Ban the Bollards!, Legislation to control use of electronic gates / bollards Options

[On the edge]

The Government is intending to stop clampers operating on private land because they are damaging property and inflicting penalties out of all proportion to the offence. Should they also consider banning the use of electronic gates and bollards; which in effect do the same thing, but automatically. In effect, the apparatus generally writes off a vehicle, for what was a momentary lack of attention. The clampers never did that - they simply imposed large penalties, often far less than the vehicle value.

[gardeb]

The Newbury bollards are a part of street furniture and road signage as traffic lights and one way street signs are.(cyclists excepted of course).
Unfortunately momentary lapses whilst driving kills and injures people. Those who collide with the bollards are not paying attention to the very obvious warnings.
The proposed anti-clamping legislation (at last) also only refers to private land not the public highway and what about the cost to the local taxpayer for repairs.

[On the edge]

The Newbury bollards are a part of street furniture and road signage as traffic lights and one way street signs are.(cyclists excepted of course).
Unfortunately momentary lapses whilst driving kills and injures people. Those who collide with the bollards are not paying attention to the very obvious warnings.
The proposed anti-clamping legislation (at last) also only refers to private land not the public highway and what about the cost to the local taxpayer for repairs.

But momentary lapses don't necessarily kill or injure - as other threads here have demonstrated. It seems that many Newbury drivers have lapses (deliberate or otherwise) when it comes to lane markings. They also regularly speed and drive through red lights - far far more dangerous. Even if they are stopped, they might get fined, they don't get the car confiscated for good.

Similarly, some even feel it appropriate to go through red lights. Yet no one has yet been killed by someone driving in the pedestrian area! Yet we seem to feel it legitimate to write off the vehicle of anyone who does get through the net.

With regard to 'damage to council property' - presumably the same 'damage' is inflicted to private property but in that case its the poor old property owner that gets it - not spread amongst a mass of charge payers.

Using the logic that says heavy electric gates and automatic bollards are OK - provided a notice is put up, the answer for landowners wanting to stop illegal parking on their land is to install such devices?

That would mean that sump busters and exit spikes must also be legitimate.

[dannyboy]

But momentary lapses don't necessarily kill or injure - as other threads here have demonstrated. It seems that many Newbury drivers have lapses (deliberate or otherwise) when it comes to lane markings. They also regularly speed and drive through red lights - far far more dangerous. Even if they are stopped, they might get fined, they don't get the car confiscated for good.

Similarly, some even feel it appropriate to go through red lights. Yet no one has yet been killed by someone driving in the pedestrian area! Yet we seem to feel it legitimate to write off the vehicle of anyone who does get through the net.

With regard to 'damage to council property' - presumably the same 'damage' is inflicted to private property but in that case its the poor old property owner that gets it - not spread amongst a mass of charge payers.

Using the logic that says heavy electric gates and automatic bollards are OK - provided a notice is put up, the answer for landowners wanting to stop illegal parking on their land is to install such devices?

That would mean that sump busters and exit spikes must also be legitimate.

You need to do some reading up on the way in which clampers operate.

[Blake]

LEAVE THE BOLLARDS ALONE!

They are doing their job. If someone dumb enough impales their car on one, they deserve everything they get.

We have heard all the excuses as to why people drive onto them and none of them has a grain of honesty. These people are chancers who look to blame someone else. I'd actually like to see more bollards.

My only frustration is that WBC often fails to get back from these hooligan drivers the full cost of the damage repairs they have to carry out afterwards. Still, with the austerity of the current time, maybe they will start doing so.

[On the edge]

LEAVE THE BOLLARDS ALONE!

They are doing their job. If someone dumb enough impales their car on one, they deserve everything they get.

We have heard all the excuses as to why people drive onto them and none of them has a grain of honesty. These people are chancers who look to blame someone else. I'd actually like to see more bollards.

My only frustration is that WBC often fails to get back from these hooligan drivers the full cost of the damage repairs they have to carry out afterwards. Still, with the austerity of the current time, maybe they will start doing so.

Well then - lets also leave the clampers alone - exactly the same applies! Oooh I didn't see the signs, or I was only a minute or so over... As to the cost of damaging the bollards - that cuts as no ice. Who installed them in the first place? That should have been taken into consideration. So the concept is about as daft as imposing a tax which costs more to collect than it brings in.

[dannyboy]

Well then - lets also leave the clampers alone - exactly the same applies! Oooh I didn't see the signs, or I was only a minute or so over... As to the cost of damaging the bollards - that cuts as no ice. Who installed them in the first place? That should have been taken into consideration. So the concept is about as daft as imposing a tax which costs more to collect than it brings in.

If the clampers played by the rules I'd agree - but they don't. The forthcoming ban is their own greedy fault.

[On the edge]

If the clampers played by the rules I'd agree - but they don't. The forthcoming ban is their own greedy fault.

What 'rules' are those then? A code of practice? So, lets get this right. If WBC's contractors had installed according to the 'Code of Practice' issued not by a trade association but by the Department of Transport the bollards would not have damaged vehicles - look it up, its still there! The 'clampers' problem was not the code of practice, more the unbending 'automatic' imposition of penalties and the financial amount taken from their victims... see the similarity. Yes, clampers are greedy and unreasonable. What of the mind set of those installing rising bollards?

[Andy Capp]

I kind of agree with you, although clampers were out to make money, where as the council failed on that score.

[dannyboy]

What 'rules' are those then? A code of practice? So, lets get this right. If WBC's contractors had installed according to the 'Code of Practice' issued not by a trade association but by the Department of Transport the bollards would not have damaged vehicles - look it up, its still there! The 'clampers' problem was not the code of practice, more the unbending 'automatic' imposition of penalties and the financial amount taken from their victims... see the similarity. Yes, clampers are greedy and unreasonable. What of the mind set of those installing rising bollards?

So if the council is wrong & installed the bollards incorectly & against the guidelines howcome no insurance company has made them pay for the damage done to so many cars?
Where there is blame, there is a claim, No?

[Andy]

What 'rules' are those then? A code of practice? So, lets get this right. If WBC's contractors had installed according to the 'Code of Practice' issued not by a trade association but by the Department of Transport the bollards would not have damaged vehicles - look it up, its still there! The 'clampers' problem was not the code of practice, more the unbending 'automatic' imposition of penalties and the financial amount taken from their victims... see the similarity. Yes, clampers are greedy and unreasonable. What of the mind set of those installing rising bollards?

In what way have they not followed the Code of Practice?

[Iommi]

I think the code of practice is an advisory. It is to allow for a certain amount of tail-gateing.

[On the edge]

So if the council is wrong & installed the bollards incorectly & against the guidelines howcome no insurance company has made them pay for the damage done to so many cars?
Where there is blame, there is a claim, No?

You mentioned that the clampers were being hit by the Government because they broke the rules. I pointed out the rules they broke were actually a code of practice. There is a code of practice for bollard installation. Clearly, a code of practice has the same effect in both cases - can be ignored with impunity. Even if one (the bollards) was issued by a Government department! The Insurance company policy simply reinforces the point.

[On the edge]

In what way have they not followed the Code of Practice?

The code of practice recommends that if the bollards 'sense' that a vehicle is being tailgated, they should retract to prevent damage to the vehicle - on the grounds that it is safer to let a few vehicles through.

[Andy]

The code of practice recommends that if the bollards 'sense' that a vehicle is being tailgated, they should retract to prevent damage to the vehicle - on the grounds that it is safer to let a few vehicles through.

They already do do that.

If the tailgater is close enough then they retract in time, if not then the car drives into the bollard as it's already risen too much.

[Iommi]

Recommended viewing

Average White Band - Let's Go Round Again

Then...

Average White Band - Pick Up The Pieces

[dannyboy]

You mentioned that the clampers were being hit by the Government because they broke the rules. I pointed out the rules they broke were actually a code of practice. There is a code of practice for bollard installation. Clearly, a code of practice has the same effect in both cases - can be ignored with impunity. Even if one (the bollards) was issued by a Government department! The Insurance company policy simply reinforces the point.

Code of Practice / rules = same thing really.
The bollards do retract - if a car approaches - but the driver does have to wait for them to do this.

[gardeb]

Clamping as discussed here refers to private property and the demanding there and then of money rather than the use of the judicial system to seek redress by the property owner not those people who coerce individuals to pay up.
As I said, in the case of the bollards they are public street furniture just as signs are.
Perhaps they should be turned into concrete and then we can see whether the council signage makes any difference to those who seek to ignore the warnings.

[dannyboy]

Clamping as discussed here refers to private property and the demanding there and then of money rather than the use of the judicial system to seek redress by the property owner not those people who coerce individuals to pay up.
As I said, in the case of the bollards they are public street furniture just as signs are.
Perhaps they should be turned into concrete and then we can see whether the council signage makes any difference to those who seek to ignore the warnings.

What a lot of clampers have done is offer their services to owners of private car parks saying that they can ensure that the car park is free for the owners use & that of authorised vehicles.

The reality is that the clampers hide in wait & clamp anything with 4 wheels that is not authorised in writing. Including visitors who were away from their cars seeking authorisation to park!
When the owner of said car park then tries to terminate said contract they find the very cleverly worded document they signed makes it very hard to do so.

Take the car park down at the post office sorting depot in Thatcham for instance.....

[HeatherW]

The trouble with bollards is that when they are knocked over nobody picks them up and they become a nuisance. Actually more than that, dangerous.