Reply to: Car twat

[SimonMac]

Was he driving something like this:

[BrilloPad]

But of course we live in times of 'zero tolerance' where sheeple blindly accept that the government should cajole them, boss them around, hector them and then charge them for the pleasure.

People have shwn themselves too stupid to be trusted. For starters, look at who they vote for.

[doodab]

They have recently remodelled the town centre near me and put some new, completely static, bollards in on the islands in the middle of the road that split the pedestrian crossing into two. They are rather more sturdy than the old ones and I've seen two cars perched on top of them in the month or so since they were installed.

From this I think we can conclude that if you drive like a pillock you will end up damaging your car or getting hurt, regardless of the street furniture.

[suityou01]

Let's be clear on this. I agree with Mitch.

[d000hg]

Our one is on a single-lane road which takes turns as in/out... so I don't think you can get past.

However with camera recognition software so much improved, I don't think we need the bollards anyway.

[Spacecadet]

'deserve' is a daft word to use in a serious discussion. 'risk' is a better term. And let's think...

• if you speed you risk a crash, then yes it is your own fault
• if you run a red light by a second or two you risk hitting something, then yes it is your own fault
• if you try to sneak through a barrier (e.g at a car-park) you risk it closes on your car, that's your fault too

I don't really see the distinction. We have one of these bollards and it's not exactly like the floor-panel on Robot Wars.

Actually I think a bollard was used as a barrier going up and down was deemed to be dangerous to pedestrians.
Which makes the bollard the least risky option

AFAIK emergency services can get round a malfunctioning barrier by simply driving on the other side of the traffic island

[psychocandy]

Reminds me of

2nd bloke rubbing his head was dead funny.

Total bell-ends. By the way they're gunning to get as close to the bus as possible, means they know the bollards are going to come back up at some point and are chancing it. Serves the daft twat rights.

Its like thinking I know I'll drive on the wrong side of the road for a bit - I should be OK.

[d000hg]

are you going to tell us you've never broken a minor traffic regulation in a hurry or by mistake? If you have, then it would seem you deserve to end up in hospital for it.

'deserve' is a daft word to use in a serious discussion. 'risk' is a better term. And let's think...

• if you speed you risk a crash, then yes it is your own fault
• if you run a red light by a second or two you risk hitting something, then yes it is your own fault
• if you try to sneak through a barrier (e.g at a car-park) you risk it closes on your car, that's your fault too

I don't really see the distinction. We have one of these bollards and it's not exactly like the floor-panel on Robot Wars.

[Mich the Tester]

Well they should buy better hardware then. Doesn't make the concept bad, just the implementation.

Well, there's always a risk of a malfunction even with the best systems, the consequences of which could be awful. Think, for example of the ambulances and fire engines in Manchester which were held up by malfunctioning autmoated bollards; that puts lives at risk, even the chance of a malfunction is low, when it does happen it can cause a great deal of trouble.

The benefit is that people can't drive on a street that's actually suitable for driving (must be if a bus can drive there) but due to some regulation, it's forbidden.

I don't think the benefits outweigh the risks.

I thought we lived in a stupid society where people would sue for £millions because they were stupid enough to drive into the bollard. Which is it?

It's both. Yes, it's silly to drive into the bollard, but are you going to tell us you've never broken a minor traffic regulation in a hurry or by mistake? If you have, then it would seem you deserve to end up in hospital for it.

What a messed up state of affairs.

[d000hg]

Not true. There have been a number of cases here in NL of those bus barriers rising unexpectely and causing serious injuries; a recent court case in Muiden resulted in the barrier being removed after someone ended up in hospital with serious injuries.

Well they should buy better hardware then. Doesn't make the concept bad, just the implementation.

But of course we live in times of 'zero tolerance' where sheeple blindly accept that the government should cajole them, boss them around, hector them and then charge them for the pleasure.

I thought we lived in a stupid society where people would sue for £millions because they were stupid enough to drive into the bollard. Which is it?

[Robinho]

I shave literally seconds off my commute to work everyone morning by diverting across a military firing range.

[Mich the Tester]

Oh come on - you seriously need to be tailgating to have any chance of this happening and even then you can see that it doesn't work.

These were "car twats"

Not true. There have been a number of cases here in NL of those bus barriers rising unexpectely and causing serious injuries; a recent court case in Muiden resulted in the barrier being removed after someone ended up in hospital with serious injuries.

Anyway, even if people are trying to 'cheat the system', I can't imagine how anyone can see a stay in hospital and a written off car as a just punishment for trying to drive through a no entry road.

As well as that, those things deal out their 'justice' before anyone's even taken the trouble to find out why someone might be driving into that street. It's violent action, potentially causing serious injuries, to deal with a very minor misdemeanour; anyone who think's that's necessary has a seriously messed up sense of 'justice'.

But of course we live in times of 'zero tolerance' where sheeple blindly accept that the government should cajole them, boss them around, hector them and then charge them for the pleasure.

[Spacecadet]

Vaguely amusing, but those things sometimes catch people out who've just made a genuine mistake and aren't intending to do something wrong. People can be quite seriously injured by those bollards that come out of the ground and I don't think it can be justified to use violence to enforce traffic regulations. It's a sign of local politicians getting above their station and a completely disproportionate answer to a few people driving down a street where they might not be supposed to drive. Someday someone will take a council to court over this and win. I hope.

those bollards have huge warning signs and flashing lights either side of them. Anyone stupid enough to hit it by accident probably shouldn't be driving in the first place

[Notascooby]

Oh come on - you seriously need to be tailgating to have any chance of this happening and even then you can see that it doesn't work.

These were "car twats"

[DimPrawn]

Vaguely amusing, but those things catch people out who've just made a genuine mistake and aren't intending to do something wrong. People can be quite seriously injured by those bollards that come out of the ground and I don't think it can be justified to use violence to enforce traffic regulations. It's a sign of local politicians getting above their station and a completely disproportionate answer to a few people driving down a street where they might not be supposed to drive. Someday someone will take a council to court over this and win. I hope.

You can tell by the way they are accelerating hard inches behind the bus they are trying to cheat the system. I hope the police prosecute each of them for dangerous driving and the council send them a bill for damaging the bollards. Utter cretins.