Pressure grows on Bass to save school crossings

Southend Standard: Pressure grows on Bass to save school crossings Pressure grows on Bass to save school crossings

A MOVE to shelve plans to axe 55 school crossing patrols in Essex will be made at a county council meeting next week.

Rodney Bass, councillor responsible for highways, will be urged to abandon proposals to withdraw funding for lollipop men and women where there are zebra or pelican crossings.

At a full council meeting next Wednesday, Lib Dem councillors David Kendall and Theresa Higgins, councillor for New Town, Colchester, will proposeamotion calling on Mr Bass to continue funding the posts “in the interests of children’s safety”.

The motion follows our campaign, which saw us hand in petitions with nearly 2,000 signatures by Essex residents appalled at the idea.

Although the motion is to be moved by two Lib Dems, Brentwood councillor Mr Kendall said he believed it would have cross-party support.

See Thursday's paper for more

Comments (12)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:23pm Thu 8 May 14

Jack222 says...

Get rid of school crossing people and save money - parents can help their children cross roads like they do at non-school times! Why waste our money!
Get rid of school crossing people and save money - parents can help their children cross roads like they do at non-school times! Why waste our money! Jack222
  • Score: -6

4:44pm Thu 8 May 14

Living the La Vida Legra says...

I was in hadleigh /rectory road and there is a lollipop person outside Choice 50 feet away from a pelican crossing #epicfail and waste of money ( still realing that they get paid I thought that it was voluntary ) all children are under 10 so always have a parent with them
I was in hadleigh /rectory road and there is a lollipop person outside Choice 50 feet away from a pelican crossing #epicfail and waste of money ( still realing that they get paid I thought that it was voluntary ) all children are under 10 so always have a parent with them Living the La Vida Legra
  • Score: 3

4:44pm Thu 8 May 14

John Bull 40 says...

Jack222 wrote:
Get rid of school crossing people and save money - parents can help their children cross roads like they do at non-school times! Why waste our money!
Agree with above comment.
[quote][p][bold]Jack222[/bold] wrote: Get rid of school crossing people and save money - parents can help their children cross roads like they do at non-school times! Why waste our money![/p][/quote]Agree with above comment. John Bull 40
  • Score: -3

7:51pm Thu 8 May 14

AngryManNewTown says...

If there is a good enough crossing there already then get rid or move them to a better place
If there is a good enough crossing there already then get rid or move them to a better place AngryManNewTown
  • Score: 5

9:53pm Thu 8 May 14

whateverhappened says...

A lollypop lady on a crossing in bellhouse lane is JUST enough to get the cars to stop in the morning, and for the tit on his phone who swerved round a car and done the red light on fairways whilst kids were crossing ...one day !!
A lollypop lady on a crossing in bellhouse lane is JUST enough to get the cars to stop in the morning, and for the tit on his phone who swerved round a car and done the red light on fairways whilst kids were crossing ...one day !! whateverhappened
  • Score: 2

9:59pm Thu 8 May 14

Jack222 says...

So the assumption that they all should be saved seems fairly wrong - stick to your guns Cllr Bass especially as he wants to save money by

'withdraw funding for lollipop men and women where there are zebra or pelican crossings.'

it's only withdrawing them when there are LEGAL crossings for children anyway!!

Why double do a job? Parents can certainly help their children cross a road where there are LEGAL ways for children to cross a road. There is NO logic to have a further person at a zebra or pelican crossing; save our council tax and ignore the petition!!
So the assumption that they all should be saved seems fairly wrong - stick to your guns Cllr Bass especially as he wants to save money by 'withdraw funding for lollipop men and women where there are zebra or pelican crossings.' it's only withdrawing them when there are LEGAL crossings for children anyway!! Why double do a job? Parents can certainly help their children cross a road where there are LEGAL ways for children to cross a road. There is NO logic to have a further person at a zebra or pelican crossing; save our council tax and ignore the petition!! Jack222
  • Score: 10

8:00am Fri 9 May 14

sesibollox says...

Oust them.
Oust them. sesibollox
  • Score: -3

11:24am Fri 9 May 14

keith_l says...

The concept of school crossing patrols is so 1960's. In those days, children walked to school on their own, so the lollipop man/lady was necessary.

Now most children are taken to school by car, and those that walk below secondary school age are accompanied by adults.

If there are places where there are no formal crossings, and a patrol is in place, then install a zebra crossing - or teach the children to walk along to the nearest legal crossing.

Use the money saved to enforce parking regulations within half a mile of every school, which will have a bigger effect on safety than a crossing patrol ever could.
The concept of school crossing patrols is so 1960's. In those days, children walked to school on their own, so the lollipop man/lady was necessary. Now most children are taken to school by car, and those that walk below secondary school age are accompanied by adults. If there are places where there are no formal crossings, and a patrol is in place, then install a zebra crossing - or teach the children to walk along to the nearest legal crossing. Use the money saved to enforce parking regulations within half a mile of every school, which will have a bigger effect on safety than a crossing patrol ever could. keith_l
  • Score: 1

12:18pm Fri 9 May 14

Ian P says...

"If there are places where there are no formal crossings, and a patrol is in place, then install a zebra crossing." If there is currently no crossing then the only justification would be for the school children using it a couple of hours per day on school days. Cost of Lollypop person £5-6K per annum, cost of crossing installation approx. £30K. Time adjusted rate of return on the investment will show something like 7 years+. In addition crossings require maintenance and have running costs for lighting. Approval for funding on this basis is highly unlikely and rightly so.
"If there are places where there are no formal crossings, and a patrol is in place, then install a zebra crossing." If there is currently no crossing then the only justification would be for the school children using it a couple of hours per day on school days. Cost of Lollypop person £5-6K per annum, cost of crossing installation approx. £30K. Time adjusted rate of return on the investment will show something like 7 years+. In addition crossings require maintenance and have running costs for lighting. Approval for funding on this basis is highly unlikely and rightly so. Ian P
  • Score: 2

5:38pm Fri 9 May 14

Kim Gandy says...

None of the naysayers above are taking account of the fact that things have changed since the 1960s (somebody above mentioned this decade).

There are more lunatics on the road since then and definitely more cars. Someone above made the comment about the nutter on his mobile that had to swerve. There are plenty of that sort clogging up the roads.

Then there are the 4x4 mothers who drive their kids a few hundred yards and who couldn't give a monkey's about other folks' kids. Then you have the sharp suited small appendaged suit in a sports car, constantly checking his Rolex whilst adjusting his in car entertainment and posing in his electric mirror.

Not to mention the old git chain smoking his way through the rush hour.

There are all sorts of numpties who take absolutely no notice whatsoever of crossings, traffic lights or anything else that impedes their progress because as we all know, their need to get where they're going is greater than anyone else's.

There are childminders with hordes of other people's kids and there are kids on their own. The crossing lady is a friendly face for harassed mums and lone kids alike.

If you want to get hot under the collar about wastes of public money, before blasting people who do a good job for relatively little money, I suggest you check out, under the FoI, the numerous daft schemes local councils waste your money on, some of which I have named on this website.

Then you really WILL have something to grouse about - instead of picking on easy targets like this.
None of the naysayers above are taking account of the fact that things have changed since the 1960s (somebody above mentioned this decade). There are more lunatics on the road since then and definitely more cars. Someone above made the comment about the nutter on his mobile that had to swerve. There are plenty of that sort clogging up the roads. Then there are the 4x4 mothers who drive their kids a few hundred yards and who couldn't give a monkey's about other folks' kids. Then you have the sharp suited small appendaged suit in a sports car, constantly checking his Rolex whilst adjusting his in car entertainment and posing in his electric mirror. Not to mention the old git chain smoking his way through the rush hour. There are all sorts of numpties who take absolutely no notice whatsoever of crossings, traffic lights or anything else that impedes their progress because as we all know, their need to get where they're going is greater than anyone else's. There are childminders with hordes of other people's kids and there are kids on their own. The crossing lady is a friendly face for harassed mums and lone kids alike. If you want to get hot under the collar about wastes of public money, before blasting people who do a good job for relatively little money, I suggest you check out, under the FoI, the numerous daft schemes local councils waste your money on, some of which I have named on this website. Then you really WILL have something to grouse about - instead of picking on easy targets like this. Kim Gandy
  • Score: 2

9:20pm Fri 9 May 14

ThisYear says...

Kim Gandy wrote:
None of the naysayers above are taking account of the fact that things have changed since the 1960s (somebody above mentioned this decade).

There are more lunatics on the road since then and definitely more cars. Someone above made the comment about the nutter on his mobile that had to swerve. There are plenty of that sort clogging up the roads.

Then there are the 4x4 mothers who drive their kids a few hundred yards and who couldn't give a monkey's about other folks' kids. Then you have the sharp suited small appendaged suit in a sports car, constantly checking his Rolex whilst adjusting his in car entertainment and posing in his electric mirror.

Not to mention the old git chain smoking his way through the rush hour.

There are all sorts of numpties who take absolutely no notice whatsoever of crossings, traffic lights or anything else that impedes their progress because as we all know, their need to get where they're going is greater than anyone else's.

There are childminders with hordes of other people's kids and there are kids on their own. The crossing lady is a friendly face for harassed mums and lone kids alike.

If you want to get hot under the collar about wastes of public money, before blasting people who do a good job for relatively little money, I suggest you check out, under the FoI, the numerous daft schemes local councils waste your money on, some of which I have named on this website.

Then you really WILL have something to grouse about - instead of picking on easy targets like this.
"who couldn't give a monkey's about other folks' kids"

What a hippopotamus sized type hypocrite you are!

Did you or did you not take part in a apartheid action against innocent children leading to segregation?
[quote][p][bold]Kim Gandy[/bold] wrote: None of the naysayers above are taking account of the fact that things have changed since the 1960s (somebody above mentioned this decade). There are more lunatics on the road since then and definitely more cars. Someone above made the comment about the nutter on his mobile that had to swerve. There are plenty of that sort clogging up the roads. Then there are the 4x4 mothers who drive their kids a few hundred yards and who couldn't give a monkey's about other folks' kids. Then you have the sharp suited small appendaged suit in a sports car, constantly checking his Rolex whilst adjusting his in car entertainment and posing in his electric mirror. Not to mention the old git chain smoking his way through the rush hour. There are all sorts of numpties who take absolutely no notice whatsoever of crossings, traffic lights or anything else that impedes their progress because as we all know, their need to get where they're going is greater than anyone else's. There are childminders with hordes of other people's kids and there are kids on their own. The crossing lady is a friendly face for harassed mums and lone kids alike. If you want to get hot under the collar about wastes of public money, before blasting people who do a good job for relatively little money, I suggest you check out, under the FoI, the numerous daft schemes local councils waste your money on, some of which I have named on this website. Then you really WILL have something to grouse about - instead of picking on easy targets like this.[/p][/quote]"who couldn't give a monkey's about other folks' kids" What a hippopotamus sized type hypocrite you are! Did you or did you not take part in a apartheid action against innocent children leading to segregation? ThisYear
  • Score: 1

9:24am Sat 10 May 14

A Very Private Gentleman says...

The majority of the comments on this thread appear to be in favour of what Mr Bass is advocating. I am inclined to agree with these sentiments. Some of these crossing patrols beggar belief. London Road Stanway every 1500 hours is an absolute nightmare. The attendant there jumps out in the road at every opportunity, they will not hold pedestrians back. It would not surprise me that they would stop the traffic if they saw a cat approaching them. The traffic some times bottlenecks all the way out onto the A.12.
Children under 10 should be taken to school by adults and not left to fend for themselves. As someone stated above this is not the 1960's. You get enough benefits from the state to look after your child then do so. We live in age where you do not need to be ushered across a road by a person standing there with a pole.
The majority of the comments on this thread appear to be in favour of what Mr Bass is advocating. I am inclined to agree with these sentiments. Some of these crossing patrols beggar belief. London Road Stanway every 1500 hours is an absolute nightmare. The attendant there jumps out in the road at every opportunity, they will not hold pedestrians back. It would not surprise me that they would stop the traffic if they saw a cat approaching them. The traffic some times bottlenecks all the way out onto the A.12. Children under 10 should be taken to school by adults and not left to fend for themselves. As someone stated above this is not the 1960's. You get enough benefits from the state to look after your child then do so. We live in age where you do not need to be ushered across a road by a person standing there with a pole. A Very Private Gentleman
  • Score: 5

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