Car traps

[Darren]

A new one for me - has anyone else heard of a car trap? There's even a sign to go with it! (And of course plenty of other signs to say no entry, buses only etc.)

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/1 ... gniter-rhr

"A bus lane trap has written off cars whose wheels are getting stuck and damaged, drivers have said.

Dozens of motorists have found their cars stuck in the bus lane in St Ives, Cambs, despite signs warning them not to enter it.

The trap is designed to prevent vehicles driving onto the busway.

The pit in the road is wide enough that small vehicles fall into it but small enough that larger-diameter-wheeled vehicles, such as buses, may pass."

[Chris5156]

"A bus lane trap has written off cars whose wheels are getting stuck and damaged, drivers have said.

Dozens of motorists have found their cars stuck in the bus lane in St Ives, Cambs, despite signs warning them not to enter it.

"A lion has bitten the arms off people who have put their arms into the lion's mouth, despite signs warning them not to."

[paranoid]

The pit in the road is wide enough that small vehicles fall into it but small enough that larger-diameter-wheeled vehicles, such as buses, may pass."

Note to the Telegraph: I can't imagine the diameter of the wheels matters much. Distance between them, possibly.

[RichardA35]

Does motor insurance pick up the bill for damage self-inflicted by such negligent driving?
If so all drivers are subsidising this small minority who seem not to care.

[Big L]

The pit in the road is wide enough that small vehicles fall into it but small enough that larger-diameter-wheeled vehicles, such as buses, may pass."

Note to the Telegraph: I can't imagine the diameter of the wheels matters much. Distance between them, possibly.

If the diameter of the wheels/tyres is big enough they won't fall into the trap. It would just be like a reverse speed bump. The diameter of the pictured car is clearly smaller than the hole, so it fell down the hole.

[Lockwood]

I read the title and thought "Only in Cambs"

I understand the idea of dissuading cars from going where they do not want cars to be. Doesn't this just block the route so intended vehicles cannot pass?

It feels like the same logic as "You parked your car here for too long/where you shouldn't have parked ot, so we will immobilise it so you can't move it away from where it shouldn't be."

[Conekicker]

Unless it's been authorised very recently, the 562 with the "Car trap" supplementary plate isn't authorised. The same goes for the 616 with the "Except guided buses" plate. Tut tut.

[Nathan_A_RF]

It seems the signs were installed prior to 2011 so we won't know.

Same signs authorised for Bristol more recently
https://assets.dft.gov.uk/trafficauths/case-4548.pdf

[bothar]

This kind of thing needs very very clear signage, people do not expect road authorities to design roads to deliberately damage their vehicle.
How much more would it cost to actually have an actual barrier, and fit guided buses with a transponder?
Apart from other issues, the standard traffic light is unhelpful, a BUS light would be appropriate. When I was in Norway over the summer some of these public transport only routes had tram type signals.
But at the end of the day, you can put a camera there and send the offenders a ticket. There are scenarios; police, fire and paramedic cars, people driving a woman in labour to hospital etc where prejudging the situation is not appropriate.

[Nathan_A_RF]

This kind of thing needs very very clear signage.

At the location in question there are three no through road signs, three no entry signs, one warning sign and the words "GUIDED BUS ONLY" written twice on the road in succession on red asphalt.

The drivers are morons.

[bothar]

No doubt the drivers are poor, thousands just obey these signs. However, in my opinion a "No Entry" with exceptions is not a clear approach, it is better to have a car prohibited sign.

[JohnnyMo]

No doubt the drivers are poor, thousands just obey these signs. However, in my opinion a "No Entry" with exceptions is not a clear approach, it is better to have a car prohibited sign.

The problem with car prohibited sign is many other vehicles are also prohibited, even none guided buses are prohibited. So No Entry, No Vehicles ( which is less used and less understood ) or No Motor Vehicles (aka beware of stunt motorcycles ) with exceptions seems the best idea.

[Nathan_A_RF]

No entry signs are safety critical signs and indicate danger when passing the sign (e.g. one-way street, car traps etc.) compared to the purely restrictive nature of a no motor vehicles sign (e.g. modal filter, pedestrian and cycle zone etc.)

[Big L]

It’s classic “but my car” behaviour.

“Just because there are signs explicitly banning me from using this road in my car, why shouldn’t I? And if it damages my car, then it’s the fault of the evil buses.”

[Debaser]

Evidently so common in the Netherlands as to have prefabricated units to construct them. Over there they are called 'bussluis'.

[RichardA35]

No doubt the drivers are poor, thousands just obey these signs. However, in my opinion a "No Entry" with exceptions is not a clear approach, it is better to have a car prohibited sign.

This kind of thing needs very very clear signage, people do not expect road authorities to design roads to deliberately damage their vehicle.
How much more would it cost to actually have an actual barrier, and fit guided buses with a transponder?
Apart from other issues, the standard traffic light is unhelpful, a BUS light would be appropriate. When I was in Norway over the summer some of these public transport only routes had tram type signals.
But at the end of the day, you can put a camera there and send the offenders a ticket. There are scenarios; police, fire and paramedic cars, people driving a woman in labour to hospital etc where prejudging the situation is not appropriate.

The alternative route is just a few hundred metres back in the opposite direction and meets the route that the busway crosses at a roundabout. In essence it is no different to the other modal filters that have been installed in other places and there are many who seemingly want to excuse accidentally or deliberately poor driving.
In this case and also with rising bollards there is a physical obstruction that is robust and is crossed at drivers' risk.

[MotorwayGuy]

I've been here a few times, this is the location and it hasn't changed since it was built. The main problem is the lack of advance signage from the town approach, but anyone not familiar with the area would be following sat-nav and prior to the busway this road never connected so there is no reason why it should direct drivers that way.

[bothar]

No entry signs are safety critical signs and indicate danger when passing the sign (e.g. one-way street, car traps etc.) compared to the purely restrictive nature of a no motor vehicles sign (e.g. modal filter, pedestrian and cycle zone etc.)

There is no road safety issue arising here, the "danger" is entirely contrived and is a disproportionate punishment for driving along a very short section of road reserved for buses.
As there is no road safety issue arising, such punishment is inappropriate and a camera and fine is quite adequate. I would see more use for rising bollards and the like to stop people driving down motorway ramps the wrong way because this is a genuine road safety issue. This is more a case of lazy driving than poor driving, I would prefer to retain the latter term for things that are dangerous.

[Lockwood]

People driving onto the motorway the wrong way could be fixed with flowsignals.

There are technical legal differences between no vehicles except buses and no entry except buses signs. Perhaps an information sign here would help? "Cars are likely to be damaged on this road" or the like.

Perhaps a camera and fine could help? A grounded car affects buses, a fine does not.



Drivers can be idiots. I've seen a picture (unsure of copyright ownership) of a car that went past many no entry signs and got stuck on a tramway. If people miss the no entry signs, the tram signs, and the fact the road surface disappears, what hope is there of a Car Trap sign stopping them?

[Chris5156]

However, in my opinion a "No Entry" with exceptions is not a clear approach, it is better to have a car prohibited sign.

This is the opposite to the argument usually made, which is that prohibition signs are too rare to be properly understood, and that people drive past them because they don't know what they mean, and therefore a "no entry" sign with a plate underneath would lead to greater compliance.

A driver who lands in the car trap in question has failed to see or understand this sign ahead of the junction, failed to see or understand these traffic lights which have a mandatory "ahead only" roundel AND mandatory "ahead only" green signals, has made a determined maneouvre around a sharply angled kerb that has been designed to make it difficult and counterintuitive to turn, and then failed to see or understand three no entry signs. I don't think you can make a cogent argument that the driver who was not observant enough to have seen and heeded even one of those signs would have been helped by the erection of a different one! This is not a driver who was looking at the signs at all, or if they were, they were not a driver who thought signs applied to them.