Corporation Street Manchester: The bollards that take no prisoners!1

[Satch]

Cannot let small matters like the truth gum up the works of the Personal Injury Claim industry. Just think of the huge numbers of PI lawyers who would out of a job.

But no matter what, I suspect anybody who did stick a PI claim would stand an above average chance of getting some "go away" payoff. They simply should not be doing that. There are some rising bollards I pass quite frequently and after a bus goes through they wait about 5 seconds and then rise up quite slowly.

 

[Howard]

But they are set to rise when the 'permitted' vehicle is past .... which they do ...

If they were going to build in a delay ... how long should it be ? how long is a piece of string ?

What if the bus pulled through the bollards and then had to wait while a stream of traffic cleared , OK , the bollards could have a 10 second delay built into them before they popped up but if someone is sitting over them and the bus doesn't move for 10 secs then the same thing will happen .....

People know what the bollards do , and are just chancing their luck ...

As has been said before , these are the sort of people who drive the wrong way down one way streets, just because it helps them get to their destination a bit quicker .....

They shouldn't be in there, they shouldn't be tailgating buses , apparently they can't read big LED signs saying 'No Entry' ....

If they are that dumb , then they get what they deserve .... evolution will eventually whittle down these slow witted fools.....

I know if it had been me that had been that stupid, i would go and find a group of scaffolders or builders and say 'guys, i've been a prat, can you give me hand to bounce my car off these bollards please .....' Then i would go and hang my head in shame, not start a legal battle .....

 

[Satch]

Howard,

you are quite right but I really think it is a case of the Manchester anti-Traffic Spetznaz having badly overcooked it. If some prat was going fast enough trying to tailgate a bus possible those damn things could rise up through the floor pan. It is simply not on for anyone to create potentially dangerous devices just to stop a bit of illegal parking.

The DfT guidance exists for a reason and if they are breach they will always be on the back foot in any claim against them, no matter the rights and wrongs of the circumstances.



S.

 

[Rose Chap]

Tricky one this.

As much as I agree with Howard about stupid people getting their just deserts, I also like to see people get one over on local councils and their officious little ways.

I think if you want to chance chasing after a bus and you get through, thereby allowing you to drive (safely of course blah blah) where you otherwise wouldn't be able to get then congratulations! If you get collared by the filth or impaled on a post in doing so then its your own fault.

Freedom to act, and courage to accept the consequences of that action.

 

[Shude]

If some prat was going fast enough trying to tailgate a bus possible those damn things could rise up through the floor pan. It is simply not on for anyone to create potentially dangerous devices just to stop a bit of illegal parking.

Surely it's the same thing for FIXED bollards? I mean if I drive into one at high speed and it damages my car and me then I'm worse of than if it wasn't there in the first place!

COMPO!

 

[BTB 500]

Yup, and how about the artificial width restrictors and/or chicanes that are used sometimes for 'traffic calming' - I bet people hit those through driving badly (or too fast). Surely no basis for sueing though?

 

[Satch]

Ah, but you can see a fixed bollard etc and thus be fully aware of the danger. If someone drives into one at speed then almost certainly 100% Contributary Negligence and their tough luck.

Do not forget people have sued Councils for damage caused by badly designed speed humps etc and won. Earlier this year guy in my office just wrote a letter to his Council claiming for two new Cats. for his W210 after a newly installed speed hump had hammered one. After a bit of aggro got a full payout because he was not alone and Council had ripped out the humps a few days after installing them because they admitted they were plain wrong.

So create any potential hidden hazard to road users, no matter what the intention, and better be 100% sure that all reasonable steps have been taken to properly warn & protect road users and their vehicles from damage. If not will be in a world of legal pain even if only from someone taking a punt.

May be that some firm of no cure no pay PI Claim lawyers will be cooking up a Class Action and at this moment there is queue of Mancunian chancers forming just waiting for the next bus!

The DfT Guidance do exist for a reason.

 

[BTB 500]

You'd think that bright red 'No Entry' in LEDs would be adequate signage.
That's a pretty universally understood sign, and if you go past you're breaking the law anyway - which would surely undermine any claim.

 

[Swiss Toni]

You'd think that bright red 'No Entry' in LEDs would be adequate signage.
That's a pretty universally understood sign, and if you go past you're breaking the law anyway - which would surely undermine any claim.

Common sense might suggest so, but....

The risk of injury is significant and the offence is minor - so disproportionate to the "crime".

It might undermine and damages, but unlikely to change the proportionality issue?

 

[BTB 500]

The risk of injury is significant

Only to people who accelerate through as hard as possible once the bus is clear, trying to beat the bollards (e.g. the 4x4 and the van).

Anyone 'innocently' driving through (e.g. the silver hatchback) will be going pretty slowly - having had to stop while the bus goes through. So I reckon the risk of injury (as opposed to vehicle damage) would be very low.