Car uprooted by a bollard in Dublin

maggy_thatcher

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?

That's not the same thing. Here's a simple example that represents this bollard (imho):

• You are in a building which has a lift in it to go up
• You see the lift is on your floor, and open, so you make a run for it
• As you approach the lift, it starts to close
• You don't stop in time, and smack straight into the closed lift doors

Who's responsible for the bruise on your head? This bollard had already started to raise, and the driver didn't stop in time -- ergo one bruised car.

questioner

JHMEG wrote: »

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

its hidden by necessity of operation. there is a warning sign saying automated gate.

If there was a sensor on the bollards forcing them to give way to oncoming traffic it would encourage tailgating and defeat their purpose.

to describe a way of doing something as being reckless implies that there are other ways of doing it which are less reckless. i.e reckless driving etc. Is there a less reckless way of utilising automatic bollards in a way which would not render them ineffective

jhegarty

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

That's not the same thing. Here's a simple example that represents this bollard (imho):

• You are in a building which has a lift in it to go up
• You see the lift is on your floor, and open, so you make a run for it
• As you approach the lift, it starts to close
• You don't stop in time, and smack straight into the closed lift doors

Who's responsible for the bruise on your head? This bollard had already started to raise, and the driver didn't stop in time -- ergo one bruised car.

Lifts are expected to have doors , roads are not expected to have bollards popping up.

JHMEG

questioner wrote: »

to describe a way of doing something as being reckless implies that there are other ways of doing it which are less reckless. i.e reckless driving etc. Is there a less reckless way of utilising automatic bollards in a way which would not render them ineffective

It would not be reckless to put in a barrier gate, painted yellow and black, like at a multistorey car park. Tried and tested and doesn't write off your car if you don't see it.

GTE

jhegarty wrote: »

Lifts are expected to have doors , roads are not expected to have bollards popping up.

Well now we can expect them in bus lanes

gurramok

Riskymove wrote: »

there is no entry sign on the right at the railings wiht some text underneath and also some signs at the railings on the left with text I cannot make out

To clarify, both signs are the same. Thats why I only took a close-up of one!

TouchingVirus

questioner wrote: »

there is a warning sign saying automated gate.

Where? I don't see "Automated Gate" warning signs on any of the pictures. I see a picture of a camera though, suggesting offenders will get fined in the post or something.

to describe a way of doing something as being reckless implies that there are other ways of doing it which are less reckless. i.e reckless driving etc. Is there a less reckless way of utilising automatic bollards in a way which would not render them ineffective

There are other ways of preventing access, the barriers they use virtually everywhere else.

paddy147

Women drivers.........................:rolleyes:

As said earlier in the thread there are quite a few of those bollards around Cork City. A few years ago I was driving around Cambridge with my Dad, we were in a rented car, behind a bus, bus went down a road only for buses and emergency traffic, I was admiring the Cambridge architecture and didn't notice any of the signs, just stopped in time before I was over the rising bollard, it can happen. If it did I would have been completely in the wrong though admittedly. The punishment is a bit harsh though, fecked car and all.

Head The Wall

JHMEG wrote: »

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

I think you'll find the people that crash into them are the one's that are dangerous. They are in plenty of other countries so I'm sure the legality of them has been checked here

TouchingVirus wrote: »

I see a signpost about the gate being bus only and a picture implying there is some sort of camera there. I don't see a sign about an automatic raising bollard that'll write off your car though.

Are those auto-raising bollards even legal? Seem pretty dangerous to me, just because I break the law in my vehicle doesn't give anybody the right to cause it damage.

Ignorance doesn't stand up in a court of law. If you didn't break the law in your vehicle it wouldn't have happened. The no entry signs should be enough of a deterrent

jhegarty wrote: »

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

A sign saying "buses only" does give them the right to stop anything except a bus. They have a legal expectation that only buses will be on it.

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.

Sure they may as well not have one there if thats what you want. A great deterrent indeed

Stekelly wrote: »

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

Idiot trap would be a great name.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

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.

Driving in a reckless manner with your kid in the back. You could also be done with child endangerment

JHMEG wrote: »

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

No if you follow the signs it's not reckless

squod

Head The Wall wrote: »

I think you'll find the people that crash into them are the one's that are dangerous. They are in plenty of other countries so I'm sure the legality of them has been checked here



Ignorance doesn't stand up in a court of law. If you didn't break the law in your vehicle it wouldn't have happened. The no entry signs should be enough of a deterrent



A sign saying "buses only" does give them the right to stop anything except a bus. They have a legal expectation that only buses will be on it.



Sure they may as well not have one there if thats what you want. A great deterrent indeed



Idiot trap would be a great name.



Driving in a reckless manner with your kid in the back. You could also be done with child endangerment



No if you follow the signs it's not reckless

You are sooooooooooo getting a ribbing if you ever do something wrong on the road. First stone to you.

biko

Dónal wrote: »

these bollards

They make for great clips on youtube

Head The Wall

squod wrote: »

You are sooooooooooo getting a ribbing if you ever do something wrong on the road. First stone to you.

Nobodys perfect but flagrant breaches like that I avoid. You have to weigh up the cost of breaking a law before you do it. Anyone that doesn't weigh up the cost deserves this to happen to them.

JHMEG

Head The Wall wrote: »

No if you follow the signs it's not reckless

Can I put up a sign and then hit you with a hammer?:D

Run_to_da_hills

Head The Wall wrote: »

Nobodys perfect but flagrant breaches like that I avoid. You have to weigh up the cost of breaking a law before you do it. Anyone that doesn't weigh up the cost deserves this to happen to them.

How many times have you broken the law?
"You break the law we right off your car". :rolleyes:

Marlow

Signposted or not.

There is a clearly visible automated gate just before the bollard, which basically indicates, gate open or closed, you might not being allowed to enter. The gate could close behind the bus, too. She ignored that.

There is outlined on the road, that this is a road for buses. She ignored that.

There are signs, that only buses and cycles are allowed. She ignored that.

The bollard does not go up very quickly, so it will have been rising before she hit it and if she'd been going at a slow pace, which you obviously do in many private estates (often the speed limit is like 10 or 20 km/h, didn't see any signs here, so don't know). If she had gone at that pace and watched the road as she should, she would have seen the bollard rising.

There comes another point into play here: traffic law. If you run into the back of another car, bus etc. you're always at fault. That can be applied, too, in theory.

Ergo, she is reckless on so many pointers, that I don't think she has any chance of suing.

She deserved it anyhow.

/M

Head The Wall

JHMEG wrote: »

Can I put up a sign and then hit you with a hammer?:D

If the sign says no trespassing and I trespass I would expect to get attacked maybe even shot as I am willingly breaking the law. Gimme another scenario which explains that the BMW driver was in the right

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

How many times have you broken the law?
"You break the law we right off your car". :rolleyes:

What about that guy down in Cork a few months ago that got his head blown off because he climbed an ESB pylon. There was signs there stating what he shouldn't do and he still did it

I suppose the ESB broke the law there by having the pylon there.

It's called personal responsibility - in any situation you can only be given so many warnings and then you just have accept the consequences. The driver in this case had plenty of warnings.




Ye are trying to justify a stupid persons actions here. Maybe people will learn from this and everyones insurance may get reduced. When you pay your car insurance your paying for clowns like this driving on the road.

JHMEG

Head The Wall wrote: »

If the sign says no trespassing and I trespass I would expect to get attacked maybe even shot as I am willingly breaking the law.

And the person who attacked or shot you would rightly go to prison, especially if you trespassed by accident.

JHMEG

Head The Wall wrote: »

What about that guy down in Cork a few months ago that got his head blown off because he climbed an ESB pylon. There was signs there stating what he shouldn't do and he still did it

I suppose the ESB broke the law there by having the pylon there.

Yeah, and what about the lad that drank petrol, puked in the fire and burned the house down.

Head The Wall

JHMEG wrote: »

And the person who attacked or shot you would rightly go to prison, especially if you trespassed by accident.

I theoretically did not trespass by accident as I saw the signs and chose to trespass and will have to suffer the consequences

JHMEG wrote: »

Yeah, and what about the lad that drank petrol, puked in the fire and burned the house down.

What about him? are you trying to imply that the can he drank it from didn't have a warning so he was fine to drink it and he is exempt from burning the house down.

You're letting yourself down here big time. As intelligent as the BMW driver maybe

GreeBo

Head The Wall wrote: »

What about that guy down in Cork a few months ago that got his head blown off because he climbed an ESB pylon. There was signs there stating what he shouldn't do and he still did it

A better example would be someone ignoring the "do not climb this" sign onan ESB pylon and getting beheaded by an invisible laser.
There is no sign saying "beware of invisible laser" just like there is no sign saying "beware of moving bollard".

gurramok

Marlow wrote: »

Signposted or not.

There is a clearly visible automated gate just before the bollard, which basically indicates, gate open or closed, you might not being allowed to enter. The gate could close behind the bus, too. She ignored that.

Just to clarify, that gate never closes on a working day. Only at night time.

JHMEG

Head The Wall wrote: »

I theoretically did not trespass by accident as I saw the signs and chose to trespass and will have to suffer the consequences

And you know the driver of the car in question did not act in error?

Head The Wall wrote: »

What about him? are you trying to imply that the can he drank it from didn't have a warning so he was fine to drink it and he is exempt from burning the house down.

You're letting yourself down here big time. As intelligent as the BMW driver maybe

I'm implying drinking petrol and climbing ESB pylons are similar. Driving over a hidden bollard (which, unlike your ESB pylon, has no warning signs) is not.

Johnny Utah

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

Those invisible bollards are hateful things- they should be banned without question!

There was an episode of Road Wars where the police car was chasing a jeep. The police car was suddenly stopped in its tracks by a 'sump breaker' :eek:, yet the jeep had no problem passing this obstacle a few seconds beforehand and made a clean getaway.

Run_to_da_hills

Head The Wall wrote: »

Ye are trying to justify a stupid persons actions here. Maybe people will learn from this and everyones insurance may get reduced. When you pay your car insurance your paying for clowns like this driving on the road.

So every person that accidently drives into a canal or off a pier deserves to drown, this is where your logic is coming from. :rolleyes:

questioner

GreeBo wrote: »

..... beheaded by an invisible laser.
.....

that would be so f@@king cool.

maggy_thatcher

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

So every person that accidently drives into a canal or off a pier deserves to drown, this is where your logic is coming from. :rolleyes:

No, but they do deserve their car to be written off

questioner

these bollards are a godsend, they are the darwinian enforcers of the mechanized world.

galwaytt

jhegarty wrote: »

..., roads are not expected to have bollards popping up.

obviously not in Capital D. In Capital G, they are, and do. Where does that leave us ?

Head The Wall

GreeBo wrote: »

A better example would be someone ignoring the "do not climb this" sign onan ESB pylon and getting beheaded by an invisible laser.
There is no sign saying "beware of invisible laser" just like there is no sign saying "beware of moving bollard".

So am I correct in saying that if you touched an electric wire you think nothing would happen. The sign doesn't just say "Do not climb" for no reason, by law they have to give a warning not explain in minute detail everything that may possibly happen, The warning is a deterrent if you do not take heed thats your loss

JHMEG wrote: »

And you know the driver of the car in question did not act in error?


I'm implying drinking petrol and climbing ESB pylons are similar. Driving over a hidden bollard (which, unlike your ESB pylon, has no warning signs) is not.

Do you believe that the driver drove down there by accident, that they didn't see any of the warnings or signs?

There may or may not have been a warning about a bollard but the driver got plenty of warning not to go down there. I bet every one of you here saying she was hard done by will be checking all bus lanes anymore before you decide to go down them

Johnny Utah wrote: »

Those invisible bollards are hateful things- they should be banned without question!

There was an episode of Road Wars where the police car was chasing a jeep. The police car was suddenly stopped in its tracks by a 'sump breaker' :eek:, yet the jeep had no problem passing this obstacle a few seconds beforehand and made a clean getaway.

The only people that should have a issue with these is people that use lanes that they shouldn't. In the episode of Road wars did the cops drive into the sump breaker or did they know not to drive into it.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

So every person that accidently drives into a canal or off a pier deserves to drown, this is where your logic is coming from. :rolleyes:

Use of the word accidently doesn't apply in the situation being discussed here.

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

No, but they do deserve their car to be written off