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.

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..

what should pop up in front of restricted zones is this:
 

That'll sure scare em off.

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.

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.

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:

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!

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.

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?

Arlington, Texas. We don't drive on the sidewalk, or walk in the middle of the road.

In Texas, if you're not burning gasoline, you're not getting anywhere.

Same goes for Tennessee.

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.

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?

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.

Then they wouldn't bother putting up a barrier.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.

I'm sticking with this:
 

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.

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?

Automated Bollards:
 

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.

Bollards are a legal moveable obstruction which amongst other objectives help to protect pedestrians

This is a (UK) Government webiste

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.

But...I used a question mark... . . .

Bollards? Hee hee! Now I get why Rumpole called Soapy Sam "Bollard"; he was calling him a roadblock!

"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."

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?

There are places where the vehicles are not allowed. The parameters vary, time, location, private, public, service, etc.

Perhaps you would prefer this:
http://cellar.org/attachment.php?att...1&d=1107004314

We have something called a "crosswalk" which consists of stripes painted on the road. It seems to work just fine.On private property.

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.

[/thread]
 

It's fine with me that you did it, and hopefully now it will be fine with you when others do it.

>>>>>>>Like this?

Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

are we done yet?
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you now wish to retract this reference?
 

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

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

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

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

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

There has to be a better way.

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

:lol:

Also, I reiterate my snip from the government website:

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

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

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

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

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

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