Promenade - Megathread

[0bserver]

42 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Though oddly enough, despite containing those recommendations, the report of the inquest never appeared on the Judgments page.  If the BBC hadn't had a reporter there we would never have known about it at all, given that it had been reported you would have thought the Courts administration would be only too keen to make sure the findings were accurately available.  Funny that.

Yes, very true! 

The question shouldn't be "are the new prom features safe?"

It should be why hasn't DOI already removed all non-standard features? 

Someone (or a number of people) totally neglected basic standards within the DOI over the period of the St. Johns crossing and Prom design happening. It's already resulted in one death. Why isn't action being taken to undo the other non-standard designs? 

In the UK there would have been a prosecution for some kind of corporate manslaughter. It seems that doesn't exist under Manx law. 

Edited February 11, 2022 by 0bserver

[The Old Git]

9 hours ago, 0bserver said:

Pedestrians use pavements, not roads. 

You’ve never crossed a road? 
You’ve surely noticed mention of pedestrian crossings in this thread? Holding up important car drivers. 

[Gladys]

8 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

Though oddly enough, despite containing those recommendations, the report of the inquest never appeared on the Judgments page.  If the BBC hadn't had a reporter there we would never have known about it at all, given that it had been reported you would have thought the Courts administration would be only too keen to make sure the findings were accurately available.  Funny that.

It would very helpful if the rationale for publishing, or not, was made public. 

[WTF]

38 minutes ago, Gladys said:

It would very helpful if the rationale for publishing, or not, was made public. 

rationale ???  this is government don't ya know.

[hissingsid]

We don’t do rationale it is the Isle of Man don’t yer know 🤣

[Happier diner]

11 hours ago, 0bserver said:

Lessons have not been learned. 

When was this taken. I thought it had gone forever

[Two-lane]

12 hours ago, 0bserver said:

Lessons have not been learned. 

 

My recollection of the cycle accident is:
1. The DoI designers identified the crossing as dangerous
2. They included in the design a gate or chicane to eliminate the danger
3. The gate/chicane was not built, but no temporary barrier was placed there
4. Someone was killed

There are comments here that the inquest was not published, but also as far as I can see not one MHK has said a single word about this. It seems that in circumstances like these there is no difference between the gov. employees and the elected MHKs.

No-one represents the electorate.

If the same situation occurred but at a different location, the result would be the same - if the road safety barrier outside a school gate was removed but no temporary barrier installed, a child would be killed or injured - and no MHK would be prepared to say anything.

[Happier diner]

9 hours ago, 0bserver said:

Yes, very true! 

The question shouldn't be "are the new prom features safe?"

It should be why hasn't DOI already removed all non-standard features? 

Someone (or a number of people) totally neglected basic standards within the DOI over the period of the St. Johns crossing and Prom design happening. It's already resulted in one death. Why isn't action being taken to undo the other non-standard designs? 

In the UK there would have been a prosecution for some kind of corporate manslaughter. It seems that doesn't exist under Manx law. 

The St Johns thing wasn't a crossing of any type. It was just a painting on the road. Not defending the wisdom of painting on the road, but just clarifying.

In terms of blame I don't see it being as clear as you. Anyone of 3 parties could be partly culpable to various degrees.

1) The DOI for causing confusion/uncertainty by creating something that might have given the impression it was a crossing

2) The driver of the vehicle. There have been warning cyclists signs there for years. Did he/she take reasonable care when driving through there where it might be argued a driver should have expected cyclists/walkers/horse riders to cross and adjusted their speed accordingly

3) The young man on the cycle who was sadly killed. The highway code tells us that, even at crossings, we should check for traffic before crossing. So if the cyclist was confused and thought it was a crossing, he would still have been expected to check. 

Tragically we will never know but talk of corporate manslaughter is well away from the mark. IMO of course.

 

[Happier diner]

2 minutes ago, Two-lane said:

My recollection of the cycle accident is:
1. T
2. They included in the design a gate or chicane to eliminate the danger
3. The gate/chicane was not built, but no temporary barrier was placed there
4. Someone was killed

There are comments here that the inquest was not published, but also as far as I can see not one MHK has said a single word about this. It seems that in circumstances like these there is no difference between the gov. employees and the elected MHKs.

No-one represents the electorate.

If the same situation occurred but at a different location, the result would be the same - if the road safety barrier outside a school gate was removed but no temporary barrier installed, a child would be killed or injured - and no MHK would be prepared to say anything.

I'm not sure you are quite correct. The facts and chronology are not correct

The gates have always been there, they were just open at the time of the accident. They have now been fixed in a part open position such that you have to slow down.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the DoI designers identified the crossing as dangerous"

[Kopek]

Pretty sure TCrookall said early on he would look  at it and then it was gone?

could be ongoing civil actions?

[Happier diner]

24 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

When was this taken. I thought it had gone forever

http://www.iomtoday.co.im/article.cfm?id=64509&headline=Celtic crossing in St John's is taken away&sectionIs=news&searchyear=2021

Unless someone has put it back. I was right I think.

[HiVibes]

20 hours ago, 0bserver said:

Do pedestrians have wheels? 

Some.

[The Old Git]

19 hours ago, Cambon said:

At least charge them 20% vat on the electricity used to charge them. 

Nah, we get a dual rate meter for cheaper overnight charging at home. That’s when my wife programmes the washing machine and dishwasher for. Also helps with running the hot tub. Then I go out for a ride on my bike. 
 

 

[Roger Mexico]

3 hours ago, Happier diner said:

When was this taken. I thought it had gone forever

Less than three months ago.  The story as laid out by Mr Google:

Colourful crossing covers Curragh Road (3 July 2020)

RTC on Curragh Road, St Johns (16 January 2021)

New signage installed at collision crossing  (22 February 2021)

Inquest finds cyclist died after crash on 'inadequately-marked crossing'
(22 October 2021)

Celtic crossing in St John's is taken away  (17 November 2021)

Review called into safety of uncontrolled crossings on Isle of Man   (19 November 2021)

(Oddly enough they did come out in more or less this order).

There was talk about the family suing the DoI which might stop it being discussed in Tynwald.  Though you wonder how much such 'rules' are designed to protect the delicate feelings of the civil service, rather than promote justice or good government.

[ellanvannin2010]

3 hours ago, Happier diner said:

The St Johns thing wasn't a crossing of any type. It was just a painting on the road. Not defending the wisdom of painting on the road, but just clarifying.

 

 

Does the tactile paving and dropped kerbs not indicate something ?.