Has anyone noticed the amount of....

[G4Z]

lolipop ladies/men (best be politically correct) being stood at pelican crossings? I have noticed this over the past few weeks, every day on my way into work there is a lolipop lady at the pelican crossing, is it just me or does that seem the most outragously pointless thing ever? It was my understanding that these people were employed to make sure kids could cross the road outside of schools where there were no pelican crossings. Have our local council (newcastle) now put in so many lights that they cant deploy these people anywhere else? Is it some new government directive? I dont know, but in the middle of summer on bright days with roads equiped with pelican corossings why the hell do we need somebody stood there to press the button and then to walk out and hold up a big stick between the red lights?

Has the world gone mental?

[Craig]

Aye G4Z, there are three of them on the way to work (In newcastle too) and i think its pointless!

[Elmo]

HAHA! i asked the same thing to my friend the other day when i was stood at a bus stop. I really have no idea... the only thing i can think of is that they use lollypop people outside/on routes to and from primary school, and at these ages, children havent properly grasped the whole concept of crossing roads and using the lights, some press the buttons and run out anyway. I guess the lollypop people are there to show them how to do it propwely. However i dont see why they need their sticks... surely a yellow "land services" jacket would suffice?

[G4Z]

I have also seen then in south shields and gateshead as well. unbelivable. I have not seen any that were not at lights. Unbeliveable waste of cash when council tax costs as much as it does.

[G4Z]

Elmo, you really think that kids who are unable to grasp tehj simple concept of a pelican crossing should be allowed out unaccompanied anyway? imho there is no need to have any1 manning pelican crossings. just stupid and defeats the purpose of putting the damn things there in the first place.

[Elmo]

yeah, but there's always those parents who allow their children to roam the streets at the age of 3 yet if any harm were to come to their "little darling chardonnay/john-paul" (no offence to anyone with these names...) theyd be straight on to the council complaining that there should ba someone there.

[G4Z]

as far as I am concerned, any parent that does that should have the kids taken away and be charged with child neglect. never mind sueing the council.

[subucni]

as far as I am concerned, any parent that does that should have the kids taken away and be charged with child neglect. never mind sueing the council.

muchly agreed, parents do it too much nowadays, especially in shops. they just let them walk off and don't care. the amount of kids i've had to shout at across the shop floor where i work, to tell them to not to play around and climb over the barrier that is there to protect kids from being trapped by the automatic doors (for obvious reason) only then to have the parents glare at me for trying to stop there kid from getting hurt, before they even bother to look over at see what it is their little sweetness is upto. and the second they see what their kid is upto they have ago at them too as if it wasn't the parents fault for not keeping their eye on them in the first place.

this is why one of the reasons why i love my little nephew, you take him into a shop and he'll follow you around and hold your hand and behave himself.

:edit: sorry i strayed from your original point of this post there. ops:

[Stewart]

yeah, but there's always those parents who allow their children to roam the streets at the age of 3 yet if any harm were to come to their "little darling chardonnay/john-paul" (no offence to anyone with these names...)

The Pope's not going to be pleased.

[StarkMjolk]

I've never seen them here actually (Stockholm, Sweden).

Guess it's some crazy British idea to have those lolipop people standing around everywhere...

[SilentDeath]

Whats the point in them anyway, even with no lights there? im mean, most children have to cross atleast a few roads to get home, and if there not going run out at the first (becuase of the lolipop) at the first, theres still a good chance they will at the next one...
And even if there not able to grasp the concept of crossing roads without a car smashing into them at 30mph, dragging there body to the other side, then shouldnt they be *with* there parents when crossing the roads?

Also a little of topic, but I strongly belive parents should not be allowed to take children to school by car, firstly becuase it makes it impossible to drive anywhere for anyone else at that time - because a few hundred cars with only 2 people in them, going to the same place at the same time and secondly becuase thats the reson children dont know how to cross the road, becuase they havent had to do it much. Also it would stop them from becoming fat b*stards from sitting on there ars*s all day.
*awaits flaming from parents*

[subucni]

Also a little of topic, but I strongly belive parents should not be allowed to take children to school by car, firstly becuase it makes it impossible to drive anywhere for anyone else at that time - because a few hundred cars with only 2 people in them, going to the same place at the same time and secondly becuase thats the reson children dont know how to cross the road, becuase they havent had to do it much. Also it would stop them from becoming fat b*stards from sitting on there ars*s all day.
*awaits flaming from parents*

you forgot the fact that if there wasn't so many parents rushing to get their kids to school on these roads, then there would be a lot less cars on the road at that time to run the little-uns over in the first places, which means less lollipop people would be needed anyway, because less roads would be classed as high risk crossings due to lower traffic volumes. which kinda brings your point neatly back on topic.

[SilentDeath]

ty

[scottyman]

I used to wonder that - but saw the logic this morning - walking to the shop to get a paper and milk, with sun streaming down the road, and even with sunglasses on, could barely make out the pedestrian crossing (same I'd imagine for drivers)
However - I could see the woman in bright reflective yellow tape holding a big stick - I thought it was a super-sized uma thurman, but no, it was a lollipop lady.
Makes sense, especially on bright days and dark evenings, when local kids walk to school across a busy road.

[Grey M@a]

Down here in Whitley Bay within a mile stretch I can pass 6 of them on crossings and one on a main road without a crossing. I never understood the lollipop man/woman standing there when there are lights and god knows how many other contraptions to help them cross the roads.

[G4Z]

I used to wonder that - but saw the logic this morning - walking to the shop to get a paper and milk, with sun streaming down the road, and even with sunglasses on, could barely make out the pedestrian crossing (same I'd imagine for drivers)
However - I could see the woman in bright reflective yellow tape holding a big stick - I thought it was a super-sized uma thurman, but no, it was a lollipop lady.
Makes sense, especially on bright days and dark evenings, when local kids walk to school across a busy road.

I think you make a good point mate, but as a driver of over 4 years I cannot think of a single time when I was so blinded by the sun that I didnt see a pedestrian. If its so bright you cant see you need to get your visor down and your sunglasses on and of course slow down, so that if you do hit some1 you dont cause major injury.common sense I would have thought. I do not object to a crossing patrol, but I really cannot see how having them placed at pelican crossings is anything other than a complete waste of time and money. If you cant see the 2 red lights and people at the side of the road then I dont think some1 in a bright yellow coat is gonna stand out against a galring sun, surely if you cant see peadestrians then you cant see the crossing patrol either. I allways thought the high visablility gear was for times when its a bit dark, not for times when its bright and clear.