Don't hit these in the Westfield..

[Martin Keene]

I bet if anyone here suggesting those bollards are a good idea had a family member crash into a newly installed set of them, they would be down there like a shot taking pictures and putting forward all the arguments some of us here have.

No... I'd be telling them they were a Stupid Munter, especially if they had a kid/gran/etc in the car.

[Man On The Clapham Omnibus]

But if aformentioned 'munter' hit the bollard, swung sideways a la car No. 1 in the clip (but more so), and struck a pedestrian, would that be an acceptable example of collateral damage?

[/devilsadvocatemode]  

[Martin Keene]

But if aformentioned 'munter' hit the bollard, swung sideways a la car No. 1 in the clip (but more so), and struck a pedestrian, would that be an acceptable example of collateral damage?

[/devilsadvocatemode]  

They'd still be a stupid munter and would deserve being sued by the pedestrian for being so...

[chazpowerslide]

If a car hits the bollards and slews sideways hitting a pedestrian it's not the fault of the bollard risisng it comes back to the driver of the car.

They are the ones accountable for the injury to the pedestrian and would be prosecuted.

They should not have been there attempting to do what they were doing in the first place.

Any 3rd party being injured (and that includes the occupants of the car) as a result of the driver running the bollards is not acceptable collateral dammage and the driver needs to be held to account.

This argument is rather like saying it's the fault of the hammer for braking your fingers when you were attempting to drive a nail in with it not the fault of the opperator and then seeking to blame the company who manafactured the hammer.

I've been racking my brains to see if I could come up with a circumstance where the driver got caught by the bollards and was not to blame, there really is'nt one.

Chaz.

[spence]

But if aformentioned 'munter' hit the bollard, swung sideways a la car No. 1 in the clip (but more so), and struck a pedestrian, would that be an acceptable example of collateral damage?

[/devilsadvocatemode]  

They'd still be a stupid munter and would deserve being sued by the pedestrian for being so...

If my child (had i got one) had been hit by a car because of one off these things.

Fistly I would be gunning for the idiot who drove into it .

Secondly I would be putting a big hole ( literally!!!) in the back of the head of the person who deemed these things accepatable.

Deliberatly causing any accident is unacceptable,WHO EVER'S FAULT IT IS, i couldn't give a monkey's chuff.

AS the song goes ....We're only human, born to make mistakes.

O to be perfect......

[chazpowerslide]

The accident was caused by the Munter in the car not the town planners Spence.

Bollards to not deliberatly cause accidents.

Chaz.

[spence]

Bollards to not deliberatly cause accidents.

But they are placed and used to do so in the event of some idiot running into them...

Sooner or later we will have to agree to disagree

Or......put up your DUKES and we can fight about it

[MK11]

Deliberately causing an accident?  As far as I can see, the only one deliberately causing an accident is the DRIVER.  

Yes, I have some safety concerns over the car slewing to one side upon impact, but it is still the DRIVERs fault (and I do have children thanks).  Would you consider putting traffic lights that turn red whilst others have priority contributing to the accident should some chancer decide that they couldn't be bothered to wait just because they were supposed to?

I'm very sorry but seeing these people damage their cars makes me think that just deserts have been served.  Yes, some of the other cases, the bus for instance are not so clear cut, but you have to ask, was the bus driver following the bus in front, or had he stopped to have his transponder identified?

I can't think of many other ways to physically bar entry to specific areas that would be as effective as the bollard.  Just ask yourself whether the standards of driving shown by the people in this video recommend them to be allowed into a predominantly pedestrian zone?  Anything that let them in surely puts more vunerable people than themselves at greater risk.

[steve_m]

seeing these people damage their cars makes me think that just deserts have been served.

I don't understand why you believe somebody deserves to have their car damaged or written off because they are a bit dim ?

If cars have to be barred from an area whilst buses are allowed through then there has to be a better solution.

[MK11]

The video shows that only a fast acting physical barrier will stop these people from entering an area where they are obviously not permitted.  If you can design a physical barrier that won't damage your car if you are stupid enough to drive into it at sufficient speed to lift the back of a heavy 4*4 off the ground then I suggest you set up in business and rake in the cash.

I still believe that people should face the consequences of their actions, it is nobody's fault but their own.  Plus the fact that consequences of letting them through could be much worse for the pedestrians.  Who needs protection more?

[Matt Seabrook]

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!

And you want those people to dive in to a pedestrian area?

[Man On The Clapham Omnibus]

[steve_m]

The video shows that only a fast acting physical barrier will stop these people from entering an area where they are obviously not permitted.  If you can design a physical barrier that won't damage your car if you are stupid enough to drive into it at sufficient speed to lift the back of a heavy 4*4 off the ground then I suggest you set up in business and rake in the cash.

I still believe that people should face the consequences of their actions, it is nobody's fault but their own.  Plus the fact that consequences of letting them through could be much worse for the pedestrians.  Who needs protection more?

Designs like this unfortunately smack of hysteria not a calm, calculated, professional approach to traffic management.  It's clear that these people are not of a full bunch but neither are the town planners who install such contraptons.  They are anti-ram raid posts designed for high security areas, not stopping Mrs Jones from going into the town centre.  Just more hysterical, anti-car crap from the leftie, lentil munching anti-freedom nutters.

[Bananaman]

I know this area and the sinage if VERY obvious........

The drivers were chancers who got caught out...  

A bit harsh but a lessen learnt....

You'd be p******** off if it happened to you BUT they have no one to blame but them selves.........harsh but true!!!!!

[Boomy]

I would be looking at the way the road system has been designed if they are having so many problems in that area.

Using tiny little barriers like these, ones which are not visible at all to people sitting behind vehicles that are granted access just seems daft.Especially when other cars are parked in that road aswell making it look even more "normal" and tempting.

What is actually going on with these systems? Who is and isn't allowed.At what times are you allowed etc?

People do not always look at signs, often because there are so many of them scattered on every single turn these days that they just become immune to them.

Even a large swinging gate would cut down on these incidents i'm sure or a simple car park style barrier that lifts way into the air.At least you would see those.

There are plenty of areas i know that are bus or delivery only and you never see a car venture into those.Yet there isn't a bollard in sight.

Something must be terribly wrong with the planning of the area in those clips for this to keep happening.

Either everyone is confused as to who is allowed in etc and they do not see the bollards or signs, or everyone knows full well what is likely to happen but enjoy the risk element of getting caught on a camera and having their car hit.

The debate isn't really about who is right or wrong.

The fact of the matter is something IS going wrong though with that setup because people are having accidents.