Bollards!

Discussion about street lighting, road signs, traffic signals - and all other street furniture - goes here.

Moderator: Site Management Team

Post Reply
User avatar
SubaruImprezaWRX
Member
Posts: 2799
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 12:37
Location: London

Bollards!

Post by SubaruImprezaWRX » Thu Oct 19, 2006 23:47

Surprised no-one has picked up on yet. Interesting footage (and No Entry VMS):

Daily Mail

:twisted:
Last edited by SubaruImprezaWRX on Sat Nov 04, 2006 00:05, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
Lewis
Member
Posts: 1765
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 11:40
Location: Shoreham, Nr Brighton, Sussex

Re: Car-trashing Bollards

Post by Lewis » Thu Oct 19, 2006 23:58

SubaruImprezaWRX wrote:Surprised no-one has picked up on yet. Interesting footage (and No Entry VMS):

Daily Mail

:twisted:
LOL, where does that road lead to anyway?

Ive seen this happen before on a rising bollard at the Royal Pavillion in Brighton.

RickyB_uk
Member
Posts: 3542
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2003 15:33

Post by RickyB_uk » Fri Oct 20, 2006 00:02

Cambridge has several - mostly controlling access to the city centre - I've certainly head of cars being impaled and subsequently written off - and then the owners being asked to foot the bill for the repair of the bollard.

Mediaman_12
Member
Posts: 566
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 23:29

Post by Mediaman_12 » Fri Oct 20, 2006 00:07

There was an item about these on the NW BBC news a week or two back.
People attempting to 'nip' through after the busses in city centre Manchester. The bollard comes up really quickly and only a few seconds after the bus has cleared it. had a 'council bloke' saying it's impossible to follow the bus, and it would be madness to try. they had a pic of a 206 with the front wheel smashed off after trying.

MEN Article
Last edited by Mediaman_12 on Fri Oct 20, 2006 00:12, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
jcpren
Member
Posts: 4388
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 17:33
Location: Glasgow

Post by jcpren » Fri Oct 20, 2006 00:11

My home town of Hamilton was the first place in Scotland to install them, in the early nineties. Perhaps it was an early model, but they actually raised very slowly. Kids used to stand on top and enjoy a lift! They seemed very prone to breaking down, however, and they were often lowered and switched off.
John

User avatar
Bryn666
Member
Posts: 30919
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54

Post by Bryn666 » Fri Oct 20, 2006 00:11

The bollard in question is right in the middle of the area that was blown up by the IRA in 1996, and has been converted into a bus only area - before that it was generally open to all vehicles.

I think some people haven't quite realised this yet!
Bryn
Traffic/Road Safety Dogsbody and General Grumpy Now-a-Thirtysomething Man
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/

User avatar
True Yorkie
Banned
Posts: 6339
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 01:01
Location: the room with the computer in!

Post by True Yorkie » Fri Oct 20, 2006 00:55

no more than two years ago that was open to all traffic, as I nearly got ran over by a bus cos i didn't look when crossing!

this is near the new Arndale extension area, near M&S, Slefridges, and Harvey Nicks.

There is a similar bollard in York.
Trouble is, it's only on one side of the road, so all the townies in their peugeot 105's just zip onto the wrong side of the road and go through!
Also, the bollard seems to fail every tuesday, at about 10.30 - sometimes it makes it 3 weeks without failing during restriction hours, but not often.

And by failing I don't mean it stays down, I mean it doesn't go down even the light shows green. many a volvo B6 has had to have new bumpers because of this! Also, an ambulance on emergency call got beached as the bollard went down and immediatly back up again!
I am all for closing up certain city-center streets to allow tourists better access to the cities' functions, however a serious re-think is needed as to how exactly these bollards work. I haven't heard yet of one that hasn't damaged authorised traffic.
"God was probably very proud of Yorkshire when he had finished with it"
- Jeremy Clarkson
--

User avatar
a228_mb
Member
Posts: 2106
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 23:41
Location: Kent

Post by a228_mb » Fri Oct 20, 2006 08:13

Fantastic! Serves them right, hope they get sued for criminal damage. Watching that feels good!
Martin

You know the name, you know the number. a228_mb

User avatar
Jon Priest
Member
Posts: 229
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 14:33
Location: Orpington

Post by Jon Priest » Fri Oct 20, 2006 09:58

a228_mb wrote:Fantastic! Serves them right, hope they get sued for criminal damage. Watching that feels good!
Hear hear!!!

Though I think, in this compensation-culture that we live in, someone will try and sue the council.

Mind you, it brightened up my Friday morning :bounce: :rofl:
Liverpool's John lennon Airport has the tagline "Above us only sky" and, to avoid being left out, Heathrow have added a tagline to T5...

"Imagine no possessions, it's easy if you try!"

User avatar
Jon Priest
Member
Posts: 229
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 14:33
Location: Orpington

Post by Jon Priest » Fri Oct 20, 2006 10:10

The black 4x4 is my fav. He must have hit that bollard hard, as the airbad went off and the back wheels left the ground.

Shame the reporter in the Daily Wail can't tell the difference between a left and a right hand vehicle :D

Still darned funny though. I wish I could download it :rofl:
Liverpool's John lennon Airport has the tagline "Above us only sky" and, to avoid being left out, Heathrow have added a tagline to T5...

"Imagine no possessions, it's easy if you try!"

User avatar
Derek
Member
Posts: 7154
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2003 10:44
Location: Norwich
Contact:

Post by Derek » Fri Oct 20, 2006 10:37

Totally agree, what a bunch of :censored: ! It's not as if the "NO ENTRY" are hard to see after all.

Derek

User avatar
PeterA5145
Member
Posts: 25328
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 00:19
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
Contact:

Post by PeterA5145 » Fri Oct 20, 2006 10:52

Derek wrote:Totally agree, what a bunch of :censored: ! It's not as if the "NO ENTRY" are hard to see after all.
It seems to me grossly disproportionate and absolutely outrageous to be wrecking people's cars (and potentially inflicting serious injury) simply for contravening an access restriction. I thought we had long seen the back of barbaric mediaeval justice in this country.

Would it be acceptable to attack your house with a ball and chain if you fell behind with your council tax?

If they have to have these things (which I don't accept they do anyway) then surely they must be configured so that there is no way they can rise up if a vehicle is approaching or on top of them.
“The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” – Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
SubaruImprezaWRX
Member
Posts: 2799
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 12:37
Location: London

Post by SubaruImprezaWRX » Fri Oct 20, 2006 10:56

Jon Priest wrote:The black 4x4 is my fav. He must have hit that bollard hard, as the airbad went off and the back wheels left the ground.

Shame the reporter in the Daily Wail can't tell the difference between a left and a right hand vehicle :D

Still darned funny though. I wish I could download it :rofl:
Who in their right mind would accelerate into a rising post?! It beggers belief, esp as there was a child in the back.

Incredibly clear CCTV as well, for once.

User avatar
SubaruImprezaWRX
Member
Posts: 2799
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 12:37
Location: London

Post by SubaruImprezaWRX » Fri Oct 20, 2006 11:06

PeterA5145 wrote:
Derek wrote:Totally agree, what a bunch of :censored: ! It's not as if the "NO ENTRY" are hard to see after all.
It seems to me grossly disproportionate and absolutely outrageous to be wrecking people's cars (and potentially inflicting serious injury) simply for contravening an access restriction. I thought we had long seen the back of barbaric mediaeval justice in this country.
Well TBH, it could cause serious injury through smacking your head on the windscreen, albeit not wearing a seatbelt, as per white van man in that clip.

I think the posts are somewhat OTT. What's wrong with a fine / points via ANPR? (t'would be 3 points as contravening a No Entry sign, I believe)

User avatar
M60-Tony
Member
Posts: 8673
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2003 08:41
Location: Cheadle Hulme, Cheshire

Post by M60-Tony » Fri Oct 20, 2006 11:06

My wife and I were in Manchester and walked down that road just as the ambulance were taking the 206's occupants away. The 206 was in a mess; and its airbags had gone off.

And while it blocked the road the city centre buses couldn't get through meaning their passengers were severly inconvenienced.

Speaking to a nearby shopkeeper he reckoned something like it happened once or twice a month.
Tony

"We have more and more laws, and less and less law enforcement."

boing_uk
Account deactivated at user request
Posts: 5366
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 16:01

Post by boing_uk » Fri Oct 20, 2006 11:14

I disagree with the idea that the council is wrecking peoples cars; it is the drivers who are wrecking their own cars by driving in to a physical object with blatent disregard for the No Entry signs and the red STOP indicator.

Is it a car park operators fault if a vehicle waiting to get in to or out of a car park drives in to the barrier because they decided to follow the car in front in to the car park without heeding the requirement to stop?

What about toll booths? These too only have red/green indicators. Is it the toll operators fault if a vehicle subsequently drives through the barrier without heeding the notices to stop and pay?

This is blatent driver stupidity and they deserve all the damage they get. It is NOT barbaric medieaval justice, its modern day public stupidity and complacency and the "well it surely wont apply to me" attitude.

User avatar
SubaruImprezaWRX
Member
Posts: 2799
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 12:37
Location: London

Post by SubaruImprezaWRX » Fri Oct 20, 2006 11:16

Whilst I confess some schadenfreude-type glee watching the foolish drivers (as per 'You've Been Framed' et al), I feel that a wrecked car and possible serious injury does seem a high price to pay for a minor altercation, albeit one of stupidity.

I, for one, would be utterly seething. The punishment is far in excess of the crime, and more likely to catch out non-locals.

User avatar
PeterA5145
Member
Posts: 25328
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 00:19
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
Contact:

Post by PeterA5145 » Fri Oct 20, 2006 11:20

boing_uk wrote:I disagree with the idea that the council is wrecking peoples cars; it is the drivers who are wrecking their own cars by driving in to a physical object with blatent disregard for the No Entry signs and the red STOP indicator.
As some vehicles are allowed through, it is not a conventional NO ENTRY sign. I'm sure most people who fall foul of these bollards do so because they are confused rather than deliberately trying it on.
This is blatent driver stupidity and they deserve all the damage they get. It is NOT barbaric medieaval justice, its modern day public stupidity and complacency and the "well it surely wont apply to me" attitude.
I still don't accept wrecking a car possibly worth £10k or more is an acceptable punishment for stupidity.

If this system is needed, then surely there should be conventional red lights with the bollards only rising a few seconds after the lights have changed to red (as with a level crossing). If you've never come across such a thing before it is not remotely obvious.
“The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” – Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Lewis
Member
Posts: 1765
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 11:40
Location: Shoreham, Nr Brighton, Sussex

Post by Lewis » Fri Oct 20, 2006 11:20

SubaruImprezaWRX wrote:
I, for one, would be utterly seething. The punishment is far in excess of the crime, and more likely to catch out non-locals.
But you have to pass a no-entry sign, there are various warning signs, and the only real way you can get stuck on one is if you follow the bus very closley, knowing that the bollard will rise.

User avatar
SubaruImprezaWRX
Member
Posts: 2799
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 12:37
Location: London

Post by SubaruImprezaWRX » Fri Oct 20, 2006 11:24

PeterA5145 wrote:surely there should be conventional red lights with the bollards only rising a few seconds after the lights have changed to red (as with a level crossing). If you've never come across such a thing before it is not remotely obvious.
Grrr, Beat me to it!

Post Reply