Safe Speed Forums

Because the bollards are not there to damage vehicles. They are there to keep most vehicles out, and only drop to let certain vehicles in. A comedy weight would exist only to damage vehicles. You might as well say "Lets have a man stood at the side, with an AK-47 - is that acceptable POD?"

If a driver doesn't see them, they're not paying attention.

Can somebody please try and excuse the behaviour of the driver of the black 4x4 in that video?



So presumably these drivers do not have peripheral vision, and therefore should not be driving.

I just watched the video again. Its still funny. I think the bollards should be renamed to 'idiot identifiers'.

But they do damage vehicles and cause injury.

Rather like land mines or any other booby trap. There aren't intended to do damage or cause injury - they are designed to keep people out. But that doesn't change reality.



Excusing anyone's behaviour has nothing to do with it. It may be inexcusable - but that clearly doesn't mean that 'punishment' should be immediate and limitless.

I'd be perfectly happy if a local authority used my money to install a safety fence on a clifftop to protect people from the consequences of their stupidity or carelessness.

So perhaps you think they are wasting their time installing such safety features and people should 'take their punishment' if they are stupid?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Wandering slightly off topic but..

I have peripheral vision and make great use of it for picking out the start of a potential hazard situation. However, in crowded very low speed situations, active scanning is both more necessary and more effective.

As for taking one's eyes off the road ahead, this is a common thing for average drivers to do. They tweak the heater contorls, check their children are still safely fastened, check their dash for adequacy of fuel, lack of warning lights etc, they check their speedo, they adjust their radio.. .I could go on. Good ones do it too. The general difference is that good drivers do it when they KNOW nothing is going to be within their "en pris" area for the duration of their missing gaze - which is invariably only a second or so (way too long in hazardous situations). The rising bollards add a new hazard to the domain.

One possible thought... Could a centre narrower collapsible part of the bollard telescope up first - a fat whip aerial if you like - which when erect is very visible to the driver. Then and only then the outer unmoveable sheath comes up to complete the barrier.

The whip aerial would no doubt damage paintwork and scrape underseal off the cares, but hopefully do little other harm. Motorists would not try to flatten them as they would know that the other part of the bollard may well be there.

How could such careful drivers, scanning left and right for hazards, miss the massive brightly lit no entry signs that sear onto the back of the retina?

If hazard density is high, all drivers have to prioritise. Children not "on a lead" folk alighting from busses (as seen in the video clip - as the bus moves off - and loose shopping trolleys are all of far higher priority than a fixed sign. I'm not condoning the missing of the signs, but it is genuinely possible that the sign information was missed. I have not personally seen these ones.

Again - if a stranger to a town, whilst some routes are "busses only" these are few and far between and typically not policed by terminal vehicle executioners.

They're brightly lit 'NO ENTRY' signs. Standard size, red/white, except they're bright LEDs.

Aircraft have been known to mistake them for landing lights, they're that bright.

That might well be their downfall - for a minority.

As a driver I tend to think that anything as bright as that is a commercial device. If I was a second or two behind a bus and something that bright came into view as the bus went forward, I'd get it out of my eyeshot straight away, either by turning my head, shielding my eyes with my hand or maybe even getting slightly closer order to the bus and moving slightly sideways. The last thing I need in fading light is to have my cones all temprarily knocked up by some overbright sign.

Again, I'm not condoning any such behaviuour. I would never knowingly go into an area I was not permitted to, irrespective of the "guards". However, I still maintain that a lapse of concentration for perhaps no more than half a second would allow all this to be missed if you happened to be the one following the bus.

What say you to my idea of the telescopic section in the bollard as a possibly good compromise?

In that case the purpose would be to prevent cyclists from running the red light. The fact that cyclists who were caught by them suffered damage and injury, is just an unfortunate side effect. Just as you say for these car-wrecking bollards: the purpose is to stop cars driving through them; the fact that people who do try to drive through them suffer damage and injury is an unfortunate side effect.

Your attitude seems to be that anyone who breaks a law or makes a mistake automatically deserves anything that happens to them. Your entitled to your opinion, but my opinion is that that is a dispicable attitude.

The point you seem to be missing is that the difference between the bollards, and the cyclist-killng trip wire, and the heat seaking missiles and so on, is just a matter of degree. They're all things that are there for a purpose, and could be claimed to have some safety benefit, but also have a potential to do harm. The fact that the only people who come to harm are stupid, negligent or unlucky does not mean the harm can be ignored. I'm glad you feel it is right and proper to protect pedestrians and cyclists from harm, but I'm baffled why you don't extend the same consideration to motorists.

_________________
Peter Humphries (and a green V8S)

It doesn't sound like a bad idea, but for motorcyclists it could be quite dangerous still, the whip might get caught in the chain or forks.

If you install sensors in the road so that they won't raise back up if other traffic is detected, people will get smart and tailgate through it all the time.

I think the best idea personally is to paint them flourescent yellow. If people still don't see them, they shouldn't be driving. In fact, I'd give that 4x4 driver a few points to reconsider his driving style though pedestrian crossings while ignoring no entry signs.

No. The point you seem to be missing, both here and on PH, is that the bollards are not designed to damage people's cars. They are designed to keep things out of a restricted area.

All the silly things like rocket launchers etc are designed to damage things. Thats the important distinction you don't see, and the reason why every single analogy so far put forward is stupid and pointless.

If people choose to ignore all the warning signs, and not pay attention to their driving, and decide to drive straight into a set of bollards, why should I have any sympathy for them? Its not a despicable attitude.

If pedestrians run out into the road without looking and get hit, I have no sympathy. If motorists drive in the road without looking and get hit, its no different.

The point is the damage to cars, and the potential for injury do not fit the crime. I think very few people are saying it is okay that they are driving into a restricted area. We are not discussing the rights and wrongs of the driver’s actions, nor are we discussing if the area should be restricted, perhaps these could be in another topic.
The point is can the council reasonably justify, the damage and the potential injury and distress caused by driving into these bollards.
The reaction and attitude you have shown is quite shocking. You seem to believe that pedestrians and cyclist can do no wrong. In London my girlfriend was nearly run over a by a cyclist. We at a light controlled pedestrian crossing, and we saw the little green man and started to cross the road, we assumed it was safe because all the nasty evil nasty cars had stopped. But the cyclist did not stop at the light. Luckily I pulled her out of the way. Now if I pushed the cyclist of his bike, would this be a fair thing to do. He must have seen the red light, and seen me and my girlfriend start to cross, because the nasty evil nasty bad bad bad cars stopped, and we all know cars want to run pedestrians over.
Ever been bumped or nearly knock over by a pedestrian, perhaps you should punch them in the face? Ever been leaving shop though a door marked out, and someone was coming in though the door, perhaps we should break their legs. How dare they walk though the wrong door, there is a sign clearly saying out on the door.

I as I have said before, if someone commits murder, many people would be horrified if he was beaten by the police or prison officers. The murder knew what he was doing; he is getting what he/she deserved.

_________________
Oct 11 Birmingham Half Marathon. I am running for the British Heart Foundation.
http://www.justgiving.com/Rob-Taylor

I'm guessing from the videos these bollards are about 10" to a foot diameter. The whip I'm referring to might be a compressed air-filled 3" diameter tube with a solid top plate (possibly with a set or taper to register it accurately in the top of the main bollard) and an embedded spring-steel centre strut to keep it in the plane of the main bollard unless disturbed by a vehicle.

The complete assembly would retract as it does at present when triggered by a bus.

This centre piece would come up - smartish - after the bus has gone through - and when erect and undisturbed, the main bollard would come up around it to complete the fortress. I do not see this centre piece as something that would cop a motor cyclist anything like as badly as it rose as the full bollard rising might.

Why should the council have to justify it?

What next, ramraiders complaining that their cars have been wrecked by pavement bollards?

Because what they are doing is almost corporal punishment. They have placed in road a device that has the potential to seriously injure some who commits a minor infringement of the law. If I beat up a burglar in my own home, I have to justify my actions.

The council has to be accountable for its actions. If the device causes unreasonable damage to someone or their property, dam right they have to justify it.

_________________
Oct 11 Birmingham Half Marathon. I am running for the British Heart Foundation.
http://www.justgiving.com/Rob-Taylor

What about the unreasonable damage to the bollards that these unobservant and dangerous drivers are causing? Aren't they liable for that?

I kerbed my wheel once. Is the council liable?

I once backed into a brick wall at low speed. Would the council be liable for that?


You still don't get it do you. The bollards didn't damage anything. People knew they were there, went for it, and got found out - the hard way. Its not punishment at all - the bollards are not there to damage people's property. They are there to keep people out.

The council isn't liable for the damage - the idiots who hit them are. Stop making excuses for frankly very stupid drivers. Just because its a council initiative doesn't make it a bad thing. You should go and have a look at the centre of Manchester. Its unlike any other city in the country.

They are installed and used in a way that makes it reasonably forseeable that people will occasionally drive into them. They are designed to impact the car, and withstand the impact without yielding, when that happens. So I say they are designed to damage cars. Damaging cars is not their primary purpose, but they are designed and used in such a way that damage is reasonably forseeable.

Rocket propelled grenades on speed cameras, and garot wires across traffic lights, and anti-ramraider barriers across bus lanes, are all things that have two predictable effects: they enforce a rule or regulation, and the cause harm. The rocket propelled grenade will be extremely effective at stopping speeders. Very few cyclists would carry on cycling across a junction after their head has been taken off by a garot. People trying to drive past a restricted entry are absolutely not going to make it once the bollards have been raised. They're all completely unreasonable ways to achieve that end, of course. The harm they do is out of all proportion to the safety benefit they would give.

Automatic bollards to stop people driving off the end of a pier, good idea. Protect people from getting drowned.

Automatic bollards to stop the wrong sort of vehicle driving along a road, bad idea, the harm is disproprtionate to the benefit.

_________________
Peter Humphries (and a green V8S)

Ban Armco!

If the wheel or the kerb weren't there when you started the manouvere: YES!

What if one of these people had seen the bus go through and assumed the restriction had ended? What if the sign saying the green light has a different meaning from every other green light was obscured by someone standing in front of it in one case?

If the damage is forseable to a reasonable person then it is negligence and counts as intentional. I can't put landmines in my front garden to keep people out even if I do put up a sign. It's completely illegal.

I still defy anyone to say that the behaviour of the three drivers in the video was excusable.

Now, it may well be that the only footage released was of drivers that behaved like prats and other footage of 'innocent' drivers was kept back.

_________________
Wake me up when the revolution starts
STOP the Toll Tax http://www.traveltax.org.uk