GC8

The bollards cant hurt anyone so theyre hardly draconian. When you factor stupid arrogant selfish idle f*ckwitted drivers into the equation then their actions and lack of intellect make the outcome less desirable. Its rather like suggesting that having fast trains on level crossings is draconian; when the aftermath of a f*ckwitted driver chancing the barriers is viewed...

Simon

Shark Man

Of course it can hurt, have you ever had whiplash? A 5mph impact can hurt enough to strain a neck.

And as you well know, level crossing are constructed as a "last resort", where options of having a bridge or tunnel cannot be used. And the same goes for any other road system put in place.

So I go back, why not a fine system?

GC8

I bet that if asked, all of the drivers would be adamant that someone else was to blame: whilst we can see that no-one but the drivers themselves was to blame..... A product of our new society where if you can find someone else to blame it immediatley relieves you of all responsibility for your own actions/stupidity (and provides for a tidy compo claim too).

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

Indeed. I would argue that in some instances, where trangression from signs/restrictions would result in significant problems/or be dangerous they are warranted.

Some people don't simply obey other methods of enforcements (yellow lines, no entry signs, box junctions etc)

The plonkers in this video even tried to get past a concrete bollard which they knew full well was there, so what hope would signs alone have?

You wouldn't come to any harm on these unless you were doing something negligent/dangerous, so i don't see there is a problem at all.

I find it quite refreshing in this age of PC and litigation that such things exist to be honest. As I said on page one, you can imagine how the injury compensation adverts would have to be revised:

Hurt doing something you shouldn't have been doing?

Good! next time don't do it!!

ns04

Jay_bee

iTrader: (1)

Erm, I have taken the time to read the points thanks.

At the end of the day, its tough sh*t. Its no different than other "threat" whilst being a passenger in a car with a idiot at the wheel. Its the responsiblity of the driver to take into account the welfare of their passengers whose lives are in your hands as a driver.

If the driver is that stupid, they're probably just as likey (assuming their defence is they didnt see any warning signs) to drive off a cliff!

On the otherhand, if they've done it on purpose, which going off that clip it certainly looks like they were all aware of the bollards and they injure a third party, they should be held responsible and face Due Care & Attention/Careless/Wreckless driving charges and possibly lose their right to drive for a good stint.

GC8

Youve missed my point Ali. Im saying that the bollards can not hurt anyone, in the same way that guns do not hurt people. You have to factor in the selfish stupidity of the drivers involved. They are the authors of their own misfortune. The bollards arent intended to cause injury or to damage property; theyre designed to prevent selfish **** takers from tailgating buses and passing the bus gate. As Jeff has confirmed; the signs are impossible to miss.....


Simon

OllyK

But cameras don't work in terms of reducing speed, if they did, they wouldn't make any money and the government would get rid of them.

Shark Man

That is what I meant - they work well to provide cash for the coffers

Bollards don't giev back to the system...tax the stupid is my perogative and it won't hurt their passengers either

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

*raps*
Bollards don't kill people GC8 does!

I think we can put this to bed now

1) You can't miss these things and will never come to grief unless you're being very careless or a ****
2) Drivers have a duty of care to their passengers to negotiate ALL obstacles in the road in such a way that will not cause them injury.
3) If you get hurt doing something you know full well you shouldn't be, that's tough! If your passengers get hurt, the civil law of Tort will sort it.
4) Don't expect people to protect you from the consequences of being stupid, just don't be stupid in the first place!!

Ns04

Shark Man

As my above post - it would be better to hurt the pockets, which will benefit everyone.

Finally, there is another point I'll like to add, even if it sounds like a sob story, it remains valid (although in this singular case it maybe redundant, but speculating if these bollards were used in every high street in the country, it would be a serious problem):

As my old job of an ex-van man who had no choice but to enter pedestrianised areas to access shop fronts with a van in order to carry out maintanence works. These things are a pain and from direct experience it is impossible to get acess granted by local councils.

Access to shopfronts has become increasingly difficult or even impossible for workers where offsite parking is not a viable option to carry out their job.

At least with a fine system I could just go in and pass the cost to my employer, who in turn passes it on to the customer (via overheads). If I was in a high street protected by these and needed acess, I could not have done my job, plain and simple. (wouldn't have bothered me though - I'd get paid either way ).

NS04...who made you a mod and dictator ?

IANwrxppp

I saw that then ROFPMSL

106rallye

what i really want to know is whats so good about the other side of the bollards ;-)

bob r

iTrader: (46)

there are plenty of signs warning drivers etc.
the bollards dont rise that quickly, its speeded up on the footage.
there is an audible warning aswell as flashing lights.
there is a way in to that location for drivers without crossing any barriers.
surely people have sued the council over this.

Maz

iTrader: (34)

Hopefully they were laughed out of court.

Jay_bee

iTrader: (1)

Id like to 2nd that

Jeff.