Rising bollards destroy vehicles, injure drivers!
Discussion
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
Would you drive into a barrier ??? its the same thing ,,, sheer stupidity
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
The ambiguity with speeding is not the signage - more the interpretation and enforcement.
But the point here is not that anyone (certainly not me) is adovocating anyone deserves physical injury but if anyone is stupid (or careless enough) to ignore the no entry signs and put themselves at risk then so be it.
What is the alternative, bollards made of paper? Bollards that stay down so as not to hurt the "chancer".
People need to start taking responsibility for their actions.
Edited by FunkyGibbon on Monday 23 October 16:10
FunkyGibbon said:
Not sure what the fuss is really. We've had these in Cambridge for years now.
They are clearly signed a make a useful way of allowing authorised vehicles into pedestrian or one-way areas.
The incidents in the video clearly show people taking the pi55 and they lost not to mention a danger to themselves, their passengers and the public.
They are clearly signed a make a useful way of allowing authorised vehicles into pedestrian or one-way areas.
The incidents in the video clearly show people taking the pi55 and they lost not to mention a danger to themselves, their passengers and the public.
Yeah, but the same system in Cambridge was significantly altered as the City Council had bills running into several million in insurance claims against them..... mind you, their original system was a bloody nightmare....
For anyone interested, the posts are here:
road running left-right
Personally I think they're a good idea. Anyone who gets impaled on them is clearly a spaz.
road running left-right
Personally I think they're a good idea. Anyone who gets impaled on them is clearly a spaz.
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 ??
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
noone says they deserve injury.
But if someone drove into a wall would you be having a go at peoplewho build walls
saying why are they trying to kill all drivers....thats just plain dumb
off_again said:
FunkyGibbon said:
Not sure what the fuss is really. We've had these in Cambridge for years now.
They are clearly signed a make a useful way of allowing authorised vehicles into pedestrian or one-way areas.
The incidents in the video clearly show people taking the pi55 and they lost not to mention a danger to themselves, their passengers and the public.
They are clearly signed a make a useful way of allowing authorised vehicles into pedestrian or one-way areas.
The incidents in the video clearly show people taking the pi55 and they lost not to mention a danger to themselves, their passengers and the public.
Yeah, but the same system in Cambridge was significantly altered as the City Council had bills running into several million in insurance claims against them..... mind you, their original system was a bloody nightmare....
Did they have claims? I always thought they played real hard-ball, massive fines and points for lack of care and attention for the offenders. I could well be wrong though, but I'm sure that's what I read in the CEN many years ago.
are these people not paying the penalty for ignoring the law of the road in the same way that people do when they ignore the speed limits posted and then get caught on camera / by plod?
yes its not good that injury could be caused to themselves or others but they are clearly ignoring warnings and common sense and i would also like to know if they are being prosecuted for driving without due care and attention cos its certainly looks they are to me!!
having nearly been run over a few months ago by someone deciding at last minute and without warning or indication to enter a clearly marked pedrestrian zone in a car i have no sympathy for these idiots. yes its annoying you can't always drive where you want to especially if you used to be able to use that route but hey, things change deal with it.
'fresher.
yes its not good that injury could be caused to themselves or others but they are clearly ignoring warnings and common sense and i would also like to know if they are being prosecuted for driving without due care and attention cos its certainly looks they are to me!!
having nearly been run over a few months ago by someone deciding at last minute and without warning or indication to enter a clearly marked pedrestrian zone in a car i have no sympathy for these idiots. yes its annoying you can't always drive where you want to especially if you used to be able to use that route but hey, things change deal with it.
'fresher.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone .... and all that.
We have all done stupid things, some we have even regretted; be it driving over the speed limit, using a bus lane or parking on a double yellow whilst we nip into a shop. All things that on PH we tend to moan about when we get a small fine for and/or some points on our licence. However here is a minor misdemeanor of no worse stature than those, (really, think about it.. it is NOT that bad) that is dealt with in an overly heavy handed way and yet we applaud it. It is not to say just let these people have a free for all, by all means control that area, but I say use a camera and send them a fine - the odd thing is I suspect a lot of people would be on here moaning about it.
Fastshow, I am with you on this one and appear to be in the minority.
We have all done stupid things, some we have even regretted; be it driving over the speed limit, using a bus lane or parking on a double yellow whilst we nip into a shop. All things that on PH we tend to moan about when we get a small fine for and/or some points on our licence. However here is a minor misdemeanor of no worse stature than those, (really, think about it.. it is NOT that bad) that is dealt with in an overly heavy handed way and yet we applaud it. It is not to say just let these people have a free for all, by all means control that area, but I say use a camera and send them a fine - the odd thing is I suspect a lot of people would be on here moaning about it.
Fastshow, I am with you on this one and appear to be in the minority.
outnumbered said:
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 ??
Yep I fully agree that businesses should be able to protect themselves.
DennisTheMenace said:
thats funkin hiralious!!!
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 ?
That was my intial thought too but then I thought about it. If I'm in an area thats unfamiliar I look out for road signs and markings. Those bollards are clearly visable as there are signs and the bollards themselves have yellow strips on them so that shouldn't be a problem. They could make in even more visable but its already pretty easy to see.
Edited by The Hitman on Monday 23 October 16:52
The Hitman said:
That was my intial thought too but then I thought about it. If I'm in an area thats unfamiliar I look out for road signs and markings. Those Bbollards are clearly visable as there are signs and the bollards themselves have yellow strips on them so that shouldn't be a problem. They could make in even more visable but its already pretty easy to see.
If the bus was parked there when you arrived, you wouldn't see the bollards at all. You just have to miss the sign... It seems possible to me to get speared as a result of an innocent mistake - maybe not likely, but possible nonetheless.
I HATE all this anti car shit, but I have to say that I laughed MY FVCKING ARSE OFF when that stupid cow deliberately follwed teh bus and got tw@tted.
"Oh I am so important I will just ignore the no entry signs. Rules don't apply to me, besides I've got a booking tonight and need to get down Anne Summers before it shuts."
Silly bint.
FunkyGibbon said:
off_again said:
FunkyGibbon said:
Not sure what the fuss is really. We've had these in Cambridge for years now.
They are clearly signed a make a useful way of allowing authorised vehicles into pedestrian or one-way areas.
The incidents in the video clearly show people taking the pi55 and they lost not to mention a danger to themselves, their passengers and the public.
They are clearly signed a make a useful way of allowing authorised vehicles into pedestrian or one-way areas.
The incidents in the video clearly show people taking the pi55 and they lost not to mention a danger to themselves, their passengers and the public.
Yeah, but the same system in Cambridge was significantly altered as the City Council had bills running into several million in insurance claims against them..... mind you, their original system was a bloody nightmare....
Did they have claims? I always thought they played real hard-ball, massive fines and points for lack of care and attention for the offenders. I could well be wrong though, but I'm sure that's what I read in the CEN many years ago.
Maybe they did, not sure really. But the arguments were pretty strong though - I mean, world renound University, large population of foreign students, lots of fairly well off parents - thats a nice equation for quite a few foreign cars getting damaged and stranded because of the small, poorly written and basically illegible notices.....
Not quite what you would expect if you were dropping off little Francois or Franco at one of the city colleges....
outnumbered said:
If the bus was parked there when you arrived, you wouldn't see the bollards at all. You just have to miss the sign... It seems possible to me to get speared as a result of an innocent mistake - maybe not likely, but possible nonetheless.
Anything is possible and accidents happen, so what are you saying? People die on the safest roads in the world because people are not perfect. Its unlikely that people will be seriously injured by the bollards. You cannot say that the drivers that we saw were taking care and paying attention. Those are the same sort of drivers that pull out just infront of you on a motorway or similarly tailgate you at 70mph (obviously not over that speed
). They don't think about other road users, pedestrians or even their passengers.off_again said:
FunkyGibbon said:
off_again said:
FunkyGibbon said:
Not sure what the fuss is really. We've had these in Cambridge for years now.
They are clearly signed a make a useful way of allowing authorised vehicles into pedestrian or one-way areas.
The incidents in the video clearly show people taking the pi55 and they lost not to mention a danger to themselves, their passengers and the public.
They are clearly signed a make a useful way of allowing authorised vehicles into pedestrian or one-way areas.
The incidents in the video clearly show people taking the pi55 and they lost not to mention a danger to themselves, their passengers and the public.
Yeah, but the same system in Cambridge was significantly altered as the City Council had bills running into several million in insurance claims against them..... mind you, their original system was a bloody nightmare....
Did they have claims? I always thought they played real hard-ball, massive fines and points for lack of care and attention for the offenders. I could well be wrong though, but I'm sure that's what I read in the CEN many years ago.
Maybe they did, not sure really. But the arguments were pretty strong though - I mean, world renound University, large population of foreign students, lots of fairly well off parents - thats a nice equation for quite a few foreign cars getting damaged and stranded because of the small, poorly written and basically illegible notices.....
Not quite what you would expect if you were dropping off little Francois or Franco at one of the city colleges....
This happened when they where first installed in Chester and quite a number of people where impaled - there was talk of class actions etc but it never came to anything. If anyone got stuck and put the bollards out of action then the City Council sent them a (large) bill for the repair costs.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff