Safe Speed Forums

The bollards are accompanied by massive bright red no entry signs, using superbright LED arrays.

Personally I have no issue with these bollards. All the people in the video are blatently trying it on. If the van driver wasn't (and I reckon he was) he was certainly driving too close to the post office van.

I know the area quite well, theres not a chance that you could miss the bollards. Not a chance. Unless you're completely blind.

Maybe not while they're up, but what if they're in the ground?

The only time they're in the ground is when vehicles not prohibited from the area are driving over them, or outside of proscribed hours.

All the people in that video are trying it on, and I laughed my head off watching it.

Sadist, are you?

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

as long as your happy

_________________
Oct 11 Birmingham Half Marathon. I am running for the British Heart Foundation.
http://www.justgiving.com/Rob-Taylor

... that do not comply with the regulations (unless they have been specially authorised by DfT as a "one-off" for which there is no equivalent approved sign under TSRGD 2002 - and I seriously doubt that special authorisation exists). If that's the case, the no-entry restriction they "enforce" could be invalid and the bollards could be an unlawful obstruction of the public highway - and the council thus responsible and liable for each and every loss caused directly or indirectly by these booby traps.

_________________
Will

If I remember correctly, no-entry signs cannot be used with a partial exemption for some vehicles. Instead, a red ringed no motor vehicles type sign is needed with an exception plate.

Not quite true, TSRGD has permitted variations of the no-entry sign that exempt buses and taxis. However, the word "authorised" doesn't appear in those and the text must be black on white, not white on black.

_________________
Will

Then I am sure you will approve of my patented device which strings a head height wire across traffic lights when at red to deter red light jumping by cyclists.

You're saying that the drivers on that video knew the bollards were there and raised, and drove into them anyway? That's absurd.

From that video it's apparent to me that the drivers thought they would be able to drive through. From the design and operation of the bollards it seems to me that the bollards would be almost invisible while they were lowered, and they would remain almost invisible to a driver approaching as they raised. People trying to drive through by mistake, stupidity or negligence would have little/no warning of the impending danger until the vehicle slammed into the bollards.

_________________
Peter Humphries (and a green V8S)

New BBC film on the booby-trap bollards:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/3681938.stm

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

The BBC video features people saying that as the drivers ignored a sign they deserve it. The video also points out that before the bollards numerous pedestrians were injured with one killed. I would answer that most of those pedestrians were probably crossing the road carelessly in contravention of a red man or were otherwise at fault, so to be consistent shouldn't we say they deserved it too?

Do you have any, just one proven fact, cited website etc would do, hard evidence to support this assertion?

Look at table 4 in: http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/d ... 612594.pdf

It's very well known in the road safety industry that the vast majority of pedestrian impacts are caused by the pedestrian.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Since I don't know the identities of any of the people, I can't research the individual cases, but statistical evidence shows that most accidents with pedestrians are caused by improperly crossing the road:

http://www.directline.com/about_us/news_280105.htm
http://www.durham.police.uk/roadcas/

Since the council decided to close the road to cars as their solution, shouldn't the burden of proof be on them to show that the cars were to blame?

In any case, I wasn't saying they deserved it. I was saying to be consistent, the authorities should take that view, otherwise they are revealing their bias against cars.

lmao. Every single one of those cars knows the bollards were there.

The mini car at the start knew it.

The black 4x4 driver knew it, and was a complete arse anyway for driving so fast through that crossing.

The van driver knew it, he nails it behind the post office van to get through.



I've been there. I've seen them. If you don't, you need your eyes testing.

No, just someone with common sense, who loves seeing people who try it on fall by the wayside. Its hysterical, I'd like to see more please.

But obviously the car drivers believed they could get through the bollards. The fact that they didn't suggests they didn't understand the system properly, not that they were taking advantage in a calculated way. Many similar bollards in other locations will let vehicles through.

Is smashing up your car and possibly cracking skull and ribs an appropriate punishment for making a misjudgment out of ignorance?

I assume you agree with Homer's piano-wire proposal to stop cyclists running red lights, btw

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

I've seen pedestrians leg it across a busy road and almost get killed - yards from a pedestrian crossing. Perhaps they don't understand the system.

The drivers saw the bollards. They gambled. They lost. They're idiots. End of discussion IMO.

BTW the piano wire analogy is so stupid it doesn't deserve comment.

Talk all you like about fairness, just look at the speed that the 4x4 driver was going - and look at the number of pedestrians in the area. People like that don't deserve to be driving.

Why?