Video Clip, what is it?
http://www.biertijd.com/mediaplayer/?itemid=515
I'm not sure exactly what's going on, but it's slightly funny.
Does anyone know why those certain cars can't get through and only the buses, etc can?
http://www.biertijd.com/mediaplayer/?itemid=515
I'm not sure exactly what's going on, but it's slightly funny.
Does anyone know why those certain cars can't get through andf only the buses, etc can?
Maybe it's like an EZ Pay system toll road.
An attempt at urban traffic control? Only some vehicles have an RFID device that allows it to enter -- others don't. It would seem that a breakaway gate would cause less damage and then not leave the vehicle hanging and blocking traffic. But then you'd be using up lots of gates.
I like the good old days of tire slicing bars preventing you form going in the out.
Looks like the people behind the busses were trying to beat the system and hurry up behind the bus to get through.
Seems a bit harsh?
Seems a bit harsh?
It looks dangerous as hell. No safety mechanism, like garage doors have, for instance.
It IS traffic control - the area the cars are trying to access is obviously pedestrianised. The van that gets through is Royal Mail (ie the Post Office)
Can't say where exactly but it's definitely Britain. Many city centres have similar devices, but they react more slowly - I think this particular city decided it had had enough of people trying to beat the system.
Serves them right I say - this area will be VERY clearly marked I assure you, you can tell by the way the cars have tried to tailgate that they know they are in the wrong.
The guy in the black SUV looks like he may have sustained a concussion. They also rushed to get their child out of the back seat. The last guy's windshield is broken where his head may have hit.
How about heavy fines instead of bodily injury?
It looks like he hit his airbag to me.
I say - how about not driving through a prohibited area for not scaring the crap outta you?
Rather than the time & money it takes to process fines the Mercedes driver can well afford. He won't be trying that again in a hurry.
(I'm not very sympathetic when it comes to traffic violations I'm afraid)
It looks like he hit his airbag to me.
An airbag will crush your windshield like that?
I'm sure word will get around that you can't play that system and win...at least I hope so before someone's kid gets killed.
That child should have been in a carseat. If she wasn't then the father is doubly to blame - first in endangering his family by irresponsible driving, second by not adhering to the law by securing his child properly.
I would rather not see children injured by their own parents' decisions, but it is better than allowing drivers with no regard for the law into pedestrianised areas where they will put other people's children in danger, surely?
An airbag will crush your windshield like that?
Yes. It also fills the car with dust, which you can see coming out when the door is opened.
I'm guessing the kid was in a carseat.
Well, I'm guessing the child was in a car seat, and probably not injured, hopefully.
I'm not sticking up for the driver's with no regard for the law...I hate that, too. It just seems a bit harsh, like I said. Say the child was not in a car seat, and was injured. Parent's fault, absolutely, but a brain injured or whatever child seems a harsh punishment.
I do see where you're coming from - and I agree it's harsh. It's just I like harsh in this situation. It's one of the few issues where my usual liberal coating has worn thin and the right wing reactionary is showing through.
I also advocate buses being able to shunt cars in the bus lane out of the way...
It's one of the few issues where my usual liberal coating has worn thin and the right wing reactionary is showing through
I have a couple of those myself. :)
If you watch, the black SUV *speeds up* to try to make it. You can also see the drivers side airbag go off.
That's more than slightly funny, that thar is hee-larious. Too bad a kid may have potentially been hurt though.
No safety mechanism
The posts stop moving upward as soon as something hits them. That sounds like a safety mechanism to me. Unless you expect them to be intentionally ineffective and break when a car hits them?
These are the same type of idiots who would speed up to run a red light, putting everyone else's lives in danger. They are deliberately irresponsible drivers and they deserve whatever damage happens to their car or body.
The posts stop moving upward as soon as something hits them. That sounds like a safety mechanism to me.
Okay "no functional safety mechanism" (and since we're splitting hairs: how are the cars lifted off the ground by a pole that isn't moving?)
Unless you expect them to be intentionally ineffective and break when a car hits them?
Which part of my post did I suggest that? Oh that's right, I never did. You're just making stuff up.
No, I was asking. Hence the question mark. Let me rephrase: Please explain clearly what sort of safety mechanism you expect them to have.
Are purple monkeys flying out of your ass? Nothing to date has suggested this, I'm simply asking. With a question mark.
Instead of the cars being rudely and suddenly stopped, the thing should create some sort of bouncy ramp, so they're comically catapulted into the air.
Please explain clearly what sort of safety mechanism you expect them to have.
I'm not a traffic engineer, so it isn't my job to figure this out. The design of these mechanisms looks dangerous.
Instead of the cars being rudely and suddenly stopped, the thing should create some sort of bouncy ramp, so they're comically catapulted into the air.
Okay, sometimes an "armchair traffic engineer" has the best ideas. I stand corrected.
No, I'm wrong, it should be a MOAT. To let the bus pass, a steel bridge drops down. After the bus has gone, it opens to a 15 foot long, four foot deep pit of water. The beauty is, the lift for the bridge doubles as a crane to pull the vehicle out in 15 minutes.
Are purple monkeys flying out of your ass? Nothing to date has suggested this, I'm simply asking. With a question mark.
Okay, to clearly answer the questions you've asked: 1.) No, purple monkeys are not flying out of my ass, 2.) The cars are lifted off the ground by their own forward momentum as well as the slight continued upward momentum of the pole in the fraction of time it takes to register that something has hit it, and 3.) You never suggested my sarcastic description of a possible safety mechanism in your post; I posted it to express how I found your post to be lacking in information as to what your opinion is:
It looks dangerous as hell. No safety mechanism, like garage doors have, for instance.
I swear to God I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm trying to understand your point in making this statement. So let's back up:
Do you believe that the poles
should have a safety mechanism, as you noted they do not?
Not punitive enough. They should have a 60 second timer before the car is crushed into a 3x3 cube.
In 60 seconds the car couldve passed by then.
no no, I don't want to get rid of the posts. They are for holding the car there until it can be crushed. Obviously the people inside fancy themselves as speedy, it should be plenty of time to get out.
crushed? Did I miss something? ..
Time to go watch that video again..
Keep watching, you'll see the crushing eventually, I promise.
If you're talking about the cars getting hit because their speeding, I don't see anything wrong with that. It's their fault..
I found your post to be lacking in information as to what your opinion is:
I'm not familiar with the traffic area these device are operating in, or what specific problem they are designed to prevent, but I do believe (based on the scant evidence of this video) that whiplash and a totalled car for the offender is an excessive outcome, for what I am assuming was intended as some sort of
safety device (see the irony there?) . . .
I'm going out on quite a limb to say: there must be a better way to do this. I don't know what it is, and I'm not going to pretend to know.
A Jersey wall has the same result if you just try to drive through it. This one just removes the need for a crane when you want to let authorized vehicles through.
for what I am assuming was intended as some sort of safety device (see the irony there?) . . .
Ah, see this is where the miscommunication comes from. It's not a safety device, it's a device intended to keep cars from driving in an area they're not allowed to drive in. Obviously signs didn't do the job, so they had to resort to sturdier measures. What these idiots in the video have done is equivalent to setting up a ramp to try to jump their car Dukes-of-Hazzard-style over a wall that they know is intended to keep them out.
I'm going out on quite a limb to say: there must be a better way to do this. I don't know what it is, and I'm not going to pretend to know.
I disagree that you're going out on a limb. You are expressing an opinion where none was expressed before. I, on the other hand, personally think this is an
excellent way to deter people from driving in these areas, and do not necessarily think there must exist a better way at all.
I disagree that you're going out on a limb. You are expressing an opinion where none was expressed before. I, on the other hand, personally think this is an excellent way to deter people from driving in these areas, and do not necessarily think there must exist a better way at all.
Unless we just immediately gunned down all violators. ;)
The afforementioned tire-popping strip might perhaps stop the vehicle without greivous bodily harm, no?
The afforementioned tire-popping strip might perhaps stop the vehicle without greivous bodily harm, no?
Possibly. Some problems with that are:
A.) Buses still must get through, so the tire-popping strip would have to move up and down to let approved vehicles through
B.) The area is meant for pedestrians (which is why cars aren't supposed to go through there in the first place,) leaving a good possibility someone will accidentally step on the spikes and cut up their feet. I'd rather injure the defiant drivers than the innocent pedestrians.
Better still... a tire popping strip doesn't prevent the vehicle from entering the area. If that's the objective, then running on four flats in the restricted area is hardly evidence of an effective deterrent.
Wait a minute, how the fuck is it safe to let a bus drive on a sidewalk ???
Aha! Now there's a point I wasn't sure how to get at. Watch dude get off the bus...he's barely to the bottom step before the bus driver starts to drive off, so I won't accept "the bus drivers are trained for safety" idea. :cool:
when the sidewalk's a driveway?
If you're talking about the cars getting hit because their speeding, I don't see anything wrong with that. It's their fault..
oh wait. miscommunication. I was saying that the posts aren't punitive enough. There should also be a car crusher that makes the offending automobile a 3x3 foot cube of metal after 60 seconds.
I'm not soft on traffic offenders, when I understand the specifics of the situation. Here's an example:
On-the-spot death sentence, citizen enforcable via car-mounted laser-guided sniper rifles, for failure to use a turn signal. The package will include a video camera, like cop cars have, to document the offense. Drivers must take a short written test to qualify as a turn-signal-enforcer. Failure to pass the test will result in the immediate smashing-in of your head by a large robotic hammer in the testing booth. (We're looking for a few good men, not a bunch of dumbasses...)
But seriously, in
the real world I didn't think they had such brutal traffic enforcements in place.
It IS traffic control - the area the cars are trying to access is obviously pedestrianised. The van that gets through is Royal Mail (ie the Post Office)
Wait a minute, how the fuck is it safe to let a bus drive on a sidewalk ???
when the sidewalk's a driveway?
Oh I see. That clarifies things for me... not at all.
Next question: why are pedestrians walking down a bus driveway?
Next question: where are the drivers trying to get to, down a bus driveway?
It IS traffic control - the area the cars are trying to access is obviously pedestrianised. The van that gets through is Royal Mail (ie the Post Office)
So...these pillars prevent cars from driving on the fucking sidewalk ???
We don't have that problem here in the USA, so I'm trying to understand.
oh wait. miscommunication. I was saying that the posts aren't punitive enough. There should also be a car crusher that makes the offending automobile a 3x3 foot cube of metal after 60 seconds.
Ahh, gotcha. I'm hoping thats humor, because I'd rather not see a smashed up child.
...I'd rather not see a smashed up child.
Correction: smashed up
traffic offender.
No correction needed, the kids of a dumbass parent shouldn't have to suffer for their screw-ups. Same goes for another adult passenger unrelated to the driving idiot.
If these drivers were trying to cheat the system, that would mean that they knew the system in the first place. If they knew the system in the first place, they would have known that you can't cheat it. It's just too damn fast. That's why I think it's confusion and not malice that leads to their actions, and I think these devices are far too violent in this situation.
The driver of the first car is the only one who deserves some real blame. He saw the barricades initially, backed up to let the bus by, and then tried a second time. The other drivers couldn't see the barricades, because they were hidden from view by the buses/vans in front of them. One foolishly tried to speed up to miss the barricade and failed, the other didn't see it at all until it was too late.
I've driven in foreign countries, and it can be confusing. When you are in an urban area, and there is a hustle and bustle, it's easy to get overwhelmed to the point that you don't see a round sign with a bar in it. In fact, I've been a passenger in cars on three occasions where the car entered a pedestrian only zone because the signs weren't clear. Luckily, it wasn't at this place. On two of the occasions, we left the zone without getting caught, and the third we got a ticket.
My point is that the drivers were obviously confused. Nobody would ever intentionally do this to themselves.
My point is that the drivers were obviously confused. Nobody would ever intentionally do this to themselves.
You make some good points, but I do know drivers that would do this. My mother to name one, at least I think she would, there's always a chance she wouldn't.
Though I do know if she tried and failed one time, she wouldn't do it again. Even while intentionally knowing the possible consequences before trying. Yeah she is a bit of a bad driver I do believe.
It IS traffic control - the area the cars are trying to access is obviously pedestrianised. The van that gets through is Royal Mail (ie the Post Office)
I don't think it's pedestrianised. I agree that it's controlled, but it's not pedestrianised. Look at the first several frames of the movie, showing the street in question. There is a passenger car double parked next to three or four other passenger cars that are apparently legally parked in street spots in the "pedestrian zone." If it was a pedestrian zone, those cars wouldn't be there.
It could be unmarked police vehicles or some other type of official vehicle. That's just a guess though, but it could be true.
I think the first (?) car was consciously trying to beat the system. See how it swerves to the driver's right and the pole gets it in the middle of the car? It seems (s)he was trying to use the clearance in the middle of the car, hoping for enough time to clear it.
It could be unmarked police vehicles or some other type of official vehicle. That's just a guess though, but it could be true.
Maybe. But you have to admit it's a little confusing. I bet they get lots of tourists with those barricades. Maybe the local auto body shop lobby was able to get them installed to increase sales.
So...these pillars prevent cars from driving on the fucking sidewalk ???
We don't have that problem here in the USA, so I'm trying to understand.
There are similar things in front of the Capitol.
(edited from White House - they may be there too, but it was the Capitol ones I was remembering.)
Maybe the local auto body shop lobby was able to get them installed to increase sales.
Haha, that would be something would it.
"Get caught by those pesky <insert general name of the car stopping tool>? Come to us and we'll fix your damages at a discounted rate!"
yah I was joking. I'm bad about that.
I'd actually like to see something involving C4 and knives.
I swear to God I'm not trying to put words in your mouth...
Talk is cheap Clodfobble. Put your money where your mouth is and cross your heart, hope to die, stick a needle in your eye. Then we'll talk.;)
I saw a video of these poles being tested. I didn't realize at the time where they were actually used. They stopped a very large truck, going very fast, dead in it's tracks. They were undamaged and worked fine after being hit. :mg:
OK. You guys seem to be having a little trouble because it's foreign. As Sundae Girl says, it is clearly a pedestrian zone. Weird concept to you yanks, I know. ;) Weirder still, in order to get the pedestrians to the zone, there's a free bus service! The buses are allowed into the zone to drop off the pedestrians. (Walking people.)
Why are there cars there, you ask? because it's probably only a pedestrian zone during shopping hours. And disabled drivers are usually allowed in to such zones. There are a lot of them about. Google "automated bollards city centre" (spelled that way) and variations on that theme and you'll get to read all about it.
And if you think those drivers didn't know what they were doing, boy, are you naive/foreign. Drivers don't drive that close to one another in the UK unless they are trying to sneak through an automated barrier. And the area will have been well signed. There's two illuminated no entry signs and a great big freaking stop sign painted on the road for a start, and there will have been more signs before that. Many more. We Brits do signs. We love our signs so much that the law says there has to be a sign warning you of a speed trap. Go figure.
Also, all the cars vehicles clearly speaded up, even though they were approaching a pedestrian crossing. You would only risk this if you needed to speed up for a reason. Why would they risk it? Well there are always those who are so stupid they don't realise that they are not any faster/more special than the rest. And there are the eternal optimists. And there are those who just like the challenge. Think about all those people who try to go over Niagara Falls in a barrel. Then imagine them in a car faced with some automated bollards.
:)
This, Bass ale, and Iron Maiden are the three most fantastic inventions ever to come from England.
This, Bass ale, and Iron Maiden are the three most fantastic inventions ever to come from England.
Whilst Bass trumps most American beers, it is pretty much the least tasty of all bitters available. Possibly only beaten to the title by MB's Brew XI. However, as only Bass exports on a large scale, you have to take what you can get. Can't argue with Iron Maiden.
Thanks for clearing that up monster.
yw :)
...was that the bollards or the beer thing?
Well it wasn't the beer..
[COLOR="White"].[/COLOR]
That'll sure scare em off.
OK. You guys seem to be having a little trouble because it's foreign.
That must be true. I've been to many cities with pedestrian zones, and none of them let cars in. But since you know this place, I'll take your word for it.
But since you know this place, I'll take your word for it.
Apparently you can drive on the sidewalk during certain hours, but at other times your car will be destroyed. Sounds reasonable.
Apparently you can drive on the sidewalk during certain hours, but at other times your car will be destroyed. Sounds reasonable.
those wacky ferners!:p
Better the car than the pedestrians.
Better the car than the pedestrians.
Yeah, but buses drive through there too, and they can do an even better number on the pedestrians.
Maybe a clear definition of what is a road (for cars) and what is a sidewalk (for people) is a crazy idea?
No belive me that maybe should be applied to society :blush:
Yeah, but buses drive through there too, and they can do an even better number on the pedestrians.
I don't see what all the arguing is about? Who doesn't hate pedestrians? Anyone who would abuse a child that way is just plain sick, and should be run over. We need tougher laws to protect our children against these pedestrians. We might have prevented the Amish school shooting. There could be less kidnappings by pedestrians who have no access to other children!
Maybe a clear definition of what is a road (for cars) and what is a sidewalk (for people) is a crazy idea?
Where have you been all your life that you are so shocked by a road that isn't always open to all traffic? I see roads all the time with posts sticking out that are held in place with padlocks. I see roads with gates drawn across them, where an authorized driver can open the gate, drive through, then close the gate, while a pedestrian can just walk around it. This is the same thing, but automatic.
Yeah, but buses drive through there too, and they can do an even better number on the pedestrians.
Presumably the bus driver isn't the type to try to trick the barricade by driving through real fast.
Vans need to deliver to retail locations. When the shops are closed there are few if any pedestrians, therefore access is allowed between set times.
Buses SERVE pedestrians. Therefore allowing buses in pedestrian areas means people don't have to walk as far with their bags of shopping.
Also buses are dirty great big vehicles that accelerate slowly. If you don't see/ hear a bus coming the chances are someone else will steer you out of the way.
Why the problem with pedestrianised areas? It keeps city centres alive for a start, rather than have all the big shops move out to retail parks. Old people and children feel safer shopping and the area is generally more relaxed. People don't crowd the pavements, but spread out and enjoy the walking experience.
Surely this can't just be a European thing?
Where have you been all your life that you are so shocked by a road that isn't always open to all traffic?
Arlington, Texas. We don't drive on the sidewalk, or walk in the middle of the road.
Surely this can't just be a European thing?
In Texas, if you're not burning gasoline, you're not getting anywhere.
In Texas, if you're not burning gasoline, you're not getting anywhere.
Same goes for Tennessee.
Why the problem with pedestrianised areas? It keeps city centres alive for a start, rather than have all the big shops move out to retail parks. Old people and children feel safer shopping and the area is generally more relaxed. People don't crowd the pavements, but spread out and enjoy the walking experience.
Surely this can't just be a European thing?
It's not really an American thing. Sure, there are a few places here and there, but it's mostly in Europe that I've seen them. And I think they are awesome. I love pedestrian only zones. I just think a sign or two and a cop handing out tickets is a better approach than barricades that give concussions.
Arlington, Texas. We don't drive on the sidewalk, or walk in the middle of the road.
I find it hard to believe that in all of Arlington, TX, there isn't a road that has some sort of roadblock preventing unauthorized vehicles from using it. Aren't there any public parks where park service or city maintenance people can drive on the paths?
Aren't there any public parks where park service or city maintenance people can drive on the paths?
Perhaps, but the funny thing is, there wouldn't be any reason for people to sneak their cars through - if the road doesn't go anywhere.
A service path at a park is neither a public road during certain hours, nor a death trap during others, nor a sidewalk for foot traffic.
Perhaps, but the funny thing is, there wouldn't be any reason for people to sneak their cars through - if the road doesn't go anywhere.
Then they wouldn't bother putting up a barrier.
A service path at a park is neither a public road during certain hours, nor a death trap during others, nor a sidewalk for foot traffic.
Well, it often is a sidewalk for foot traffic that is also wide enough for an authorized vehicle to drive on. And if someone tries to drive through the roadblock when it is closed, and finds it sturdier than their vehicle, you could call it a deathtrap if you were so inclined. Being open to public traffic at certain times may be uncommon, but certainly not unheard of.
...there must be a better way...
Then they wouldn't bother putting up a barrier.
Who, or what, are you arguing with: your own posts, or reality itself?
Monster explained far more eloquently than me - this form of traffic control is both common and WELL SIGNED in the UK.
These drivers were determined to enter the restricted area regardless.
I feel as much sympathy for them as I do for drink drivers.
Would they have changed their actions knowing the actual outcome? Of course they would. But it's the chance of "getting away with it" that drives them (pardon the pun)
Better this lesson learned now I think.
Who, or what, are you arguing with: your own posts, or reality itself?
Neither. I was responding to your faulty premise.
If nobody tried to go there, they wouldn't put up a barrier. But they did put up a barrier, therefore there was a reason for people to try to sneak their cars through.
And what is the reason for people to sneak their cars down service paths at parks?
Do you suggest that if no reason exists, then the observed barriers are holograms or hallucinations?
And what is the reason for people to sneak their cars down service paths at parks?
Do you suggest that if no reason exists, then the observed barriers are holograms or hallucinations?
Now you're doing what you constantly complain others do to you, and putting words in others' mouths.
I suggest that reasons exist where barriers are observed. The reason is specific to the individual road.
From Flint's website post:
Hot dip galvanised to BS1461 - Will not look unsightly
Well, it's good to know they're attractive, too. :rolleyes:
From Sundae's website:
Positioning
Rising bollards should not normally be sited close to or at signalled junctions or pedestrian crossings.
Now you're doing what you constantly complain others do to you, and putting words in others' mouths.
But...[SIZE="1"][COLOR="DimGray"]I used[/COLOR] [COLOR="Gray"]a question [/COLOR][COLOR="Silver"]mark... . . .[/COLOR][/SIZE]
Bollards? Hee hee! Now I get why Rumpole called Soapy Sam "Bollard"; he was calling him a roadblock!
This is a (UK) Government webiste
[COLOR="Blue"]"Whilst most applications will be to enable the passage of one vehicle at a time, there will be instances where two or more vehicles attempt to pass through in close succession.
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 that put road users at risk."[/COLOR]
Arlington, Texas. We don't drive on the sidewalk, or walk in the middle of the road.
How in the world do you cross the street? Bridges at every intersection? Jet packs? Teleportation?
And where are your garages? In the middle of the street?
Just catch up with everybody else and "get" the damn reference.
There are places where the vehicles are not allowed. The parameters vary, time, location, private, public, service, etc.
Perhaps you would prefer this:
How in the world do you cross the street?
We have something called a "crosswalk" which consists of stripes painted on the road. It seems to work just fine.
And where are your garages?
On private property.
[COLOR="Blue"]"Whilst most applications will be to enable the passage of one vehicle at a time, there will be instances where two or more vehicles attempt to pass through in close succession. 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 that put road users at risk."[/COLOR]
Good find!
These bollards are in violation of the government guidelines. Also:
The most effective way of minimising the risk to a pedestrian, a parked vehicle or other obstruction is to have an operator present to initiate the sequence.
If you have someone there anyway, why not have it be a cop directing traffic and writing tickets? Much safer.
These bollards are in violation of the government guidelines.
But...[SIZE=1][COLOR=DimGray]I used[/COLOR] [COLOR=Gray]a question [/COLOR][COLOR=Silver]mark... . . .[/COLOR][/SIZE]
It's fine with me that you did it, and hopefully now it will be fine with you when others do it.
...hopefully now it will be fine with you when others do it.
[COLOR="White"] >>>>>>>[/COLOR]Like
this? Bridges at every intersection? Jet packs? Teleportation?
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.
Good find!
These bollards are in violation of the government guidelines. Also:
If you have someone there anyway, why not have it be a cop directing traffic and writing tickets? Much safer.
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?
It shouldn't be necessary to have someone there to uphold the law.
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.
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)
This is a (UK) Government webiste
Because this website is chock-full of "illogical conclusions" . . .
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)
Correct, the bollards in question are
poorly designed and
fail to meet government regulations.
Glatt, much as I respect you, you're taking the situation to an illogical conclusion.
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.
[/Thread]
You realize that by posting this, you guaranteed at least another dozen posts, right?
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.
: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.
You realize that by posting this, you guaranteed at least another dozen posts, right?
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.
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...
[COLOR="Blue"]"
It is better to risk a certain amount of violation by "tailgating" vehicles, rather than put road users at risk."[/COLOR]
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 [COLOR="Lime"]GREEN[/COLOR]", 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.
You're chasing something that doesn't exist.
I'm not. Let's be clear: I'm just quoting the established government guidelines.
Argue with the government regulations, if you disagree with them.
I don't generally put up my own Cellar tag lines, but.
I'm not. Let's be clear: I'm just quoting the established government guidelines.
Ok. let me attempt to paraphrase...
I have found some inconsistencies between the traffic regulations and their application.
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.
What "certain amount of violation" is acceptably risky?
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.
Hey, maybe there are dozens of people getting through, and these idiots just didn't tailgate close enough or fast enough?
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" . . .
I don't generally put up my own Cellar tag lines, but.
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
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" . . .
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:
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.
That's a judgment you're not qualified to make.
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.
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" . . .
Or do you disagree that 0% is not an amount? I'm not a mathematician, but...
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.
Or...
Ideally, the traffic engineers would implement a compliant device, which does not threaten drivers with bodily harm, and avoid the whole scenario.
...rising bollards are lawful as movable obstructions if they prevent the passage of vehicles where this is prohibited by a traffic order.
Everything else is RECOMMENDATION and GUIDELINES
The local authority is not breaking the law - the tailgating drivers are.
The GUIDELINES...
...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 RECOMMENDATION puts into words what should go without saying: that the punishment should not vastly outweigh the crime.
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.
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).
The only punishment is self inflicted and not the state's fault.
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:
They should just install these, and solve the problem permanently. As long as they put a sign up, it's okay.
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:
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.
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 read they only come up at night, so maybe not. ;)
mmmm...... these don't do so much to discourage tail-gaters.....
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?
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.
Classic, what did you decide?
About what? Wow - I just saw this from Flint's reference
We don't drive on the sidewalk, or walk in the middle of the road.
Apparently, this is not always the case. [SIZE="3"]
glatt has had direct experience with cars driving on sidewalks[/SIZE]
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?
[COLOR="White"]...[/COLOR]
This thread was awesome.
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.