Car uprooted by a bollard in Dublin

Marlow

gurramok wrote: »

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

You know that. But you also knew, the bollard was there. Did the lady ?

Assumption is the mother of all ****ups. If in doubt, don't enter.

/M

JHMEG

Head The Wall wrote: »

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

Do you have proof otherwise?

T-Square

The driver may have been a bit lost, and perhaps got a bit rattled,
and decided to follow a bus out of the maze that is industrial estate.

I feel sorry for the driver. The car is written off.

The driver should have paid more attention, it is unfortunate.

In California, for one way exits, they have sharp teeth in the ground,
that you can drive over safely, but if you try to go the other way, your tyres are shredded, go quickly enough and all four tyres are torn to pieces.

questioner

JHMEG wrote: »

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.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1166393/Woman-79-killed-blow-car-park-barrier-left-hospital.html

no they just kill you outright.

JHMEG wrote: »

Do you have proof otherwise?

I have proof she disregarded the traffic restrictions.

I suspect she knew there was a bollard there and chanced it. its a d reg and I think someone mentioned that it could be used as a shortcut.

the argument that the bollard is an unexpected occurrence doesnt hold water. If I am an inexperienced driver and I break a red light or complete a right turn across the flow of traffic without a filter light is it a defence for me to say I didn't expect a car to be there? She was inexperienced with automatic traffic bollards, whose fault is that?

Head The Wall

JHMEG wrote: »

Do you have proof otherwise?

I don't have to prove it, In a court of law she will have to prove that she should have been going down there.

Secondly no Judge will believe that she didn't see any signs or warnings but she managed to end up exactly in the middle of the lane without hitting any other bollards or kerbs.

Whatever she claims she will be in the wrong. The Judge will probably do her for dangerous driving

You're not going to win this, give up

questioner

Driver found to be driving carelessly -up to 5 penalty points

Driving without reasonable consideration

Failure to comply with prohibitory traffic signs

JHMEG

Head The Wall wrote: »

I don't have to prove it, In a court of law she will have to prove that she should have been going down there.

Secondly no Judge will believe that she didn't see any signs or warnings but she managed to end up exactly in the middle of the lane without hitting any other bollards or kerbs.

Whatever she claims she will be in the wrong. The Judge will probably do her for dangerous driving

You're not going to win this, give up

Can I borrow your crystal ball? Got tomorrow night's lotto numbers by any chance?

Don't be a tool. Having your car written off because you didn't see the non-existent signs warning of a hidden impaler is not proportional.

questioner

JHMEG wrote: »

Can I borrow your crystal ball? Got tomorrow night's lotto numbers by any chance?

Don't be a tool. Having your car written off for not noticing signs which didn't mention a hidden impaler buried in the road isn't proportional.

if you were a judge, bearing in mind that you will set a precedent upon which future claims will be decided, what way would you call it?

JHMEG

questioner wrote: »

if you were a judge, bearing in mind that you will set a precedent upon which future claims will be decided, what way would you call it?

My view is those devices are very dangerous an alternative should be employed. I would be happy to set that precendent.

neutron

questioner wrote: »

if you were a judge, bearing in mind that you will set a precedent upon which future claims will be decided, what way would you call it?

A good legal counsel will win damages for the driver that will more than pay for the cost of a few penalty points for undue care and attention.

The reasons are ........ (wait for the case though I will be surprised if it goes to court)

In a court the legality of the mechanised bollard and where it is sited will be called into question. The damages the driver will receive will make interesting reading

The last time I seen this happen was in the bad old days in Norn' Ireland.... the item in question was built to stop a tank...it was not a pretty sight.

Soby

Well the driver should be taking off the road so..If they cant see signs that big

questioner

JHMEG wrote: »

My view is those devices are very dangerous an alternative should be employed. I would be happy to set that precendent.

cars are dangerous, especially when being driven by people who drive where there not supposed too. she should employ an alternative, like getting on an bus, then she could go through bus lanes until she was blue in the growler.

seriously though, what alternative? Theres a not a single thing in existence that isnt capable of some type of harm - its not the function nor within the abilities of society to insulate us from every conceivable injury we may suffer.

I understand what your saying about proportionality and if an employee of that management company stopped her when she drove through after the bus and proceeded to smash the crap out of the car then yes, i would consider that disproportionate.

If she had been hit by a lowering barrier would you judge that the same too? if she said that she didnt see the barrier/ didnt know it was there / doesnt speak english/ first time in the civilised world etc etc.

Run_to_da_hills

questioner wrote: »

seriously though, what alternative? Theres a not a single thing in existence that isn't capable of some type of harm - its not the function nor within the abilities of society to insulate us from every conceivable injury we may suffer.

An ANPR cam would have logged her reg and issued her a fine without damaging her car.

(Only problem it would have violated her civil liberties. :pac:)

DirkVoodoo

It doesn't look like a surprise bollard to me, in fact it looks just like the ones in the video. It is a bollard that is sitting there, clearly blocking the road. The only time it is down is to let a bus pass, so the only way it could possibly have "come up under the car" in some surprise attack is if the driver was rather stupidly trying to do what the people in the video were doing and playing russian roulette with it.

To say that the road is clear until you drive over the thing is misleading and it can be clearly seen in the OP's photos that the bollard, is clearly visible in it's idle state. It's not a hammer hanging over a door by any means. Nor is it a hidden impaler, this isn't a secret weapon, the bollard is visible and "up" unless you try and be smart like the chaps in the video, that's the only way this could have happened. Unless the guy who looks after it was on his last day.

I do agree about the emergency vehicle bit though.

questioner

neutron wrote: »

A good legal counsel will win damages for the driver that will more than pay for the cost of a few penalty points for undue care and attention.

so one court finds you guilty of an offence and the other court compensates you for committing it?

would you consider that logical?

DirkVoodoo

I do agree that these things are unnecessary. One in Manchester backfired and damaged a bus, injuring 6 people.

Also, I found an installation guideline with safety recommendations for the installer, this one caught my eye:

Use of at least one indicator-light is recommended
for every system (i.e. flashing lamp integrated in the
bollard head), as well as a warning sign in addition
to the devices mentioned at point “16”.

ending with:

Anything not expressly specified in these instructions is not permitted

So it would seem that if the driver found out who the manufacturer was and if they have a similar guideline, they would indeed have grounds for seeking damages on the basis of neglect.

old_aussie

JHMEG wrote: »

Bit different from drive in the bus lane and have your car written off. Hell you might even end up with the gearbox on your lap.

So, if someone drives through the warning bells and lights at a railway crossing and there is no sign saying "car will be destroyed by train" that the railways are responsible for the car being destroyed and the driver killed?

The driver would deserve what he gets.

Stupid people should be culled from the herd.

DirkVoodoo

old_aussie wrote: »

So, if someone drives through the warning bells and lights at a railway crossing and there is no sign saying "car will be destroyed by train" that the railways are responsible for the car being destroyed and the driver killed?

The driver would deserve what he gets.

I think his point might be that there is actual mention of level crossings in traffic law, I don't think there is any mention of these bollards.

Taken from UK Road traffic act (I'm sure we have similar):

Level crossings
291

A level crossing is where a road crosses a railway or tramway line. Approach and cross it with care. Never drive onto a crossing until the road is clear on the other side and do not get too close to the car in front. Never stop or park on, or near, a crossing.

jhegarty

questioner wrote: »

Driver found to be driving carelessly -up to 5 penalty points

Driving without reasonable consideration

Failure to comply with prohibitory traffic signs

Wow , is that now the standard list of charges for someone who drives in a bus lane ?

Head The Wall

JHMEG wrote: »

Can I borrow your crystal ball? Got tomorrow night's lotto numbers by any chance?

Don't be a tool. Having your car written off because you didn't see the non-existent signs warning of a hidden impaler is not proportional.

Where was the warning sign saying that a pedestrian may walk in front of her, that'd be a handy get out of jail free if she knocked someone over.

JHMEG wrote: »

My view is those devices are very dangerous an alternative should be employed. I would be happy to set that precendent.

Tell us about the alternative so that would be an adequate deterrent

neutron wrote: »

The last time I seen this happen was in the bad old days in Norn' Ireland.... the item in question was built to stop a tank...it was not a pretty sight.

They were testing the model similar to outside the US embassy in London on some TV show. It stopped a 7.5 ton truck dead from 50mph and still worked afterwards

Soby wrote: »

Well the driver should be taking off the road so..If they cant see signs that big

Exactly, we can leave the finer points of the case law to the lawyers but the driver should be penalised

Borneo Fnctn

rabbitinlights wrote: »

Why is there such force used in raising the bollard? The ones in Galway raise slowly and if there is any heavy resistance they fall again.

S.

For the lulz.

questioner

jhegarty wrote: »

Wow ,is that now the standard list of charges for someone who drives in a bus lane ?

No that would be the potential list of sanctions available if someone drove irresponsibly whilst in a bus lane.

get a hard neck judge and you could be liable for criminal damage to a bollard as well.

gustavine

JHMEG wrote: »

At least barriers that raise and lower are visible.

Not always visible.......:eek:
(About 20 seconds into video!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahegFo9X_uI&feature=related

Soby

gustavine wrote: »

Not always visible.......:eek:
(About 20 seconds into video!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahegFo9X_uI&feature=related

never gets old

Jip

why do people keep saying she broke the law ? What law did she break ?

Shane732

Overature wrote: »

what an idiot, typical beamer drivers

Lets not go down that road - and its BIMMER!!!!

Johnny Utah

Tbh, this thread is really starting to piss me off at this stage. Firstly, why would the op give a thumbs up in the thread title? I don't find it amusing at all seeing an expensive car badly damaged/possibly written off.

Secondly, the driver deserved to receive penalty points + fine for trying to use the bus lane, and with a sign indicating cameras in place, the use of this bus lane by private cars could be easily enforced. However, the driver didn't deserve to have their car written off and for anyone to suggest otherwise is simply idiotic. I hope she takes a case against the local authority and hopefully those automatic bollards will be banned from this country forever more.

Head The Wall wrote: »

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.

It was late at night and very dark when they were chasing the jeep at speed, so they simply didn't see it. The jeep was able to clear the sump breaker, but it stopped the cop car dead in its tracks.

Head The Wall

Jip wrote: »

why do people keep saying she broke the law ? What law did she break ?

Are you blind and can you not read, she was trying to use a bus lane. Is that not illegal in your eyes

Johnny Utah wrote: »

Tbh, this thread is really starting to piss me off at this stage. Firstly, why would the op give a thumbs up in the thread title? I don't find it amusing at all seeing an expensive car badly damaged/possibly written off.

Secondly, the driver deserved to receive penalty points + fine for trying to use the bus lane, and with a sign indicating cameras in place, the use of this bus lane by private cars could be easily enforced. However, the driver didn't deserve to have their car written off and for anyone to suggest otherwise is simply idiotic. I hope she takes a case against the local authority and hopefully those automatic bollards will be banned from this country forever more.

The OP gave a thumbs up becuase he thinks that this is the type of justice people that do this deserve. If she wasn't driving illegally, dangerously and with disregard for her vehicle this wouldn't have happened. It is purely the drivers fault. There's plenty more that also agree she got what she deserved and we all pay for these clowns through our insurance

You are probably so aggrieved because you are one of these very people that would do the same as her. And you have obviously had some issue like this previously if the thread is getting you this worked up. Take a chill pill

Or is that you on the TV3 clip above?

Jip

A bus lane in a private estate, who's going to give her the points, the security guards ? I doubt they have the same legal bearing as those on public roads.

And my eye sight is perfectly fine, thanks for asking.

Head The Wall

Jip wrote: »

A bus lane in a private estate, who's going to give her the points, the security guards ? I doubt they have the same legal bearing as those on public roads.

And my eye sight is perfectly fine, thanks for asking.

Well if you couldn't tell from the pictures and posts what was illegal I think I was justified to question your eyesight.

Being on private property doesn't make her exempt from the law. Rules still have to be followed

Guys down here have been prosecuted for doing handbrake turns on private property. So that debunks your theory