Excuses, excuses It doesn't matter whether the wording is "rising bollards" or "danger bollards ahead" or "these bollards might harm you" etc. It matters that there is at least one large, standards conforming, road sign giving a regulatory order - "No Motor Vehicles".
Unless you are a bus, taxi or authorised vehicle, or outside of the times specified, it means just that.
Now anyone, whether from Swansea, Croydon or Bourton on the Water, if they are unable to comprehend a basic sign giving an order, they should not be driving full stop. Understanding critical road signs, like this, is rather vital to driving on public roads safely.
As for the bollards which are meant to retract, surely they have to make actual contact with the vehicle before they can detect an "obstruction" and then lower again, or do they really have some kind of proximity system built in, ie they get to within 1 inch of making contact before detecting the vehicle?
Could it be a case then that for the split second of contact, the forward momentum of the car causes the bollard to press forward ever so slightly in its track which then jams the bollard as it tries to lower. As it is now stuck, in an extended position, the still forward motion of the vehicle is enough to do the serious damage to the underside of the vehicle.
Have to admit that it is just like groundhog day on this subject on this forum so apologies for repeating the same old arguments, but everyone else is too
Do they auto detect a vehicle and then retract? They should do that, but they don't
They do - if they have time to. If a driver approaches them at speed (as shown in the Manchester youtube video), then the bollards dont have time to react and lower before the driver has gone into them. If you have ever noticed a bus (or other vehicle) drive through the bollards in town and then have to wait on the other side for whatever reason, then you'll notice that the bollards don't raise until the vehicle is well clear of them.
Quoted from 26
they do as I described.
So, you are seriously suggesting that the bollards penetrate the floor of the vehicles and enter the driver/passenger compartments? Seriously?
Surely bollards are rather passe? Along with speed cameras and CCTV, they're all very 'New Labour' and smacking of state interference and control.
Thank goodness, then, for our new Con-dem government Clegg and Cameron have made it clear that they have ended New Labour's "War on the Motorist" by pulling funding for speed cameras. This is wonderful news!! I've always felt that the whole idea of speed cameras, particularly outside schools, was entirely misconceived. Evolution, as we all know, is about survival of the fittest. I am sure we can all agree that children who are too unfit or stupid to be able to cross a road without being run down are, quite frankly, children we must, in the interests of the long term survival of our species, do without.
I am confident Mr Jones and his excellent Liberal Democrat and Conservatie at West Berkshire Council feel the same way about our town centre bollards. Good for them, I say!
Also, slightly off topic, I think Home Secretary May's idea of citizen vigilante groups is fantastic and can't wait to get out on the streets myself with a local bobby providing top cover while I make merry with my long neglected baseball bat at chucking out time. What a breath of fresh air these Liberatives are proving to be! I will be contacting that nice Mr Poulson, who is always in the local paper recruiting volunteers, offering my services and I trust that you will do the same.
Clegg and Cameron have made it clear that they have ended New Labour's "War on the Motorist" by pulling funding for speed cameras. This is wonderful news.
Interesting that, after many years of being told by complainers that the cameras were only there to raise money, as soon as government funding is withdrawn so are the cameras - surely this means that the cameras fall a long way short of paying for themselves (in Oxfordshire at least).
the cameras were only there to raise money, as soon as government funding is withdrawn so are the cameras
Another of Mr Broon's iniquitous 'stealth taxes' I'm afraid. Just shows what a shite Chancellor he was that the cost of collecting the tax was higher than the amount raised!
Last week I heard Mr Cameron suggesting that many public services including post offices, libraries and local public transport could be run entirely by volunteers as part of his excellent "Big Society" idea. I'm sure he's absolutely right about this. Whenever I visit forums like Newbury.net it strikes me that there are lots of people with far too much spare time on their hands. Much better to get them involved in doing something useful, as Mr Clegg suggests.
So far I've not heard Mr Clegeron suggest that politicians could be entirely voluntary but I'm sure this is a logical next step. As I understand the situation, Council leaders like Mr Jones and his brother in arms Mr Brooks actually cost us taxpayers quite a lot in per diems and expenses and most of their colleagues get some form of payment. This is ridiculous, surely!? There are lots of us who would happily do the job for nothing at all! I'm sure Messrs Jones and Brooks will be leading by example and ensuring that neither they nor their colleagues takes a penny for their services. Mr Jones runs a chemists shop, after all, an absolute licence to print money and, thanks to the NHS, totally secure. I'm sure he can afford to do his council work for free and would not be at all surprised to be told that he does.
At last, MPs and councillors who don't keep voting themselves huge pay rises, gold plated pensions and ridiculous expenses. Does it get any better than this!
I have no doubt that Mr Benyon, as one of the richest men in West Berks, doesn't take a penny in salary or expenses for his parliamentary and ministerial duties. Hat's off to you, Sir Richard, what a splendid example you set for us all!
Another of Mr Broon's iniquitous 'stealth taxes' I'm afraid. Just shows what a shite Chancellor he was that the cost of collecting the tax was higher than the amount raised!
No - it just shows that it was not a 'stealth' tax but an attempt to get people to drive more safely - I was certainly glad to see a camera going up in my road.
So, if it doesn't mean what you said (regardless of the actual words used, that is the impression you were trying to give), why not use language that more acurately describes what happens, rather than the sensationalist tabloid-style tripe that you did use?
I know that you like to try defend those that have chosen to attempt to drive into a pedestrian zone, but the signage argument doesn't work (given that the council have tried different signage options, yet people still try and dodge the bollards). The out-of-town argument is also a little tiresome, seeing as road signs must be obeyed regardless of which town you happen to be in.
why not use language that more acurately describes what happens
Here's what I wrote: I'd see the sign, but if I'd never heard of rising bollards or seen them, I doubt I'd expect a chunk of metal to come crashing through my vehicle floor.
Now what was inaccurate about that. Are you saying that the bollards do not damage the floor/underside of the vehicles? Because that is what I wrote. You chose to selectively read it & read something into it that I did not write.
For what it's worth, I regularly challenge drivers in Northbrook Street during pedestrian times. I prefer the cars not there, though I think that the Market Place ban was ill advised. Even so, those that drive through there irritate me. But I think a system that wrecks cars is wrong and dangerous. I also do not believe that those that get their vehicles wrecked deliberately try to beat the system.
Getting some kind of vicarious thrill from seeing cars wrecked strikes me as immature. My balanced view expressed above may be in your view erroneous, but it is not immature. Now, please read what's written. Clearly your skills aren't sufficiently developed for speed reading, so I suggest you read more slowly.
Now what was inaccurate about that. Are you saying that the bollards do not damage the floor/underside of the vehicles?
There you go. That one word that wasn't there before. I think most people would consider the floor of the car to be the area under the passenger seating (the area that has an actual "floor"), rather than the chassis or the engine bay.
Quoted from 26
Getting some kind of vicarious thrill from seeing cars wrecked strikes me as immature.
I seriously doubt that anyone gets any kind of "thrill" from seeing cars damaged in this way. Except maybe Fencer.
Quoted from 26
My balanced view expressed above may be in your view erroneous, but it is not immature.
I wasn't talking about your view, although I dont find it balanced. But rather the way you resorted to talking to me in a patronising manner. Telling me to "Calm down dear", and to put my glasses on. It smacks of immaturity and, in my view, makes you look stupid.
Quoted from 26
Now, please read what's written. Clearly your skills aren't sufficiently developed for speed reading, so I suggest you read more slowly.
Logged
It doesn't matter whether the wording is "rising bollards" or "danger bollards ahead" or "these bollards might harm you" etc. It matters that there is at least one large, standards conforming, road sign giving a regulatory order - "No Motor Vehicles". 
Male
