Rising bollards destroy vehicles, injure drivers!
Discussion
mondeohdear said:
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.
ehyouwhat said:
Assumption is the mother of all 
-ups
-upsmondeohdear said:
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.
Hopefully as the stories go around of all these people dieing due to Stingers (no more likely than someone breaking their neck in one of these accidents I wouldn't have thought) the message DON'T DRIVE OVER THE SPEED LIMIT will get across too.
Oh and this is a Bus zone surely, what with all the busses and vans in there it cannot be a pedestrian zone, I am assuming there are still roads and pavements and that the pedestrians are on the lookout for vehicles. Don't make conjecture as to the motorist turning into some sort of maniac once into the zone "pedestrians running for cover", please if that is the way he drives then he shouldn't be driving at all and will soon lose his licence, or is it just in the controlled zone that he will do this?
ehyouwhat said:
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.
Touching Cloth said:
Hopefully as the stories go around of all these people dieing due to Stingers (no more likely than someone breaking their neck in one of these accidents I wouldn't have thought) the message DON'T DRIVE OVER THE SPEED LIMIT will get across too.
I think you are missing the point. The two things are not really comparable. Speeding is an offence that is enforced by many measures, justified or not. Stingers are not one of them. They are used to bring vehicles that are trying to escape police to a halt, which is far less likely to result in something nasty happening than if a chase were allowed to continue. They are also actively deployed by a person for that specific purpose, and most likely would not be used if if the situation were too dangerous.
As has been said, these bollards are entirely preventative. It is not as though the people drive through, and then their car is destroyed as penalty. The damage is occuring because they choose to try to get through. It would be like someone driving a 40 ton truck over a weight restricted bridge and then complaining because it collapsed under them.
victormeldrew said:
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.
OK, let's go back to speed cameras. Disecting your argument about innocent until proved guilty. Where does that have any relevance on speed cameras? You speed past a camera, it flashes, you receive a ticket. You then choose to 'fess up and say "it's a fair cop gov, I'll take me 3 points and £60" or you go to court and plead not guilty. Justice is blind, it is absolute. You either choose to break a law or not. If you do you know what the consequences are - in the case of speeding it's 3 points and £60 in the case of a bollard with a new radiator!
victormeldrew said:
ehyouwhat said:
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.
Not at all. The technology is working. Any injury is a result of the actions of the person involved, not of the bollards. The bollards do what they do anyway, regardless of whether some numpty is trying to get over them illegaly. You know, in the same way that a wall is a wall regardless of whether a person jumps off it - I suppose that would be someones fault other than the person jumping off the wall too?!
Emergency vehicles are, in certain circumstances, allowed to drive through red traffic lights. Does that mean a member of the public in a car behind should also be allowed pass through, simply because they saw the car in front doing it? If they were then sideswiped by a lorry would it be someone elses fault? No it would be the fault of the person passing through the red light without permission.
Sometimes we have to take responsibility for the things we do. We may not like it, but we do. I bloody hate this 'claim culture', a culture which by your postings on this thread I am assuming you support? How can these accidents be anyones fault other than the person doing the rule breaking? I know not to sit in the bath hugging my plugged-in toaster, because I know that doing so is stupid. If I did do it, I would not be suprised if there were consequences, and I would not try to sue Dualit for building something that had the capability of hurting me should I act really stupidly, just in the same way that I would not sue Yorkshire Water for providing a potentially dangerous liquid! FFS.
mondeohdear said:
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
No, my point is, there are other ways to control the zone (like a car park barrier) that would not cause this damage and injury so what possible reason is there not use them. Even if a different system might only stop 99 in 100 where the bollards stop 100 out of 100 surely that is worth it, catch the last 1 with a camera and send him a fine.
The stinger is a relevant comparison because we need to compare a potential system of preventing someone from doing something that will damage their car cause potential injury, it is the insanity of suggesting we actually use stingers that makes the bollards system look equally flawed. Preventing them from speeding altogether would indeed be the same as the bollards system were you able to actually prevent Mr Idiot from trying to beat it, in real life you cannot do that.
victormeldrew said:
The moron who fecked his car up said "I went through after the bus and they shot up so fast all the airbags went off. I didn't see them and I didn't have a chance."
Well if the bollards shut up that fast, surely you would not have had time to reach them after the bus. Unless you were riding the coat-tails of the bus, that is, which is a crime in itself.
I know the bollards outside Marks & Sparks well and they are as clear as clear can be. To anyone, regardless of whether they know the area well.
victormeldrew said:
Oh dear oh dear! Any you actually swallowed that story? I hope you don't ever get picked for jury service.
Touching Cloth said:
The stinger is a relevant comparison because we need to compare a potential system of preventing someone from doing something that will damage their car cause potential injury, it is the insanity of suggesting we actually use stingers that makes the bollards system look equally flawed. Preventing them from speeding altogether would indeed be the same as the bollards system were you able to actually prevent Mr Idiot from trying to beat it, in real life you cannot do that.
No because the stinger system would penalise anyone who tries to speed. The bollards only penalise anyone who tries to outrun them, the hugely vast majority of people are simply prevented from breaking any laws by the bollards. That is in fact their purpose, the damage/injury to stupid people is just a lucky side-effect.
A barrier would block the entire road to any cars/padestrians/pushbikes/anything, and would be a hinderance. The bollards do no such thing, they simply prevent cars and large unauthorised vehicles from entering the road. Don't even attempt to make this out to be something it is not, anyone who tries to outrun the bollards gets exactly what they deserve. It's just the same as trying to outrun the gates at the Railway Crossing - they're not there to hurt people, but rather to provent the vast majority of people from being where they shouldn't be.
victormeldrew said:
ehyouwhat said:
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.
Can you not see that the bollards are not a punishment? these people are not being punished for trying to beat them, that is an (un)fortunate by product of there stupidity.
To say the punishment does not fit the crime is like saying someone who runs the barriers at a level crossing is being punished when the train hits them.
the bollards merrily do there thing, if they feel an obstruction they stop. If a bus or an authorised vechicle come near they let them past. They protect the pedestrian street and make a lot of people a bit safer.
running costs are probably very low, and they do exactly what they are supposed to do with no fuss or bias.
The alternative? a bib stationed there 24/7, a host of cameras sending out fines, the people who can pay will, the scum that cant wont (and nothing will happen to them) and maybe a few injured innocent pedestrains.
phil1979 said:
victormeldrew said:
Oh dear oh dear! Any you actually swallowed that story? I hope you don't ever get picked for jury service.
It's pretty hard to find much information about these things, the number of ads for them when you Google is astonishing. Needless to say they will be appearing in a town or city centre near you soon.
victormeldrew said:
phil1979 said:
victormeldrew said:
Oh dear oh dear! Any you actually swallowed that story? I hope you don't ever get picked for jury service.
It's pretty hard to find much information about these things, the number of ads for them when you Google is astonishing. Needless to say they will be appearing in a town or city centre near you soon.
Fatalities? From the bollards? Not unless they are replacing them with Trident missiles. It would be the speed of the berk trying to sneak over them that would cause the fatality, not the bollard. What next, blame the roadbuilders for putting deadly tarmac there in the first place???
victormeldrew said:
mondeohdear said:
Justice is blind, it is absolute.
Ah, the Vonhosen school of thought. Sorry, my world is imperfect and has many shades of grey. Further argument is obviously futile.
I never thought I'd find myself being compared with VH
. What I meant that the law is absolute, justice does indeed have to be balanced. In retrospect I agree with you on that much. I still maintain that these people knew that these barriers went up fast that's why they were gunning it through them and the signs were very clear. The sensor does stop the barrier going up when something hits it but short of having a proximity sensor that lowers it when a car is approaching it I don't see what else they could do. And that would kind of make it useless as a barrier
.victormeldrew said:
phil1979 said:
victormeldrew said:
Oh dear oh dear! Any you actually swallowed that story? I hope you don't ever get picked for jury service.
It's pretty hard to find much information about these things, the number of ads for them when you Google is astonishing. Needless to say they will be appearing in a town or city centre near you soon.
Ineed. We've got them in Sarfend now, but they have a traffic light on them as well as the warning sign. Would that make it more acceptable to your sense of justice then?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff