Woman cut from car in Woodmere Avenue (From Watford Observer)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting WO to 80360, or email us
Woman cut from car after crashing into Woodmere Avenue width restriction
2:33pm Wednesday 17th October 2012 in News
By Mike Wright, Chief Reporter
Woman cut from car in Woodmere Avenue
A woman had to be cut out of her car after crashing into the width restriction in Woodmere Avenue.
Police closed off the road in north Watford at around 11.21am after the red Renault Cleo became wedged in the restriction, which has three bollards on either side.
A fire crew from Potters Bar was also called and had to cut the car’s roof off with hydraulic tools to free the 24-year-old driver.
After she was freed the motorist was treated by paramedics for minor injuries.
Ambulance service spokesman Gary Sanderson said: "A woman has been treated, stabilised and immobilised taken to Watford General Hospital with slight injuries."
The road was reopened at 12.50pm.
Comments(88)
abbotshornet
says...
3:04pm Wed 17 Oct 12
If a small car gets wedged it is obviously too narrow.
crazyfrog
says...
3:11pm Wed 17 Oct 12
Hornets number 12 fan
says...
3:17pm Wed 17 Oct 12
crazyfrog wrote:YES the HCC have a lot to answer for where this width restriction is concerned
i personally think the county council are holding out for a fatality before they remove these restrictions, to date they have been the contributing factor to thousands of pounds worth of damage to private vehicles and numerous calls out to the emergency services. talk about pig stubborn
TRT
says...
3:29pm Wed 17 Oct 12
TRT
says...
3:31pm Wed 17 Oct 12
cheese85
says...
3:34pm Wed 17 Oct 12
TRT
says...
3:46pm Wed 17 Oct 12
There are other issues regarding the approach to this restriction, like the fact that the pavement bends out near Douglas Avenue so you have to abandon keeping a constant kerb distance on your approach.
It's badly designed, although there will be loads of people who now start leaving comments saying it's fine purely because they can drive through it fine, which is kind of selfish, I think.
WatfordBandB
says...
3:59pm Wed 17 Oct 12
TRT wrote:What a load of rubbish. Get yourself a push bike, I beg you.
I'm totally against this redesigned restriction. If you look it up in the archives, you'll see my arguments relating to low speed being ineffective at this feature due to active-visual memory lasting only 8 seconds maximum (you have to lean out of the car and continuously observe the clearance in order to remain confident about your positioning. Try it for yourself; arrange some pieces of A4 on the floor in a staggered fashion - walk from one end to the other eyes closed avoiding stepping on the paper. You'll last around 8 seconds without a mistake. Now run and you'll make it the whole way).
There are other issues regarding the approach to this restriction, like the fact that the pavement bends out near Douglas Avenue so you have to abandon keeping a constant kerb distance on your approach.
It's badly designed, although there will be loads of people who now start leaving comments saying it's fine purely because they can drive through it fine, which is kind of selfish, I think.
watford_bob
says...
3:59pm Wed 17 Oct 12
gasguzzler
says...
4:18pm Wed 17 Oct 12
All the result of driving through a width restriction that literally hundreds of cars pass successfully every single day of the year !
comments
says...
4:28pm Wed 17 Oct 12
Even at 7ft , and with the average width of a car in the uk at 6ft.....its leaves just 6 inches on either side...
6 inches (pardon the pun) isn't a great deal!
HCC pull your finger out and sort out this mess that you fail to accept as a problem!
Uneek
says...
4:31pm Wed 17 Oct 12
Hornets number 12 fan
says...
4:55pm Wed 17 Oct 12
WatfordBandB wrote:It's not a load of rubbish at all! I'm a very confindent driver nad have been for 30 years and have NEVER hit any width restriction but I CAN tell you that this one is different to any other. The third bollard on each side is the problem and the height of them being reduced because the restriction was too narrow and was taking people mirrors off!
TRT wrote:What a load of rubbish. Get yourself a push bike, I beg you.
I'm totally against this redesigned restriction. If you look it up in the archives, you'll see my arguments relating to low speed being ineffective at this feature due to active-visual memory lasting only 8 seconds maximum (you have to lean out of the car and continuously observe the clearance in order to remain confident about your positioning. Try it for yourself; arrange some pieces of A4 on the floor in a staggered fashion - walk from one end to the other eyes closed avoiding stepping on the paper. You'll last around 8 seconds without a mistake. Now run and you'll make it the whole way).
There are other issues regarding the approach to this restriction, like the fact that the pavement bends out near Douglas Avenue so you have to abandon keeping a constant kerb distance on your approach.
It's badly designed, although there will be loads of people who now start leaving comments saying it's fine purely because they can drive through it fine, which is kind of selfish, I think.
ian9898
says...
4:58pm Wed 17 Oct 12
Comments and TRT I take it you are a back seat drivers rather than proper drivers with daft senseless remarks like that!
TRT
says...
5:06pm Wed 17 Oct 12
My point about visual-motor memory does relate to the fact that they cut down the height of the posts due the loss of wing mirrors so that now you can't see the posts when driving through them. This is why you cannot liken the approach to driving into a narrow garage (you can see the door frame easily).
It's supposed to stop lorries from entering that road to take a shortcut to Imperial/Colonial Way, not stop speeding - there are (inappropriate on a bus route!) road humps for that. I actually can't think of a more inappropriate set of traffic calming measures on a single road anywhere else! A width restriction with an uncontrolled bus sized bypass right next to it and enough speed bumps on a bus route to scramble a pensioner's egg ration.
Hornets number 12 fan
says...
5:21pm Wed 17 Oct 12
TRT wrote:I totally agree with you this is a width restriction not a speed restriction. I still say the main problem is the old retriction had the posts behind the kerbs and this one is level. I do not see why this has been changed perhaps HCC can shed light on it but I doubt they would
Thank you. WatfordBandB is an obvious troll, BTW. The woman driver's comment... please.
My point about visual-motor memory does relate to the fact that they cut down the height of the posts due the loss of wing mirrors so that now you can't see the posts when driving through them. This is why you cannot liken the approach to driving into a narrow garage (you can see the door frame easily).
It's supposed to stop lorries from entering that road to take a shortcut to Imperial/Colonial Way, not stop speeding - there are (inappropriate on a bus route!) road humps for that. I actually can't think of a more inappropriate set of traffic calming measures on a single road anywhere else! A width restriction with an uncontrolled bus sized bypass right next to it and enough speed bumps on a bus route to scramble a pensioner's egg ration.
miwe2
says...
5:28pm Wed 17 Oct 12
S/O man
says...
5:29pm Wed 17 Oct 12
crazyfrog
says...
5:40pm Wed 17 Oct 12
Uneek
says...
5:49pm Wed 17 Oct 12
TRT
says...
5:51pm Wed 17 Oct 12
Uneek wrote:Yeah, I thought that too. Hmm...?
The only really concerning point in this story is why a fire appliance had to come from potters bar ???
comments
says...
6:04pm Wed 17 Oct 12
ian9898 wrote:ian9898....
PATHETIC!!! If you cannot drive a Renault Clio through that restriction you should not be driving!! I drive a Vauxhall Vivaro van through there regulary with plenty of room, and see larger vehicles than that quite easily go through.
Comments and TRT I take it you are a back seat drivers rather than proper drivers with daft senseless remarks like that!
arent you an idiot...
No other restriction in the uk has had this problem....
Clearly there is a problem!
ps I bet your white vans battered!
Rollnbutta
says...
6:15pm Wed 17 Oct 12
Mrs Droftaw
says...
6:22pm Wed 17 Oct 12
There are 3 width restrictions in the area, Park Avenue, Bushey Mill Lane and this one in Woodmere Avenue - I never see cars stuck in the other 2 only Woodmere Avenue, I would say several times a week.
This shows there is an issue with this restriction and the waste of money that each accident results - calling out the emergency services. It is about time that Herts CC do something about it.
Karona80
says...
6:46pm Wed 17 Oct 12
Harry H Hornet
says...
7:20pm Wed 17 Oct 12
Any idiot who can't get between the posts needs to take a good look in the mirror and stop looking for other people to blame.
TRT
says...
7:31pm Wed 17 Oct 12
Harry H Hornet
says...
7:46pm Wed 17 Oct 12
TRT wrote:It's not about survival of the fittest, it's about taking responsibility for your own mistakes. If it was that bad it would not be part of a driving test route.
Well let's do away with ABS, ESP, traction control, seat belts, crumple zones in steering columns, airbags, parking distance sensors etc etc and then anyone not meeting the highest standards of driving ability will be quickly eliminated. Survival of the fittest and all that.
Hornets number 12 fan
says...
7:51pm Wed 17 Oct 12
Harry H Hornet wrote:It IS that bad the statistics speak for themselves
TRT wrote:It's not about survival of the fittest, it's about taking responsibility for your own mistakes. If it was that bad it would not be part of a driving test route.
Well let's do away with ABS, ESP, traction control, seat belts, crumple zones in steering columns, airbags, parking distance sensors etc etc and then anyone not meeting the highest standards of driving ability will be quickly eliminated. Survival of the fittest and all that.
Harry H Hornet
says...
7:58pm Wed 17 Oct 12
Hornets number 12 fan wrote:Do your twisted stats show how many drivers don't crash ?
Harry H Hornet wrote:It IS that bad the statistics speak for themselves
TRT wrote:It's not about survival of the fittest, it's about taking responsibility for your own mistakes. If it was that bad it would not be part of a driving test route.
Well let's do away with ABS, ESP, traction control, seat belts, crumple zones in steering columns, airbags, parking distance sensors etc etc and then anyone not meeting the highest standards of driving ability will be quickly eliminated. Survival of the fittest and all that.
Hornets number 12 fan
says...
8:01pm Wed 17 Oct 12
Harry H Hornet
says...
8:10pm Wed 17 Oct 12
Hornets number 12 fan wrote:So the answer to my question is no then ?
Twisted stats? . Name another width restriction ANYWHERE thats had as many accidents as this one ?
Hornets number 12 fan
says...
8:15pm Wed 17 Oct 12
Harry H Hornet wrote:Why would that statistic make you feel better? Do you work for HCC? maybe you designed the whole thing? you defend it like you did
Hornets number 12 fan wrote:So the answer to my question is no then ?
Twisted stats? . Name another width restriction ANYWHERE thats had as many accidents as this one ?
miss_caz
says...
8:20pm Wed 17 Oct 12
If my husband can get his old style C reg land rover defender through the gap easily then a Clio should just wizz through.......
It's not the restriction it's bloody people driving too fast bet she was on her mobile as well sorry no sympathy here
Hornets number 12 fan
says...
8:26pm Wed 17 Oct 12
miss_caz wrote:You contradict yourself here on one hand saying that people are driving too fast just after saying you should be able to wizz through in a clio! lol
Yawn here we go again
If my husband can get his old style C reg land rover defender through the gap easily then a Clio should just wizz through.......
It's not the restriction it's bloody people driving too fast bet she was on her mobile as well sorry no sympathy here
Harry H Hornet
says...
8:30pm Wed 17 Oct 12
miss_caz wrote:Spot on.
Yawn here we go again
If my husband can get his old style C reg land rover defender through the gap easily then a Clio should just wizz through.......
It's not the restriction it's bloody people driving too fast bet she was on her mobile as well sorry no sympathy here
Nascot
says...
8:48pm Wed 17 Oct 12
comments wrote:Was driving past there just at the weekend and thinking,'been a while since that's been in the news'. If only I was so lucky with the lottery!
Why dont people accept its too narrow or there is a serious flaw here!
Even at 7ft , and with the average width of a car in the uk at 6ft.....its leaves just 6 inches on either side...
6 inches (pardon the pun) isn't a great deal!
HCC pull your finger out and sort out this mess that you fail to accept as a problem!
ian9898
says...
8:59pm Wed 17 Oct 12
comments wrote:Sorry no it hasn't as I can fit through width restrictions! oh and it's not white, bit of a sad blinkered outlook that all vans are white..... Oh well!
ian9898 wrote:ian9898....
PATHETIC!!! If you cannot drive a Renault Clio through that restriction you should not be driving!! I drive a Vauxhall Vivaro van through there regulary with plenty of room, and see larger vehicles than that quite easily go through.
Comments and TRT I take it you are a back seat drivers rather than proper drivers with daft senseless remarks like that!
arent you an idiot...
No other restriction in the uk has had this problem....
Clearly there is a problem!
ps I bet your white vans battered!
If this particular restriction is so poorly constructed/ narrow/ inappropriate etc how do you explain the fact that 99% of the through traffic passes without any incident?
The argument that the posts are too low would make it harder for a van or Range Rover type vehicle to fit through due to door height and visibility, be interesting to find out the ratio of small Clio/ Fiesta v Van / Range Rover size accidents, I have a feeling the small cars have more of a problem!!!
If you take your time, line the vehicle up and drive through in a straight line how do you crash at such an impact you need a specialist Fire Engine from the other side of the county, an Ambulance and Police to attend the scene?
Please explain because I'm not the only one who cannot understand anyone not knowing the width of their car, how to drive in a straight line etc!
pepsiman
says...
10:07pm Wed 17 Oct 12
TRT
says...
10:31pm Wed 17 Oct 12
One has to ask the question, "Is this restriction doing what it was supposed to do?" Then you have to ask "Is it doing the job too well?"
It really is absolutely irrelevant whether 1 in 10, 1 in 100 or even 1 in 10,000 cars are having accidents here, the fact remains that it is happening, it's happening still despite warnings from the people living nearby who see these happenings day in, day out and it's happening more here than on the road in general. These accidents are blocking the road for other road users, they are taking up the ever more valuable and expensive time of our emergency services. Not only that, but when a single person complains about a church bell, the council come down like a tonne of bricks, but when more than 70 people complain about this, they get told "we're doing nothing about it". Just where can you see representative democracy in action here?
Reg Edit
says...
10:33pm Wed 17 Oct 12
Maybe it ticks all the boxes at county, but anyone with any common sense would just fix it and be done with it.
It's just a joke now.
LSC
says...
10:43pm Wed 17 Oct 12
I personally have no problem negotiating this restriction, but quite clearly some other people do, and I end up paying for it. Police and fire crews aren't cheap.
HertsPeter
says...
8:11am Thu 18 Oct 12
How many more accidents will there be here before we have a serious injury, and have to go through the further pain of Councillors, Dotty Dot and Co. wringing their hands, saying how sorry they are, and capitulating. Until then, they do have their support group...
cheese85 - fool
WatfordBandB - amusing troll
watford_bob - conspiracy theorist
who can't work a computer
Uneek - fool
ian9898 - double fool
Karona80 - fool
Harry H Hornet - ultimate fool
miss_caz - beyond words
garston tony
says...
8:17am Thu 18 Oct 12
And to those who say that this is a width restriction not a speed restriction logic and common sense dictates that you should still slow down for it.
There is simply no other answer than driver error when people hit these restrictions, they judge their approach incorrectly and in cases where emergency services have to be called out are obviously going to fast too.
I'd echo the comments others have made about people taking responsibility for their own actions, people need to stop making excuses for those having incidents at these restrictions. Are they as wide as other restrictions, maybe not, but they ARE wide enough if you do your duty as a driver and take due care and attention to what you are doing.
garston tony
says...
8:30am Thu 18 Oct 12
HertsPeter wrote:This restriction is the responsibility of County not WBC. Fool (not that there was a need for name calling by the way).
As so many others have already done, I am asking for common sense to prevail and change this restriction now. How many more accidents will there be here before we have a serious injury, and have to go through the further pain of Councillors, Dotty Dot and Co. wringing their hands, saying how sorry they are, and capitulating. Until then, they do have their support group... cheese85 - fool WatfordBandB - amusing troll watford_bob - conspiracy theorist who can't work a computer Uneek - fool ian9898 - double fool Karona80 - fool Harry H Hornet - ultimate fool miss_caz - beyond words
But to use your term the only 'fools' here are those that try and make excuses for the drivers who have incidents. As I said in my last post these restrictions may be narrower than others but they ARE wide enough to get through and any accidents are down to driver error.
If you're taking care and attention of what you are doing then you should have no problem. If you're not taking due care and attention here then the chances you're not elsewhere which is a worry, its just that these restrictions are catching you out. If it’s a spacial awareness thing then please get off the road now!
Harry H Hornet
says...
9:26am Thu 18 Oct 12
HertsPeter wrote:Look in the mirror Pete then you will see the ultimate fool.
As so many others have already done, I am asking for common sense to prevail and change this restriction now.
How many more accidents will there be here before we have a serious injury, and have to go through the further pain of Councillors, Dotty Dot and Co. wringing their hands, saying how sorry they are, and capitulating. Until then, they do have their support group...
cheese85 - fool
WatfordBandB - amusing troll
watford_bob - conspiracy theorist
who can't work a computer
Uneek - fool
ian9898 - double fool
Karona80 - fool
Harry H Hornet - ultimate fool
miss_caz - beyond words
TRT
says...
9:50am Thu 18 Oct 12
These accidents are happening once or twice a week, often with the emergency services involved. I call that too severe. People accepting responsibility for their own bad driving just doesn't come into it - the logic works if it's people accepting the cost of their own actions, but that's not the case here - it's we, the taxpayers and residents of the county, that are bearing the cost of this. The cost of a call out of the firebrigade might will be someone's life as an appliance may have to come from as far away as Potter's Bar to attend an incident where every second, quite literally, counts.
The logic behind this restriction was that HCC was fed up with the cost of repairing the older, flimsier restriction. A restriction that was put in place, note, before Stephenson Way opened providing a much better lorry route between Imperial/Commercial Way and the A41/M1/M25. All HCC have done is shift the cost of this width restriction off their highways budget and onto the motorist and onto other department's budgets. I call that despicable.
That accidents will happen here is an inevitability. What we can do is to change the likelihood and severity of those accidents, and that is what the anti-restriction voices on this comment thread are calling for.
HertsPeter
says...
10:51am Thu 18 Oct 12
TRT
says...
11:19am Thu 18 Oct 12
Please do. Go right ahead. You'll be doing us a favour.
TRT
says...
11:19am Thu 18 Oct 12
Please do. Go right ahead. You'll be doing us a favour.
abbotshornet
says...
12:29pm Thu 18 Oct 12
I think Watford is the worst place I know for cameras, humps etc. it seems they will go to any lengths to stop you getting from A to B, as if the horrendous traffic was not enough!
garston tony
says...
12:38pm Thu 18 Oct 12
HertsPeter wrote:Absolutely, but by pinning the blame on HCC which people are its letting the drivers off the hook.
Garston Tony... I make no excuses for anyone's accidents. That is an irrelevance. The important thing is that accidents have happened. Are happening. Will continue to happen. Until someone sees sense. Or until someone gets seriously injured.
What would be more realistic is calls for driving tests to be made more stringent, for periodic re testing and for people to only be allowed to drive vehicles that they can manage.
This particular driver was already driving a relatively small vehicle which is worrying, but you see it all the time with people obviously unable to manouver the vehicle they are driving properly. Its one thing driving on the open road but when it comes to obstructions and parking etc. they fall to peices
crazyfrog
says...
12:42pm Thu 18 Oct 12
TRT wrote:This post totally hits the nail on the head, come on HCC PULL YOUR FINGERS OUT OF THOSE EARS
I can guarantee that every single driver on the road at every moment of time will have an error of position, from a hair's width to so many metres out they couldn't be said to even be on the road. If you graph frequency against error, you will get a bell curve. If you then place cut off points on that curve (posts) then anyone outside that centre region of error will have an accident. Now if you take the frequency of accidents and multiply it by the cost of those accidents, you get severity. The cost here includes call outs to the emergency services, ambulance, fire, police, highways engineers, vehicle damage, lost time for the person directly involved in the accident, lost time for people indirectly involved as a result of road closures etc.
These accidents are happening once or twice a week, often with the emergency services involved. I call that too severe. People accepting responsibility for their own bad driving just doesn't come into it - the logic works if it's people accepting the cost of their own actions, but that's not the case here - it's we, the taxpayers and residents of the county, that are bearing the cost of this. The cost of a call out of the firebrigade might will be someone's life as an appliance may have to come from as far away as Potter's Bar to attend an incident where every second, quite literally, counts.
The logic behind this restriction was that HCC was fed up with the cost of repairing the older, flimsier restriction. A restriction that was put in place, note, before Stephenson Way opened providing a much better lorry route between Imperial/Commercial Way and the A41/M1/M25. All HCC have done is shift the cost of this width restriction off their highways budget and onto the motorist and onto other department's budgets. I call that despicable.
That accidents will happen here is an inevitability. What we can do is to change the likelihood and severity of those accidents, and that is what the anti-restriction voices on this comment thread are calling for.
jasonwatford
says...
1:19pm Thu 18 Oct 12
.the council will do nothing about it...Last i heard they were going to waste money painting lines into the restriction. Someone will die one day and then there will be a call to change it again.
LSC
says...
1:21pm Thu 18 Oct 12
I say again, yes these accidents SHOULDN'T happen, but they clearly are, so what is to be gained from ignoring that?
You can tut-tut at others inattention all you like, but it's YOUR wallet that pays for the Fire Engine when a simple one off redesign would cure the problem overnight.
G_Whiz
says...
1:43pm Thu 18 Oct 12
S/O man wrote:Good spot!
Has anyone noticed the last 3 letters of the numberplate? WEJ!!!! lol
I sense a conspiracy!
Maybe it's to get our insurance premiums up?
TRT
says...
1:47pm Thu 18 Oct 12
G_Whiz wrote:No point crying conspiracy when one isn't needed! Premiums are, like the lady in the article, going through the roof.
S/O man wrote:Good spot!
Has anyone noticed the last 3 letters of the numberplate? WEJ!!!! lol
I sense a conspiracy!
Maybe it's to get our insurance premiums up?
Born_VicarageRoad_82
says...
10:08pm Thu 18 Oct 12
Mike Watford
says...
9:15am Fri 19 Oct 12
TRT
says...
9:43am Fri 19 Oct 12
http://www.bbc.co.uk
/iplayer/episode/p00
yh2rc/Tails_You_Win_
The_Science_of_Chanc
e/
Driver error is absolutely and utterly inevitable. You have to allow for a certain degree of error. The tolerance of error in this design is resulting in too high a frequency of collision. It's the road-equivalent of going 2p overdrawn on your current account and racking up £80 in bank charges.
LSC
says...
1:18pm Fri 19 Oct 12
TRT wrote:Exactly, and it is no secret; why else would cars have safety belts if everyone was a perfect driver? Collapseable steering columns, air bags, door bars, crumple zones, safety cages, roll bars and safety glass windscreens.
Try watching Horizon: Tails You Win - the science of chance.
http://www.bbc.co.uk
/iplayer/episode/p00
yh2rc/Tails_You_Win_
The_Science_of_Chanc
e/
Driver error is absolutely and utterly inevitable. You have to allow for a certain degree of error. The tolerance of error in this design is resulting in too high a frequency of collision. It's the road-equivalent of going 2p overdrawn on your current account and racking up £80 in bank charges.
It's because people crash. A lot. And probably 90% is a driver error somewhere along the line.
JINGLE BOP
says...
3:10pm Fri 19 Oct 12
JINGLE BOP
says...
3:10pm Fri 19 Oct 12
TRT
says...
3:26pm Fri 19 Oct 12
Uneek
says...
6:47pm Sat 20 Oct 12
Uneek
says...
6:48pm Sat 20 Oct 12
TRT
says...
7:02pm Sat 20 Oct 12
LSC
says...
2:32pm Sun 21 Oct 12
TRT wrote:Nail.
You might *think* you've not had a problem with it, but you know that traffic jam you got caught in the other day... and that extra 5p per week on your council tax bill, and that time you didn't realise you waited an extra five minutes for an ambulance or a fire engine...
Hammer.
Impact.
Nascot
says...
8:54pm Sun 21 Oct 12
HertsPeter
says...
8:41am Mon 22 Oct 12
Perhaps they rotate attendance around the stations to give the firefighters low-risk real-world opportunity to break out the cutting gear...?
I know that WBC are not directly responsible for highways issues, but that did not stop the elected mayor trundling down there to pontificate and use it as another opportunity to blare across BBC Three Counties!
Additionally, pressure on borough councillors is entirely justified, and also on the local HCC councillors too. Surely that's being both liberal and democratic?
TRT
says...
11:28am Mon 22 Oct 12
I missed this. Was she interviewed for the radio recently, then?
IanFBram
says...
12:39pm Mon 22 Oct 12
TRT wrote:Shouldn't there be other reports saying where the local fire engines were at the time?
Uneek wrote:Yeah, I thought that too. Hmm...?
The only really concerning point in this story is why a fire appliance had to come from potters bar ???
TRT
says...
12:48pm Mon 22 Oct 12
IanFBram wrote:Good point. How many appliances are there supposed to be on active duty in Watford at that time of day? I mean, Garston is only just up the road. Many it's just that they needed car cutting gear. Not all appliances have them. Perhaps that's another cost cutting measure. I understand that some of the new appliances bought in 2008 (CARP, combined aerial rescue pumps) were too heavy for use on the UK roads. Is this another example of why the cuts are harmful? You have to take equipment off some appliances as they've been made too heavy by having to carry more equipment as there are less of them to share the load? I don't know, I'm not a fire fighter, but WO should at least be telling us of the incidents our local appliances were busy responding to when this Potters Bar engine was dispatched.
TRT wrote:Shouldn't there be other reports saying where the local fire engines were at the time?
Uneek wrote:Yeah, I thought that too. Hmm...?
The only really concerning point in this story is why a fire appliance had to come from potters bar ???
LSC
says...
1:27pm Mon 22 Oct 12
captain lard
says...
6:42pm Mon 22 Oct 12
TRT wrote:Simple answer is it didn't come from Potters Bar.
IanFBram wrote:Good point. How many appliances are there supposed to be on active duty in Watford at that time of day? I mean, Garston is only just up the road. Many it's just that they needed car cutting gear. Not all appliances have them. Perhaps that's another cost cutting measure. I understand that some of the new appliances bought in 2008 (CARP, combined aerial rescue pumps) were too heavy for use on the UK roads. Is this another example of why the cuts are harmful? You have to take equipment off some appliances as they've been made too heavy by having to carry more equipment as there are less of them to share the load? I don't know, I'm not a fire fighter, but WO should at least be telling us of the incidents our local appliances were busy responding to when this Potters Bar engine was dispatched.
TRT wrote:Shouldn't there be other reports saying where the local fire engines were at the time?
Uneek wrote:Yeah, I thought that too. Hmm...?
The only really concerning point in this story is why a fire appliance had to come from potters bar ???
captain lard
says...
6:50pm Mon 22 Oct 12
HertsPeter wrote:I'm not sure if the first 2 questions are actually real or tongue in cheek, but the answer to both is no.
Could it be that Herts Fire Brigade are making a point by travelling a long way to attend, and then cutting the car to smithereens, to illustrate they are wasting valuable time and resources being constantly called to this embarrassment?
Perhaps they rotate attendance around the stations to give the firefighters low-risk real-world opportunity to break out the cutting gear...?
I know that WBC are not directly responsible for highways issues, but that did not stop the elected mayor trundling down there to pontificate and use it as another opportunity to blare across BBC Three Counties!
Additionally, pressure on borough councillors is entirely justified, and also on the local HCC councillors too. Surely that's being both liberal and democratic?
TRT
says...
7:04pm Mon 22 Oct 12
TRT
says...
7:05pm Mon 22 Oct 12
captain lard
says...
7:39pm Mon 22 Oct 12
TRT wrote:Actually it was a Potters Bar engine that was in Garston and it didn't just happen to be there, it was there to cover the Garston and Watford crews who were on a training exercise. So yes, an efficient use of resources.
Ah! So it was a Potters Bar engine that just happened to be in Watford and was able to attend the incident? Well, that explains it. Efficient use of resources. A pity the WO reporter couldn't have highlighted that in the original report.
TRT
says...
7:41pm Mon 22 Oct 12
captain lard
says...
7:47pm Mon 22 Oct 12
TRT wrote:My pleasure, what other questions are there?
That's one question answered. Thanks for that!
TRT
says...
2:36pm Tue 23 Oct 12
captain lard
says...
5:03pm Tue 23 Oct 12
TRT wrote:wouldnt be unusual to have 10 firefighters, 2 or 3 highways, couple of police, 2 or 3 ambulance staff.
I count at least 9 hi-vis in the photo. How many people (emergency service staff and highways etc. not passers-by and victims) would routinely be involved in this kind of incident?
TRT
says...
5:12pm Tue 23 Oct 12
That seems reasonable given the amount of things going on...
Expensive.
John Howard Norfolk
says...
9:59am Wed 24 Oct 12
TRT wrote:As I no longer live in the Watford area and therefore do not use Woodemere Ave any more I had begun to wonder if the bollards had been removed. Over the years I got used to seeing reports of these driving mishaps - and that is what they are: mishaps rather than serious accidents.
Yay! It's about time we had another good old Woodford Avenue story. I was beginning to miss them.
Its the sort of prang that any one of us can have with a moment of inattention while slowly parking or reversing. But I do wonder quite how these Woodmere Ave drivers miss all the warning signs so my question is:
DO THESE MOTORISTS GET CHARGED WITH CARELESS DRIVING?
John Howard Norfolk
says...
10:04am Wed 24 Oct 12
TRT
says...
10:06am Wed 24 Oct 12
These are, of course, only design guidelines, but if they haven't been followed then it opens to door for claims. There's also the question of a vehicle's dynamic width, i.e. it's vertical footprint will change under dynamic conditions as there are springs and suspension etc.
Hornets number 12 fan says...
2:47pm Wed 17 Oct 12