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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Which part of this do you not understand?
 

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

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

Hey, Flint.

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

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

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

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

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

Ok. let me attempt to paraphrase...

Nailed it, huh?

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

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

to clarify, I didn't overlook this:
 

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

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

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