(slightly OT) load of old bollards

In Manchester, they have bollards that rise and fall to keep motorists
from using the bus-only lanes. Some numpties think they are quick
enough to beat it ...

http://arbroath.blogspot.com/2006/10/drivers-fail-to-beat-bollards.html
and click on CCTV link.

Hilarious.

Dave

On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 13:48:02 -0000, Dave P <[email protected]>
wrote:

> In Manchester, they have bollards that rise and fall to keep motorists
> from using the bus-only lanes. Some numpties think they are quick
> enough to beat it ...
>
> http://arbroath.blogspot.com/2006/10/drivers-fail-to-beat-bollards.html
> and click on CCTV link.
>
> Hilarious.

indeed - but the second car didn't look like they were trying to sneak a
shortcut. Simply following the bus - I'm sure many have done this in a
strange town. One really is not equipped to expect physical barrier
deployed in such a fashion. From the evidence presented I'd say these
things are bloody dangerous and whoever thought of this particular
deployment should be publicly horsewhipped.

Got a ticket some months back for transgressing some stupid
now-you-can/now-you-can't right of way - my fault, taking directions from
a pedestrian - would much rather pay the ticket than deal with a broken
motor. Of course a part time pedestrian area is no use to the pedestrians
and merely another motorist trap/tax.

Seems to me this technology would be an ideal barrier for the entrance to
private property - I'd like a similar thing out in the front yard.

--
William Tasso

Land Rover - 110 V8
Discovery - V8

William Tasso wrote:

> indeed - but the second car didn't look like they were trying to sneak a
> shortcut. Simply following the bus - I'm sure many have done this in a
> strange town. One really is not equipped to expect physical barrier
> deployed in such a fashion.

I doubt if they would have installed such a "robust" system without
some very prominent signage - for fear of compo claims if nothing else.
The bollards have two big yellow bands on the top, and you can see
from the first scene that there are large, brightly-lit no-entry signs
well before the bollards. I can't read the message below them, but I
bet it's a further warning.

The first lady was parked in the lane, then reversed to let the bus
past and tried to nip in behind. She clearly knew what she was doing.
The black vehicle was going far too fast for the road - single narrow
lane, marked pedestrian crossing, semi-pedestrianised area, shoppers,
kids etc. Look how the shoppers with the push-chair have to leap back
as he does that bunny-hop. If your kids were standing there? He
deserved what he got. I hope he did a lot of damage and his insurers
refused to pay up. The only thing to his credit was that his first
action was to check the child in the back - most drivers would have
left that to the wife and checked the sump for holes!

> Seems to me this technology would be an ideal barrier for the entrance to
> private property - I'd like a similar thing out in the front yard.

Agreed - although I bet it ain't cheap. I'm assuming it works off
transponders in the vehicle to signal the bollards to go up and down.
With the bollards locked in the up position at the entrance to your
drive, your property would be pretty secure. Any thieves would have to
park outside your gate and carry the swag bit by bit to the van. Your
wide-screen telly would be fairly safe.

DaveP

"William Tasso" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> indeed - but the second car didn't look like they were trying to sneak a
> shortcut. Simply following the bus - I'm sure many have done this in a
> strange town. One really is not equipped to expect physical barrier
> deployed in such a fashion. From the evidence presented I'd say these
> things are bloody dangerous and whoever thought of this particular
> deployment should be publicly horsewhipped.

I ended up in a bus only area of York once, it certainly wasn't intended and
is easily done in an inner city when you're trying to follow signs and watch
out for pedestrians. If I was in the car where the family were apparently
injured because these stupid things defeat the car's crumple zones I would
have sued the Council without question and hope lots of people do. And the
last one begs the question of how is a delivery van driver supposed to know
that the post office's delivery vans are permitted but other companies ones
aren't!.
Greg

"Dave P" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I doubt if they would have installed such a "robust" system without
> some very prominent signage

Maybe not, but have you never missed a sign in a busy town centre ?

The second video is the first one with a commentary AND edited to remove the
part about the small child being carried out of the car possibly injured, of
course the edit was in no way intended to change people's perception of
these things...

The third video looks to me as if the driver had no idea they were there, he
carried on at about the same speed until the impact which was with them
fully up, it only takes a couple of seconds distraction to miss them.

If it's ok to throw up a solid obstacle in the way of someone who violates a
road regulation where do you draw the line?, maybe those flasshing 30 road
signs should be linked to ones, after all they passed speed limit signs so
they've only themselves to blame!.

My guess is someone is going to have to be maimed or killed before these
things are banned, and I suspect it's going to be a pedestrian as some of
these cars are being flung sideways quite violently.

Greg

A quick Google finds the Government's rules for the installation fo rising
bollards, from which it appears that those in the video's are illegal on two
counts:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_roads/documents/page/dft_roads_504750-01.hcsp#TopOfPage

"Rising bollards should not normally be sited close to or at signalled
junctions or pedestrian crossings."

These are clearly on pedestrian crossings, presumably this rule is precisely
because a car doesn't always crash in a straight line...
"Whilst most applications will be to enable the passage of one vehicle at a
time, there will be instances where two or more vehicles attempt to pass
through in close succession. The system should ensure that bollards cannot
rise beneath a vehicle because of the danger this would create. It is better
to risk a certain amount of violation by "tailgating" vehicles, rather that
put road users at risk."

These don't have any system to ensure they can't rise under vehicles as the
videos clearly show them doing so. My guess is they've twisted the meaning
of this rule to be 'must top rising if a vehicle passes over' which they do
but is nothing like the same thing. To comply they should have a sensor in
the road to detect a car that's close enough to have them rise underneath
it, which would allow a certain amount of violation as acknowledged in the
rule. Of course once people were wise they could 'convoy' behind a bus, so
this Council has simply ignored the rule it doesn't like, something which
should leave them wide open to being sued.

Another point is that, although the bollards have reflective tips many cars
have restricted views of the few metres of road surface immediately in front
of them so if the bollards start to rise fairly close to the car will never
be seen.

Greg

>> I doubt if they would have installed such a "robust" system without
>> some very prominent signage

Indeed there are at both ends of Corpration Street.

> Maybe not, but have you never missed a sign in a busy town centre ?

You even have to turn left - because this road has big 'No Entry' & 'Buses
Only' and the road markings take you away from this road, you have to bear
right.

> The third video looks to me as if the driver had no idea they were there,
> he
> carried on at about the same speed until the impact which was with them
> fully up, it only takes a couple of seconds distraction to miss them.

Or how about slowing down in a very crowded public area, this is in the
heart of Manchesters shopping centre. Sorry to labour the point, how about
reading the signs.

> If it's ok to throw up a solid obstacle in the way of someone who violates
> a
> road regulation where do you draw the line?, maybe those flasshing 30 road
> signs should be linked to ones, after all they passed speed limit signs so
> they've only themselves to blame!.
> My guess is someone is going to have to be maimed or killed before these
> things are banned, and I suspect it's going to be a pedestrian as some of
> these cars are being flung sideways quite violently.

They were installed to stop F**kwits killing & injuring people on
Corporation Street due to the high volume of traffic, proximity of shops and
the volume of pedestrians. Look at the speed of the vehicle carrying the
baby, the vehicle in the third video & the white trannie van, who obviously
doesnt care very much cos the passenger cracks the windscreen - seat belt
wearer I think not. That street has been a no entry to all except buses for
years, possibly since the IRA bomb in 1996, Manchester City Council have
tried all sorts to stop people. Drivers dont read the signs that are there,
I sat out side M&S one day watching GMP stop about 20 cars in 10 mins
because they cant read the signs and have entered a no entry road, this got
stopped because it caused havoc with the bus lanes.

Sorry, but yes they have themselves to blame, if they can't read the signs
should they be driving ? There are enough of them and big enough. Now-a-days
its not a high volume traffic route. A little less speed and concentration.

Dave

"Dave H" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> They were installed to stop F**kwits killing & injuring people on
> Corporation Street due to the high volume of traffic,

What about the numbers of people who have been injured BY these bollards?,
one bloke even died indirectly as the result of a heart attack after a
crash.

What about the F**kwits in the Council who illegally installed them so that
any accident HAS to happen in the middle of a pedestrian crossing thus
putting pedestrians at risk?, did you see the back end of the first black
car leap towards the kid in the pushchair?

"You even have to turn left - because this road has big 'No Entry' & 'Buses
Only' and the road markings take you away from this road, you have to bear
right."

The first ones in this video are installed so that traffic has to turn to
AVOID them, going straight on gets you stuck behind them and you have no
choice but to reverse over a pedestrian crossing!.

The makers of these things boast that they will stop a 7 tonne lorry at
30mph, whatever happened to the idea of reducing injuries in a crash?

> Sorry, but yes they have themselves to blame, if they can't read the signs
> should they be driving ?

Fine, lets follow that reasoning and have them in the middle of all roads
next to those flashing 30 signs...

Haven't you never missed a sign?, especially now that drivers are bombarded
by them, both genuine road signs and advertising hoardings.

As many others are saying, these are the successors to speed cameras, the
authorities are no longer content with giving tickets, if you make a simple
mistake you now write-off your car and have to pay thousands for the
bollards to be repaired, oh and insurance companies won't pay out so be
very, very careful next time you get near one because it could cost you
dear.

Greg

Greg wrote:
> "Dave H" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>>They were installed to stop F**kwits killing & injuring people on
>>Corporation Street due to the high volume of traffic,
>
>
> What about the numbers of people who have been injured BY these bollards?,
> one bloke even died indirectly as the result of a heart attack after a
> crash.
>
> What about the F**kwits in the Council who illegally installed them so that
> any accident HAS to happen in the middle of a pedestrian crossing thus
> putting pedestrians at risk?, did you see the back end of the first black
> car leap towards the kid in the pushchair?
>
> "You even have to turn left - because this road has big 'No Entry' & 'Buses
> Only' and the road markings take you away from this road, you have to bear
> right."
>
> The first ones in this video are installed so that traffic has to turn to
> AVOID them, going straight on gets you stuck behind them and you have no
> choice but to reverse over a pedestrian crossing!.
>
> The makers of these things boast that they will stop a 7 tonne lorry at
> 30mph, whatever happened to the idea of reducing injuries in a crash?
>
>
>>Sorry, but yes they have themselves to blame, if they can't read the signs
>>should they be driving ?
>
>
> Fine, lets follow that reasoning and have them in the middle of all roads
> next to those flashing 30 signs...
>
> Haven't you never missed a sign?, especially now that drivers are bombarded
> by them, both genuine road signs and advertising hoardings.
>
> As many others are saying, these are the successors to speed cameras, the
> authorities are no longer content with giving tickets, if you make a simple
> mistake you now write-off your car and have to pay thousands for the
> bollards to be repaired, oh and insurance companies won't pay out so be
> very, very careful next time you get near one because it could cost you
> dear.
>
> Greg
>
>
I've never seen them in rural France...

Not many speed cameras either, but loads of helpful "you're going too
fast" type signs.

Stuart

On or around 6 Nov 2006 05:48:02 -0800, "Dave P" <[email protected]>
enlightened us thusly:

>In Manchester, they have bollards that rise and fall to keep motorists
>from using the bus-only lanes. Some numpties think they are quick
>enough to beat it ...
>
>http://arbroath.blogspot.com/2006/10/drivers-fail-to-beat-bollards.html
>and click on CCTV link.
>

the reaction of the bloke in the black thing (Lexus?) is priceless.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
Blue: The sky is blue for a reason. Blue light is a source of strength
and harmony in the cosmos. Create a blue light in your life by
telephoning the police
from the Little Book of Complete B***ocks by Alistair Beaton.

On 2006-11-06, Srtgray <[email protected]> wrote:

> I've never seen them in rural France...
>
> Not many speed cameras either, but loads of helpful "you're going too
> fast" type signs.

I can still remember my blat through france a year or so ago, a lotus
esprit and the french country roads, it's just a shame that the esprit
was my friend's in front and I was following in a diesel automatic
audi!

Mind you there was that pesky language thing to deal with ;-)

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

On or around Mon, 6 Nov 2006 15:53:34 -0000, "Greg"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>"Dave P" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> I doubt if they would have installed such a "robust" system without
>> some very prominent signage
>
>Maybe not, but have you never missed a sign in a busy town centre ?
>
>The second video is the first one with a commentary AND edited to remove the
>part about the small child being carried out of the car possibly injured, of
>course the edit was in no way intended to change people's perception of
>these things...

second video? I only saw one. Apart from another thing that wasn't much
cop.


>The third video looks to me as if the driver had no idea they were there, he
>carried on at about the same speed until the impact which was with them
>fully up, it only takes a couple of seconds distraction to miss them.
>
>If it's ok to throw up a solid obstacle in the way of someone who violates a
>road regulation where do you draw the line?, maybe those flasshing 30 road
>signs should be linked to ones, after all they passed speed limit signs so
>they've only themselves to blame!.
>
>My guess is someone is going to have to be maimed or killed before these
>things are banned, and I suspect it's going to be a pedestrian as some of
>these cars are being flung sideways quite violently.


The black lexus? comes from the same angle as the silver car and from the
looks of it is trying the same stunt - the silver car is quite obviosuly
trying it on. The black one quite obviously floors it in an attempt ot beat
the bollard, having looked at it several times - he's accelerating quite
hard.

Frankly, the things are pretty bloody obvious and I don't doubt there're big
signs saying "buses only" all over the place too, as well as "rising
bollards" and pretty obvious no-entry signs.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"Nessun maggior dolore che ricordarsi del tempo felice nella miseria"
- Dante Alighieri (1265 - 1321) from Divina Commedia 'Inferno'

On or around Mon, 6 Nov 2006 17:28:47 -0000, "Greg"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>The first ones in this video are installed so that traffic has to turn to
>AVOID them, going straight on gets you stuck behind them and you have no
>choice but to reverse over a pedestrian crossing!.

yeah, but to get to the sodding thing they've driven down a bit that says
"no entry, buses only" or similar, FFS.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"The breezy call of incense-breathing Morn, The swallow twittering
from the strawbuilt shed, The cock's shrill clarion, or the echoing
horn, No more shall rouse them from their lowly bed."
Thomas Gray, Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard.

On or around Mon, 6 Nov 2006 15:35:33 -0000, "Greg"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>"William Tasso" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>> indeed - but the second car didn't look like they were trying to sneak a
>> shortcut. Simply following the bus - I'm sure many have done this in a
>> strange town. One really is not equipped to expect physical barrier
>> deployed in such a fashion. From the evidence presented I'd say these
>> things are bloody dangerous and whoever thought of this particular
>> deployment should be publicly horsewhipped.
>
>I ended up in a bus only area of York once, it certainly wasn't intended and
>is easily done in an inner city when you're trying to follow signs and watch
>out for pedestrians. If I was in the car where the family were apparently
>injured because these stupid things defeat the car's crumple zones I would
>have sued the Council without question and hope lots of people do. And the
>last one begs the question of how is a delivery van driver supposed to know
>that the post office's delivery vans are permitted but other companies ones
>aren't!.

it probably says so on the signs. Next time I'm in mancy, I'll try to
remember and take some photos of the whole scene.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"The breezy call of incense-breathing Morn, The swallow twittering
from the strawbuilt shed, The cock's shrill clarion, or the echoing
horn, No more shall rouse them from their lowly bed."
Thomas Gray, Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard.

"Austin Shackles" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> it probably says so on the signs. Next time I'm in mancy, I'll try to
> remember and take some photos of the whole scene.

So now you have to read the small print on the signs as you're driving
through a busy town centre, it's not realistic, like the bus lane signs that
list lots of times with ifs and buts. People can only take in so much and if
they concentrate on reading these they miss something else, like a
pedestrian stepping out.
Greg

>> They were installed to stop F**kwits killing & injuring people on
>> Corporation Street due to the high volume of traffic,
>
> What about the numbers of people who have been injured BY these bollards?,
> one bloke even died indirectly as the result of a heart attack after a
> crash.

Where do you get this fact from ?

> What about the F**kwits in the Council who illegally installed them so
> that
> any accident HAS to happen in the middle of a pedestrian crossing thus
> putting pedestrians at risk?, did you see the back end of the first black
> car leap towards the kid in the pushchair?

Your quotation from the url you posted -"Rising bollards should not normally
be sited close to or at signalled junctions or pedestrian crossings." says
should not normally how do you know MCC do not have permission for siting
them there. I dont think this quote makes them illegal do you ?

> "You even have to turn left - because this road has big 'No Entry' &
> 'Buses
> Only' and the road markings take you away from this road, you have to bear
> right."
>
> The first ones in this video are installed so that traffic has to turn to
> AVOID them, going straight on gets you stuck behind them and you have no
> choice but to reverse over a pedestrian crossing!.

You miss my point by a very wide mark. NO TRAFFIC is allowed down this part
of Corporation Street EXCEPT for buses and I presume Post Office van. Those
cars should not have been there. FULL STOP

There are NO ENTRY signs at least a quarter of a mile before those bollards
in both directions. The pedestrian crossing has no light controls for stop
or go (I think but I'll check tomorrow on my lunch). Its part of Manchester
City Councils attempt to make it safer for the pedestrian. I'll ask the
question is it a 'legal' pedestrian crossing as its just a red painted
surface.

> The makers of these things boast that they will stop a 7 tonne lorry at
> 30mph, whatever happened to the idea of reducing injuries in a crash?

>> Sorry, but yes they have themselves to blame, if they can't read the
>> signs
>> should they be driving ?

> Fine, lets follow that reasoning and have them in the middle of all roads
> next to those flashing 30 signs...

What 30 MPH flashing signs ???

> Haven't you never missed a sign?, especially now that drivers are
> bombarded
> by them, both genuine road signs and advertising hoardings.

Oh yes on many occasions but I can recognise a sign that says NO ENTRY
except for buses and follow the road markings that take me away from this
street.

> As many others are saying, these are the successors to speed cameras, the
> authorities are no longer content with giving tickets, if you make a
> simple
> mistake you now write-off your car and have to pay thousands for the
> bollards to be repaired, oh and insurance companies won't pay out so be
> very, very careful next time you get near one because it could cost you
> dear.

If you make a simple mistake here, at these bollards and realise you cant
get through, hey turn around and go back the way you came. Its that simple.

Good god Greg, you really are on one about this subject. Do you live in
Manchester, have you been affected by this directly ? if not then what have
you to worry about.

You obviuosly dont give a damn about safety to the pedestrian and you do
seem to care loads for the driver who can't read signs and get their just
reward (IMHO). Ohh just realised the Police could make a fortune by giving
the car drivers Fixed Penalties and a fine for being somewhere they
shouldn't be.

Please in reply dont snip out the bits you dont want to reply and slightly
disfigure my replies to you.

Dave

On 2006-11-06, Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote:

> yeah, but to get to the sodding thing they've driven down a bit that says
> "no entry, buses only" or similar, FFS.

Well, no matter how stupid the driver, the things bring a tonne or so
of metal containing potentially many other non-driving people to a
sudden, violent halt in the middle of a crowded area. Seems like a
pretty bloody stupid idea to me.

It's one thing to try and make life so safe that people can't hurt
themselves if they try, but quite another to deliberately put devices
in place that risk physically harming other innocent people in an
effort to stop a few numpties from breaking a minor traffic law.

They're even on a crossing next to a bus stop, where people are closer
to the road than normal, while it's not exactly machine-gunning people
down in cold blood, it's certainly straying a tad far from sensible,
responsible traffic calming measures.

It's also rather telling that this kind of physical barrier is
permitted in a crowded pedestrian area but you're not allowed to put
spikes on the tops of walls in case burglars hurt themselves.
Breaking a minor traffic law must be a really serious offence!

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

"Austin Shackles" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> second video? I only saw one. Apart from another thing that wasn't much
> cop.

There are three links but they're not very clear, the second is the first
edited not to show the child being carried out of the car, the third is a
different set of bollards that also looks to be on a pedestrian crossing.

> the silver car is quite obviosuly trying it on.

I don't disagree, they probably all were, but when did we give the
government the right to punish a minor traffic violation, i.e. driving
behind a bus in an area where people expect traffic, by the use of machines
which clearly have the potential to kill, and not only the offender but
their family and innocent bystanders?.

Greg

"Ian Rawlings" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Breaking a minor traffic law must be a really serious offence!

Or just a really profitable one...
Greg

On 2006-11-06, Dave H <[email protected]> wrote:

> You obviuosly dont give a damn about safety to the pedestrian and
> you do seem to care loads for the driver who can't read signs and
> get their just reward (IMHO).

Bear in mind that the driver is just one of the people who can be
affected by these stupid bollards, pedestrians and other passengers
can be affected by a tonne of metal being violently stopped. It's not
a responsible way to go about it, in a crowded area you can't risk
bits of metal or trim flying about or vehicles twisting sideways so
close to other people.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!