www.boxertrix.com

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... d/519.html

Have a look, it's funny

Ali

Bloody white van men, they're a menace

Bollards!

Yogi Bear wrote:
Have a look, it's funny

Ali

Not to the people driving the cars it ain't

I must say I am impressed with the resiliance of the bollards.

Nu2beemers wrote:

Yogi Bear wrote:
Have a look, it's funny

Ali

Not to the people driving the cars it ain't

I must say I am impressed with the resiliance of the bollards.

Yeah but lets be honest they're all founding members of the brain trust as it's not exactly a hidden danger judging by the flashing signs in the video ...


Though I must admit I was a bit worried about what I presume is kids in the back of the black Lexus(?) SUV at the beginning which is what I presume the mother was rushing round to check. Bet he got an earfull when he got home !!!! Nice airbag deployment though

Toodle Pip

Plenty of those things in Cambridge and a surprising amount of cars were written off trying to get through when they were first installed. Twisted chassis anyone?

Adam

I sent this link to a few people at work and it's caused a lot of discussion (well, it beats working on a Friday afternoon ). A couple of people reckon that it's illegal to damage a person's property (car) just because they don't obey a traffic restriction, and if they were in that position they'd sue the council. I reckon it's OK as long as the intention of the bollards is to restrict access, not to cause damage. The damage is simply a side-effect of people ignoring signs and restrictions, and if you do that you've got what's coming to you.

Same as trying to drive under a car park barrier without paying (closely following the car in front) - if you get hit in the windscreen/on the roof by the barrier then that's tough - the barrier isn't intended to damage your car, only to impede your progress until you've paid, but if you break the rules you have to accept the possible consequences (a smashed screen or dented roof).

Well funny it may seem. Some people new to the area might not see or read the sign if their attention is distracted at he wrong moment. I'd be interested to see a court case involving an injured child, those bollards come up pretty sharpish. Both drivers and a passenger appear to have hit their heads. Injuring people who break the law is only allowed in third world countrys. The day a motorcyclist or child is killed or injured by one of those bollards the designer and installers should be locked up and the key thrown away. Society has some duty to protect innocent parties.

I can't believe those things havn't been removed after the first accident.

leitzscope wrote:Well funny it may seem. Some people new to the area might not see or read the sign if their attention is distracted at he wrong moment. I'd be interested to see a court case involving an injured child, those bollards come up pretty sharpish. Both drivers and a passenger appear to have hit their heads. Injuring people who break the law is only allowed in third world countrys. The day a motorcyclist or child is killed or injured by one of those bollards the designer and installers should be locked up and the key thrown away. Society has some duty to protect innocent parties.

I can't believe those things havn't been removed after the first accident.

Well they should be concentrating then shouldn't they, and as for a motorcyclist, how wide is your bike ?

There is something called individual responsibilty, something that the UK seems to be starting to forget and becoming increasingly like the absurdly litigatious US in that respect. You'd have to be far too close to the bus in the first place to be hit by those bollards as a pedestrian, and if it's a kid so young then the parent should be protecting them better. I don't let my kids walk around without holding my hand anywhere there is a risk to them.

l

I wasn't really meaning pedestrians. Kids in the back of cars aren't driving. Car stops violently, kid pokes eye out on pencil/toy etc. Whose fault is that? The inattentive driver or the designer of a potentially dangerous device? I taught kids in workshops for 35 years, we took every precaution. Golden rule - if it can happen - it will. I'm not a human rights control freak but kids and slack drivers need protecting against themselves.

Kids need guidence, slack drivers as you call them absolutely not. They need identified and trained ( retrained) properly, and if that doesn't work remove their driving privilages, because that's what they are, not a right. When you sign your licence you undertake to drive responsibly and if you can't even with training and advice, then you just simply shouldn't be allowed. We need more officers on the ground to catch these morons that you see day in day out with absolutely f@ck all regard for anyone but themselves and their journey.

And again it comes down to parental/individual responsibility, I don't let my kids have anything in the car that could cause them injury in the event of a collision. I'm always planning for someone else to be a w@nk on the road and as such I take every precaution I can, including as said, putting anything that could become a dangerous projectile to passengers in the event of a collision out of the way.

So who's fault is it, it's the parents/responsible adult if it's a child in answer to your question.

leitzscope wrote:Well funny it may seem. Some people new to the area might not see or read the sign if their attention is distracted at he wrong moment. I'd be interested to see a court case involving an injured child, those bollards come up pretty sharpish. Both drivers and a passenger appear to have hit their heads. Injuring people who break the law is only allowed in third world countrys. The day a motorcyclist or child is killed or injured by one of those bollards the designer and installers should be locked up and the key thrown away. Society has some duty to protect innocent parties.

I can't believe those things havn't been removed after the first accident.

I can't speak for Manchester but in Cambridge you get signs that indicate 'no throught route', 'buses only' etc long before you reach the bollards. If after all those warnings you're still c*nt enough to try and whip through then sorry, you deserve all you get.

As I posted in ukGSer, if you were to drive flat out at a brick wall would it be any different to driving at restriction bollards?

Adam

adamski49 wrote:

leitzscope wrote:Well funny it may seem. Some people new to the area might not see or read the sign if their attention is distracted at he wrong moment. I'd be interested to see a court case involving an injured child, those bollards come up pretty sharpish. Both drivers and a passenger appear to have hit their heads. Injuring people who break the law is only allowed in third world countrys. The day a motorcyclist or child is killed or injured by one of those bollards the designer and installers should be locked up and the key thrown away. Society has some duty to protect innocent parties.

I can't believe those things havn't been removed after the first accident.

I can't speak for Manchester but in Cambridge you get signs that indicate 'no throught route', 'buses only' etc long before you reach the bollards. If after all those warnings you're still c*nt enough to try and whip through then sorry, you deserve all you get.

As I posted in ukGSer, if you were to drive flat out at a brick wall would it be any different to driving at restriction bollards?

Adam

Well said Adam, there speaks the voice of a reasonable man. I was trying to be polite ( for a change ) but essentially wanted to say what you have.

leitzscope wrote:Well funny it may seem. Some people new to the area might not see or read the sign if their attention is distracted at he wrong moment. I'd be interested to see a court case involving an injured child, those bollards come up pretty sharpish. Both drivers and a passenger appear to have hit their heads. Injuring people who break the law is only allowed in third world countrys. The day a motorcyclist or child is killed or injured by one of those bollards the designer and installers should be locked up and the key thrown away. Society has some duty to protect innocent parties.

I can't believe those things havn't been removed after the first accident.

Absolutely correct!

The council should have a sniper fire a warning shot through their windscreen first, at least 5 seconds before the bollard rises

Al

[quote="leitzscope"] Society has some duty to protect innocent parties.

quote]

Absolutely. The pedestrians walking around the predominently pedestrian area should be protected from tw*ts like those drivers who are too f**king bone idle to park in the carpark and walk a few hundred yards to the shops and feel they have they have the god given right to ignore rules that the rest of us follow (ahem, speeding exempt from this last statement) and to park right outside the f**king shop doors.
These people make me sick and are the same ones who regularly park in disabled carparking spots just because they are closest to the shop doors, ignoring the empty but slightly further away spaces behind them

Still feel sorry for the kiddies though, not just because they might be injured but for having such selfish, arrogant parents who feel it is OK to teach their kids that the rules don't apply to them and for limiting the exercise the kids get by parking so close to the shops.

I hope they all rot in hell

Actually, that last bit may have been a bit over the top so strike that.