Choice, UT. Choice. :D

Here's the thing that I don't get.
If # is against the law, and it is obviously against the law, why should law breakers be protected from the consequences of breaking that law?

Possible examples:

Most US houses have 200amp service coming in at the meter. 200 amps can make you see god before you hit the ground. Teh only thing between you and eternity is about 1/8 to 3/16 of an inch of insulation.

DO NOT CHOP AT THE INSULATION WITH A HATCHET!!!

There isn't a law about this, but just don't do it. Why? Because I said so, mkay?

There is however a law against stealing electricity by opening your meter box, pulling out your meter and jumping the contacts with, oh, say a couple of forks.

To me it's the same difference.

"Hey guess what? Don't try to drive over the bollards."
"Hey guess what? Don't try to steal elelctricity form the power company."
"Hey guess what? Don't try to clear your garbage disposal while it's running with your hand."

etc etc

That's a judgment you're not qualified to make. I'd guess if the following car was within a couple inches they would make it as one continuous vehicle passage, but I'm not qualified either.

What we see is a compilation of clips from who knows how many hours of monitoring this one installation, possibly put together to convince people it can't be done and discourage them from trying it.

Britain, being generally considered a "first world" country, with scientists, engineers, lawyers and politicians with their ear to their constituents, certainly should be able to determine if their system complies with their law(guidelines).

I'd add Claymores. :lol:

My dad would be proud of you Bruce.:D

I suppose it is possible a tailgater with a damaged car might one day use the guidelines to try to claim compensation from the local County or City Council.

A driver performing an illegal manoeuvre suffered damage to a vehicle from its own forward momentum onto partially raised bollards. Arguing their case according to a guideline that suggested bollards should not continue to rise once an unauthorised vehicle was identified (and video evidence will prove this guideline was adhered to).

I think it would be thrown out of court. If it made it there in the first place.

Am I qualified to have an opinion about something I've observed? It looks like these people are tailgating as close and as fast as possible, to me. Or do you disagree that 0% is not an amount? I'm not a mathematician, but...

Or...

Ideally, the traffic engineers would implement a compliant device, which does not threaten drivers with bodily harm, and avoid the whole scenario.

this is pretty clear:
 

Everything else is RECOMMENDATION and GUIDELINES

The local authority is not breaking the law - the tailgating drivers are.

The GUIDELINES...The RECOMMENDATION puts into words what should go without saying: that the punishment should not vastly outweigh the crime.

The only punishment is self inflicted and not the state's fault.;) The first car was more than a car length behind and the second was at least two. The third was closer, but not close enough.

That is a statement of the glaringly obvious, which nobody is arguing.

We clearly just have a different opinion on this. I happen to agree with the government guidelines...

But you keep insisting they are being violated which they are not. :p

You can read them as well as I can. What do you think they say?

I know exactly what they say, and I agree with the British Government, they are not being violated.
You have not provided a shred of evidence they have.
Anything else? :question: