Not exaggerating too much then?

Really? I thought they were there to restrict access to certain vehicles.

Yes I can picture the scene in court now.

And why did you attempt to tailgate, at strong acceleration, a bus through a restricted area with full no entry and restricting signage?

Because I am an idiot and {your choice of demeaning expletive}, your honour.

Did you not realise that you risked injury to your partner and your child?

No, but it was worth saving a few pounds on parking/being a bit closer to the shops [delete as appropriate]
I have seen those rising bollards before and I knew how they worked so I put my foot down but those evil assassins had put a turbo in their bollards

Case dismissed. Guilty but terminally stupid

I'm truly sorry that the child had to be comforted by his mother - no evidence that injury occurred to the child. However, that is totally down to the actions of the driver not the local authority.
If the airbags went off and the back end of the car rose into the air he must have been gunning it. This guy knew EXACTLY what he was trying to do.

As I said before, HE risked it - HE lost.


Tony

Actually yes I am starting to change my mind.

The first driver did a recce, knew the risk, and lost.

The second driver... for the airbag to inflate, he really must've smacked it hard. I didn't see any attempt for him standing on the brakes either.

The third driver, well he's white van man - so says it all really.

Also, doesn't the airbag noise cause permanent hearing damage?

Apparently man traps were made illegal in England in 1827. Presumably those who think it is acceptable to potentially cause costly damage to property and serious injury for contravening an access restriction would like to see them reintroduced, provided warning signs were erected.

The best example of these bollards being dangerous was when one malfunctioned and impaled a car in Blackburn - belonging to the Mayor of town.

Since that incident there have not been any bollard installations in town - and the ones on Church Street are never active at the end where the shopping centre access is. The other set at the car park end are permanently up, and do not open at all.

Well I that case, could we have a compromise and install something mentioned earlier: a vestibule system?

This way it would be impossible for anyone to get injures as you would be intentionally driving into the back of a bus.

This seems a little bit of an over-reaction.

Man traps, the ones outlawed just before 6.30pm are laid out with the intent to injure, maim and kill and for no other purpose.

These bollards are not designed for that purpose. They are designed to allow buses through and nothing else. They are used beacuse obviously some drivers cannot be trusted with signs alone or do not have the brains to understand what an internationally recognised no entry sign means.

If you define these bollards as man-traps in this way, then I could equally define cars as man traps. Cars if used deliberately badly and rules deliberately broken will kill and maim. But I don't.

Besides which, no bollard has ever killed and maimed, just twisted a car (heavens forfend, its the end of the world) and given the drivers a headache and a great deal of explaining to do.

Peter, do you honestly believe that the drivers in the video (if you have seen it that is!) did not know that they shouldn't be attempting to drive over the bollards?

I understand that some drivers will be unfamiliar with the concept of these bollards, and perhaps having to buy a new car (or spend £lots on repairs) is a harsh penalty. But the fact is, there is warning with signs, and if people do not understand these signs then they shouldn't be on the road anyway.

I think it is crystal clear that they were not remotely aware of the risk they were running. As I posted before, unless the success rate of running the bollards is very high (say 99 out of 100) it cannot be regarded as a rational, calculating action. People are confused and don't understand the system.


Even with all the warning signs in the world, trashing someone's car (and possibly inflicting serious injury) is quite simply a grossly disproportionate penalty for violating an access restriction. I frankly cannot understand how anyone can find this remotely acceptable. The principle is exactly the same as the mantrap.

And it's not even as if the restriction is anything to do with safety, it's just that the car-hating councillors of Manchester don't want cars driving through St Ann's Square.

Apart from the first car who did a recce.

while i don't condone it, if you basically caused an access violation and walked across a motorway, and got hit, is that a)a punishment for doing so or b)gross stupidity causing a nasty incident?

Sorry I misunderstood what you were saying before.

AIUI they know they shouldn't be following the bus over the barrier but they were unaware of what would happen as a consequence.

In response, this is a harsh penalty for a small (but stupid and selfish) doing. (Sorry but there is no way I am willing to accept that these people didn't know they shouldn't attempt to go along the bus route).

The same could be said though, if someone was going 40 in a 30 zone (a small and selfish doing), and kills a child (or any person really). If this person got imprisoned, are you therefore saying this is harsh.

In the bollard example, the person's car got trashed, but if they hadn't ignored the signs, the bollards wouldn't come into it.
In the speeding example, the person got imprisoned, but if they hadn't been speeding then the child (in this example) would have lived.

In both cases if the driver had obeyed the law, then they wouldn't recieve the punishment. No matter what law you break, even a small one, you cannot expect sympathy as it is your own fault.

But there is a key difference in principle between being injured by a car, or an animal, or whatever, and being injured by an active device that the landowner has put there to deter intruders.

It's the same principle that says you're not allowed to defend your property with an electrified fence.

Peter

We agree on many things, but this is not one of them.

It is only a car - a pretty piece of metal, it can be repaired. The sad thing is that their insurers will have picked up the bill. If someone has damaged their own car by deliberately breaking the rules of the road then they should be left to foot the bill.

I would never dream of driving over a rising bollard or even driving past a No Entry sign, why the heck did they think they could get away with it?

And what is wrong with returning city squares back to pedestrians and buses and removing the scourge of the car which has no place there anyway, and if the buses are dangerous then they should be removed into a bus station or back route too. City Centres are for people not cars, but that is whole different argument.

Tony

Peter,

Why do all three vehicles accelerate towards the bollard if they didn't think it would rise?

To add to my previous post:

If these rising bollards were installed on random places on the M1 and rose at random intervals then I might just agree that they are mantraps.

But these rising bollards spend 95% (or more) of the time in the up position. It doesn't take a genius to work them out.

Tony

Of course they know the bollards would rise eventually. They've made an error of judgment. But that does not justify trashing their car. I thought you were a Christian - that seems to me to be a remarkably un-Christian attitude.

It seems to be people are being transfixed by a kind of collective guilt-feeling about cars (see Brenley Corner's post above).

If people were suffering thousands of pounds of damage to their houses for putting stuff in the wrong bin or whatever I don't think it would be seen as acceptable.

Exactly.
It was either Newton or Einstein who stated the rule of Cause and Effect.

Cause: driver tailgates at (what is likely) more than the speed limit for the area to get through the restricted area gate.
Effect: Inntelligent bollard rises by timer control, car gets impaled.

which is same as:
Cause: driver speeds through barriers at level crossing
Effect: Car gets smashed by intercity 125, kiiling all in car and causing trauma to train driver.

Rising bollards have been installed because of the minority who want to break the rules and feel they shouldn't be restricted in any way, the sort of people who got everything they wanted as a child.
if you're going to drive at high speed towards a rising bollard and end up getting impaled, "more fool you".

True. Their purpose is to act as a barrier, not to trap anyone.

I reckon those drivers knew exactly what the bollards were for. They tried to get through quickly behind the buses, probably thinking that the bollards would either stay down until the road above was completely clear for a good few seconds, or retract if they detected another vehicle passing above.

I'll grant that they probably didn't expect the bollards to stop their cars dead and cause as much damage as they did, but still, that's happened by accident (with those drivers at fault!) rather than design.