Driver uses his pregnant wife as an excuse to try and drive down Northbrook street, then blames the council when he drives into the bollards.

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article.aspx?articleID=12459

It is probably one of the worst instances of someone making up a complete bullsh*t story to try and absolve himself of blame. There are so many holes in that story it's unbelievable. Apparently the bollards "Came right up through the car."

If his wife needed medical attention he should have pulled over and called an ambulance.

Incredible.

He had  "no intention of driving down Northbrook Street" How does that work then? He magically teleported from The Clock Tower to a positon over the bollards? This guys's a liar. a coward and an idiot. As soon as the child is born it should be taken into care and given to parents who can really look after it. Cruel, but fair.


Threep.

Quoted Text

He said: “There are signs saying it is a bus only area but nothing about rising bollards.

I did notice yesterday the workmen from the parkway construction company trying to put up a DAMAGED rising bollards sign.

“There are signs saying it is a bus only area.” ....'nuff said.

Threep.

Quoted from Threepwood

“There are signs saying it is a bus only area.” ....and his point is?


Threep.

Indeed. So, if you know it's a bus only area, why are you trying to enter it?  ::)

Northbrook Street hasn't got the same forest of signs that the Bartholomew Street approach does.... (high level signs, low level signs, white letters on red background, black letters on yellow background, black on white, triangle warning signs, circular regulatory signs, variable message signs.................<jeesh!>!!) but it DOES have signs.....  And if he didn't want to travel down Northbrook Street, he'd already been doing that for a hundred metres or so since leaving The Broadway (technically)

He also recon's they both suffered whiplash, perhaps he thinks they will get compensation, idiot.

The roadworks and lights add some confusion there. But still, let's hang them all.

Quoted from 26

The roadworks and lights add some confusion there. But still, let's hang them all.

...yes, including their unborn!  ::)

Being serious, he does sound like someone trying to find an excuse (i.e. he did know there are bollards and he shouldn't be there)!

Quoted from massifheed

Indeed. So, if you know it's a bus only area, why are you trying to enter it?  ::)

You and Threep should put context into your quotes before cheering:

"Mr Wilson said he returned the following day to take photographs of the area and said there was no signange indicating that there are rising bollards. He said: “There are signs saying it is a bus only area but nothing about rising bollards.”"

The point being that he only saw the signs when he returned, not at the time of the incident

Is he seriously claiming his unborn child is suffering from stress because of the incident?

Quoted from user23.3

Is he seriously claiming his unborn child is suffering from stress because of the incident?

He is claiming that is what the Doctor said - “At first we could not feel the baby move and we went for a scan the next day and the doctor said there was a heart beat but not much movement and that the baby was probably under stress."

Quoted from 26

The point being that he only saw the signs when he returned, not at the time of the incident

EXACTLY. Simple admission of driving without due care and attention, I'd say. (and just to be totally correct, there is no indication of when he saw the signs, the article does not support that notion he only saw them the following day)


Pregnant wife? Accident? Unable to feel unborn child move?....nah....think I'll wait until tomorrow. Sure. That'll be right.

Dunno about you guys, but if I was driving my pregnant wife about, and we were involved in a car accident, and suddenly there was no movement from the child, I'd move heaven and fuckin' earth to get them to a Hospital, and I'd do whatever was neccessary to see they got checked out immediately.

Or maybe that's just me.


Threep.

oh, and no-one's cheering, I'm just unable to find a sizeable reading on my sympathy meter.

Quoted from Threepwood

I'd move heaven and fuckin' earth to get them to a Hospital, and I'd do whatever was neccessary

What, like driving in a bus lane for example?

Wouldn't you?

Seriously though, why wait until the NEXT day?


Threep.

It could have been worse, had the missus been further into to her term, she might not have been wearing a seat belt.

Quoted from Threepwood

Wouldn't you?

Seriously though, why wait until the NEXT day?


Threep.

Because he had to give himself time to think about it. Plus he had whiplash remember.  ;)

Probably saw one of those "claims 4 you"  ( or whatever ) ads on the T.V. that night.


Threep.

Quoted from Downlander

What, like driving in a bus lane for example?

You're getting the order of things confused. He decided to drive down Northbrook street apparently because his wife was feeling faint and he wanted to pull over "...where there were lots of people in case we needed help." He could have done this at any point from turning into the Broadway (and there are disabled and taxi bays there), but instead, rather than pull over and ring for an ambulance, he tried to drive down Northbrook street.

Threep's quote was about what he would have done in the event that he himself had been in an accident, but up until the guy's own actions, this chap hadn't been in an accident at that point.

Also, note that the guy was so concerned about his wife and unborn child that he only bothered to seek medical help the next day. His story about the doctor seems dubious too, as they would have kept his wife in for monitoring had the baby been under stress to the point that the doctor was concerned, but there was no mention of that.

In any case, it was hardly like he was trying to get help in the first instance because they couldn't feel the baby moving. His wife was merely feeling faint (as pregnant women often do), and rather than a number of glaringly more obvious options available to him, he thought it best to drive down Northbrook street. Not forgetting also that the bollards are left in the "up" position until an authorised vehicle approaches them, when they lower. So this guy must also have tried to follow another vehicle into Northbrook street.

Agreed.  He's fulla 'whatsit' in my view.

Quoted from massifheed

You're getting the order of things confused.

No, I wasn't.

Quoted from massifheed

Threep's quote was about what he would have done in the event that he himself had been in an accident

I know. That's what I responded to, nothing else.  

Another victim today, in Bartholomew Street. This time a Bessacarr Motorhome. How they do not see the large array of signs now in place, beats me!!

Quoted from LocalRes

Another victim today, in Bartholomew Street. This time a Bessacarr Motorhome. How they do not see the large array of signs now in place, beats me!!

The excuse was probably along the lines of 'we didn't know there were bollards, we're not from around here'

How hard is it to miss all the signs the council have had to waste money on because of these stupid people!

Not that hard it would seem.

If I lived in Bourton on the Water say, I doubt I'd have a clue what rising bollards are. 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.

Another numpty hits the bollards. Yes, there are so many signs you would have to be a real idiot to miss them.

I agree with Eddie on this one. If you come from somewhere out in the sticks the words ' rising bollards ' would mean something totally different to what the people  in Newbury know them as.. :)

Quoted from 26

I doubt I'd expect a chunk of metal to come crashing through my vehicle floor.

Perhaps you could remind me of the last time a poor unfortunate motorist had the bollards actually come "crashing through" their vehicle's floor?

Quoted from 26

If I lived in Bourton on the Water say, I doubt I'd have a clue what rising bollards are. 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.

You do people who live in the countryside a dis-service.... Or are you presuming that everyone who lives out in the darker corners of this land, such as Bourton on the Water, are all straw munching types with three fingers on each hand and get scared when they see 'iron horses...'.




I would hope they understand the word 'Rising' and I'm sure they'd get their heads around 'Bollards' to know it's not good when those words are connected......

It seems some people need their cars to be driven by someone else and refuse to take any responsibility themselves when they use the roads....  

Quoted from spartacus

You do people who live in the countryside a dis-service.... Or are you presuming that everyone who lives out in the darker corners of this land, such as Bourton on the Water, are all straw munching types with three fingers on each hand and get scared when they see 'iron horses...'.

I could as easily chosen Swansea or Croydon. In fact anywhere in the country that doesn't have rising bollards - not saying they don't. There may well be one or two idiots that think they can out run the bollards (there are people that try to outrun level crossings after all), but I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority were pretty shocked and didn't have a clue what had happened.

Quoted from massifheed

Perhaps you could remind me of the last time a poor unfortunate motorist had the bollards actually come "crashing through" their vehicle's floor?

Is that not what happens then? Do they auto detect a vehicle and then retract? They should do that, but they don't - they do as I described.

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 ;)

Quoted from 26

Is that not what happens then?

No, it's not.

Quoted from 26

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?

Thank God for the bollards. What else is there that is able to generate such wide and diverse viewpoints.

Quoted from massifheed

So, you are seriously suggesting that the bollards penetrate the floor of the vehicles and enter the driver/passenger compartments? Seriously?

Where did I suggest the highlighted bit? Calm down dear.

Quoted from 26

Where did I suggest the highlighted bit? Calm down dear.

Oh shit we're not going to have Michael Winner going round town are we?? ??) ??)

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.

Quoted from noobree

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).

Quoted from blackdog

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!

Quoted from 26

Where did I suggest the highlighted bit? Calm down dear.

Right here...

Quoted from 26

I doubt I'd expect a chunk of metal to come crashing through my vehicle floor.

Or does that not mean what it says?  :(

Quoted from noobree

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.

Quoted from massifheed

Right here...



Or does that not mean what it says?  :(

The highlighted bit. Do please put your glasses on.

Quoted from 26

Do please put your glasses on.

Very mature.  ::)

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.

Quoted from massifheed

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.

Quoted from 26

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.

Ooops... there you go again.  ::)

I see Catalonia has banned bull fighting.  Perhaps they now have bollards to satisfy the blood lust instead?

Quoted from 26

If I lived in Bourton on the Water say, I doubt I'd have a clue what rising bollards are.

B. Umpkin, (our countryside correspondent) writes:

There we was, fed up with being in the village so I says to 'er lets get in that there motor 'ome and head out to Newbury, see what it's like in a big town. (Being country folk we normally only gets out of Bourton to spray slurry up the side of a council building). So we gets aboard and off we goes .

Now, what's this?  says 'Pedestrian Zone'  10am to 6pm. and little pictures of a car and a motorbike. No motorhomes though, so I guess the sign don't apply to me and since I aint from 'round here....guess I'll just keep on driving..

Oh look, there's one out of the other window as well...nah.....still can't apply to me..

Jezzz..another one..whats this then?

I recognize the word 'Rising' and I understand the word 'Bollards' but..somehow they make no sense together....and what's that word above them?   hmm...'Warning' gee that's all kinda wrong..you'd have thought they wanted me to stop or summat..

And what does 'Authorised' mean anyway?

They're here again with this 'Rising Bollards' stuff..they just won't give it a rest..

This is doing me 'ead in...  they have only gone and done another sign with them 'Rising' and 'Bollards' words on it,  I'm so confused..but I'm gonna keep on driving anyway..

Well they're certainly all in yer face about it here...another one of them signs with the words 'Rising' and 'Bollards' sod it...I'll keep on driving..

Oh, and now what's this?  them words again but this time with the word 'Stop' above them....

I mean, what on earth can they mean? words like Warning, Stop, Rising and Bollards all jumbled up like that on all them there signs.....makes no sense at all.

And to top it all, they now got 'Danger' 'of' and 'Damage' there.....what can they be trying to tell me?

If anything's about to happen, I just wish they'd warn me...

Must press on though..got to get back home...ours is only a small village and tomorrow it's my turn on the Idiot rota.

B.Umpkin.

What if you don't notice them?  ;D

Liked the pics - how about you doing the same for speed? 8)

Those signs become invisible when you're tailgating a bus, be fair.

Quoted from 133

Those signs become invisible when you're tailgating a bus, be fair.

Even at 20mph they should be 12m behind the bus.

How bout at 10mph, or when at rest, or puilling away in traffic?

Hmmmmm..all vely intelestink!

Quoted from 133

Those signs become invisible when you're tailgating a bus, be fair.

The two at eye level don't.....you actually have to drive past them...

Quoted from Greenham Common

How bout at 10mph, or when at rest, or puilling away in traffic?

I'd suggest that most people take that corner at 20mph plus, even if tailgating a bus.

Quoted from Threepwood

The two at eye level don't.....you actually have to drive past them...

Tailgating with tunnel vision

Quoted from user23.3

I'd suggest that most people take that corner at 20mph plus, even if tailgating a bus.

Not if they've both been stopped at the traffic lights before the bollards.  I doubt the bus would have reached 10 mph

Perhaps a technology solution?  Could we not install one of those devices that London shops use to send messages to mobile phones... :)

Quoted from 133

Not if they've both been stopped at the traffic lights before the bollards.  I doubt the bus would have reached 10 mph

I bet it would, have you seen how fast they come round that corner and given I and most people can run faster than 10mph it's not really that fast.

Quoted from Old Goat

Perhaps a technology solution?  Could we not install one of those devices that London shops use to send messages to mobile phones... :)

There is a simple technological solution to bollard bashing, speding, jumping lights, etc - a car that reacts to the road regulations. It would be easy to have a gizmo in a car that knows via gps or roadside transmitters what is legal. Even better it could automatically pay parking fees or refuse to allow the engine to stop, or the car to lock if you park in designated no parking zones.  

So many road regulations could be enforced this way, saving the police loads of time - but no government has the b*lls to make the fitting of such devices mandatory.

Quoted from blackdog

There is a simple technological solution to bollard bashing, speding, jumping lights, etc - a car that reacts to the road regulations. It would be easy to have a gizmo in a car that knows via gps or roadside transmitters what is legal. Even better it could automatically pay parking fees or refuse to allow the engine to stop, or the car to lock if you park in designated no parking zones.  

So many road regulations could be enforced this way, saving the police loads of time - but no government has the b*lls to make the fitting of such devices mandatory.

Nice one!  Do that for every offence and we have gridlock!  Nevertheless, suspect it would work :K)

Quoted from Old Goat

Nice one!  Do that for every offence and we have gridlock!  Nevertheless, suspect it would work :K)

It's all readily achievable - but it won't happen for years.  Let's face it they had imposed some restrictions on HGVs for years (speed limiters, tachographs) which could easily be applied to cars - but haven't been.  If the government was really serious about the 70mph limit they could have enforced it with limiters years ago.

The government don't need to do a thing.   Insurance companies could just introduce systems like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage-based_insurance then charge accordingly.  Those who chose not to fit the systems - or fitted systems but exceeded limits - would pay much higher rates than those who did.  They'd be made compulsory (by the insurance companies) for under 25s, those with dangerous driving convictions and so on.

Who could possibly object?

Quoted from noobree

Who could possibly object?

A good point.  So why hasn't it happened?

Quoted from blackdog

A good point.  So why hasn't it happened?

Economics, dear boy, economics.  If the insurance companies could make money out of it and we consumers could save money we'd all have GPS based monitoring systems sitting in our cars right now.  A no brainer. The technology isn't the issue - fitting all cars with the technology to monitor and report their speed and position 24/7 would be trivial.  

Same applies to global warming.  It doesn't matter whether climate change is being induced by our actions or not.  If  the oil companies short term profits are maximised (and our costs as consumers are minimised) by lobbyists persuading Congress/Parliament/us that burning fossil fuels is the way to go, that's the way we'll go.  Regardless. It all comes down to which lobbyists have the most cash.  My money is on the oil company lobbyists.

Never before has the fate of so many rested on the self interest of so few.  Quote me if you like.

Quoted from noobree

Never before has the fate of so many rested on the self interest of so few.  Quote me if you like.

Possibly, but without these oil companies making healthy profits, there would be little worthwhile for pension funds to invest in.

i have a suggestion.  If everyone (brian etc) if so worried about these damn bollards, how about the retired and bored among you go and stand next to the entrance slip road, with high visiability vests on and stop offending vehicles from hitting the bollards.  

Worthwhile i think...no more injuries, no more smashed cars, no more expensive repair bills for the tax payer. its perfectly legal, and you would actually achieve something rather then just bickering amongst yourselves over whether one can see signs or not. Does it actually acheive anything? (Having said all that, the drivers would still ignore you anyway, then you will learn why people keep hitting them.  Most drivers are unattentive idiots)

Take action, don't just gas about it.

Yes your majesty... we never had this problem when it was a just a road.

Quoted from buttonf1

Having said all that, the drivers would still ignore you anyway, then you will learn why people keep hitting them.  Most drivers are unattentive idiots

I think you've answered your own question there.


Threep.

Quoted from buttonf1

i have a suggestion.  If everyone (brian etc) if so worried about these damn bollards, how about the retired and bored among you go and stand next to the entrance slip road, with high visiability vests on and stop offending vehicles from hitting the bollards.  

Worthwhile i think...no more injuries, no more smashed cars, no more expensive repair bills for the tax payer. its perfectly legal, and you would actually achieve something rather then just bickering amongst yourselves over whether one can see signs or not. Does it actually acheive anything? (Having said all that, the drivers would still ignore you anyway, then you will learn why people keep hitting them.  Most drivers are unattentive idiots)

Take action, don't just gas about it.

Even better - couldn't Threep run a book?