End this High Street hazard

Worcester News: NUMEROUS: The county council says it has lost count of the A-boards. 0913254802 Buy this photo NUMEROUS: The county council says it has lost count of the A-boards. 0913254802

CALLS are being made for a crackdown on A-boards in Worcester – amid claims dozens of them are “cluttering” the High Street.

It is illegal to display the advertising boards in the High Street, and elsewhere permission should be sought from Worcestershire County Council. But the council has in recent years chosen to turn a blind eye to the boards and now admits it has no records on the number in the city. Councillor Lynn Denham, who represents the city centre, said she counted “at least 50” between Foregate Street and the cathedral.

“I was contacted by a resident and at first you may think it’s an exaggeration, so I started to count them for myself,” she said.

“There were at least 50. It’s quite a serious issue as these boards can be a hazard to pedestrians and the partially sighted, they are causing real clutter.”

Former Worcester mayor Councillor Allah Ditta, who also represents the area, said: “You walk around Worcester and the sheer clutter you see from these boards makes it so untidy.

“There doesn’t seem to be any regulation on it, no rules, and for disabled people or children it can be a real problem.

“It’s something we’ve got to look at again because they are all over the place.”

By law A-boards are illegal on public highways, including Worcester High Street, but County Hall does not actively enforce it as council bosses want businesses to flourish.

Back in 2007 it ordered them to be taken off the streets, but since then the council has allowed more and more to reappear in an attempt to help traders fight off the economic downturn.

Talks are now due to take place over how to satisfy businesses, shoppers coming into the city and critics alike.

Adrian Field, of Worcester’s Business Improvement District, the body representing traders, said: “We would welcome a meeting as we’d like to give a business perspective, and a perspective from people visiting the city.

“You get shops in areas such as Charles Street and Copenhagen Street chaining A-boards to bollards or any type of furniture in the High Street, which doesn’t go down well with businesses there.

“But it’s an emotive subject and one we wouldn’t feel comfortable policing.”

The county council says it judges each A-board request on a case-by-case basis.

Coun John Smith, cabinet member for highways and transportation, said: “The council is committed to helping local business but we would remind owners A-boards should be kept as close to their shop frontage as possible.

“They should not cause an obstruction to people, particularly those who are disabled or less able, especially in narrower sections of pavement.”

Comments (45)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:35am Tue 26 Feb 13

More Tea Vicar says...

We should consider having small signs like the ones indicating routes and public buildings, at various points around town.

They'd be visible, above head height, and safe. It's the kind of thing you see a lot in, say, France.

I can understand the Council's reasoning on this, but the concerns are valid, too.

The authorities were trying to help businesses, at a time when they need it, but the signs clearly are a hazard.
We should consider having small signs like the ones indicating routes and public buildings, at various points around town. They'd be visible, above head height, and safe. It's the kind of thing you see a lot in, say, France. I can understand the Council's reasoning on this, but the concerns are valid, too. The authorities were trying to help businesses, at a time when they need it, but the signs clearly are a hazard. More Tea Vicar
  • Score: 0

10:01am Tue 26 Feb 13

RogerLFC says...

How many pedestrians have ended up in hospital having collided with a stationary 'A' board? Probably zero.
How many pedestrians have ended up in hospital having collided with a stationary 'A' board? Probably zero. RogerLFC
  • Score: 0

10:20am Tue 26 Feb 13

sherlock39b says...

there are some annoying ones outside newsagents

all say worcester news todays headlines are.................
there are some annoying ones outside newsagents all say worcester news todays headlines are................. sherlock39b
  • Score: 0

11:18am Tue 26 Feb 13

More Tea Vicar says...

RogerLFC wrote:
How many pedestrians have ended up in hospital having collided with a stationary 'A' board? Probably zero.
Good point, but the signs are a bit of a pain, especially for pram-pushers and wheel-chair users (or those walking behind them...).

The picture shows a good illustration of what could be done...there's a lamp-post style sign pointing up towards the Cathedral/Guildhall.


Few more of those, pointing towards various shops and streets, would be quite helpful.
[quote][p][bold]RogerLFC[/bold] wrote: How many pedestrians have ended up in hospital having collided with a stationary 'A' board? Probably zero.[/p][/quote]Good point, but the signs are a bit of a pain, especially for pram-pushers and wheel-chair users (or those walking behind them...). The picture shows a good illustration of what could be done...there's a lamp-post style sign pointing up towards the Cathedral/Guildhall. Few more of those, pointing towards various shops and streets, would be quite helpful. More Tea Vicar
  • Score: 0

11:41am Tue 26 Feb 13

Cheeky hops says...

And about time something was done. Yes to more tea vicar, there are people out there that have been hospitalised by these hazards and I know of one who broke her hip from falling over one last year and no she was not a old or elderly lady either. She is now classed as disabled, she will walk with a stick for ever, she has one leg 1 and a 1/2 inches shorter than the other one and walks with a permanent limp so if they are illegal get them off the streets
And about time something was done. Yes to more tea vicar, there are people out there that have been hospitalised by these hazards and I know of one who broke her hip from falling over one last year and no she was not a old or elderly lady either. She is now classed as disabled, she will walk with a stick for ever, she has one leg 1 and a 1/2 inches shorter than the other one and walks with a permanent limp so if they are illegal get them off the streets Cheeky hops
  • Score: 0

11:44am Tue 26 Feb 13

Cheeky hops says...

Apologies to more tea vicar, my comment was meant to be for Roger LFC
Apologies to more tea vicar, my comment was meant to be for Roger LFC Cheeky hops
  • Score: 0

12:05pm Tue 26 Feb 13

Graham Price says...

If the boards are indeed illegal, is it breaking the law for a group of concerned citizens to pick them up and return them to the shop from whence they came? In so doing they would be preventing a clear and present danger to people.

Or will the defence be that businesses can stick two fingers up to the law but concerned citizens can take no direct action?

I think we should be told.
If the boards are indeed illegal, is it breaking the law for a group of concerned citizens to pick them up and return them to the shop from whence they came? In so doing they would be preventing a clear and present danger to people. Or will the defence be that businesses can stick two fingers up to the law but concerned citizens can take no direct action? I think we should be told. Graham Price
  • Score: 0

12:36pm Tue 26 Feb 13

Hamilton60 says...

Graham Price wrote:
If the boards are indeed illegal, is it breaking the law for a group of concerned citizens to pick them up and return them to the shop from whence they came? In so doing they would be preventing a clear and present danger to people.

Or will the defence be that businesses can stick two fingers up to the law but concerned citizens can take no direct action?

I think we should be told.
I agree but people could spend all day doing that as there are so many boards. I myself have tripped over a couple (probably my own fault!) but I was looking up to find a particular shop and expecting it to be a pedestrianised area, naturally didn't expect any hazards in the way. Luckily I didn't hurt myself badly on either occasion - just my pride - but anyone trying to negotiate these with pushchairs, mobility scooters or elderly people will find the High Street a challenge these days.
[quote][p][bold]Graham Price[/bold] wrote: If the boards are indeed illegal, is it breaking the law for a group of concerned citizens to pick them up and return them to the shop from whence they came? In so doing they would be preventing a clear and present danger to people. Or will the defence be that businesses can stick two fingers up to the law but concerned citizens can take no direct action? I think we should be told.[/p][/quote]I agree but people could spend all day doing that as there are so many boards. I myself have tripped over a couple (probably my own fault!) but I was looking up to find a particular shop and expecting it to be a pedestrianised area, naturally didn't expect any hazards in the way. Luckily I didn't hurt myself badly on either occasion - just my pride - but anyone trying to negotiate these with pushchairs, mobility scooters or elderly people will find the High Street a challenge these days. Hamilton60
  • Score: 0

12:38pm Tue 26 Feb 13

one94 says...

They really don't have a place in "Historic Worcester" as far as I'm concerned. Clear them out.
They really don't have a place in "Historic Worcester" as far as I'm concerned. Clear them out. one94
  • Score: 0

1:11pm Tue 26 Feb 13

Omicron says...

And what about the hazards put onto pavements in other parts of Worcester.
Such as the man who parks his motorbike on the pavement in Ombersley Road and then further restricts the pavement by setting up a tripod to mount a speed camera on it.
And what about the hazards put onto pavements in other parts of Worcester. Such as the man who parks his motorbike on the pavement in Ombersley Road and then further restricts the pavement by setting up a tripod to mount a speed camera on it. Omicron
  • Score: 0

1:50pm Tue 26 Feb 13

CJH says...

one94 wrote:
They really don't have a place in "Historic Worcester" as far as I'm concerned. Clear them out.
Well, in historic Worcester there would probably have been a lot more of them! No 'elf and safety to worry about. But, yes, they should go. However, we apparently have to wait for the council to make a decision...no-one hold their breath.
[quote][p][bold]one94[/bold] wrote: They really don't have a place in "Historic Worcester" as far as I'm concerned. Clear them out.[/p][/quote]Well, in historic Worcester there would probably have been a lot more of them! No 'elf and safety to worry about. But, yes, they should go. However, we apparently have to wait for the council to make a decision...no-one hold their breath. CJH
  • Score: 0

1:54pm Tue 26 Feb 13

CJH says...

Actually, what would be wrong with doing what usually happens on trading estates - you get a map, and names of the businesses. Would it be too difficult to have these in the high street every 50 or 100 metres or so. They don't have to be too intrusive. If the council take responsibilty for them they get attention for businesses which is what they want, and the businesses get free advertising. It's a win-win situation surely?
Actually, what would be wrong with doing what usually happens on trading estates - you get a map, and names of the businesses. Would it be too difficult to have these in the high street every 50 or 100 metres or so. They don't have to be too intrusive. If the council take responsibilty for them they get attention for businesses which is what they want, and the businesses get free advertising. It's a win-win situation surely? CJH
  • Score: 0

4:43pm Tue 26 Feb 13

Jim F says...

Oh Worcester! nothing changes. A council wagon should go round weekly, pick them all up & scrap them.
Oh Worcester! nothing changes. A council wagon should go round weekly, pick them all up & scrap them. Jim F
  • Score: 0

4:54pm Tue 26 Feb 13

CJH says...

Jim F wrote:
Oh Worcester! nothing changes. A council wagon should go round weekly, pick them all up & scrap them.
A WEEKLY collection?? Ooo those were the days...
[quote][p][bold]Jim F[/bold] wrote: Oh Worcester! nothing changes. A council wagon should go round weekly, pick them all up & scrap them.[/p][/quote]A WEEKLY collection?? Ooo those were the days... CJH
  • Score: 0

6:48pm Tue 26 Feb 13

Hwicce says...

Just put the business rates up for anyone with a board, that'll get rid of them pretty quickly.
Just put the business rates up for anyone with a board, that'll get rid of them pretty quickly. Hwicce
  • Score: 0

8:09pm Tue 26 Feb 13

grumpy woman says...

I'm too busy avoiding them to read them.
I'm too busy avoiding them to read them. grumpy woman
  • Score: 0

9:56pm Tue 26 Feb 13

alfiepie says...

Yes let's also move all the lamposts, benches, bins, trees, etc etc etc....they are A boards not landmines !!! - if they block the whole path then yes - if there are 2 or 3 across a 10 metre high street then if you fall over them then you shouldn't be allowed out unaccompanied.......
.
Yes let's also move all the lamposts, benches, bins, trees, etc etc etc....they are A boards not landmines !!! - if they block the whole path then yes - if there are 2 or 3 across a 10 metre high street then if you fall over them then you shouldn't be allowed out unaccompanied....... . alfiepie
  • Score: 0

10:01pm Tue 26 Feb 13

alfiepie says...

Oh and to be honest this story has two MASSIVE faults in it - firstly the headline says "it has been DEMANDED for these signs to be removed..." read on and it's clear ONE PERSON has enquired ....."!!! - the other thing is that Councillor Allah Ditta has expressed his view - as far as I am concerned anything he puts his name to is of no value to anyone - in my view his concerns should never be newsworthy again....
Oh and to be honest this story has two MASSIVE faults in it - firstly the headline says "it has been DEMANDED for these signs to be removed..." read on and it's clear ONE PERSON has enquired ....."!!! - the other thing is that Councillor Allah Ditta has expressed his view - as far as I am concerned anything he puts his name to is of no value to anyone - in my view his concerns should never be newsworthy again.... alfiepie
  • Score: 0

10:25pm Tue 26 Feb 13

DarrenM says...

Its an offence called obstructing the highway - funny how if you parked there an army of civil enforcement officers would descend but stick and advertising billboard there and you can do what you like.

It was also an offence to have a shop awning lower than 6ft over the highway as well, but like everything else in Worcester these days it seems to be pick and choose what laws you would like enforced.
Its an offence called obstructing the highway - funny how if you parked there an army of civil enforcement officers would descend but stick and advertising billboard there and you can do what you like. It was also an offence to have a shop awning lower than 6ft over the highway as well, but like everything else in Worcester these days it seems to be pick and choose what laws you would like enforced. DarrenM
  • Score: 0

10:45pm Tue 26 Feb 13

saucerer says...

DarrenM wrote:
Its an offence called obstructing the highway - funny how if you parked there an army of civil enforcement officers would descend but stick and advertising billboard there and you can do what you like.

It was also an offence to have a shop awning lower than 6ft over the highway as well, but like everything else in Worcester these days it seems to be pick and choose what laws you would like enforced.
Well said. Only things that generate lots of revenue to top up council staff salaries are targeted.
[quote][p][bold]DarrenM[/bold] wrote: Its an offence called obstructing the highway - funny how if you parked there an army of civil enforcement officers would descend but stick and advertising billboard there and you can do what you like. It was also an offence to have a shop awning lower than 6ft over the highway as well, but like everything else in Worcester these days it seems to be pick and choose what laws you would like enforced.[/p][/quote]Well said. Only things that generate lots of revenue to top up council staff salaries are targeted. saucerer
  • Score: 0

11:06pm Tue 26 Feb 13

TDH123 says...

Hamilton60 wrote:
Graham Price wrote:
If the boards are indeed illegal, is it breaking the law for a group of concerned citizens to pick them up and return them to the shop from whence they came? In so doing they would be preventing a clear and present danger to people.

Or will the defence be that businesses can stick two fingers up to the law but concerned citizens can take no direct action?

I think we should be told.
I agree but people could spend all day doing that as there are so many boards. I myself have tripped over a couple (probably my own fault!) but I was looking up to find a particular shop and expecting it to be a pedestrianised area, naturally didn't expect any hazards in the way. Luckily I didn't hurt myself badly on either occasion - just my pride - but anyone trying to negotiate these with pushchairs, mobility scooters or elderly people will find the High Street a challenge these days.
I find myself having to negotiate the obstructive push-chairs, mobility scooters and the elderly rather than the "A" board signs!
[quote][p][bold]Hamilton60[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Graham Price[/bold] wrote: If the boards are indeed illegal, is it breaking the law for a group of concerned citizens to pick them up and return them to the shop from whence they came? In so doing they would be preventing a clear and present danger to people. Or will the defence be that businesses can stick two fingers up to the law but concerned citizens can take no direct action? I think we should be told.[/p][/quote]I agree but people could spend all day doing that as there are so many boards. I myself have tripped over a couple (probably my own fault!) but I was looking up to find a particular shop and expecting it to be a pedestrianised area, naturally didn't expect any hazards in the way. Luckily I didn't hurt myself badly on either occasion - just my pride - but anyone trying to negotiate these with pushchairs, mobility scooters or elderly people will find the High Street a challenge these days.[/p][/quote]I find myself having to negotiate the obstructive push-chairs, mobility scooters and the elderly rather than the "A" board signs! TDH123
  • Score: 0

8:40am Wed 27 Feb 13

Hwicce says...

There were seven taxis parked on the pavement outside the Whitehouse hotel last night (approx 7:30pm). They are a lot bigger that A boards but the council don't do anything about those so don't expect anything to be done about signs.
There were seven taxis parked on the pavement outside the Whitehouse hotel last night (approx 7:30pm). They are a lot bigger that A boards but the council don't do anything about those so don't expect anything to be done about signs. Hwicce
  • Score: 0

10:04am Wed 27 Feb 13

Guy66 says...

TDH123 wrote:
Hamilton60 wrote:
Graham Price wrote:
If the boards are indeed illegal, is it breaking the law for a group of concerned citizens to pick them up and return them to the shop from whence they came? In so doing they would be preventing a clear and present danger to people.

Or will the defence be that businesses can stick two fingers up to the law but concerned citizens can take no direct action?

I think we should be told.
I agree but people could spend all day doing that as there are so many boards. I myself have tripped over a couple (probably my own fault!) but I was looking up to find a particular shop and expecting it to be a pedestrianised area, naturally didn't expect any hazards in the way. Luckily I didn't hurt myself badly on either occasion - just my pride - but anyone trying to negotiate these with pushchairs, mobility scooters or elderly people will find the High Street a challenge these days.
I find myself having to negotiate the obstructive push-chairs, mobility scooters and the elderly rather than the "A" board signs!
Arrr Didums.........
[quote][p][bold]TDH123[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hamilton60[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Graham Price[/bold] wrote: If the boards are indeed illegal, is it breaking the law for a group of concerned citizens to pick them up and return them to the shop from whence they came? In so doing they would be preventing a clear and present danger to people. Or will the defence be that businesses can stick two fingers up to the law but concerned citizens can take no direct action? I think we should be told.[/p][/quote]I agree but people could spend all day doing that as there are so many boards. I myself have tripped over a couple (probably my own fault!) but I was looking up to find a particular shop and expecting it to be a pedestrianised area, naturally didn't expect any hazards in the way. Luckily I didn't hurt myself badly on either occasion - just my pride - but anyone trying to negotiate these with pushchairs, mobility scooters or elderly people will find the High Street a challenge these days.[/p][/quote]I find myself having to negotiate the obstructive push-chairs, mobility scooters and the elderly rather than the "A" board signs![/p][/quote]Arrr Didums......... Guy66
  • Score: 0

10:39am Wed 27 Feb 13

imustbeoldiwearacap says...

It's not the A boards that are the problem, it's inconsiderate pedestrians who stop suddenly without warning, change direction without signalling and stop and talk in groups outside shop entrances! And don't start me on about mothers and buggies, mobility scooters and cyclists! Yes, the A boards might be a problem for the less able, but so are the benches, trees etc. Best solution, the businesses should pay a fee for placing the A boards.
It's not the A boards that are the problem, it's inconsiderate pedestrians who stop suddenly without warning, change direction without signalling and stop and talk in groups outside shop entrances! And don't start me on about mothers and buggies, mobility scooters and cyclists! Yes, the A boards might be a problem for the less able, but so are the benches, trees etc. Best solution, the businesses should pay a fee for placing the A boards. imustbeoldiwearacap
  • Score: 0

12:02pm Wed 27 Feb 13

More Tea Vicar says...

alfiepie wrote:
Yes let's also move all the lamposts, benches, bins, trees, etc etc etc....they are A boards not landmines !!! - if they block the whole path then yes - if there are 2 or 3 across a 10 metre high street then if you fall over them then you shouldn't be allowed out unaccompanied.......

.
Cumulatively, they can block whole paths, as far as users are concerned.

They are a major inconvenience, especially to the more vulnerable. If you just left a lorry there, you'd get a fine.
[quote][p][bold]alfiepie[/bold] wrote: Yes let's also move all the lamposts, benches, bins, trees, etc etc etc....they are A boards not landmines !!! - if they block the whole path then yes - if there are 2 or 3 across a 10 metre high street then if you fall over them then you shouldn't be allowed out unaccompanied....... .[/p][/quote]Cumulatively, they can block whole paths, as far as users are concerned. They are a major inconvenience, especially to the more vulnerable. If you just left a lorry there, you'd get a fine. More Tea Vicar
  • Score: 0

12:15pm Wed 27 Feb 13

More Tea Vicar says...

Hwicce wrote:
There were seven taxis parked on the pavement outside the Whitehouse hotel last night (approx 7:30pm). They are a lot bigger that A boards but the council don't do anything about those so don't expect anything to be done about signs.
Yes, taxis are a huge issue, often discussed on here, and the Council's handling of it is distinctly questionable.

The fact that Allah Ditta is mentioning the a-boards is of course questionable - might just be trying to take attention away from the controversies surrounding himself and 'his' community and taxi drivers, for example.

But that doesn't mean a-signs aren't a legitimate cause for concern.

Let's compromise - get rid of the boards, replace them with better, less obtrusive, signing, and get rid of half the taxis! Win win.
[quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: There were seven taxis parked on the pavement outside the Whitehouse hotel last night (approx 7:30pm). They are a lot bigger that A boards but the council don't do anything about those so don't expect anything to be done about signs.[/p][/quote]Yes, taxis are a huge issue, often discussed on here, and the Council's handling of it is distinctly questionable. The fact that Allah Ditta is mentioning the a-boards is of course questionable - might just be trying to take attention away from the controversies surrounding himself and 'his' community and taxi drivers, for example. But that doesn't mean a-signs aren't a legitimate cause for concern. Let's compromise - get rid of the boards, replace them with better, less obtrusive, signing, and get rid of half the taxis! Win win. More Tea Vicar
  • Score: 0

12:25pm Wed 27 Feb 13

Bexsunshine says...

it's just a board- on one hand people moan about how the high street is suffering- shop owners pop out a board to encourage customers- then everyone moans

There are far more important issues within the city - personally we should get rid of the pigeons that leave their mess everywhere rather than an advertising board!

Anyone that can collide with one of these on foot needs to swing by specsavers
it's just a board- on one hand people moan about how the high street is suffering- shop owners pop out a board to encourage customers- then everyone moans There are far more important issues within the city - personally we should get rid of the pigeons that leave their mess everywhere rather than an advertising board! Anyone that can collide with one of these on foot needs to swing by specsavers Bexsunshine
  • Score: 0

1:38pm Wed 27 Feb 13

Hwicce says...

If shop owners think that some scrap of advertising on a board that is annoying their potential customers is going to save a failing business then they don't deserve to survive.

Just look at the adverts in the picture with this story. Would you go into any of those shops with their trashy appeals for customers?
If shop owners think that some scrap of advertising on a board that is annoying their potential customers is going to save a failing business then they don't deserve to survive. Just look at the adverts in the picture with this story. Would you go into any of those shops with their trashy appeals for customers? Hwicce
  • Score: 0

4:12pm Wed 27 Feb 13

alfiepie says...

imustbeoldiwearacap wrote:
It's not the A boards that are the problem, it's inconsiderate pedestrians who stop suddenly without warning, change direction without signalling and stop and talk in groups outside shop entrances! And don't start me on about mothers and buggies, mobility scooters and cyclists! Yes, the A boards might be a problem for the less able, but so are the benches, trees etc. Best solution, the businesses should pay a fee for placing the A boards.
pedestrians that change direction without signalling........?? what the hell are you on about....?
[quote][p][bold]imustbeoldiwearacap[/bold] wrote: It's not the A boards that are the problem, it's inconsiderate pedestrians who stop suddenly without warning, change direction without signalling and stop and talk in groups outside shop entrances! And don't start me on about mothers and buggies, mobility scooters and cyclists! Yes, the A boards might be a problem for the less able, but so are the benches, trees etc. Best solution, the businesses should pay a fee for placing the A boards.[/p][/quote]pedestrians that change direction without signalling........?? what the hell are you on about....? alfiepie
  • Score: 0

9:43pm Wed 27 Feb 13

imustbeoldiwearacap says...

alfiepie wrote:
imustbeoldiwearacap wrote:
It's not the A boards that are the problem, it's inconsiderate pedestrians who stop suddenly without warning, change direction without signalling and stop and talk in groups outside shop entrances! And don't start me on about mothers and buggies, mobility scooters and cyclists! Yes, the A boards might be a problem for the less able, but so are the benches, trees etc. Best solution, the businesses should pay a fee for placing the A boards.
pedestrians that change direction without signalling........?? what the hell are you on about....?
"and some fell on stoney ground"
[quote][p][bold]alfiepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]imustbeoldiwearacap[/bold] wrote: It's not the A boards that are the problem, it's inconsiderate pedestrians who stop suddenly without warning, change direction without signalling and stop and talk in groups outside shop entrances! And don't start me on about mothers and buggies, mobility scooters and cyclists! Yes, the A boards might be a problem for the less able, but so are the benches, trees etc. Best solution, the businesses should pay a fee for placing the A boards.[/p][/quote]pedestrians that change direction without signalling........?? what the hell are you on about....?[/p][/quote]"and some fell on stoney ground" imustbeoldiwearacap
  • Score: 0

9:43pm Wed 27 Feb 13

imustbeoldiwearacap says...

alfiepie wrote:
imustbeoldiwearacap wrote:
It's not the A boards that are the problem, it's inconsiderate pedestrians who stop suddenly without warning, change direction without signalling and stop and talk in groups outside shop entrances! And don't start me on about mothers and buggies, mobility scooters and cyclists! Yes, the A boards might be a problem for the less able, but so are the benches, trees etc. Best solution, the businesses should pay a fee for placing the A boards.
pedestrians that change direction without signalling........?? what the hell are you on about....?
"and some fell on stoney ground"
[quote][p][bold]alfiepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]imustbeoldiwearacap[/bold] wrote: It's not the A boards that are the problem, it's inconsiderate pedestrians who stop suddenly without warning, change direction without signalling and stop and talk in groups outside shop entrances! And don't start me on about mothers and buggies, mobility scooters and cyclists! Yes, the A boards might be a problem for the less able, but so are the benches, trees etc. Best solution, the businesses should pay a fee for placing the A boards.[/p][/quote]pedestrians that change direction without signalling........?? what the hell are you on about....?[/p][/quote]"and some fell on stoney ground" imustbeoldiwearacap
  • Score: 0

9:37am Thu 28 Feb 13

RobertR says...

Omicron wrote:
And what about the hazards put onto pavements in other parts of Worcester.
Such as the man who parks his motorbike on the pavement in Ombersley Road and then further restricts the pavement by setting up a tripod to mount a speed camera on it.
Omicron: He's probably the Police!.
[quote][p][bold]Omicron[/bold] wrote: And what about the hazards put onto pavements in other parts of Worcester. Such as the man who parks his motorbike on the pavement in Ombersley Road and then further restricts the pavement by setting up a tripod to mount a speed camera on it.[/p][/quote]Omicron: He's probably the Police!. RobertR
  • Score: 0

9:54am Thu 28 Feb 13

timevans says...

Could some financial arrangement be made with Mr Ditta regarding these boards?
Could some financial arrangement be made with Mr Ditta regarding these boards? timevans
  • Score: 0

12:43pm Thu 28 Feb 13

More Tea Vicar says...

timevans wrote:
Could some financial arrangement be made with Mr Ditta regarding these boards?
What could you possibly mean....?

I suppose they could be mounted on taxis, perhaps. It's not as though they carry passengers, and they are normally parked around town, in the way and highly visible.
[quote][p][bold]timevans[/bold] wrote: Could some financial arrangement be made with Mr Ditta regarding these boards?[/p][/quote]What could you possibly mean....? I suppose they could be mounted on taxis, perhaps. It's not as though they carry passengers, and they are normally parked around town, in the way and highly visible. More Tea Vicar
  • Score: 0

1:56pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Vox populi says...

alfiepie wrote:
imustbeoldiwearacap wrote: It's not the A boards that are the problem, it's inconsiderate pedestrians who stop suddenly without warning, change direction without signalling and stop and talk in groups outside shop entrances! And don't start me on about mothers and buggies, mobility scooters and cyclists! Yes, the A boards might be a problem for the less able, but so are the benches, trees etc. Best solution, the businesses should pay a fee for placing the A boards.
pedestrians that change direction without signalling........?? what the hell are you on about....?
There is a glaring omission from this rant.

Phone walkers! Those who amble aimlessly looking at their screen or walk into you whilst updating their facebook statuses....
[quote][p][bold]alfiepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]imustbeoldiwearacap[/bold] wrote: It's not the A boards that are the problem, it's inconsiderate pedestrians who stop suddenly without warning, change direction without signalling and stop and talk in groups outside shop entrances! And don't start me on about mothers and buggies, mobility scooters and cyclists! Yes, the A boards might be a problem for the less able, but so are the benches, trees etc. Best solution, the businesses should pay a fee for placing the A boards.[/p][/quote]pedestrians that change direction without signalling........?? what the hell are you on about....?[/p][/quote]There is a glaring omission from this rant. Phone walkers! Those who amble aimlessly looking at their screen or walk into you whilst updating their facebook statuses.... Vox populi
  • Score: 0

3:12pm Thu 28 Feb 13

More Tea Vicar says...

Vox populi wrote:
alfiepie wrote:
imustbeoldiwearacap wrote: It's not the A boards that are the problem, it's inconsiderate pedestrians who stop suddenly without warning, change direction without signalling and stop and talk in groups outside shop entrances! And don't start me on about mothers and buggies, mobility scooters and cyclists! Yes, the A boards might be a problem for the less able, but so are the benches, trees etc. Best solution, the businesses should pay a fee for placing the A boards.
pedestrians that change direction without signalling........?? what the hell are you on about....?
There is a glaring omission from this rant.

Phone walkers! Those who amble aimlessly looking at their screen or walk into you whilst updating their facebook statuses....
Absolutely with you there. They're a danger to themselves and everyone around them.

I nearly knocked a youth over the other day; dozy b-gger was texting away, earplugs in, just walks across the road, barely aware that he wasn't on the path any more.

And it's the same around town, they just seem to float along, barely aware that other people are there.
[quote][p][bold]Vox populi[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alfiepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]imustbeoldiwearacap[/bold] wrote: It's not the A boards that are the problem, it's inconsiderate pedestrians who stop suddenly without warning, change direction without signalling and stop and talk in groups outside shop entrances! And don't start me on about mothers and buggies, mobility scooters and cyclists! Yes, the A boards might be a problem for the less able, but so are the benches, trees etc. Best solution, the businesses should pay a fee for placing the A boards.[/p][/quote]pedestrians that change direction without signalling........?? what the hell are you on about....?[/p][/quote]There is a glaring omission from this rant. Phone walkers! Those who amble aimlessly looking at their screen or walk into you whilst updating their facebook statuses....[/p][/quote]Absolutely with you there. They're a danger to themselves and everyone around them. I nearly knocked a youth over the other day; dozy b-gger was texting away, earplugs in, just walks across the road, barely aware that he wasn't on the path any more. And it's the same around town, they just seem to float along, barely aware that other people are there. More Tea Vicar
  • Score: 0

7:03pm Thu 28 Feb 13

A Different View says...

Double the number of signs and get rid of this incredibly annoying idiots who harass you for cash on the streets....the so called charity collectors (except of course for the fact the charity gets little of the money you donate).

And while we are on the subject of what else to remove, I would suggest the elder generation who walk four abreast blocking entire pathways whilst going at snails pace, and small groups of women (normally) that have a good old chat in shops whilst blocking off an entire isle or even worse the entrance.

Yes I might be the slightly impatient sort! :)
Double the number of signs and get rid of this incredibly annoying idiots who harass you for cash on the streets....the so called charity collectors (except of course for the fact the charity gets little of the money you donate). And while we are on the subject of what else to remove, I would suggest the elder generation who walk four abreast blocking entire pathways whilst going at snails pace, and small groups of women (normally) that have a good old chat in shops whilst blocking off an entire isle or even worse the entrance. Yes I might be the slightly impatient sort! :) A Different View
  • Score: 0

1:02pm Fri 1 Mar 13

mauro balbino says...

You shouldn't help business turning a blind eye to the Law.
You shouldn't help business turning a blind eye to the Law. mauro balbino
  • Score: 0

6:06pm Fri 1 Mar 13

BrownSauce says...

The lawyers at the major supermarkets do not consider A boards to be a health hazard, and they pay for the best advice available, and they are freely used outside and in entrances of those I have visited in the last few days..

So, why should shops in the city who pay heavy business taxes to trade there, not be allowed similar marketing?

Seems like some people need to get a life.
The lawyers at the major supermarkets do not consider A boards to be a health hazard, and they pay for the best advice available, and they are freely used outside and in entrances of those I have visited in the last few days.. So, why should shops in the city who pay heavy business taxes to trade there, not be allowed similar marketing? Seems like some people need to get a life. BrownSauce
  • Score: 0

10:41pm Fri 1 Mar 13

Cheeky hops says...

Which supermarkets are these may I ask as I have never seen them out side the likes of Tesco stains bury Morrisons asda
Which supermarkets are these may I ask as I have never seen them out side the likes of Tesco stains bury Morrisons asda Cheeky hops
  • Score: 0

10:41pm Fri 1 Mar 13

Cheeky hops says...

Which supermarkets are these may I ask as I have never seen them out side the likes of Tesco stains bury Morrisons asda
Which supermarkets are these may I ask as I have never seen them out side the likes of Tesco stains bury Morrisons asda Cheeky hops
  • Score: 0

9:40pm Sat 2 Mar 13

The Doosra says...

So, Lynn Denham counted 50 A Boards between Foregate Street and the Cathedral. That would be 50 over a distance of 880 yards then - one every 17 or so yards and not serried ranks like fences in the Grand national which shoppers are required to jump.

Here's a tip - see an A Board and walk round it. It might be hard the first time, but you'll soon get the hang of it.
So, Lynn Denham counted 50 A Boards between Foregate Street and the Cathedral. That would be 50 over a distance of 880 yards then - one every 17 or so yards and not serried ranks like fences in the Grand national which shoppers are required to jump. Here's a tip - see an A Board and walk round it. It might be hard the first time, but you'll soon get the hang of it. The Doosra
  • Score: 0

10:49pm Sat 2 Mar 13

WooWoo123 says...

If they're illegal it seems pretty clear to me that they shouldn't be there!? Problem solved!?

Personally, they don't bother me. This photo, with the article, is the first time I've really read any of them, so they're not really serving a purpose either. Well not to me!

It's the subway/mcdonalds/dom
inos ones that catch my eye. Is it in the job description for the person to hold them to be miserable and constantly looking at their phone!?
If they're illegal it seems pretty clear to me that they shouldn't be there!? Problem solved!? Personally, they don't bother me. This photo, with the article, is the first time I've really read any of them, so they're not really serving a purpose either. Well not to me! It's the subway/mcdonalds/dom inos ones that catch my eye. Is it in the job description for the person to hold them to be miserable and constantly looking at their phone!? WooWoo123
  • Score: 0

9:51pm Sun 3 Mar 13

Keith B says...

saucerer wrote:
DarrenM wrote:
Its an offence called obstructing the highway - funny how if you parked there an army of civil enforcement officers would descend but stick and advertising billboard there and you can do what you like.

It was also an offence to have a shop awning lower than 6ft over the highway as well, but like everything else in Worcester these days it seems to be pick and choose what laws you would like enforced.
Well said. Only things that generate lots of revenue to top up council staff salaries are targeted.
I'm not Council Staff but Council Staff salaries have not risen in four years and staff have been cut so those left are doing far more work for much less pay, when cost of living increases are taken into consideration.

I'm getting old - I want Council staff there to administer my support in old age, I want schools to be kept open, I want roads repaired and public health inspectors out there to make sure the horse I'm eating isn't in fact substituted by rat or cat.

We NEED our Council staff and civil servants funded and in place.

This constant carping is unfair and stupid.
[quote][p][bold]saucerer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DarrenM[/bold] wrote: Its an offence called obstructing the highway - funny how if you parked there an army of civil enforcement officers would descend but stick and advertising billboard there and you can do what you like. It was also an offence to have a shop awning lower than 6ft over the highway as well, but like everything else in Worcester these days it seems to be pick and choose what laws you would like enforced.[/p][/quote]Well said. Only things that generate lots of revenue to top up council staff salaries are targeted.[/p][/quote]I'm not Council Staff but Council Staff salaries have not risen in four years and staff have been cut so those left are doing far more work for much less pay, when cost of living increases are taken into consideration. I'm getting old - I want Council staff there to administer my support in old age, I want schools to be kept open, I want roads repaired and public health inspectors out there to make sure the horse I'm eating isn't in fact substituted by rat or cat. We NEED our Council staff and civil servants funded and in place. This constant carping is unfair and stupid. Keith B
  • Score: 0

11:03am Mon 4 Mar 13

Respectable says...

Ooh.. Hot Pork Rolls.. Lovely.. Thanks for the pointer..Lunch sorted ..Mmmm.
Ooh.. Hot Pork Rolls.. Lovely.. Thanks for the pointer..Lunch sorted ..Mmmm. Respectable
  • Score: 0

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