ADUK Archive

Tony Hoyle wrote:

ipsg.glf wrote:I think we have to get this into some sort of perspective. Is it right that people should risk serious damange and possible serious injury for the sake of entering a restricted parking area? I can understand having them on the entance to 10 Downing Street or somewhere like that, but Manchester City Centre?

If that video is manchester then and it is where I think it is then nobody has any excuse - it's extremely well signposted with big red no entry signs and the road is marked with no entry as well. Beyond it is a pedenstrianised area which is often crowded and lots of people crossing the road. The alternative is to let them through and risk an innocent bystander getting killed.

But cars quite clearly are permitted to use that area because if you look at the very beginning of the lkip there are cars parked on the right hand side of the lane.

Looking at it purely from a casualty reduction point of view, how can we advocate potentially serious injury/damage for the sake of a technical infringement?

chriskay wrote:legal resource against the council for damage to their vehicles.

I'd *love* to be the magistrate who heard that case...

Prosecution: So you went past road markings, sign posts, and illuminated red no entry signs, accompanied by indications that there were bollards in place, which you could see.
Accused: Yes.
P: And knowing that the bollards were going to come up to block you from entering a partially pedestrianised area, you decided that harsh acceleration toward a toughened steel barrier was the apropriate action?
A: Yes.
P: ...?
Magistrate: I find you guilty according to the "Being Bloody Stupid Act" of 0AD. Take him down.

Seriously, though, If I have a hazardous environment in my household (I'm in the middle of digging a new drain for example) and some chump hurts himself trying to break into my house, I'm covered if I have a warning that said "visitor" can be "reasonably expected to see and understand". I would hope / expect that the council would have at least that protection and certainly the signage described goes way beyond the kind of thing you see on spiky fences and such.

It may be relevant to point out that the bollards don't rise with any significant amount of momentum and in the video can be seen to stop when they encounter a chumpmobile, so it's clearly the driver's motion that provides the vast majority of the impact.

Cheers & God bless
Sam "SammyTheSnake" Penny

SammyTheSnake wrote:It may be relevant to point out that the bollards don't rise with any significant amount of momentum and in the video can be seen to stop when they encounter a chumpmobile, so it's clearly the driver's motion that provides the vast majority of the impact.

Automatic bollards are so sensitive that if you stand on them they won't raise.

We see on the video one car going up to the bollards, backing up then taking a run at it to follow a bus. They knew exactly what they were risking and I'd *love* to see them try to get any money out of the council for that one... I bet their insurance weren't too impressed either.

Wonder if they got points for it too?

I have to dissagree with what I saw in Wales.

The bollards continued to raise, lifted the front of the car clear of the ground before they were stopped, and had to be lowered so the car could be pushed clear.

It all boils down to impatience, arrogance and risk taking. If these idiots are prepared to risk the obvious, imagine what their decision making is like on the finer aspects of driving.

James wrote:It all boils down to impatience, arrogance and risk taking. If these idiots are prepared to risk the obvious, imagine what their decision making is like on the finer aspects of driving.

Exactly - that's why I am pleased they got caught this time with perhaps more serious consequences than they stictly deserve. I know it wouldn't be taken into account in law but these chumps are the type that will take loads of risks, upset other drivers and the rest and this time they paid the price.

Nigel wrote:I have to dissagree with what I saw in Wales.

The bollards continued to raise, lifted the front of the car clear of the ground before they were stopped, and had to be lowered so the car could be pushed clear.

It sounds like the system in the video was implemented with the benefit of hind sight gained from a system like the one you saw in wales. Certainly the balance of responsibility is different if the bollards don't react to a colision.

Cheers & God bless
Sam "SammyTheSnake" Penny

martine wrote:Exactly - that's why I am pleased they got caught this time with perhaps more serious consequences than they stictly deserve. I know it wouldn't be taken into account in law but these chumps are the type that will take loads of risks, upset other drivers and the rest and this time they paid the price.

I couldent agree more.

What will they remember more, a letter through the letterbox, or a huge jolt followed by public embarresment.

These barriers are programmed to react in a collision, you see the free barrier dropping into the foor after they are hit.

I have no sypmathy for those that fell foul of them, you can clearly see huge red plaching signs at the begining of the video.

Watching what appears to be the steriotype of a 4x4 driver get caught got an extra chuckle.

Jay

nuster100 wrote:

martine wrote:Exactly - that's why I am pleased they got caught this time with perhaps more serious consequences than they stictly deserve. I know it wouldn't be taken into account in law but these chumps are the type that will take loads of risks, upset other drivers and the rest and this time they paid the price.

I couldent agree more.

What will they remember more, a letter through the letterbox, or a huge jolt followed by public embarresment.

These barriers are programmed to react in a collision, you see the free barrier dropping into the foor after they are hit.

I have no sypmathy for those that fell foul of them, you can clearly see huge red plaching signs at the begining of the video.

Watching what appears to be the steriotype of a 4x4 driver get caught got an extra chuckle.

Jay

Hear Hear....

Roadcraft wrote:Hear Hear....

Bring back the stocks...........
http://www.villagenet.co.uk/reference/stocks.html

ipsg.glf wrote:

Roadcraft wrote:Thats that then... more camera enforcement needed

But

But But But But But


Sorry mate, just couldn't resist - spending too much time with the kids....

Back to Cbeebies now!

Eric

Why?

James wrote:Why?

Err, why what?

Some context might help those of us who feel like the rest of the world can read minds (i.e. Me)

Cheers & God bless
Sam "SammyTheSnake" Penny

But why? (continuation of the kids theme)

James wrote:But why? (continuation of the kids theme)

Because!