Rising bollards destroy vehicles, injure drivers!
Discussion
FastShow said:
"Being with idiots" is now a crime punishable by physical injury and the destruction of your car? I fear for your friends and family. 
Drivers need to take responsibility for their actions, they should have insurance so any injuries can be claimed for and, hopefully, rectified.
There are other ways of dealing with this, but those drivers were still incredibly foolish and reckless. The guys in the Sportage didn't even think of his families safety when he gunned it into the post.
Oakey said:
I do have to wonder if the people against these bollards are the same people who think they can drive as / where / how they please ignoring clear warning signs. 
I really don't understand the people here who are against these, I thought the members here were sensible and intelligent, the sort of people who wouldn't be driving into a road signed 'No Entry', the sort of people these bollards wouldn't affect so quite why some of you are up in arms is beyond me.
So you think that these bollards should be removed because they 'may cause damage to cars and injuries to people'? Geez, well in that case perhaps you suggest we ban cars altogether considering they can be used to cause damage and injury?
I really don't understand the people here who are against these, I thought the members here were sensible and intelligent, the sort of people who wouldn't be driving into a road signed 'No Entry', the sort of people these bollards wouldn't affect so quite why some of you are up in arms is beyond me.
So you think that these bollards should be removed because they 'may cause damage to cars and injuries to people'? Geez, well in that case perhaps you suggest we ban cars altogether considering they can be used to cause damage and injury?
Well, I guess as a rational person I ask myself; what is worse: someone getting away with driving down a buslane/one-way street in spite of the rules, or that same someone having their head smashed into a windscreen, their baby in the back thrown about like a ragdoll and their multi-thousand pound car destroyed? Personally I'd rather them get away with a transgression of the rules and a telling off, but clearly the correct course of action is a bullet to the back of the head, or something.
These things are injuring people, regardless of whether or not they're stupid people, they're still clearly a blatant safety hazard. I fail to see the difference between bollards that are set out to enforce a one-way street that injure if ignored, and a speed camera that triggers a spike strip in the road, if ignored - yet I doubt you'd see anyone here suggesting the latter were a good idea.
Edited by FastShow on Monday 23 October 15:50
FastShow said:
Ugh, fair enough then, it's obviously perfectly OK to booby-trap the public highways to injure people and destroy their cars, as long as they were doing something wrong at the time. Here's looking forward to deliberately placed traps in the road that trigger when you exceed the speed limit by a couple of miles per hour, writing off your car and injuring you and your family. After all, it's your own fault for breaking the law.
What about the passengers in all of the cars seen in the clips? I suppose they deserved to be injured too because they chose to ride with a dozy driver, right? The hypocrisy here is astonishing.
What about the passengers in all of the cars seen in the clips? I suppose they deserved to be injured too because they chose to ride with a dozy driver, right? The hypocrisy here is astonishing.
You obviously don't do guilt.(A feeling of having done something wrong)
Edited by slowly slowly on Monday 23 October 15:48
They aren't set up to injure people, they're set up to stop people entering a zone they shouldn't whilst allowing access to vehicles authorised to do so. The reason they're of sturdy contruction is to stop people ramming them over.
No different to somebody putting an electric gate on the front of their house etc... Only dangerous if you're being a pillock!
No different to somebody putting an electric gate on the front of their house etc... Only dangerous if you're being a pillock!
He has a point, if a woman can sue Maccy D for serving coffee so hot it scalded her then can't the councils be sued for damage? I can't see why an overload switch couldn't be fitted to em. I also ascribe to the view that you have to be pretty dumb or desperate to get nailed by a bollard
FastShow said:
Well, I guess as a rational person I ask myself; what is worse: someone getting away with driving down a buslane/one-way street in spite of the rules,
So ok then where do we draw the line ,, i know lets just have a fecking free for all shall we , ohh thats kind of what we have because a lot of people just can not accept simple rules
FastShow said:
These things are injuring people, regardless of whether or not they're stupid people, they're still clearly a blatant safety hazard.
Yes they are injuring stupid arrogant people who think they are above the law
FastShow said:
I fail to see the difference between bollards that are set out to enforce a one-way street that injure if ignored, and a speed camera that triggers a spike strip in the road, if ignored, yet I doubt you'd see anyone suggesting the latter were a good idea.
Quite a big difference I'd have thought. These are enforcing a no entry - simple as that, no one should enter. There can be no abiguity as to the meaning or interpretation. Hence the rather bullet in the head solution as you say.
Give it a few weeks and all the "chancers" will know they cannot win and all will be calm.
FastShow said:
These things are injuring people, regardless of whether or not they're stupid people, they're still clearly a blatant safety hazard. I fail to see the difference between bollards that are set out to enforce a one-way street that injure if ignored, and a speed camera that triggers a spike strip in the road, if ignored, yet I doubt you'd see anyone suggesting the latter were a good idea.
The reason why they injured was because of the speed achieved when hitting the bollard, they accelerated into it!! Also you are over-reacting with the spike strip, thats just plain dangerous. These bollards were put in place to stop traffic from trying to enter, they are well marked and very visable. Also I doubt anyone thought they'd actually accelerate into the sodding things.
FastShow said:
Oakey said:
I do have to wonder if the people against these bollards are the same people who think they can drive as / where / how they please ignoring clear warning signs.
I really don't understand the people here who are against these, I thought the members here were sensible and intelligent, the sort of people who wouldn't be driving into a road signed 'No Entry', the sort of people these bollards wouldn't affect so quite why some of you are up in arms is beyond me.
So you think that these bollards should be removed because they 'may cause damage to cars and injuries to people'? Geez, well in that case perhaps you suggest we ban cars altogether considering they can be used to cause damage and injury?
I really don't understand the people here who are against these, I thought the members here were sensible and intelligent, the sort of people who wouldn't be driving into a road signed 'No Entry', the sort of people these bollards wouldn't affect so quite why some of you are up in arms is beyond me.
So you think that these bollards should be removed because they 'may cause damage to cars and injuries to people'? Geez, well in that case perhaps you suggest we ban cars altogether considering they can be used to cause damage and injury?
Well, I guess as a rational person I ask myself; what is worse: someone getting away with driving down a buslane/one-way street in spite of the rules, or that same someone having their head smashed into a windscreen, their baby in the back thrown about like a ragdoll and their multi-thousand pound car destroyed?
Um, okay, and if said numpty causes an accident by driving the wrong way down a one way street?
said:
These things are injuring people, regardless of whether or not they're stupid people, they're still clearly a blatant safety hazard.
You know, there are some people who like to argue the same things about cars too, I'm sure you wouldn't be happy if they were banned because of the minority?
said:
I fail to see the difference between bollards that are set out to enforce a one-way street that injure if ignored, and a speed camera that triggers a spike strip in the road, if ignored, yet I doubt you'd see anyone suggesting the latter were a good idea.
Kind of like those devices they have in car parks that you canonly go over one way, going over the opposite way results in shredded tyres?
Edited by Oakey on Monday 23 October 15:56
It's not like the bollards have been stealthily put there. There a big signs warning of them. Is it really any different to someone trying to exit a carpark without paying and being hit by the barrier? Those people were trying it on either out of stupidity or cheakyness.
I'm sorry but if someone can't assimilate the massive no entry signs either side then they shouldn't be driving.
I'm sorry but if someone can't assimilate the massive no entry signs either side then they shouldn't be driving.
FunkyGibbon said:
Quite a big difference I'd have thought. These are enforcing a no entry - simple as that, no one should enter. There can be no abiguity as to the meaning or interpretation. Hence the rather bullet in the head solution as you say.
Where's the ambiguity in speed limit signage?
I give up with you guys, I just can't argue with people who think that anyone who commits a traffic infraction (except speeding, which is apparantly ambiguous) actually deserves to have themselves and their family injured.
Edited by FastShow on Monday 23 October 15:59
FunkyGibbon said:
Give it a few weeks and all the "chancers" will know they cannot win and all will be calm.
I think that's key. They're not designed as a weapon, they're there as a deterrent; like points on your license or a fine if you overstay a carpark. Over time (and very quickly because of the publicity) people will realise they can't go through there.
FastShow said:
FunkyGibbon said:
Quite a big difference I'd have thought. These are enforcing a no entry - simple as that, no one should enter. There can be no abiguity as to the meaning or interpretation. Hence the rather bullet in the head solution as you say.
Where's the ambiguity in speed limit signage?
I give up with you guys, I just can't argue with people who think that anyone who commits a traffic infraction (except speeding, which is apparantly ambiguous) actually deserves to have themselves and their family injured.
Edited by FastShow on Monday 23 October 15:59
If people do stupid things then bad things will happen. They have nobody to blame but themselves. In the case of the black 4x4 he deliberately tried to speed up and get through, he put his family at risk, he was responsible for any injuries that occured.
You seem to have ignored what has been said about car park barriers, what are your opinions of these? Should these be abolished too because a select few might try to tailgate and cheat the system?
batfink said:
absolutely brilliant. Finally a method of removing idiots on the road. How you miss two massive LED signs flashing no entry is beyond me.
I agree. I wouldn't try and piss around with those bollards, so why would anyone else? F'ing stupid idiots getting caught out in my opinion - why should we pity them?
FastShow said:
Where's the ambiguity in speed limit signage?
I give up with you guys, I just can't argue with people who think that anyone who commits a traffic infraction (except speeding, which is apparantly ambiguous) actually deserves to have themselves and their family injured.
I give up with you guys, I just can't argue with people who think that anyone who commits a traffic infraction (except speeding, which is apparantly ambiguous) actually deserves to have themselves and their family injured.
You just aren't listening, are you? We are telling you why this happened, it wasn't because of the bollards, its becuase of the driver's being completely devoid of inteligence.
With your attitude everything wouldn't be the driver's fault, they took a risk and paid the price, thats life.
FastShow,
it's not a punishment it's just the result of stupidity. Anyone to risks their family and many thousands on pounds worth of car to take a short cut when they know they shouldn't doesn't really deserve to have their car damaged but they have noone to blame but themselves.
Who would you blame if they went through a red light at a junction and had their car totalled?
it's not a punishment it's just the result of stupidity. Anyone to risks their family and many thousands on pounds worth of car to take a short cut when they know they shouldn't doesn't really deserve to have their car damaged but they have noone to blame but themselves.
Who would you blame if they went through a red light at a junction and had their car totalled?
The Hitman said:
FastShow said:
These things are injuring people, regardless of whether or not they're stupid people, they're still clearly a blatant safety hazard. I fail to see the difference between bollards that are set out to enforce a one-way street that injure if ignored, and a speed camera that triggers a spike strip in the road, if ignored, yet I doubt you'd see anyone suggesting the latter were a good idea.
The reason why they injured was because of the speed achieved when hitting the bollard, they accelerated into it!! Also you are over-reacting with the spike strip, thats just plain dangerous. These bollards were put in place to stop traffic from trying to enter, they are well marked and very visable. Also I doubt anyone thought they'd actually accelerate into the sodding things.
And when they felt the impact the bollards STOPPED going up, I'd have made them carry on
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff