UK Bus Lane video

Anan1

TempestSabre wrote:

I don't get your point. These people are deliberately trying to drive dangerously, at speed, in a pedestrian zone in order to beat the bollards. They are not trundling along after a bus.

This quote is a good illustration of the dangers of spin.

TempestSabre

Anan1 wrote:

This quote is a good illustration of the dangers of spin.

I'd accept that if the video was edited. One even came back a 2nd time to the bollards to make the attempt at beating them. But you think you need to defend that? :rolleyes:

Anan1

TempestSabre wrote:

I'd accept that if the video was edited. One even came back a 2nd time to the bollards to make the attempt at beating them. But you think you need to defend that? :rolleyes:

I have never tried to defend the drivers in the clip, nor would I. The point I have been making since the beginning of this thread is that such a system is inherently dangerous. No amount of videos showing lunatics trying to beat the bollards can change that basic fact.

Munurty

I think the idea of the system is good but the end result of a crash benefits nobody. Why couldn't they just but a simple barrier like we have in hundreds of car parks around the country.

Victor

Would those opposing such bollards also oppose barriers in car parks?

TempestSabre

Anan1 wrote:

I have never tried to defend the drivers in the clip, nor would I. The point I have been making since the beginning of this thread is that such a system is inherently dangerous. No amount of videos showing lunatics trying to beat the bollards can change that basic fact.

Its like trying to ban truncheons because criminals might get hurt.

Anan1

TempestSabre wrote:

Its like trying to ban truncheons because criminals might get hurt.

How is it like that?

TempestSabre

Anan1 wrote:

How is it like that?

A truncheon is inherently dangerous.

Gatster

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/225/225933_drivers_lose_the_bollards_battle.html

This is right in the center of Manchester near the Arndale. The bollards are up all the time unless a vehicle equipped with the sensor approaches. They are in use all over Manchester and have been for a while. Although this sort of thing does happen, it's pretty rare as ther are so many signs. Read the article above, the second woman chose to ignore the signs, which is usually what happens as there are numerous warnings wherever these are in place, and usually opportunites to turn round and go back or turn off these streets.

Ciaran500

Anan1 wrote:

The point I have been making since the beginning of this thread is that such a system is inherently dangerous.

There is nothing dangerous about this system if a driver just follows the rules of the road. Its the same way a cross road is inherently dangerous if someone doesn't follow a stop sign.

subway

they have these in town around temple bar,
nobody has died, i dont see anyone down there protesting that the system is dangerous....

Anan1

Ciaran500 wrote:

There is nothing dangerous about this system if a driver just follows the rules of the road. Its the same way a cross road is inherently dangerous if someone doesn't follow a stop sign.

Would you apply the same reasoning to an unmanned level crossing - ie "perfectly safe if you just follow the rules"?

subway wrote:

they have these in town around temple bar,
nobody has died, i dont see anyone down there protesting that the system is dangerous....

Is this a joke?

TempestSabre

I saw someone walk under a open barrier in a carpark and get clobbered. Does that mean they are dangerous. In fairness a spoon is dangerous in the wrong hands.

Anan1

TempestSabre wrote:

I saw someone walk under a open barrier in a carpark and get clobbered. Does that mean they are dangerous. In fairness a spoon is dangerous in the wrong hands.

To be perfectly honest, if you can't see that reinforced steel bollards that come out of the road at speed and bring a car and its occupants to an instant halt, bypassing the car's crumple zones, are inherently dangerous, then I really can't help you.

TempestSabre

People can drive into anything, even a tree stump and do that. However these bollards are heavily signposted and the vehicle in front has to stop for them. So these drivers know they are there. You'd have to be doing a dangrous speed for there to be any serious impact, and if you are doing that in this scenerio then they need to be stopped. That drivers more likely to kill someone than the bollard is.

Ciaran500

Anan1 wrote:

Would you apply the same reasoning to an unmanned level crossing - ie "perfectly safe if you just follow the rules"?

Well, yes

Anan1 wrote:

To be perfectly honest, if you can't see that reinforced steel bollards that come out of the road at speed and bring a car and its occupants to an instant halt, bypassing the car's crumple zones, are inherently dangerous, then I really can't help you.

You are avoiding his question.

They only bypass the crumble zones if someone is tailgating the bus or is trying to speed in behind the bus.

Gatster

Generally the areas 'protected' by the bollards (in Manchester) are those of heavy pedestrian traffic, and right or wrong people wander across the roads without paying much attention to traffic. The traffic they do pay attention to is buses etc. not cars. Anyone racing to get over the bollards is more of a danger than the bollards themselves in the areas concerned as pedestrians could (and do) just step out...

Sam Vimes

Anan1 wrote:

To be perfectly honest, if you can't see that reinforced steel bollards that come out of the road at speed and bring a car and its occupants to an instant halt, bypassing the car's crumple zones, are inherently dangerous, then I really can't help you.

they are dangerous only to people who have extremely poor vision. there are massive electronic flashing no entry signs on both sides of the bollards. the road that they block is a pedestrian road so people shouldn't be on it in the first place, never mind driving fast enough to cause themselves serious injury.

they're dangerous in the same way as traffic lights are dangerous. if someone ignores them, they'll get minced from the side by other cars. we can't get rid of stuff just because the incurably retarded people in our society try to chance their arm

Yakuza

I have to agree with Anan here - not only is this thing unbeliveably dangerous, it punishes all the occupants of the car, not only the idiot driver.

No one "deserves" to have serious whiplash injuries for a minor traffic infraction, and certainly their passengers (some of whom will be small children, which are much more fragile) do not either.

What if the car's engine made it past the bollards, so now these things are coming through the floor pan - sharp metal shards cutting up your legs. Lovely.

TempestSabre

Why would you get in a car with an idiot driver who rams traffic bollards?

overdriver

We have all been in situations where someone could point to a roadsign and say " Did you not see that?" etc.

I think these things are way over the top, TBH.

franksm

Look at the speed these drivers are trying to get through the bollards with ! It's obvious they're trying to stick to the back of the bus/etc. And at the start of the video there are not only brightly lit signs, but special markings on the tarmac itself. No doubt there are other signs way before these that show more information and pointers about how and when to detour around the bus lane.

Phuk 'em. These are the same people that think it's okay to go up the hardshoulder or buslane when traffic's bad, or who cruise up the right-turn-only lane or Easipass lane and barge in at the end, or who turn right at the bottom of South Gt. George's Street in Dublin, which is only allowed for buses and taxis

Stark

TempestSabre wrote:

Why would you get in a car with an idiot driver who rams traffic bollards?

Children don't have the option.

/puts on "won't somebody think of the children" voice, cringes, but it's appropriate I think here.

I see a **** load of bad drivers on the road carrying kids in the back seat. You could be driving down a road and some eejit overtakes you at high speed on a dangerous blind bend and you'll see kids in the back. In my more evil moments, I thank God that the fool will take his genetic legacy with him when he does crash, but really, it's not fair to punish kids for having bad parents.

monkey tennis

It's certainly unfortunate that children in the back seat of one of these cars could be injured, but I'd rather a child gets a bump and their mother or father learns a lesson, than a pedestrain gets mowed down by some idiot trying to race over a protective barrier for the sake of saving 60 seconds on their trip.

It's quite obvious from that video that all the drivers knew well that the bollards were there (particularly the MORON in the micra who reversed, waited, then tried to race through - how much time could she possibly have saved, considering she had to sit there and wait for the bus to arrive??). The guy who tried to race over it with kids in the back of his car is a disgrace - it's unfortunate that he's already managed to breed.

Gatster

race over a protective barrier for the sake of saving 60 seconds on their trip

Exactly - The road in question here is a cut through. IIRC it used to have no restrictions, then became one way, then they introduced buses and taxis only, then the bollards came. It saves about 2 minutes on going around if the lights are in your favour. I agree it's potentially more dangerous to children in a car if you hit these, but so is a 'normal' car-crash. If someone has children in the car and tries to risk this I think they have a disregard for their childs safety.

To put where this is into perspective:
St. Marys Gate on a Saturday afternoon is like Grafton Street on a Saturday afternoon...

el tel

Mental CCTV footage. I'd be glued to that screen if it was my job to monitor the traffic there. Maybe the bollards should extend perpendicularly from pillars so passing cars gets their sides wiped out instead of a big frontal impact which could hurt the occupants. There's nothing worse than than hearing that big scaping noise...

subway

no, it isnt a joke.
they have these up/down bollards all aroung temple bar and ive never seen one retarded car driver launch him or herslef over it while they were down to let someone with access through.

i also have never once heard of one causing an accident or anyone complaining that they be removed.

a point i would like to add, is that these types of bollards are usually at either end of the blocked area, so how do the cars intend to get out if the bus gets away from them?

highdef

The driver of the X5 or whatever it was should be punished bigtime for not only putting his friend/spouse in danger like that but more importantly putting his child in danger like that. If the child had died, he should have been charged with man-slaughter. He knew bloody well that those bollards were going to go back up. And its so obvious that he puts his foot down and drives in a most dangerous manner. I pity the child. The bollards are not to blame. It's tossers like him and the other drivers in the video. He is a complete an utter f&cking tosser and if I saw CCTV footage of him driving over the bollards whilst on his on own and he somehow got impaled by the bollards, I would have no pity at all. My concern would be, I hope the bollards weren't damaged!!!

Chonker

TempestSabre wrote:

So if you have a locked gate and someone ramraids it and a passenger gets injured, thats wrong? Anyone driving at a reasonable speed isn't going to get injured by those bollards.

Are you seriously compairing a child or a passenger in a car to a ramraider. As usual Tempest your missing my point.

The dad was a fool to try and go down that way, my point is use the camera to fine him. I just dont like the idea that a child could get hurt on those things because the father is an idiot. Thats all.

Chonker

TempestSabre wrote:

Why would you get in a car with an idiot driver who rams traffic bollards?

If you are a child and the idiot driver is your father/mother you wont really have the choice.

Btw look again the bollards rammed the car not the other way around.