Rising bollards destroy vehicles, injure drivers!
Discussion
Has anyone seen this story in the Daily Wail they've posted today? There's some amazing CCTV footage of rising bollards utterly destroying cars and in a couple of cases, giving the drivers serious concussion.
www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411423
The comments are pretty much what you'd expect Mail readers, with most people saying they got what they deserved, as if maiming people and destroying vehicles is a perfectly acceptable punishment for a traffic offence (yes, a few of those in the video were muppets for trying to sneak through, but none of them deserve injury and the destruction of their vehicles as an arbitrary method of summary justice). Not to mention that if you installed these to protect your own property and someone destroyed their car on them, you'd be hauled up in court before you knew what had hit you (or you bollards).
EDIT - Godammit, "risings"
www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411423
The comments are pretty much what you'd expect Mail readers, with most people saying they got what they deserved, as if maiming people and destroying vehicles is a perfectly acceptable punishment for a traffic offence (yes, a few of those in the video were muppets for trying to sneak through, but none of them deserve injury and the destruction of their vehicles as an arbitrary method of summary justice). Not to mention that if you installed these to protect your own property and someone destroyed their car on them, you'd be hauled up in court before you knew what had hit you (or you bollards).
EDIT - Godammit, "risings"
Edited by FastShow on Monday 23 October 14:41
morebeanz said:
I don't applaud the damage, but if you were a pedestrian in the zone which those bollards protect, I'm guessing you might have a different view.
The big Kia 4x4 crash didn't look very safe for anyone involved, pedestrians or otherwise - the car could easily have bounced over towards the people to the left (which included a kid in a buggy) or sent debris flying. Plus there was a kid in the back of the 4x4 itself, I don't see how you could even begin to condone this as a safe method of traffic enforcement, it's obviously a serious accident waiting to happen, regardless of how cheeky the drivers are being (and that's ignoring those who make a genuine mistake).
EDIT - Another article along similar lines:
Manchester Evening News said:
Mum’s car ‘speared’ by bollards in city centre.
Mike Keegan, Manchester Evening News, Wednesday 11 October 2006
“My baby could have been killed, says Natalie”
“Barriers claim four new victims in five days”
The infamous rise-and-fall bollards on St. Mary’s Gate in the heart of Manchester have now claimed four victims in just five days.
The pair of 3ft-high telescopic posts were installed after it emerged that the road was one of the worst accident hotspots in the city.
They use sensors to sink into the street and allow buses through, before rising to bar other traffic.
But this week’s catalogue of mishaps has led to fears that lives may be in danger unless they are removed.
On Monday, a new 4 x 4 vehicle became the week’s first victim of the bollards, which claimed a further two on Thursday. First, they tore through the front of a mother’s car, narrowly missing her nine-month-old daughter, who was strapped into a chair in the front seat.
Then, hours later, a Metro shuttle bus, legally entitled to pass through, was left marooned in the middle of the road after the posts struck again.
And on Friday, the bollards claimed another hit in the shape of Fatima Abrar’s Rover.
Thursday’s victim, Natalie Kelly, 35, who suffers from spina bifida, said she was in the city centre with her disabled mother and daughter Annie on a shopping and was struggling, for somewhere to park. She was outside Marks & Spencer in her Toyota Starlet, when she sae a free spot in the disabled bay on the other side of the bollards.
She then followed a bus through – only for the posts to impale the front of her car. “I’d actually had second thoughts about going in and stopped to use the intercom there to make sure that it was all right” said Natalie, “But then I heard this massive bang and knew right away what had happened.
“If I had gone any further, Annie could have been killed.”
Natalie claims that the warning signs by the side of the road do not spell out the dangers clearly enough – and that she parked in the same spot without any problems a week before.
A council spokesman said they had done “everything we can to make clear that there is a closure in place between 11am and 7pm seven days a week”.
“New high visibility ‘no entry’ signs have been put in place. Unfortunately, some motorists have deliberately ignored the ban, trying to ‘tailgate’ Metro-shuttle vehicles while the bollards are down.” he said.
Their actions are illegal and extremely dangerous and a number of drivers have been, quite rightly, prosecuted by police for driving without due care and attention.”
Mike Keegan, Manchester Evening News, Wednesday 11 October 2006
“My baby could have been killed, says Natalie”
“Barriers claim four new victims in five days”
The infamous rise-and-fall bollards on St. Mary’s Gate in the heart of Manchester have now claimed four victims in just five days.
The pair of 3ft-high telescopic posts were installed after it emerged that the road was one of the worst accident hotspots in the city.
They use sensors to sink into the street and allow buses through, before rising to bar other traffic.
But this week’s catalogue of mishaps has led to fears that lives may be in danger unless they are removed.
On Monday, a new 4 x 4 vehicle became the week’s first victim of the bollards, which claimed a further two on Thursday. First, they tore through the front of a mother’s car, narrowly missing her nine-month-old daughter, who was strapped into a chair in the front seat.
Then, hours later, a Metro shuttle bus, legally entitled to pass through, was left marooned in the middle of the road after the posts struck again.
And on Friday, the bollards claimed another hit in the shape of Fatima Abrar’s Rover.
Thursday’s victim, Natalie Kelly, 35, who suffers from spina bifida, said she was in the city centre with her disabled mother and daughter Annie on a shopping and was struggling, for somewhere to park. She was outside Marks & Spencer in her Toyota Starlet, when she sae a free spot in the disabled bay on the other side of the bollards.
She then followed a bus through – only for the posts to impale the front of her car. “I’d actually had second thoughts about going in and stopped to use the intercom there to make sure that it was all right” said Natalie, “But then I heard this massive bang and knew right away what had happened.
“If I had gone any further, Annie could have been killed.”
Natalie claims that the warning signs by the side of the road do not spell out the dangers clearly enough – and that she parked in the same spot without any problems a week before.
A council spokesman said they had done “everything we can to make clear that there is a closure in place between 11am and 7pm seven days a week”.
“New high visibility ‘no entry’ signs have been put in place. Unfortunately, some motorists have deliberately ignored the ban, trying to ‘tailgate’ Metro-shuttle vehicles while the bollards are down.” he said.
Their actions are illegal and extremely dangerous and a number of drivers have been, quite rightly, prosecuted by police for driving without due care and attention.”
Edited by FastShow on Monday 23 October 15:28
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.
Marki said:
Yes they do deserve it for being with idiots ,,, its so clarly marked out and these people know the risk ,, they are just trying it on and are too stupid to realise the risk , i blame the nanny state
"Being with idiots" is now a crime punishable by physical injury and the destruction of your car? I fear for your friends and family.
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
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
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff