Safe Speed Forums

I've just had an odd thought...
Why are they doing this?
They already have CCTV to spy on people there, so why aren't they using that to "enforce" the "whopping great big vehicles with 8 or more seats not including the driver only please" rules? Why aren't they trying to make money out of people? They usually do.

_________________
Andrew.

It could be that they’re trying to force people to use expensive public transport.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

"Was quite amusing until I found out the driver died. Oh well..."

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22404743@N00/146999376/

News Report here

_________________
"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

And apparently he was a twit for towing a tractor...?!
They are (or were) apealing for witnesses and they have CCTV? Hmm.

_________________
Andrew.

So, we have over two tonnes of Mk 3 Shoggie towing three-quarters of a tonne tare trailer and over two tonnes of mini-tractor (so about five tonne train weight). If the tractor moved during the "accident", it would tend to roll forward. However when I enlarged the photo, I noted there are straps over the rear wheels and they look up to the job. I doubt the tractor would have come off the trailer! Although we don't know the cause of death, I strongly suspect that coming to an abrupt halt from about 30mph didn't help. The front crumple zone on a Mk 2 is from the longditudinal chassis members, which are designed to fold from a frontal impact. That bollard impacted between those chassis members and managed to hang up on the front diff and steering rack, which would have forced the steering column rearward while stopping the car much more abruptly than hitting a brick wall at the same speed. IOW, these bollards are exactly the right shape and height to negate the frontal impact safety measures built into many cars.

BTW, something worries me about the legality of the signage used to warn of these bollards. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/02311334.gif shows the requirements for a "no entry" sign, and no variations are permitted. I suspect that the plate "except bicycles and authenticated busses and taxis" is an unlawful variation, making the no-entry sign thus invalid, possibly making the bollards an unlawful obstruction of the public highway. However, I'm no expert - perhaps someone who knows how to unpick TSRGD 2002 would like to comment?

_________________
Will

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."

Very obviously this is not happening in either Manchester or Cambridge.

_________________
"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

They might be able to get special authorisation.
But the signs in place are not good enough. They are black boxes! You don't expect black boxes to be something important to look at.

_________________
Andrew.

Hey, I bet that's right!

I'll ask a leading expert. Standby.

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

I'm amazed and disgusted that the council seem to think they have no responsibility.

Section 3 of the Health & Safety at Work etc Act 1974 place a duty of care on employers to employees AND 'Those affected by thier undertaking' ie NON employees, this can extend to and include (amongst others) visitors and members of the public.

There is also a duty under HSWA to provide safe plant - bollards rising up through cars, somehow I don't think that meets the definition of safe plant.

Management Regulations require risk assessments, especially when a hazard is reasonably foreseable. Cars following busses through, intentionally or by accident is reasnably foreseable to me, therefore, risk assessment.

Having said all that some of the worst H&S offenders I've come across are local authorities.

This is yet another case that proves the point.

_________________
Gordon Brown saying I got the country into it's current economic mess so I'll get us out of it is the same as Bomber Harris nipping over to Dresden and offering to repair a few windows.

Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done.

http://www.wildcrafts.co.uk

Sign 616 is allowed signs "Except busses" or "Except local busses" (954 and 954.2) and it is allowed "NO ENTRY" or BUS ONLY" on the road. (1046 and 1048.3)
Of course these two signs are black letters on a white background with a border, not white letters on a black background with no border.

I suppose asking for the traffic order/s might show up some problems, if someone wants to do that.

_________________
Andrew.

AFAICT, sign 616 (no entry) isn't allowed with sign 954.3 (which is the exception for that can include taxis and cycles). However, even 954.3 doesn't seem to permit "authenticated" anything. So, AFAICT, the signs at these bollards are not in accordance with TSRGD.

_________________
Will

That's for sure
I don't know how special authorisation works though.
The red route lines & signs aren't in the TSRGD but they have been authorised. Or at least that's what I have been lead to believe.

_________________
Andrew.

nice little video courtesy of the MEN.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... d/519.html

_________________
Semper in excreta, nur quantitat variat.

We (eventually) got a good hit with the PR. See: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10212

The question now is, what do we do to follow it up?

How about a PR about liability?

"Booby-trap bollards are clearly a liability, but who will pay out when there's an injury?

Would that concentrate the minds of local authorities?

Any thoughts?

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

When writing the PR don't forget to point out the irony of a local authority refusing to see sense on this clearly risky issue yet others are more than keen to ban conkers, bonfires etc etc

All of this is hysterical. There's nothing wrong with rising bollards, people are generally intelligent enough to know that they're trying to drive somewhere they shouldn't - and if their vehicle gets damaged its only what they deserve.

Would your "get what they deserve" apply to pedestrians and cyclists too, eg, a spike strip to puncture cyclists' tyres if they transgressed onto a footpath, or a stun beam at chest height for pedesdtrians attemptint to cross a road at places other than designated road crossings?

Nope, why should it? Pedestrians and cyclists are hardly a danger to others, motorised vehicles generally injure pedestrians/cyclists - I've yet to hear of it being the other way round. It is not appropriate to have cars/goods vehicles in busy parts of town centres, or where there are heavy flows of buses which are using the road space more efficiently than does the rest of traffic. Since many drivers are completely incapable of respecting restrictions in certain areas, measures like rising bollards are necessary.

Would you agree with barriers flying out of the road to topple any cyclist who dared to breach a red traffic light?

And if not, what's the difference?

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

Is it OK if I put razor blades just over the top edge of my fence to give intruders "what they deserve"? People are generally intelligent enough to know that they're trying to get into somewhere they shouldn't.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.