# Cars get owned in protected bus lane



## Simba (4 May 2010)

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X34Pg9kI8lw&playnext_from=TL&videos=Ptbp4jbUc6Q&feature=grec


These automated bollards are active from 11am to 6pm in Manchester City Centre, many motorists have come a cropper to them. I like how some of them go hell for leather and still hit them


----------



## johnr (4 May 2010)




----------



## BenM (4 May 2010)

always worth a watch is that one.

B.


----------



## jeltz (4 May 2010)

Lol they can't beat the bollards.

Does anyone know if that bus lane allow motorbikes and bicycles? If you were following on behind a bus and got your front end on one it might be unpleasant and the bus would have obscured your view of them. 

Easy enough to do if you don't know the area or when visibility isn't so good (rain etc) I would have thought.


----------



## mr_cellophane (4 May 2010)

They must start to rise before the bus is clear.
Here are some even funnier Dutch ones. 
View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZdLjKl0lHc


----------



## redjedi (4 May 2010)

mr_cellophane said:


> They must start to rise before the bus is clear.
> Here are some even funnier Dutch ones.
> View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZdLjKl0lHc




That's a good one. Perfect way to stop RLJ of all types


----------



## benb (4 May 2010)

mr_cellophane said:


> They must start to rise before the bus is clear.
> Here are some even funnier Dutch ones.
> View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZdLjKl0lHc




Nice. The last one is particularly good - tears the bollard out of the road completely.

I can't actually see the point of the Dutch ones though?


----------



## siadwell (4 May 2010)

You have to feel just a bit sorry for the van driver in this one: 
View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3S5kKoefyqQ


----------



## StuartG (4 May 2010)

I am saddened that creating a dangerous situation is regarded as funny. It is pretty evident that not only the occupants of the car were horrified at what might have happened to the baby in the rear. Don't just blame the driver, people who put these things in know what will happen as it is obvious it will encourage this behaviour time and time again and the innocent will suffer.

As for the example at RTTL the applause when it is obvious the dummy/driver would have been killed but the post still works is positively sickening!

Camera/PCN is surely a safer way to enforce car free zones?


----------



## 4F (4 May 2010)

It is only dangerous if the fools fail to comply with the restriction. The motons in question are fully aware of the presence hence why they try and beat the system by tailgate the buses.

The one with the baby should have been prosecuted for endangering his child


----------



## adds21 (4 May 2010)

StuartG said:


> I am saddened that creating a dangerous situation is regarded as funny. It is pretty evident that not only the occupants of the car were horrified at what might have happened to the baby in the rear.



+1


----------



## magnatom (4 May 2010)

4F said:


> It is only dangerous if the fools fail to comply with the restriction. The motons in question are fully aware of the presence hence why they try and beat the system by tailgate the buses.
> 
> The one with the baby should have been prosected for endangering his child


+1


----------



## BenM (4 May 2010)

> It is pretty evident that not only the occupants of the car were horrified _that the stupidity of the driver might have hurt the baby in the rear_


Fixed.

The danger of the rising bollard is solely down to the road user not paying attention to more than adequate road signs. 



> Don't just blame the driver


Why on earth not? The driver is presumably in control of his vehicle.



> the innocent will suffer


Because the driver of the vehicle is too lazy/inattentive/stupid to obey clear instructions. Perhaps we should ban pedestrian crossings because people who use them sometimes get run over by inattentive drivers?



> the applause when it is obvious the dummy/driver would have been killed but the post still works is positively sickening!


Only if you believe that they are applauding the death of the dummy or the person who it was meant to represent. They are, IMHO, applauding a well designed product passing a destruction test.



> Camera/PCN is surely a safer way to enforce car free zones?


Camera enforcement is a laugh - all that would happen is that you would get so many people ignoring the 'threat' that the road would be as congested as usual.

B.


----------



## redjedi (4 May 2010)

4F said:


> It is only dangerous if the fools fail to comply with the restriction. The motons in question are fully aware of the presence hence why they try and beat the system by tailgate the buses.
> 
> The one with the baby should have been prosected for endangering his child



+2


----------



## adds21 (4 May 2010)

4F said:


> It is only dangerous if the fools fail to comply with the restriction. The motons in question are fully aware of the presence hence why they try and beat the system by tailgate the buses.
> 
> The one with the baby should have been prosected for endangering his child



I agree fully. It's just that I don't find it *funny* when a child, the passenger, and yes, even the fool of a driver are potentially injured.


----------



## benb (4 May 2010)

StuartG said:


> I am saddened that creating a dangerous situation is regarded as funny. It is pretty evident that not only the occupants of the car were horrified at what might have happened to the baby in the rear. Don't just blame the driver, people who put these things in know what will happen as it is obvious it will encourage this behaviour time and time again and the innocent will suffer.
> 
> As for the example at RTTL the applause when it is obvious the dummy/driver would have been killed but the post still works is positively sickening!
> 
> Camera/PCN is surely a safer way to enforce car free zones?




With respect, bollocks.

The drivers tried to jump through when they shouldn't, and were driving in a dangerous and illegal manner. I wouldn't find it funny if they had been hurt, but as it is they damaged their car and their pride, and will hopefully not try that again.

(edited to add quotes, so you knew who I was responding to)


----------



## psmiffy (4 May 2010)

These bollards are really used as a last resort to deter drivers - but people will try to beat them - thankfully although there seems to be plenty of footage - quite rarely so they must be effective to anyone with a brain and eyes.

We have one set around here on a very quiet road - often broken for weeks - which tends to lull one into a sense of false security when appraching them - it is extremly unerving to get very close to them on the bike and they start to rise


----------



## StuartG (4 May 2010)

BenM said:


> Camera enforcement is a laugh - all that would happen is that you would get so many people ignoring the 'threat' that the road would be as congested as usual.


I can't speak for Manchester or Weymouth but cameras/PCN are pretty effective in London's bus lanes. Cars ain't the problem - its the (legal) taxis.

Again, sorry you find this amusing.


----------



## automatic_jon (4 May 2010)

4F said:


> The one with the baby should have been prosecuted for endangering his child



+n


----------



## benb (4 May 2010)

Stuart, I'm having trouble following your argument.

No-one is laughing at someone being actually hurt or injured; we find it amusing that *through their own stupidity and dangerous driving*, they have made themselves look like an idiot and damaged their cars.


----------



## StuartG (4 May 2010)

benb said:


> Stuart, I'm having trouble following your argument.
> 
> No-one is laughing at someone being actually hurt or injured; we find it amusing that *through their own stupidity and dangerous driving*, they have made themselves look like an idiot and damaged their cars.


If that was all I would be cheering too!

But we are looking at deliberately creating dangerous situations that may maim or kill people innocent or not. We saw for real on screen with the baby. As a previous poster suggested the RTTL cheering was in congratulation of the post being able to kill AND KEEP ON WORKING. Surely the design aim should be that when hit by a 30 mph fully laden lorry the best outcome is for the post to detach to mitigate the incident. Capital punishment for driving in a restricted area is just a way too heavy IMHO.

The point is to stop the abuse. Cameras/PCN can do it by damaging the wallet and licence. But if you are into ritual humiliation and retribution I guess I can't argue ...


----------



## ufkacbln (4 May 2010)

The problem here was the speed at which the vehicle hit the bollard. These bollards generally rise and sink back again when they come in contact. THis is exactly what happens with the black people carrier.

Drive at it at speed and what do you really expect?


----------



## Norm (4 May 2010)

I quite liked this example. As it is fairly certain that no-one would be in the car, is it ok to laugh at that one?


----------



## Arch (4 May 2010)

Norm said:


> I quite liked this example. *As it is fairly certain that no-one would be in the car*, is it ok to laugh at that one?



Not sure about that - it's on a tow bar, not a rope, but you'd need someone to steer, since it's not up on a frame?


----------



## Norm (4 May 2010)

IIRC, the AA don't allow you to travel in any vehicle which is being towed.


----------



## buggi (4 May 2010)

StuartG said:


> I am saddened that creating a dangerous situation is regarded as funny. It is pretty evident that not only the occupants of the car were horrified at what might have happened to the baby in the rear. Don't just blame the driver, people who put these things in know what will happen as it is obvious it will encourage this behaviour time and time again and the innocent will suffer.
> 
> As for the example at RTTL the applause when it is obvious the dummy/driver would have been killed but the post still works is positively sickening!
> 
> Camera/PCN is surely a safer way to enforce car free zones?



I agree, there has to be occasions where a driver, either through ignorance or just inexperience could follow a bus through, the view obscured by the bus and be hurt, especially if they are unfamiliar with an area... i have never seen these bollards in real life and might not realise the implications, or how quickly they rise. They are a stupid idea. In the dutch one... the guy stops and then obviously gets confused as to whether he can go or not, and then decides to go and then gets caught on it. 

Also, as said, what if a motorbike was to follow the bus not realising the bollard was going to come up. they seem to come up pretty fast. 

I'm not saying it's not funny... it is ... but it's the same kind of funny as Greedo's wedding pictures. it made me laugh at first and then i listened the angel sitting on my other shoulder. 

Also... so all of the sudden the council have the right to wreck your car because you are in a bus lane??? that's not right either.


----------



## Arch (4 May 2010)

Well, it was a few years ago, but I certainly steered my Mini several miles back to home, on a tow rope behind an AA van. (he said he was going to change it to a bar, but after a couple of miles came back to me at a junction and said "You've done this before" (I had) and left the rope on.

How will the car steer? Unless the tow bar somehow attaches to the steering?


----------



## Norm (4 May 2010)

Not sure, Arch, as I've also been towed by the AA... again, a few years back. Towing frames that I've used have connected to the front of the car at two points, I've no personal experience of being towed on a single bar but... well, I guess any joke which needs explaining is, almost by definition, not a joke. 

My post was partly to inject some humour, partly to throw up a different slant on the points which Stuart and Buggi are making, but mostly, to laugh at a BMW. Please tell me that we are still expected to do that on Cycle Chat.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (4 May 2010)

Norm said:


> I quite liked this example. As it is fairly certain that no-one would be in the car, is it ok to laugh at that one?



I don't care whether it's ok or not ... that's funny.


----------



## efreeti (4 May 2010)

Cross street was open before the bomb and was a main route through town. I think they got used to the route being free of cars when they were doing the refurb and decided to limit access when they re-opened the road.

It is extremely clear there is no access through there but quite a lot of folks still go into the bollards. IIRC they had to high vis the bollards as at first some people just drove straight into them while they were up!

Manchester is much harder to traverse now it is closed off and it has caused some pretty bad snarl points on the surrounding streets. 

On the other hand it is now a nice safe (albeit short) cycle route!


----------



## efreeti (4 May 2010)

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaRIOLpfs7A&NR=1


----------



## BentMikey (4 May 2010)

Crikey StuartG, I'm shocked that you could excuse such blatantly intentional stupidity. The drivers ought to be charged for their attempts to beat the very obvious bollard system, and driving in a way which endangers everyone around them. You can't seriously be trying to suggest the poor idiots didn't know *exactly* what they were doing, and the risk they were taking.


----------



## slowmotion (4 May 2010)

The first clip with the people-carrier hitting the bollards, and the family immediately rushing to see if their baby was OK, left a bad taste in my mouth. That was not even slightly amusing, perhaps?

OK, apart from the tow-truck, all the clips showed a level of stupidity, but there seems to be a certain sadism from the people who design the hair-trigger timing. Yes, I know that a lot of people will say it is necessary. I'm not one of them.


----------



## hackbike 666 (4 May 2010)

StuartG said:


> I am saddened that creating a dangerous situation is regarded as funny. It is pretty evident that not only the occupants of the car were horrified at what might have happened to the baby in the rear. Don't just blame the driver, people who put these things in know what will happen as it is obvious it will encourage this behaviour time and time again and the innocent will suffer.
> 
> As for the example at RTTL the applause when it is obvious the dummy/driver would have been killed but the post still works is positively sickening!
> 
> Camera/PCN is surely a safer way to enforce car free zones?



I agree with Stuart on this one.....I was horrified at this video.

Ok motorists (+bus drivers) p155 me off (sometimes) and I have had not such a good ride back tonight which has upset me a bit due to an incident but I still think this is a bit out.



BentMikey said:


> Crikey StuartG, I'm shocked that you could excuse such blatantly intentional stupidity. The drivers ought to be charged for their attempts to beat the very obvious bollard system, and driving in a way which endangers everyone around them. You can't seriously be trying to suggest the poor idiots didn't know *exactly* what they were doing, and the risk they were taking.



Perhaps they aren't as clever as you...do you think they would try it again?

It's a poor design if it is designed in such a way that people get injured whether they are stupid or not...and let's face it we have all done stupid things....*apart from BentMikey*

Does that excuse children getting hurt as well whether the parents are stupid or not?


----------



## zophiel (4 May 2010)

follow the rules and there wouldnt have been an accident simple really.


----------



## StuartG (4 May 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Crikey StuartG, I'm shocked that you could excuse such blatantly intentional stupidity


Eh, where did I do that? Even I could not be THAT stupid!


----------



## hackbike 666 (4 May 2010)

zophiel said:


> follow the rules and there wouldnt have been an accident simple really.



Does this apply to RLJers?


----------



## slowmotion (5 May 2010)

zophiel said:


> follow the rules and there wouldnt have been an accident simple really.



Perhaps the immediate "punishment" for attempting to sneak up a bus lane should be proportionate to the offence, rather than some kind of ambush?

I doubt if many of the motors came off with less than £3000 worth of damage. If you don't subscribe to proportionality, why not install RPGs to lob a grenade into the passenger compartment? It would be really simple. We could all have a whole load of laughs as well.


----------



## StuartG (5 May 2010)

Excellent point. I cringe every time I see that DVLA advert that revels in the the crunching up of a perfectly serviceable car because someone has not taxed or SORNed it.

Fine them, if they don't/can't pay confiscate it and resell it to the advantage of the taxpayer. But to needlessly destroy machinery in that way is plain hooliganism to me. Young lads are given ASBOs for much less destructive behaviour.

I guess some people just enjoy destruction. Still think it a bit sad ...


----------



## zophiel (5 May 2010)

slowmotion said:


> Perhaps the immediate "punishment" for attempting to sneak up a bus lane should be proportionate to the offence, rather than some kind of ambush?
> 
> I doubt if many of the motors came off with less than £3000 worth of damage. If you don't subscribe to proportionality, why not install RPGs to lob a grenade into the passenger compartment? It would be really simple. We could all have a whole load of laughs as well.



or perhaps if they cannot follow the rules of that road they shouldnt be driving in the 1st place.




hackbike 666 said:


> Does this apply to RLJers?




yes it does they are as bad as others who dont follow simple road rules.


----------



## Norm (5 May 2010)

slowmotion said:


> If you don't subscribe to proportionality, why not install RPGs to lob a grenade into the passenger compartment? It would be really simple. We could all have a whole load of laughs as well.


There's probably already some video of that on YouTube.


----------



## hackbike 666 (5 May 2010)

zophiel said:


> or perhaps if they cannot follow the rules of that road they shouldnt be driving in the 1st place.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That must mean a high majority of motorists/cyclists from what I see.


----------



## Bman (5 May 2010)

slowmotion said:


> Perhaps the immediate "punishment" for attempting to sneak up a bus lane should be proportionate to the offence, rather than some kind of ambush?
> 
> I doubt if many of the motors came off with less than £3000 worth of damage. If you don't subscribe to proportionality, why not install RPGs to lob a grenade into the passenger compartment? It would be really simple. We could all have a whole load of laughs as well.



I agree with that. Dont waste a perfectly good car!

That said, usually (I expect) the cars that are untaxed/uninsured etc are usually a POS anyway. Probably worth more to the taxpayer in scrap than being resold and let out on the road again.


----------



## slowmotion (5 May 2010)

Norm said:


> There's probably already some video of that on YouTube.



Yeah.. right. Perhaps the traffic engineers should take a "fact finding" jaunt to see how they do that stuff in Baghdad. 

Blackwater seemed to have the right idea about how to control traffic...


----------



## ufkacbln (5 May 2010)

slowmotion said:


> Perhaps the immediate "punishment" for attempting to sneak up a bus lane should be proportionate to the offence, rather than some kind of ambush?
> 
> I doubt if many of the motors came off with less than £3000 worth of damage. If you don't subscribe to proportionality, why not install RPGs to lob a grenade into the passenger compartment? It would be really simple. We could all have a whole load of laughs as well.



Definition of Ambush -a long-established military tactic, in which the aggressors (the ambushing force) use concealment to attack a passing enemy. Ambushers strike from concealed positions, such as among dense underbrush or behind hilltops. Ambushes have been used consistently throughout history, from ancient to modern warfare. 


Putting a 6 foot square sign with flashing lights as well as the road signage and signs at the bollards rather makes a mockery of any claim that these bollards an "ambush"

As for the rest - the damage is down to the morons who think that charging through these well promulgated features is a good idea. Its called Darwinism.

I love the Grenade idea as well, buts let put this in proportion.

A grenade has a six foot sign in flashing lights that says if you pull the pin and lob it into your car there is a high probability you will damage your car and hurt the occupants.

If someone ignores this and several other large prominent signs and does this - is it the fault of the grenade, or as with the driving the stupidity of the person who believes that such petty rules do not apply to them?


----------



## johnr (5 May 2010)

slowmotion said:


> Yeah.. right. Perhaps the traffic engineers should take a "fact finding" jaunt to see how they do that stuff in Baghdad.
> 
> Blackwater seemed to have the right idea about how to control traffic...



Amateurs... now your Israeli. There's traffic control: bollards, checkposts, chicanes all backed up with armoured vehicles and trigger happy killers... and no second thoughts about injuries to babies there.


----------



## BentMikey (5 May 2010)

Come on Hackers, no need for that!!


----------



## Rhythm Thief (5 May 2010)

StuartG said:


> Excellent point. I cringe every time I see that DVLA advert that revels in the the crunching up of a perfectly serviceable car because someone has not taxed or SORNed it.
> 
> Fine them, if they don't/can't pay confiscate it and resell it to the advantage of the taxpayer. But to needlessly destroy machinery in that way is plain hooliganism to me. Young lads are given ASBOs for much less destructive behaviour.
> 
> I guess some people just enjoy destruction. Still think it a bit sad ...



I agree with this. I've never understood why cars that are probably in better condition that the thing I drive around are crushed.


----------



## skrx (5 May 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> I agree with this. I've never understood why cars that are probably in better condition that the thing I drive around are crushed.



I asked someone (police officer friend) about this, he said anything worth selling is sold. Crushed cars are either worthless, or have been tampered with (e.g. had their identity removed).


----------



## hackbike 666 (5 May 2010)

No need for what BM? Just stating a fact,perhaps they aren't as clever as you.We all know people do stupid things because we all do stupid things.At least I do.


----------



## BentMikey (5 May 2010)

Well I'm not seeing the funny side today Hackers.


----------



## hackbike 666 (5 May 2010)

No prob dude.I have bad days as well :-S


----------



## on the road (6 May 2010)

mr_cellophane said:


> They must start to rise before the bus is clear.
> Here are some even funnier Dutch ones.
> View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZdLjKl0lHc


Red bull gives you wings


----------



## bigtrike (6 May 2010)

I guess the best guide as to the effectiveness of the rising bollards is has someone been "caught out" twice? or is once enought to change there behavour? I know a number of peope caught twice by the same speed camera!


----------



## slowmotion (6 May 2010)

bigtrike said:


> I guess the best guide as to the effectiveness of the rising bollards is has someone been "caught out" twice? or is once enought to change there behavour? I know a number of peope caught twice by the same speed camera!



I'm not picking a fight. I simply have an issue with whether the offence is "punished" proportionately. 

My LA asks us to put cans in one bag, and food scraps in another. I have no problem with that at all. If I make a lazy mistake, (and one that is hardly likely to endanger life), I might stick a can of beans in the wrong sack. I do not expect to be dragged out and shot, even though I may have broken some minor rule.

Before you all pile in and say that sneaking up a bus-lane is a hanging offence, perhaps you might consider the other bad stuff that looms somewhat larger....and no, I do not invade bus lanes.


----------



## BentMikey (6 May 2010)

It might be easy to make a mistake and put your can of beans in the wrong sack, but it takes determined effort to try to sneak in there behind a bus. Determined and intentional stupidity, despite the obvious warnings and publicity, I'd say.


----------



## benb (6 May 2010)

slowmotion said:


> I'm not picking a fight. I simply have an issue with whether the offence is "punished" proportionately.
> 
> My LA asks us to put cans in one bag, and food scraps in another. I have no problem with that at all. If I make a lazy mistake, (and one that is hardly likely to endanger life), I might stick a can of beans in the wrong sack. I do not expect to be dragged out and shot, even though I may have broken some minor rule.
> 
> Before you all pile in and say that sneaking up a bus-lane is a hanging offence, perhaps you might consider the other bad stuff that looms somewhat larger....and no, I do not invade bus lanes.



I see your point, but you're forgetting that the bollards are not specifically designed to wreck cars, merely to stop them going down the bus route.

It's a bit like if someone reversed into a fixed bollard when reversing - you wouldn't argue that the bollard was there to punish them and deliberately damage their car.


----------



## on the road (6 May 2010)

Just before the bollards start to come up, they have an audible warning something like "warning, bollards rising", well the ones in our city centre do anyway.


----------



## hackbike 666 (6 May 2010)

What happens if you are deaf?Pardon.



BentMikey said:


> It might be easy to make a mistake and put your can of beans in the wrong sack, but it takes determined effort to try to sneak in there behind a bus. Determined and intentional stupidity, despite the obvious warnings and publicity, I'd say.



There are a lot of determined motorists out there...determined to squeeze past you so they can rush up to the next set of lights.

The same people who turn up late for a train and wonder why they miss it.....A work colleague remarked on this yesterday and must have been reading my mind because it was exactly what I was thinking....Also when they get on a train why do they behave like they are on a beach instead of doing what they normally do and rushing about everywhere totally ignoring someone wheeling a bike across the concourse.


----------



## on the road (6 May 2010)

hackbike 666 said:


> What happens if you are deaf?Pardon.


That's what the warning lights are for.


----------



## redddraggon (6 May 2010)

slowmotion said:


> Before you all pile in and say that sneaking up a bus-lane is a hanging offence, perhaps you might consider the other bad stuff that looms somewhat larger....and no, I do not invade bus lanes.



They don't look like they are trying to sneak into the bus lane, a lot of the drivers seem to be going full pelt behind the bus, trying to beat the bollards. 

I have no sympathy, it doesn't look like they are driving with due care and attention and are going far too fast for the situation.


----------



## benb (6 May 2010)

And can I reiterate; I'm sure no-one here would find it amusing if someone was hurt. But as it is they've just damaged their car and their pride through their own stupidity. And that is amusing.


----------



## hackbike 666 (6 May 2010)

on the road said:


> That's what the warning lights are for.



Oh I didn't notice them...sorry.



benb said:


> And can I reiterate; I'm sure no-one here would find it amusing if someone was hurt. But as it is they've just damaged their car and their pride through their own stupidity. And that is amusing.



Well the geezer behind the camera must have been bored.


----------



## on the road (6 May 2010)

hackbike 666 said:


> Oh I didn't notice them...sorry.


Don't tell me you got caught out by the rising bollards


----------



## hackbike 666 (6 May 2010)

on the road said:


> Don't tell me you got caught out by the rising bollards



Fnarr fnarr...


----------



## Jezston (6 May 2010)

If something like this happened to someone I know, I would of course be concerned for their well being and the impact such an event and possible injury and repairs to their car would have on their lives.

I'd also laugh at their stupidity.


----------



## Funtboy (7 May 2010)

Love owt like this, me...


----------



## Lizban (7 May 2010)

Since when was the punishment for driving in a bus lane damage to your car and endangering the occupants?!?

Imagine the PCN - 3 points, £60 or we ram a bollard up your car!

In my mind, they are dangerous and an over reaction - this issue could be resolved by cameras or gasp actual police officers!


----------



## redddraggon (7 May 2010)

Lizban said:


> Since when was the punishment for driving in a bus lane damage to your car and endangering the occupants?!?
> 
> Imagine the PCN - 3 points, £60 or we ram a bollard up your car!
> 
> In my mind, they are dangerous and an over reaction - this issue could be resolved by cameras or gasp actual police officers!



They aren't a "Punishment", they are a barrier, that let only buses past.

It's the drivers choice if they ram into the well signposted barrier.


----------



## Lizban (7 May 2010)

redddraggon said:


> They aren't a "Punishment", they are a barrier, that let only buses past.
> 
> It's the drivers choice if they ram into the well signposted barrier.



They are a punishment - 

If you break a rule there is a sanction - what is it if it's not a punishment?


----------



## NigC (7 May 2010)

While I have little sympathy for the idiotic drivers, it does seem a little harsh - I know they shouldn't be so stupid, but major damage and possible injury to innocent passengers seems to be the penalty.

How about a compromise? The cameras are already there, so....

First offence - Strongly worded warning
Second offence - Another warning plus fine and penalty points
Third offence - drop a wrecking ball on the bonnet!


----------



## 4F (7 May 2010)

Lizban said:


> Since when was the punishment for driving in a bus lane damage to your car and endangering the occupants?!?
> 
> Imagine the PCN - 3 points, £60 or we ram a bollard up your car!
> 
> In my mind, they are dangerous and an over reaction - this issue could be resolved by cameras or gasp actual police officers!



They are not dangerous. If people are too stupid to read the signs, ignore the lights and think they can gamble and tailgate the bus then quite frankly you have to wonder why they have got a licence.

They should also be charged with driving without due care and attention


----------



## Lizban (7 May 2010)

4F said:


> They are not dangerous. If people are too stupid to read the signs, ignore the lights and think they can gamble and tailgate the bus then quite frankly you have to wonder why they have got a licence.
> 
> They should also be charged with driving without due care and attention




OMG! How can driving a ram through a car with enough force to take it off its wheels not be dangerous!!!!

let's be clear - of course they should face a sanaction for their driving but a ram through the car isn't right.


----------



## BentMikey (7 May 2010)

Lizban said:


> OMG! How can driving a ram through a car with enough force to take it off its wheels not be dangerous!!!!
> 
> let's be clear - of course they should face a sanaction for their driving but a ram through the car isn't right.




It's not a sanction, or a punishment of any kind. It's just as predictable as the effects of ramming your car into a concrete wall because you think it might just get out your way.


----------



## 4F (7 May 2010)

Lizban said:


> OMG! How can driving a ram through a car with enough force to take it off its wheels not be dangerous!!!!
> 
> let's be clear - of course they should face a sanaction for their driving but a ram through the car isn't right.



Are you watching the same video ? They are bollards, there is a warning that the bollards are there, there is a flashing light warning that the bollards are there.

In the first instance you can see that the driver has aknowledged this fact and decides to reverse and wait for a bus in his vain attempt at entering a restricted area.

The driver is an idiot.


----------



## Lizban (7 May 2010)

4F said:


> Are you watching the same video ? They are bollards, there is a warning that the bollards are there, there is a flashing light warning that the bollards are there.
> 
> In the first instance you can see that the driver has aknowledged this fact and decides to reverse and wait for a bus in his vain attempt at entering a restricted area.
> 
> The driver is an idiot.



We agree that the driver is an idiot 

But the punishment for idiocy should be a fine / points - not a bollard through the bonnet


----------



## Lizban (7 May 2010)

BentMikey said:


> It's not a sanction, or a punishment of any kind. It's just as predictable as the effects of ramming your car into a concrete wall because you think it might just get out your way.



Just because its predicatable doesn't stop it being a sanction


----------



## hackbike 666 (7 May 2010)

I don't agree with it,something seems very wrong with the setup coupled with someone watching behind a camera laughing his bawlocks off.I dont think it's the same as driving a car into a brick wall as people don't generally drive their cars into brick walls.


----------



## BentMikey (7 May 2010)

Some stupid people do - just like some stupid people try to damage their cars on the bollards. No one is making them take that action, they did it knowing the entirely likely and predictable consequences, hoping that they could beat the clear and very obvious system.

Stop being a moton apologist, Liz.


----------



## GrasB (7 May 2010)

Would you consider hitting a bollard that could be folded flat if you had the correct key & made an impassable barrier for a car a punishment? The only difference between those & rising bollards is that you don't have to get out of the vehicle to lower/raise it. 

What people are trying to do is beat the system & finding out that they can't, the damage isn't a punishment it's a side effect of their failure. The bollards are there to protect something, typically pedestrian space, & as such a number of people who have hit the bollards ended up with points on their licences & fines.


----------



## Lizban (7 May 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Stop being a moton apologist, Liz.


They should be punished by points and a fine - not by a dangerous bollard ramming through the car.

No defense of the motorists actions here.

Why do stop with these bollards

RLJ - machine punctures your tyres
Pavement riding - umbrella through the spokes

That would all be fine - as long as thre is warning sings and lights apparently!


----------



## BentMikey (7 May 2010)

The bollards aren't a hazard at all - they are obvious and well signed. There's no need to drive into them, and they are there to protect from car drivers.


----------



## Lizban (7 May 2010)

GrasB said:


> Would you consider hitting a bollard that could be folded flat if you had the correct key & made an impassable barrier for a car a punishment? The only difference between those & rising bollards is that you don't have to get out of the vehicle to lower/raise it.
> 
> What people are trying to do is beat the system & finding out that they can't, the damage isn't a punishment it's a side effect of their failure. The bollards are there to protect something, typically pedestrian space, & as such a number of people who have hit the bollards ended up with points on their licences & fines.



Teh problem I have is not with barriers - but dangerous barriers - firing a barrier through teh bottom of a car with enough force to lift it off its wheels is dangerous and not required.

There are effective alternatives


----------



## Lizban (7 May 2010)

BentMikey said:


> The bollards aren't a hazard at all - they are obvious and well signed. There's no need to drive into them, and they are there to protect from car drivers.




100s of videos on youtube - some showing people hurt and you say they are aren't a hazard 

People are stupid/ causing injury for ebibg stupid isn't a solution in my view


----------



## 4F (7 May 2010)

Lizban said:


> Teh problem I have is not with barriers - but dangerous barriers - firing a barrier through teh bottom of a car with enough force to lift it off its wheels is dangerous and not required.
> 
> There are effective alternatives



To be honest I think the bollards are very effective and don't think an alternative is required. Also the bollard does not get fired through the car, the bollard rises after the bus. The warning signs and lights advise motorists of this fact.

If Mr thicko car driver cannot understand this then really that is his problem.


----------



## BentMikey (7 May 2010)

The barriers don't cause the injury, it's the drivers doing this. You're just being a part of car culture here, and ignoring the root cause of the danger - some idiot in a tonne and a half of metal behaving like a 5 year old.

I reckon every single person driving into these barriers should also lose their driving licence for life.


----------



## Lizban (7 May 2010)

BentMikey said:


> The barriers don't cause the injury, it's the drivers doing this. You're just being a part of car culture here, and ignoring the root cause of the danger - some idiot in a tonne and a half of metal behaving like a 5 year old.
> 
> I reckon every single person driving into these barriers should also lose their driving licence for life.



Don't think that we will ever agree on this BM!


(other than the fact that the drivers are idiots who deserve to be punished)


----------



## BentMikey (7 May 2010)

They are at least clever enough not to try to drive into the bollards when they are up. Why do they try to chance it after a bus?

And the bollards are not being "fired" in any way. They rise slowly and steadily, a very obvious barrier.


----------



## GrasB (7 May 2010)

Lizban said:


> Teh problem I have is not with barriers - but dangerous barriers - firing a barrier through teh bottom of a car with enough force to lift it off its wheels is dangerous and not required.
> 
> There are effective alternatives



They are not 'fired' they rise slowly, smoothly & predictably. Also if anything that can take a car off it's wheels is dangerous when are we going to do away fold down access ramps? They'll quite easily lift a car off its wheels, I have seen one lift the back axle of a loaded LWB Transit sized van off the ground. The main difference is that people give them far more respect & don't try & chance it.


----------



## Lizban (7 May 2010)

GrasB said:


> They are not 'fired' they rise slowly, smoothly & predictably. Also if anything that can take a car off it's wheels is dangerous when are we going to do away fold down access ramps? They'll quite easily lift a car off its wheels, I have seen one lift the back axle of a loaded LWB Transit sized van off the ground. The main difference is that people give them far more respect & don't try & chance it.



We are not going to agree on this nor are either of us change our views,
time to agree to disagree


----------



## Origamist (7 May 2010)

I don't know for sure, but I'd hazard retractable bollards are used as a last resort in areas where the unlawful use of bus lanes by motorists has a significant effect on pedestrian safety (i.e in areas of high pedestrian activity), but where camera enforcement is not effective enough. 

I also imagine that these bollards are very effective at limiting (but not eradicating) bus lane transgressions by motorists and, most importantly, making the roads generally safer for all users and vulnerable road users in particular, save for a v few imbecilic drivers and their unfortunate passengers.


----------



## 4F (7 May 2010)

Another idiot in Manchester 
View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpkGvr2q3xw&feature=related


----------



## redddraggon (7 May 2010)

Lizban said:


> OMG! How can driving a ram through a car with enough force to take it off its wheels not be dangerous!!!!



Looks like the Car is ramming the bollard to me, the bollard is definitely not ramming anything.


----------



## Lizban (7 May 2010)

redddraggon said:


> Looks like the Car is ramming the bollard to me, the bollard is definitely not ramming anything.



RD - I think it's safe to say that we are coming from a differnt view point on this!


----------



## gavintc (7 May 2010)

Liz does have a point. These bollards are designed to punish the stupid and are a disproportionate level of punishment for the crime. Whilst I find them amusing, there is an aspect to this that is worrying. As she correctly points out, if we take this to the next step, do we have other physical damage measures for bad driving. So in sum, having considered this further, I am with Liz.


----------



## BentMikey (7 May 2010)

Of course that's not true, they aren't designed to damage anything. It's obvious this setup has been specifically designed to AVOID causing damage to anyone or their cars.

The damage is being caused by idiot drivers behaving like 5 y/olds, and could so easily be avoided. You really have to try hard to do any damage and have a crash like these muppets.


----------



## gavintc (7 May 2010)

OK, so you have no issue with a system that pushes a battering ram from the side of the road at all cyclists that RLJ or a car flipper on motorways for all cars that exceed 70 mph.


----------



## gavintc (7 May 2010)

Some drivers clearly run the gap, for others they seem clueless that there is a rising bollard. The bollards demand that the driver reads the signs. Is this acceptable? Some drivers do not read English. If the attempt was to stop access, this could be achieved with a less dramatic process. I propose that the speed of the bollard rise is designed to damage. A ramp would achieve the same effect with no damage. 

Some people do not attempt to break the law - they are simply clueless.


----------



## Norm (7 May 2010)

gavintc said:


> OK, so you have no issue with a system that pushes a battering ram from the side of the road at all cyclists that RLJ or a car flipper on motorways for all cars that exceed 70 mph.


If it was clearly signed with flashing lights etc, yes, I think that would be a grand idea.


----------



## GrasB (7 May 2010)

gavintc said:


> I propose that the speed of the bollard rise is designed to damage.


As it stands they come up fast enough to hit the engine, sure it may well do some serious damage but if the bollards rise more slowly people are more likly to try it on & they're more likly make contact with the rear of the car... now stop & think what's typically underneath the car towards the back. Yes that would be it the *FUEL TANK*! Talk about upping the ante


----------



## Trevrev (7 May 2010)

Anyway !!! whats everyone having for tea tonight??
Pizza for me !!


----------



## BentMikey (7 May 2010)

Trevrev said:


> Anyway !!! whats everyone having for tea tonight??
> Pizza for me !!





Carbonara for me. I've been eating non-stop all day, toast, cake, fruit, biscuits.


----------



## Trevrev (7 May 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Carbonara for me. I've been eating non-stop all day, toast, cake, fruit, biscuits.



Carbonara........Oh mate!!! I love it. Haven't had it for ages.
Mmmmmmmmm.....


----------



## NigC (7 May 2010)

Trevrev said:


> Carbonara........Oh mate!!! I love it. Haven't had it for ages.
> Mmmmmmmmm.....



I've already eaten: New potatoes and crunchy bacon bits with a generous helping of salad cream  But to wash it down - chlorine flavoured swimming pool water


----------



## Trevrev (7 May 2010)

There, that change of subject has lightened the mood a little.


----------



## Bman (7 May 2010)

Can anyone find a streetview link to these barriers? I wouldnt mind to see how obvious the warning lights and signs are.


----------



## Bman (7 May 2010)

> These ones? With the signs and lights? The big sign saying DO NOT TAILGATE ?
> 
> And this huge, red sign?



So you did. I must of missed that the first time.


----------



## ufkacbln (9 May 2010)

gavintc said:


> Some drivers clearly run the gap, for others they seem clueless that there is a rising bollard. The bollards demand that the driver reads the signs. Is this acceptable? Some drivers do not read English. If the attempt was to stop access, this could be achieved with a less dramatic process. I propose that the speed of the bollard rise is designed to damage. A ramp would achieve the same effect with no damage.
> 
> Some people do not attempt to break the law - they are simply clueless.



... if they are clueless enough to miss all the signs, the flashing lights an the bollards themselves - what chance does a cyclist have?

Clueless enough to be taken off the roads?


----------



## gavintc (9 May 2010)

Missed this thread for a few days. I have little sympathy for driver ineptitude. But the outcome for the mistake of running a bollard is a greater loss than running a red light or other more serious offence. I am not sure that is morally correct. It just leaves me uncomfortable.


----------



## benb (10 May 2010)

I once saw someone try to run through a level crossing - one of those ones where the barrier comes down with big flashing red lights and a siren.

He got hit by a train and everyone in the car died.

Now how is that an appropriate punishment for driving badly?


(note: that didn't really happen, but I think you get my point)


----------



## johnr (10 May 2010)

Just watched the first day of the Giro d'Italia. Could bollards be the explanation for all the crashes? Them dutch, they're nothing if not innovators in road technologies.


----------



## Norm (10 May 2010)

benb said:


> I once saw someone try to run through a level crossing - one of those ones where the barrier comes down with big flashing red lights and a siren.
> 
> He got hit by a train and everyone in the car died.
> 
> ...


Indeed, a good point well made, IMO.

The death penalty is still applied in this country, for infractions such as jumping red lights, crossing the road without looking or swerving round potholes without observation. Note that all these "crimes" are punished without trial by judge and jury, the executioner being a randomly selected hapless driver. 

And none if these misdemeanours carry warning signs and flashing lights to warn of the punishment which will be meted out on the culpable party.

Because the drivers choose to try and beat the system, deliberately performing such an inconsiderate actions, the damage to their cars is, IMO, the very least that they deserve.


----------



## gavintc (10 May 2010)

There is a subtle difference between intended consequence and accident.


----------



## BentMikey (10 May 2010)

None of these examples are accidents, gavin. They are a direct and easily foreseable result of purposeful actions by the drivers.

What's more, there are no intended consequences with the bollards, apart from no entry that is - loads of effort, waaaay more than is fair, has been made to help drivers avoid making such stupid decisions.


----------



## gavintc (10 May 2010)

A train hitting an illegal crosser is not a guarantee. A bollard rising is a guarantee. I know we are splitting hairs, but a bollard installation is an intended outcome, planned to damage a stupid motorist. A driver running a red light, crossing a crossing etc is simply a stupid motorist who MAY suffer damage to his car. The outcome is not planned and intended by a town planner.


----------



## stowie (10 May 2010)

Presumably these systems are not put into place unless there is a serious issue with private vehicles misusing the bus lanes? After all, the rising bollards, flashing signs, RF transmitters for the buses etc. are not going to be a cheap solution.

So, I can only assume that other methods had failed. I would have thought a LED sign detailing the restrictions and a camera that caught offenders and a hefty fine for misuse of the bus lane would be the first, cheapest solution.

I have little sympathy for drivers who don't bother / ignore / try to beat these types of systems.


----------



## stowie (10 May 2010)

gavintc said:


> A train hitting an illegal crosser is not a guarantee. A bollard rising is a guarantee. I know we are splitting hairs, but a bollard installation is an intended outcome, planned to damage a stupid motorist. A driver running a red light, crossing a crossing etc is simply a stupid motorist who MAY suffer damage to his car. The outcome is not planned and intended by a town planner.



Bollards everywhere (rising or otherwise) are intended to stop cars going into areas where they would be a danger / nuisance. Judging from the state of some of them around here, even fixed bollards are tested by idiots in cars. Surely this isn't a reason to get rid of them?


----------



## Norm (10 May 2010)

gavintc said:


> A train hitting an illegal crosser is not a guarantee. A bollard rising is a guarantee. I know we are splitting hairs, but a bollard installation is an intended outcome, planned to damage a stupid motorist.


No, a bollard is installed with the intention of stopping motorists, not damaging stupid motorists.


----------



## Arch (10 May 2010)

gavintc said:


> Some people do not attempt to break the law - they are simply clueless.



I don't fancy the idea of clueless people on the road, myself. 

Do you expect that, say, the Germans, should write all their signs in English for my benefit if I drive there? Or would it be better for me to learn what I need, and use a few braincells while I drive?


----------



## Molecule Man (10 May 2010)

In case anyone wants more detailed information on this issue, it's discussed in a Manchester City Council document here:

http://www.manchester.gov.uk/egov_downloads/CommunitiesandNeighbourhoods_-Footpaths-_final.pdf

Seems to have resulted in a significant reduction in pedestrian deaths and injuries, at the expense of a few minor injuries caused by bollard collisions.

Any locals care to comment on how things are now? These videos are from several years ago.

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that the motorists involved only have themselves to blame, especially the father of the baby, look at the way he accelerates towards the rising bollard. The bollards are clearly not intended to damage cars as a punishment, they are intended to prevent access to non-authorised vehicles.


----------



## ufkacbln (10 May 2010)

gavintc said:


> A train hitting an illegal crosser is not a guarantee. A bollard rising is a guarantee. I know we are splitting hairs, but a bollard installation is an intended outcome, planned to damage a stupid motorist. A driver running a red light, crossing a crossing etc is simply a stupid motorist who MAY suffer damage to his car. The outcome is not planned and intended by a town planner.



Wrong!

The rising bollard is not a guarantee, in exactly the same way as the train is not a guarantee.

In both samples there is a fixed point where the driver chooses to put themselves at risk...... then in both cases the driver has chosen to endanger themselves, and the likelihood of colliding with the train or bollard is a consequence of their arrogance and stupidity, NOT the design!

The bollard goes up and down with no consequence whatsoever just as the train passing a crossing has no consequence.

However if some numpty decides to place their vehicle in the path of the bollard / train then there will be damage.

The bollard is no more designed or planned to damage a vehicle than the train is!


----------



## BentMikey (10 May 2010)

Of course bollards are not intended to damage - you don't see them trying to drive into the bollards when they are up!!! Gavin, slightly hard of thinking, I reckon.


----------



## ufkacbln (10 May 2010)

Almost as funny as the claims on the SS site about killer bollards stalking the streets killing thousands of (otherwise law abiding) motorists


----------



## benb (11 May 2010)

Cunobelin said:


> Almost as funny as the claims on the SS site about killer bollards stalking the streets killing thousands of (otherwise law abiding) motorists



And marauding gangs of keep left signs!


----------

