A Load Of Bollards

[Pip Madeley]

A news story that's been causing headlines here in Manchester...

Bollard drivers may end up in court

MOTORISTS who crash into Manchester's controversial rising bollards could face court action under a council crackdown. Two more cars collided with the bollards on Cross Street last week, the latest in a string of vehicles which have been damaged by the barriers. But city centre spokesman Pat Karney insisted the rising metal poles will stay in place and said Manchester city council planned to prosecute those who crash into them.

Mr Karney also blasted the "silly and selfish" motorists who have crashed into the bollards. The bollards are designed to allow buses and emergency vehicles through by activating a sensor but they rise again immediately after the vehicle has passed - blocking the way for any cars which are tailgating.

Mr Karney told the MEN: "We've got flashing warnings signs, we have loud audio warnings, and signs clearly saying no tailgating. What part of these warnings to these silly selfish motorists not get? We are going to be chasing these drivers to make sure they pay for any damage for the bollards, and we are checking to see if we can prosecute under the Road Traffic Act.

"The whole point of the bollards in the city centre is to maximise pedestrian safety on a small stretch of roadway, and we have been successful in making sure there have been no serious incidents involving people on foot. There seems to have been some suggestion that the council is reviewing the idea of bollards, but that is not the case. They are definitely going to stay."

Last week the MEN reported how the front of a £16,000 Citroen Xsara Picasso people carrier was extensively damaged when the vehicle hit the metal columns outside Boots on Cross Street, and it could even be an insurance write-off. A £45,000 Mercedes CLS-class 320 CDI also suffered huge damage when it hit a bollard near Albert Square.

Footage of some of the crashes here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJlsv2ZSIYE

So what do you think? I get off the bus right next to the bollards in question every weekday morning and I think they're great. Serves idiots right for trying to tailgate - the bollards are obvious and if you don't drive up the back of a bus then you have plenty of visual (and even aural) warnings. The footage above is hilarious!

[Jon Masters]

What an excellent invention - I love the fact the SUV women ends up with a sore head as you can see she accelerates to try to get through.

They could do with flame throwers on the top though which are activated by being hit

[Alex]

I was walking along the road last week when a friend shouted out my name, so I turned and saw him drive past. We briefly chatted, and then he sped off, and I stepped forward and smacked my 'bollards' right in to a bollard.

So for that reason alone, I think the bloody things should be banned!

[Captain Tancredi]

There are some in York which are weekday-only so they let buses in but make cars divert to the adjacent multi-storey. Nothing wrong with them per se, but of a weekend they tend to slow cars down because although they let cars in, they still seemed to have to "recognise" another car and still won't let you tailgate. The trouble is, it looks very much as if they're automatically operated and if it gets to the point where they start causing £16,000 cars to be written off then that strikes me as disproportionate. If the council start suing drivers then they might just find that the insurance companies will start going after the council on the grounds that the council know that the bollards are capable of causing that amount of damage but didn't take any action to alter them.

[Jason Thompson]

Well, the defence would be simple: the bollards are capable of causing that amount of damage only if you are stupid enough to put your car where it is not supposed to be. If you tailgate a bus and he has to slam his brakes on you could also get your car written off, but again only because you were doind something you were not supposed to do.

[Captain Tancredi]

It's the same kind of defence used by people who put broken glass on the top of their walls to deter burglars, and it tends not to wash.

[Paul Monk]

The bollards sound like a good idea. It there's plenty of visible warnings then car drivers have no excuse for driving into them.
And I hate tail gating. It pisses me off. Best thing to do is to slow right down and drive near to the centre line of the road. It really annoys them.

[WhiteCrowNZ]

A traffic calming measure that actually causes accidents huh? Sounds like a stupid idea.

[Paul Monk]

Its not traffic calming though is it? It traffic stopping.

[WhiteCrowNZ]

Where is Mr Traffic Safety, Rob McCow when you need him to explain why we need such things?

[Philipnet]

The rest of the article is slightly more enlightening:

Fire engine

A number of cars - plus a bus and even a fire engine - have been damaged in the past when bollards rose in front of them. They were installed three years ago, and should fall automatically when approached by Metroshuttle buses and emergency vehicles which are fitted with special sensors.

In April the M.E.N. revealed that the city council was facing a £6,000 insurance claim from Greater Manchester Fire Service, after one of its £330,000 fire engines collided with the metal bollards as it returned from carrying out safety checks in the city centre.

The engine which has a hydraulic platform, and was one of just six in the county, was off the road for two weeks undergoing repairs.

Investigation

One fire engine had already passed over the bollards moments before the crash, but the bollards rose as the second machine was about to pass. A subsequent investigation cleared the driver of any blame.

When I get home I might check the YouTube clips of this (YouTube is blocked at work ), but it seems to me to be a pretty good idea. However the council should not be "checking to see if we can prosecute under the Road Traffic Act" but actually know the full legality of these things as quite obviously they're pretty novel and unique.

I wonder if anyone has brought a test case against them in the three years that they've been there? You would expect only drivers unfamiliar with the area might be caught by them, but I wonder if any locals have?

[MinaHarker]

It's the same kind of defence used by people who put broken glass on the top of their walls to deter burglars, and it tends not to wash.

I disagree. These things have both visual and audio warnings. Why would you drive somewhere you are not allowed to?

[MinaHarker]

Well, the defence would be simple: the bollards are capable of causing that amount of damage only if you are stupid enough to put your car where it is not supposed to be. If you tailgate a bus and he has to slam his brakes on you could also get your car written off, but again only because you were doind something you were not supposed to do.

I quite agree.

[Paul Monk]

Most of the cars in that clip know exactly what they're doing as well, because they speed up and tail gate to try to beat the bollards rising again, which demonstrates that they are fully aware of them .

[Captain Tancredi]

I'm not going to post to this thread again because I don't think I'm making the point that I want to, but I repeat that wrecking a £16,000 car for trying to go down a bus-only street is disproportionate. You wouldn't be fined that much for doing it, and any insurance settlement will in the long run be paid for by everybody with motor insurance.

Many things appear to be good ideas until you factor in human stupidity (and/or panic reactions) and I think this is one of them. And I'd expect the authorities in Manchester to have more than the average experience of human stupidity.

[Jason Thompson]

wrecking a £16,000 car for trying to go down a bus-only street is disproportionate.

But the wrecking isn't intentional on the part of the council. The bollards are not there to wreck cars, they are there to stop them. The drivers are in effect wrecking their own cars, just as anyone who doesn't look where they're going might do if they run into a static bollard. The damage to a car that does that is disproportionate if you consider the bollard was put there to stop someone parking there, since you don't get fined that much for parking in a restricted space.

The rising bollards have plenty of warnings, and if drivers are stupid enough to try to drive over them they deserve to have their cars written off, frankly. Human stupidity should not be a factor in deciding what is and is not proportionate.

[Pip Madeley]

And I'd expect the authorities in Manchester to have more than the average experience of human stupidity.

Are you trying to say people from Manchester are more stupid than elsewhere in the UK?

I hope not...