(slightly OT) load of old bollards

On or around Mon, 06 Nov 2006 19:22:06 -0000, "William Tasso"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>
>There's also the issue that it's a completely pointless plan anyway. A
>bus only zone does not make a safe pedestrian zone. We have one of those
>near here. Completely bonkers.

I suspect that it's a compromise to both cut down on the traffic and still
allow buses.

but having seen a more accurate description, (Thanks, Dave H) there's no
credible reason for the cars being there and still less for trying to jump
through the bollards and certainly the first 2 in that video clip are doing
just that - quite obviously, rather than turn round (and there seems to be a
turning space, at the beginning you see a car turning) and going back the
way they came. They're twits and deserve what they got.

But I agree about the pedestrian safety - the bit where the bollards are
could have barriers alongside it to keep the peds and vehicles apart.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
Appearances: You don't really need make-up. Celebrate your authentic
face by frightening people in the street.
from the Little Book of Complete B***ocks by Alistair Beaton.

On or around Mon, 6 Nov 2006 19:14:19 -0000, "Greg"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>It doesn't matter, if people believe it to be and cross in large numbers, as
>can be seen from the video, then it's clearly stupid to place such a thing
>where they have.

no, the peds are stupid and cross where they shouldn't.


equally valid viewpoint. especially if it's not a marked crossing and there
are marked crossings elsewhere. There are any number of people who cross on
the zig-zag line bit of ped crossings for example, despite the fact that
it's specifically forbidden in the HC, simply to save themselves the effort
of walking an extra 10 yards.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
Appearances: You don't really need make-up. Celebrate your authentic
face by frightening people in the street.
from the Little Book of Complete B***ocks by Alistair Beaton.

On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 21:02:42 -0000, Richard Brookman
<[email protected]> wrote:

> jOn wrote:
>
> || "Dave P" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> || news:[email protected]...
> ||| In Manchester, they have bollards that rise and fall to keep
> ||| motorists from using the bus-only lanes. Some numpties think they
> ||| are quick enough to beat it ...
> |||
> |||
> http://arbroath.blogspot.com/2006/10/drivers-fail-to-beat-bollards.html
> ||| and click on CCTV link.
> |||
> ||| Hilarious.
> |||
> ||| Dave
> |||
> || Some in halifax, car got towed in with a smashed front end and
> || windscreen smashed where the drivers head hit the screen
>
> According to some on here, that would be the council's fault for not
> checking he had his seat belt fastened

hrmm - seat belt or not, indeed complying with all regulations or not ...
if one is responsible for placing /any/ obstacle in the road then one is
responsible in part for the hazard to human health and ultimately life.

Road round the corner from me, no longer than 600 yards, has five traffic
'calming' things - these were introduced shortly after the parking
restrictions removed the natural haphazard barriers.

The parking restrictions were responsible for the one corner shop going
out of business. No passing trade means no sales, means no mortgage.

Hrmm - knock on effect, I used to walk to that shop with the kids - just
near enough that we could get there and back and maintain road sense
concentration. Now I drive to the shop if I'm taking the kids.
--
William Tasso

Land Rover - 110 V8
Discovery - V8

On 2006-11-06, Richard Brookman <[email protected]> wrote:

> According to some on here, that would be the council's fault for not
> checking he had his seat belt fastened

Don't be a dick.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

On 2006-11-06, Richard Brookman <[email protected]> wrote:

> The bollards don't punish anyone. They simply prevent them from going
> somewhere they are not supposed to. If people are careless and crash into
> them, that's their lookout.

We're going round in circles, if you want to continue this then please
explain how turning a benign situation into a potentially injurious
one is competely excusable. No-one is trying to excuse the driver.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

On 2006-11-06, Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote:

> It's stupid to have it where the peds are, sure. But if the drivers
> consistently ignore less physical barriers, you have to have something.

Not that though, it's too dangerous.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

On or around Mon, 6 Nov 2006 18:50:34 -0000, "Greg"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>i.e. driving
>behind a bus in an area where people expect traffic

no, they're not. They're driving on a road which is clearly signed "no
entry except for buses", and as such, they have no right to be there. In
fact, NO-ONE has a "right" to drive on any road, AFAIK.

in this case, they compound their stupidity by trying to circumvent the
devices put there to prevent them. They're exactly like the people who
drive around level crossing barriers and then get hit by a train.

FWIW, I think all of "bollard 191006" is the same set of bollards, from
different cameras and at 4 different times:

1: red car comes up and deviates off to left (or maybe U-turns, you can't
tell)
2: silver car drives up to bollards, driver gets out, then gets back in,
reverses, waits for bus to come and tries to follow it.
3: black car does something similar - waits in the layby bit for a bus, and
tries to follow it.
4: white van man tries to follow the postie.

It's not clear but I think the red-painted bit is part of the bollard thing,
not a crossing. It's certainly not an official crossing point, such as a
zebra or pelican.

where did you find any other videos?
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"'Tis a mad world, my masters" John Taylor (1580-1633) Western Voyage, 1

On or around Mon, 6 Nov 2006 18:31:10 -0000, "Greg"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>"Austin Shackles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>> it probably says so on the signs. Next time I'm in mancy, I'll try to
>> remember and take some photos of the whole scene.
>
>So now you have to read the small print on the signs as you're driving
>through a busy town centre, it's not realistic, like the bus lane signs that
>list lots of times with ifs and buts. People can only take in so much and if
>they concentrate on reading these they miss something else, like a
>pedestrian stepping out.
>Greg
>

no you see a ****ing No Entry sign, which is immediately recognisable, and
think "Oh ****, I can't go down that road, I'll have to go another way". end
of ****ing story.

it doesn't matter that the sign also says "except for buses" unless you're
driving a bloody bus.

How hard is it to recognise a round red sign with a white bar across it, fer
****'s sake?
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"'Tis a mad world, my masters" John Taylor (1580-1633) Western Voyage, 1

On or around Mon, 6 Nov 2006 19:40:03 -0000, "Greg"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>I totally agree, I just don't agree with capital punishment for tailgating a
>bus at 25mph!.

if you're following so close to it that you can't stop if necessary, then
that's too close.

and where's the capital punishment? I didn't see anyone killed.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"'Tis a mad world, my masters" John Taylor (1580-1633) Western Voyage, 1

Ian Rawlings wrote:

|| On 2006-11-06, Richard Brookman
|| <[email protected]> wrote:
||
||| According to some on here, that would be the council's fault for not
||| checking he had his seat belt fastened
||
|| Don't be a dick.

Check the smileeeeeeeee! I was j o k i n g.

--
Rich
==============================

2001 Disco II ES auto
1971 S2a 88" petrol
1991 Transit Camper

Take out the obvious to email me.

On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 21:11:06 -0000, Austin Shackles
<[email protected]> wrote:

> ...
> It's stupid to have it where the peds are, sure. But if the drivers
> consistently ignore less physical barriers, you have to have something.

Why? There are clearly 'places to go' on the other side of the vehicle
trap and there are clearly people in the cars that are by definition
'going to places'. So if it's ok for the bus & Post[wo]man then I fail to
see the point of excluding others.

Whan the first pram/wheelchair is side-swiped through a shop window
there'll be much wailing and screaming, then there'll be lots af pointing,
in the meantime there'll be a quiet family funeral.

We all know there are dick-heads on the road and we also know that there
are times when each of us loses concentration.

As citizens, is this really how we want our roads managed?


Further thought: Do we actually want our roads managed at all?

What happens in the rush-hour is that the roads get clogged up - live with
it ffs. No sense in micro-managing the flow of traffic - at all.

--
William Tasso

Land Rover - 110 V8
Discovery - V8

William Tasso wrote:

|| On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 21:11:06 -0000, Austin Shackles
|| <[email protected]> wrote:
||
||| ...
||| It's stupid to have it where the peds are, sure. But if the drivers
||| consistently ignore less physical barriers, you have to have
||| something.
||
|| Why? There are clearly 'places to go' on the other side of the
|| vehicle trap and there are clearly people in the cars that are by
|| definition 'going to places'. So if it's ok for the bus &
|| Post[wo]man then I fail to see the point of excluding others.

Well, that begs the whole question of restricting access to certain parts of
town centres, and is a whole other argument.

I was wondering how other nations would handle this situation. My guess
would be:

France: roll cigarette from old tram tickets, shrug, and drive round on the
pavement.

Italy: turn round, drive Alfa home, return on Ducati Monster and drive at
90mph through the middle, while caressing stunning brunette with other hand.

Germany 1: accept authority of bollards, make disciplined U-turn, find legal
way.

(Germany 2: crank Merc saloon up to max and flatten the bastards.
Pedestrians go to Hell.)

Netherlands: roll joint, chill for a bit, realise nothing is worth that much
hassle, go for a beer.

UK: group of intelligent guys stand around arguing, half impressed by neat
technology, half worried at extension of Nanny State.

Wales: sheep will go either side of bollards, no worries.

--
Rich
==============================

2001 Disco II ES auto
1971 S2a 88" petrol
1991 Transit Camper

Take out the obvious to email me.

On 2006-11-06, Richard Brookman <[email protected]> wrote:

> Check the smileeeeeeeee! I was j o k i n g.

Don't give up the day job!

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

On 2006-11-06, Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote:

> and where's the capital punishment? I didn't see anyone killed.

And when you do? It'll be entirely the driver's fault that the person
was killed with the council completely blameless for putting such a
stupid thing in the road?

Where's your sense of proportion gone austin?

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

"Richard Brookman" <[email protected]> wrote in
message

> Well, having a hole punched in your sump is hardly the electric chair, but
> ...

No, but they may hit the headlines when it happens to squash the footwell
and someone loses their legs 8-(.

I will never agree it's a good idea to have machines on the roads that are
designed to destroy a truck, never mind a car, it's absolutely idiotic.

http://www.cameuk.net/downloads/UrbacoBrochure.pdf

Scroll down to about the 4th page for their boast that they will destroy a
big American truck!.

This situation is absolutely ideal for being enforced with a simple camera,
that would stop the vast majority of cars and pay for itself. I suspect the
reason these death traps are appearing is that the public has not yet come
to loath them the way they have cameras, so the councils don't get the same
backlash. Of course you can argue that over use and wholesale abuse of speed
cameras is to blame for that.

Greg

On or around Mon, 6 Nov 2006 21:59:05 -0000, "Richard Brookman"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>William Tasso wrote:
>
>|| On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 21:11:06 -0000, Austin Shackles
>|| <[email protected]> wrote:
>||
>||| ...
>||| It's stupid to have it where the peds are, sure. But if the drivers
>||| consistently ignore less physical barriers, you have to have
>||| something.
>||
>|| Why? There are clearly 'places to go' on the other side of the
>|| vehicle trap and there are clearly people in the cars that are by
>|| definition 'going to places'. So if it's ok for the bus &
>|| Post[wo]man then I fail to see the point of excluding others.
>
>Well, that begs the whole question of restricting access to certain parts of
>town centres, and is a whole other argument.

indeed. It's got to do with thet fact that allowing unfettered access to
some areas just results in gridlock and enormous hassle. I've been to
Manchester by motor and by train, and the latter is a lot less hassle.

>I was wondering how other nations would handle this situation. My guess
>would be:
>

• 
  
  thanks Richard for some much-needed lightness in this debate.
  
  --
  Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
  "For millions of years, mankind lived just like the animals. Then
  something happened which unleashed the power of our imagination -
  we learned to talk." Pink Floyd (1994)

On or around Mon, 6 Nov 2006 21:49:25 +0000, Ian Rawlings
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>On 2006-11-06, Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> and where's the capital punishment? I didn't see anyone killed.
>
>And when you do? It'll be entirely the driver's fault that the person
>was killed with the council completely blameless for putting such a
>stupid thing in the road?

The council would certainly be liable if they "just" put the rising bollards
in, but that's not the case, they're hardly hidden. Seems to me that
they've also put a good deal of effort into making sure that they're
obvious, that there's no through route, etc etc. And the fact that some
vehicles are allowed through it is no excuse. Note, I'm not condoning or
otherwise the imposition of the ban on private cars. That's a different
issue as RB said.

I've not actually seen it in the flesh but from the pictures and from a
local description, it's clearly signed and the people who run foul of it are
doing so by deliberately trying to break the rules and drive where they
shouldn't go.

If that's acceptable, then the next time I miss a junction on the motorway
I'll do a U turn and drive back to it. If I did you'd all rightly castigate
me as an irresponsible fool and demand that I lose my licence etc etc.

These types do what amounts to exactly the same thing - they attempt to
drive in a stupid fashion, contrary to the rules laid down for that bit of
road and contrary to common sense, and when they run amok you all say "oh
but it's out of proportion". Bollocks, they know exactly what they're
doing, and they know the risk, and they think, wrongly, that they can get
away with it. A bit of observation would show that the bollards start
coming up immediately the bus is clear of them, and a bit of rational
thought should show that you've no chance of getting through, but they don't
care about all that, they just want to save 5 minutes or something or
they're too idle to park in a car park and walk to the shops (note that none
of the people depicted are disabled and unable to walk), cos of course,
parking and access restrictions only apply to everyone else, don't they.

The other week I parked for about 20 minutes on a double-yellow in Lampeter
(NOT obstructing anything - it's a 1-way street plenty wide enough for 2
vehicles) and as a result I got a parking ticket. You won't hear me
whinging about this: I took the risk, it didn't pay off. My fault and now I
have to pay, as is right. The whole of society only works because, in
general, enough of us obey the rules enough of the time - you go against the
rules, and you accept the consequences. You don't try to blame the PTB for
putting yellow lines where there really isn't any need for them, or for
putting in bollards or for banning U turns on the motorway.

Back to the bollards...

The only point I do agree on is that the pedestrians should be more
thoroughly excluded from the immediate area around the bollards. There
should be solid barriers, not just a few posts, then when something does hit
the bollards it can't injure bystanders. There's no evidence in the video
clips that it's an official ped-crossing, but of course peds will cross
anywhere if not prevented from doing so, even if it's dangerous. Much like
the people attempting to drive through the bollards, really.

>Where's your sense of proportion gone austin?

same place as everyone else's, I reckon. I happen to think that people
should take personal responsibility for their actions, and if they do stupid
things, accept the consequences. Like me an my parking ticket, for example.
It might be that it's stupid to ban access to that street, but the only
thing the council might be culpable for is the lack of thought about
protecting bystanders, as mentioned, I agree there.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"Remember that to change your mind and follow him who sets you right
is to be none the less free than you were before."
Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (121-180), from Meditations, VIII.16

On or around Mon, 6 Nov 2006 21:47:42 +0000, Ian Rawlings
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>On 2006-11-06, Richard Brookman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Check the smileeeeeeeee! I was j o k i n g.
>
>Don't give up the day job!

he's got a point though - increasingly, half the world wants "someone" to
take all responsibility for everything, and to be able to sue said "someone"
when their own actions cause them harm, even if they do stupid things that
they should easily be able to avoid.

case in point from some years ago: Someone had a pond in their garden, and
a small child fell into it and drowned - must have been unlucky, in thet the
child had to have been unconscious or somesuch 'cos the pond wasn't big
enough to drown anyone, even a small child, in capable of climbing out. very
sad for those concerned, of course.

But this woman was on the telly, apparently in all seriousness, decrying the
fact that ponds (the sort of 7x4 ft kidney shaped plastic ones, we're
talking about here, not a lake) were STILL on sale in the garden centre with
NO warning on them that people could drown in the water... hello? There's
only one person who's alleged to have been able to walk on water, and then
only the once.



--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms...
------------------------------------------------\
>> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them.
a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too!

On 2006-11-07, Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote:

> If that's acceptable, then the next time I miss a junction on the motorway
> I'll do a U turn and drive back to it. If I did you'd all rightly castigate
> me as an irresponsible fool and demand that I lose my licence etc etc.
>
> These types do what amounts to exactly the same thing

Well, given that you think the above two things are "the same" then
you really have lost your sense of proportion.

What you have failed to spot again is that the council's solution
causes at least as much danger to life and limb, both of the driver at
fault and of surrounding innocent people, as the problem that it's
trying to address.

It's like catching you driving down the motorway the wrong way, then
to punish you, forcing you to cross over onto the other side and drive
back up the other side of the motorway the wrong way to get back to
where you started.

> Bollocks, they know exactly what they're doing, and they know the
> risk, and they think, wrongly, that they can get away with it.

And the pedestrians know the risk of walking around in a town centre
policed by stupid means, and the passengers in the car know the risks
of driving with a driver who they *knew* would do something like that,
so it's their fault too, even if they're only 5 years old.

> Back to the bollards...
>
> The only point I do agree on is that the pedestrians should be more
> thoroughly excluded from the immediate area around the bollards.

And the passengers of the cars that get stopped.

> same place as everyone else's, I reckon. I happen to think that people
> should take personal responsibility for their actions, and if they do stupid
> things, accept the consequences.

I almost totally agree with that, although I think that the
"consequence" should be proportional and realistic. If driving at
31MPH in a 30MPH speed limit caused you to be locked up for 15 years
and your car impounded for example, that would be disproportionate to
anyone other than those bleaters who stamp their feet and shout that
31MPH is deadly but 30MPH is safe no matter what vehicle you are
driving.

Car-wrecking bollards that can cause a vehicle to be violently stopped
in a manner that risks injury to a driver is going too far, just
because the drivers are being stupid it doesn't mean they deserve to
get injured. People get injured by accident through doing stupid
things, but this is crossing the line that separates accident from
premeditation. It's like designing a door that says "No entry" then
setting it up so that it whacks people in the face if they push on it
to go through, excessive. Or breaking the legs of someone who steals
a newspaper.

But of course this is academic, the real issue is the passengers and
the pedestrians. In one part of the video people are getting off a
bus right where the rear wheels of one of the cars end up.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

On 2006-11-07, Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote:

> he's got a point though - increasingly, half the world wants
> "someone" to take all responsibility for everything, and to be able
> to sue said "someone" when their own actions cause them harm, even
> if they do stupid things that they should easily be able to avoid.

And the other half thinks that people are entirely responsible for
their own actions?

Rubbish.

As is usual in life, there's no black and white, just shades of grey.
There is such a thing as personal responsibility of course, but
there's also such a thing as liability to care for others. The two
are not mutually exclusive, you do not have to have one to the
exclusion of the other, you balance the two.

The balance is right most of the time, but due to the way the telly,
pub gossip and newspapers work, you hear only about the cases where
the balance is wrong, so for some reason some people, yourself
included it seems, think that the extreme situations are
representative of the whole. You don't hear about the majority of
sensible judgements because they're unremarkable, this is hardly news
to most people.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!