Has anyone noticed the amount of....

[shiato storm]

parents do it too much nowadays, especially in shops. they just let them walk off and don't care.

wasn't there a woman who successfully sued a shop for god knows how much because she tripped over a child in a shop? the thing that really got me confused is that it was her child! ungrateful, useless yank.

back on topic; these yellow vested lollipop people look like more ways of trying to ensure us that 'our streets are safer'...what utter twaddle. what is a gormles idiot holding a big flourescent sign going to do if the sh*t goes down? scarper i'd imagine. as fast as their fat egs can take them.
Its probably all part of a 'government initiative', which we all know means 'utterly useless idea but hey, lets spend the tax payer's money as irresponsibly as we do the rest of it...'
utter joke to be honest. about as good as the new buses that fly round london; crap drivers are very very dangerous (I can't stress this enough) and give them a bigger faster machine (they've ditched lots of those red buses where you get on at the back) and its reciepe for disaster...hate them all.

[G4Z]

well the reason they are ditching the old double decker routemaster is because its a 50 year old design and its not very efficent. part of the reason I hear is because its dangerous to have the open back for people to jump on, I dont belive that tbh I think its more because they dont want to have to pay for a conductor.

If the same thing is happening where you are with the lolipop ladies then it must be all over the country I.e instigated by central government. what a bunch of utter ******s.

[Rave]

All of this seems like unfocussed ranting to me. For a start as I understand it Lollipop people certainly don't take up much of the council's budget; mostly they're basically volunteers who get paid a pittance to cover their costs.

Then people are moaning that kids should know how to cross the road, at the same time moaning that parents should be accompanying kids anyway. What?. A lot of parents don't have the option of staying off work to look after their kids, so paying a little bit of money to a few lollipop people to make sure they can get to school seems like good sense to me. If those parents can go to work instead of having to look after their kids then the economy benefits and consequently so does everyone. I was allowed to walk 3/4 mile or so to school from the age of about 8, and there was a lollipop lady to help me over the one busy road en-route. My Mum was able to get a full time job because she knew we'd be able to get ourselves to school safely.

Finally there's supposed to be a big problem with children being fat and unfit. Getting them to walk to school will be good for them. A small amount spent on Lollipop people to reassure parents that their kids will be safe looks to me like a good investment.

Rich :¬)

[Rave]

part of the reason I hear is because its dangerous to have the open back for people to jump on, I dont belive that tbh

On average two people a year die falling out the back of a Routemaster. They're crap busses anyway, I don't know why people are so keen on them; sure they're a classic design but there's no real reason to keep running them now.

Rich :¬)

[Falcon2004]

If you cant see the 2 red lights...

If you can't see to glaring red lights then you probably shouldn't driving in the first place, regardless of people on the side of or on the road.

[Angus]

I noticed it through Birmingham on Monday. The one's on pelican crossings didn't have sticks.

They can be useful but I don't think pelican/zebra crossings are the right place for them. In Faringdon there's a narrow section of road that's only wide enough for one-way but has two way traffic. A lollipop person is only needed during the school rush (when traffic both pedestrian and automotive is quite busy), it's probably more cost effective than getting a proper crossing put in.

[shiato storm]

i wonder, do they all come in little boxes and jump out at on coming traffic as kids come out of school? is someone remembering to feed these creatures?

[G4Z]

Rich, I am NOT saying that kids should not walk to school. They should walk to school, I did everyday myself. I am saying that it IS a waste of cash to pay people to stand at pelican crossings. They do not get paid a pitance, its ok money considering its a very very unskilled job, my girlfiend gets paid roughly the same rate and she is a skilled dental nurse.

http://www.sunderland.gov.uk/pages/j...ob.asp?id=1058
(also, thatsa temp job, I daresay perm's get a bit more + holidays and pension plan.)
with council tax at an all time high, why are we paying people to patrol pelican crossings? even tho the wage isnt that high if you work out how many crossing patrols we have times 52 weeks a year and im sure its a shockingly high number. I would never have felt the need to start this thread if I had seen any deployed at areas with high traffic and no crossing. but for the last 2 months I have not seen any that were not at a pelican crossing.

Also I didnt say that parents should be walking their kids to school, that comment was in respose to elmo pointing out that small 3 year olds may not be able to work crossings. I dont care what your job is and how busy you are but if you let a 3 year old out on its own your a bad parent. full stop. If you have kids, they are your responsabillity not everybody elses.

[MrFlibble]

I think it's a great thing for 2 reasons:

1. Employment for older people who might find it difficult to get other jobs and a job in which they can feel a sense of contributing to the community

2. It's more than just road crossings, it's like having lookout posts watching the kids to make sure they're safe. The lollipop persons have to undergo an enhanced CRB check just like teachers or anyone else that works with children (obvious issues with the CRB check in the light of Huntley etc. aside)

[G4Z]

mrflibble, are you liable for a council tax bill at all?

they are not more than road crossings, that is what they are paid for and that is what they should do.

[Angus]

mrflibble, are you liable for a council tax bill at all?

they are not more than road crossings, that is what they are paid for and that is what they should do.

G4Z I'm not sure what the point is here. £80 a week for 30 weeks (there's no crossing patrols during holidays - which is probably why you can only find part time jobs advertised) a year is only £2400 - it's hardly millionaires row stuff. If you compare it to installing crossings and maintenance. I'm sure it's quite an efficient option.

[G4Z]

no doubt it is, but where the hell is the sense in deploying them together?????