When it says BUSES ONLY, it means BUSES ONLY

[ipsg.glf]

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.

What if someone makes a genuine mistake? and a baollard activates and injures a child passenger?

When do we cross the line of doing what we consider to be reasonable?

Reminds me a bit of the RoboCop movie: "You have 20 seconds to comply!"

[Renny]

I wish they'd put them the bus-lane lines in Edinburgh as nobody can be bothered to enforce the bus-lanes causing dangerous cutting up of law abiding mottorists near the end of the bus lane and ques of traffic illeagaly in the lane who refuse to let you in at the end of the bus-lane.

I quite liked that film.

I've not seen the video yet (firewall at work ), but on Satuday I was on George St (as a pedestrian) and was some sort of Automatic bollards on a bus lane with a warning notice. TBH, I could't see the point of them.

[jont]

What if someone makes a genuine mistake? and a baollard activates and injures a child passenger?

When do we cross the line of doing what we consider to be reasonable?

From what I remember in the video, none of the drivers who hit the bollard looked like they were unsure about the restriction - they all drove hard at it to tailgate through. That doesn't really strike me as a mistake.

I would say the bollards rise quickly enough that a drive who was unsure about the restriction would see the bollard and realise they weren't meant to go through.

It is perhaps a petty penalty system, but it does seem to work in a that cameras wouldn't (ie cameras are only retrospective, and wouldn't work on false/obscured plates etc).

The biggest cause of confusion I've seen is in Cambridge where the bollards are there to allow buses and taxis past, but only local taxis are able to get the tag to lower the bollards. I can't remember the exact wording on the signs but IIRC there was a case where a taxi from a nearby town hit the bollards thinking they would allow *all* taxis past (presumably the bollards are meant to psychically know whether the car waiting is a taxi or not..... )

[7db]

The biggest cause of confusion I've seen is in Cambridge where the bollards are there to allow buses and taxis past, but only local taxis are able to get the tag to lower the bollards.

Actually the biggest confusion is the look on student's faces as they decide whether they can stand on top of the bollard and ride it back up. They don't like 100kilos of rower on them.

[SammyTheSnake]

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.

What if someone makes a genuine mistake? and a baollard activates and injures a child passenger?

You might as well complain when you drive into a static fense, some of those are way harder to spot than the massive flashing red signs at these automated bollards.

I can't honestly see how you *could* hit these bollards in a "genuine mistake" situation unless your observation skills are *way* below the minimum required. Perhaps those who hit these bollards should additionally be charged with DWDCA/Dangerous driving, even.

Cheers & God bless
Sam "SammyTheSnake" Penny
(At least they can't be done for "Failing to stop" )

[ipsg.glf]

Someone, in another place, made this point:

Here's a link to the DfT's Traffic Advisory Leaflet on Rising Bollards published in 1997:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/d ... 504750.pdf

This says:

"The system should ensure that bollards cannot rise beneath a vehicle because of the danger this would create. It is better to risk a certain amount of violation by "tailgating" vehicles, rather than put road users at risk."

[martine]

It seems the guidelines could foresee tailgaiting. I think they were highlighting the risk to a stationery vehicle over the bollards as they rise though. I can't think of an effective way of stopping the accidents we see on the video - if drivers are determined to accelerate towards the 'gate' then sooner or later they are going to get caught out.

Perhaps a compromise would be for the bollards to breakoff (and preferbaly embed themselves in the car, spraying flourescent paint everywhere) at a lower impact force - thereby minimising the risk of injury due to the sudden deceleration.

[ipsg.glf]

Perhaps a compromise would be for the bollards to breakoff (and preferbaly embed themselves in the car, spraying flourescent paint everywhere) at a lower impact force - thereby minimising the risk of injury due to the sudden deceleration.

What about the cost of renewing and the delay it would inevitably cause in getting them replaced?

I still believe a camera issuing fines is, by far, the most appropriate method of dealing with offenders, in this instance.

[martine]

I still believe a camera issuing fines is, by far, the most appropriate method of dealing with offenders, in this instance.

Being pragmatic and fair you are probably right but it does nothing to appease my sense of injustice for all those offences these drivers commit everyday where they get away with it.

[nuster100]

What about the cost of renewing and the delay it would inevitably cause in getting them replaced?

I still believe a camera issuing fines is, by far, the most appropriate method of dealing with offenders, in this instance.

AAAARRRRRGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!

Lets not go down that road.

IMO if you had a camera there, then it would really cause confusion. The point of a bollard is that it is a physicial barrier and you cant really mis-interprit that.

Somthing tells me were going to have to agree to disagree on this one ipsg.gif

Jay

[ipsg.glf]

What about the cost of renewing and the delay it would inevitably cause in getting them replaced?

I still believe a camera issuing fines is, by far, the most appropriate method of dealing with offenders, in this instance.

AAAARRRRRGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!

Lets not go down that road.

IMO if you had a camera there, then it would really cause confusion. The point of a bollard is that it is a physicial barrier and you cant really mis-interprit that.

Somthing tells me were going to have to agree to disagree on this one ipsg.gif

Jay

Jay

But wha tis the point of the bollards? If I was being generous I would say they are designed to physically prevent unauthorised access. At the other end I would say that were specifically designed to cause damage/injury.

I do wonder why people who frequent an advanced driving forum would push for sanctions that could cause injury to other road users for the sake of a technical infringement of a pedestrian area.

[nuster100]

But wha tis the point of the bollards? If I was being generous I would say they are designed to physically prevent unauthorised access. At the other end I would say that were specifically designed to cause damage/injury.

I do wonder why people who frequent an advanced driving forum would push for sanctions that could cause injury to other road users for the sake of a technical infringement of a pedestrian area.

I understand where you are comming from, but that video touches on some pet hates that I feel strongly about. Namely inconsiderate twats and 4x4 drivers.

I have no problem if they gett rattled up a bit by a bollard for trying to park that extra 2 feet closer to the shop or cut 10 seconds off a journey by driving through a pedestrionised zone.

Of course I wouldent want to see someone get seriously hurt, but I would rather that 4x4 hit a steel bollard than the 10 year old who didnt see him tailgating the bus.

Jay

[Roadcraft]

I would rather that 4x4 hit a steel bollard than the 10 year old who didnt see him tailgating the bus.

Jay

That is a fantastic point, and the very essence of the argument.

[SammyTheSnake]

I understand where you are comming from, but that video touches on some pet hates that I feel strongly about. Namely inconsiderate twats and 4x4 drivers.

I don't really have much of a problem with the latter, except that they often happen to also be the former and it's a *very* bad combination.

I really don't like the idea of these things being based on pet hates, though, plenty of people have some really strong feelings about things that have nothing to do with safety or any other valid concern. I speak at least partly, of course, as a motorcyclist

Of course I wouldent want to see someone get seriously hurt, but I would rather that 4x4 hit a steel bollard than the 10 year old who didnt see him tailgating the bus.

100%

Cheers & God bless
Sam "SammyTheSnake" Penny

[ipsg.glf]

I would rather that 4x4 hit a steel bollard than the 10 year old who didnt see him tailgating the bus.

Jay

That is a fantastic point, and the very essence of the argument.

If a 10 year old can't manage to cross the road properly (i.e. stop, choose safe place to cross, looking and listening as you go) then it is only a matter of time before they become a statistic. And that will happen with or without bollards that can cause damage/injury/death for the sake of a technical infringement.

If we apply the above thinking to Drink Driving, we should jail all Drink Drivers for life.

As far as I am aware (and it certainly was the last time I looked in any detail) we, currently, prosecute people for an offence, not for what they did not, might have, possibly considered, doing. We punish the offence not the consequences of the offence.