They don't rise beneath the vehicle, they stop when the vehicle starts to pass over them. the car goes up when it hits them for the same reason it goes up when you hit a curb....the shape of the vehicle and the path of least resistance until the forward motion is dissipated. Your insistence that they are violating the law is based on your ignorance of what is actually going on.:rolleyes:

Those bollards are child's play compared to what my dad seriously wanted to institute on the NY subway. It really got his knickers in a twist when people wold rush for a train, be a few seconds late, and stick their fingery appendages in the door and then attempt to pry the door open. This sets a chain of events in motion, the upshot being that the train and everyone aboard, who managed to get into the car in a timely fashion, are delayed.

His solution was to do away with the rubber bumperson the doors and replace them with finely honed razors. A few fingers later, folks would stop trying to pry the doors open.

He was pretty hardcore when it came to people being selfish and rude.

Yeah, that's hard core. Actually tongue and groove aluminum extrusions would work though, because they couldn't get their fingers in once it was closed.


Oh, and 5 ton cylinders closing them.:angel:

Since we didn't see the system fail, we don't know that they don't do that, now do we. :p

I've given up - we are obviously seeing something different...

Which part of this do you not understand?
 

" It is better to risk a certain amount of violation by "tailgating" vehicles, rather than put road users at risk."

The only question is whether or not you disagree with the clearly stated intent of the government regulations.

Hey, Flint.

This is the part I don't understand. Where is the line that divides the responsibility for what happens with the government and the individual? What "certain amount of violation" is acceptably risky? And what burden for their actions do the drivers bear?

What if the posts rose at a rate of, say, one inch per hour. Who could be surprised by that? But at *some point*, *some car*, travelling at *some speed*, following at *some distance* would come into contact with the post, don't you agree? So maybe that rate is too fast. What about the rate at which a tree grows? Slow enough that "road users" would not be "put at risk"?

If they're tailgaiting, and that violation is already established: "ONE car per GREEN", then no system can be established that doesn't put road users at risk. It is not possible. There is no rate at which the bollards could rise that eliminates risk to the road users. You're chasing something that doesn't exist.

I'm not. Let's be clear: I'm just quoting the established government guidelines.

I don't generally put up my own Cellar tag lines, but.

Ok. let me attempt to paraphrase...

Nailed it, huh?

I'm not "chasing something that doesn't exist" because the paraphrase of my argument has been "these devices look unsafe, there has to be a better way, and I don't know what it is."

Regarding the regulations, they are written with full acknowledgement that "there will be instances where two or more vehicles attempt to pass through in close succession" so repeating ad nauseum that these drivers are in the wrong is not adding new information. The devices shown do not "risk a certain amount of violation by "tailgating" vehicles, rather than put road users at risk" as the regulations dictate, so they aren't compliant.

to clarify, I didn't overlook this:
 

More than 0%, the margin at which these devices appear to operate.

Hey, maybe there are dozens of people getting through, and these idiots just didn't tailgate close enough or fast enough? I'd recommend to them that they give it another shot.

I don't think so. It looks impossible, to me. Assuming that to be the case, 0% does not qualify as a tangible "certain amount" . . .

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:

Do you know what words mean?

They should just install these, and solve the problem permanently. As long as they put a sign up, it's okay.

I wouldn't have a problem with them but I'm afraid the Brits would them excessive, unlike the rising bollards with conform to the letter of the law by doing the job without endangering anyone. :cool:

I want one of those for the house, and then I start thinking about 2001, and what was that other movie about the house ... Demon Seed? and decide that old fashioned manual systems are probably the best way to go.

You know those races where fully automated "robot" trucks race through the desert?
Take on of those trucks, and slap that thing on the back, and then you've got something!

Never mind.....there's enough guns around that aren't attached to brains, already. :smack:

It's in Manchester, btw. Sorry if someone already filled in that blank. Changed a lot since I lived there.......:rolleyes:

These automated boallards are okay, but can you pee on them?

That would be much cooler if it extruded from the street when it sensed someone nearby doing the pee pee dance.

What a great idea!

Although I suppose you have to change the laws a little in order not to make it a public decency offence...

I was at the cashpoint the other day in the AFTERNOON and there was a man having a wee to one side of it. I stared at his back til he finished and looked round, setting my face in a "You are a revolting creature" mask. No reason for it either - there are public toilets along that street AND 3 bars which you can easily go in without having to buy. Not that a Urilift is likely on my road, but the more men realise that urinating on buildings is unacceptable the better.

Yeah but, maybe he was just cooling it off or getting a knot out and it accidentally leaked. :rolleyes:

Or he was just showing off.

I read they only come up at night, so maybe not. ;)

mmmm...... these don't do so much to discourage tail-gaters.....

I dunno, don't think I'd want to follow too closely behind someone heading for one of these...... :eek:

yeah, but you're not George Michael.....

Remember this thread? I loved this thread.

Just saw this thread for the first time. Those are bollards; they're a security device. All the military bases I've lived on have them; they (obviously) prevent vehicles from entering or exiting. There's a damn good reason they don't have a safety feature... if you have to throw the bollards, something SERIOUS is going on and you don't want to make the mistake of letting a terrorist in... or letting a terrorist escape! Just didn't realize they had them in Europe too? No idea what the reason is there...

Holy cow, Treasenuak, don't pick the scab off this one.

This is one of the all time great pissing matches in the history of teh cellar.

whoops. That's what I get for not reading through the hundred-and-a-half previous posts.... -grimaces-

I just read it all and its friggin hilarious!

I still don't get Flint's point.

:stickpoke

He had a point? (piling on)









get it piling?

Classic, what did you decide?

This thread was awesome.

Yeah, I just read it and got all worked up again.

I can understand the desire to exact a pound of flesh from rule breakers, but what about people who are simply confused? Hasn't anyone here been confused by road signs in a strange city and broken the law because they didn't understand?

A confused/lost/overwhelmed driver sees a street they want to go down. They see a bus going down the street. There are cars parked along the street. So they drive down the street and smash into a hidden rising bollard, getting a concussion.

Nobody who knows the system would try to cheat it. How many people have you ever witnessed trying to drive out of a parking garage, for example, by tailgating the paying customer in front of them? It simply doesn't happen. People don't want to risk having their car damaged by the gate coming down. They know the system and don't try to cheat it, because they understand.

These people colliding with the bollards don't know the system. They are confused. Having been confused myself in the past when driving in a foreign city, I sympathize with them.

About what? Wow - I just saw this from Flint's reference

Apparently, this is not always the case. glatt has had direct experience with cars driving on sidewalks

So why isn't he up in arms, ready to smash these cars with invisible battering rams, giving whiplash to innocent toddlers in car seats?

yeah, I started to re read it, but by page 5, I was all fagged out from your shenanigans, and had to skip to the end.