Car uprooted by a bollard in Dublin

TouchingVirus

nipplenuts wrote: »

You mean like an obligatory "Train will smash your car" at a level crossing sign?

You know a train will smash your car. You know that there is a barrier that will stopping you from entering, there is a sign about level crossings and it's part of rules of the road.

There is no indication about a bollard there.

I can't imagine why bollards like this do not have technology to prevent shafting a car. It can't be that hard to come up with ..even fecking ping/echo technology would work..

rabbitinlights

The speed of that barrier is very slow compared to the UK ones and with no damage done to the upper part of the front of her car, I'd say she was nearly on top of it before it started rising. I for one have taken a good few short cuts especially in industrial estates, could have easily happened to any of us. (Who actually admit to an odd bit of cheeky rule breaking)

These devices are not common in Ireland and should be very well signed.

S.

jhegarty

I am presuming from the photo this is private property , so she wasn't even breaking a law.

GTE

Oh well.

His or her own fault. "Bus only", "no entry except for buses and cyclists" and a no entry sign means bus/coach and cyclists only in my book.

Now, if a bus crashed into that or if there were none of the signs or notices I mentioned then Id wonder whats going on.

jhegarty

bbk wrote: »

Oh well.

His or her own fault. "Bus only", "no entry except for buses and cyclists" and a no entry sign means bus/coach and cyclists only in my book.

Now, if a bus crashed into that or if there were none of the signs or notices I mentioned then Id wonder whats going on.

If only they had used one of the many signs to say "Caution , Rising Barrier".

Stark

I wonder what would happen if a cyclist cycled over it

GTE

jhegarty wrote: »

If only they had used one of the many signs to say "Caution , Rising Barrier".

Yeah, cause dont you hate it when you go somewhere you are being told not to only to find something thats trying to stop you from doing what the signs said not to do in the first place?

jhegarty

bbk wrote: »

Yeah, cause dont you hate it when you go somewhere you are being told not to only to find something thats trying to stop you from doing what the signs said in the first place?

So if a sign said 1 hour parking, and you parked for 1 hour 5 minutes you would accept the fact that someone took your car and dumped it in a canal ?

GTE

jhegarty wrote: »

So if a sign said 1 hour parking, and you parked for 1 hour 5 minutes you would accept the fact that someone took your car and dumped it in a canal ?

Absolutly not but whats your point in the context of this?

jhegarty

bbk wrote: »

Absolutly not but whats your point in the context of this?

That a sign saying buses only doesn't give them the right to f**k up someones car.

zAbbo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BRCOV7MczU

GTE

jhegarty wrote: »

That a sign saying buses only doesn't give them the right to f**k up someones car.

The bollard isnt there to mess up someones car though. And why would you pass a road marking and those signs anyway?

jhegarty

bbk wrote: »

The bollard isnt there to mess up someones car though. And why would you pass a road marking and those signs anyway?

I am not saying you should pass the signs , I am saying that they don't have the right to do that to a car for doing so.

The bollard is obviously unsafe. It should have a sensor to not come under a car.

Bigdeadlydave

I know a guy who works for Dublin bus and this type of thing happens about twice a year(according to him anyways)

questioner

bit of a tricky one.

Without going into it too much, the relevant legislation in this case is the occupiers liabilty act 1995 which provides that the duty towards trespasers ( Car driver accessing through lane where permission only extends to buses = trespasser ) is not to act with reckless disregard in relation to their safety.

This is a significantly greater threshold than the ordinary negligence standard which is the (very very basically) what a reasonable person would have done in the circumstances.

I think that if ordinary negligence was the relevant standard the management company could possibly be liable in that a reasonable person could assume that the automated gaten warning sign referred to the large gate on the right of the picture. However it could be argued then that by ignoring the warning sign or assuming that it referred to the gate on the right of the picture they were running a gauntlet of sorts in any event. So it would untenable to argue that if the gate on the right had hit me I'd be happy to take the loss but as the automated bollard hit me I'm suing.

Reckless disregard is a much higher threshold and allows a defendant(the management company) greater latitude in types of permissable behaviour - reckless disregard would be the placing of a hidden spike under disabled parking bays and if a car not displaying a disabled tag parks there then the spike shoots up and skewers the car. this is reckless.

a slowly rising automated bollard in the centre of a lane designated clearly as a bus lane is not, in my opinion, reckless.

there are elements of volutary assumption of risk here as well, the more i think about it the less likely I think a plaintiffs claim would succeed.

On a personal note I disagree with sentiments expressed above to the effect of - even though I'm acting in flagrant and willful disregard of the law I expect you to act in complete and utter compliance with it, otherwise I'll bleat about my human rights to anyone who'll listen (stand up the ICCL). This attitude has for some bizarre reason gained quite a following, not only among those you might suspect of having it (criminals, thieves, burglars and their ilk) but amongst relatively decent members of the community as well. I do not know why this is, and I know this is off topic so I'll just register my disgust and leave it at that.

Run_to_da_hills

jhegarty wrote: »

That a sign saying buses only doesn't give them the right to f**k up someones car.

This is just the start of "green Fascism".

GTE

jhegarty wrote: »

I am not saying you should pass the signs , I am saying that they don't have the right to do that to a car for doing so.

The bollard is obviously unsafe. It should have a sensor to not come under a car.

I dont think they believe they have the right to wreck a car.

And to be fair, looking at the picture the car doesnt seem to have travelled very far over the bollard.

If the bollard didnt have a sensor then the car should be propped up as if it were on a pretty big jack as the bollard goes back to full height. If it did keep rising up it wouldnt have the speed to chop the upper engine in half and be fully raised up while keeping the car on all 4 wheels.

It looks like the bollard was coming up and then clipped the car, stopped and did a lot of damage but more importantly stopped moving up, just like the ones in the video posted.

In short what Im saying is the bollard does have a sensor, just the person driving was drove into a partially raised bollard at such a speed that the less then quarter height bollard ripped into the front of the car and stopped raising.

If you look at the video and the speed the black car was doing, it didnt go too far when it ran into the bollard.

muckwarrior

jhegarty wrote: »

That a sign saying buses only doesn't give them the right to f**k up someones car.

They didn't fυck up the car, the driver did. Electronic gates or barriers aren't put there to 'fυck up someones car', but if you drive into them then that'll happen.

Stark

It's publicly accessible private land. There are laws against damaging people's property. That they broke one of your rules is no excuse. Would the security guards have been allowed take the OP's camera and smash it because he disobeyed their rule about no photos for example?

the_syco

jhegarty wrote: »

I am saying that they don't have the right to do that to a car for doing so.

I agree, they don't, and they didn't. She crashed into their bollard.

GTE

Like, that stupid driver nearly broke their bollard. There should be laws against that!:p

Guy:Incognito

JHMEG wrote: »

Those yokes are dangerous and should be banned. A few law suits will make sure they are.

At least barriers that raise and lower are visible.

I think there should be more of them. A great deterrant to idiots.

Run_to_da_hills

bbk wrote: »

Like, that stupid driver nearly broke their bollard. There should be laws against that!:p

They should really make these bollards out of plastic. Could you imagine if the bollard caused whiplash or set off an airbag that seriously injured a child. The HSA should be called on this issue as there was no signage.

questioner

Stark wrote: »

It's publicly accessible private land.

private being the operative word. If someone walks into my front door as Im closing it behind me should i be liable?

Stark wrote: »

There are laws against damaging people's property. ?

indeed, the occupiers liability act. which states that you may not act with reckless disregard either towards a person or their property.

Stark wrote: »

Would the security guards have been allowed take the OP's camera and smash it because he disobeyed their rule about no photos for example?

legal authority defending theft and criminal damage of property of innocent third party = none. see reckless disregard above.

legal authority defending private property = the whole basis of law.

JHMEG

questioner wrote: »

private being the operative word. If someone walks into my front door as Im closing it behind me should i be liable?

Is it ok to install a hidden hammer above the door that swings down to smash the face of someone who may accidentally be coming behind you?

questioner

JHMEG wrote: »

Is it ok to install a hidden hammer above the door that swings down to smash the face of someone who may accidentally be coming behind you?

what part of "reckless" do you not understand?

corktina

Riskymove wrote: »

I'd have thought that it was the security guards being not happy with their picture being taken rather than the car

still doesnt affect the right to have taken the picture.(

JHMEG

questioner wrote: »

what part of "reckless" do you not understand?

questioner wrote: »

a slowly rising automated bollard in the centre of a lane designated clearly as a bus lane is not, in my opinion, reckless.

There is no warning, it's hidden, and it takes 1 second to strike the bottom of the car. Is that not reckless?

Absurdum

What would happen if it were a Garda car or an ambulance responding to an emergency? Do all emergency vehicles have devices fitted to lower these bollards?

Also, if it were a TDi Octavia, there would be a mass outpouring of grief here

GTE

Absurdum wrote: »

What would happen if it were a Garda car or an ambulance responding to an emergency? Do all emergency vehicles have devices fitted to lower these bollards?

Also, if it were a TDi Octavia, there would be a mass outpouring of grief here

Id imagine they do, and the TDI octavia would destroy that bollard haha