pistonbroke Posted October 20, 2006 Posted October 20, 2006 Instead of bollards, why not use heat seeking missiles That would teach em Quote
DanB Posted October 20, 2006 Posted October 20, 2006 So you honestly believe this situation compares to someone hitting a normal bollard?That just confuses me. I certainly don't see how it's any different from going through a red set of traffic lights. There's a big red light and a sign saying 'don't go across here unless the light's green'. If you're 'not concentrating' and go through a red light at traffic lights, there's a decent chance you'll get shunted. I take it that's the fault of the other car driver, since going through a red traffic light's only a minor thing and having your car damaged is too severe a punishment? If it's not, then what the devil should it be OK to drive through a red light clearly warning you that the bollard's about to rise? Or perhaps a better analogy is the level crossing. Level crossing - big warning signs, lights flash, barrier comes down. If you're underneath the barrier when it comes down your car gets damaged. Bollars - big warning signs, lights, bollard comes up. If you're above the bollard when it comes up your car gets damaged. Perhaps you could explain why you think there's a difference between the two? As for the bus example, surely that's just a demonstration of the fairly basic principle that if you tailgate other vehicles you won't have time to respond to unforessen events? Instead of bollards, why not use heat seeking missiles Sadly, although they've got heat seeking missiles, they haven't got stupidity-seeking missiles, so the effect wouldn't be quite the same... Quote
stu999 Posted October 20, 2006 Posted October 20, 2006 Fit more bollards - they are only helping Darwins thoery along a bit... I liked the idea of fitting them in disabled parking areas. So I have come up with some more Housing estates with high crime rates. If the police are giving chase to a stolen car etc, they could be given controls with which to operate carefully placed bollards. A bit like a stinger, but more instant They could be fitted in front of traffic lights. Once the light has gone red, up pops the bollards. Now jump the light, sucker... Heck, this one is just for you Boomy. Bollards triggered by speed cameras. Going too fast? Not for long. The bollards will slow you down... Quote
Boomy Posted October 20, 2006 Author Posted October 20, 2006 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... Quote
Boomy Posted October 20, 2006 Author Posted October 20, 2006 Heck, this one is just for you Boomy. Bollards triggered by speed cameras. Going too fast? Not for long. The bollards will slow you down... What are these "speed cameras" you talk of? Surely you mean "safety cameras"? Quote
spence Posted October 20, 2006 Posted October 20, 2006 Whether you like them or not, in all seriousness, smashing up a car and basically saying to it's idiot driver "F*** you your not coming through here" is really a bit harsh and over the top IMO. A Ground loop should be placed in front of them, so that if some t**t does do this, anything in the loop area will keep the bollards down until it is SAFE to lift them. Using CCTV can then be used to heavily fine the t**t who ignored/didn't see the bollards and sign's. I bet some peoples attitudes would have changed had a child been hit or crushed due to a vechile being impaled then moved in an uncontrolled movement. Quote
DanB Posted October 20, 2006 Posted October 20, 2006 I think it would be best to stick with this suggestion 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... Yup, I shall try to enforce my self-imposed rule not to engage in a battle of wits with unarmed combatants. Quote
spence Posted October 20, 2006 Posted October 20, 2006 Whether you like them or not, in all seriousness, smashing up a car and basically saying to it's idiot driver "F*** you your not coming through here" is really a bit harsh and over the top IMO. A Ground loop should be placed in front of them, so that if some t**t does do this, anything in the loop area will keep the bollards down until it is SAFE to lift them. Using CCTV can then be used to heavily fine the t**t who ignored/didn't see the bollards and sign's. I bet some peoples attitudes would have changed had a child been hit or crushed due to a vechile being impaled then moved in an uncontrolled movement. Notice in the first accident the pram nearly being crushed!!!! and being pulled back quickly. Quote
chazpowerslide Posted October 20, 2006 Posted October 20, 2006 Guys, these rising bollards are more than adequatly signposted (no motor vehicles appart from busses and taxis usually) the opposing lanes are normally seperated by an island (that usually contains the gubbins in that controlls the bollards themselves) and there are signs saying that the area is covered by CCTV. The lane widths are also very restricted (making it fairly tight for a single decker bus. It's "obvious" that you should'nt try to pass through unless you're driving the approprate vehicle type. About once a month in Cambridge some brainless muppet tries to run the bollards to take a short cut to save a bit of time and the result is what you see in the video clips. The lady in the sliver car (second clip) after failing to get through on her own then tries to follow the bus through, if it was'nt blindingly obvious to her she should'nt have been attempting it she should not be allowed to retain her driving licence. Once the car has been impailed on the bollard it suddenly dawns on the numb nuts driver that a) it wasn't worth it and b) the ensuing traffic chaos is specifically their fault. In all but a very few cases the "accidents" happen as shown on the video clips, an approved vehicle passes over the bollards and the aomeba driving the following car/van/lorry thinks "If I'm quick I'll get over before the bollards go back up" Er....... no you won't. The reason that the cars get so badly dammaged is that they are normally accelerating hard to clear the bollards before they go back up. The council quiet rightly fines these idiots for their trouble and your insurance will probhably be null and void in this situation too. The police in Cambridge (at least) normally succesfully prosecute these ******s as well. As you can tell I have absolutly no sympathy for the (for want of a better word) "drivers" whose cars are dammaged by rising bollards. They can whinge all they want but it's purely down to their own behaviour. I drive busses for about 40 to 50 hours a week in central Cambridge and I can honestly say that it's been a real eye opener. The driving standards are generally appalling, regard for the rules and of the road is scant as it respect for other road users and enforcement is is practically non existant. Chaz. Quote
Boomy Posted October 20, 2006 Author Posted October 20, 2006 Yup, I shall try to enforce my self-imposed rule not to engage in a battle of wits with unarmed combatants. Can i have permission to use that line in future conversations please Sir? Quote
dern Posted October 20, 2006 Posted October 20, 2006 I'm with you on this one Boomy - not everyone is as perfect/observant a driver as some claim to be (otherwise no insurance would pay out if you were at fault) and the penalty would seem a little dangerous! I just imagine my kids in the car and it puts a "real" perspective on it for me! I imagine my kids in the car and then realise that I'm not a dumb-A*** (in this respect anyway), can read and can figure out the bleedin' obvious outcome if I try and get through. We have this system in Newbury and it's blindingly obvious that you're not supposed to go through. Quote
Tubs Posted October 20, 2006 Posted October 20, 2006 One of the reasons I gave up cycling to work every day was the number of times cars ran red lights and put my life at risk. SBC With the greatest of respect, i can't remember the last time i saw a car etc jump a red light (well, maybe the odd car at temp road work lights), yet i have lost count the number of times i see cyclists treat lights as though they do not apply to them. I'm sure they do so because they can simply put a foot on the ground at any time or jump off and try to appear totaly innocent if they need to. When i used to drive to London every day, it was an almost guaranteed event. I know if they hit a car it won't be the same as a car hitting them of course, but it's not very nice for drivers to suddenly have a cyclist appear out of nowhere. Jumping lights obviously happens though, i have no doubt of that and your experiences at whatever sets of lights you needed to use were obviously pretty grim. It's not jumping lights, it's when the lights have turned red, I've got a green man / light to cycle accross (It's part of a cycle track) when cars come flying through the lights. Yes, I've seen them coming and not been hit, but they are driving dangerously, and as you say, my bike may dent or scratch their car - but they risk causing me serious injury or worse, just because they can't be bothered. And Breathe - - SBC Quote
DanB Posted October 20, 2006 Posted October 20, 2006 QUOTE Can i have permission to use that line in future conversations please Sir? You'll have to ask whoever I nicked it off - and I can't remember... Quote
pistonbroke Posted October 20, 2006 Posted October 20, 2006 Did they all go to the "comic strip presents" school of motoring Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.