When I were a lad, lollipop ladies were stationed at places it was difficult for school pupils to cross and where there were no other means of crossing the road.

It gripes me (much to the continued chagrin of my wife) that nowadays these people are stationed on pelican crossings, or at crossings which have pedestrian traffic light controls.

What is the point of that?

Furthermore, if they have to be stationed at these ludicrous points, why oh why oh why do they then help adults who have dropped their kids off at school cross the road? Are these people not capable of operating a pelican crossing or traffic light crossing on their own?

No!!! This nonsense must be stopped without further delay!!!

OK rant over, calm is restored to the universe.

... Would be to arm them.

Is this just not another example of tackling the symptom of bad driving, and not tackling the bad driving itself?

Whether it's middle lane hoggers, tail-gaters, rubberneckers or lollipop ignorers, it's sheer bad driving and bad manners that need tackling.

Funny how councils complain of never having enough money and therefore have to increase council tax bills by ever greater inflation busting amounts. HOWEVER, cash is ALWAYS available when any sorry excuse is dreamt up to fit CCTV cameras in seemingly any orifice possible to spy on the public.

Obviously Paris Hilton because she no doubt likes lollipops in the vertical position as well.

What's the lollipop made of, diamond-encrusted carbon fibre?! Bet I could do it cheaper...

Paris Hilton, as she could lick my lollipop...

I don't really see the big deal; For once I am on the side of the lollipop cameras, so long as the recorded images are deleted at the end of each shift.

"What is the point of that?"

Maybe it's because drivers think that amber means go?

..and tool them up properly? A little summary justice for the tw@ts in hatchbacks, or @rses in chelsea tractors, who think they know better and willingly endanger childrens lives would be a much better deterrent.

Mine's the one with the Daily Mail sticking out of the pocket.

What you should be doing is sharpening the edge of the 'lolly pop' then any one who drives past can get to hear the scratch mark on their shiny 4x4 as the edge is brought into contact with the side of said vehicle.

Should the driver become enraged and attempt to remonstrate with the lolly pop person the the edge of the lolly pop can be brought into contact with the driver.

People can get hurt if you ignore the lollipop - the fuel hose can rupture, causing a fire; the jackman may be injured and let go of the rear jack, which can end up as on-track debris, and the driver may collide with another car in the pit lane.

Definitely a good idea to keep an eye on things.

They'll be using them to take pictures of kiddies and post them on the internet to share with other lolipoppers. I'm going to write to my MP The Rt Hon. Useless Fat Arse and complain about the use of public money to fund paedophiles

Yours

Rabid Daily Mail reader

Does anyone actually care for what is happening to this country?

And where we are headed?

If I was to read that ONE lollipop lady had been hit, I would be surprised. How is it that over 1000 have been hit? Who is doing this? Is our country so flooded with evil people that this is happenening?

just spend the £1500 or however much it is and install traffic lights instead?

that motorway speed limits be reduced to 50mph, and average speed cameras installed nationally, to combat this menace!

That'll show those evil motorists!

I've got two kids in school and I've seen the dangerous crap these grannies have to put up with.

And who are the worst, most dangerous offenders?

Mr executive suit, late for a meeting? Nope

White Van Man? Nope, they usually stop in plenty of time, and make sure all the kiddywinkles and Granny are well out of the way. Its a macho thing.

Kevin the chav in his plastic coated Nova? Nope.

Its the so called respectible Daily mail reading mummies doing the mummy run, because Tarquel is too lazy to walk.

You know the ones that complain about crime and dangerous driving.

Two words: Sic 'em

I hope the states can get this these cameras too. People here drive crazy and I'm sure the crossing guards here get hurt or worse and no one does anything

Even better than speed cameras is the system they currently have in Spain. What they have, wherever speeding has been shown to be a risk, is a set of traffic lights. There's not normally a crossing there, but the way it works is as follows: the lights stay green constantly until a driver breaks the speed limit (at a point a bit further up the road). When this happens, the lights go red and stay red for a good thirty seconds. Of course, this holds up all the traffic for a long time but the kicker is that the person who triggered the lights is the guy right at the front of the queue, and so everyone knows who he is and hurls abuse at him. Works like a charm.

But would we have it in the UK? Nope, cos it doesn't make any money for our useless waste of a Chancellor.

Why haven't we heard from the lollipop ladies themselves? Is someone lolligagging?

Yes yes. I'm gone.

...should be installed either side of school crossings. Lights go red and up they come. Then have the police confiscate and crush any vehicle which gets stuck on them trying to jump the crossing lights. Actually, go further, crush the car with the fuckwit in it. Twice. Then do it again.

Ok, time for the tablets....

I agree. I have been saying for a long time that we need to improve the standard of driving on the roads and have proposed we all should have to take a driving test every 5 years. It would pay for itself in 10 years in reduced accidents with lower car insurance and increased productivity due to less days off work due to accidents and less damage to street furniture such as bollards and traffic signs. And I mean EVERYONE including so called professional driver and drivers of emergency vehicles (of which I am one), I am sure most of them would not be worried about retesting in fact many would welcolme it.

I'm with Mike. They should arm them, perhaps with Metal Storm. Maybe cheaper than lollycams, given the problems the makers have had in selling them.

@Lennert Sorensen

Good idea to employ students, especially ones looking like Britney Spears in her first ever video. Every (at least male) driver would screach to a halt!

Paris because she could hit me baby one more time.

The obvious solution to any surveillance problems is to surgically implant a camera in the centre of everyone's forehead, connected to a short range transmitter. As well as wearing portable receiver/recorder combinations, our individual broadcasts could be captured by hidden receivers as we pass by, performing the job currently carried out by CCTVs.

Think of the benefits:

- reliable eye witness testimony

- permanent record of holiday highlights

- ability to share cinema experiences with friends

- no need to take notes in lectures

- easy to settle arguments over who consumed what in a restaurant

- plenty of footage for UK's funniest whatever

The downside is the probable preference that everyone's sexual partner should wear a hat.

The job of training the camera correctly & not wobbling it seems to be something which would make the lollipop ladies' job more difficult. It seems quite likely to me that they will not be able to correctly photograph miscreants. One of the problems with video camera surveillance is the difficulty of getting a conviction due to the poor quality of the video. Considering the camera is at the end of a long stick being held pointed in a certain direction, it seems more than likely that it will suffer a lot from shaking, and if the camera is very small it won't produce sufficient picture quality.

It might be a better idea to use some kind of fixed camera system at the side of the road, rather than mounting the thing in the lollipop. Still, good luck if it catches some dangerous drivers, and thanks to the lollipop ladies for helping keep the kids safe.

I'm sure there are legitimate reasons for this, and the protection of children on the roads is a pretty good one.

However, more and more powers are being given to council staff each day. How long before this is extended to the lollipop ladies being able to issue fines and tickets? Anyone else concerned that a binman (waste recepticle operative) can issue fine to a homeowner for the wrong type of recycling in a box, even when that item was placed in the box by a passer-by.

What point needs to be reached before the encroaching ends?

More and more each day considering grabbing my coat and going anywhere else in the world!

Clearly this in-duh-vidual has NO concept of the processes involved in installing even a basic set of lights for a pelican crossing. Suffice to say you're not likely to see much in the way of small change out of £250K. and you can double that if you want to equip it with a pair of stop-light enforcement cameras.

Personally, I'm anti Speed cameras and all that shit, EXCEPT in circumstances where they will actually give protection to the most vunerable, i.e. positioned appropriately around schools, at pedestrian crossings, urban roads to enforce sensible road behavior. I think these camera systems are a GREAT idea, as ANYONE who thinks that giving these piss-poorly paid people a hard time for doing a vital job, or ignoring the 'lollipop' deserves all they get. Ultimately, we're talking about KID'S LIVES here.

Lennart. I wholeheartedly agree with you about giving kids more responsibilities as they grow. It makes them more aware of their place in a decent society. Unfortunately, the 'bleeding hearts' have decided that kiddies don't need responsibilities, but have given them a whole new raft of 'rights'. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but if you give someone a 'right', you have to balance it with a 'responsibility'. This hasn't happened, and we now have gangs of effectively feral kids, and the law enforcement agencies are powerless to do anything about it. These are the kids who will grow up with scant regard for society or the law, and will cheerfully ignore that "STOP - CHILDREN" sign being weilded by the old lady at the crossing!

Rant Over.

Thank You for listening.

To anyone complaining about the presence of the lollipop lady/bloke at crossings: Would you want the job? I.e. Would you be willing to step out into the road to stop the traffic on our roads. Not me, it's a danger money job. We're heading the way of our continental and Eastern cousins where crossings are optional for the motorist.

I say this from the experience of nearly seeing a granny get minced up by a large quarry truck hammering through a pedestrian crossing on red.

Mines the one with fluorescent yellow elbow patches stitched on.

Sounds like a good system but it won't be implemented here because there's no taxation component and, as we know, the British government believes that ALL problems can be solved by extra taxation.

Having worked as a civvie for a UK police force on the Road Traffic Collisions section, and having dealt with the paperwork on a few incidents of lollypop-person abuse, I actually agree with this idea.

I've dealt with instances of lollypoppers being driven around whilst kids are on the crossing, threats and actual physical violence against lollypoppers and even one run over by a bus!

The primary problem we had when trying to warn/prosecute such instances is witnesses. You will usually get a few mums, dads, etc come forward to support the loppypopper but as the alleged offender is more often than not someone on the school run, and/or local and known to them, they often don't want to go ahead with a formal statement and hence cannot be used as a witness for a formal warning or potential prosecution.

I do also agree that some lollypoppers can be a bit over-zealous about leaping into the road when they see a kid approaching, and some forces/councils do train and monitor their lollypoppers better than others, so there also needs to be other work done such as more consistent training of lollypoppers and education of motorists that the lollypop is legally a STOP sign.

Usually a formal warning from the police for 'failing to stop...' is sufficient to make people think twice when they realise that that if they get caught at it again it's a hefty fine and points on their licence.

One option we also used to use a lot for minor incidents is a driver safety awareness course. These are usually run by the local council, the driver has to pay a small fee for it, and it can be offered as an alternative to prosecution (some complain about paying for it but when you point out that the alternative is a heavier fine/points they usually see the sense of it).

I think that the attitude of some drivers is absolutely unacceptable. I have several times seen parents while driving their own children to school in their 4x4 just driving through when crossing children where making their way to the same school. Absolutely ridiculous! I do not think that cameras are going to solve the problem though. What really should happen is that the police should have more surprise spot checks now and then on places where issues happen regularely. Drivers should be stopped and fined on the spot and they should be thoroughly informed of the risks they create with their dangerous driving. The excuse that 'the police cannot do anything' is also silly - the point is that SOME police departments are perfectly able while others are not. I have also welcome the creative initiative used by some police officers to explain very thoroughly to the driver why good driving habits are important and also include thorough description of good driving habits. The greatness in that practice is that an extended story telling exercise (to road huligans) is going to be a significant punishment in its own right for those drivers that thought themselves to be in such a hurry that they where prepared to put childrens (and adults) lifes at risk. Works great also when the offender cannot easily be given a fine...

About costs of traffic lights - my council managed to get a couple for a zebra crossing (outside a school) and apparantly it did not cost much more than £50K! Someone quoted £250K in a post above but that seems quite an extravagantly good deal for the involved contractors! Maybe some councils can afford to be more corrupt than others and have significant cost related irregularities going on? Or the suggested prise is just a fairytale excuse for not getting any?