No. But several members think these people are fair game and love it. They are pretty much all clearly accidents. What idiot knowing that the bollards were there would go through?
What idiot knowing that the bollards were there would go through?
Those that think they can get through before the bollards rise. We've been over this time and again. Some people see these car drivers as innocent victims, with there being no way that it could be the drivers own fault, while others can't believe that all of these drivers are innocent, or are new to the area, or think it's acceptable to say that not seeing the signs is an acceptable excuse.
One woman who was interviewd in the NWN actually said that when you drive around all day you dont really see the signs! Is she a victim too because she's given up reading the road signs because she drives around all day?
Have a look on Youtube at all the videos of people hitting rising bollards and you will see that they are pretty much all people speeding or tailgating to get through before the bollards rise.
This clip from Manchester shows everyone in it chancing their luck to get through...
There is a way to put this to rest once and for all, and that is to install a CCTV camera by the bollards, just like the ones in Manchester. This will prove that it's people acting like morons that is reason their cars are being written off.
I dont believe for a second that anyone enjoys seeing people hitting the bollards, but I do think that the people that show no sympathy for the "bollarded", are the same people that are fed up of having to dodge these idiots on the road when they run red lights, pull out without warning, never give way at roundabouts and refuse to stop at pedestrian crossings.
The lady driving the Rover (today's incident) drove INTO the bollards, they did not come up under the car, they were extended by some distance BEFORE she hit.
Her injuries were caused by banging her head on the steering wheel, (which maybe another indication of her road safety skills)......(e.g. not wearing her seat belt)
Her injuries were caused by banging her head on the steering wheel, (which maybe another indication of her road safety skills)......(e.g. not wearing her seat belt)
Threep.
More likely she is one of those female drivers that sits with their nose against the windscreen. It still doesn't make it right. What next, cutting off their hands or hanging them from crossbars? It's just wrong.
Should the council be allowed to destroy peoples property to enforce the law?
This sort of statement is indicative of people in today's society's unwillingness to take any sort of ownership of their actions. It always seems to be someone else's fault, in this case for driving through many warning signs and into raised bollards perhaps with no seatbelt on.
Quoted from 26
What idiot knowing that the bollards were there would go through?
Let's hope she's prosecuted for driving without due care and attention.This sort of statement is indicative of people in today's society's unwillingness to take any sort of ownership of their actions. It always seems to be someone else's fault, in this case for driving through many warning signs and into raised bollards perhaps with no seatbelt on.
Well at least the driver has well and truly learned their lesson there. Until these bollards were installed, that road, indeed Newbury, was a death trap. Although it doesn't get away from the fact it is a bit of poor road design.
Should the council be allowed to destroy peoples property to enforce the law?
No, of course not. They should and do have the power to levy a fair and reasonable penalty. Would suggest anyone who thinks otherwise should have a look at the Department of Transport's best practice guidelines - but then we don't often do 'best' in Newbury!
The bollards were only put in place because many drivers (but no where near a majority) kept ignoring the regulations and deliberately drove that way.
In exactly the same way, we now have speed cameras and road humps all over the place, again because drivers would not obey limits and tried to enforce their own choices (and long before ludicrously low limits were put in place).
It's the "stuff you I'm doing my own thing" brigade that led to the council putting in the bollards - just like everywhere else where the minority spoil it for the majority.
Having lurked in the old forum for a quite a while, it's funny to see the same discussions quickly reappearing in this new Mark Two forum!
It's the "stuff you I'm doing my own thing" brigade that led to the council putting in the bollards - just like everywhere else where the minority spoil it for the majority.
Having lurked in the old forum for a quite a while, it's funny to see the same discussions quickly reappearing in this new Mark Two forum!
Glad to see you've come out of the closet so to speak. You're probably right about the reasons for these measures, humps, bumps and bollards but it is a pity that the latter enforcement is so draconian and dangerous. There must be a better way......
I think the Council are in a difficult position. If another solution is put in place and someone is hurt or worse by an errant driver, then they would find themselves in a very vulnerable position.
I think the Council are in a difficult position. If another solution is put in place and someone is hurt or worse by an errant driver, then they would find themselves in a very vulnerable position.
Don't think anyone is complaining about enforcing regulations - simply the method. Lets be brutally honest; there are several cheaper and just as effective ways of doing that. Having had a little experience of how local government thinks and operates, I suspect the issue here is simply one of egos. The officers blinded by a small firm trying to extend the market for its technology - can't blame them for that. Can blame them for not correcting the error when its found. That so many cars have been caught / impailed demonstrates there is something very seriously wrong here which wouldn't be tolerated in anywhere else. If its because drivers are so dangerous - lets ban them completely. I've seen taxi's and post office vans near miss market stalls and people walking about.
Lets be brutally honest; there are several cheaper and just as effective ways of doing that.
Such as?
Traffic lights - can be ignored so you would also need to put in place a system for detection, collecting evidence and prosecution.
A barrier - drivers would still tailgate taxis in the hope of squeezing by, or do the usual thing of not paying attention to the signs. The only advantage is the barrier (if down) would be at eye level - but if they didn't read the signs they could claim that they weren't "expecting" the barrier.
A person - would have to be on permanent duty during the hours of operation, with backup for sickness and breaks. Would also be ignored. In pre-bollard days there was some kind of parking official hanging around and I did witness a driver deliberately drive at him swearing abuse out of the window. It was a case of "your safety is worth less than me wanting to do my own thing"
Barrier, backed up with traffic lights - there is a You Tube video of cars in Holland trying to jump the system and still getting hit by the barriers!
Just rely on fines alone - might help a bit but only if fines were draconian. Like jumping traffic lights, it would need decent detection & proof systems Otherwise it wouldn't work.
I think they should simply take the driver out of the car there and then and hang them in the market place! Give the car away in a cheap raffle. Would attract plenty of visitors and the cash raised from the raffle would pay for the rope. Win win.
Or the Market place, Northbrook and Bartholomew Streets could be re-opened to ALL traffic, busses, cars, bikes and delivery lorries - Can't see that one working any more because the shopping environment is far nicer now that it was in pre-paved over days.
Quoted from 40
If its because drivers are so dangerous - lets ban them completely. I've seen taxi's and post office vans near miss market stalls and people walking about.
If proven that the driver is driving badly, yes ban them! Bad and dangerous drivers on ANY public road SHOULD be banned, unless the evidence shows a pedestrian to be 100% at fault or the driver 100% not at fault. The point is, if you ARE driving through a marketplace where people are milling around, common sense says you should be paying attention to all around you and you should be expecting someone to walk/run straight into your path. In the same way you should be slowing down when passing a school at 3:30 or whatever. If you can't understand those basic principles of common sense, you shouldn't be driving, you should be walking or using public transport!
What a strange thing to say. Could you explain how the "issue" has anything to do with anyone's ego (other than possibly the car driver's who feel they are important enough to drive through a pedestrian zone)?
Quoted from 40
That so many cars have been caught / impailed demonstrates there is something very seriously wrong here which wouldn't be tolerated in anywhere else.
You're right in that there is something seriously wrong with people that try and tailgate busses and taxis into a pedestrian area, or that drive into bollards that are already extended. Do you have any examples of where this wouldn't be tolerated, as you did say that it wouldn't be tolerated anywhere else, and yet many other towns have similar rising bollard systems.
If you can't understand those basic principles of common sense, you shouldn't be driving, you should be walking or using public transport!
But regrettably, I do understand the basic concepts of the English constitution and law so it pains me when those public servants empowered with its application don't.
What a strange thing to say. Could you explain how the "issue" has anything to do with anyone's ego (other than possibly the car driver's who feel they are important enough to drive through a pedestrian zone)?
The root cause of the issue is the introduction of an expensive mechanical solution. This was sold to our public servants as a solution to a problem they'd been charged with fixing. There were clearly other less expensive options they had ruled out. Post implementation, there have been many incidents and a large cost, not all of which is recoverable. People with big ego's don't like to accept or admit they've made an error. That isn't strange just simple psycology.
If these rising bollards are so good and effective why aren't they installed where they could do some good - have them instead of barrier level crossings.
As to the damage they cause, which some claim is justified against the offence - the same ought to apply in other areas. So, will it be appropriate for me to connect the tools I have on display to the mains electricity, provided I put up a few signs saying - No touching or taking without permission - anyone touching them gets all they deserve? 240v would certainly help staunch my losses.
As to the damage they cause, which some claim is justified against the offence - the same ought to apply in other areas. So, will it be appropriate for me to connect the tools I have on display to the mains electricity, provided I put up a few signs saying - No touching or taking without permission - anyone touching them gets all they deserve? 240v would certainly help staunch my losses.
At my previous residence which was on a piss artists through route, I can't tell you the number of times I had my aerial snapped. I thought about the 240volt connection but was told by the local plod that I knew that if I caused injury or damage because of it I would be criminally liable. Interesting though the comparison you make regarding the damage done by a bollard.
How many cars have been impailed now? The irony is, the impailings still go on..you'd think by now people would have got the message.. or read the obvious roadsigns.
No, sadly, the same people still keep trying their luck and keep getting speared!
(snip).....People with big ego's don't like to accept or admit they've made an error. That isn't strange just simple psycology.
When drivers with eyes glued to SatNav, (or just the plain stupid), hit a bollard and some passerby stops and points to the LARGE RED signs then shakes their head before walking on... I always imagine the drivers mumbling after them, saying "It wasn't MY fault!!"
Does that make them egotists....? Big egos don't come into it.... It's just reluctance to admit your own mistake, which WHATEVER is said about the appropriateness of bollards, there's no denying that the place is awash with warning signs.
Or...... are you referring to the Council as being the egotists?
NOBODY expects a bollard imposition! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless inefficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless inefficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the cyclist.... Our *four*...blah blah.
You are hereby charged that you did try to breach the Cartergrad Ring of Steel. Now, how do you plead?
Motorist: I'm innocent
We'll soon change your mind about that! Fetch......the rising bollards! Right, now drive through the town again.
Now, you're charged with treachery on three counts. You ignored our shiny new signs, you broke our bollards, and you criticised the Supreme Leader. Do you confess?
I don't understand what I'm accused of.
Ha! Then we'll make you understand! Biggles! Fetch...the Green Meanies!
16:30 Saturday 30th May - Bartholomew Street - Yet another car bites the dust!
One older Fiat, one younger lady driver, maybe pruning rather than watching, has destroyed her car as the bollard smashed the bottom end (of her engine), dumping what looks like 8 pints of 15 year old black oil all over the road, now being spread along the road by buses!!!
Yep. (Unless being a idiot and driving without due care and attention is now a lawful excuse.)
If a bus driver ignores or fails to see the 'low bridge' signs and rips the roof off his/her double decker, he/she can't sue the railway for putting the bridge there can they?
Yep. (Unless being a idiot and driving without due care and attention is now a lawful excuse.)
If a bus driver ignores or fails to see the 'low bridge' signs and rips the roof off his/her double decker, he/she can't sue the railway for putting the bridge there can they?
Threep.
So you are in favour of impaling idiots? If the system had a method of separating those that made a mistake from those that deliberately chanced it (I suspect there are few of the latter) and only impaled the former, I would join you in your glee.
The bus driver might be able to sue the railway company if the bridge suddenly shrunk and ripped the top of his bus off or if the bridge was hidden until you hit it. Following your logic, when a train driver misses the red lights, it's perfectly ok for him to derail or hit something else rather than installing a fail safe system?
It's my firm opinion that throughout the entire history of the human race, not enough idiots have been impaled.
Threep.
Quoted from 26
The bus driver might be able to sue the railway company if the bridge suddenly shrunk and ripped the top of his bus off or if the bridge was hidden until you hit it.
Our bollards first started appearing and being signposted, what? about ten years ago? Nowt sudden there.
Another car has been impaled tonight on Bartholemew Street. At approx 17:58 a car drove through the bollards. They were down. Another car followed about 10 seconds after and as it was driving over them they shot up ripping the whole front end out of the car and the sump clean off. Naturally the woman was shaken but looked ok.
Now tell me, if they are down at 17:58 should you not expect them to stay down and not randomly pop up as you drive over?
Not every clock is the same so one would assume that they were off at that point.
Another car has been impaled tonight on Bartholemew Street. At approx 17:58 a car drove through the bollards. They were down. Another car followed about 10 seconds after and as it was driving over them they shot up ripping the whole front end out of the car and the sump clean off. Naturally the woman was shaken but looked ok.
Now tell me, if they are down at 17:58 should you not expect them to stay down and not randomly pop up as you drive over?
Not every clock is the same so one would assume that they were off at that point.
I have a photo.
Are you sure about the time? They are supposed to retract automatically at 6.00pm, although they take such a battering that I wouldn't be surprised if it was a malfunction.
Was the first car through a taxi or an ordinary car? Are you able to upload the photo for us please?
At the beginning and end of the pedestrianised times the bollards are, (I believe) extended and retracted electronically by an operator in the cctv control room. that way, at 10.00 (for instance) they can check that there are no vehicles parked on them, or stationary in a line of cars etc...
At the beginning and end of the pedestrianised times the bollards are, (I believe) extended and retracted electronically by an operator in the cctv control room. that way, at 10.00 (for instance) they can check that there are no vehicles parked on them, or stationary in a line of cars etc...
Threep.
Hmmm, he must have been bored today then and looking to cause some carnage as they were definitely down for the one car and then shot up as this poor woman went over them.
I'm normally in the camp of "stupid drivers deserve what they get for tailgating" but this time it's a different story.
At the beginning and end of the pedestrianised times the bollards are, (I believe) extended and retracted electronically by an operator in the cctv control room. that way, at 10.00 (for instance) they can check that there are no vehicles parked on them, or stationary in a line of cars etc...
Threep.
Sorry Threep you are incorrect. A gentleman from our illustrious parking brigade has to attend each set of bollards on the dot of 10.00am for the purpose of erecting these destructive devices. At 6.00pm they retract automatically. In the early days, I believe they did extend automatically with an audible warning "Danger bollards are rising" However following complaints from nearby offices, the audible warning was switched off.
Ah.... that makes sense. I was told that they were raised 'by hand' (as it were) by FF. It was the assumption that they were done remotely that was wrong. I knew they weren't on a timer as to when they were raised though.
This of course makes even less sense of the observation that the above impaled car was following another 'normal' one..
Logged
Male
Although it doesn't get away from the fact it is a bit of poor road design.
