careless health & saftey managers.

qwirty

hi

I contacted a super market to warn them of a dangerous trip hazard right at the edge of their car park. and that i had seen a lady with a push chair trip into the path of the traffic.

please see photos. below.

In short they told me that it was not their duty to resolve the hazard as the land is owned by the council and that the council should be contacted. And that "safety of our customers is very important to us and that's why we continually review all safety matters."

I had to ask will their manager contact the council or shall I? They said that I should contact the council. And that was that!

Can you beleieve that this the main entrance for pedestrians to one of the largest supermarkets in my area. you can see one of their super market signs on the land.



HAHA , OMG , i just find these corporations incredible.

vuvuzela

It's clearly not an official path, it's simply just one that is used by many people, presumably because the official footpath is a bit further to walk ? That doesn't necessarily make it the responsibility of someone to 'make safe'.
And as for the mother that 'tripped with her pushchair', she should have been more careful with a child. It's not as though it's a hidden trip hazard.

vuvuzela

You have taken several pictures, can you take one of the official crossing point for that road and the clearly marked pedestrian footpath that people should be using ? It won't be far from the place you took those ones, I'm sure...

ValHaller

vuvuzela wrote: »

It's clearly not an official path, it's simply just one that is used by many people, presumably because the official footpath is a bit further to walk ?

Or as is often the case with this type of development, there is no actual footpath and you have to walk in on the entry road.

vuvuzela

ValHaller wrote: »

Or as is often the case with this type of development, there is no actual footpath and you have to walk in on the entry road.

If that is the case, then that's pretty poor planning by whoever did the development - not everyone has a car and therefore there is a need for public footpaths. Not seen one without footpaths myself, I have to say though.

Hintza

Agree with others.

I just find these people who cant watch where they are going incredible.

qwirty

vuvuzela wrote: »

You have taken several pictures, can you take one of the official crossing point for that road and the clearly marked pedestrian footpath that people should be using ? It won't be far from the place you took those ones, I'm sure...

The official crossing gives at least an extra 150 meter walk. Hence the reason so many people choose this route with heavy bags. You can see a red sign that says welcome and the other side of the sign says goodbye, this is meant for pedestrians. This crossing is right on a blind corner and cars go very fast. children, old ladies cross here to get to the bus stop just around the corner.

The supermarket does not care. yet they say they do. and expect a customer to call the council. Even though the red 'welcome' sign is on the land, enticing people to cross , they say this is not their responsibility.

vuvuzela

qwirty wrote: »

The official crossing is gives at least an extra 150 meter walk. Hence the reason so many people choose this route with heavy bags. You can see a red sign that says welcome and the other side of the sign says goodbye, this is meant for pedestrians. This crossing is right on a blind corner and cars go very fast. children, old ladies cross here to get to the bus stop just around the corner.

The supermarket does not care. yet they say they do. and expect a customer to call the council. Even though the red 'welcome' sign is on the land, enticing people to cross , they say this is not their responsibility.

Thanks. That's exactly what I thought. Given a choice between walking a bit further or recklessly endangering your child by pushing them across an unmarked road, some mindless people will do the latter - and you are supporting them in this ? Odd.
As for you saying the signs saying hello and goodbye are for pedestrians :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

qwirty

vuvuzela wrote: »

It's clearly not an official path, it's simply just one that is used by many people, presumably because the official footpath is a bit further to walk ? That doesn't necessarily make it the responsibility of someone to 'make safe'.
And as for the mother that 'tripped with her pushchair', she should have been more careful with a child. It's not as though it's a hidden trip hazard.

yes it is , look at the sign it says welcome , on the other side it says goodbye. the angle of the sign is pointing not at the cars but in the direction of the path toward the bus stop.

Although it is designed wrong, which makes it look unusual, the plans to finish the crossing must have been disregarded.

it should either be blocked off or the trip hazards removed. This is a multi billion pound corporation .
i am sure they can afford to do this. or call to the correct department within the council/ government.

qwirty

vuvuzela wrote: »

Thanks. That's exactly what I thought. Given a choice between walking a bit further or recklessly endangering your child by pushing them across an unmarked road, some mindless people will do the latter - and you are supporting them in this ? Odd.
As for you saying the signs saying hello and goodbye are for pedestrians :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

no i am not supporting women with push chairs crossing a blind corner with a trip hazzard. This is my whole point!!

it should be blocked off or fixed.
it is far to tempting for people to go this way as the alternative route is much further.

The signs are also enticing the people to go that way. it is an entrance and an exit sign.

i tell you what, lets just wait for flowers to be laid on the side of the road. and then lets fix it.

o.k?

bod1467

OP is right (sort of). The Welcome sign is not at a road entrance and is not facing drivers. However, is that a formal, paved entrance next to the sign, or is it another (walked on) unofficial entrance to the site?