UK Bus Lane video

bennyx_o

Why can't we introduce something like this here?

Link

Anan1

That system is ridiculously dangerous.

RoundyMooney

That system is an excellent idea.

Already in place around Oliver Plunkett St., and environs in Cork, but in this case for the purposes of keeping all traffic out of the area during certain hours.

Anan1

RoundyMooney wrote:

That system is an excellent idea.

Would you still be saying that if somebody died?

RoundyMooney wrote:

Already in place around Oliver Plunkett St., and environs in Cork, but in this case for the purposes of keeping all traffic out of the area during certain hours.

That's a completely different thing, I have no problem with visible bollards.

bennyx_o

It's pretty well signposted with two lit no entry signs before it. I think that's enough to deter most motorists.

Anan1

bennyx_o wrote:

It's pretty well signposted with two lit no entry signs before it. I think that's enough to deter most motorists.

There will always be someone following a bus who just doesn't see the signs.

KeRbDoG

Great idea and already in use in Dublin, theres one near Blanchards town.

And if someone is tailgating a bus and ignores signs etc and hits them, tuff luck. Looking at the start of the video, theres huge signs saying no entry.

Chonker

kerbdog wrote:

Great idea and already in use in Dublin, theres one near Blanchards town.

And if someone is tailgating a bus and ignores signs etc and hits them, tuff luck. Looking at the start of the video, theres huge signs saying no entry.

I'm all for stopping dangerous drivers and fools on the road, but i see no place for a system also punishes passengers for the drivers mistakes.

I'm sure that vans passenger was in the wrong not to have his belt on but chances are people are going to get hurt. Good enough for the foolish driver but Kids and passengers?

iregk

Anan1 wrote:

That system is ridiculously dangerous.

No its actually perfectly safe. Its dangerous to gob****es that risk, their car, themselves and the welfare of their passengers. If they just obeyed the rules and didn't try their luck there would be no problem.

You can't say looking at that video that people didn't know or see the signs. The cars are flying after the bus to try and beat the bollards.

Anan1

iregk wrote:

No its actually perfectly safe. Its dangerous to gob****es that risk, their car, themselves and the welfare of their passengers. If they just obeyed the rules and didn't try their luck there would be no problem.

For the second time, there will always be drivers who simply don't see the signs.

iregk wrote:

You can't say looking at that video that people didn't know or see the signs. The cars are flying after the bus to try and beat the bollards.

Just because the cars in the video were trying to beat the bollards doesn't mean that every car that gets impaled is.

KeRbDoG

Chonker wrote:

I'm all for stopping dangerous drivers and fools on the road, but i see no place for a system also punishes passengers for the drivers mistakes.

I'm sure that vans passenger was in the wrong not to have his belt on but chances are people are going to get hurt. Good enough for the foolish driver but Kids and passengers?

I can understand what your saying but, its a legal requirement for the driver of a car/van to make sure all their passengers are wearing seat belts. If anyone in the car was to be hurt, it would fall down to the driver being at fault.

Boston

Anan1 wrote:

For the second time, there will always be drivers who simply don't see the signs.

You shouldn't be on the road if you can't read clearly marked sign posts.

ando

OUCH, that 4x4 certainly hit it hard

seamus

Anan1 wrote:

For the second time, there will always be drivers who simply don't see the signs.

Ignorance is no excuse. If you miss those signs, then you deserve to have your car impaled. Watching the video, any driver who simply "didn't see the signs" wouldn't be going nearly as fast, and wouldn't receive injuries remotely approaching a sore head.

According to the article, they're installed to reduce pedestrian deaths. If the price of less dead pedestrians is a few idiots (and their passengers) with sore heads, then bring it on.

deman

Anan1 wrote:

For the second time, there will always be drivers who simply don't see the signs.

Great idea. Those who don't see the signs would not be travelling at high enough speeds anyway. These cars that hit the blockades were driven by idiots trying to beat it rising.

Chonker

seamus wrote:

If the price of less dead pedestrians is a few idiots (and their passengers) with sore heads, then bring it on.

Your not wrong, I do agree with most of what you say.

My point is this, not everybody in the car should suffer because an Idiot is driving. Those things are dangerous to passengers and kids in particular, airbags wont save a child from a neck or a back injury. I just dont agree this is the best solution although I would have had I not seen the passengers head go through the windscreen or the child in the back getting shook around.

I'm all for stopping idiots, if a guy knocks somebody down because he's drunk or driving dangerously, slap some sense into him, but leave his innocent passengers alone.

iregk

Well look at the first shot. The road clearly has 4 big red signs that tell you no entry. Anyone who ignores or doesn't see these shouldn't be on the road!

Secondly with this system looking at the junction it seems a busy pedestrian street so you aint going to be driving fast. In that case look how fast the bollards come back up after the bus. If your driving normally and simply didn't see the signs then you will have ample time to stop and reverse out of there. The ones that got caught were fools trying to beat the bollards and couldn't make it. They are the ones that injured themselves and/or passengers. For this reason they shouldn't be on the road.

rabbitinlights

Anan1 wrote:

For the second time, there will always be drivers who simply don't see the signs.

By that thinking, Its OK to run a red light if you didnt see it, Its a drivers responability to see every sign and road marking. That 4x4 clearly sped up quite fast after the bus, I think that is a great system.

S.

_Kaiser_

kerbdog wrote:

Great idea and already in use in Dublin, theres one near Blanchards town.

Typically though they put it in and routed the buses up a too narrow street (I was on an AV class that tried to squeeze past an ESB truck one day and managed to scrape the whole right side of the bus. You could tell the driver wasn't paying though as he just kept going! :rolleyes:) only for the whole thing to be made obsolete when they opened the slip road 300 yards further up the N3 thus reducing the traffic going through the village anyway .

RoundyMooney

Anan1 wrote:

Would you still be saying that if somebody died?

Google Darwinism.

Anan1 wrote:

That's a completely different thing, I have no problem with visible bollards.

I never suggested it wasn't. A query was raised as to whether such a system could be put in place, to which I added what information I had. In any event, the difference is not as wide as you might imagine. Both systems consist of remotely operated drop down bollards, they seem very similiar in appearance to the ones depicted in the video, and visibility does not seem to be an issue. Any idiot driver that cannot obey the rules of the road deserves to have to fork out money to a body shop to have the front of their car straightened.

Gay Byrne was quite right when he said that at the end of the day, we are responsible for our own safety. Some may consider that a cop out, but it's closer to the truth than many would care to admit. No doubt, as I type this, some car packed with Brylcreem fringed goons is being pulled out of a ditch somewhere after a 5 am smash, and another family is destroyed for posterity.

Unfortunately lessons are not being learned.

franksm

Classic ! Did you see the speed that the black milf-wagon tried to go through ? Dummies.

I'm all for this kind of thing. Better, though, that they install redlight-cameras and buslane-cameras all over the place instead of speed cameras. They'll make a return on investment very quickly. I'd vote for whoever brought that into play...

johncm

RoundyMooney wrote:

That system is an excellent idea.

Already in place around Oliver Plunkett St., and environs in Cork, but in this case for the purposes of keeping all traffic out of the area during certain hours.

the only problem with the system in cork is that its broken more times than its working

the_syco

Anan1 wrote:

For the second time, there will always be drivers who simply don't see the signs.

Darwin springs to mind, tbh.

Also, the 1st car went up to the bollards, stopped, went back, and tried to go through after the bus.

Chonker wrote:

I'm all for stopping idiots, if a guy knocks somebody down because he's drunk or driving dangerously, slap some sense into him, but leave his innocent passengers alone.

His "innocent passengers" are often the ones who got him to drive them home. They now get fined as well as the driver.

=-=

All I cna say is that the f**ker in the black car got EVERYTHING he deserved. He, no doubt, is one who will speed through the lights when it goes from orange to red, instead of slowing down upon seeing the orange. And, no doubt, has narrowly avoided a collision with another car by the look of his driving. Hope he gets banned, tbh.

Chonker

the_syco wrote:

All I cna say is that the f**ker in the black car got EVERYTHING he deserved. .

If you found out his child was seriously hurt, would you still say that?

It seems to me that having just the camera there taking reg's in order to fine the fools would be a safer option.

I'm not defending the idiots, I just dont think you can punish everybody in the car for one mans mistake. By all means give an idiot driver who knocks somebody down a slap just dont go to his back seat and slap his child.

End of rant..

Sam Vimes

Anan1 wrote:

For the second time, there will always be drivers who simply don't see the signs.

Just because the cars in the video were trying to beat the bollards doesn't mean that every car that gets impaled is.

on most motorway exits there's massive signs saying "wrong way, turn back". you could argue we shouldn't have motorways in case people don't see the signs

and the signs in the vid are flashing bright red. the only way someone wouldn't see them is if they were driving a few inches behind the bus. even then it'd be difficult to miss them.

Captain Trips

Anan1 wrote:

For the second time, there will always be drivers who simply don't see the signs.

Surely if you can't see the signs you shouldn't be driving anywhere, anytime.

I wonder would an insurance claim be valid.

It is clear again that accidents have nothing to do with speed and all to with stupid people being allowed to drive.

Victor

There is already a bus gate in Blanchardstown and an area wide system in Templebar.

Anan1 wrote:

For the second time, there will always be drivers who simply don't see the signs.

But will go through the associated traffic lights? :rolleyes:

Chonker wrote:

If you found out his child was seriously hurt, would you still say that?

And what of the 200 pedestrians killed by cars in the UK every year - when the pedestrian was on the footpath.

TempestSabre

Chonker wrote:

If you found out his child was seriously hurt, would you still say that?

It seems to me that having just the camera there taking reg's in order to fine the fools would be a safer option.

I'm not defending the idiots, I just dont think you can punish everybody in the car for one mans mistake. By all means give an idiot driver who knocks somebody down a slap just dont go to his back seat and slap his child.

End of rant..

I don't get your point. These people are deliberately trying to drive dangerously, at speed, in a pedestrian zone in order to beat the bollards. They are not trundling along after a bus.

Stark

It's a bad idea for pretty much the same reasons why you can't install a device in your car that causes physical harm in order to deter thieves*. Much as I purred in satisfaction when I heard the story about the guy in the black car, and much as I would break out the fine liquor if I heard of a joyrider getting impaled on something, deliberately installing something that causes harm is a bad idea due to risk to innocent parties.

* Not that I don't really really really want to. Hmm actually, maybe they are a good idea, impaled idiots ahoy

TempestSabre

So if you have a locked gate and someone ramraids it and a passenger gets injured, thats wrong? Anyone driving at a reasonable speed isn't going to get injured by those bollards.

mloc123

I'd love to see thes brought in. I hate bus lane jumpers and make a point of not letting them back into the main lane, if only everyone else would too.

Anan1

TempestSabre wrote:

I don't get your point. These people are deliberately trying to drive dangerously, at speed, in a pedestrian zone in order to beat the bollards. They are not trundling along after a bus.

This quote is a good illustration of the dangers of spin.

TempestSabre

Anan1 wrote:

This quote is a good illustration of the dangers of spin.

I'd accept that if the video was edited. One even came back a 2nd time to the bollards to make the attempt at beating them. But you think you need to defend that? :rolleyes:

Anan1

TempestSabre wrote:

I'd accept that if the video was edited. One even came back a 2nd time to the bollards to make the attempt at beating them. But you think you need to defend that? :rolleyes:

I have never tried to defend the drivers in the clip, nor would I. The point I have been making since the beginning of this thread is that such a system is inherently dangerous. No amount of videos showing lunatics trying to beat the bollards can change that basic fact.

Munurty

I think the idea of the system is good but the end result of a crash benefits nobody. Why couldn't they just but a simple barrier like we have in hundreds of car parks around the country.

Victor

Would those opposing such bollards also oppose barriers in car parks?

TempestSabre

Anan1 wrote:

I have never tried to defend the drivers in the clip, nor would I. The point I have been making since the beginning of this thread is that such a system is inherently dangerous. No amount of videos showing lunatics trying to beat the bollards can change that basic fact.

Its like trying to ban truncheons because criminals might get hurt.

Anan1

TempestSabre wrote:

Its like trying to ban truncheons because criminals might get hurt.

How is it like that?

TempestSabre

Anan1 wrote:

How is it like that?

A truncheon is inherently dangerous.

Gatster

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/225/225933_drivers_lose_the_bollards_battle.html

This is right in the center of Manchester near the Arndale. The bollards are up all the time unless a vehicle equipped with the sensor approaches. They are in use all over Manchester and have been for a while. Although this sort of thing does happen, it's pretty rare as ther are so many signs. Read the article above, the second woman chose to ignore the signs, which is usually what happens as there are numerous warnings wherever these are in place, and usually opportunites to turn round and go back or turn off these streets.

Ciaran500

Anan1 wrote:

The point I have been making since the beginning of this thread is that such a system is inherently dangerous.

There is nothing dangerous about this system if a driver just follows the rules of the road. Its the same way a cross road is inherently dangerous if someone doesn't follow a stop sign.

subway

they have these in town around temple bar,
nobody has died, i dont see anyone down there protesting that the system is dangerous....

Anan1

Ciaran500 wrote:

There is nothing dangerous about this system if a driver just follows the rules of the road. Its the same way a cross road is inherently dangerous if someone doesn't follow a stop sign.

Would you apply the same reasoning to an unmanned level crossing - ie "perfectly safe if you just follow the rules"?

subway wrote:

they have these in town around temple bar,
nobody has died, i dont see anyone down there protesting that the system is dangerous....

Is this a joke?

TempestSabre

I saw someone walk under a open barrier in a carpark and get clobbered. Does that mean they are dangerous. In fairness a spoon is dangerous in the wrong hands.

Anan1

TempestSabre wrote:

I saw someone walk under a open barrier in a carpark and get clobbered. Does that mean they are dangerous. In fairness a spoon is dangerous in the wrong hands.

To be perfectly honest, if you can't see that reinforced steel bollards that come out of the road at speed and bring a car and its occupants to an instant halt, bypassing the car's crumple zones, are inherently dangerous, then I really can't help you.

TempestSabre

People can drive into anything, even a tree stump and do that. However these bollards are heavily signposted and the vehicle in front has to stop for them. So these drivers know they are there. You'd have to be doing a dangrous speed for there to be any serious impact, and if you are doing that in this scenerio then they need to be stopped. That drivers more likely to kill someone than the bollard is.

Ciaran500

Anan1 wrote:

Would you apply the same reasoning to an unmanned level crossing - ie "perfectly safe if you just follow the rules"?

Well, yes

Anan1 wrote:

To be perfectly honest, if you can't see that reinforced steel bollards that come out of the road at speed and bring a car and its occupants to an instant halt, bypassing the car's crumple zones, are inherently dangerous, then I really can't help you.

You are avoiding his question.

They only bypass the crumble zones if someone is tailgating the bus or is trying to speed in behind the bus.

Gatster

Generally the areas 'protected' by the bollards (in Manchester) are those of heavy pedestrian traffic, and right or wrong people wander across the roads without paying much attention to traffic. The traffic they do pay attention to is buses etc. not cars. Anyone racing to get over the bollards is more of a danger than the bollards themselves in the areas concerned as pedestrians could (and do) just step out...

Sam Vimes

Anan1 wrote:

To be perfectly honest, if you can't see that reinforced steel bollards that come out of the road at speed and bring a car and its occupants to an instant halt, bypassing the car's crumple zones, are inherently dangerous, then I really can't help you.

they are dangerous only to people who have extremely poor vision. there are massive electronic flashing no entry signs on both sides of the bollards. the road that they block is a pedestrian road so people shouldn't be on it in the first place, never mind driving fast enough to cause themselves serious injury.

they're dangerous in the same way as traffic lights are dangerous. if someone ignores them, they'll get minced from the side by other cars. we can't get rid of stuff just because the incurably retarded people in our society try to chance their arm

Yakuza

I have to agree with Anan here - not only is this thing unbeliveably dangerous, it punishes all the occupants of the car, not only the idiot driver.

No one "deserves" to have serious whiplash injuries for a minor traffic infraction, and certainly their passengers (some of whom will be small children, which are much more fragile) do not either.

What if the car's engine made it past the bollards, so now these things are coming through the floor pan - sharp metal shards cutting up your legs. Lovely.

TempestSabre

Why would you get in a car with an idiot driver who rams traffic bollards?