's Apple's fault), but if it's what's good and what works then so be it.
I'm not sure enforced tech standards are a good thing. Is 240v the best? Are 3pin plugs good?
I get pretty annoyed at having to pay Apple 20 quid for a charging cable (Quite why the ostensible cheaper versions don't work escapes me - and I don't think it's Apple's fault), but if it's what's good and what works then so be it.
Anker cables seem to be half the price and last well - the braided sleeve ones, that is.
I'm not sure enforced tech standards are a good thing. Is 240v the best? Are 3pin plugs good?
I get pretty annoyed at having to pay Apple 20 quid for a charging cable (Quite why the ostensible cheaper versions don't work escapes me - and I don't think it's Apple's fault), but if it's what's good and what works then so be it.
Thirty years ago, Douglas Adams eloquently wrote about the issues of travelling internationally with dozens of different types of cables. I, for one, am glad those days are disappearing.
Apple *could* have made their system the default. But they would have had to ensure that it was 'better' then USB-C, and not crippled my massive licencing fees. They did neither.
I'm not sure enforced tech standards are a good thing. Is 240v the best? Are 3pin plugs good?
I get pretty annoyed at having to pay Apple 20 quid for a charging cable (Quite why the ostensible cheaper versions don't work escapes me - and I don't think it's Apple's fault), but if it's what's good and what works then so be it.
Anker cables seem to be half the price and last well - the braided sleeve ones, that is.
If I was of a suspicious mindset then I'd imagine that Apple are behind the wonky cable manufacturers.
I like Apple though - I had an Apple II computer when I was young. Even then it oozed class.
That awful cyclist death which was much discussed on here - as said by (I think) @JosiasJessop - and contrary to the judge's summing up for the jury - it was not a shared path:
"A new report from Cambridgeshire County Council said the path where the incident happened had never been shown as a cycle route, or a shared use path. The report said: “The footway on the north side of Nursery Road has never been signed as shared use and is not shown as a cycle route on the Cambridgeshire County Council cycle maps, printed or online.""
The council gave vague answer regarding this in court. If they had produced the statement above in court could the verdict have differed or if not would the accused, Auriol Grey, have successfully appealed?
Interesting. I seem to recall there was some ambiguity - the path on the other side was shared, I think, by signage and on the side in question appeared to be shared in practice. A lot of people appeared to view it as shared, but not - it would seem - the lady who was convicted.
Nonetheless, IANAL, but if the judge's summing up contained a relevant inaccuracy, could be grounds for appeal?
Is the footpath on the other side of the joining road (i.e. 180deg from this view) also shared?
At what point does this shared path (in the same direction as original view) stop being shared?
For the first, the answer is yes, as there is a shared use sign some way further along on the other side of the joining road, but it's not obvious and not visible to cyclists heading south as they cross that road. For the second, I've no idea. The time I went along this I rejoined the road at the next set of traffic lights by the brick wall as I wasn't sure and I could see the footpath narrowed ahead and, in my opinion, wasn't suitable for shared use beyond that point.
ETA: Actually, looking at the city cycle map, it ends at the start of that brick wall, with the height-restricted entry on the left. But there's no sign saying it ends (and no sign saying it starts, if you're heading south) at that point.
The judge was categorical that it was a shared path, despite vague answers from both the council and the police.
Given the clarity of the council's statement now, why didn't this come out in court? It is obvious that it is not a shared path as there was (and is) nothing to indicate that it was. The police should have given a clear answer on this and instead - I suspect - they hid behind the council's vague response as this was the best course to not prejudice the prosecution's case.
The police and council employees have questions to answer, at the very least.
Does it being shared or not-shared make much difference to the case?
Just because someone is where they shouldn't be doesn't mean you can push them into the road.
I believe the prosecution did not claim there was any physical contact so "push them into the road" is incorrect
You can push someone in a particular direction without physical contact, which was my meaning in this context.
Whether or not you agree with the verdict (and it did seem harsh) I'm just not sure how the status of the pavement affects the judgement.
I do agree that the council should have made it clear anyway, both during the case and on the ground. Highways should in theory have known right away by looking at their records.
No sorry this is bollocks, a push implies physical contact. Gesticulated in there direction wildly causing her to fall is entirely different.
As I commented earlier, all drivers should get a 'dash cam' as it has a positive effect on your driving knowing your speed, location, time and date is recorded in real time as is the road traffic and conditions
I know it has made me a more courteous and careful driver and of course it could be very useful in my defence following an incident
Which is relevant how and this was between a cyclist and a pedestrian?
I was talking generally and indeed the police often appeal for dash cam evidence
How many volunteer dashcam footage that shows them to be in the wrong whether they are car drivers, motorcyclists or cyclists
Quite a number do so unintentionally !
One of Ashley Neal's more amusing and regular takes is viewers who send in clips of things they disapprove of whilst driving poorly themselves.
The catchphrase is "deluded viewers".
He had one who claimed to be an IAM Roadsmart observer (turned out not to be) who drove like a bully boy.
Will there ever be a USB-D and how would it come about?
What could be better about D? Can't be size, because the plugs are getting to the point where smaller would be worse; more fiddly, mechanically weaker.
Will there ever be a USB-D and how would it come about?
What could be better about D? Can't be size, because the plugs are getting to the point where smaller would be worse; more fiddly, mechanically weaker.
More lanes. Or native optics. Though todays Thunderbolt 5 (via a USB-C connector) shows there's quite a way to go before it tops out.
That awful cyclist death which was much discussed on here - as said by (I think) @JosiasJessop - and contrary to the judge's summing up for the jury - it was not a shared path:
"A new report from Cambridgeshire County Council said the path where the incident happened had never been shown as a cycle route, or a shared use path. The report said: “The footway on the north side of Nursery Road has never been signed as shared use and is not shown as a cycle route on the Cambridgeshire County Council cycle maps, printed or online.""
The council gave vague answer regarding this in court. If they had produced the statement above in court could the verdict have differed or if not would the accused, Auriol Grey, have successfully appealed?
Interesting. I seem to recall there was some ambiguity - the path on the other side was shared, I think, by signage and on the side in question appeared to be shared in practice. A lot of people appeared to view it as shared, but not - it would seem - the lady who was convicted.
Nonetheless, IANAL, but if the judge's summing up contained a relevant inaccuracy, could be grounds for appeal?
(Snip)
There was no ****ing ambiguity. You really have to be a fully paid-up member to the lycra brigade to think that path is, in any way, a cycle path. Even if for some reason the council said it was, you would be foolish to treat it as such, given the street furniture immediately beyond where this incident happened. As a cyclist, or pedestrian, or driver, you need to be able to recognise dangerous situations even if you think you are in the right.
This verdict really pi**ed me off. Yes, the accused should not have acted as she did. But the cyclist should not have been on the pavement there, either; at least not with the idea to stop to allow the pedestrian past. As someone who spent a long time on crutches in the past, I'm aware how considerate people could be. And also, in some cases, how inconsiderate...
I know that road reasonably well, having cycled, walked and run it. I'd normally choose to cycle along the road there, but if I was on the pavement at that place and saw an elderly lady coming towards me, I'd pull up and stop.
This was a tragedy, but the woman in jail was far from the only causal factor. And if the judge said it was a shared path, he was utterly wrong - in practice *and* morally.
Why did you star out the 'cycl' in 'cycling ambiguity'?
Well, clearly there was, hence the ambiguous response from council etc.
But, I take the main point. It doesn't look that bad on google maps and I've seen plenty of terrible street furniture on actual shared paths, but if you've been there I bow to your opinion. If not a shared path then, as I posted, it looks like good grounds for appeal.
And yes, I'd do the same as you. There a ****ing stupid shared paths I ignore and go on the road because they don't work. I'd also give way to a pedestrian always at a pinch point (except sometimes the pedestrian stops and beckons you through - fine if they want to be nice)
That awful cyclist death which was much discussed on here - as said by (I think) @JosiasJessop - and contrary to the judge's summing up for the jury - it was not a shared path:
"A new report from Cambridgeshire County Council said the path where the incident happened had never been shown as a cycle route, or a shared use path. The report said: “The footway on the north side of Nursery Road has never been signed as shared use and is not shown as a cycle route on the Cambridgeshire County Council cycle maps, printed or online.""
The council gave vague answer regarding this in court. If they had produced the statement above in court could the verdict have differed or if not would the accused, Auriol Grey, have successfully appealed?
Interesting. I seem to recall there was some ambiguity - the path on the other side was shared, I think, by signage and on the side in question appeared to be shared in practice. A lot of people appeared to view it as shared, but not - it would seem - the lady who was convicted.
Nonetheless, IANAL, but if the judge's summing up contained a relevant inaccuracy, could be grounds for appeal?
Is the footpath on the other side of the joining road (i.e. 180deg from this view) also shared?
At what point does this shared path (in the same direction as original view) stop being shared?
For the first, the answer is yes, as there is a shared use sign some way further along on the other side of the joining road, but it's not obvious and not visible to cyclists heading south as they cross that road. For the second, I've no idea. The time I went along this I rejoined the road at the next set of traffic lights by the brick wall as I wasn't sure and I could see the footpath narrowed ahead and, in my opinion, wasn't suitable for shared use beyond that point.
ETA: Actually, looking at the city cycle map, it ends at the start of that brick wall, with the height-restricted entry on the left. But there's no sign saying it ends (and no sign saying it starts, if you're heading south) at that point.
The judge was categorical that it was a shared path, despite vague answers from both the council and the police.
Given the clarity of the council's statement now, why didn't this come out in court? It is obvious that it is not a shared path as there was (and is) nothing to indicate that it was. The police should have given a clear answer on this and instead - I suspect - they hid behind the council's vague response as this was the best course to not prejudice the prosecution's case.
The police and council employees have questions to answer, at the very least.
Does it being shared or not-shared make much difference to the case?
Just because someone is where they shouldn't be doesn't mean you can push them into the road.
I believe the prosecution did not claim there was any physical contact so "push them into the road" is incorrect
You can push someone in a particular direction without physical contact, which was my meaning in this context.
Whether or not you agree with the verdict (and it did seem harsh) I'm just not sure how the status of the pavement affects the judgement.
I do agree that the council should have made it clear anyway, both during the case and on the ground. Highways should in theory have known right away by looking at their records.
No sorry this is bollocks, a push implies physical contact. Gesticulated in there direction wildly causing her to fall is entirely different.
As I commented earlier, all drivers should get a 'dash cam' as it has a positive effect on your driving knowing your speed, location, time and date is recorded in real time as is the road traffic and conditions
I know it has made me a more courteous and careful driver and of course it could be very useful in my defence following an incident
Which is relevant how and this was between a cyclist and a pedestrian?
The 79 year old lady was killed by a motor vehicle in too close proximity that did not have time or space to avoid. Given a properly designed and constructed road corridor, or other alternative, she would not have fallen in the carriageway.
Designing risk out is a better option than hoping everyone's behaviour is perfect imo - because none of us are and we all make mistakes.
We do not always have the ability to fully 'design out risk' for a host of reasons: for one thing, what is too much risk, or too little? How much does a million pounds' worth of alterations buy in terms of lives? (Yes, there is an answer to this...)
The answer is that we design out as much as possible, which currently does not happen - especially when we have complacent muppets like Grant Shapps and Mark Clarke running things.
We know a lot of things we should do, but the current Govt has failed to do so since 2010. Road deaths fell by a third between 2006 and 2010, when the improvement basically stalled.
Or, as the Government Road Casualty report for 2019 (ie before pandemic distortions) put it:
The number of fatalities in 2019 (1,752) was 2% less than in 2018 (1,784), however, this small decrease may be due to natural variation. The trend in the number of fatalities has been broadly fat since 2010. Previously, and particularly between 2006 and 2010, the general trend was for fatalities to fall. Since that point, most of the year on year changes are either explained by one-of causes (for instance, the snow in 2010) or natural variation. The evidence points towards Britain being in a period when the fatality numbers are broadly stable. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/922717/reported-road-casualties-annual-report-2019.pdf
Specifics? Why do we still have the highest drink drive limit of anywhere in Europe?
Pagan2, the angriest man on the internet, covering himself in glory again, I note
It wasnt me started being the angry man, I merely pointed out reasons why shoplifting was more of a problem was your lefty twat friend that made it personal calling it buzzword bingo because I mentioned
Your comments in upright, my responses in italics:
Oh, ffs. It's an 'old' road. In an 'old' town. With private land all along it. The council could spend millions - literally - providing multi-user paths along there, or - and this seems to be a strange concept for some people - expect people to act sensibly and reasonably in relation to other road users. I'm not sure what "old" has to do with it. Cambridge a few miles away is old, yet they have developed an effective network of separate quietways to support active travel modal share.
That section of ring-road has high numbers of casualties over many years (says crashmap.co.uk), and the existing budget whatever it is can be targeted at improving safety. It's about thinking about what can be done, and doing it.
Even at a crass level on there the carriageway is 7-7.5m, so reduce the lanes to 3m and you get 0.5m pavement extra on each side (or a 0.5m median) and a more constrained carriageway that will slow the traffic down by changing the perceived appropriate speed. Much more can be done by thinking more creatively.
"the road design profession still needs a thorough re-education."
I think that's a bit of a sh*t assumption by you. Even when I touched on this stuff at uni, thirty years ago, it was known. The major problem is *cost*. I think it's a statement of the blatantly obvious. UK roads are designed around speed and capacity, rather than equal consideration for vulnerable road users and safety, according to a set of assumptions still stuck in the 1970s.
Road layouts have constraints, and it becomes a question of how much can be spent to make a road 'safe', for increasingly obscure scenarios as the cost increases. We spend many billions on roads every year; it is not difficult to meet basic quality and safety standards. Two specific examples: tangential rather than orthogonal approaches to roundabouts, to prioritise safety over speed, and do something about uncontrolled pedestrian crossings across such multilane entrances expected to be used by blind people.
The 'road design professionals' you disparage will know this. They don't have an unlimited budget to work with. I honestly don't think a lot of them do. Why are brand new schemes costing 10s of millions each being installed - even opening in 2023 as I have pointed out on PB on occasion - which simply do not meet national guidelines which have been in place for years?
A lot of schemes do not even meet the previous set of guidelines, or the ones before that.
The three approaches I quoted in my previous post are straight out of research-based current national guidelines for England.
Your comments in upright, my responses in italics:
Oh, ffs. It's an 'old' road. In an 'old' town. With private land all along it. The council could spend millions - literally - providing multi-user paths along there, or - and this seems to be a strange concept for some people - expect people to act sensibly and reasonably in relation to other road users. I'm not sure what "old" has to do with it. Cambridge a few miles away is old, yet they have developed an effective network of separate quietways to support active travel modal share.
That section of ring-road has high numbers of casualties over many years (says crashmap.co.uk), and the existing budget whatever it is can be targeted at improving safety. It's about thinking about what can be done, and doing it.
Even at a crass level on there the carriageway is 7-7.5m, so reduce the lanes to 3m and you get 0.5m pavement extra on each side (or a 0.5m median) and a more constrained carriageway that will slow the traffic down by changing the perceived appropriate speed. Much more can be done by thinking more creatively.
"the road design profession still needs a thorough re-education."
I think that's a bit of a sh*t assumption by you. Even when I touched on this stuff at uni, thirty years ago, it was known. The major problem is *cost*. I think it's a statement of the blatantly obvious. UK roads are designed around speed and capacity, rather than equal consideration for vulnerable road users and safety, according to a set of assumptions still stuck in the 1970s.
Road layouts have constraints, and it becomes a question of how much can be spent to make a road 'safe', for increasingly obscure scenarios as the cost increases. We spend many billions on roads every year; it is not difficult to meet basic quality and safety standards. Two specific examples: tangential rather than orthogonal approaches to roundabouts, to prioritise safety over speed, and do something about uncontrolled pedestrian crossings across such multilane entrances expected to be used by blind people.
The 'road design professionals' you disparage will know this. They don't have an unlimited budget to work with. I honestly don't think a lot of them do. Why are brand new schemes costing 10s of millions each being installed - even opening in 2023 as I have pointed out on PB on occasion - which simply do not meet national guidelines which have been in place for years?
A lot of schemes do not even meet the previous set of guidelines, or the ones before that.
The three approaches I quoted in my previous post are straight out of research-based current national guidelines for England.
Lots I could say about that, but I'd just point out that I often cycle in and around Cambridge, and the rosy-coloured spectacles you have on are far from the truth. There have been some improvements - the Chisholm Trail from Cambridge North to the station is good, but cost £21 million. The Dutch-style roundabout has led to an increase in accidents (1), and cost £2.4million.
I'd also encourage you to become a 'road design professional', and have to work under the constraints they do...
Comments
The point is to understand that a series of actions were taken, from the best possible motives, quite often. The next result of these actions is a further problem.
1) Shops became liable for injury to staff for tackling shoplifters and other criminals.
2) Shops therefore introduced strict policies of not tacking shop lifters and other criminals.
3) This was extended to security staff.
4) In addition, there issues about restraining suspected shoplifters being assault.
5) So security staff won't stop or restrain shop lifters either.
6) Magistrates guidelines were changed to reduce the number of people going to prison for short sentences.
7) Penal reformers argued that shop lifting is a minor crime, and that the perpetrators are often poor, drug addict or have mental issues. So the problem is really one of social work.
When you add everything of these worthy actions together, the net effect is to remove most of the barriers to shop lifting.
Actions have consequences.
One of the problems in policy making is that people take no responsibility or even interest in the secondary or tertiary results of their actions and changes.
The reason, for example, we have a law that allows the Home Sec to deprive people of citizenship at the stroke of a pen, was in reaction to the long, comic saga of Abu Hook Hand.
And so on.
https://fee.org/articles/target-and-walgreens-are-making-drastic-changes-amid-skyrocketing-shoplifting-in-san-francisco/
“Representatives from Walgreens said that thefts at its stores in San Francisco were four times the chain’s national average, and that it had closed 17 stores, largely because the scale of thefts had made business untenable,” the New York Times reported.
Some years back a friend went down in the world, quite hard. He ended up living in the JoyJoy of one of those concrete Brutalist estates that are our gift to the Lower Orders.
The local cornershop became plagued by the local druggies robbing it.
After going to the police etc resulted in a revolving door court appearance for said druggies, a regular customer of the corner shop offered a solution.
The owner was invited to join the customer's social club down the road. Because he was a nice chap, he was firmly advised never to actually visit said social club. Just pay the monthly dues.
Some of the drug addicts were a bit slow to get the news, apparently. Which was painful for them.
But thefts from the shop, apparently, dropped to near zero. The shop keeper and and the owner of the social club were from different immigrant communities, so we can say that cross immunity outreach resulted in Restorative Community Justice*
*Trade marked from Northern Ireland.
As I only wanted a small amount, I took a pre packed packet to the counter and remarked on it to the staff
They said it is not just cable ties but most every box on their shelves is being tampered with and theft is endemic
It really does make you wonder when even small quantities of cable ties are being stolen
"the road design profession still needs a thorough re-education."
I think that's a bit of a sh*t assumption by you. Even when I touched on this stuff at uni, thirty years ago, it was known. The major problem is *cost*. Road layouts have constraints, and it becomes a question of how much can be spent to make a road 'safe', for increasingly obscure scenarios as the cost increases.
The 'road design professionals' you disparage will know this. They don't have an unlimited budget to work with.
As ever, it's about compromises.
(For anyone wondering what we're wittering on about, this is where I believe the tragic situation occurred, on the pavement on the left: https://goo.gl/maps/yruCEwENxym2cGa48 A pavement some silly people think was a cycle path...)
Hurrah!
I get pretty annoyed at having to pay Apple 20 quid for a charging cable (Quite why the ostensible cheaper versions don't work escapes me - and I don't think it's Apple's fault), but if it's what's good and what works then so be it.
Apple *could* have made their system the default. But they would have had to ensure that it was 'better' then USB-C, and not crippled my massive licencing fees. They did neither.
I like Apple though - I had an Apple II computer when I was young. Even then it oozed class.
One of Ashley Neal's more amusing and regular takes is viewers who send in clips of things they disapprove of whilst driving poorly themselves.
The catchphrase is "deluded viewers".
He had one who claimed to be an IAM Roadsmart observer (turned out not to be) who drove like a bully boy.
Original vid 8 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91dY70jexbk
Followup 6 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaAm-ZPF0Ko
Well, clearly there was, hence the ambiguous response from council etc.
But, I take the main point. It doesn't look that bad on google maps and I've seen plenty of terrible street furniture on actual shared paths, but if you've been there I bow to your opinion. If not a shared path then, as I posted, it looks like good grounds for appeal.
And yes, I'd do the same as you. There a ****ing stupid shared paths I ignore and go on the road because they don't work. I'd also give way to a pedestrian always at a pinch point (except sometimes the pedestrian stops and beckons you through - fine if they want to be nice)
We know a lot of things we should do, but the current Govt has failed to do so since 2010. Road deaths fell by a third between 2006 and 2010, when the improvement basically stalled.
Or, as the Government Road Casualty report for 2019 (ie before pandemic distortions) put it:
The number of fatalities in 2019 (1,752) was 2% less than in 2018 (1,784), however, this small decrease may be due to natural variation. The trend in the number of fatalities has been broadly fat since 2010. Previously, and particularly between 2006 and 2010, the general trend was for fatalities to fall. Since that point, most of the year on year changes are either explained by one-of causes (for instance, the snow in 2010) or natural variation. The evidence points towards Britain being in a period when the fatality numbers are broadly stable.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/922717/reported-road-casualties-annual-report-2019.pdf
Specifics? Why do we still have the highest drink drive limit of anywhere in Europe?
insurance liability
health and safety etc
Tough shit arsehole
Oh, ffs. It's an 'old' road. In an 'old' town. With private land all along it. The council could spend millions - literally - providing multi-user paths along there, or - and this seems to be a strange concept for some people - expect people to act sensibly and reasonably in relation to other road users.
I'm not sure what "old" has to do with it. Cambridge a few miles away is old, yet they have developed an effective network of separate quietways to support active travel modal share.
That section of ring-road has high numbers of casualties over many years (says crashmap.co.uk), and the existing budget whatever it is can be targeted at improving safety. It's about thinking about what can be done, and doing it.
Even at a crass level on there the carriageway is 7-7.5m, so reduce the lanes to 3m and you get 0.5m pavement extra on each side (or a 0.5m median) and a more constrained carriageway that will slow the traffic down by changing the perceived appropriate speed. Much more can be done by thinking more creatively.
"the road design profession still needs a thorough re-education."
I think that's a bit of a sh*t assumption by you. Even when I touched on this stuff at uni, thirty years ago, it was known. The major problem is *cost*.
I think it's a statement of the blatantly obvious. UK roads are designed around speed and capacity, rather than equal consideration for vulnerable road users and safety, according to a set of assumptions still stuck in the 1970s.
Road layouts have constraints, and it becomes a question of how much can be spent to make a road 'safe', for increasingly obscure scenarios as the cost increases.
We spend many billions on roads every year; it is not difficult to meet basic quality and safety standards. Two specific examples: tangential rather than orthogonal approaches to roundabouts, to prioritise safety over speed, and do something about uncontrolled pedestrian crossings across such multilane entrances expected to be used by blind people.
The 'road design professionals' you disparage will know this. They don't have an unlimited budget to work with.
I honestly don't think a lot of them do. Why are brand new schemes costing 10s of millions each being installed - even opening in 2023 as I have pointed out on PB on occasion - which simply do not meet national guidelines which have been in place for years?
A lot of schemes do not even meet the previous set of guidelines, or the ones before that.
The three approaches I quoted in my previous post are straight out of research-based current national guidelines for England.
I'd also encourage you to become a 'road design professional', and have to work under the constraints they do...
(1): https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-65310167
"...even opening in 2023 as I have pointed out on PB on occasion - which simply do not meet national guidelines which have been in place for years?"
Because there will be constraints that limit what they can do.