>>>>>>>Like this?

Yes.

This was such a silly debate I've been flubbing around these non-issue tangents to kill time at work.

Ultimately, the government website agreed with me, so the issue is closed now. I was right all along.

I don't believe the bollards continued to rise given the video evidence. And yes, the guidelines suggest allowing tailgating, but that does not mean the right to tailgate in order to drop your family off closer to the shops. All the warnings are still there - the driver is breaking the law.

It shouldn't be necessary to have someone there to uphold the law. The signs should be enough. We all buy into a system where personal inconvenience (ie no dropping the wife & kids outside M&S) is sacrificed for general good. But this video proves signs are NOT enough. Unless the signs say "Go any further and the bollards will F**K your car" Why burden the taxpayer with the extra cost of manning an area which is out of bounds?

I agree. But the answer isn't to install devices that cause injury to people who violate traffic laws. Using that logic, maybe they should line the road with landmines?

Perhaps a better solution would be a red light camera that mails a ticket to the owner of the car.

are we done yet?
 

Glatt, much as I respect you, you're taking the situation to an illogical conclusion.

The drivers in the video (which let's face it, have been posted because they are the most extreme) have intentionally tailgated vehicles allowed to enter a restricted zone, disregarding all signage.

In every case the drivers and their passengers have evidentially been capable of leaving the area afterwards.

This is nothing like entering an Army Firing Range (we do have those in this country, esp in the South West) and being blown up because you're bad at map-reading.

I don't believe these devices were installed to damage vehicales or injure drivers. I admit I wouldn't be worried if they were, but that's personal opinion not the law of the land.

The bottom line IMO is if these drivers had NOT increased their speed and had NOT reduced the amount of space between them and the previous (authorised) vehicle, then they would NOT have had this problem.

Edited to add [Flint] - it is unlikely the bollards were deliberately set to catch tailgaters. I assumed they were because that's my (wrong) preference. But given the guidelines, I can only assume the installation didn't take into account just how close motorists were willing to drive behind a large vehicle that can stop abruptly (a bus in other words)

Do you now wish to retract this reference?
 

Because this website is chock-full of "illogical conclusions" . . .

Correct, the bollards in question are poorly designed and fail to meet government regulations.

If you are talking about my land mines comment, I agree with you. But I was kidding. :)

Traffic signs seem to be enough for the vast majority of other situations. At red lights, they don't have large catapults to throw you across town if you don't stop on red. If you exceed the speed limit, they don't have oil nozzles by the side of the road squirt oil all over the highway to make you spin out of control and crash. If you fail to use your turn signal when changing lanes, snipers don't shoot you from behind the bushes.

Why is this area defended by these bollards like this? What makes these particular traffic laws so important that people are being injured and cars are being damaged to protect the zone? You saw the guy in the SUV. He was in serious pain. He kept holding his head. We don't know if he went to the hospital later, but he might have. These bollards are dangerous. They are installed in violation of several of the government guidelines.

There has to be a better way.

You realize that by posting this, you guaranteed at least another dozen posts, right?

:lol:

Also, I reiterate my snip from the government website:

Positioning
Rising bollards should not normally be sited close to or at signalled junctions or pedestrian crossings.

Well, I considered posting, in 4-point all-caps, "I was right and y'all were wrong, so suck it" . . .

No, you are not right.
It's not a pedestrian crossing, there is no zebra. It's the entrance to a pedestrian zone. They tried this in Philly, too, only they had a manned cop car parked across the end of the street to prevent traffic other than busses from entering. Btw, the street is at least three times as wide as the car is long.

The bollards neither lift the vehicle nor endanger anyone. The only people injured, ignored plenty of flashing and fixed signs and flagrantly tried to beat the system. They deserve no more pity than someone who drives into a Jersey Barrier.

The system is safe, effective and monitored as the guidelines proscribe. There is nothing in the guidelines, the law, or in all of technology that can make them idiot proof. What, put a cop there? How many cops get run over by asshats every year?:rolleyes:

Argue with the government regulations, if you disagree with them.
It would be extreme overkill for me to post them again, see post #100.