Rising bollards destroy vehicles, injure drivers!
Discussion
smilerbaker said:
victormeldrew said:
mondeohdear said:
Firstly, if you had a reason to drive down the pedestrian zone, for instance you're disabled or a delivery driver
And you studied the video in the link closely then? Third vehicle is, er, a delivery driver. In a courier van.If its like the bollards in staines then the signs clearly state when delivery drivers are allowed in the pedestrain area, so this guy didn't want to get off his arse and walk the package to the destination. He had no right to go into the area at that time, he knew it which is why he floored it behind the royal mail van, and got caught out, really cant see your point here victormeldrew
Totally staggered by the people suggesting that these things are a bad idea. They are the best idea. They don't make he council any money in fines so they can't be viewed as being a cash cow. They act in the same way as a wall would, they simply prevent people from doing something that is illegal. They save people from themselves by removing the option to break the law...unless that person is totally committed to breaking the law of course, and decides to deliberately gun the bollards.
Admittedly all those drivers looked like they were chancing it and trying to drive through even though they knew about the bollards, so I don't have much sympathy.
BUT: Suppose you're not local. You don't know the town centre well, you're lost, the missus is giving you grief because you've criticised her map reading, the kids in the back are fighting, all in all you're a bit distracted. You're stopped behind a stationary bus, it moves away and you follow it. And end up 3 feet in the air because you missed the no entry sign. That sounds less fair, doesn't it ?
This was posted the other day as well, and DeR made an excellent point, that the local council won't let him put "dangerous" anti-theft measures around his business premises, even though you'd have to be doing something illegal to be injured by them. But the bollards are OK ??
I spend a lot of time in Manchester and I know of these bollards. There is absolutely no way that a competant driver could miss the signs and signals for these bollards, whether they were locals or complete strangers. There are flashing signals, there are large signs on both sides of the road, the road itself thins and 'leads' to the bollarded-section, on some there are even voice warnings - "Warning! Bollards raising". Anyone who misses ALL of these signs is obviously so bad at driving that they could just as easily have injured themselves driving into a closed car-park barrier, or head-on into oncoming traffic. Not to mention the fact that the roads themselves are geared up for the bollards; these are not fast roads, they are roads that force drivers to go slowly. A slow-moving driver would see the signs, there is no question of that. If they have to accelerate to get behind the bus then they were obviously at a distance to see the signs in advance in the first place, hence it's their own fault.
Manchester suffers quite badly from congestion and traffic flow, and the idea is that people are physically restrained from
ing up the system and ruining it for everyone else. That's what these bollards do: simply fining someone is not enough to keep the system secure, as it gives anyone the opportunity to cheat the system for any reason they wish with a small cash fine the only punishment.
I think these bollards are great, they do the job that they were intended to do without fail, they are 100% effective whereas a fine would not be - a fine would not stop Mr. £300k a year from just bombing through as he was late for a meeting, a fine would not stop Mr. Joyrider from gunning it through town to escape the police/for a laugh/because he felt like it.
As for the comments DeR made, I take a slightly different view. The injustice is not that the council is allowed to put up 'potentially dangerous' bollards to stop people travelling past, the injustice is that ordinary members of the public are not allowed to take 'potentially dangerous' steps to protect themselves and their property/business.
outnumbered said:
Admittedly all those drivers looked like they were chancing it and trying to drive through even though they knew about the bollards, so I don't have much sympathy.
BUT: Suppose you're not local. You don't know the town centre well, you're lost, the missus is giving you grief because you've criticised her map reading, the kids in the back are fighting, all in all you're a bit distracted. You're stopped behind a stationary bus, it moves away and you follow it. And end up 3 feet in the air because you missed the no entry sign. That sounds less fair, doesn't it ?
This was posted the other day as well, and DeR made an excellent point, that the local council won't let him put "dangerous" anti-theft measures around his business premises, even though you'd have to be doing something illegal to be injured by them. But the bollards are OK ??
I spend a lot of time in Manchester and I know of these bollards. There is absolutely no way that a competant driver could miss the signs and signals for these bollards, whether they were locals or complete strangers. There are flashing signals, there are large signs on both sides of the road, the road itself thins and 'leads' to the bollarded-section, on some there are even voice warnings - "Warning! Bollards raising". Anyone who misses ALL of these signs is obviously so bad at driving that they could just as easily have injured themselves driving into a closed car-park barrier, or head-on into oncoming traffic. Not to mention the fact that the roads themselves are geared up for the bollards; these are not fast roads, they are roads that force drivers to go slowly. A slow-moving driver would see the signs, there is no question of that. If they have to accelerate to get behind the bus then they were obviously at a distance to see the signs in advance in the first place, hence it's their own fault.
Manchester suffers quite badly from congestion and traffic flow, and the idea is that people are physically restrained from
ing up the system and ruining it for everyone else. That's what these bollards do: simply fining someone is not enough to keep the system secure, as it gives anyone the opportunity to cheat the system for any reason they wish with a small cash fine the only punishment. I think these bollards are great, they do the job that they were intended to do without fail, they are 100% effective whereas a fine would not be - a fine would not stop Mr. £300k a year from just bombing through as he was late for a meeting, a fine would not stop Mr. Joyrider from gunning it through town to escape the police/for a laugh/because he felt like it.
As for the comments DeR made, I take a slightly different view. The injustice is not that the council is allowed to put up 'potentially dangerous' bollards to stop people travelling past, the injustice is that ordinary members of the public are not allowed to take 'potentially dangerous' steps to protect themselves and their property/business.
victormeldrew said:
Human nature is my point. The driver of a delivery van, doubtless under time pressure, observed a delivery van pass safely through this obstacle. Even if he had observed the signs, he might assume that if it was ok for Mr Post Office, it would be OK for him. To you that may make him a chancer who deserved possibly a broken neck or concussion for his momentary (or ongoing) stupidity, but to me it just makes him a human being who made a mistake. To impale his vehicle on a stake and cause physical injury is hardly in proportion to the "crime".
Why did he feel the need to gun it through the bollards then? If he thought he had the right to travel through then surely he would wait his turn and then try and proceed, rather than simply floor the accelerator and try to speed through on the first vehicles coat-tails. The only reason I can think for someone trying to gun through like that is if they suspect that they may not be allowed access if they didn't. It's not accidental, it's quite obviously deliberate.
ehyouwhat said:
victormeldrew said:
Human nature is my point. The driver of a delivery van, doubtless under time pressure, observed a delivery van pass safely through this obstacle. Even if he had observed the signs, he might assume that if it was ok for Mr Post Office, it would be OK for him. To you that may make him a chancer who deserved possibly a broken neck or concussion for his momentary (or ongoing) stupidity, but to me it just makes him a human being who made a mistake. To impale his vehicle on a stake and cause physical injury is hardly in proportion to the "crime".
Why did he feel the need to gun it through the bollards then? If he thought he had the right to travel through then surely he would wait his turn and then try and proceed, rather than simply floor the accelerator and try to speed through on the first vehicles coat-tails. The only reason I can think for someone trying to gun through like that is if they suspect that they may not be allowed access if they didn't. It's not accidental, it's quite obviously deliberate.
How many other ways of applying proportional justice are available? Lets think for a second. OK, CCTV linked to APNR, first offence = written warning, second offence = NIP and 6 points, third = ban (see second offence). I seriously doubt any regular chancer would get past stage 1, especially of their job depended on it. However, anyone caught gets their day in court to defend their actions, and no risk of injury. That wasn't too hard to work out.
victormeldrew said:
smilerbaker said:
victormeldrew said:
mondeohdear said:
Firstly, if you had a reason to drive down the pedestrian zone, for instance you're disabled or a delivery driver
And you studied the video in the link closely then? Third vehicle is, er, a delivery driver. In a courier van.If its like the bollards in staines then the signs clearly state when delivery drivers are allowed in the pedestrain area, so this guy didn't want to get off his arse and walk the package to the destination. He had no right to go into the area at that time, he knew it which is why he floored it behind the royal mail van, and got caught out, really cant see your point here victormeldrew
ITS A PEDESTRIAN STREET FFS if he where going fast enought to break his neck or injure himself then he is driving far to fast for a PEDESTRIAN AREA don't you think?
Are you watching the same video as the rest of us? have you not read the posts from the people who know the street, and the signage there? The people got hurt because they knew the bollards where going to raise, they floored it, they wern't wearing seat belts, they where going TOO FAST towards a raising object.
If they don't have the brains to realise this is a bad idea then the council has truly done us all a favour by getting them off the road for a few days.
victormeldrew said:
ehyouwhat said:
victormeldrew said:
Human nature is my point. The driver of a delivery van, doubtless under time pressure, observed a delivery van pass safely through this obstacle. Even if he had observed the signs, he might assume that if it was ok for Mr Post Office, it would be OK for him. To you that may make him a chancer who deserved possibly a broken neck or concussion for his momentary (or ongoing) stupidity, but to me it just makes him a human being who made a mistake. To impale his vehicle on a stake and cause physical injury is hardly in proportion to the "crime".
Why did he feel the need to gun it through the bollards then? If he thought he had the right to travel through then surely he would wait his turn and then try and proceed, rather than simply floor the accelerator and try to speed through on the first vehicles coat-tails. The only reason I can think for someone trying to gun through like that is if they suspect that they may not be allowed access if they didn't. It's not accidental, it's quite obviously deliberate.
How many other ways of applying proportional justice are available? Lets think for a second. OK, CCTV linked to APNR, first offence = written warning, second offence = NIP and 6 points, third = ban (see second offence). I seriously doubt any regular chancer would get past stage 1, especially of their job depended on it. However, anyone caught gets their day in court to defend their actions, and no risk of injury. That wasn't too hard to work out.
Thats the system we have now, the points system, and it doesn't work. It penalises the law abiding and the scum get away, the non insured, no licence, stolen car brigade wouldn't think twice about gunning down that street, well now they cant.
What would the van driver say when a NIP came in the post? sorry mate don't know who was driving.
It also clogs up courts and council workers and would be used as a cash cow.
victormeldrew said:
mondeohdear said:
Firstly, if you had a reason to drive down the pedestrian zone, for instance you're disabled or a delivery driver
And you studied the video in the link closely then? Third vehicle is, er, a delivery driver. In a courier van.True, but as said before delivery drivers should normally use the intercom to request access. Post office vans, cleaning vans and buses have a transponder that automatically lowers the barrier. If he's an experienced courier he would know that.
victormeldrew said:
mondeohdear said:
Secondly, this isn't a "big stick" approach.
Let's leave aside the obvious literal argument that these are actually big sticks. 
victormeldrew said:
mondeohdear said:
Apart from the short period when a bus is crossing the bollard they're just like ordinary bollards or walls, do you have a problem with those?
Just like, apart from the slightly germaine characteristic of appearing out of the ground at high velocity. An inconsequential difference? Speed matters you know!Would you prefer they moved up slowly so that more people would chance driving over them and driving through a busy pedestrian area?
victormeldrew said:
mondeohdear said:
If you've witnessed the way they work they do have sensors. If you look at all those videos closely the bollards stop rising as soon as they hit the metal, the impact was caused by the fact that the cars were still accelerating into a solid obstacle.
That wouldn't be my definition of working. That's like lift doors recognising someone is still entering the lift and stopping as they squish the hapless would be passenger between the doors, then staying put while everyone has a good laugh at the brainless moron who tried to outrun the lift doors.most lift doors also work on impact as do tube train doors, the difference is that the momentum of the vehicle is what's causing the damage in this case, not the momentum of the bollard.
victormeldrew said:
Regardless how stupid you would have to be to miss the signs or take a chance on beating the bollards, these are simply not the right answer; a principle of British justice used to be innocent until proven guilty. Speed cameras seem to have turned that on its head, and indoctrinated people with the notion that justice is absolute and indicriminate. If you can't see that is wrong then I really do fear for the future of this nation.
Edited by victormeldrew on Tuesday 24th October 08:53
The bollard is not there as a punishment, contrary to what you believe, it's there to prevent people from driving through pedestrian centres, ram raiding shops etc. It's operation has to be to allow emergency vehicles, and yes buses, through and yet allow the free ingress of pedestrians. Would you prefer they used car park style barriers? Would you dream of trying to tailgate somebody through one of those? Speed cameras are a totally different matter and your bringing up of them is totally irrelevant.
victormeldrew said:
No-one has yet explained why everyone parked in the video had reversed all the way down that street to park. Or do the bollards only operate at certain times?
Probably those cars are in disabled bays. And I'm going out on a limb and saying the drivers used the intercom. either that or they're way better at tailgating
We are not IMO really discussing whether these people are to blame or not, probably more often than not they are. What is being discussed surely is the level of penalty they pay for their misdemeanor. These people may know full well that they are breaking the rules but they are assuming there is a failsafe to stop this sort of outcome, car barriers in car parks will stop and not come down crashing down causing your roof to cave in, why could these not be used, couple with some cctv cameras to catch those who do get through.
At fault, yes! Price they pay, too high.
There IS no difference to tomorrow a new scheme saying we will blow your tyres out if you speed and you will just have to suffer the cost and inconvenience. The difference here is that on PH we like to drive and often it might be above the speed limit (hence would not agree with having the above scenario) - we cannot it seems relate however to people who want to drive into a bus zone so we suddenly take the moral high ground and say they deserve everything they get. I am not sure why they are so intent on getting in there either, but there are plenty of people who don't understand why I like to drive spiritedly down country roads on occasion. Try to have some empathy even if you can't see why.
At fault, yes! Price they pay, too high.
There IS no difference to tomorrow a new scheme saying we will blow your tyres out if you speed and you will just have to suffer the cost and inconvenience. The difference here is that on PH we like to drive and often it might be above the speed limit (hence would not agree with having the above scenario) - we cannot it seems relate however to people who want to drive into a bus zone so we suddenly take the moral high ground and say they deserve everything they get. I am not sure why they are so intent on getting in there either, but there are plenty of people who don't understand why I like to drive spiritedly down country roads on occasion. Try to have some empathy even if you can't see why.
smilerbaker said:
victormeldrew said:
smilerbaker said:
victormeldrew said:
mondeohdear said:
Firstly, if you had a reason to drive down the pedestrian zone, for instance you're disabled or a delivery driver
And you studied the video in the link closely then? Third vehicle is, er, a delivery driver. In a courier van.If its like the bollards in staines then the signs clearly state when delivery drivers are allowed in the pedestrain area, so this guy didn't want to get off his arse and walk the package to the destination. He had no right to go into the area at that time, he knew it which is why he floored it behind the royal mail van, and got caught out, really cant see your point here victormeldrew
ITS A PEDESTRIAN STREET FFS if he where going fast enought to break his neck or injure himself then he is driving far to fast for a PEDESTRIAN AREA don't you think?
Are you watching the same video as the rest of us? have you not read the posts from the people who know the street, and the signage there? The people got hurt because they knew the bollards where going to raise, they floored it, they wern't wearing seat belts, they where going TOO FAST towards a raising object.
If they don't have the brains to realise this is a bad idea then the council has truly done us all a favour by getting them off the road for a few days.
They can't have being going that much faster than the bus. Can't see your point there. If its a pedestrian area what are busses doing in there? Yes, I'm watching the same video, but I have brain engaged and am asking why rather than accepting everything I see at face (or comedy) value. Sorry for that.
Are delivery drivers exempt from wearing seatbelts?
I take it these things are computer controlled. You may have the utmost faith in technology, but I don't. Can you imagine these things getting it wrong and spearing a bus? How many busses have you seen with seatbelts fitted? That would be a laugh, all those moronic bus passengers losing their teeth on the chair in front! Still, if they can't afford a car we're better off without them anyway.
touching cloth said:
We are not IMO really discussing whether these people are to blame or not, probably more often than not they are. What is being discussed surely is the level of penalty they pay for their misdemeanor.
:nailonheadsmiley: Thanks, I was beginning to think I'd turned into a wooly minded liberal. mondeohdear said:
victormeldrew said:
Regardless how stupid you would have to be to miss the signs or take a chance on beating the bollards, these are simply not the right answer; a principle of British justice used to be innocent until proven guilty. Speed cameras seem to have turned that on its head, and indoctrinated people with the notion that justice is absolute and indicriminate. If you can't see that is wrong then I really do fear for the future of this nation.
The bollard is not there as a punishment, contrary to what you believe, it's there to prevent people from driving through pedestrian centres, ram raiding shops etc. It's operation has to be to allow emergency vehicles, and yes buses, through and yet allow the free ingress of pedestrians. Would you prefer they used car park style barriers? Would you dream of trying to tailgate somebody through one of those? Speed cameras are a totally different matter and your bringing up of them is totally irrelevant.
Touching Cloth said:
These people may know full well that they are breaking the rules but they are assuming there is a failsafe to stop this sort of outcome
Assumption is the mother of all
ups. The speeding issue is a completely moot point. The bollards are not there as a punishment, they are there as a preventative measure i.e. they prevent people from getting into an area they shouldn't be - they prevent people from breaking the law. The only people who suffer are the people who just deliberately ignore the system and try to get past, and these people are actually punshing themselves. The bollards would raise whether they tried to get past or not!
The equivilant for speeding would be a system that prevented anyone from going any faster than the speed limit, not a system that destroyed the tyres of everyone that did speed. That's why the bollard is there - to prevent criminal activity rather than punish it. And that's what it does for 99.9% of the time. But occasionally you'll get some absolute moron that tries it on, and they get punished. The bollard doesn't do anything different whether someone is there or not, it raises like it should do and like the warning signs say it will do. The sensors stop the bollard as soon as contact is made, and to be honest the only way someone could be injured is if they were doing something else wrong in the first place (speeding, not wearing seatbelt, etc).
Touching Cloth said:
There IS no difference to tomorrow a new scheme saying we will blow your tyres out if you speed and you will just have to suffer the cost and inconvenience. The difference here is that on PH we like to drive and often it might be above the speed limit (hence would not agree with having the above scenario) - we cannot it seems relate however to people who want to drive into a bus zone so we suddenly take the moral high ground and say they deserve everything they get. I am not sure why they are so intent on getting in there either, but there are plenty of people who don't understand why I like to drive spiritedly down country roads on occasion. Try to have some empathy even if you can't see why.
There is a BIG difference between stingers for sppeeding and rising bollards. Blow out a speeding tyres cars and somebody WILL die, eventually. These are just inconveniencing morons, hopefully as stories go around about the damage these bollards do then people will get the message - DON'T DRIVE THROUGH PEDESTRIAN AREAS. It's not exactly rocket science is it.
Driving above the speed limit is something we choose to do because of the convenience or enjoyment. Driving through a pedestrian zone is just f***ing ignorant. Do you really think that tw@t in his Kia would've have stuck behind the buses dutifully as it went down the high street at 5mph stopping at bus stops along the way? No, he would've overtaken it at the first opportunity having pedestrians running for cover and waving fists at him if he was lucky.
smilerbaker said:
victormeldrew said:
ehyouwhat said:
victormeldrew said:
Human nature is my point. The driver of a delivery van, doubtless under time pressure, observed a delivery van pass safely through this obstacle. Even if he had observed the signs, he might assume that if it was ok for Mr Post Office, it would be OK for him. To you that may make him a chancer who deserved possibly a broken neck or concussion for his momentary (or ongoing) stupidity, but to me it just makes him a human being who made a mistake. To impale his vehicle on a stake and cause physical injury is hardly in proportion to the "crime".
Why did he feel the need to gun it through the bollards then? If he thought he had the right to travel through then surely he would wait his turn and then try and proceed, rather than simply floor the accelerator and try to speed through on the first vehicles coat-tails. The only reason I can think for someone trying to gun through like that is if they suspect that they may not be allowed access if they didn't. It's not accidental, it's quite obviously deliberate.
How many other ways of applying proportional justice are available? Lets think for a second. OK, CCTV linked to APNR, first offence = written warning, second offence = NIP and 6 points, third = ban (see second offence). I seriously doubt any regular chancer would get past stage 1, especially of their job depended on it. However, anyone caught gets their day in court to defend their actions, and no risk of injury. That wasn't too hard to work out.
Thats the system we have now, the points system, and it doesn't work. It penalises the law abiding and the scum get away, the non insured, no licence, stolen car brigade wouldn't think twice about gunning down that street, well now they cant.
What would the van driver say when a NIP came in the post? sorry mate don't know who was driving.
It also clogs up courts and council workers and would be used as a cash cow.
victormeldrew said:
I take it these things are computer controlled. You may have the utmost faith in technology, but I don't. Can you imagine these things getting it wrong and spearing a bus? How many busses have you seen with seatbelts fitted? That would be a laugh, all those moronic bus passengers losing their teeth on the chair in front! Still, if they can't afford a car we're better off without them anyway.
Sorry but that isn't a valid point at all. You could take that attitude with anything. Cars are largely computer-controlled now, which means of course that there is every opportunity that they will go wrong whilst on the move too. A car might crash and hurt a padestrian. Well, we had better ban all cars then hadn't we?
Sometimes we have to put our faith in technology. And as far as I can make out, the technology is working perfectly in the case of these bollards.
ehyouwhat said:
Touching Cloth said:
These people may know full well that they are breaking the rules but they are assuming there is a failsafe to stop this sort of outcome
Assumption is the mother of all
ups. The speeding issue is a completely moot point. The bollards are not there as a punishment, they are there as a preventative measure i.e. they prevent people from getting into an area they shouldn't be - they prevent people from breaking the law. The only people who suffer are the people who just deliberately ignore the system and try to get past, and these people are actually punshing themselves. The bollards would raise whether they tried to get past or not!
The equivilant for speeding would be a system that prevented anyone from going any faster than the speed limit, not a system that destroyed the tyres of everyone that did speed. That's why the bollard is there - to prevent criminal activity rather than punish it. And that's what it does for 99.9% of the time. But occasionally you'll get some absolute moron that tries it on, and they get punished. The bollard doesn't do anything different whether someone is there or not, it raises like it should do and like the warning signs say it will do. The sensors stop the bollard as soon as contact is made, and to be honest the only way someone could be injured is if they were doing something else wrong in the first place (speeding, not wearing seatbelt, etc).
EXACTLY
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff