Don't hit these in the Westfield..

[Boomy]

Yeah, how dare local government put things in the road that might damage the cars of brain-dead motorists.

I like the way some people assume those people simply tried to "go for it" and hope and prey they didn't get impaled.They seem the type don't they?

Maybe they also ingore "bridge is out" signs and try to do a Smokie and the Bandit across small rivers.

Maybe some did attempt it, maybe some didn't, who can say, the fact is that system is dangerous.

Comparing it to standard bollards, street lamps and railway crossings is a bit daft imho.

Those objects tend not to appear in front of you nano seconds after other vehicles have had totaly clear passage do they?

Then we have to decide if the punishment fits the "crime".

Would it also be ok to have your car damaged in some way if you break the speed limit? Maybe automatic stingers should blow your tyres off?

What about parking on a double yellow only to return and find they have hammered half a tree tunk into your sump?

They could easily adpot a system that avoids what you see in that video.I am honestly suprised to read that people think that specific setup - especially the way the road looks as you drive towards it - is the best way to keep out certain traffic.

[Boomy]

And to all those who think it's extreme that your car gets smashed up in such a circumstance, what would be your response to someone running a level crossing? The potential for disaster there is much greater. Is that the fault of the people installing the barrier, the council or the train driver?.. or just maybe the driver of the car?

Just desserts.

To compare a level crossing to those bollards, it would have to be one that let a certain vehicle through and then allowed the car directly behind that vehicle get smashed to pieces by the train which arrived half a second after the first vehicle was across.

I have never seen one like that.The barriers always lower and you then sit wondering where the train is for 2 minutes

[Man On The Clapham Omnibus]

They have these bollards in High Wycombe and I think I read in the local paper that they're none too reliable. The signs are extremely clear, though, and it is sited in a 'pedestrianised' zone. I assume that the local authority have decided that whatever benign system they use will be ignored by the Jack-the-Lad types (not saying that those that are in the clip are any such thing - it's hard to tell of course) and it's 'no more Mr Nice Guy'

[Dave Eastwood (Gadgetman) - Club Chairman]

So Boomy, the driver who stops at the raised bollards, before "going for it" didn't know they were there then?

All the bollarded off areas I've driven past in Manchester have been VERY obvious.

[potster]

Reminds me of this clip!

http://www.atgaccess.com/FifthGearBollard.wmv

Thats a bad smash....that would need a touch up stick and T-Cut  

[v7slr]

Why are you trying to defend those people obviously trying to take advantage of something they are clearly not entitled to?

QUOTE

Comparing it to standard bollards, street lamps and railway crossings is a bit daft imho.

Those objects tend not to appear in front of you nano seconds after other vehicles have had totaly clear passage do they?

No they don't but neither do these bollards come without warning. Those people are in pedestrianised zones already.

QUOTE

Then we have to decide if the punishment fits the "crime".

Would it also be ok to have your car damaged in some way if you break the speed limit? Maybe automatic stingers should blow your tyres off?

What about parking on a double yellow only to return and find they have hammered half a tree tunk into your sump?

But the bollards don't seek to meet out punishment. They simply raise to protect/prevent. The damage is done by the ignorant/idiotic motorist running into the bollard. The bollard stops as soon as it hits anything. It's so clear in all cases in that video that each caught-out motorist has been trying to get through on the basis of the bus having triggered the bollards lowering. They are so obviously trying it on.

Sorry, I can't see your PoV here. The "danger" aspect comes entirely from the drivers.

[Karl Woolf]

I walk past those bollards almost every lunch and the amount of cars that are caught out is quite amazing.

I personally think 99% of people are well aware of what there trying to do, wether the crime justifies the punishment is another question.

Personally I think its abit harsh as alot of those cars look like write offs (quite often rip the sump off).

You don`t see the people sneaking down the bus lane 1 mile away get a slapped wrist never mind a wrecked  car.

However don`t know if its got anything to do with it, the area that road leads to is where the manchester bomb was set off  a few years ago

 

[Boomy]

So Boomy, the driver who stops at the raised bollards, before "going for it" didn't know they were there then?

All the bollarded off areas I've driven past in Manchester have been VERY obvious.

So you are saying she pulled up to them, knowing full well that they only let buses through.

She then, after realising a vehicle was behind her, gestured that she couldn't get through to fool that driver into thinking she was confused and wasn't simply trying to blag her way in.

She then reversed out of the way fully aware that the bollards shot straight back up as soon as the bus passed over them, but decided after all that to have a go anyway.

Or is it likely she may have been confused, could see other cars in the road beyond the bollards and simply assumed the road was now open and that any vehicle opened them, but for some reason hers wasn't.

To me she looked like someone whos exit ticket for a car park wasn't working.

I could be totaly wrong of course, but for anyone to try and get through them, they would have to know what could possibly happen and be prepared to take the risk.

[DanB]

QUOTE

Comparing it to standard bollards, street lamps and railway crossings is a bit daft imho.

Those objects tend not to appear in front of you nano seconds after other vehicles have had totaly clear passage do they?

Not as daft as pretending that these idiots deserve any sympathy IMHO.

The rising bollards do not 'appear in front of you nano seconds after other vehicles have had totally clear passage'.  They appear after the vehicle in front has passed the large and prominent signs stating

a. that you're not supposed to go down there

b. that the bus is

c. that there are rising bollards

d. with flashing lights to help snap dozy fsckwits out of their torpor

They are present in a very obvious choke-point, which again draws attention to the fact that there is something a bit out of the ordinary here.  The vehicle in front (bus or whatever) then stops, waits for the bollards to go down, and moves across.  Anyone who genuinely didn't notice that they shouldn't be there in a private car shouldn't be on the roads in the first place as their level of awareness must be absolutely woeful.

I'm just sick of people blaming any old easy target (der guvvermint, der council, der EU) for not protecting them from the consequences of their own stupidity or ineptness.  But taking responsibility for one's own actions and living with the consequences doesn't seem terribly fashionable at the moment.  Must better to claim that its all someone else's fault for not stopping you acting like a total tit.

Still, trying to argue the toss on this one with someone who thinks that a lorry carrying out a 15 mile overtaking manoeuvre is something to be commended is probably a waste of time...

[Boomy]

Sorry, I can't see your PoV here. The "danger" aspect comes entirely from the drivers.

I'm sorry too because i can't see how smashing a car up and risking injury is a good way to stop someone using that road.

I just feel their must be an alternative.

[DanB]

P.S. at 1:45 on the http://www.atgaccess.com/FifthGearBollard.wmv clip, you can see one (of the smaller) warning lights and signs present before these bollards.  Nice big red light with a sign underneath saying 'CAUTION - Automatic bollards proceed only when green light shows'.

But of course anyone who think that just because they can't see anything, they should go through a red light with a clear warning sign underneath it is clearly entirely justified in blaming someone else for the fact they're a total twonk...

[DanB]

QUOTE

I'm sorry too because i can't see how smashing a car up and risking injury is a good way to stop someone using that road.

As has already been pointed out quite clearly, the bollard's not there to damage people's cars.  It's to stop people driving down that street, like any other physical barrier.  It no more damages people's cars then a normal bollard damages a car if someone drives into it.  The cause of the damage to the car is quite clearly the fact that the driver has decided, for whatever reason, to ignore the numerous warning signs or is too stupid to read or notice them.

[oioi]

KILL THEM KILL THEM ALL

[moomin]

QUOTE

KILL THEM KILL THEM ALL

yep, natural selection in action...  

moom.

[Boomy]

As has already been pointed out quite clearly, the bollard's not there to damage people's cars.  It's to stop people driving down that street, like any other physical barrier.  It no more damages people's cars then a normal bollard damages a car if someone drives into it.  The cause of the damage to the car is quite clearly the fact that the driver has decided, for whatever reason, to ignore the numerous warning signs or is too stupid to read or notice them.

So you honestly believe this situation compares to someone hitting a normal bollard?

That just confuses me.

I was just reading on another web page about these bollards as it happens and as someone mentions on that page, surely the bollards should be able to do their job without putting anyone at risk.

Someone else also suggests that he had seen 8 cars crash into them during his lunch hour and after speaking to a council worker he was told that there had been over 20 incidents in 4 weeks.

In fact i will just quote what he said as it is pretty much how i feel about it:

"Some of these drivers are just clearly out to break the law and deserve all they get but others are probably just lost in a big city and perhaps not concentrating as much as they should. You have to question why these people would deliberately drive into the bollards, and the answer is - they wouldn't. So if this is the case there is clearly a problem and given that the council have done there bit, in my opinion the fault lies with the bollards and the speed at which they rise".

Then i read this from the same page:

"I was a passenger on a Metroshuttle bus which hit one of the bollards. It was service no. 1 at 11.05 on Bank Holiday Monday 28th August. The bus was following closely behind a police van and the bollard came up after the police van had gone through. The bus braked incredibly suddenly and two passengers who were standing up ready to get off were thrown the length of the bus. One, an elderly gent, was helped to his feet but the other, an elderly lady, could not get up and complained of pains in her head and shoulder. An ambulance had to be called. There is clearly a safety issue with these bollards."

Someone else who mentions having seen a dozen crashes said that all the accidents he had seen were due to the signs not being very clear at that time.

They have installed large flashing neon ones now by all accounts.

There are lots of people suggesting the same as people here though, namely the drivers are all at fault no matter what.

I am not defending drivers who do try to cut through btw, but i can't assume everyone who has had a prang was trying to "pull a fast one".

Whether they were or not though, i still think a safer system should be in place.