Car traps

[Lockwood]

BuT tHe SaTnAv SaId To TuRn LeFt ThErE sO i DiD!!!11!1

[Nathan_A_RF]

The signage in place is incredibly clear. No sympathy for idiots who shouldn't be driving.

[jgharston]

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

I object to that wording in the article quoted. It's not designed to *prevent* access to the busway, it's designed to *damage* vehicles that *do* access the busway. As others have pointed out, something that *prevents* access would be something that, well, *prevents* access - a barrier, a chicane, a bollard or something - not something that allows access and then punishes you for it.

I was trying to find it on StreetView earlier, but there's a bus gate somewhere in northern Sheffield that is engineered to *prevent* access by making it difficult to access, not to let vehicles through and them damage them. In my faulty memory it's somewhere around/west of the Northern General.

[Nathan_A_RF]

What's the difference between a stupid driver falling into a trap compared to hitting a closed barrier or a raised bollard?

[bothar]

I object to that wording in the article quoted. It's not designed to *prevent* access to the busway, it's designed to *damage* vehicles that *do* access the busway. As others have pointed out, something that *prevents* access would be something that, well, *prevents* access - a barrier, a chicane, a bollard or something - not something that allows access and then punishes you for it.

As far as I can see beyond this thing is a regular street. So what is the actual public policy objective, stop people taking a shortcut? Whatever the benefits they would not seem to warrant anything more than a fine. As I said, fines for administrative reasons should never be more than those for road safety related reasons.

What's the difference between a stupid driver falling into a trap compared to hitting a closed barrier or a raised bollard?

A closed barrier is much easier to see and crystal clear in its purpose.

[Chris5156]

I object to that wording in the article quoted. It's not designed to *prevent* access to the busway, it's designed to *damage* vehicles that *do* access the busway. As others have pointed out, something that *prevents* access would be something that, well, *prevents* access - a barrier, a chicane, a bollard or something - not something that allows access and then punishes you for it.

As far as I can see beyond this thing is a regular street. So what is the actual public policy objective, stop people taking a shortcut? Whatever the benefits they would not seem to warrant anything more than a fine. As I said, fines for administrative reasons should never be more than those for road safety related reasons.

Until the busway was built the road was entirely closed off, since it is not the main road into St Ives and has in any case been bypassed to the north east. When the busway was built I think it's safe to assume that the people who live on, and use, that street were content to accept buses on their road several times an hour, but probably not content to have through traffic reintroduced. So for all vehicles other than buses, it is a dead end.

Re. enforcement using fines rather than physical obstructions - let us not pretend that people are happy to accept fines for these sorts of things. Local papers and news websites are full of stories about drivers complaining that they were "unfairly" fined for driving through a bus gate or a camera-enforced road closure where the road "looked" open and was closed only by signs and markings.

What you're asking for is a closure like the one on Askew Road in Gateshead - where the road is open and there is no physical obstruction, but if you drive through you will be captured on camera and then fined. If you google "Askew Road Gateshead" you will get a flavour of the controversy this measure has caused; in 2021 alone nearly 40,000 drivers were fined for driving through, presumably because the road looked "open" in the sense that there was nothing physically stopping you from using it and the closure was only communicated by signs and markings, which those 40,000 drivers didn't bother to read. The legalities of the scheme were badly implemented and many thousands of fines have been overturned, but that is beside the point for this conversation - the point is that you can close a road the way you suggest, but people don't like it at all, and far more people will end up driving through the closure point and then being fined for it. For all its faults the car trap in St Ives is deterring all but a tiny, tiny number of drivers from attempting to go through.

[Ruperts Trooper]

Until the busway was built the road was entirely closed off, since it is not the main road into St Ives and has in any case been bypassed to the north east. When the busway was built I think it's safe to assume that the people who live on, and use, that street were content to accept buses on their road several times an hour, but probably not content to have through traffic reintroduced. So for all vehicles other than buses, it is a dead end.

Station Road, St.Ives was always a dead end, ending in the V of the railway lines from Cambridge, one branching to March the other to Huntingdon - after the railway had been abandoned Harrison Way used the March line but didn't connect to Station Road - the busway used the Cambridge line and the bus gate was built to allow bus access to the town centre. So there's no history of allowing general access from Harrison Way to Station Rd.

[Chris5156]

Until the busway was built the road was entirely closed off, since it is not the main road into St Ives and has in any case been bypassed to the north east. When the busway was built I think it's safe to assume that the people who live on, and use, that street were content to accept buses on their road several times an hour, but probably not content to have through traffic reintroduced. So for all vehicles other than buses, it is a dead end.

Station Road, St.Ives was always a dead end, ending in the V of the railway lines from Cambridge, one branching to March the other to Huntingdon - after the railway had been abandoned Harrison Way used the March line but didn't connect to Station Road - the busway used the Cambridge line and the bus gate was built to allow bus access to the town centre. So there's no history of allowing general access from Harrison Way to Station Rd.

Thank you, that's interesting!

[Nathan_A_RF]

Whatever the benefits they would not seem to warrant anything more than a fine.

A fine will only encourage more drivers to break the law as they know they can get away with it by covering number plates, damaging cameras etc. I don't see why these drivers with no brain deserve a lighter punishment for their stupidity.

A closed barrier is much easier to see and crystal clear in its purpose.

So 9 road signs and road markings saying NO ENTRY, DEAD END, BUSES ONLY isn't clear enough for you?

[jgharston]

I object to that wording in the article quoted. It's not designed to *prevent* access to the busway, it's designed to *damage* vehicles that *do* access the busway. As others have pointed out, something that *prevents* access would be something that, well, *prevents* access - a barrier, a chicane, a bollard or something - not something that allows access and then punishes you for it.

As far as I can see beyond this thing is a regular street. So what is the actual public policy objective, stop people taking a shortcut? Whatever the benefits they would not seem to warrant anything more than a fine. As I said, fines for administrative reasons should never be more than those for road safety related reasons.

What's the difference between a stupid driver falling into a trap compared to hitting a closed barrier or a raised bollard?

A closed barrier is much easier to see and crystal clear in its purpose.

I was trying to remember an example of a proper application of physical engineering to enforce "bus only" through a junction, but couldn't remember it, but this is close enough.
Shalesmoor, Sheffield
The road has to be phyically engineered to guide "unwanted" vehicles into an escape lane *at* *the* *point* *of* *restriction*, and there must *be* that actual escape lane to funnel that traffic into.

In this instance there is signage that says "Road Turns Right", the road markings sweep across the carriageway directing the mainline to the right, there are kerbstones across the carriageway after the mainline turns off, and, if you have managed to bump over the rumble strip into the tramway, you srop onto railway sleepers acting as a super-rumble-strip, not down a hole.

[jgharston]

Until the busway was built the road was entirely closed off, since it is not the main road into St Ives and has in any case been bypassed to the north east. When the busway was built I think it's safe to assume that the people who live on, and use, that street were content to accept buses on their road several times an hour, but probably not content to have through traffic reintroduced. So for all vehicles other than buses, it is a dead end.

Station Road, St.Ives was always a dead end, ending in the V of the railway lines from Cambridge, one branching to March the other to Huntingdon - after the railway had been abandoned Harrison Way used the March line but didn't connect to Station Road - the busway used the Cambridge line and the bus gate was built to allow bus access to the town centre. So there's no history of allowing general access from Harrison Way to Station Rd.

Thank you, that's interesting!

Yes, it's quite confusing. I had to go to Sabre Maps and look at the 1-inch maps to see what the original layout was. "Walking" along the road you'd think it was a road out of town that's been cut across by the bypass, there's no feeling that this used to be a dead-end that just terminated in a railway goods yard. And there's the additional problem that the "escape lane" is several hundred yards before the restriction. The blockage should be at the junction with the escape into New Road, with the road physically laid out to forcible direct traffic into New Road, so it takes a physcial actual concious *choice* to depart from the mainline and thrust through the restrictions. *Everything* about the engineering of this road screams "normal road out of town".

[FosseWay]

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

Yep - common in Sweden too, and the name is similar, bussluss. And there don't seem to be media reports of people getting their cars stuck in them. I don't know whether this is because people read and react to the signs, and don't get stuck, or whether they do get stuck but choose not to noise their incompetence all over the local media!

[Lockwood]

I was trying to remember an example of a proper application of physical engineering to enforce "bus only" through a junction, but couldn't remember it, but this is close enough.
Shalesmoor, Sheffield
The road has to be phyically engineered to guide "unwanted" vehicles into an escape lane *at* *the* *point* *of* *restriction*, and there must *be* that actual escape lane to funnel that traffic into.

In this instance there is signage that says "Road Turns Right", the road markings sweep across the carriageway directing the mainline to the right, there are kerbstones across the carriageway after the mainline turns off, and, if you have managed to bump over the rumble strip into the tramway, you srop onto railway sleepers acting as a super-rumble-strip, not down a hole.

Doesn't that streetview show a car happily driving along down that bus lane? You see if coming up the left of the camera car, then as you move on, it heads down the bus only bit.

[wallmeerkat]

Donegall Square East to Adelaide Street in Belfast was changed a number of years ago to be a bus gate. The bus lane goes straight on, general traffic is routed right. No car traps etc, enforced by a camera.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.59637 ... ?entry=ttu

Yet in 2019 it was reported ( https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news ... 84266.html ) it had raked in £1.5m in fines over 4 years

[AndyB]

It certainly did. Any number of signs were available to tell drivers that it was a bus lane, any number of incompetent drivers decided that they must use the bus lane to go straight on (give or take genuine mistakes).

I’ve absolutely no sympathy. A driver capable of ignoring that many signs and road markings doesn’t deserve to have a car.

[Vierwielen]

It certainly did. Any number of signs were available to tell drivers that it was a bus lane, any number of incompetent drivers decided that they must use the bus lane to go straight on (give or take genuine mistakes).

I’ve absolutely no sympathy. A driver capable of ignoring that many signs and road markings doesn’t deserve to have a car.

Mon anglais n'était pas assez bon pour comprendre le panneau!

[nowster]

The car in the article had come from this direction: https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZyNoZtSvj2uadhYHA

There are three "no through road" signs on the approach.

Then at the traffic lights themselves there are two "no entry" signs, a "car trap" sign, and "ahead only" arrows on the lights, and BUS ONLY written on a red high friction surface: https://maps.app.goo.gl/fpMLvnMy3F3eu8J27

Should have gone to a well-known brand of opticians.

[FosseWay]

It certainly did. Any number of signs were available to tell drivers that it was a bus lane, any number of incompetent drivers decided that they must use the bus lane to go straight on (give or take genuine mistakes).

I’ve absolutely no sympathy. A driver capable of ignoring that many signs and road markings doesn’t deserve to have a car.

Mon anglais n'était pas assez bon pour comprendre le panneau!

Vous auriez dû utiliser un service de traduction.

Ignorance isn't a defence. While I agree that turning compliance into a test of people's observational skills isn't helpful if the principal reason for the enforcement is to stop something undesirable happening, I think it is reasonable to expect anyone driving on a country's roads to familiarise themselves with the rules and signage there. So a Frenchman gets his car stuck in a bus gate and in response the authority puts up a French translation of the sign. The next week, a Spanish woman gets stuck, so they stick up some Spanish. Where does it stop?

[Vierwielen]

It certainly did. Any number of signs were available to tell drivers that it was a bus lane, any number of incompetent drivers decided that they must use the bus lane to go straight on (give or take genuine mistakes).

I’ve absolutely no sympathy. A driver capable of ignoring that many signs and road markings doesn’t deserve to have a car.

Mon anglais n'était pas assez bon pour comprendre le panneau!

Vous auriez dû utiliser un service de traduction.

Ignorance isn't a defence. While I agree that turning compliance into a test of people's observational skills isn't helpful if the principal reason for the enforcement is to stop something undesirable happening, I think it is reasonable to expect anyone driving on a country's roads to familiarise themselves with the rules and signage there. So a Frenchman gets his car stuck in a bus gate and in response the authority puts up a French translation of the sign. The next week, a Spanish woman gets stuck, so they stick up some Spanish. Where does it stop?

Two points - firstly UK law explicitly prohibits "man-traps". In the event of a serious incident, this law could be used agiant the authority who put the its in place.

The Vienna Convention on Road Signs provides language-neutral signs for most situations. The UK has a poor record in not using such signs. For example, this sign could have been replaced by a weight limit sign. It is a shortcoming of the TSRGD that there are no signs for residential areas, industrial areas etc.

[nowster]

The Vienna Convention on Road Signs provides language-neutral signs for most situations.

If a Brit came across the following sign, would you instantly know what it was for?

France_road_sign_ID24.svg.png (4.62 KiB) Viewed 5273 times

(Image sourced from https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:F ... n_ID24.svg)