Safe Speed Forums

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.

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?

Watch the movie i posted again more carefully. The bollards do not rise under a passing vehicle; they stop rising as soon as a vehicle crosses them.

Why has nobody attacked the things with a hammer or something?

At the end of the day, a simple "no entry" sign with some sort of enforcement camera would be perfectly sufficient. Better for emergency vehicle access too.

But they still rise outwith the driver's field of view and even when they do stop they are still high enough to cause serious damage to vehicles, including airbag deployments, and risking serious injury to occupants and bystanders.

Whichever way one tries to defend these things, there is always a low cost solution which achieves the purpose of enforcement with much less danger than these bollards inherently have.

Even if they immediately retracted on impact - the damage is already done.

It doesn't seem to much of an issue what happens when they sense a vehicle - the crash has already happened

No - because the guidelines state that letting a few offenders through should be prefered over causing accidents.

Edit: I also expect that if scrutinised due to a test case of sorts - the interpretation of the wording would come under question.

I would read the guidelines as to say they must not rise up into the path of an immediately approaching vehicle, whereas you take it quite literally as they must not rise up whilst a car is directly overhead.

I think in the case of death or serious injury the courts would find in favour of the former, since the former prevents injury and the latter (literal) interpretation would achieve little/nothing in terms of preventing injury. As I said last time round - the crashes and injuries caught on camera have already occurred as a direct consequence of the bollard's function prior to the cut-off preventing it rising further.

All an intelligent anarchist need to is fool the sensor so that the bollard rises before the bus, crammed with passengers, has completely passed.....

The bollards do not rise under a passing vehicle; they stop rising as soon as a vehicle crosses them.

It's difficult to say for sure, but it appears that the bollards stop rising as soon as they come into contact with part of the vehicle, which isn't quite the same thing.

If someone were to be so incenced by these bollards that they chose to stage a protest in the form of parking at this point, there would be no legal remedy to force them to move or punish them!

But you wouldn't be causing an obstruction because there are bollards stopping vehicles getting in to the area...

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.

Bollards are NOT spearing cars, claims maker
Mike Keegan


MANCHESTER'S infamous traffic bollards meet all government safety guidelines - and do NOT rise underneath vehicles.

That is the claim being made by ATG Access, the people who manufactured them.

The company said the bollards, involved in a series of car-wrecking incidents, comply with Highways Agency specifications.

Advertisement your story continues below
A spokesman said they include a sensor that detects vehicles trying to tailgate authorised buses.

The sensor is designed to cause the poles to go back down to avoid impact.

He claimed: "The vehicles in question are impacting into them before they have the chance to fully retract.

"The bollards are not there to trap or spear any unauthorised vehicles, they provide a physical barrier between unauthorised vehicles and the roads they are not allowed onto. They are not striking vehicles - vehicles are in fact striking the bollards."

The claims come after a week of wreckage in St Mary's Gate.

Last Wednesday, a Ford Focus became the first of three casualties in four days and had to be pushed away by police and council workers. The bollards block access to a disabled parking bay between 11am and 7pm and it appears that the vehicle was displaying a disabled badge.



It was followed on Thursday by a Renault Clio and on Sunday by a Volkswagen Polo.

Critics of the system, installed in June, have contacted the M.E.N. to object.

John Stimpson, a director at Macs Solutions, a rival company to ATG, claimed that other, `safer' measures, could have been taken when the bollards were installed and he was `sickened' by video footage showing crashes.

He also criticised the council, claiming that they `ignored' his company's attempts at communication when the decision to tender for the contract was made.

Mr Stimpson said his company operated similar systems in more than 30 towns and cities and claimed they had never had similar incidents.

"There are instances of tailgating where cars go straight through," he said, "but some councils we have worked with use CCTV to prosecute those who do at a later date. There is no reason why this can't happen in Manchester."

But a council spokesman said: "Macs Solutions have never been able to confirm other highway locations where their equipment has been used.

"ATG have similar bollards in at least 60 other authorities around the country, including 12 other locations in Manchester.

"In the case of the St Mary's Gate scheme, it was important to use tried and tested equipment at such a key location."

Did anything get published?