Bollards!

[PeterA5145]

Should the railways therefore do away with booby trap barriers which flip out in front of you and stop you from passing when you don't insert a ticket.

If they were routinely injuring people there would be an outcry and they would be redesigned.

Get real Peter, its not the highway authority smashing peoples cars up - its the drivers of those vehicles being reckless, its as simple as that.

Entirely untrue. The highway authority have installed hydraulic jacks in the road which rise up and smash up people's cars.

[Bryn666]

I'd like to see one of these become a test case, because the powers that be, as ever, base all their holiness arguments on three video clips. More than three cars have hit these bollards in Manchester.

And I saw the phrase 'not having the right to park on the highway'. Did people apply this to stagecoaches and horse drawn transport in Victorian times or is this a very recent anti-car practice?

I'm fairly sure you could quite easily point it to being the latter. Other countries don't hate parking on streets as much as the British - even France with its tiny little alleyways doesn't go and slap parking restrictions left, right, and centre.

[boing_uk]

There has NEVER in this country been a RIGHT to park your vehicle, stable your horse or whatever within the highway.

The public highway is there for the right of passage only and in this case, only for permitted vehicles.

[Bryn666]

Chris, any legislation that explicitly proves there's never been a right? Or is that from a 20th century statute? There's a big difference in the two.

Back to the topic of driver arrogance:

Even if every single vehicle hitting the bollards was driven by someone trying to cheat the system (which not all vehicles are doing, using 3 video clips as conclusive proof is typical statistical massaging), do you feel having a bollard rise up under the vehicle and thus threaten the vehicle occupants with injury a good idea?

It's been proven in court that injuring trespassers is unlawful. You can only stop trespass with reasonable force - having a bollard rise up whilst someone is on top of it is not reasonable.

The bollards are enforced by CCTV, simply let the car past, then send them a fine through the post. Given the choice of CCTV watching the gateway and having a dangerous device restricting access, even I'd take the CCTV as a preferred option.

[boing_uk]

If you're running to the train and the doors close but you're going too fast, run headlong into the now-closed doors and break your nose:

is it the train companys fault for not anticipating your late arrival and holding those doors open just that little bit longer?

is it the train company's fault that those doors are solid metal and likely to cause injurt if you run in to them?

is it the train company inflicting undue and excessive punishment on you because you were late and just trying to get on the train you have a ticket for?

is it your own silly fault for running at speed in to an object as you tried to beat it closing.

Indeed, I suspect most rational people would see it is the latter - and it is exactly the same situation with the rising bollards. People being reckless, resulting in injuries.

But because we're driving a car, oooh a whole new and warped sense of right and wrong comes in to play now. The car is king, we must drive everywhere, lets not prevent them access, and if we do, lets take pictures of them and fine them.

I'm sorry, but I am unsympathetic to anyone who injures themselves or allows themselves to injure others through reckless endangerment and knowingly flouting an access restriction.

As I said before, they know the bollards are there - the signs say only ONE vehicle at a time. How clearer can the message be?

[boing_uk]

Chris, any legislation that explicitly proves there's never been a right? Or is that from a 20th century statute? There's a big difference in the two.

There has never been anything written in to statutes to give people the legal right to park, store or stable anything within the highway.

The adopted highway is there for the movement of people and vehicles.

[Bryn666]

There has never been anything written in to statutes to give people the legal right to park, store or stable anything within the highway.

Then it's down to a matter of interpretation. Do markets therefore have a right to exist on public highways, as they do in places like Skipton?

When statutes are silent, my understanding is there's no explicit prohibition or refusal of something. I'm willing to accept being wrong though.

[boing_uk]

I'm getting in to dodgy territory here as my legislative history skills are a little shakey.

WRT markets, they are a historical throwover from the days of town charters.

If the town has a historical right to hold a market, in the market place, highway or other adopted road, on permitted days, then they have that right today.

The statute does NOT give anyone any right or power to do anything on the highway other than travel from A to B. If its not written down as a right, and is silent on the issue, as you say there is no exact prohibition, but you cannot argue you have a right to do it.

[boing_uk]

What you have to remember is that public rights of way have only really existed in law, in one version or another for only 200 years.

And even then, if you search on google, it has only been the responsibility of town councils to maintain highways in safe and passable states.

Its only the last 75yrs that the highways have had to become much more regulated, otherwise it would be every man, woman and child for themselves and there would possibly be untold problems.

Either way, this does detract from a drivers responsibility to take all reasonable care and judgement and follow legal instructions.

If you don't do either or any of these and you come to injury, then how can it be any other persons fault except the drivers?

[Bryn666]

OK fair enough.

Still, doesn't answer the point that having a device that is obviously if not intentionally doing it, malfunctioning by rising underneath vehicles above it.

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the people trying to go past, no one has answered is this an acceptable thing to have happen. As I have said, there's already CCTV there enforcing the restriction.

It is only recently that this area of the city was closed off to general traffic, and as I said many pages back, there are no signs indicating that you can still cross the city without driving into the restricted zone.

Perhaps if proper direction signs were in place, half of the people hitting the bollards wouldn't be there in the first place?

[boing_uk]

That's as may be and direction signing further away from the closure is not necessarily a bad thing.

From the videos and the pictures, I've sot seen one bollard rise up underneath a vehicle while passing over.

You can see them rise up in front of the vehicle and the vehicle rides up and over, but in every case, the bollard either retracts or stops moving when its hit.

Personally, I don't like the idea of an inductive loop being the obstruction detection method. I would use digital image detectors instead - more reliable.

[M60-Tony]

All my driving life - over 40 years - I have understood it to be that nobody has a legal right to park a vehicle on the public highway. The fact that it is generally allowed, with various caveats, being a concession rather than a right.

Where, if anywhere, that is enshrined in legislation is another matter.

[M60-Tony]

Just had a chat with a retired traffic officer.

He maintains that under common law there is no right to park on the Queen's Highway, and that is as applicable to vehicles of the horse drawn variety as the more recent motor powered vehicles. As boing said the Queen's Highway is for the passage of vehicles, not for their "parking".

The only time, I was told, when you can "legally" park on the Queen's Highway is when you have actually paid to park.

One other comment was that there is an endorsable offence of dangerous parking. Checking Blackstone's it refers to the Road Traffic Act 1988, Section 22, Leaving Vehicles in Dangerous Positions, which has discretionary disqualification if committed in respect of a motor vehicle, and obligatory disqualifiaction if committed in respect of a motor vehicle, and 3 points. In general such an offence would be more likely to be dealt with under other legislation, e.g. parking on a double white line.

[kevjs]

.... colliding with the rising bollards - .... not driving on the hard shoulder ....

Hmm, there's an idea for next to junctions...

[A303Paul]

According to the MEN article that Peter referred to :

"In some instances Metroshuttle buses - authorised to travel over them - have ended up being badly damaged when the system appears to have failed"

So we now know that these bollards are also impaling vehicles that ARE supposed to cross them - and note the plural of the word instances- which means its happened more than once and the things havn't been in for 6 months yet

Oh Dear

I think they are doomed and clearly, if they are impaling buses, they don't seem to work very well do they?


Whats wrong with a rising barrier as used in car parks and level crossings throughout the land?

[jcpren]

Whats wrong with a rising barrier as used in car parks and level crossings throughout the land?

I think they're considered too unsightly for town centres, where a lot of emphasis is often placed on the design and appearance of street furniture.

[flyingscot]

(1) Contrary to what some people are saying, I believe that buses ARE more essential than cars. This is not to say that the private car is not "A Good Thing", as I believe that freedom of movement is, however there are some journeys, especially in city centres, that are better made by public transport.

It is one thing to say that, in specific circumstances, buses make a better use of available roadspace than cars. But something else entirely to say that they are "more essential" or that their occupants enjoy some form of moral superiority. I find that kind of notion to be profoundly offensive, to be honest. It's a kind of transport apartheid.

However buses are more important and essential than a private car. Everyone, in essance, can use a bus, those who own vehicles, as well as those who can't do so, and as such the passage of a bus is more important than the passage of a vehicle of one individual. This is not some moral superiority, but enabling the speedy and free movement of those either not fortunate enough to own a vehicle or those who have chosen not to use it.

On an aside I often chuckle at people who complain about unreliable buses and complain about bus priority measures. I understand some are badly implemented but we can't have it both ways. The Swiss have far more bus lanes, and far more sophisticated BIAS systems, which has seen a much better public transport service. The fat bankers aren't going to use it often but often sit in the traffic even as the bus lane sits empty and don't complain. Was interesting to see how much effort they had put into the service.

[PeterA5145]

It is one thing to say that, in specific circumstances, buses make a better use of available roadspace than cars. But something else entirely to say that they are "more essential" or that their occupants enjoy some form of moral superiority. I find that kind of notion to be profoundly offensive, to be honest. It's a kind of transport apartheid.

However buses are more important and essential than a private car. Everyone, in essance, can use a bus, those who own vehicles, as well as those who can't do so, and as such the passage of a bus is more important than the passage of a vehicle of one individual. This is not some moral superiority, but enabling the speedy and free movement of those either not fortunate enough to own a vehicle or those who have chosen not to use it.

Nonsense. If you banned buses the country would suffer far less than if you banned private cars. And I seem to recall posting an article some time ago suggesting that even households without cars made more journeys by car than by public transport.

[flyingscot]

It is one thing to say that, in specific circumstances, buses make a better use of available roadspace than cars. But something else entirely to say that they are "more essential" or that their occupants enjoy some form of moral superiority. I find that kind of notion to be profoundly offensive, to be honest. It's a kind of transport apartheid.

However buses are more important and essential than a private car. Everyone, in essance, can use a bus, those who own vehicles, as well as those who can't do so, and as such the passage of a bus is more important than the passage of a vehicle of one individual. This is not some moral superiority, but enabling the speedy and free movement of those either not fortunate enough to own a vehicle or those who have chosen not to use it.

Nonsense. If you banned buses the country would suffer far less than if you banned private cars. And I seem to recall posting an article some time ago suggesting that even households without cars made more journeys by car than by public transport.

No doubt it would hurt people if you banned cars, but then thats simple because the car has changed journey plans so much (far too much IMHO) and people are (too?) dependant on the freedom it provides.

Problem is there are people without that choice that depend on buses heavily and these tend to be the people at the ends of society, pensioners, students and low paid workers. You'd hurt them massivily. Maybe in England your much more dependant on cars, or your a car lover, or you hate buses or whatever-I don't know, but in Scotland I know that you'd massivily damage the country if you banned buses. Edinburgh and Glasgow and majority of towns would be unbearable, and hence why these places give more prioirty to the bus. You can argue that they are not more important, but buses are more important in providing a service for everybody and hence they are given priority by roads authorities. Hell even in the 1950's trams were regonised for that.

[ziltro]

It is legal. The horn should be used to warn others of your presence.

Not at 2:30am in a 'built-up area'.