Yet another car is impaled on the bollards in Bartholomew Street.
I am fully in favour of drivers who break the law being fined for the offence. I am not in favour of the penalty being the wanton destruction of that persons motor vehicle by West Berkshire Council.
WBC are not destroying anyone's vehicle. Control of the vehicle is firmly in the hands of it's driver. I am not in favour of unobservant & careless drivers using motor vehicles on public roads.
WBC are not destroying anyone's vehicle. Control of the vehicle is firmly in the hands of it's driver. I am not in favour of unobservant & careless drivers using motor vehicles on public roads.
...but it is wrong that similar offenses are treated so differently.
True, other forms of careless and unobservant driving should be subjected to far harsher punishments than they are at the moment.
Oh yes - lets go with this all round. Graffiti; have your house trashed, Shoplifting; off come the hands. Yep, 'Newbury - eye for eye'. Great slogan too. Its ironic really, WBC getting canned for this mess - because they could have done far better - if only they'd had the forethought to aim the CCTV; they' make a mint on video sales.
That's your way to deal with things punishment, punishment, punishment. Not happy until people are punished.
So you don't want these examples to be punished then? At what point do you decide to take tougher action? When a driver has killed someone perhaps? Bit late then.
Decades of liberal go soft attitudes have led to today's society thinking only of themselves and stuff everyone else and an ever increasing breakdown in law and order. Give an inch take a mile etc.
So you don't want these examples to be punished then?
You're wasting your breath. There is a minority of folk on here that just cant accept that the driver is at fault here. Even though, by default, the bollards are in the raised position, and the offending car drivers would have to wait behind the vehicle that they are tailgating for the bollards to lower. They still cant see what the problem is. All I can think is that the people that are critical of the bollards are the same people that think about trying to get past them before they raise but haven't tried it yet.
Yes, there could be a system of fines in place, but that's not a deterrent in my opinion. That simply says that it's not ok to drive through a pedestrian zone unless you're in a rush and dont mind paying £30.
At what point do you decide to take tougher action? When a driver has killed someone perhaps? Bit late then.
Well, that is the whole point of them being there in the first place isn't it? And judging by the amount of people that have tried to get through into the pedestrian zone, I'm glad the bollards are there. In my opinion it shows premeditation, that, seeing as you cant just drive into the pedestrian zone (bollards being raised), you have to closely follow a vehicle that you know the bollards will lower for. Then (as has been shown in the youtube video I posted a link to) you generally have to try and speed though before they raise. Given that this is a thought out process, I think the result of trashing one's car (let's not forget that control over the car is at all times up to impact in the hands of the driver), is justified.
IF YOU USE A VEHICLE, YOU ARE OBLIGED TO READ THE ROADSIGNS AND OBEY THEM. ANYONE WHO GETS IMAPILED BY THE RISING BOLLARDS DESERVES EVERYTHING THEY GET.
You're wasting your breath. There is a minority of folk on here that just cant accept that the driver is at fault here.
Wrong. The driver is clearly at fault for missing the signs. No one disputes that per se. The problem is that the punishment does not fit the crime. One day somewhere, someone is going to get hurt, miscarry or have a coronary then all the nasty brigade can have a proper laugh.
Is it worth a mention that another careless driver came to grief on the bollards in Wharf Street this morning?
Of course you could say that the careless driver is now a car less driver.
Another one whose standard of driving fell well below the requirements then. Luckily only him/herself and their property injured/damaged and not an innocent 3rd party being hurt due to driver's bad or careless driving.
Official road signs giving orders are not there for show, likewise advisory signs.
Another one whose standard of driving fell well below the requirements then. Luckily only him/herself and their property injured/damaged and not an innocent 3rd party being hurt due to driver's bad or careless driving. Official road signs giving orders are not there for show, likewise advisory signs.
It makes me proud to think my Council are cleansing the roads of bad drivers.
One day somewhere, someone is going to get hurt, miscarry or have a coronary then all the nasty brigade can have a proper laugh.
Wrong. No one (apart from Fencer maybe) finds the situation funny. But the fact is that the VAST majority of road users dont have a problem reading the signs, otherwise there would be endless cars crashing into them every minute of the day. These people are either (most probably) trying their luck, or aren't paying attention. The punishment for that is always potentially disastrous, on any road.
You are concerned that one of these people might kill themselves by driving into one of these bollards, so you would prefer something like a fine system? So the answer is not to prevent cars from entering the pedestrian zone at all, but just to issues them a fine? What about when one of these drivers, who clearly thinks that pedestrian zones dont apply to them, or is incapable of reading a road sign hits and injures or kills a pedestrian? Would you really want to explain to that victims relatives that you thought the current system was too harsh (bearing in mind that the bollards do exactly what they are supposed to do in preventing cars from entering the pedestrian zone).
At the moment, if a driver gets injured on the bollards then it will have been their own actions (for which they are responsible) that ultimately led to the injury. If a pedestrian get injured by a car driver entering the pedestrian zone when they shouldn't be there, the pedestrian is the completely innocent party.
Better a system where an offender has to deal with the consequences of their own actions than an innocent third party.
It makes me proud to think my Council are cleansing the roads of bad drivers.
But the council AREN'T doing that, the council are not the ones behind the wheel of the cars. The council are not the ones either deliberately or unobservantly ignoring the road signs giving both warnings and an order (No Motor Vechicles except...)
And why not? You can't be worried that the challenge undoes your arguments! So, provided I have sufficient notices up, can I protect my stock from light fingers, by connecting them to the mains electricity? Much of my stock is dangerous in the wrong hands.
Wrong. No one (apart from Fencer maybe) finds the situation funny. But the fact is that the VAST majority of road users dont have a problem reading the signs, otherwise there would be endless cars crashing into them every minute of the day. These people are either (most probably) trying their luck, or aren't paying attention. The punishment for that is always potentially disastrous, on any road.
You are concerned that one of these people might kill themselves by driving into one of these bollards, so you would prefer something like a fine system? So the answer is not to prevent cars from entering the pedestrian zone at all, but just to issues them a fine? What about when one of these drivers, who clearly thinks that pedestrian zones dont apply to them, or is incapable of reading a road sign hits and injures or kills a pedestrian? Would you really want to explain to that victims relatives that you thought the current system was too harsh (bearing in mind that the bollards do exactly what they are supposed to do in preventing cars from entering the pedestrian zone).
At the moment, if a driver gets injured on the bollards then it will have been their own actions (for which they are responsible) that ultimately led to the injury. If a pedestrian get injured by a car driver entering the pedestrian zone when they shouldn't be there, the pedestrian is the completely innocent party.
Better a system where an offender has to deal with the consequences of their own actions than an innocent third party.
Other than by a cyclist, when was the last time a pedestrian was injured by a car on Northbrook Street?
Better a system where an offender has to deal with the consequences of their own actions than an innocent third party.
But why do you shie away from this concept for any other category of crime? Would that it were true, we could save huge amounts of money removing protection from dangerous sites, use far more effective deterrents against shop lifting etc.etc. - all for the want of a few signs- Don't do X or you'll suffer the consequence.
Other than by a cyclist, when was the last time a pedestrian was injured by a car on Northbrook Street?
I have no idea. At the moment there is only a small number of vehicles permitted access to the pedestrian zone. if you leave the road open and leave it to the driver's concience whether or not they enter the zone then there will be a lot more people driving through the town centre. Regardless of the number of accidents in the past, increasing the number of vehicles driving through the pedestrian zone will increase the potential for an accident, serious or otherwise.
At the moment only authorised vehicles have access to the town centre. If you remove the bollards and leave the road open you will have a large number of car drivers driving through town. Is this an acceptable risk? Not in my opinion. Every car driver that enters the pedestrian zone has the potential to cause an accident. The bollards keep cars out, and eliminate the chance of that careless driver potentially causing an accident in the pedestrian zone.
The use of fines is as pointless as the use of hidden speed cameras. They are not a deterant, as people cannot see them ahead of time and often find out days later that they have committed an offence. If we are to beleive the people that say they dont notice the signs, can you tell me that you are happy to let these same day-dreaming drivers carry on driving through a pedestrian zone? Large visible bollards are more than a deterant, they actively prevent a cars passage into a restricted zone.
If an injury to the driver of the car prevents an injury (or worse) to a pedestrian (who is not at fault here) then, in my opinion, it is justified.
But why do you shie away from this concept for any other category of crime?
When have I said that? But, if you are asking whether or not a shop keeper should be allowed to wire up his stock to the mains then, no, that would be stupid.
The point here is that, as there is a very real chance of possible harm coming to members of the public from drivers trying to sneak through into the pedestrian zone, there must be an effective means of taking away peoples ability to ignore the law and do what they want. Left to people to decide on their own, many would chance it (even with the bollards people still chance it!). So that choice has to be taken away from people if they cant be relied upon to obey the law.
It's never going to be possible to agree on this one, is it?
There are lots of things going on in Newbury that I'm sure we can agree on: parking is a disaster at present (which is ironic, because Newbury.netters posted thousands of posts complaining about parking when it really wasn't a problem), it's a real pain that the road closures are going on for so long and town has far too many rats. Given that we all agree on those things there's no point in discussing them, is there?
Re. the bollards, though, people either think that they are a good thing or they don't. There are arguments for and against, but - as with most things in life - once people have decided what camp they're in, there they stay. How may euro sceptics or climate change sceptics do you know who have changed their mind? Or people who think that the EU is a good thing and that climate change is real who have swapped to the other point of view? Thought not.
Generally we adopt a point of view and then look for evidence that supports it. It's how we deal with the vast amounts of data that bombards us every day. It's why, to take another example, people get so worked up about political allegiances even in an age when there's barely a cigarette paper between the policies of the political parties.
Meanwhile, here's the Local Authority Rising Bollard User Group guidance on the operation and installation of rising bollards.
And why not? You can't be worried that the challenge undoes your arguments! So, provided I have sufficient notices up, can I protect my stock from light fingers, by connecting them to the mains electricity? Much of my stock is dangerous in the wrong hands.
The discussion is about WBC, the bollards, bad (or unlucky as some claim) drivers, and breaking motoring laws. It's not really about the dangers of pedestrian zones. So, I think it's rather pointless to try and bring in other examples of law breaking as if the situations are somehow identical.
I can see where your heading. You'd argue (correctly) that it would be illegal to wire up your stock to the mains to prevent your stock from getting pinched and thus exposing thief / public to the dangers of this stock. Therefore by a tenuous link you think the bollards should go because both situations could cause injury. One's more likely to cause death of course (so a completely different situation anyway), but never mind.
I'd then argue that what if you had some really strong window bars in place to protect your stock and a burglar used a crowbar on them, but because of their strength and design, the crowbar slipped and bashed burglar in the face, breaking their nose. Would you be happy to entertain a claim from the burglar for having unbreakable and dangerous window bars?
Pointless arguements. Hence why I wrote err no.
No matter how complicated or emotional people make the arguments, it still comes down to the fact that drivers are not paying attention to their driving and they are not paying attention to signs and the rules of the road.
If cars are so dangerous in the pedestrian zone, I wonder why they are deemed safe enough before 10:00 am to be allowed through.
I have no real sympathy for the drivers as such, but the road layout is confusing and unusual. I also think this doesn't promote Newbury Town in the best light. Ever since we've had the agreement for the cinema, we have seen a noticeable increase in penny pinching, most noticeably, evening charges and expanded curbside pay meters. News of wrecked cars just seems to add to the poor publicity Newbury has.
Recently Mr Carter admitted that he wishes Newbury to be competing for shoppers that otherwise go to Swindon, Reading and Basingstoke. So sadly a modest market town with its relative freedom will be a thing of the past and all the things I hate about those bigger towns will be coming here.
The discussion is about WBC, the bollards, bad (or unlucky as some claim) drivers, and breaking motoring laws. It's not really about the dangers of pedestrian zones. So, I think it's rather pointless to try and bring in other examples of law breaking as if the situations are somehow identical.
I can see where your heading. You'd argue (correctly) that it would be illegal to wire up your stock to the mains to prevent your stock from getting pinched and thus exposing thief / public to the dangers of this stock. Therefore by a tenuous link you think the bollards should go because both situations could cause injury. One's more likely to cause death of course (so a completely different situation anyway), but never mind.
I'd then argue that what if you had some really strong window bars in place to protect your stock and a burglar used a crowbar on them, but because of their strength and design, the crowbar slipped and bashed burglar in the face, breaking their nose. Would you be happy to entertain a claim from the burglar for having unbreakable and dangerous window bars?
Pointless arguements. Hence why I wrote err no.
No matter how complicated or emotional people make the arguments, it still comes down to the fact that drivers are not paying attention to their driving and they are not paying attention to signs and the rules of the road.
Don't agree think I will agree for one minute. Just because the arguments don't fit your own rather narrow view doesn’t mean they are invalid. The attitude that suggests it is quite OK to smash up someones property for a minor (which the Road Traffic Act says it is) misdemeanour isn't usually found in the English legal system. I do however accept that some feel this should change; a view often encountered in certain fringe political parties.
Don't agree think I will agree for one minute. Just because the arguments don't fit your own rather narrow view doesn’t mean they are invalid. The attitude that suggests it is quite OK to smash up someones property for a minor (which the Road Traffic Act says it is) misdemeanour
Let's say you have a small wall outside your house. You put some signs up so that there's no chance of anyone missing it but some idiot still drives into it.
They've damaged your wall and to make matters worse they claim you've smashed up their car. How do you feel about their attitude to you having destroyed their vehicle?
Let's say you have a small wall outside your house. You put some signs up so that there's no chance of anyone missing it but some idiot still drives into it. They've damaged your wall and to make matters worse they claim you've smashed up their car. How do you feel about their attitude to you having destroyed their vehicle?
That isn't a good comparison. In any case, it is generally felt on here that the drivers are in the wrong. What is debatable is the severity of the punishment.
Is it worth a mention that another careless driver came to grief on the bollards in Wharf Street this morning?
Of course you could say that the careless driver is now a car less driver.
Today's victims in Wharf Street, were an old couple who had been following a taxi.
The bollards were not as destructive as normal. They were able to pick up the pieces that littered the road, put them in the back of the car and drove off. No doubt vowing never to come to Newbury ever again.
Of course it is. In that situation is the "victim" right in thinking that he has smashed up their car?
Sorry, I don't understand the question, but if the wall is permanent and not a part of the highway then the driver has made an error and has 'suffered' accordingly. Like I said earlier, your scenario is different to the bollard one and like we all have said earlier, no-one is saying the driver isn't at fault.
Let's say you have a small wall outside your house. You put some signs up so that there's no chance of anyone missing it but some idiot still drives into it.
They've damaged your wall and to make matters worse they claim you've smashed up their car. How do you feel about their attitude to you having destroyed their vehicle?
A wall outside my house would not have been built with the deliberate intention of entrapping anyone who drove into it. If it had been, then I could expect trouble from the law. The way these bollards work was known by those responsible for their commission - a deliberate act. If per chance this was overlooked, or though a minimal risk, the subsequent evidence should have prompted a revision. I sincerely hope this is an isolated example and does not demonstrate the attitude of those commissioned this equipment - not nice, and brings the town into disrepute.
Don't agree think I will agree for one minute. Just because the arguments don't fit your own rather narrow view doesn’t mean they are invalid. The attitude that suggests it is quite OK to smash up someones property for a minor (which the Road Traffic Act says it is) misdemeanour isn't usually found in the English legal system.
Why do people, when encountering an alternative view, always think that the opposing view must be "narrowminded" thereby promoting that, by default, their view must be the right, broad minded one?
The car is driven into or placed on top of the bollards. Not the other way around. Smash up is soley in the hands of the car driver.
The "attitude" is stop unauthorised vehicles from passing that way.
Quoted from 40
A wall outside my house would not have been built with the deliberate intention of entrapping anyone who drove into it.
The bollards were not put in place to "entrap" someone. They were put in place to "stop" vehicles from passing, but had to be flexible enough to allow authorised vehicles to pass. That's all they do. Anything else is caused by the drivers themselves.
Why do people, when encountering an alternative view, always think that the opposing view must be "narrowminded" thereby promoting that, by default, their view must be the right, broad minded one?
The car is driven into or placed on top of the bollards. Not the other way around. Smash up is soley in the hands of the car driver.
The "attitude" is stop unauthorised vehicles from passing that way.
The bollards were not put in place to "entrap" someone. They were put in place to "stop" vehicles from passing, but had to be flexible enough to allow authorised vehicles to pass. That's all they do. Anything else is caused by the drivers themselves.
Playing with words old son, you'd make a brilliant politician
Perhaps someone would like to go through it to work out whether the way our bollards have been installed is in line with the guidance.
I'd say it wasn't an issue around adopting a view and then looking for evidence. It's a more basic and "moral" issue. The punishment should fit the crime. That is a basic tenet of our legal system. From the recent reports, all those affected were from out of town and almost certainly were not trying to get around Newbury's pedestrianisation. They just made a mistake. For that mistake they had their cars wrecked and a nasty shock.
I thought vBird had looked at the regulations on these things and said that Newbury's went against them.
Playing with words old son, you'd make a brilliant politician
As in quoting plain facts and not trying to spin you mean? - eg you trying bring in a completely different situation so that you can "use" it to prove your points.
From the recent reports, all those affected were from out of town and almost certainly were not trying to get around Newbury's pedestrianisation. They just made a mistake.
Right. I mean, it's an easy mistake to make, ignoring the warning signs, closely following a bus or taxi, waiting behind it for the bollards to lower and then trying to get through before they raise. Very easy.
No doubt vowing never to come to Newbury ever again.
No doubt? You have a quote for this? And in any case, I'm sure they would say that, because it's easier to blame someone else than it is to admit fault.
If the pedestrian zone is too much for them to figure out then I have no problem with them mowing down a pedestrian in Andover instead, rather than be hindered on the bollards here.
What a nonsense. The bollards are just objects, there is no "destruction" setting. The only thing that is going to vary the severity of the impact is the speed at which the offending driver is going in order to try and get through before they raise.
I have no idea. At the moment there is only a small number of vehicles permitted access to the pedestrian zone. if you leave the road open and leave it to the driver's concience whether or not they enter the zone then there will be a lot more people driving through the town centre. Regardless of the number of accidents in the past, increasing the number of vehicles driving through the pedestrian zone will increase the potential for an accident, serious or otherwise.
But it's not pedestrianised, is it! It can only be referred to being such, if no vehicles are allowed to enter!
At the moment only authorised vehicles have access to the town centre. If you remove the bollards and leave the road open you will have a large number of car drivers driving through town. Is this an acceptable risk? Not in my opinion. Every car driver that enters the pedestrian zone has the potential to cause an accident. The bollards keep cars out, and eliminate the chance of that careless driver potentially causing an accident in the pedestrian zone.
I do not recall any pedestrian/car accidents in Northbrook Street, prior to "so called pedestrianisation", better referred to as restricted vehicular access. With buses and cyclists still having access, the same risk is there now! In fact, with more traffic, pedestrians would be more aware! I find the present situation gives people a false sense of safety. How many are wandering into the roadway, and into the path of buses!
The use of fines is as pointless as the use of hidden speed cameras. They are not a deterant, as people cannot see them ahead of time and often find out days later that they have committed an offence. If we are to beleive the people that say they dont notice the signs, can you tell me that you are happy to let these same day-dreaming drivers carry on driving through a pedestrian zone? Large visible bollards are more than a deterant, they actively prevent a cars passage into a restricted zone.
If an injury to the driver of the car prevents an injury (or worse) to a pedestrian (who is not at fault here) then, in my opinion, it is justified.
Is it not possible then, that if a car is behind a bus or other larger vehicle, these signs are not somewhat obscured. Are you saying it is not possible to miss these signs, other than by day-dreaming? Instead of the constant wrecking of cars, the gallons of dirty poluting sump oil running down the road, the horrendous cost of repairing the bollards time and time again (which comes out of our rates, no doubt), has anyone ever surveyed and researched the reasons why so many are "caught out"?
Do we know if those caught are local, or complete strangers to the area?
I would put huge bets on all those that take pleasure in seeing these cars wrecked, that they have ALL made some mistakes while driving, and have luckily got away with it!
Whatever it takes, we need to reduce the risk, not gloat on the present demise of someone's means of transport! Whether the punishment fits the crime, is not the issue!
Right. I mean, it's an easy mistake to make, ignoring the warning signs, closely following a bus or taxi, waiting behind it for the bollards to lower and then trying to get through before they raise. Very easy.
So you reckon that the injured parties are all local, know about the rising bollards, but think that somehow their cars can "outrun" them? Don't be daft.
I agree, but I do beleive the signs say that between 10am-6pm it is a pedestrian zone, so we should view it as such from the perspective of regular car drivers trying to enter the zone. Busses do drive through the zone but, generally, they are much larger than cars and people (from my observations) seem to be able to cope well with sharing the space. What does catch people out is when a car driver get in (typically by McDonalds) by driving on the wrong side of the road, and races through the zone because they know they shouldn't be there.
In fact, with more traffic, pedestrians would be more aware!
Rubbish! It's simple mathematics. If you increase the number of vehicles in the pedestrian zone then the probability of an accident increases also. If, for the sake of argument, one car drives through in an hour, which then increases to two cars in an hour, the probability of a potential accident will have doubled.
Are you saying it is not possible to miss these signs, other than by day-dreaming?
If one is paying due attention to the road, as required by the highway code, then there is no reason to miss the signs. If you can see a road sign, but see that it is obscured by the vehicle in front of you then you should take action to ensure that you can read the sign (slow down so that there is enough space between you and the vehicle in front to be able to read the sign!) The sign could be (and is in this case) giving you an instruction that you MUST follow, or could be giving you vital information.
...those that take pleasure in seeing these cars wrecked...gloat on the present demise of someone's means of transport...
As I've said before in this thread, I dont beleive that anyone is happy that this is happening to people. But I refuse to have sympathy with people that get caught out in this way, when the VAST majority of other road users can see the signs, and do obey them manage to negotiate their way around town without hitting the bollards. I have even less sympathy for them when they blame other factors even though they should still be excercising full control of their vehicles. Being unfamiliar with a towns road layout should make you MORE aware of the surroundings.
So you reckon that the injured parties are all local, know about the rising bollards, but think that somehow their cars can "outrun" them? Don't be daft.
It would appear that all these people (including the 4x4 driving woman WITH A BABY IN THE BACK) thought that their cars could outrun them. I think it's fair to say that the offending drivers in Newbury approach the bollards in a similar way. As I've always maintained, if we point a CCTV camera at the Newbury bollards then we will soon find out.
Let's also not forget that there have been instances with the Newbury bollards (one involving a taxi driver I seem to recall) where people have warned car drivers attempting to get through what would happen, yet the advice offered had been ignored, with predictable consequences.
Let's also not forget that there have been instances with the Newbury bollards (one involving a taxi driver I seem to recall) where people have warned car drivers attempting to get through what would happen, yet the advice offered had been ignored, with predictable consequences.
There is a universal hand signal to indicate the presence of rising bollards to drivers. Extend your arm toward the driver, flick out your middle finger (to represent the bollard) and slowly raise it. All drivers will recognise this sign and many will get out of their vehicle to thank you for the warning.
A wall outside my house would not have been built with the deliberate intention of entrapping anyone who drove into it. If it had been, then I could expect trouble from the law.
Neither were these bollards, they're not designed to "entrap" anyone. Seriously, if I smashed my car into your wall through driving without due care and attention after you'd put a number of warning signs and claimed I then was a "victim" you'd just laugh at me wouldn't you and you'd have every right.
How about if I decided to take a walk through your garden without your consent because it shortened my journey and I tripped over something that you'd marked as dangerous many times. Am I a "victim" then. Surely under this crazy fault-avoiding logic you've injured me, which is of course complete nonsense.
Next you'll be claiming burglars that break into people's houses have every right to sue the home-owner if they hurt themselves in the process. People in today's society need to take more responsibility for their own actions and stop trying to find someone else to blame for their own mistakes or wrong doing.
Rubbish! It's simple mathematics. If you increase the number of vehicles in the pedestrian zone then the probability of an accident increases also. If, for the sake of argument, one car drives through in an hour, which then increases to two cars in an hour, the probability of a potential accident will have doubled.
Totally missed the point! If cars were allowed through without hinderance, it would not be a "pedestrianised zone"!
Stop the buses and then call it pedestrianised, and by using the same principle, reduce the risk of potential accident!
I don't see how it can be safe up to 10:00am with all traffic flowing through, and suddenly become unsafe at 10:01am - and while on this point, why wait until 6:00pm to drop the bollards, when there are less people around at 5:30pm than there are at 10:00am. (maybe with the exception of a saturday!)
Perhaps we can extend this type of scheme further-
Electric Chairs at all WBC desks and a large sign saying don't waste the tax payers money. Every time an official ignores this warning 200,000 volts passes through their chair!
Neither were these bollards, they're not designed to "entrap" anyone. Seriously, if I smashed my car into your wall through driving without due care and attention after you'd put a number of warning signs and claimed I then was a "victim" you'd just laugh at me wouldn't you and you'd have every right.
How about if I decided to take a walk through your garden without your consent because it shortened my journey and I tripped over something that you'd marked as dangerous many times. Am I a "victim" then. Surely under this crazy fault-avoiding logic you've injured me, which is of course complete nonsense.
Next you'll be claiming burglars that break into people's houses have every right to sue the home-owner if they hurt themselves in the process. People in today's society need to take more responsibility for their own actions and stop trying to find someone else to blame for their own mistakes or wrong doing.
Do you have any understanding of the basic concepts behind English law - the response above suggests you don't. And no, I'm not going to explain yet again.
Neither were these bollards, they're not designed to "entrap" anyone. Seriously, if I smashed my car into your wall through driving without due care and attention after you'd put a number of warning signs and claimed I then was a "victim" you'd just laugh at me wouldn't you and you'd have every right. You'd have to leave the public highway, to do so
How about if I decided to take a walk through your garden without your consent because it shortened my journey and I tripped over something that you'd marked as dangerous many times. Am I a "victim" then. Surely under this crazy fault-avoiding logic you've injured me, which is of course complete nonsense. Trespass, totally different subject!
Next you'll be claiming burglars that break into people's houses have every right to sue the home-owner if they hurt themselves in the process. People in today's society need to take more responsibility for their own actions and stop trying to find someone else to blame for their own mistakes or wrong doing.
Of course they are there to "entrap" those who dare to risk trying to drive over them, before they appear back out of the ground! If they were not, then there would just be a sign saying, "no access between xxx & yyy"
And how the hell do you compare damage to, and/or caused on, private property (garden wall, private house, trespass) with a public highway restriction. I'm sure if you built your garden wall across the road, and a car hit it, the outcome would be entrely different!
"Neither were these bollards, they're not designed to "entrap" anyone."What a stupid, ill thought out, statement!
Do you have any understanding of the basic concepts behind English law - the response above suggests you don't. And no, I'm not going to explain yet again.
This is usually where I ask you to give me an example or two and you skirt around the question for a number of posts offering nothing to support your case merely saying "the response above suggests you don't know what you're talking about". Here goes anyway: Can you please give me a couple of examples of successful acquittals due to the defendant citing Entrapment, in English law, where drivers have damaged their car on bollards?
Wikipedia defines Entrapment as "the act of a law enforcement agent inducing a person to commit an offence which should be illegal and the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit" so how do the bollards induce a person to commit an offence? Let's see how much you actually know about basic concepts behind English law and what Entrapment is. Which offence do the bollards inducing people to commit?
And how the hell do you compare damage to, and/or caused on, private property (garden wall, private house, trespass) with a public highway restriction.
Quite easily, who's side would you be on, the injured "victim" or the home-owner who thoughtlessly left an obstruction in their garden?
"Neither were these bollards, they're not designed to "entrap" anyone."What a stupid, ill thought out, statement!
See above, same question, how do the bollards induce a person to commit an offence? You must have examples if it's such a "stupid, ill thought out, statement".
This is usually where I ask you to give me an example or two and you skirt around the question for a number of posts offering nothing to support your case merely saying "the response above suggests you don't know what you're talking about". Here goes anyway: Can you please give me a couple of examples of successful acquittals due to the defendant citing Entrapment, in English law, where drivers have damaged their car on bollards?
Wikipedia defines Entrapment as "the act of a law enforcement agent inducing a person to commit an offence which should be illegal and the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit" so how do the bollards induce a person to commit an offence? Let's see how much you actually know about basic concepts behind English law and what Entrapment is. Which offence do the bollards inducing people to commit?Quite easily, who's side would you be on, the injured "victim" or the home-owner who thoughtlessly left an obstruction in their garden?See above, same question, how do the bollards induce a person to commit an offence? You must have examples if it's such a "stupid, ill thought out, statement".
Since when has Wikipedia been a recognised legal text? News to me; might be worth trying some real ones.
Since when has Wikipedia been a recognised legal text? News to me; might be worth trying some real ones.
Unfortunately User23 reads it as gospel truth - it is written down so it must be right! He takes a similar approach to all WBC drivel and therefore fails to spot when it is so often wrong!
Quite easily, who's side would you be on, the injured "victim" or the home-owner who thoughtlessly left an obstruction in their garden?.
I'm not on anyone's side, this is not a football match, or a game! I thought this discussion was about bollards on the public highway being used to "snare those who dare" attempt to cross the line!
I post strictly on the side of logic and common sense, which you appear to fail to do!
You want example's, but give none yourself. Again I suggest, how can you compare a situation on private land, to one on the public highway - there is no comparision! (I can only assume you: a) work for the council yourself, and b) your title of 23.3 relates to brain cells or I.Q.)
There is no comparison. For a start, it is suggested that an element of people "jumping" the bollards are attempting to beat the system - i.e. get through before they rise again after an "allowed" entry. Who would step on a garden rake deliberately, so it came up and smacked them in the face?
There is no comparison. For a start, it is suggested that an element of people "jumping" the bollards are attempting to beat the system - i.e. get through before they rise again after an "allowed" entry. Who would step on a garden rake deliberately, so it came up and smacked them in the face?
Exactly. As I said on another thread, I would join the cheering ranks if the bollards got someoner that deliberately tried to outrun them. They would deserve it.
Who would step on a garden rake deliberately, so it came up and smacked them in the face?
No-one with any sense. But the point here is that people think that they can get through, therefore dont see it as a risk as such. They're confident they'll get through before the bollards raise. It's the same as when people run red lights. They think that if they speed up they can get through them before the cars that are waiting move off.
It's also the same as railway crossings. They see the barriers coming down but are convinced that they can get through first.
Since when has Wikipedia been a recognised legal text? News to me; might be worth trying some real ones.
Do you have any understanding of the basic concepts behind English law - the response above suggests you don't (someone once posted on here) and are skirting round the subject yet again, same old story with you isn't it?
The act of government agents or officials that induces a person to commit a crime he or she is not previously disposed to commit.
The inducement, by law enforcement officers or their agents, of another person to commit a crime for the purposes of bringing charges for the commission of that artificially-provoked crime.
To lure into performing a previously or otherwise uncontemplated illegal act.
Three more definitions. The Wikipedia one was close enough for one to have "an understanding of the basic concepts behind English law". As with so many other threads I'm going to ask you again, can you please give me a couple of examples of successful acquittals due to the defendant citing Entrapment, in English law, where drivers have damaged their car on bollards?
A couple of examples to support what you say please or I'm going to stick you on my ignore list for wasting my time.
If you are right, then I'll join your "cheer when the elderly and pregnant get their cars wrecked club".
What a stupid post!
My "cheer when the elderly and pregnant get their cars wrecked club"? Go back and read my earlier posts and then come back and try again. You are the one who seems to be trivialising this. Pathetic.
You haven't hit a nerve you've just been wasting all our time as you can't support anything you say with anything factual and as such are consistently wrong.
You've been following the same pattern on different topics and I've given you plenty of chances to back up what you're saying, yet you've been unable. It would be amusing if I didn't feel so sorry for you.
From now until I review this again, you no longer have the right of reply from me which is your loss.
My "cheer when the elderly and pregnant get their cars wrecked club"? Go back and read my earlier posts and then come back and try again. You are the one who seems to be trivialising this. Pathetic.
Let these children play amongst themselves, they've proved they have no case here. Leave the attention thieves alone and they'll soon be quiet.
Who on earth do you think you are! I’ve never encountered such arrogant pomposity – how rude, how unpleasant. The only reason I have ventured to respond is to correct your oft ill conceived views which you often pretend are facts. However, I’m very glad I’ve made you think and hope you realise that not everyone shares your pious sentiments. For that, its been worth it.
You haven't hit a nerve you've just been wasting all our time as you can't support anything you say with anything factual and as such are consistently wrong.
You've been following the same pattern on different topics and I've given you plenty of chances to back up what you're saying, yet you've been unable. It would be amusing if I didn't feel so sorry for you.
My "cheer when the elderly and pregnant get their cars wrecked club"? Go back and read my earlier posts and then come back and try again. You are the one who seems to be trivialising this. Pathetic.
You wrote: But the point here is that people think that they can get through, therefore dont see it as a risk as such. and I asked you if you had any evidence. Every account I've read is of people that were NOT trying to beat the bollards. How is that a stupid post? Surely it's more stupid to ignore all of the evidence and say those affected were chancers just because it suits your position that it's ok to wreck people's property as punishment for a trivial offence.
Before the bollards, one of things WBC tried was a large 'A' board in the middle of the road with "Road Closed" on it.....and yep...motorists just got out and moved it. ('cos they were locals and it didn't apply to them right?)
You could have a laser light show with cannons and the Vienna Boys Choir singing and pointing at the 'No Entry' sign....and they STILL would drive through...you know it, and I know it.
You cannot arrange traffic signals and signage to serve what you think will be the lowest common denominator...(because there'll always be an even more stupid one that comes along.)
The present signage is more than that which is legally required. Of course they belly-ache if they stuff the car, and one of the normal statements is "I'll never come to Newbury again" To my certain knowledge one lady (VW) and one gent (Beemer) still come in shopping
It's called 'driving without due care and attention' simple as.....and I wish there was a physical barrier on each of the entrances to the town which screened out all who drove without due care before they even got to town...it would make it safer for us all.
It's called 'driving without due care and attention' simple as.....and I wish there was a physical barrier on each of the entrances to the town which screened out all who drove without due care before they even got to town...it would make it safer for us all.
To be fair, I've never felt at danger from the cars. The buses can be intimidating sometimes, but some pedestrians can't see them either!
I heard there's a council review of the bollards, which seems strange considering the repeated WBC line of adequate signage.
I think it’s strange that you would think it’s strange........
If London Zoo were finding that every other week one of their visitors was being dragged into the lion’s cage and torn to bits, despite all the numerous warning signs in place saying ‘WARNING Do Not Feed The Lions' and the big metal bars on the cages, I would imagine that the management would consider a review eventually.
Their first response may be that “the signage is adequate”. But eventually they would be ground down and get sick of clearing up the mess (and anyway, too much human flesh is bad for the digestive system...........) (NB. For ‘dead bodies’ read ‘dead cars’)
Doesn’t mean they would be getting RID of the metal bars (for ‘metal bars’ read ‘bollards’) and it wouldn’t mean they would get rid of the signs either. It may just be that they are looking at the warning signs again, scraping their chins and thinking “How can we IMPROVE these signs so that even the densest buffoon can’t fail to notice the bleedin’ things?”
If London Zoo were finding that every other week one of their visitors was being dragged into the lion’s cage and torn to bits, despite all the numerous warning signs in place saying ‘WARNING Do Not Feed The Lions' and the big metal bars on the cages, I would imagine that the management would consider a review eventually.
The analogy works better if people were actually jumping into the lions cage.
It's the motorist's choice whether they're breaking the law or not, whether they're driving without due care and attention or in some cases trying to rush the bollards before they rise again.
The analogy works better if people were actually jumping into the lions cage. It's the motorist's choice whether they're breaking the law or not, whether they're driving without due care and attention or in some cases trying to rush the bollards before they rise again.
I doubt if any regular poster on this site actually thinks that the 'accidents' are NOT the fault, at least in part, of the driver. I do think though, that it is incumbent of the council to re-think certain designs to see if there is a cheaper way of achieving the same or better results. At the end of the day, it helps none of us when a car is driven over rising bollards. It ties up a lot of effort and costs money that cannot be recouped.
The bollards aren't designed to wreck peoples cars. It is just an unfortunate consequence of their operation.
I think that a CCTV controlled enforcement system, like the one in Reading would be much better. It would save money on repairs etc, and generate revenue to pay for itself. However, it would be a shame to see them go as it is a source of great amusement to me.
I think that a CCTV controlled enforcement system, like the one in Reading would be much better.
Problem with that is, it's not instant. Many of the events held in the market place have to be insured, and the premiums paid will be based on the fact that confused drivers are not driving around in amongst the people gathered there.
fair point...How about a barrier system similar to the ones in the CarParks? A barrier pass to allow entry, and the barrier would only hit the roof if they tried to get under it.. I also think there are too many signs. It causes sign blindness. One big sign saying NO ENTRY (conforming to traffic rules of course)
Mumm... what events in the Market Place?(!!) Have also seen 'confused' taxi, bus and Post Office vehicle driving beyond the bollards. Anyway, great country town sport smashing up confused vistors cars - ought to make it a feature, would be quite a draw!
Logged
Male
Female
