Lorry watchers' success as company prosecuted

This Is Wiltshire: Stephanie Ridout Stephanie Ridout

BRADFORD on Avon Lorry Watch volunteers have seen their hard work pay dividends after the successful prosecution of Bristol-based Wright Minimix Ltd for a repeated breach of the lorry weight limit on Bradford on Avon’s Town Bridge.

Wright Minimix Ltd was ordered to pay a £500 fine and £125 costs at Chippen-ham Magistrates Court on Tuesday.

The prosecution is part of a long-running campaign which started in October last year and has seen a team of around 40 volunteers dedicate their time to log vehicles infringing the town’s 18 -tonne weight limit.

Lorry Watch co-ordinator, Stephanie Ridout, said: “Volunteers have given up more than 1,500 hours of their time since last October.

"The numbers of lorries crossing the bridge has fallen from 50 per week to around 25, but we have been waiting for a prosecution to show we mean business.”

The Lorry Watch programme has seen the town’s volunteers work with Bradford on Avon Town Council and Wiltshire Council.

Keith Humphries, cabinet member for public health and protection services, said Wright Minimix Ltd’s prosecution might deter other drivers from illegally crossing the bridge.

He said: “We hope this action will send a very clear message. The vast majority of companies who are warned when they’re reported by the volunteers don’t reoffend.

“However there have been a few which have ignored our warnings and this was one of those cases.

Dick Tonge, cabinet member for highways and transport said: “This is an excellent example of teamwork addressing a problem and solving it.”

For more information, call Bradford on Avon Town Council on 01225 864240 or visit www.bradfordonavon towncouncil.gov.uk.

Comments (29)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:39am Thu 6 Sep 12

Terry Chivers says...

well done not before time.
well done not before time. Terry Chivers

12:10pm Thu 6 Sep 12

1984 says...

Have you got too much time on your hands? how about getting a life and leave the transport problems to those we pay to sort it out.Thanks for dropping a hard working driver in the sh**t,give someone a flurecent jacket and that makes them offical ..............NOT.!.
............
Have you got too much time on your hands? how about getting a life and leave the transport problems to those we pay to sort it out.Thanks for dropping a hard working driver in the sh**t,give someone a flurecent jacket and that makes them offical ..............NOT.!. ............ 1984

3:19pm Thu 6 Sep 12

bobbie g says...

yes y not let them use it its only 1000s of year old wont collapse or anything will it and its not like the cause 30minute tail backs keep catching them and fine them all these lorry driver hvnt got clue
yes y not let them use it its only 1000s of year old wont collapse or anything will it and its not like the cause 30minute tail backs keep catching them and fine them all these lorry driver hvnt got clue bobbie g

4:56pm Thu 6 Sep 12

Marrytime says...

1984 wrote:
Have you got too much time on your hands? how about getting a life and leave the transport problems to those we pay to sort it out.Thanks for dropping a hard working driver in the sh**t,give someone a flurecent jacket and that makes them offical ..............NOT.!.

............
"Too much time on your hands". What an idiotic expression. Also "get a life", another idiotic expression.
Regarding illegal shortcuts, the powers that be obviously don't have the resources so volunteer help is important.
Hardworking drivers yes, but stick to the law.
I agree that the hi-vis jackets are a bit unnecessary.
[quote][p][bold]1984[/bold] wrote: Have you got too much time on your hands? how about getting a life and leave the transport problems to those we pay to sort it out.Thanks for dropping a hard working driver in the sh**t,give someone a flurecent jacket and that makes them offical ..............NOT.!. ............[/p][/quote]"Too much time on your hands". What an idiotic expression. Also "get a life", another idiotic expression. Regarding illegal shortcuts, the powers that be obviously don't have the resources so volunteer help is important. Hardworking drivers yes, but stick to the law. I agree that the hi-vis jackets are a bit unnecessary. Marrytime

8:55am Fri 7 Sep 12

norville says...

Good grief they must take this very seiously in Bradford if they have recruited Darth Maul from Star Wars to police the lorry problem. Well I assume that is who the red faced geezer in the background is.
Good grief they must take this very seiously in Bradford if they have recruited Darth Maul from Star Wars to police the lorry problem. Well I assume that is who the red faced geezer in the background is. norville

4:45pm Fri 7 Sep 12

ellliotluke says...

Now that you've sorted out the lorry drivers for breaking the highway code, i can assume you will now turn your attention to the hundreds of people who stop on the 2 yellow hash markings on Masons Hill, causing more traffic congestion than any lorry does, or is it that lorries are easy prey and make good headlines. Both are breaking the law,..... I wait with baited breath.
Now that you've sorted out the lorry drivers for breaking the highway code, i can assume you will now turn your attention to the hundreds of people who stop on the 2 yellow hash markings on Masons Hill, causing more traffic congestion than any lorry does, or is it that lorries are easy prey and make good headlines. Both are breaking the law,..... I wait with baited breath. ellliotluke

7:37pm Fri 7 Sep 12

Mrs Donnyfly says...

ellliotluke wrote:
Now that you've sorted out the lorry drivers for breaking the highway code, i can assume you will now turn your attention to the hundreds of people who stop on the 2 yellow hash markings on Masons Hill, causing more traffic congestion than any lorry does, or is it that lorries are easy prey and make good headlines. Both are breaking the law,..... I wait with baited breath.
I think you are wrong about that. It is not drivers stopping on the near non-existant yellow hatching that cause the hold-ups. It is the drivers who seem to think it means only one-way traffic and wait until all traffic coming the other way has gone through before they venture onto the almost disappeared yellow hatching that are the cause of the hold-ups. And doesn't the fact that the yellow hatching is almost obliterated from view, that no-one has bothered to repaint it, tell you something?
[quote][p][bold]ellliotluke[/bold] wrote: Now that you've sorted out the lorry drivers for breaking the highway code, i can assume you will now turn your attention to the hundreds of people who stop on the 2 yellow hash markings on Masons Hill, causing more traffic congestion than any lorry does, or is it that lorries are easy prey and make good headlines. Both are breaking the law,..... I wait with baited breath.[/p][/quote]I think you are wrong about that. It is not drivers stopping on the near non-existant yellow hatching that cause the hold-ups. It is the drivers who seem to think it means only one-way traffic and wait until all traffic coming the other way has gone through before they venture onto the almost disappeared yellow hatching that are the cause of the hold-ups. And doesn't the fact that the yellow hatching is almost obliterated from view, that no-one has bothered to repaint it, tell you something? Mrs Donnyfly

7:49am Sat 8 Sep 12

Jungleist says...

At least these people take pride in their community and are doing something to stop people abusing it. If HGV drivers don't want to be fined, why do they insist on still driving through the place? As 'professional' drivers do they not have a duty to plan their routes to avoid restrictions like this? These people have to pass HGV driving tests and, I presume, know what the weight of their vehicle is and what restrictions are placed on them? Blame the people who break the law not the people who try and stop them.
At least these people take pride in their community and are doing something to stop people abusing it. If HGV drivers don't want to be fined, why do they insist on still driving through the place? As 'professional' drivers do they not have a duty to plan their routes to avoid restrictions like this? These people have to pass HGV driving tests and, I presume, know what the weight of their vehicle is and what restrictions are placed on them? Blame the people who break the law not the people who try and stop them. Jungleist

10:03am Sat 8 Sep 12

Marrytime says...

bobbie g wrote:
yes y not let them use it its only 1000s of year old wont collapse or anything will it and its not like the cause 30minute tail backs keep catching them and fine them all these lorry driver hvnt got clue
sorry could you repeat that more clearly
[quote][p][bold]bobbie g[/bold] wrote: yes y not let them use it its only 1000s of year old wont collapse or anything will it and its not like the cause 30minute tail backs keep catching them and fine them all these lorry driver hvnt got clue[/p][/quote]sorry could you repeat that more clearly Marrytime

10:31am Sat 8 Sep 12

Marrytime says...

Mrs Donnyfly postulated "doesn't the fact that the yellow hatching is almost obliterated from view, that no-one has bothered to repaint it, tell you something?"

It may well suggest that queuing would continue even in the absence of yellow hatching due to the unawareness of vehicle width and over cautiousness of many drivers.
Mrs Donnyfly postulated "doesn't the fact that the yellow hatching is almost obliterated from view, that no-one has bothered to repaint it, tell you something?" It may well suggest that queuing would continue even in the absence of yellow hatching due to the unawareness of vehicle width and over cautiousness of many drivers. Marrytime

8:25pm Sat 8 Sep 12

moocherx says...

I'm torn between disliking the sanctimony of the 'watchers' and the presumptuousness of the drivers.
I'm torn between disliking the sanctimony of the 'watchers' and the presumptuousness of the drivers. moocherx

9:29pm Sat 8 Sep 12

Marrytime says...

moocherx wrote:
I'm torn between disliking the sanctimony of the 'watchers' and the presumptuousness of the drivers.
you could dislike both but i think sanctimony, which implies hypocracy, is a wrong description. They are offering time to try and put right something that law enforcement agencies don't seem to be able to for whatever reason.
[quote][p][bold]moocherx[/bold] wrote: I'm torn between disliking the sanctimony of the 'watchers' and the presumptuousness of the drivers.[/p][/quote]you could dislike both but i think sanctimony, which implies hypocracy, is a wrong description. They are offering time to try and put right something that law enforcement agencies don't seem to be able to for whatever reason. Marrytime

8:35am Sun 9 Sep 12

notscot says...

Marrytime wrote:
moocherx wrote:
I'm torn between disliking the sanctimony of the 'watchers' and the presumptuousness of the drivers.
you could dislike both but i think sanctimony, which implies hypocracy, is a wrong description. They are offering time to try and put right something that law enforcement agencies don't seem to be able to for whatever reason.
"law enforcement agencies don't seem to be able to for whatever reason."

More sanctimony.
You know full well why, but couldn't resist the sanctimonious dig - which in turn makes you a hypocrite.

With the cuts in policing & the decriminalisation of most parking issues, together with a determined effort by mp's, councillors and civil servants to ensure that civilian volunteers replace costly officers - fairly obvious why they aren't in attendance.

Same with the Ambulance & Fire services. Why pay someone to do a great job when you can rely on overused volunteers to do ALMOST the same job at little cost?

We're getting the services that we can currently afford but the replacement of thoroughly trained professionals with fairly trained eager volunteers is something that we ought to be monitoring for the future.

I have no problem in seeing volunteers monitoring traffic flow, minor traffic regulatons and parking issues. I do have a problem when volunteers are the first on scene at accidents/emergencie
s.

When a "paramedic" arives on scene to a report of a heart attack - just to massage the response figures. And the paramedic turns out to be a first aider with a paramedic vehicle.

I have no doubt that the issue of the BoA bridge is important to the locals. The cost in terms of damage, loss of history etc, - the cost of replacement etc., would impact heavily on local resouces. So USE the local volunteers - with only that to focus on and no-one breathing down their necks to "move on " to the next job - they'll probably do a grand job, and they won't be risking anyone's lives while they do it.

And let's snipe about something worth sniping about.
[quote][p][bold]Marrytime[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]moocherx[/bold] wrote: I'm torn between disliking the sanctimony of the 'watchers' and the presumptuousness of the drivers.[/p][/quote]you could dislike both but i think sanctimony, which implies hypocracy, is a wrong description. They are offering time to try and put right something that law enforcement agencies don't seem to be able to for whatever reason.[/p][/quote]"law enforcement agencies don't seem to be able to for whatever reason." More sanctimony. You know full well why, but couldn't resist the sanctimonious dig - which in turn makes you a hypocrite. With the cuts in policing & the decriminalisation of most parking issues, together with a determined effort by mp's, councillors and civil servants to ensure that civilian volunteers replace costly officers - fairly obvious why they aren't in attendance. Same with the Ambulance & Fire services. Why pay someone to do a great job when you can rely on overused volunteers to do ALMOST the same job at little cost? We're getting the services that we can currently afford but the replacement of thoroughly trained professionals with fairly trained eager volunteers is something that we ought to be monitoring for the future. I have no problem in seeing volunteers monitoring traffic flow, minor traffic regulatons and parking issues. I do have a problem when volunteers are the first on scene at accidents/emergencie s. When a "paramedic" arives on scene to a report of a heart attack - just to massage the response figures. And the paramedic turns out to be a first aider with a paramedic vehicle. I have no doubt that the issue of the BoA bridge is important to the locals. The cost in terms of damage, loss of history etc, - the cost of replacement etc., would impact heavily on local resouces. So USE the local volunteers - with only that to focus on and no-one breathing down their necks to "move on " to the next job - they'll probably do a grand job, and they won't be risking anyone's lives while they do it. And let's snipe about something worth sniping about. notscot

9:23am Sun 9 Sep 12

conkir says...

good post notscot.
good post notscot. conkir

11:30pm Sun 9 Sep 12

Marrytime says...

well notscot, a very good post except the first bit where you tell me I am a hypocrite. actually I don't know full well the reason(s) so no dig was involved.
I think it extremely discourteous to make such a personal accusation about someone you probably don't know.
well notscot, a very good post except the first bit where you tell me I am a hypocrite. actually I don't know full well the reason(s) so no dig was involved. I think it extremely discourteous to make such a personal accusation about someone you probably don't know. Marrytime

6:41am Mon 10 Sep 12

notscot says...

Marrytime wrote:
well notscot, a very good post except the first bit where you tell me I am a hypocrite. actually I don't know full well the reason(s) so no dig was involved.
I think it extremely discourteous to make such a personal accusation about someone you probably don't know.
"Mrs Donnyfly postulated"
"sorry could you repeat that more clearly"
"law enforcement agencies don't seem to be able to for whatever reason.”
"I think it extremely discourteous to make such a personal accusation about someone you probably don't know.”
Pot, Kettle, Black.
Hung by your own condescension - and choked by your own hypocrisy.
Don't be discourteous about others and don't make assumptions about matters you can't be bothered to investigate.
Then you won't be accusing others of doing exactly what you're doing.
OK?
[quote][p][bold]Marrytime[/bold] wrote: well notscot, a very good post except the first bit where you tell me I am a hypocrite. actually I don't know full well the reason(s) so no dig was involved. I think it extremely discourteous to make such a personal accusation about someone you probably don't know.[/p][/quote]"Mrs Donnyfly postulated" "sorry could you repeat that more clearly" "law enforcement agencies don't seem to be able to for whatever reason.” "I think it extremely discourteous to make such a personal accusation about someone you probably don't know.” Pot, Kettle, Black. Hung by your own condescension - and choked by your own hypocrisy. Don't be discourteous about others and don't make assumptions about matters you can't be bothered to investigate. Then you won't be accusing others of doing exactly what you're doing. OK? notscot

8:17am Mon 10 Sep 12

Marrytime says...

and which of those are personal accusations. None I think
and which of those are personal accusations. None I think Marrytime

9:40am Mon 10 Sep 12

notscot says...

You accuse Mrs Donnyfly of postulation.
You also showed condescension to bobbie g. You implied the police had no good reason for not being involved in monitoring weight restrictions on the BoA bridge.
You tell 1984 that he/she expresses him/herself in an idiotic and ridiculous fashion.
You accuse Mrs Donnyfly of postulation. You also showed condescension to bobbie g. You implied the police had no good reason for not being involved in monitoring weight restrictions on the BoA bridge. You tell 1984 that he/she expresses him/herself in an idiotic and ridiculous fashion. notscot

10:29am Mon 10 Sep 12

Marrytime says...

notscot wrote:
You accuse Mrs Donnyfly of postulation.
You also showed condescension to bobbie g. You implied the police had no good reason for not being involved in monitoring weight restrictions on the BoA bridge.
You tell 1984 that he/she expresses him/herself in an idiotic and ridiculous fashion.
notscot wrote:
"You accuse Mrs Donnyfly of postulation."
True. Harmless enough and relating to a statement, not her character. Would be interesting to hear Mrs D's view.
notscot wrote:
"You also showed condescension to bobbie g."
half right maybe - but this style is difficult to follow

notscot wrote:
"You implied the police had no good reason for not being involved in monitoring weight restrictions on the BoA bridge"
Absolutely false - I did not know the reason - where did no good reason come into it?

notscot wrote:
"You tell 1984 that he/she expresses him/herself in an idiotic and ridiculous fashion."
Rubbish. I gave my opinion that two sayings were idiotic. (expresses him/herself in an idiotic and ridiculous fashion." appears to be your invention)
[quote][p][bold]notscot[/bold] wrote: You accuse Mrs Donnyfly of postulation. You also showed condescension to bobbie g. You implied the police had no good reason for not being involved in monitoring weight restrictions on the BoA bridge. You tell 1984 that he/she expresses him/herself in an idiotic and ridiculous fashion.[/p][/quote]notscot wrote: "You accuse Mrs Donnyfly of postulation." True. Harmless enough and relating to a statement, not her character. Would be interesting to hear Mrs D's view. notscot wrote: "You also showed condescension to bobbie g." half right maybe - but this style is difficult to follow notscot wrote: "You implied the police had no good reason for not being involved in monitoring weight restrictions on the BoA bridge" Absolutely false - I did not know the reason - where did no good reason come into it? notscot wrote: "You tell 1984 that he/she expresses him/herself in an idiotic and ridiculous fashion." Rubbish. I gave my opinion that two sayings were idiotic. (expresses him/herself in an idiotic and ridiculous fashion." appears to be your invention) Marrytime

11:05am Mon 10 Sep 12

Mrs Donnyfly says...

How unfortunate that this post should descend into unnecessary mudslinging.

Mr/Mrs notscot - I have to ask, do you understand what postulate actually means? To my mind it means to assume something to be true as the basis of an argument. It's quite a nice word, so I fail to see how someone can be accused of postulating in the nagative way you have implied in your accusation of Mr/Mrs Marrytime being discourteous. It's like accusing someone of having an opinion - it doesn't make sense.

I have read Marrytime's post and I have to say that there is no accusation therein of the police having "no good reason" not to monitor the weight of lorries. What is said, however, is the police don't monitor it "for whatever reason". Now you have postulated on more than one reason why this should be so. Marrytime, however, didn't postulate a reason; he or she perhaps doesn't know why, or has decided to sit on the fence.
How unfortunate that this post should descend into unnecessary mudslinging. Mr/Mrs notscot - I have to ask, do you understand what postulate actually means? To my mind it means to assume something to be true as the basis of an argument. It's quite a nice word, so I fail to see how someone can be accused of postulating in the nagative way you have implied in your accusation of Mr/Mrs Marrytime being discourteous. It's like accusing someone of having an opinion - it doesn't make sense. I have read Marrytime's post and I have to say that there is no accusation therein of the police having "no good reason" not to monitor the weight of lorries. What is said, however, is the police don't monitor it "for whatever reason". Now you have postulated on more than one reason why this should be so. Marrytime, however, didn't postulate a reason; he or she perhaps doesn't know why, or has decided to sit on the fence. Mrs Donnyfly

11:55am Mon 10 Sep 12

notscot says...

Mrs Donnyfly wrote:
How unfortunate that this post should descend into unnecessary mudslinging.

Mr/Mrs notscot - I have to ask, do you understand what postulate actually means? To my mind it means to assume something to be true as the basis of an argument. It's quite a nice word, so I fail to see how someone can be accused of postulating in the nagative way you have implied in your accusation of Mr/Mrs Marrytime being discourteous. It's like accusing someone of having an opinion - it doesn't make sense.

I have read Marrytime's post and I have to say that there is no accusation therein of the police having "no good reason" not to monitor the weight of lorries. What is said, however, is the police don't monitor it "for whatever reason". Now you have postulated on more than one reason why this should be so. Marrytime, however, didn't postulate a reason; he or she perhaps doesn't know why, or has decided to sit on the fence.
Oh?
[quote][p][bold]Mrs Donnyfly[/bold] wrote: How unfortunate that this post should descend into unnecessary mudslinging. Mr/Mrs notscot - I have to ask, do you understand what postulate actually means? To my mind it means to assume something to be true as the basis of an argument. It's quite a nice word, so I fail to see how someone can be accused of postulating in the nagative way you have implied in your accusation of Mr/Mrs Marrytime being discourteous. It's like accusing someone of having an opinion - it doesn't make sense. I have read Marrytime's post and I have to say that there is no accusation therein of the police having "no good reason" not to monitor the weight of lorries. What is said, however, is the police don't monitor it "for whatever reason". Now you have postulated on more than one reason why this should be so. Marrytime, however, didn't postulate a reason; he or she perhaps doesn't know why, or has decided to sit on the fence.[/p][/quote]Oh? notscot

11:56am Mon 10 Sep 12

notscot says...

Marrytime wrote:
notscot wrote:
You accuse Mrs Donnyfly of postulation.
You also showed condescension to bobbie g. You implied the police had no good reason for not being involved in monitoring weight restrictions on the BoA bridge.
You tell 1984 that he/she expresses him/herself in an idiotic and ridiculous fashion.
notscot wrote:
"You accuse Mrs Donnyfly of postulation."
True. Harmless enough and relating to a statement, not her character. Would be interesting to hear Mrs D's view.
notscot wrote:
"You also showed condescension to bobbie g."
half right maybe - but this style is difficult to follow

notscot wrote:
"You implied the police had no good reason for not being involved in monitoring weight restrictions on the BoA bridge"
Absolutely false - I did not know the reason - where did no good reason come into it?

notscot wrote:
"You tell 1984 that he/she expresses him/herself in an idiotic and ridiculous fashion."
Rubbish. I gave my opinion that two sayings were idiotic. (expresses him/herself in an idiotic and ridiculous fashion." appears to be your invention)
Really?
[quote][p][bold]Marrytime[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notscot[/bold] wrote: You accuse Mrs Donnyfly of postulation. You also showed condescension to bobbie g. You implied the police had no good reason for not being involved in monitoring weight restrictions on the BoA bridge. You tell 1984 that he/she expresses him/herself in an idiotic and ridiculous fashion.[/p][/quote]notscot wrote: "You accuse Mrs Donnyfly of postulation." True. Harmless enough and relating to a statement, not her character. Would be interesting to hear Mrs D's view. notscot wrote: "You also showed condescension to bobbie g." half right maybe - but this style is difficult to follow notscot wrote: "You implied the police had no good reason for not being involved in monitoring weight restrictions on the BoA bridge" Absolutely false - I did not know the reason - where did no good reason come into it? notscot wrote: "You tell 1984 that he/she expresses him/herself in an idiotic and ridiculous fashion." Rubbish. I gave my opinion that two sayings were idiotic. (expresses him/herself in an idiotic and ridiculous fashion." appears to be your invention)[/p][/quote]Really? notscot

9:51pm Mon 10 Sep 12

tizzitizzi says...

As a lorry watcher I would like to make a few salientpoints. We do what we do because we love our town, and hate the pollution, disruption and damage the lorries do. We wear high viz jackets for a good reason, they are valuable in making drivers aware that we are on duty,it often deters them and they use the correct route. The police fine would be nominal - a fine through the courts is much higher - and last point. Trucks that cross the bridge are breaking the law - its as simple as that. All drivers should know their plated weight- they are warned by a personal call and letter - if they choose to reoffend then yes they will get fined....after all they are breaking the law.....what's the problem with that?
As a lorry watcher I would like to make a few salientpoints. We do what we do because we love our town, and hate the pollution, disruption and damage the lorries do. We wear high viz jackets for a good reason, they are valuable in making drivers aware that we are on duty,it often deters them and they use the correct route. The police fine would be nominal - a fine through the courts is much higher - and last point. Trucks that cross the bridge are breaking the law - its as simple as that. All drivers should know their plated weight- they are warned by a personal call and letter - if they choose to reoffend then yes they will get fined....after all they are breaking the law.....what's the problem with that? tizzitizzi

9:53pm Mon 10 Sep 12

tizzitizzi says...

1984 wrote:
Have you got too much time on your hands? how about getting a life and leave the transport problems to those we pay to sort it out.Thanks for dropping a hard working driver in the sh**t,give someone a flurecent jacket and that makes them offical ..............NOT.!.

............
Crossing the bridge is breaking the law its as simple as that. Drivers get a warning - its their choice to ignore the warning - should they do so - they will be fined if they are over 18t.
[quote][p][bold]1984[/bold] wrote: Have you got too much time on your hands? how about getting a life and leave the transport problems to those we pay to sort it out.Thanks for dropping a hard working driver in the sh**t,give someone a flurecent jacket and that makes them offical ..............NOT.!. ............[/p][/quote]Crossing the bridge is breaking the law its as simple as that. Drivers get a warning - its their choice to ignore the warning - should they do so - they will be fined if they are over 18t. tizzitizzi

9:54pm Mon 10 Sep 12

tizzitizzi says...

norville wrote:
Good grief they must take this very seiously in Bradford if they have recruited Darth Maul from Star Wars to police the lorry problem. Well I assume that is who the red faced geezer in the background is.
Yes we do take it seriously -its breaking the law - as simple as that!
[quote][p][bold]norville[/bold] wrote: Good grief they must take this very seiously in Bradford if they have recruited Darth Maul from Star Wars to police the lorry problem. Well I assume that is who the red faced geezer in the background is.[/p][/quote]Yes we do take it seriously -its breaking the law - as simple as that! tizzitizzi

11:04pm Mon 10 Sep 12

Mrs Donnyfly says...

tizzitizzi wrote - We wear high viz jackets for a good reason, they are valuable in making drivers aware that we are on duty,it often deters them and they use the correct route

Although I applaud what you do I can't help feeling that once drivers notice you are on duty through wearing your hi-viz jackets it's all a bit too late. Shouldn't you be standing at a point where drivers have the option of taking the correct route?
tizzitizzi wrote - We wear high viz jackets for a good reason, they are valuable in making drivers aware that we are on duty,it often deters them and they use the correct route Although I applaud what you do I can't help feeling that once drivers notice you are on duty through wearing your hi-viz jackets it's all a bit too late. Shouldn't you be standing at a point where drivers have the option of taking the correct route? Mrs Donnyfly

12:54pm Tue 11 Sep 12

notscot says...

Mrs Donnyfly wrote:
tizzitizzi wrote - We wear high viz jackets for a good reason, they are valuable in making drivers aware that we are on duty,it often deters them and they use the correct route

Although I applaud what you do I can't help feeling that once drivers notice you are on duty through wearing your hi-viz jackets it's all a bit too late. Shouldn't you be standing at a point where drivers have the option of taking the correct route?
I think that's part of the message - the first time it's a warning - "despite the opportunity to take the correct route - you've deliberately chosen to break the law."
So the next time they deliberately flout the law - they get fined.
Not so much about "who's watching lorries today" as "should I be driving this route?"
I think most lorry drivers are capable of reading signage and knowing where they shouldn't drive - it's a matter of how many are willing to thumb their noses at that signage and take the shortest route regardless.
[quote][p][bold]Mrs Donnyfly[/bold] wrote: tizzitizzi wrote - We wear high viz jackets for a good reason, they are valuable in making drivers aware that we are on duty,it often deters them and they use the correct route Although I applaud what you do I can't help feeling that once drivers notice you are on duty through wearing your hi-viz jackets it's all a bit too late. Shouldn't you be standing at a point where drivers have the option of taking the correct route?[/p][/quote]I think that's part of the message - the first time it's a warning - "despite the opportunity to take the correct route - you've deliberately chosen to break the law." So the next time they deliberately flout the law - they get fined. Not so much about "who's watching lorries today" as "should I be driving this route?" I think most lorry drivers are capable of reading signage and knowing where they shouldn't drive - it's a matter of how many are willing to thumb their noses at that signage and take the shortest route regardless. notscot

2:35pm Tue 11 Sep 12

tizzitizzi says...

notscot wrote:
Mrs Donnyfly wrote:
tizzitizzi wrote - We wear high viz jackets for a good reason, they are valuable in making drivers aware that we are on duty,it often deters them and they use the correct route

Although I applaud what you do I can't help feeling that once drivers notice you are on duty through wearing your hi-viz jackets it's all a bit too late. Shouldn't you be standing at a point where drivers have the option of taking the correct route?
I think that's part of the message - the first time it's a warning - "despite the opportunity to take the correct route - you've deliberately chosen to break the law."
So the next time they deliberately flout the law - they get fined.
Not so much about "who's watching lorries today" as "should I be driving this route?"
I think most lorry drivers are capable of reading signage and knowing where they shouldn't drive - it's a matter of how many are willing to thumb their noses at that signage and take the shortest route regardless.
We do give them an opportunity to turn round and they have ample warning at the top of Masons' Lane. This winter we have secured new signs on all surrounding roads into BOA. Telling drivers where NOT to go and the alternative route on the same sign..
[quote][p][bold]notscot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mrs Donnyfly[/bold] wrote: tizzitizzi wrote - We wear high viz jackets for a good reason, they are valuable in making drivers aware that we are on duty,it often deters them and they use the correct route Although I applaud what you do I can't help feeling that once drivers notice you are on duty through wearing your hi-viz jackets it's all a bit too late. Shouldn't you be standing at a point where drivers have the option of taking the correct route?[/p][/quote]I think that's part of the message - the first time it's a warning - "despite the opportunity to take the correct route - you've deliberately chosen to break the law." So the next time they deliberately flout the law - they get fined. Not so much about "who's watching lorries today" as "should I be driving this route?" I think most lorry drivers are capable of reading signage and knowing where they shouldn't drive - it's a matter of how many are willing to thumb their noses at that signage and take the shortest route regardless.[/p][/quote]We do give them an opportunity to turn round and they have ample warning at the top of Masons' Lane. This winter we have secured new signs on all surrounding roads into BOA. Telling drivers where NOT to go and the alternative route on the same sign.. tizzitizzi

6:53pm Tue 11 Sep 12

tizzitizzi says...

Mrs Donnyfly wrote:
tizzitizzi wrote - We wear high viz jackets for a good reason, they are valuable in making drivers aware that we are on duty,it often deters them and they use the correct route

Although I applaud what you do I can't help feeling that once drivers notice you are on duty through wearing your hi-viz jackets it's all a bit too late. Shouldn't you be standing at a point where drivers have the option of taking the correct route?
We do exactly that - if you cast your eyes around you will spot Lorry Watchers all around the town.
[quote][p][bold]Mrs Donnyfly[/bold] wrote: tizzitizzi wrote - We wear high viz jackets for a good reason, they are valuable in making drivers aware that we are on duty,it often deters them and they use the correct route Although I applaud what you do I can't help feeling that once drivers notice you are on duty through wearing your hi-viz jackets it's all a bit too late. Shouldn't you be standing at a point where drivers have the option of taking the correct route?[/p][/quote]We do exactly that - if you cast your eyes around you will spot Lorry Watchers all around the town. tizzitizzi

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree