We haven't had a Bollard picture recently...

Note the tailing back pointing towards Bear Lane.

Note the road sign facing approaching vehicles which gives an order to drivers. From memory it says "No Entry to Motor Vehicles between 10am and 6pm except authorised vehicles" (or possibly taxis). I can't see anything like a taxi sign mounted on the car or anything else to suggest the vehicle is an authorised vehicle. Also given the time of year and lack of darkness, I would say there cannot be any doubt or atomic clock watching required to realise it isn't anywhere near 6pm.

Also note in the background a warning sign, again facing the approaching vehicles, saying "Caution rising bollards".

Although not visible in the photo, I believe there is another sign warning of the bollards just around the corner.

Not really sure what the traffic in the background has to do with a driver deliberately ignoring at least 2, legally placed, road signs.

You can see all this from this picture?  Nah...all I can see is another efin great queue and a knackered car.

Quoted from Greenham Common

You can see all this from this picture?  Nah...all I can see is another efin great queue and a knackered car.

I can see the end result of the actions of a very poor, inattentive and possibly therefore a dangerous driver, and 3 heading out of the wharf area. I see no proof of a queue, let alone an effin' que.

Quoted from whingewhingewhinge

I can see the end result of the actions of a very poor, inattentive and possibly therefore a dangerous driver, and 3 heading out of the wharf area. I see no proof of a queue, let alone an effin' que.

There's none so blind as those who will not see...I was in town and saw for my self...how about you?  Queuing at that corner will take some time to get to the roundabout BTW.

Quoted from Greenham Common

Note the tailing back pointing towards Bear Lane.

Indeed. I wonder what prompted this guy to try and cut through town. Could it be that, given the long queue, he didn't want to wait to get out of the wharf like everyone else? Nah, I'm sure he was just an innocent driver unfamiliar with Newbury who will now refuse to come back to the town again.  

Another point to note here is that he has clearly driven into the bollards and the bollards have not, as some have suggested they do, risen up underneath his car.

Quoted from Greenham Common

There's none so blind as those who will not see...I was in town and saw for my self...how about you?  Queuing at that corner will take some time to get to the roundabout BTW.

I know what traffic is like at that point that's why I was poking fun at a static picture and your statement that it was a huge effin' queue.

Equally you also know full well what the road signage is around there so

Quoted Text

You can see all this from this picture?

is hypocritical perhaps?

There are none so blind who will not accept that there are some drivers whose lack of attention or deliberate lawbreaking leads to their own downfall and that other circumstances, whilst maybe contributary, are not the cause of the accident.

Quoted from whingewhingewhinge

I know what traffic is like at that point that's why I was poking fun at a static picture and your statement that it was a huge effin' queue.

I know you were poking fun, however, I was there and saw, what is your proof it wasn't?

Quoted from whingewhingewhinge

Equally you also know full well what the road signage is around there so

Yes and what has that got to do with the price of bread?  I never said anything to the contrary, or can you make that out from the picture as well?

Quoted from whingewhingewhinge

is hypocritical perhaps?

Again, why hypocritical?  Where did I say there wasn't good signage?

Quoted from whingewhingewhinge

There are none so blind who will not accept that there are some drivers whose lack of attention or deliberate lawbreaking leads to their own downfall and that other circumstances, whilst maybe contributary, are not the cause of the accident.

Very true...but the traffic was still sh*t round there, and that is all I said.

Quoted from massifheed

Another point to note here is that he has clearly driven into the bollards and the bollards have not, as some have suggested they do, risen up underneath his car.

The bollards started rising and just clipped the plastic skirting on the front of the car, which is the visible damage that you can see from the picture.

The bollards are jammed so tightly into the engine compartment, that the car was still jammed on them at 5.00pm even though the incident happened just after 2.00pm. The bollards caused considerable to the engine compartment and spilt the entire contents of the sump onto the road.

There are a lot of people who suggest that it is an appropriate punishment and that they should read the signs. I wonder how many of those people have ever got confused in a strange town and driven the wrong way down a one way street?

Whether it is the driver, the bollards, the signage, or whatever, it is hardly an ecologically friendly method of traffic management.

I understand that the bollards won't rise underneath a vehicle, so all one would have to do, if they wish to avoid damage is either don't go near them (the best method), or driver very close to the taxi so that the bollards detect a vehicle and won't start to rise (less desirable method).  

Does anyone know if this driver was breathalyzed? Indeed, come to think of it.....have any of these bollardeers ever been breathalyzed?

It might also be of interest to note that due this drivers inattentive actions, anyone who was in some way infirm, or disabled, or suffering from restricted mobility and had ordered a taxi to pick them up in the market place (after a meal, or performance at the Corn Exchange) were unable to be met for nearly three hours.

If this driver refuses to come back and drive round Newbury again, thank f*** say I.


Threep.

Quoted from BrianB

There are a lot of people who suggest that it is an appropriate punishment and that they should read the signs. I wonder how many of those people have ever got confused in a strange town and driven the wrong way down a one way street?

it is the 'carry on regardless' attitude that makes it an appropriate punishment.  I'm sure these drivers do see the signs, but think nothing will actually happen.
A bit like the Mercedes driver who came down Northbrook Street on 22nd December at about 4pm. When challenged, by me, he said 'Have you seen the traffic?'

Quoted from Threepwood

Does anyone know if this driver was breathalyzed? Indeed, come to think of it.....have any of these bollardeers ever been breathalyzed?  It might also be of interest to note that due this drivers inattentive actions, anyone who was in some way infirm, or disabled, or suffering from restricted mobility and had ordered a taxi to pick them up in the market place (after a meal, or performance at the Corn Exchange) were unable to be met for nearly three hours.

  
As it seems there was no Bill in attendance, I doubt there was a breath test.  As for taxis, this would affect only taxis (and their customers) sat on the rank at the time.  I'd be surprised if the driver didn't know the bollards were there, so I would be surprised if this was down to inattention.

The only constructive thing I can say about this is, perhaps it would be wise to close the bridge between the same hours as the bollards are in operation.

Quoted from Threepwood

If this driver refuses to come back and drive round Newbury again, thank f*** say I.  Threep.

It is an Audi driver (the new BMW drivers), after all.

Quoted from Administrator

We haven't had a Bollard picture recently...

No festive cheer for this Audi driver in Wharf Street this afternoon!

'' Um, calling base do you think i should slap a ticket on this Audi while i have a chance. Also there's a bloke doing a Haka dance in the road, shall i tell him to move on !! ''

Quoted from Greenham Common

  As for taxis, this would affect only taxis (and their customers) sat on the rank at the time.

Nope...think it through...those folk who had booked for a wheelchair accessible  taxi at 14.30 from the front of the Corn Exchange would have found their taxi could not have got through, since there is no other legal way for a taxi to get into the Market Place during the day other than through those bollards.

Quoted from Greenham Common

It is an Audi driver (the new BMW drivers), after all.

As I recall, it was put forward  that 'cocks' drove Beemers, this did BMW sales some damage and all the 'cocks', rather than be labeled then went off to buy Audis...thus all 'cocks' now drive Audis. That was it wasn't it?


Threep.

Quoted from Administrator

We haven't had a Bollard picture recently...

No festive cheer for this Audi driver in Wharf Street this afternoon!

but......at least he can update his car to the 21st century model !

Quoted from Threepwood

Nope...think it through...those folk who had booked for a wheelchair accessible  taxi at 14.30 from the front of the Corn Exchange would have found their taxi could not have got through, since there is no other legal way for a taxi to get into the Market Place during the day other than through those bollards.

For this particular scenario, I seem to remember that there was a pick-up point arranged at the rear (ironic considering it is a traffic black spot).  Taxis would not be allowed to 'hog' the rank outside the front of the Corn Exchange, waiting for their customer.

What is true is that it would screw all the un-booked taxis with no main rank that they could use for the time the road is blocked - in both directions.

Quoted from Threepwood

As I recall, it was put forward  that 'cocks' drove Beemers, this did BMW sales some damage and all the 'cocks', rather than be labeled then went off to buy Audis...thus all 'cocks' now drive Audis. That was it wasn't it?  Threep.

Exactly as I understand it.

Another dangerous driver stopped from entering the pedestrianised area?

Great news.

Quoted from user23.3

Another dangerous driver stopped from entering the pedestrianised area?  Great news.

Shouldn't dangerous drivers be prosecuted?

Quoted from Greenham Common

Shouldn't dangerous drivers be prosecuted?

Yes, they should be prosecuted for Driving Without Due Care And Attention, a lesser charge than Dangerous Driving.

Quoted from user23.3

Yes, they should be prosecuted for Driving Without Due Care And Attention, a lesser charge than Dangerous Driving.

So they are careless, rather than dangerous drivers then?  I still don't understand why drivers are not prosecuted for anything.

Quoted from Greenham Common

So they are careless, rather than dangerous drivers then?  I still don't understand why drivers are not prosecuted for anything.

Bollard Runners are dangerous, the ones that don't see the five signs before the bollards are driving without care and attention.

Quoted from user23.3

Bollard Runners are dangerous, the ones that don't see the five signs before the bollards are driving without care and attention.

Hmm...I'd say someone driving without seeing the signs is as dangerous, or not, as one that try to run them.  I still say though, why are drivers not prosecuted...anyone?

Quoted from user23.3

Bollard Runners are dangerous, the ones that don't see the five signs before the bollards are driving without care and attention.

In the same way that adriver going wrong way up a one way Street would be prosecuted for that offence however, I would not expect him to be taken out with a rocket grenade.

Quoted from brian

In the same way that a driver going wrong way up a one way Street would be prosecuted for that offence however, I would not expect him to be taken out with a rocket grenade.

Now yer talkin'. I'd pay to see that...blimey, think of the increase in visitors flocking in to watch.


Threep.

Quoted from Greenham Common

The only constructive thing I can say about this is, perhaps it would be wise to close the bridge between the same hours as the bollards are in operation.

Great idea - they could put in some bollards to make sure no one used the bridge!

Quoted from Greenham Common

It is an Audi driver (the new BMW drivers), after all.

Can't BMW drivers afford Beemers any more?

Quoted from Greenham Common

I still don't understand why drivers are not prosecuted for anything.

Probably because WBC f*cked up the installation as usual and didn't follow the guidelines. They obviously are aware that they would be made to look a bunch of cretins for not following said guidelines and therefore do bugger all!!

Situation Normal then !

These bollard threads just run and run. Great stuff.

Quoted from Nobby

Probably because WBC f*cked up the installation as usual

WBC got someone else to install them surely?      http://www.atgaccess.com/getdo.....p;   

Then took advice (both from the fitters and m'learned friends) as to adequate signage. Despite all the anger, bluff, bluster  and general B.S.  there has still not been ONE successful legal challenge to these.

Bottom line? if you got a square full of people and need to stop a car packed with explosives entering it you need bollards.
If you have people taking part in a public event, or even just walking about enjoying the market place you need bollards to keep the 'rat-run' boys (and girls) out if it (and those driving without Due Care and Attention) if you are going to have it pedestrianized.

Remember, the ultimate in signage has been tried, WBC stuck a large red 'A' frame sign in the middle of the road. It read "Road Closed". Drivers just drove up to it and moved it out of their way.

I put it to you that this 'ere Audi driver would have done just that. Soley to avoid a few minutes extra wait to get to the Bear Lane mini roundabout.


Threep.

Yes...all those events.  Events where we still have traffic like taxis, buses, passing anyway.  

I have to ask, however, was the traffic dangerous.  Were there lots of hits or near misses?  What was the 'strike rate'?

Another thing; wasn't it the case that when pedestrianisation was proposed, improvements were intended, to ease any congestion caused?

The other thing of course, is that the Wharf area has been crap ever since I can remember.  No Council has dealt with it properly.  There was an opportunity when the pub was demolished, but regrettably, and maybe short-sightedly, no improvements were made to the junction.

Is this gonna cost us another  £700+ to put right...till the next [Yaaawwwnnn] time?                            

Quoted from Greenham Common

Yes and what has that got to do with the price of bread?  I never said anything to the contrary, or can you make that out from the picture as well?

Because you completely ignored the point I was making about the signage with "You can see all this from this picture?"

Quoted from Greenham Common

Again, why hypocritical?  

Because you expect me to accept the photo as "proof" there was an effin traffic jam, but you don't accept my "proof" that the signage in the photo says something about no entry to motor vehicles. Your words "You can see all this from this picture?"

Quoted from Greenham Common

So they are careless, rather than dangerous drivers then?  I still don't understand why drivers are not prosecuted for anything.

To collide with the bollards, they HAVE to ignore a sign giving an order. They should be prosecuted for that - the same was they would for jumping red lights, entering a one street the wrong way, overtaking on double-solid white lines, turning right when banned etc.

Quoted from Threepwood

WBC got someone else to install them surely?      http://www.atgaccess.com/getdo.....p;   

Then took advice (both from the fitters and m'learned friends) as to adequate signage. Despite all the anger, bluff, bluster  and general B.S.  there has still not been ONE successful legal challenge to these.

I agree. Can the lack of successful challenges against WBC be down to the fact that they have to break the law to come into contact with the bollards in the first place? Therefore it is the driver's sole action which led to the collision. If the bollards had unexpectedly risen in front of a car at 6:30pm, then maybe they would have a claim. Cases like that are usually black and white in front of the judge:

Driver : "I collided with the bollards its WBCs fault"
Judge : "The signs ordered you not to pass that point under section blah blah. You did. The signs comply with all legal requirements - height, font blah blah. Your fault"

Quoted from whingewhingewhinge

Because you completely ignored the point I was making about the signage with "You can see all this from this picture?"  Because you expect me to accept the photo as "proof" there was an effin traffic jam, but you don't accept my "proof" that the signage in the photo says something about no entry to motor vehicles. Your words "You can see all this from this picture?"

The point is, though, I simply pointed out the 'evidence' of the traffic in the background (which I know for a fact was there), you, however took this as a defence (which I never implied or suggested) when I was simply drawing attention to a possible reason the driver might have chosen to run the bollards.

I have never denied the presence of the signage, but you throw doubt on a queue.  Like I said, from the picture, I can see a section of an efin great queue (which I know was there, again) but I cannot read the signage (from the picture), but I know it is there.


At the end of the day, my point is: we have a traffic black spot which leads to people trying to 'escape' the queue and run the bollards.  Something that us tax payers have to pay for as the Council are not recovering full cost of remedial action.

Quoted from whingewhingewhinge

I agree. Can the lack of successful challenges against WBC be down to the fact that they have to break the law to come into contact with the bollards in the first place? Therefore it is the driver's sole action which led to the collision. If the bollards had unexpectedly risen in front of a car at 6:30pm, then maybe they would have a claim. Cases like that are usually black and white in front of the judge:

Driver : "I collided with the bollards its WBCs fault"
Judge : "The signs ordered you not to pass that point under section blah blah. You did. The signs comply with all legal requirements - height, font blah blah. Your fault"

If so, then why are we not recovering all the costs?

dont you mean....why arent WBC recovering all OUR MONEY?

Quoted from Uncle

dont you mean....why arent WBC recovering all OUR MONEY?

Technically it is not our money, we don't own it, but the point you are making is correct.  Why is the full cost not recovered?

Quoted from Greenham Common

Technically it is not our money, we don't own it, but the point you are making is correct.  Why is the full cost not recovered?

You keep asking this question on here, why don't you the Police or the Council it?

I suspect it might because the motoring lobby would be up in arms about the "poor persecuted driver" so it would be bad PR for the Police to charge people for what is without question driving without due care and attention at the very least.

Quoted from user23.3

You keep asking this question on here, why don't you the Police or the Council it?

We are all guilty of repetition...including you.

Quoted from user23.3

I suspect it might because the motoring lobby would be up in arms about the "poor persecuted driver" so it would be bad PR for the Police to charge people for what is without question driving without due care and attention at the very least.

That might be a reason, but what about the tax payer lobby.  Also, every pound spent on the bollards is a pound less for the vulnerable, as you full well know!  

Quoted from user23.3

You keep asking this question on here, why don't you the Police or the Council it?

I suspect it might because the motoring lobby would be up in arms about the "poor persecuted driver" so it would be bad PR for the Police to charge people for what is without question driving without due care and attention at the very least.

I suspect that the insurance companies know the law and would not pay WBC therefore no charge is made to the insurance company. Perhaps the police too are aware of the bollards not meeting guidelines and that is why they don't take action.

Quoted from Nobby

I suspect that the insurance companies know the law and would not pay WBC therefore no charge is made to the insurance company. Perhaps the police too are aware of the bollards not meeting guidelines and that is why they don't take action.

If the insurance companies know the law and believe that the bollards are not up to scratch legalwise - why don't they sue WBC for the damages to the crunchees?

Quoted from blackdog

If the insurance companies know the law and believe that the bollards are not up to scratch legalwise - why don't they sue WBC for the damages to the crunchees?

Do we know if anybody has rec'd payout.
Council v Driver
Council v Driver's insurer
Driver v Council
Insurer v council.

There are a lot of why don't they and why haven't they but the only people who know are the damaged parties (including WBC for the bollards) everything else on here appears to be conjecture.
I can't believe that WBC would get the signposting wrong, leaving themselves open to massive costs against them if someone died as a result of collision with a bollard.
The signs may be enough to give them cover legally but I still believe the measures are draconian and a set of traffic lights would have been better and cheaper and in these days of number plate recognition, a source of revenue against those chancing their arm.

I used to sell rockery stone, occasionally a customer would ask for stones suitable to be placed on the verge to stop vehicles damaging the grass.

I understood that if an object was placed on the grass verge with the intention of damaging a vehicle, then you could be held liable for this damage.  I advised my customers that they were placing the objects on the verge for “decoration”.

Now I don’t know if this is the actual legal position, however it strikes me that it could be argued that these bollards were designed to cause damage, indeed they have and they do.

Maybe the council should at least consider installing traffic lights as an additional warning to drivers; alternatively they could replace the rising bollards with a raising barrier as used by many car Parks.  I haven’t heard of any cases of cars being damaged by these.

Quoted from TonyHine

...alternatively they could replace the rising bollards with a raising barrier as used by many car Parks.  I haven’t heard of any cases of cars being damaged by these.

I believe that another forum member, possibly User23, posted a couple of links a while back to stories where car park barriers had come down on cars and caused injury to the occupants.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXVTjYTYcJo


In Manchester, as well as signage, they got flashing lights and audible warnings....and guess what?... yep..people still drive over the bollards.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1129389_bollard_drivers_may_end_up_in_court


Threep.

Quoted from Threepwood

In Manchester, as well as signage, they got flashing lights and audible warnings....and guess what?... yep..people still drive over the bollards. Threep.

Yes, including these idiots endangering their innocent occupants, some of which are very young.

Quoted from user23.3

........................ why don't you the Police or the Council it?

I suspect it might because the motoring lobby would...................

Uh ??

Has anyone noticed, there appears to be a local residents parking permit in the window!
If this is true, then there is no excuse............

Anyone driven into them again lately?

Quoted from 37

Anyone driven into them again lately?

Has someone driven into them more than once?

Interesting to note that a Fire Engine was damaged in Manchester, due to the bollards rising while passing over them. Apparently two fire engines were attempting to pass through them, it recognised the sensor of the first, but not of the second unit causing considerable damage, and putting it out of action for several weeks.

I assume then, that the bollards have to go full cycle, dropping and rising, before sensing a second vehicle. In that case, what if there were a major incident inside a "bollard zone", requiring a considerable number of emergency vehicles! Valuable time could be wasted, while each vehicle has to wait before passing through.

Usually with a barrier, if it starts to drop as a second vehicle starts to go through, it immediately rises again.

I noticed a bus stuck by the bollards in Bartholomew Street today, and then being towed away by a wrecker. Had it hit the bollards, or just broken down at an inconvenient spot?