Safe Speed Forums

Yeah. Exactly. I can't figure out how apparently intelligent people can have such a blind spot.

Why can't they distinguish between the 'systematic' responsibility that falls to the local authority and the individual responsibility that falls to the driver?

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

At 'more than one vehicle damaged per month' I think so...

About the signs...
Every driver in the UK knows that an important sign is either round, triangular, rectangular or octagonal AND has a border around the entire thing. OR the sign is one of the above on a grey or yellow backing board. Anything else is not a sign and can be ignored.

This may all happen subconsciously.

_________________
Andrew.

Hell yes. The signs provided are certainly not as specified in TSRGD. The LA's misguided attempt to increase visibility may well have compromised recognition.

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

I've thought a good deal about this. The rectangular information signs with white backgrounds look more like the sort of thing that you'd see outside a discount store advertising the latest bargains, and thus something that a car driver would quickly discount on scanning. Those signs have lots of text, which you wouldn't have time to read. Since they don't follow the TSRGD principles (which they must to be granted special authorisation) of shape, size, and colour a reasonable person with the high workload associated with city driving, could well miss the actual message.

WRT the no-entry signs themselves. They are LEDs on a black, rectangular background that has a black frame and have the shape and form of self-illuminating advertising hoardings. TSRGD provides for grey or yellow backboards, but not black - so a black rectangular sign with bright lights is very likely to be seen as advertising and discounted after the first scan.

Now for something that I suspect the authorities haven't considered: the protanopic anomalies that affect one in eight of the male population but signficantly fewer females. This is a reduction in sensitivity to red sometimes called red/green colour blindness. I'm affected and so can say with some authority that those "no entry" signs are not the correct colour - to at least one in eight men they're orange, not red. The double whammy is that monochromatic sensitivity isn't reduced, so the brighter a red light shines, the harder it is to identify that it is red. To me, those "no-entry" signs look more like advertisements for Sunshine Holidays than road signs.

There are very good reasons why all road signs should at least comply with the general principles of TSRGD - and here Manchester City Council have shown us why in spades!

Edited to add: Until I saw the original video some weeks (perhaps months) ago, I didn't know that rising bollards existed. This is a new development about which I feel confident a significant number of road users know nothing and thus would not expect. Where is the Government campaign to say that a council near you might install these things - and warn to be on the lookout. After all, there's been a lot spent recently on warning about level crossings (which are properly documented in the Highway Code and for which appropriate signs exist in TSRGD) but I've yet to see one advert on TV or in the paper to make the public aware that these abominations (that do not appear in the Highway Code or TSRGD) are in use.

_________________
Will

P of D.

I'm somewhere in the middle on this.

I think the problem with the bollard is it's obvious if you're looking for it. Which isn't to say the drivers in the videos aren't idiots to a degree.

How about two pairs of gates like a canal lock? When the bus/whatever has driven through the first set, they are then held by the second until the first set has closed, thus ensuring no-one can get caught by the gate. If anyone tries to tailgate the permitted vehicle through, causing the first gates not to be able to shut, the second set simply won't open.

If we're looking for alternative solutions now then I'd say this:

- The bollards could be modified never to rise under a vehicle.
- If one or two sneak through - does it really matter? It's hardly the end of the world is it. They're only going to get stuck at the other side surely - and no doubt there will be a PCSO around to slap a fine on them!
- Properly pedestianise the area (ie no vehicles of any sort)

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

That's one way of making these things safe while ensuring enforcement and would tick all the boxes. However, it may be that the delay for the second set to open is unacceptable. That said, if they co-located a bus-stop with the "lock" ...

Another solution would be to fit sensors so that the bollards would rapidly fall if a vehicle approached while they were rising. This would be open to tailgating-type violations. That said, if the system were designed as per DfT guidelines, the miscreants would have to ask to be let back out and (having paid their £30 fixed penalty charge) would probably be less inclined to do the same thing again.

Of course, having sorted out the safety aspect, they'd still need to sort out those signs.

_________________
Will

Armco (and other crash barriers) are used as a safety measure. They keep traffic from obstacles and hazards. Vehicles that strike them are likely to be damaged, but the likely harm if the barrier *wasn't* there is even greater. It is better to glance off a bit of Armco than to slam into the side of a motorway bridge or hit traffic going the other way with a three figure closing speed. People who hit armco barriers are probably negligent, stupid or very unlucky, but still we spend money protecting them and people around them.

The difference between these crash barriers and the car-wrecking bollards is one of degree, not kind. The benefits of the crash barriers outweigh the harm they do and they are the best solution we have available. This is not IMO true of the car-wrecking bollards.

_________________
Peter Humphries (and a green V8S)

I disagree. The principle difference between armco and these bollards is their intended purpose. Armco is a safety device designed to reduce the severity of a crash whereas the bollards are designed to enforce a minor restriction - seemingly with no regard to safety.

Contrary to the claim made by "Parrot of Doom", and that he attempted to wrongly attribute to greenv8s, Armco is not unyielding. It is designed to absorb impact energy by yielding and to guide the crashing vehicle away from rigid obstacles or oncoming traffic. OTOH, the bollards are designed not to yield so that they continue to work after a collision.

_________________
Will

I haven't seen it proved anywhere, but I am willing to accept that there is a genuine safety benefit to reducing traffic through the restricted area. Given that, I'd say that armco, bollards, and the sillier suggestions like garot wire and grenade launchers have some fundamental similarities in the sense that they provide some benefit but also do some harm. In order for any of these to be justified, it would be necessary to show that the benefit outweighs the harm.

The attitude that the harm "doesn't matter" because the people who suffer it brought in on themselves by their own stupidity/negligence/bad luck, is dispicable imo. People are responsible for their own actions, but we also have a moral responsibility imo to protect people from harm to the extent reasonably possible, whether they are idiots, or law breakers, or just very unlucky, or just being driven by somebody who is. Frankly I'm astonished that somebody can see a video of an infant suffering a very violent collision and possible injury, and say it doesn't matter because it was all the driver's fault.

_________________
Peter Humphries (and a green V8S)

Because it didn't happen to them.

People seem great at detaching themselves and treating everyone not directly associated with them as though they were lesser beings. If they were in that vehicle as a passenger they'd be going nuts.

Put simply - people have extreme double standards. A standard for them, and a standard for everyone else.

_________________

If there is benefit to reducing traffic through the restricted area, then the benefit should be realised just by the imposition of a TRO, with appropriate (i.e. approved) signage, and backed up by appropriate enforcement if required.

I know that this is pedantic, but I feel it's important to separate out the restriction (which might have some safety benefit) from the enforcement of that restriction (which in the case of these bollards is dangerous). In the case of bollards, garrotte wires, and grenade launchers the objective is entirely enforcement. While the rule being enforced might have some safety benefit, the method of enforcement does not and is thus inappropriate. For that, the method of enforcement is entirely responsible for the casualties because they would not have happened if a safe enforcement method had been used.

OTOH, Armco isn't there to enforce a rule; it's there to help minimise the severity of crashes that would have happened even in the absence of the barriers.

_________________
Will

Ha! I just came back to this thread to write something very similar, but you beat me to it.

In summary, the safety benefit is one decision, and the means of enforcement is another entirely separate decision.

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

Well,folks, I visited Manchester for Christmas shopping on Saturday and was able to have a look at these devices, (as a pedestrian !!)............

The first thing I noticed is that the space allowed for buses to pass is quite restricted in comparison to the width of the street, (although enough for a bus !), there are FIXED bollards on either side, plus a load of signs, PLUS miniature red/green lights to indicate whether the vehicle can pass or not.

The big problem to me was that in the midst of all these high powered warning signs, the bollards themselves are really quite inconspicuous, being made of unpainted stainless steel. Yes they have two yellow bands at the top, but they are only around 3 feet high, if that, and once a car driver gets up fairly close, I would think they disappear from sight below the bonnet line. They are also NOT LIT, a major shortcoming in my opinion. Certainly if a motorist strange to Manchester followed a bus/van not even all that closely, the bollards, rising after the bus has passed would be fairly inconspicuous and probably not be seen and the motorist would crash into them. This is especially likely in my view because of all the other bright lights around acting as a distraction, apart from all the pedestrians walking about in what is really a pedestrian zone;there is a 20 mph limit as well.

The bottom line however, is surely the ancient law on trespass, whereby it is illegal to set vicious man-traps for people coming into one's land even though a warning has been posted. I don't see how the council can possibly get out of its legal obligation to the public in being required not to install potentially dangerous entry control devices. Once there is a test case, I am sure they will all have to go. Trouble is it will be replaced, YET AGAIN, by camera enforcement.

_________________
Good manners maketh a good motorist

I am actually quite sick of this thread and the attitude of POD and some others. If getting a NIP in the mail is considered sufficient penalty for speeding - even if that speed was through a school zone, then why isn't it good enough for Manchester no car zones.

Maybe there should be tyre shredding devices that rise up just enough to puncture a speeding motorists tyres (with appropriate warning signs OF COURSE). This would slow them immediately rather than simply fining them. Oh, and if they should happen to lose control and crash, well they deserve that too because they were SPEEDING.

POD, get a life, you're lack of compassion and obviouse lack of any understanding of crime and punishment shows what a complete prat you are.

_________________
Ross

Yes I'm a hoon, but only on the track!!!!

People, the answer to this debate was way back on page 5.




There are guidelines regarding use of these bollards.

The guidelines subscribe to good safety practice and common sense.

In manchester, the guidelines have not been followed, either through negligence or through malice.

Damage has been inflicted on peoples' personal property as direct result of the guidelines not being followed.

The innocence or otherwise of the victims in relation to other offences is irrelevant under UK law.

What more is there to discuss?

_________________
“For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.” - H. L. Mencken

Well, the bollards are still there...

We have to talk and talk until they are gone. I may have managed a death blow today. See Wednesday's MEN.

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

What is the NHS cost of a head injury?

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

If you could shred the tyre that might be fine but the tyre might be damaged and blow out a few hours later.

You could just have a couple of rollers or ink jets spray the ticket down the side of the car !

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code