(slightly OT) load of old bollards

On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 21:59:05 -0000, Richard Brookman
<[email protected]> wrote:

> ...
> Well, that begs the whole question of restricting access to certain
> parts of
> town centres

indeed - it would seem that many schemes are now in place because they can.

> ...
> I was wondering how other nations would handle this situation. My guess
> would be:
>
> France: roll cigarette from old tram tickets, shrug, and drive round on
> the
> pavement.

check

> Italy: turn round, drive Alfa home, return on Ducati Monster and drive at
> 90mph through the middle, while caressing stunning brunette with other
> hand.

check

> Germany 1: accept authority of bollards, make disciplined U-turn, find
> legal
> way.
>(Germany 2: crank Merc saloon up to max and flatten the bastards.
> Pedestrians go to Hell.)

check

> Netherlands: roll joint, chill for a bit, realise nothing is worth that
> much
> hassle, go for a beer.

check

Poland: leave car parked in front of bollards and proceed with shopping
trip on foot.


> UK: group of intelligent guys stand around arguing, half impressed by
> neat
> technology, half worried at extension of Nanny State.
>
> Wales: sheep will go either side of bollards, no worries.

Scotland: find JCB and resite the damn things in front of the Town Hall
staff car park.


--
William Tasso

Land Rover - 110 V8
Discovery - V8

Ian Rawlings wrote:
> On 2006-11-07, Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> If that's acceptable, then the next time I miss a junction on the
>> motorway I'll do a U turn and drive back to it. If I did you'd all
>> rightly castigate me as an irresponsible fool and demand that I lose
>> my licence etc etc.
>>
>> These types do what amounts to exactly the same thing
>
> Well, given that you think the above two things are "the same" then
> you really have lost your sense of proportion.
>
> What you have failed to spot again is that the council's solution
> causes at least as much danger to life and limb, both of the driver at
> fault and of surrounding innocent people, as the problem that it's
> trying to address.
>
> It's like catching you driving down the motorway the wrong way, then
> to punish you, forcing you to cross over onto the other side and drive
> back up the other side of the motorway the wrong way to get back to
> where you started.
>
>> Bollocks, they know exactly what they're doing, and they know the
>> risk, and they think, wrongly, that they can get away with it.
>
> And the pedestrians know the risk of walking around in a town centre
> policed by stupid means, and the passengers in the car know the risks
> of driving with a driver who they *knew* would do something like that,
> so it's their fault too, even if they're only 5 years old.
>
>> Back to the bollards...
>>
>> The only point I do agree on is that the pedestrians should be more
>> thoroughly excluded from the immediate area around the bollards.
>
> And the passengers of the cars that get stopped.
>
>> same place as everyone else's, I reckon. I happen to think that
>> people should take personal responsibility for their actions, and if
>> they do stupid things, accept the consequences.
>
> I almost totally agree with that, although I think that the
> "consequence" should be proportional and realistic. If driving at
> 31MPH in a 30MPH speed limit caused you to be locked up for 15 years
> and your car impounded for example, that would be disproportionate to
> anyone other than those bleaters who stamp their feet and shout that
> 31MPH is deadly but 30MPH is safe no matter what vehicle you are
> driving.
>
> Car-wrecking bollards that can cause a vehicle to be violently stopped
> in a manner that risks injury to a driver is going too far, just
> because the drivers are being stupid it doesn't mean they deserve to
> get injured. People get injured by accident through doing stupid
> things, but this is crossing the line that separates accident from
> premeditation. It's like designing a door that says "No entry" then
> setting it up so that it whacks people in the face if they push on it
> to go through, excessive. Or breaking the legs of someone who steals
> a newspaper.
>
> But of course this is academic, the real issue is the passengers and
> the pedestrians. In one part of the video people are getting off a
> bus right where the rear wheels of one of the cars end up.

Seem to recall a few years back there was a general plethora of 'sinking' barriers
at the exits from carparks. So many vehicles were damaged by them, they were done
away with. Lesson ignored?

--
Don't say it cannot be done, rather what is needed to do it!

If the answer is offensive maybe the question was inappropriate

The fiend of my fiend is my enema!

William Tasso wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 21:59:05 -0000, Richard Brookman
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> ...
>> Well, that begs the whole question of restricting access to certain
>> parts of
>> town centres
>
> indeed - it would seem that many schemes are now in place because they can.
>
>> ...
>> I was wondering how other nations would handle this situation. My guess
>> would be:
>>
>> France: roll cigarette from old tram tickets, shrug, and drive round
>> on the
>> pavement.
>
> check
>
>> Italy: turn round, drive Alfa home, return on Ducati Monster and drive at
>> 90mph through the middle, while caressing stunning brunette with other
>> hand.
>
> check
>
>> Germany 1: accept authority of bollards, make disciplined U-turn, find
>> legal
>> way.
>> (Germany 2: crank Merc saloon up to max and flatten the bastards.
>> Pedestrians go to Hell.)
>
> check
>
>> Netherlands: roll joint, chill for a bit, realise nothing is worth
>> that much
>> hassle, go for a beer.
>
> check
>
> Poland: leave car parked in front of bollards and proceed with shopping
> trip on foot.
>
>
>> UK: group of intelligent guys stand around arguing, half impressed by
>> neat
>> technology, half worried at extension of Nanny State.
>>
>> Wales: sheep will go either side of bollards, no worries.
>
> Scotland: find JCB and resite the damn things in front of the Town Hall
> staff car park.

New Zealand: Meander back to shed in Series, collect oxy-acetylene
cutting gear, return to offending bollard and make suitable adjustments.


--
EMB

"Richard Brookman" <[email protected]> wrote in
message


> It wouldn't materialise from nowhere, that's the point. My gate would
have
> clear warning signs, as the bollards do. If people ignore warnings, or
are
> driving too fast to see them, well, what can you do?

A genuine question to those who know this area, do the warning signs say
that bollards will rise up under your car without warning and risk injuring
you?, or do they just say no-entry.

Greg

In message <[email protected]>
EMB <[email protected]> wrote:

> William Tasso wrote:
> > On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 21:59:05 -0000, Richard Brookman
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> ...
> >> Well, that begs the whole question of restricting access to certain
> >> parts of
> >> town centres
> >
> > indeed - it would seem that many schemes are now in place because they can.
> >
> >> ...
> >> I was wondering how other nations would handle this situation. My guess
> >> would be:
> >>
> >> France: roll cigarette from old tram tickets, shrug, and drive round
> >> on the
> >> pavement.
> >
> > check
> >
> >> Italy: turn round, drive Alfa home, return on Ducati Monster and drive at
> >> 90mph through the middle, while caressing stunning brunette with other
> >> hand.
> >
> > check
> >
> >> Germany 1: accept authority of bollards, make disciplined U-turn, find
> >> legal
> >> way.
> >> (Germany 2: crank Merc saloon up to max and flatten the bastards.
> >> Pedestrians go to Hell.)
> >
> > check
> >
> >> Netherlands: roll joint, chill for a bit, realise nothing is worth
> >> that much
> >> hassle, go for a beer.
> >
> > check
> >
> > Poland: leave car parked in front of bollards and proceed with shopping
> > trip on foot.
> >
> >
> >> UK: group of intelligent guys stand around arguing, half impressed by
> >> neat
> >> technology, half worried at extension of Nanny State.
> >>
> >> Wales: sheep will go either side of bollards, no worries.
> >
> > Scotland: find JCB and resite the damn things in front of the Town Hall
> > staff car park.
>
> New Zealand: Meander back to shed in Series, collect oxy-acetylene
> cutting gear, return to offending bollard and make suitable adjustments.
>
>

Stoke : Wait for the bollards to fail, secure in the knowledge they
will never be fixed.

Ball Green : Wait for the bollards to be stolen.

Richard
--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
www.radioparadise.com - Good Music, No Vine
Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive

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

> and where's the capital punishment? I didn't see anyone killed.

A bloke in Cambridge died of a heart attack after crashing into one of
these, of course you can't legally prove he wouldn't have had the heart
attack at that time without the bollard, just like the pensioner who has one
after being mugged, but if it were my call I'd still charge the mugger with
manslaughter...

Then there's the physical damage they can cause by bypassing the car's
crumple zone as they rise up underneath and stop it very abruptly, all the
air bags went off in the black car. And what's to say they won't crush a
footwell and leave someone with no legs. To compare these things with a car
park barrier that is clearly visible above the car in front of you, and soft
enough to bend out of the way on impact, is not valid, heck the ones around
here flap about in the wind!.

Than there's the pedestrian with absolutely no protection against a car
being tossed towards them, or shrapnel from it, or that child in the push
chair that has to be yanked back out of the way as the car falls almost on
top of it.

The more I think about it the more these things make me fume, the whole
concept of policing a minor traffic violation with a machine that can maim
or even kill is disgusting. I really think anyone arguing for them has
completely lost the plot, or is just arguing for the sake of not admitting
they've jumped on the wrong side without enough though.

Greg

On or around Tue, 7 Nov 2006 10:45:00 +0000, Ian Rawlings
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>As is usual in life, there's no black and white, just shades of grey.
>There is such a thing as personal responsibility of course, but
>there's also such a thing as liability to care for others. The two
>are not mutually exclusive, you do not have to have one to the
>exclusion of the other, you balance the two.

well, yeah, notably if others depend on you to exercise care on their
behalf. Like passengers in cars, for example, the driver has a duty to care
for them, especially if they get no choice whether to be a passenger or
otherwise. A duty the bloke in the black motor is clearly guilty of failing
in just as the council is failing in its duty to protect bystanders from the
consequences of morons.

I don't see the council is failing in its duty to protect drivers: it does
that by making abundantly plain that they're not allowed to drive there -
the first shot shows clear, illuminated no entry signs, one either side of
the thing, apart from anything else. From that point on, it's the duty of
the driver to avoid any risk involved. In point of fact, the driver, by
deliberately trying to run the bollards, is in fact guilty of some lack of
care in the matter of the pedestrians as well, although I grant that's also
the council's duty.

Media player needs a slow-mo advance. I've just looked again: the bollards
are already starting to rise when the black car is on the far side of the
red painted bit, although at that point they're not obvious. Looks like
theres 2-3 yards between the red bit and the actual bollards, and by the
time he's crossed the red bit they're sufficiently high as to be plainly
visible - I'd say they're up 8-10" and even at that distance, and bearing in
mind the fact that you can't see stuff immediately in front of the car, he
should be able to see them and still has time to stop and not hit them, 'cos
at that point he's not going all that fast, but unfortunately, he's got his
brain in neutral and his foot on the gas. The bloke driving looks to be of
average height, so that shouldn't make the visibility any worse. He's also
had to start from more or less standstill, even if he was driving behind the
bus, 'cos the bus stops for the bollards to go down, so initially he's
moving quite slowly even if he's got his toe down.

Having looked in detail, I think the way he approaches it looks to me that
he's well aware that the bollards are there and is making a deliberate
attempt to jump them, not some poor sap who's lost and confused in a strange
city. The manner of driving doesn't fit that scenario, especially the
amount of acceleration.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"Something there is that doesn't love a wall."
Robert Frost (1874-1963)

On 2006-11-07, GbH <[email protected]> wrote:

> Seem to recall a few years back there was a general plethora of
> 'sinking' barriers at the exits from carparks. So many vehicles were
> damaged by them, they were done away with. Lesson ignored?

Seems so.

To switch it around, when I first got my landy plus Brownchurch roof
rack I drove under a rising barrier at my then employer's (Racal) car
park, but hadn't left enough time and wasn't used to the height. My
colleagues spotted it happening and when I came back in the next day
they'd collected the bits and arranged them on my desk, including the
"Stop" sign.. ooops!

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

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

> Media player needs a slow-mo advance. I've just looked again: the
bollards
> are already starting to rise when the black car is on the far side of the
> red painted bit, although at that point they're not obvious. Looks like
> theres 2-3 yards between the red bit and the actual bollards, and by the
> time he's crossed the red bit they're sufficiently high as to be plainly
> visible - I'd say they're up 8-10" and even at that distance, and bearing
in
> mind the fact that you can't see stuff immediately in front of the car, he
> should be able to see them and still has time to stop and not hit them,
'cos
> at that point he's not going all that fast, but unfortunately, he's got
his
> brain in neutral and his foot on the gas. The bloke driving looks to be
of
> average height, so that shouldn't make the visibility any worse. He's
also
> had to start from more or less standstill, even if he was driving behind
the
> bus, 'cos the bus stops for the bollards to go down, so initially he's
> moving quite slowly even if he's got his toe down.
>
> Having looked in detail, I think the way he approaches it looks to me that
> he's well aware that the bollards are there and is making a deliberate
> attempt to jump them, not some poor sap who's lost and confused in a
strange
> city. The manner of driving doesn't fit that scenario, especially the
> amount of acceleration.

You're labouring a point that no one is arguing, I think everyone here has
accepted that in these cases the people probably were trying it on. Of
course what happens in the thousands of other cases around the country
(there are many reports of dozens of hits/month per set) is anyone's guess
because the authorities only release the footage they choose to...

But this has no relevance at all to the simple fact that the punishment for
a minor traffic violation should not be injury or even death for both the
violator AND innocent bystanders. You can labour your points about signs and
avoidability all you like but you're just circling around the real problem,
innocent people are going to get hurt when there's a simple, safe
alternative.
Greg

"William Tasso" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
>
> Poland: leave car parked in front of bollards and proceed with shopping
> trip on foot.
>
>

However, the shopping will need to be returned all the way home on foot.
Upon returning the car will be in another part of Poland being driven by
someone else. Having seen some of the police series on telly you could
actually delete Poland and insert Manchester and it would still be true.
.....the mention of Manchester putting it back onto topic of course. ;-)

Steve

Agree that the barriers are well signed and that the people in the
footage knew exactly what they were doing. The first car appears then
waits by the side for a bus before trying to sneak in behind it, and
the black car is obviously trying to put his foot down in an attempt to
beat them. I think the knob deserved everything he got and should have
been more responsible with a little one in the car with him. Also if
you noticed the bollards stopped rising once they had done their
business so can't see that they would continue up to crush anyones legs
in the footwell.

There is a similar bus lane around my way and the bollards have been
out of action for a while. The NO ENTRY signs are still in place but
these may as well say SHORT CUT for what good they do. Every time you
drive past there is someone sneaking through there. So some sort of
physical barrier needs to be in place. In the instances shown in
manchester I don't see what could be an effective alternative. A rising
barrier ( which no-one seems to complain about) would be even more
dangerous in this instance because of all the pedestrians around. But
also on that note, if it was a rising barrier no-one would attempt to
sneak in behind a bus for fear of it coming down on top of their car,
so what's the difference?

My only concerns on the side of danger that these rising bollards may
cause are for the poor old dears in their little disabled cars who may
be crossing the road behind the bus and end up getting tipped over. Or
even a cyclist or pedestrian who may be either knocked off their bike
or twist their ankle. But for the motorists who are obviously ignoring
the signs and trying to save 5 minutes by sneaking through the
pedestrianised area - f&%k 'em.

In message <[email protected]>
"Ga" <[email protected]> wrote:

>

<snip>

>
> There is a similar bus lane around my way and the bollards have been
> out of action for a while. The NO ENTRY signs are still in place but
> these may as well say SHORT CUT for what good they do. Every time you
> drive past there is someone sneaking through there. So some sort of
> physical barrier needs to be in place. In the instances shown in
> manchester I don't see what could be an effective alternative. A rising
> barrier ( which no-one seems to complain about) would be even more
> dangerous in this instance because of all the pedestrians around. But
> also on that note, if it was a rising barrier no-one would attempt to
> sneak in behind a bus for fear of it coming down on top of their car,
> so what's the difference?

Porstmouth used raised, curbed "islands" with just sufficient
clearence for the busses wheels to get through, which was very
effective - though the down side was that while fire engines could
get through, ambulances could not (they had to go round, not a major
problem), and "minibus" type busses were also resticted. It was/is
a nice simple, low tech, and cheap, idea - just some kerb stones,
a spot of tarmac and quite a lot of yellow & black paint! [1]

>
> My only concerns on the side of danger that these rising bollards may
> cause are for the poor old dears in their little disabled cars who may
> be crossing the road behind the bus and end up getting tipped over. Or
> even a cyclist or pedestrian who may be either knocked off their bike
> or twist their ankle. But for the motorists who are obviously ignoring
> the signs and trying to save 5 minutes by sneaking through the
> pedestrianised area - f&%k 'em.

Also in Porstmouth, they simply made the "road" only wide enough
for one bus (using fixed bollards!), so anyone trying to sneak
through would most likely get caught behind a bus - which could well
wait 5 or 10 mins for "time". Again, simple & cheap - and a source
of intense amusement when Mr. Arrogant in his Audi/BMW got stuck
behind a bus that had no intention of going anywhere (timetable or
not).

>

[1] This scheme also had a fun side - you can get a Defender through
(alledgedly), but any 4x4 with whishbone type rear suspension, or
with struts to the hubs a la RAV4, Freelander etc would get very
expensively stuck ;-)

Richard

--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
www.radioparadise.com - Good Music, No Vine
Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive

Ian Rawlings wrote:
> 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 ;-)
>
Quelle probleme? Aucun difficulte, si vous etes preparer a faire la
travaille.

Seriously, I can recommendd Michel Thomas for language learning - the
approach is fabulous. There are always CD sets on eBay

Stuart

"Ga" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> Also if
> you noticed the bollards stopped rising once they had done their
> business so can't see that they would continue up to crush anyones legs
> in the footwell.

They clearly rise underneath cars until they touch something, the drive
mechanism apparently being stopped when it faces resistance, at that point
the car's inertia is all that's needed to drive the pillar into a footwell
and lose someone their legs.

Presumably if they had a safer, non-contact method of detecting something
above them, such as ultrasonic, people would defeat them with a plank of
wood dropped over the top while they were down. If they gave way under
impact like most plastic bollards do (even the illuminated ones have the
lights underground so the plastic can snap off easily), then someone with a
strong bumper would knock them off. These things have clearly been designed
do damage cars and any safety measure that could possibly lessen their
effectiveness has been discounted, that alone is enough for the Councils to
lose a compensation claim.

The Councils who've installed these things are on very thin ice, from press
reports many of them are relying on the fact that the makers claim they're
safe and that's no defence these days, when there's a serious injury that's
directly attributable to one of these (crushed legs, broken ribs, pedestrian
hit) the Council is going to find itself up against a smart Barrister who'll
make them look like baby killing monsters!. Then the Council insurers (there
are only two companies who ensure all the Councils) will remove cover for
them and we'll all be paying the cost of them being dug up in a panic. So if
people think it doesn't affect them they should think again, it's our tax
money being wasted...

>So some sort of physical barrier needs to be in place

Why?, would you drive through a camera if you knew you would get a £60
ticket?, very few would, and the goal of minimising the traffic through a
bus/taxi/post office only area would have been achieved with no risk.

Greg

Richard Brookman wrote:
> William Tasso wrote:
>
> || On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 21:11:06 -0000, Austin Shackles
> || <[email protected]> wrote:
> ||
> ||| ...
> ||| It's stupid to have it where the peds are, sure. But if the drivers
> ||| consistently ignore less physical barriers, you have to have
> ||| something.
> ||
> || Why? There are clearly 'places to go' on the other side of the
> || vehicle trap and there are clearly people in the cars that are by
> || definition 'going to places'. So if it's ok for the bus &
> || Post[wo]man then I fail to see the point of excluding others.
>
> Well, that begs the whole question of restricting access to certain parts of
> town centres, and is a whole other argument.
>
> I was wondering how other nations would handle this situation. My guess
> would be:
>
> France: roll cigarette from old tram tickets, shrug, and drive round on the
> pavement.
>
> Italy: turn round, drive Alfa home, return on Ducati Monster and drive at
> 90mph through the middle, while caressing stunning brunette with other hand.
>
> Germany 1: accept authority of bollards, make disciplined U-turn, find legal
> way.
>
> (Germany 2: crank Merc saloon up to max and flatten the bastards.
> Pedestrians go to Hell.)
>
> Netherlands: roll joint, chill for a bit, realise nothing is worth that much
> hassle, go for a beer.
>
> UK: group of intelligent guys stand around arguing, half impressed by neat
> technology, half worried at extension of Nanny State.
>
> Wales: sheep will go either side of bollards, no worries.
>
LOL!

Reminds me of the differnet cigarette warnings.

England: Smoking Kills

France:, You 'ave to die some day, why not by smoking?

Germany: Vat is it to me how you kill yourself

Republic of Ireland: Ye don't want to be doing that now

Northern Ireland: NO! NO! NO NO NO! NO-AH

Australia: Don't do it mate! Seriously! Whilst yer at it, don't run with
scissors either, 'cos we really care about our people (unless they're Abbos)

Stuart

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 09:05:06 -0000, Ga <[email protected]> wrote:

> ...
> My only concerns on the side of danger that these rising bollards may
> cause are for the poor old dears in their little disabled cars who may
> be crossing the road behind the bus and end up getting tipped over. Or
> even a cyclist or pedestrian who may be either knocked off their bike
> or twist their ankle.

of course - the bollards is ill-equipped to make a judgement call.

> But for the motorists who are obviously ignoring
> the signs and trying to save 5 minutes by sneaking through the
> pedestrianised area

as discussed, this ain't no pedestrianised area if it has buses running
through it.

> f&%k 'em.

right - f&%k 'em. I'm with you on the attitude, but certainly not the
implementation.

More government sponsored violence is just what we need to maintain a
decent tolerant society. Obviously the impact of the overseas crusades is
insufficient so here we have a little example aimed direct at the
occupants of this fair isle.

With govt thinking like that the terrorists may as well pack up and go
home. We're doing their job for them.

Any more bright ideas? perhaps we should shred the tyres of motors
breaking the speed limit? launch javelins through the spokes of cyclists
on the pavement? Acknowledge that pedestrians are simply road-kill in
waiting?
--
William Tasso

Land Rover - 110 V8
Discovery - V8

On 8 Nov, in article
<[email protected]>
[email protected] "Ga" wrote:

> But for the motorists who are obviously ignoring
> the signs and trying to save 5 minutes by sneaking through the
> pedestrianised area - f&%k 'em.

I don't think I would count a buslane as a pedestrianised area.

--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.

"I am Number Two," said Penfold. "You are Number Six."

Ga wrote:
>But for the motorists who are obviously ignoring
> the signs and trying to save 5 minutes by sneaking through the
> pedestrianised area - f&%k 'em.

Or trying to collect a large item from the shops, or deliver something.
And what happens to disabled access ?

Steve

Srtgray wrote:

> Quelle probleme? Aucun difficulte, si vous etes preparer a faire la
> travaille.

Vous ? N'êtes-vous pas notre ami de beaucoup d'années ?

Steve
PS Those accents are bastards to type.

"steve Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:4551e35c$0$18058

> Or trying to collect a large item from the shops, or deliver something.
> And what happens to disabled access ?

Ah but empty, smoke belching, fuel inefficient, pedestrian unfriendly buses
are the flavour of the moment, everything else gets pushed out of the way in
the crusade for them. They're the government's one and only solution to
transport problems, every other vehicle is the devil's spawn and must be
taxed, restricted and generally demonised at every possible opportunity!.

Greg