Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Blake May 19 2009, 08:47 AM

Has someone hit the bollards in the town center again?

How many times has it been now. Seems to happen almost twice a month.

Posted by: funinuk May 19 2009, 10:15 AM

My window looks directly onto the Bartholomew Street bollards and can see everything going on outside.
Today a woman from out of town hit the bollards, oil is all over the road and her car is damaged, yesterday an elderly woman hit the bollards (and her head against the windowscreen) again, oil all over the road and a very damaged car.
Last week an elderly man and a young man hit the bollards.
I have been here foe just over 3 months and have seen al least 10 people hit these bollards and that is not counting people who actually manage to get over them!
Quite obviously they are not working and are not as 'visable' as people claim. They should be replace with a lift up arm or a camera which records the numberplates and sends out bills to those who drive in the restricted area.
It is so sad to see these people break down and cry when they realise what a silly misjudgement they have made and it's worse when the little green wardens come running almost instantly, ready with their pens and tickets to allocate another blow. Pathetic!

Posted by: Good Boy Racer May 19 2009, 10:36 AM

I noticed last night driving through town... as i do that there was some salt around those bollards near Varsity. I see it all the time now. Drivers really need to think!

Posted by: Bill1 May 19 2009, 11:10 AM

Funinuk.

You've seen people successfully follow buses or whatever and beat the rising bollards?

Posted by: Simon May 19 2009, 11:40 AM

Bottom line is that if drivers are not paying attention to the signs then they wont be paying attention to the roads. I think hitting the bollards is the expensive wake up call they need, or they could end up hitting something far more valuable.

Posted by: Wicca May 19 2009, 11:55 AM

I agree with Simon, there are plenty of signs around stating that there are rising bollards, people just don't pay attention.

Posted by: GMR May 19 2009, 12:16 PM

People complain that the signs are too high. Maybe it is a glasses problem.

Posted by: Iommi May 19 2009, 03:20 PM

While the majority of drivers do not hit the bollards, what is clear is that this isn't good publicity for the town. Hardly a welcome from Newbury potential customers would expect. I don't buy the idea either that because someone fails to acknowledge the signage (which is overload in that area), they are very likely to hit a pedestrian.

Posted by: Simon May 19 2009, 03:53 PM

Other towns have bollards, and Im sure they have as many problems with people hitting them as we do in Newbury. Its not the bollards or the signage, its the drivers. If you are a visitor to our glorious town, then you should be paying more attention to the roads and signage as you will not know the area.

Im fed up of excuses, and im sorry if anyone on here has hit the bollards, but the message has to be "drive carefully"

I would be devistated if i hit a bollard, but i would only blame myself

Posted by: Twenty Something May 19 2009, 04:15 PM

I agree with the above. It is a case of being careful and driving sensibly, I think people hitting the bollards is more a case of trying to traffic-dodge and thinking 'I'm sure it will be OK just this once' until the inevitable happens.

I am sure even if the signs were lower down, larger etc, people would find another way to protest their innocence!! When I go to other towns/cities I am extra aware of hazards such as bollards.

At the end of the day I would rather have the bollards and have a pedestrianised high street, rather than dodging cars on a shopping trip!

Posted by: J C May 19 2009, 04:39 PM

Manchester for example have installed CCTV and you can see the results on youtube. Pretty much every video shows that the person knows exactly what they are doing and are tailgating a bus or taxi into the restricted area. I have no sympathy towards these people and unfortunately they get what they deserve

Posted by: Iommi May 19 2009, 05:48 PM

Of course, in law, it is only the drivers fault. Provided that the road and signage is legal (I have heard allegations that the signage or layout in that area is not 100% proper). What is also fact is this is happening. It is unpleasant and it costs us tax payers (full cost of repair of the bollards is not currently recovered from the driver's insurance).

A part of the problem is poor road infrastructure. Also, the pedestrian area isn't a faithful pedestrian zone, as some vehicles are permitted access. It is therefore ambiguous to have a bollard notice in a place with a speed limit notice.

It is becoming increasingly harder to travel round towns these days due to unusual road designs and an overload of signage. I am familiar with the area and I still have to spend time checking the sings to make sure nothing has changed and I am in the correct lane, etc.

If Newbury had the appropriate road infrastructure, we could have permanent pedestrian areas, but while we have a mixed use environment we will continue to have these regrettable incidents.

Posted by: GMR May 19 2009, 08:30 PM

I was talking to someone in town and they said they might paint them a bright colour..

Posted by: GrumblingAgain May 19 2009, 09:23 PM

Agreeing with Simon and Twenty Something.

I am sure that most of the time it is drivers seeing the traditional MotorCycle jumping the Car sign (No motor vehicles) and thinking to themselves "that doesn't apply to me". I think they treat that sign as a "no entry but if you think you want to go this way feel free it doesn't matter"!

You would have thought that the additional text of "Except buses and taxis" below it would be a clue, but obviously not. If anyone claims that they seriously did not see the "No motor vehicles" sign, then they shouldn't be driving, full stop. Next time it will be them not noticing the "Give Way" at a cross roads, with fatal results.

Sorry, but no sympathy whatsoever, and as others say, if your a stranger in a town, you should be paying EVEN MORE attention to your surroundings.

As for those who know the restriction (and anyone from Newbury & Thatcham and nearby villages would) and choose to "beat the system" and get it wrong - hard luck!

Posted by: Margo May 19 2009, 11:56 PM

That elderly lady yesterday (Monday) I think was me. I hit these bollards while following another vehicle and my car is a write off. If you were the very kind lady from the office who came to help me thank you so much. I did hit my head and I think was very dazed and could not stand for a while, and my arms and chest have huge bruises and so far have whiplash cannot move my right arm above my head. My headache is still quite bad but thankfully I did not harm anybody. Yes I cried when I realised I had gone wrong but I did not see the signs. I am not a careless driver and I was not trying to race or cut corners as other letters on this site seem to indicate. I simply was a visitor and was baffled by where I was since the road usage has changed since \i was there before. I have not ever done anything like this before, I am not a criminal and not usually careless. I am very angry at this aggressive way of controlling traffic without sufficient signage but I really want to say a huge thankyou to all who helped me to contact relatives to rescue me, brought me a cup of tea and helped move and empty my car.
A special thankyou also to my son Mark who left his business to come and collect me.

Margaret Oakton.

Posted by: Gumbo May 20 2009, 08:55 AM

You have my sympathies Margaret, unfortunately you will find that some people on this site are perfect and never make mistakes. The system is rubbish and dangerous. I have said it before and I will say it again the correct way to punish motorists who miss the signs or want to cheat is to have a camera that catches them and then sends them a nice little fine and 3 points in the post. This does not destroy the vehicle, this does not mean any harm will come to anybody, this does not mean the tax payer becomes liable for bollard repairs and it does mean that the person will learn from their mistake. As previous posters have said there are too many signs at the moment and if you are coming in to the town for the first time in a long time unless you are driving at 2mph and ignoring all other traffic around you then there is a good chance you will miss one of them.

No doubt you will join that ever growing list (and I am not just talking of people who get impaled on bollards) of people who say "I am never going to that town again".

Posted by: Hugh Saskin May 20 2009, 09:51 AM

These incidents have gone on long enough to warrant some detailed and measured research as to why they occur, and seemingly will keep occurring unless something is done. Surely the common denominator is not the drivers involved, but the bollards themselves and associated signing? Might it be worth commisioning some agency like the Road Research Laboratory or Quinetic in Farnborough to undertake such a study and see what recommendations they produce? Oh, sorry - that would be in an ideal world and I was forgetting the cost involved

Posted by: Blake May 20 2009, 11:03 AM

I have no sympathy with anyone who drives onto the bollards for this reason; reading road signs is an essential part of driving.

When learning to drive, you are taught this and it it has inherent legal implications. I have inspected the area where the bollards are and they are VERY well signposted.

I just hope WBC is reclaiming ALL the expenses of repairing the bollards from the dodgy drivers insurance firms.

Posted by: Gumbo May 20 2009, 11:33 AM

Congratulations on being so perfect Blake. I hope when the day comes and you make a terrible mistake (and you will because although you think you are perfect you are in fact human) other people will show you more compassion than you have shown poor Margaret here.

Posted by: Andy May 20 2009, 12:34 PM

I too have no real sympathy for drivers who cannot pay basic attention to road signs, but mabye improvements to the system can be made.

Perhaps the Council could get together with Reading buses and have a "Warning Rising Bollards" notice light up on the back of the buses, as mostly the accidentts are caused by tailgaters far too close to the buses, which could be linked automatically to the same signal that causes the bollards to drop.

Posted by: Iommi May 20 2009, 01:03 PM

WBC are NOT able to recover all the costs, this solution costs the tax payers money. The area is sign posted, but I repudiate that is is well signposted. I also suggest that the road layout is a poor one and is confusing to the layman. Despite the legal fault being with the driver, the punish metered out is both painful and expensive, all for a retentively trivial victimless offence. This also doesn't include the cost in wasted energy and materials involved in clearing up incidence like these.

Posted by: Gumbo May 20 2009, 02:34 PM

You can't reason with some of this lot Iommi they want to see these poor people punished for some reason. As you point out the punishment doesn't really fit the crime. They will state that what if a driver managed to get through, think of the carnage it could cause!!! but lets be honest here buses and other vehicles regularly go up and down Northbrook St during the day so I can't see that the odd car or two will cause mayhem.

A few weeks back my parents made a similar error while in Reading, they managed to find themselves in a bus lane cutting across the IDR by the VUE cinema. Was their car demolised for this error? no it wasn't, they got caught by a camera that detects vehicles using the lane and received a lovely litte fine in the post. Job done, lesson learnt, nobody hurt etc etc

If the insurance companies aren't picking up the bill here then it down to us taxpayers and I for one would prefer a better system rather than this stupid gimmicky one!

Posted by: Hugh Saskin May 20 2009, 03:36 PM

This is all slightly analogous with the Ladbroke Grove railway collision albeit on a very small scale, remember that? In that instance signal SN109 had previously been passed at danger without authority on several previous occasions before the collision. We all know that train drivers are supposed to stop at red signals but these blokes, all different, didn't. The subsequent inquiry identified all sorts of deficiencies which needed to be addressed (admittedly, driver training was one of them) but also found the whole layout, as it existed, was wrong, although it had been in use for some time. Sure, we can sit back and say 'I've no sypathy with them' but are we just to sit back and accept things as they are - some kind of grotesque spectator sport - or actually see what can be done in the way of mitigation measures? If I were unlucky enough to find myself as a stranger in Newbury whose car had been totalled by these bollards and then found that concern had been expressed on a regular basis as to their being fit for purpose, I would consult the best lawyer I could find with a view to suing the council for lack of action.

Posted by: Simon May 20 2009, 03:47 PM

I love how personal some people take this subject and how aggresive it makes others.

Bottom line is the signs in place ARE fine otherwise we would be getting people hitting the bollards all day everyday. I do feel sorry for the people who have hit the bollards, and yes the lessons are harsh but they won't do it again.

As for us paying for it, the council should claim from the drivers insurance - is there any reason why that can't happen?

Also to the lady who hit the bollard and smashed her head, I really hope your ok,but im intrested in what speed you were doing to cause such injuries and did you have your seat belt on. Im not having a go, just curious

We are never going to agree on this subject, but does anyone know who we can speak to about our ideas to improve the current situation.

Posted by: Iommi May 20 2009, 05:18 PM

I have little sympathy with people that try their luck, but some aren't and it seems like a heavy penalty to pay to me.I see your point, but the existence of camera+fine has its own ugly side I feel.May I refer you to an old news item which goes some way to explain the situation...

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article.aspx?articleID=9622

...put it this way, it suggests West Berkshire Council's position here is not legally water tight in so far as being entitled to full compensation to repair the bollards after impact. I have also heard from people that allege the implementation of the bollards in places possibly fails to meet some standard installation guidelines and in fact might be unenforceable should anyone want to pursue the issue.

Posted by: GMR May 20 2009, 05:58 PM

The trouble is we all mistakes..... There is no such thing as a perfect and observable driver.

Posted by: Never Again! May 20 2009, 11:06 PM

The voice of common sense. Thank you Hugh.
I believe I was the lady from out of town that was hit by the bollards the day after Margo. It was my first and last visit to Newbury. I wasn't speeding or driving recklessly, I was merely trying to find my way to the car park and ended up in the wrong lane due to poor directional signage with no way of escaping. I couldn't reverse back down the one way street into a busy junction or mount the raised kerb between the two lanes as that would be breaking the law. If the lane divider was merely a thick white line I could have quickly and easily corrected my mistake, no harm no fowl. Instead my car has been deliberately damaged by the bollards to prevent me committing a minor traffic offence. An extreme measure which has resulted in the 'potential' hazard being diverted from the pedestrain and becoming a 'certain' hazard to the road user. The supposed justification for this is that I may have run over a pedestrian. You can't tell me that the pedestrians in Newbury are immune to being hit by buses and taxis!
It is because I was watching out for the traffic in front of me as well as the pedestrians around me, on top of trying to navigate around unfamiliar territory that I didn't see the signs for the bollards eight foot up in the air above the car roofline. At the time I was not aware that I was committing an offence. I thought I could carry on around the one way system and somehow find my way back to the car park......or go home. Then it hit me! I will not be visiting Newbury again. Comments from passing slack jawed yokels did nothing to endear me to the town either.
I would like to thank the people who helped move my car out of the way and the car park attendants that gave me a cup of tea.

Posted by: AmieB May 21 2009, 07:41 AM

I think more signs are needed to make drivers more aware of the bollards. Now I know we are all aware, but we live here. If your not familiar with a town and are following a taxi/bus you may miss the signs. Should that really result in your car being smashed up? No, i dont think so. A fine and 3 points is more appropriate. I dread to think the impact if a small child/baby is in a car seat in the front seat what it would do.

Posted by: Blake May 21 2009, 09:16 AM

It may be harsh but it does teach bad drivers a lesson.

Road signs must always be read. Not only that but the two holes in the ground ahead of you are a bit of a giveaway too.

If WBC cannot recover all the damage costs, the driver themself should have the decency to make it up out of their own pocket. After all, those bollards are effectively my property as a taxpayer and I do NOT want them damaged.

Posted by: IanB May 21 2009, 12:09 PM

They could also add a flashing beacon to the sign, and road markings. Then there is no excuse for hitting them at all.

Posted by: Andrea May 21 2009, 12:12 PM

Hi Never Again,

I'm sorry this happened to you. But I'm really curious how exactly it came about... I can understand going down the wrong lane, it is a poor layout there, but how did you not see the bollards? Was there a taxi/bus in front of you? Sure the sign is a bit high up, but if I were driving down an unfamiliar lane, I'd have noticed a big black bollard standing out of the ground. Or if there were a taxi/bus in front of me, I'd have wondered why they had stopped before proceeding again. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to stop and think 'Hmm, why has the vehicle in front of me stopped when the road is clear?' And 'it hit you'... you mean you hit it. It's a shame you refuse to come back to Newbury because of this. There's bollards like this all over the country... you just happened to have hit these ones first.

I have to agree that the situation needs to be reviewed and changed before more of our money is wasted on fixing these stupid things! I personally think the best thing would be to have an arm barrier AND a camera installed. Arm barriers are more obvious and if someone goes to run through it behind a bus or taxi, it won't damage their car and they will be caught on camera and can be sent a fine for ignoring it. And they won't be able to use the excuse 'I didn't know!'

I believe that MOST of the people who hit these bollards are people who think they can cheat them... but I know there are some genuine cases where people were just confused. I hope both Never again and Margo are alright.

Posted by: Iommi May 21 2009, 02:24 PM

A barrier is likely to be vandalised by, or strike a pedestrian.

Posted by: Bill1 May 21 2009, 03:17 PM

This seems a great idea to me.

Although like barriers it could be vunerable to vandalism.

Posted by: Never Again! May 21 2009, 05:12 PM

Hi Andrea
A bus stopped in front of me. I stopped behind it and did not see the bollards as they were concealed by the bus. In the meantime I was having a rant behind the wheel because I was stuck in the wrong lane and couldn't get across to the car park which i could see to my right and I was going to have to find my way around the one way system again. I assumed (being new to the area) that the bus had stopped to let passengers on and off. As the bus started to draw away I rolled forward (approx 5mph) and the next thing i knew there was a massive bang and my car stopped dead. The bollard had risen beneath my car and gone through the engine bay (ergo, they hit me !). I was shocked, I sat in the car looking around the road outside trying to figure out what I'd hit, but couldn't see a thing. I got out of my car and saw oil on the road but no obvious object. I saw the cicles in the ground (the bollards had retracted) and didn't know what they were. I'd never, until that moment, ever seen or heard of a rising bollard.
There is a Traffic Advisory Leaflet (4/97) on the Department of Transport website that says bollards should not rise beneath cars that are going over them (health and safety). Clearly, WBC have chosen to ignore these guidelines.
If a barrier had come down in front of me I would have stopped. If there had been flashing lights I would have noticed them. The only thing i have left to ask is, where would i have been able to stop my car safely, without blocking the traffic? If I had been let through and subsequently fined whatever the going rate is, I would have been a little pissed off but accepted it. Instead, I have now been told that it will cost approximately £7000 (ex VAT) to repair my car due to the damage caused to my car......engine written off, oil sump, front axle carrier, some of the steering mechanism. Way out of proportion to the minor traffic offence I was unknowingly about to commit.
I have been in tears on and off and very angry for the last two days.....not a good thing considering I am also pregnant. In my current state of mind I wish I had been let through the barriers so that I could run over the pedestrians that the bus drivers and taxis had obviously missed Pardon my black humour.
In my opinion, WBC are guilty of negligence and knowingly causing criminal damage to numerous cars and injuring lord knows how many car drivers (I know of Margo, hope you are getting better). It is time something was done to prevent these accidents from occuring.

Posted by: Never Again! May 21 2009, 05:18 PM

If a bollard can rise up under a car, does that mean it wouldn't rise up under the seat of a pushchair? Or knock a pedestrian flat on their bottom? Are there any warning signs for the pedestrians about the bollards?? Is there anything to stop pedestrians crossing the road at that point? Are pedestrians protected game and car drivers fair game???

Posted by: GMR May 21 2009, 07:06 PM

I think that is a good idea. Obviously people keep missing it and I was told by an engineer that it is the way they are placed that causes the problems.

Posted by: Gumbo May 22 2009, 08:42 AM

Surely if a bus stops your first instinct would be that it is doing so to let people off?!



I disagree, in the beginning possibly, but now I actually think that most of these are confused people in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Posted by: Gumbo May 22 2009, 08:50 AM

I watched this footage the other day and it appears that the Manchester ones rise very quickly once the bus has gone over it, which is probably better for people who are not cheating as you are more likely to see it or the damage will be less as it wont go up under the car.

Posted by: Gumbo May 22 2009, 08:56 AM

Like with Margaret you have my sympathies. I hope you and your baby are ok and that you manage to recoup the costs of all the repairs.

Posted by: Simon May 22 2009, 09:36 AM

Ok so how do we get WBC to put a flashing beacon onto the sign? Is there any one on this site that holds any clout with them? Can the Newbury Weekly News put up an online petition or hold a vote online or in the paper?

Posted by: AmieB May 22 2009, 09:42 AM

Hi Never Again, from what you say it was a total accident and you weren't carelessly driving around not looking where you were going. It must of been such a horrible shock, espcially as you are pregnant.
What you found on the website i think you should send to WBC....... Maybe they will re think and instead of bollards have a barrier, flashing lights etc. I feel this is much more appropriate.
Thats shocking how much damage it has done to your car
I still hope you visit Newbury again.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome May 22 2009, 10:09 AM

I have a suggestion.

As it costs £100,000 a year to repair the bollards why not get a green goblin to sit on a chair by the barrier and advise errant drivers. It would save money all round.

Posted by: Simon May 22 2009, 10:27 AM

Also another thought......


Could the buses and taxis who go through the barriers stop just the other side until they are fully risen so that any cars behind them cant go into them?

Posted by: Andrea May 22 2009, 10:46 AM

I actually quite like that idea

Posted by: Bill1 May 22 2009, 11:19 AM

Simon that is the best suggestion yet!

Posted by: Lord&Master May 22 2009, 01:08 PM

I'm pretty sure the bollards give an audible warning during operation, all be it loud enough for pedestrians but not car drivers. I also agree that it seems ludicrus that the bollards can actually keep going after an impact, you would have thought that as soon as the touch something they would retract immediately at the least but ideally have some kind of sensor to not get that far. Sounds very dangerous to me.

I am a convert after reading this thread. I used to be of the mindset that it was drivers fault, what with all the signs etc... but I agree the punishment does not fit the crime. Lets be honest, if someone does actually manage to get through they will get a lot of stick from any pedestrians so will soon learn of the error. Then if a nice little PCN or whatever it would be for this offence dropped on the door mat in a couple of weeks. Far less agro all round.

Have a good bank holiday fellow Newburians ;)

Posted by: Bill1 May 22 2009, 01:40 PM

There was another near miss this lunchtime, luckily the driver realised what was about to happen just in time.

However as he tried to do a 3 point turn to gain access to the car park another car came along behind it and started tooting at them for holding him up.

I think the driver of the first car got out and explained what was going on because the next thing was a nifty bit of synchronised 3 point turning.

Finally the first car then entered the car park but the second proceeded the wrong way back towards Market Street, fortunately not meeting any oncoming traffic head on. That car was last seen by me heading for the road closure sign at the new cinema roadworks!!!!

Posted by: Blake May 22 2009, 03:42 PM

It's not just going on in Newbury, look at these numpties in Manchester;

www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRCA8MvedIo

I have no idea how they think they can get away with it; the bollards will always win!

Posted by: Hugh Saskin May 22 2009, 07:01 PM

Could not open the attachment, probably just as well. So it has become some grotesque form of spectator sport for some - says it all really and, of course, Manchester is really like Newbury, isn't it?

Posted by: Richard Head May 22 2009, 07:07 PM

It's fairly obvious what the first silver car is up to and it wouldn't surprise me if the majority of "accidents" in Manchester, Newbury, in fact all over the country were of this nature.

Posted by: GMR May 22 2009, 08:16 PM

I think that is a good idea, but I can't see it happening. You know what bus drivers are like impatient.

Posted by: Never Again! May 22 2009, 08:31 PM

I've been talking to a few people since the accident. The only ones that had encountered rising bollards were those that worked on MOD sites and other such large establishments. They are always manned. It does make sense. It would save the council money and the insurance companies even more money. Especially, as I found out, there had already been 11 other incidents since January (not certain if this is an underestimate??).

Posted by: funinuk May 22 2009, 10:57 PM

When the bollards are down, after a bus has gone through, many times I see students and youg people stand on top of them as they go up, this is going to cause injury and damage one day too!!

Posted by: On the edge May 23 2009, 06:49 AM

Not withstanding all the arguments; standard statistical evidence suggests something is seriously wrong. If we have a strech of road, where accidents keep happening; no matter what other rules errant drivers may be breaking, something is done. We spend millions doing that. Here we have the exact reverse, we've actually installed a problem and haven't the honesty to put it right. I quite agree, drivers should be penalised for traffic infingements, but English law demands the penalty to be reasonable and fit the crime. Ignoring the sign is hardly endangering safety given all the other apparently essential drivers driving about on the other side. Methinks we are being somewhat medieval in our approach here.

Posted by: GrumblingAgain May 23 2009, 08:10 AM

Rest assured, if a member of my family or myself is innocently driving along a road, and another motorists failed to spot a Give Way sign and markings for a split second, EXACTLY the same way they fail to notice the No Motor Vehicle Sign, and cause a collision resulting in injury, I will NOT be showing compassion to that other driver.

Yes it will be a terrible mistake, but I won't be trying to make excuses, and I won't be entertaining excuses from other parties trying to exonerate the guilty driver.

Having lost a cousin (as in now DEAD) to a motorist who had a minor lapse of concentration and observance, I cannot accept all these excuses for failing to abide by the legally posted and visible road signs. A minor offence one moment can easily become a major offence the next.


And you chose to ignore several signs including one giving an order.


Better a wrecked motor than a wrecked life. It's a very effective warning though, I can't see the driver subsequently driving around with the same lack of concentration ever again.


How many signs would be enough? Does 3 points on the licence really get the message across that lack of attention occasionally will kill? What's a child/baby got to do with the issue - In that case I wonder what a split second's lapse of concentration causing a crash at a low speed of 30mph do to a child/baby in the front seat. I wonder if you would be so understanding if *you* were the innocent party and the cause was a momentarily lack of observance from the other driver.


Stop making excuses - life isn't wrapped up in cotton wool to protect you 100% of the time - there are many times when *YOU* have to take full responsibility for your actions and consequences.

Posted by: Never Again! May 24 2009, 08:12 PM

I absolutely agree with you.

Posted by: T Flood May 25 2009, 08:32 AM

Why are they painted black, and are the reflective band working.

under Traffic Advisory Leaflet produced by the govenment it does state the following

When considering whether to install a system including rising bollards, it is important that a risk assessment is carried out.

The designer should consider the benefits of the proposed scheme (accident reductions, quality of life, etc) against the possibility of malfunction and any associated risk or consequences.

Now aren't these bollards causing more accidents ? is it not time a safety audit was carried out, maybe additional traffic carming should added

Posted by: T Flood May 25 2009, 08:38 AM

why cant we place traffic lights in front of these bollards, and not these silly little beacon lights

Posted by: GreenGerkin May 25 2009, 10:14 AM

Hi,

I have been reading in the NWN about how many people are being caught out by the bollards, and that they are damaging their cars, etc. and they should be removed. I would just like to stand up for the councils decisions to put these bollards there. They stop traffic coming through the town, it was a major problem, and extremely dangerous, to all pedestrians, especially children.

Now back to the people ramming the bollards...
Right, when someone hits the bollards they say that there is not enough signage. I had a look as I walked past the other day. Coming from Bartholomew Street there are 6, yes SIX sogns saying either danger rising bollards or no entry to the town centre for cars. Seriously how do you miss this many signs?????? If you are on the road but cannot read signs you really should retake your driving exam, I'd put money on it that you would fail.

In my opinion, if you choose to wreck your vehicle on the bollards there should be some sort of fine for this. I would go for a fixed penalty fine for hitting the bollards, then a fine for criminal damage of the bollards, and then a bill for the cost of fixing them.
If this would put in place, I could almost guarentee that the number of people criminally damaging the councils property with their cars, because they couldn't be bothered to add an extra 3 minutes to their journey would be cut majorly.

Rant over for the time being....

Thanks

Posted by: On the edge May 25 2009, 09:30 PM

Forgive me, but I think you've missed the point. First, it seems most of those involved are visitors; so not people simply trying to save a few minutes. Second, there are rather a lot of other dangers to pedestrians, especially children. Sorry, Bus, Taxi, Post Office, Securicor, and all the other 'permitted drivers' are by no means perfect. Third, it may well be council property which against the rules they apply so properly to everyone else should have been installed against the Department of Transport's best practice guidelines. And if you want to know how someone could miss so many signs - simply observe; see how many of us break the speed limits, use mobile phones, go through red lights, parked improperly...presumably things you've never ever done!

Posted by: GreenGerkin May 26 2009, 10:16 AM

Yes i understand that the other vehicles go through, but there is such a low number of these vehicles that the danger is greatly reduced, what more dangerous, 10 vehicles or 100? and i must say that it was so much better when no vehicles were able to go through due to the building work.
Also when driving in a place that you do not know well, surely you pay attention to the signs? Is this not common sense? Seemingly not. Also you say that they were installed against some guidlines, which is correct and fair to say, but think about all of the other towns who have them as well, so it is not just WB Council. Also how long have they been in place, years, about 2 now is it, I can't remember, maybe more.
Using mobile phones doesn't have anything to do with signs, also your argument about people jumping lights, also counters the arguments about having traffic lights there as people will ignore them...

Posted by: IanB May 26 2009, 12:03 PM

In my opinion, if you choose to wreck your vehicle on the bollards there should be some sort of fine for this. I would go for a fixed penalty fine for hitting the bollards, then a fine for criminal damage of the bollards, and then a bill for the cost of fixing them.
If this would put in place, I could almost guarentee that the number of people criminally damaging the councils property with their cars, because they couldn't be bothered to add an extra 3 minutes to their journey would be cut majorly.

Maybe you'd like to wag your telling finger at the people who have just written their cars off, and also tell them that they now have to pay penalties on top of everything that's happened. I wonder what reaction you'd get...

Absolute lunacy.

Posted by: Jacklets May 26 2009, 12:45 PM

Couldn't agree more, yes they should be penalised, but the cost to the council, as well as the drivers is way too excessive. Also, let's not forget that people are getting injured in the process, may only be minor injuries and shock, but I still don't see how that's right. Surely it's only a matter of time before there is a serious injury inflicted, and it may not be to the driver, it could be to a passenger, who may be a child. It's time that WBC admitted there's a problem and resolved it.

Posted by: Biker1 May 26 2009, 02:34 PM

Does anyone remember how many motorists used to flout the pedestrianisation before the bollards?
They still do when they are not working.
Something has to be done.
Should really be no vehicles at all - that would solve it.
(Or back to full traffic again - I suppose there are some who would like that.)

Posted by: Blake May 26 2009, 04:32 PM

I wholeheartedly agree with GreenGerkin; if you are not reading the many roadsigns, you should not be allowed to use a vehicle.

Reading roadsigns is a fundamental part of driving. The bollard approaches are covered in warning signs.

Posted by: GMR May 26 2009, 05:45 PM

Or use one of those arm things that they have in carparks.

Posted by: Never Again! May 27 2009, 09:53 AM

You really have missed the point here.
1. You walked to an area KNOWING about the traffic accidents occuring there after having read this thread.
2. You were therefore specifically LOOKING for signage to prove your point.
3. Because you were WALKING, you had all the time in the world to stand and make notes on the signage. A luxury drivers don't have.
4. That being the case, and seeing as you you have studied the area so closely, could you tell me where the signs on Market Street are saying which lane I was supposed to be in to get to the Kennet Centre Car Park please? Probably not because you weren't looking for them. You weren't paying attention to all the signage were you??

I ended up in what I now know to be a bus lane when I actually wanted to be in the car park lane. I couldn't change lanes because of the kerb between the two lanes. I couldn't reverse back into oncoming traffic either. I was trapped into continuing in the wrong direction. In retrospect I still feel I made the safest and most sensible decision to go back round the one way system to get back to the car park. IF I had got through the bollards, I would have quickly realised my mistake, but doubt very much whether I would have posed any greater risk to the pedestrians than all permitted vehicles in the area. I would have accepted a fine and points on my license.
There have been 11 incidents since the beginning of the year. Eleven (not the 100 per day you suggest) more cars going through the area over a 5 month period does not increase the risk significantly to the pedestrian. Unlike the bollards, which have written off and/or damaged all of those cars and I'm not sure how many of the drivers have been injured.
It is not acceptable to transfer the risk of injury from one party to another.
In most work places you have to fill out Health and Safety Forms even when you've merely had a near miss. All the near misses haven't even been accounted for in this case. Bill1 has already witnessed a couple. The fact that these are not recorded is negligent on the part of WBC. It would lend weight to the argument that the road layout is appalling and needs to be redone.

Anyway......my 2004 reg car has been written off. The lady at the garage that did the assessment said it looked like a bomb had gone off under my car. I'm just glad it missed the petrol tank.

Incidentally, there have been two fatalities in Manchester linked to the rising bollards. I hope you are satisfied.

Posted by: Road User May 27 2009, 11:52 AM

There are no time limits whilst driving through Newbury that I am aware of except for the race to get accross the rising bollards and if you had been paying attention you would have seen the gap in the kerb that allows drivers who take the wrong lane the ability to turn right into the car park. So no need to try and get over the bollards or do a three point turn to travel back down the one way street the wrong way.

Posted by: GreenGerkin May 27 2009, 12:35 PM

just to let you know, at the end of the bus lane, just before the bollards there is a lowering in the curb which allows people to turn into the carpark.
ok i take your point that it is badly laid out, and maybe there should be an arm, which comes down infront of the bollards to make sure that you really cant hit then...

Posted by: GreenGerkin May 27 2009, 12:37 PM

i have also seen is happen 4 times as i walked past.

Posted by: Andy May 27 2009, 01:07 PM

To be quite frank, I'm getting a bit fed up with you blaming everything and everybody except yourself where the blame lies squarely on your shoulders for careless driving and driving without due care and attention.

As for you point 2. - Nonsense, the kerb lowers and goes down to ground level to enable cars to cross over if they happen to be in the wrong lane. Yet another thing you failed to spot. Who would you like to blame for that one?

Point 3. - More utter diatribe. It's seems quite obvious that YOU were not paying attention and were way too close to the vehicle in front to see anything, which you would have if you had hung back and remained well below the 20mph speed limit to observe more closely, especially in an unfamiliar area.

Make your claim, get yourself a new car and then I suggest you book up a retest to learn to drive more safely

Posted by: Blake May 27 2009, 01:48 PM

I agree. Poor driving is poor driving and there is far too much of it around on our roads.

If anything, poor driving needs to be punished more, not by going soft.

Posted by: Iommi May 27 2009, 02:52 PM

From my point of view, the driver is legally responsible for their actions, but I will support those that claim the road area is ill thought out. In my view it is, as it is an unusual design with its parallel one way lanes.

It is also not obvious to strangers that the car park can also be an exit for those that do not want to park (especially for those that in a moment of panic are trying to understand how to get themselves out of a problem). Road design should be such that it is hard to do the wrong thing, that is clearly not the case here.

I think that a badly damaged car is a disproportional response to someone that has failed to properly acknowledge the signage in that area. As an aside, we are meant to be trying to minimise waste and energy usage, just think of the waste and energy usage that goes into the penalising of unwitting (and others) drivers that come to grief on these bollards.

I don't buy the argument that people who run in or over these bollards are any more likely to hit a pedestrian. We are talking about different disciplines. How dangerous is a car that is following a slow moving bus through Northbrook Street?

Posted by: thatcham resident May 27 2009, 03:23 PM

Yes i too have seen that there is a dropped curb,so you can turn into the carpark without going over the bollards

Posted by: thatcham resident May 27 2009, 03:49 PM

Yes i too have seen the dropped curb in the bus and taxi lane so you can easy turn right into the carpark without going over the bollards

Posted by: Apathetic May 27 2009, 05:52 PM

Oooh, were they signposted?!

Posted by: Never Again! May 27 2009, 07:25 PM

I think you have missed the salient point.
I would have accepted a fine and points on my license (I've said this several times already). I don't accept that my car has been written off. ESPECIALLY as I'd actually done no harm to anyone nor had the intention.
Still............if you lot are happy to live with an abortion of a road system that is not fit for purpose, i.e the safe transit of all pedestrians AND VEHICLES........then you deserve to live with it.
No wonder why your campaign not to have the bollards installed failed.

Posted by: funinuk May 27 2009, 08:33 PM

Another hit today, this time a Gas company van, I think he got over without much damage but the bollard was a bit damaged!

Posted by: Darren May 27 2009, 08:53 PM

While in town today I took a walk through Bartholomew St and this is how the signs go from Craven Road

1. By the dry cleaners: A sign indicating a Pedestrianised Zone ahead. It also shows the time of operation (10am - 6pm). The sign also indicates which lane takes you to the Pedestrianised Zone, the multi-story car park and Market St.

2. At the start of the lane leading to the zone, there are 3 signs. 1 indicating a 20mph pedestrianised zone ahead and 2 using the 'Other danger; plate indicates nature of danger' signs as described in the Highway Code. The plate advises 'Rising Bollards 10am - 6pm). These signs are 8ft+ above the ground so as to be visible over the top of most other traffic.

3. At the bollards, again, 8ft+ high there is a rectangular Warning Sign (as in Highway Code) with 'STOP. Rising Bollards... in white lettering on red background.

How many more signs are needed??

Any vehicle not seeing them is either:

a) Ignoring them and hoping to sneak past.
Driving without due care and attention.
c) Too close to the back of a bus etc. to see them. Therefore breaking rule 126 of the Highway Code:

"Stopping Distances. Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear. You should
leave enough space between you and the vehicle in front so that you can pull up safely if it suddenly slows down or stops. The safe rule is never to get closer than the overall stopping distance"

Posted by: Blake May 28 2009, 08:24 AM

Which bollards hit the British Gas van? Was it the Bartholemew St ones or those by the Wharf?

Posted by: J C May 28 2009, 09:11 AM

I would like to see CCTV installed so that there can be no hiding behind the reason a driver chooses to try and drive in a pedestrianised zone, would certainly be able to show if it really is poor signs or people chancing their luck

Posted by: Andy May 28 2009, 09:19 AM

"my campaign not to have the bollards installed".

I wanted and endorsed the installation of the bollards as I was actually been hit by another similarly incompetant driver, who ignored the no entry signs and drove through town during the pedestrian hours. I was lucky, if it had been a small child, that may not have been the case.

So, if it's a choice between you writing your car off or potentially killing someone.....easy choice

Posted by: Darren May 28 2009, 11:18 AM

You could always instruct a No win/No fee Solictor to begin legal action against WBDC and let a judge decide who was in the wrong. Also, your insurance company can commence action to recover their costs.

Interesting to note that so far neither have been reported as happening...

Posted by: thatcham resident May 28 2009, 11:59 AM

Apathetic
whywould you want a sign post saying dropped curb,a bit of common is all that is needed

Posted by: AmieB May 28 2009, 01:34 PM

I have been defending neveragain, but today i had to go to the multistorey so i decided to have a look at all the signs. There were quite a few! At the traffic lights where you wait to turn right, there is a sign on the post telling you about the bollards. I understand not everyone would stop there but as i drove around the corner there were more signs!! TBH i dont know how you can miss them!

I still do not agree with the way the bollards rise up so quickly and continue until they completely damage the car.
I wrote in a previous post that i think its dangerous if your pregnant or a child is in the front, and someone said why should that matter It should matter because the shock or thud of the car could be fatal.

Others have suggested a barrier (like in the multistorey), i think this is a good idea. Surely people are not that stupid to drive straight through one.....

Posted by: J C May 28 2009, 03:30 PM

IMO barriers would not solve the problem either as it seems that the issue is poor signage or lack of driver awareness. The only difference with a barrier is that if you wanted to push your way through the barrier would rise again as I can't imagine and H&S policy allowing a heavy arm to potentially crash through someones windscreen. Therefore no detterent as drivers would be able to flout the system

Posted by: GrumblingAgain May 28 2009, 04:23 PM

If you'd read it properly, you'd have noticed that they didn't say "it didn't matter" but actually made a point although you obviously missed it. Never mind though. Better order a few tonnes of cotton wool for Newbury, looks like many of its inhabitants are in need of it.

Posted by: Richard Head May 28 2009, 07:39 PM

That's what it boils down to and given one can potentially write off their car by Driving Without Due Care and Attention (as some of these people are) almost anywhere on the road network it's the driver's choice whether they pay attention to the road or not.

I think it is more likely that many are chancing it (which is Dangerous Driving) thinking the rules don't apply to them.

Posted by: AmieB May 29 2009, 09:17 AM

Your right i didn't read it properly, after reading through the essay i got bored and must of switched off

Posted by: Anon May 29 2009, 09:24 AM

I must say I am a true supporter of these bollards!! Why should the council take responsibility for the idiocy and ignorance of people who are obviously not paying attention to what is going on!! There is perfect sinage around the are of the bollards to indicate that the zone they are entering is a pedatrian zone so why should these bollards be taken out at more cost to the council and more importantly the tax payer.

Imagine if these bollards were not in place, people would just ignore the fact that this area is a pedestrian zone and drive through, giving serial complainers another thing to moan about!

I was walking past varsity the other day and saw someone in their car waiting for a bus to go through so he could tailgate (isn't this a crime anyway?) the bus through the bollards, the person in the car was sat there for quite a while before the bollard went down, which to mean would have been plenty of time to notice the quite obvious sinage around me. This is a blantant display of ignorance!!

In my opinion people should start taking resposibility for their own actions!

Posted by: Andrea May 29 2009, 10:11 AM

Barriers on their own wouldn't, but add a camera to it and anyone who isn't permitted to be in the area will be given a fine.

Posted by: Iommi May 29 2009, 10:56 AM

They are currently costing the tax payer money.Guidelines suggest that a certain amount of tailgating should be permitted. The risk to the public of a bus tailgater is small if any.Either that or the driver felt 'trapped' and didn't appreciate that the carpark is a legitimate exit.Yes, but everyone should play their part. This is a poor bit of road design. When one drives in to a relatively busy area, their attention will be drawn to pedestrians, other vehicles, parked cars, cyclists, etc... it seems clear to me that this makes acknowledging signage more unlikely.

At the end of the day, the biggest problem here is a poorly thought out pedestrian area. It is not an exclusive pedestrian area and because of that we will always have this problem.

Posted by: Apathetic May 29 2009, 12:15 PM

It seems we tell drivers wehere they cant go and haven't put a sign in to tell them that the car park is an escape route at the dropped curb. If we expected them to use their common sense, we wouldn't put any signs in at all.
I say lets just put our heads in the sand and pretend it's not happening in our town

Posted by: Anon May 29 2009, 12:53 PM

they are not costing the taxpayer money because what is failed to be mentioned when these stories are reported is that all costs for damage to the road or bollards is recovered from the person causing the damage (usually through their insurance) so please explain to me how this is cost the taxpayer? i think I may have missed a point somewhere

Posted by: Iommi May 29 2009, 01:34 PM

The full cost of repair is not recovered via insurance. At the moment, these bollards cost the tax payer money; £36,635.84 at the last count. This has been confirmed in a story by Newbury Today which can be read here: http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article.aspx?articleID=9622

Posted by: Anon May 29 2009, 02:44 PM

Money for damage to the bollards is recovered as far as possible, however the remaining £23,369.50 which has not been recovered by the council is still a fraction of the amount it would cost to take the bollards out and replace them with some other means of stopping trafffic entering a padestrianised area.

Again the point I am trying to make is that surely your frustrations at the cost should be taken out on those who are stupid enough and ignorant enough to try an beat the bollards, instead of the council who are trying to make newbury high street a safe place to shop but introducing such measure as the rising bollards.

Posted by: Iommi May 29 2009, 06:19 PM

Alas, this is still a net cost.I have no frustration, I just think that the pedestrianisation of Newbury has been badly planned and implemented. The design is poor and Newbury doesn't have the right road infrastructure to support pedestrianisation.

As for the safety element, I read with interest where somewhere in Europe removed all signage in a Market Square and pedestrians move quite safely because drivers tend to proceed carefully and respectfully.

Posted by: Blake May 31 2009, 04:55 PM

I heard yet another dodgy driver chanced their luck with the bollards and lost on Saturday afternoon.

Does anyone know anymore? Apparently it was in Bartholemew St.

Posted by: Gumbo Jun 1 2009, 08:19 AM

Always good to have an independent view from WBC on the subject!

Posted by: peach Jun 1 2009, 08:58 AM

Yeah I see the aftermath but not the incident. Looks like it damaged the oil tank and it was everywhere. It was a modified car... Young couple... Girl looked unhappy sitting in the drivers seat but no one was hurt in the incident.

Posted by: Gumbo Jun 1 2009, 10:52 AM

Do you think she was unhappy because it was a modified car? they are bit chavvy after all

Posted by: Never Again! Jun 1 2009, 01:36 PM

You mean to say that up until now you'd never noticed them either??
I guess that's because you always knew where you were going and exactly how to get there. First time visitors don't.
Familiarity breeds contempt.

Posted by: Andrea Jun 1 2009, 03:14 PM

You're completely missing the point. Sure we're all familiar with the area and know there's bollards there and know which road to take when going to the car park, but as a visitor to the town, you should have been paying more attention, especially when approaching your destination. You weren't paying enough attention, you didn't bother to look around when you found yourself in the wrong lane, so you completely missed the dropped curb you could have taken to avoid the entire situation. Poor road layout can only be blamed so much, you have to take some responsibility yourself.

Posted by: Anon Jun 1 2009, 03:40 PM

I have no frustration, I just think that the pedestrianisation of Newbury has been badly planned and implemented. The design is poor and Newbury doesn't have the right road infrastructure to support pedestrianisation.

I do have to agree with your point that newbury does not have the right road infrastructure to support the pedestrianisation of northbrook street and I have notice more recently (especially with all the road works) that it is a nightmare to get around newbury. So this would be even worse if WBC implemented a complete traffic free zone in newbury, which has bee discussed and raise in NWN previously, some people even want to stop push bikes being allowed in Northbrook street!!!

As for the safety element, I read with interest where somewhere in Europe removed all signage in a Market Square and pedestrians move quite safely because drivers tend to proceed carefully and respectfully.

I dont think that this would be the case in Newbury somehow, if people can not even read the signs regarding the rising bollards, I think it would be extremely unlikely that people would respect the fact that northbrook street is pedestrianised. Either way, you are never going to please everyone!!

Posted by: Anon Jun 1 2009, 03:42 PM

???????

Posted by: AmieB Jun 3 2009, 08:34 AM

Obvioulsy i never noticed HOW MANY signs there were as i live here, duh, but surely if your a first time visitor you would pay more attention to road signs, and where you are going. This lady said she could not reverese and get out of the lane - well if she had looked she would of noticed the drop curb to go in the multistory. Your telling me you would not if you were in a new town?
I never said i never noticed the signs before, I said i looked how many there were to see why they are being missed. If you cant see the signs then you really need to re-take your driving test.
I still do have sympathy for people as i think the result is very harsh, but i stick to the point that people are not paying attention.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jun 3 2009, 10:52 AM

A foreign lady appeared to have hit the bollards yesterday in Bartholomew Street and she was pregnant.
As she probably could not read the signs what do you suggest she do???
Also - If she had lost her baby could she have sued WBDC???

I am not in favor of Bollards. I go back to my idea of employing one of the WBDC traffic wardens to be posted at them. they could do it on a rota.

Posted by: AmieB Jun 3 2009, 01:01 PM

What was the reason for her hitting the bollards?

Posted by: Hugh Saskin Jun 3 2009, 01:23 PM

As there seems to be no reduction in the number of incidents and motorists seem to be hitting these bollards on an almost daily basis, TD&H, I suspect you may be right. Eventually something serious will happen and the judiciary will get involved. There must be an alternative to bollards, unless we are going to go for biennial driving tests, just so we can see how observant drivers really are when it comes to signs and keep everybody on their toes. An alternative school of thought says that signs rapidly lose their effectiveness and can be lost in a mass of other signing, with the human brain just being unable to take it all in. As I have said before, some well respected agency, like QinetiQ, will also eventually be needed to carry out research into the human factors involved here.

Posted by: Blake Jun 3 2009, 02:56 PM

IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE.

IF DRIVING IN ANOTHER STATE, THE ONUS IS ON THE INDIVIDUAL TO STUDY WHAT ROADSIGNS MEAN.

I HAVE NO SYMPATHY FOR THE SHABBY DRIVING WHATSOEVER. ON THEIR HEADS BE IT!!

Posted by: commonground Jun 3 2009, 02:56 PM

The arbitrary nature of the surprising and dangerous punishment for a minor traffic infringement is in my view against natural justice. The constant assertion that there are enough signs is clearly wrong. I imagine that most of the people that have suffered terrible damage to their cars or in a couple of cases personal injury are not local and merely, though unfortunately following another vehicle - probably a bus.

I have said in the recent past that someone ( either a driver or a nearby pedestrian/s) will suffer a much worse fete soon, I am sure that the health and safety police will then draw a line under the bollards once and for all. So, perhaps the council officers and lead cllrs will swallow their pride, remove the bollards and create a system that is safer whilst doing the job of keeping cars out of the pedestrian zone.

Perhaps forum members could suggest ( a sensible) alternative to rising bollards. Or perhaps the council could award a prize for an innovative system.

Posted by: Blake Jun 3 2009, 04:12 PM

I think if anything, more rising bollards would be rational. This could perhaps stop the chavs racing around parts of the retail park after dark.

There are no excuses for driving onto the blatantly obvious bollards.

They are carrying out an important role.

Posted by: Bill1 Jun 3 2009, 04:41 PM

Commonground wrote "Perhaps forum members could suggest ( a sensible) alternative to rising bollards. Or perhaps the council could award a prize for an innovative system."


If you read through previous posts on this thread you will see people already have.

Posted by: JeffG Jun 3 2009, 06:17 PM

All the people who say people should be paying more attention are missing the point. If a constant stream of people are hitting the bollards (as it seems) there is something basically wrong with the set-up. These people are not necessarily inattentive drivers who need re-educating (if any of them), or are trying to sneak through where they shouldn't.

I don't care if the council protests that the signs are legal and sufficient. Something is wrong and it needs fixing.

1. There are too many signs. It is psychologically impossible for a stranger to read all the words on every sign in the time available.
2. The height of the signs is wrong. Signs at standard height are meant to be read from a distance. Close up, the signs need to be at eye level, otherwise they will not be seen.
3. A double flashing red light (like at level crossings) at eye level just before the bollards would in my view fix the problem once and for all. Authorised vehicles would of course know they could drive through. Any other driver passing a red light deserves all they get.

Posted by: GMR Jun 3 2009, 07:23 PM

Another car nearly hit the bollards tonight. It just managed to put its breaks on. Not sure which came off worse.

Posted by: Belinda Jun 5 2009, 12:48 PM

I totally agree.
The punishment is out of proportion with the offence. Would it be equally OK to destroy someone's car if they parked on double yellow lines? After all, there's no missing these - yet thousands of people every day ignore them.
Of course there should be measures in place to protect pedestrians on a pedestrianised road. But there must be better ways of doing this (as many people here have already suggested).

Posted by: Blake Jun 7 2009, 07:13 PM

I see YET ANOTHER idiot has now hit the bollards in Bart Street on June 6th!

When will people learn...put BRAIN in gear before putting car in motion (over bollards)!!

Posted by: Andrea Jun 8 2009, 10:05 AM

Yes I noticed this morning that the bollards were broken and were stuck partially up... although traffic was still going over them? Although there were some people there trying to fix them. Funny they couldnt' do that over the weekend.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jun 8 2009, 10:19 AM

All you pro bollard people dont really get it do you? Are you all a bit thick? A car is hitting the Bartholomew street bollards on an almost daily basis. Virtually each car is a write off. Get a parking warden / green goblin to sit next to the things and advise the unwitting drivers of the danger they are in if they follow a bus. And before you start with the 'can't they read' argument, lets just say a lot of the people that hit the bollards appear to be foreign. Coincidence?

Posted by: Bill1 Jun 8 2009, 11:57 AM

TD&H wrote

"All you pro bollard people dont really get it do you? Are you all a bit thick?"


*Lights blue touch paper and stands back......*

Posted by: AmieB Jun 8 2009, 12:22 PM

Where are the statistics of this? How many foreign people over english people have hit the bollards?

Posted by: J C Jun 8 2009, 12:29 PM

No but I would suggest that maybe the people who hit the bollards are

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jun 8 2009, 12:42 PM

AmieB - I don't know the statistics. I do know that I have seen many of the bollard 'victims' speaking in a foreign language on their mobiles after hitting them.

Posted by: Andy Jun 8 2009, 12:51 PM

"All you anti bollard people don't really get it, do you? Let's just sat that most of the people that hit the bollards appear to be TallDarkAndDumb".

About as useful a comment as your derisory, unsubstantiated, pointless and frankly racist sounding comment that assumes foreign looking people can't read.

Posted by: Bill1 Jun 8 2009, 01:55 PM

Told You.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jun 8 2009, 01:57 PM

Saying foreign people may not be able to read is racist? What planet are you on? I suppose if I stated that most of the gun / knife crime in London is commited by young black people that would be racist as well? I really am disenchanted with do-gooding know it all everything has to be 'PC' types like you.

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article.aspx?articleID=10243

Enough said.

Posted by: Andy1 Jun 8 2009, 03:23 PM

If this were the case, then I would suggest it wouldn't be very responsible as she wouldn't be able to read any signs. If you were abroad, not being able to read the signs would not be a valid excuse

Posted by: Richard Head Jun 8 2009, 07:02 PM

Clearly it's the drivers hitting them that are a bit thick. I'm not pro-bollard, I'm anti-daft-driver.

I like most people here (I assume) have never had an accident in my car partly due to reading the road signs and watching what is happening around me.

It's just basic road sense which these people seem to lack. I'm just thankful they're only hitting bollards and not a small child walking in the road.

Posted by: Road User Jun 8 2009, 07:13 PM

Those of Us who are pro-bollard are not thick, we are intelligent enough not to drive over bollards and can read street signs whilst not wreaking our vehicles.
Evidently those who can't drive and read street signs would appear to be the ones who are thick and dangerous to the rest of us road users.

Posted by: JohnL Jun 8 2009, 07:32 PM

Please think before writing offensive postings. This incident involved my 28 year old daughter who is not an idiot, has no desire to break the law and is a normal sensible driver. She is now injured - severe tissue damage, suspected fractured rib/sternum and the usual 'whiplash' injuries, not to mention a written off car. Her crime? To follow a private car through the barrier at 5.58pm thinking that it must now be 6pm and open and being confused by the poor signage which is too wordy and too high up to be read easily. She is not from the area and so unfamiliar with the system and all the distress and damage it has caused to others.

The council are not following DfT advice (http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tpm/tal/signsandsignals/risingbollards) which clearly says:

"Whilst most applications will be to enable the passage of one vehicle at a time, there will be instances where two or more vehicles attempt to pass through in close succession. The system should ensure that bollards cannot rise beneath a vehicle because of the danger this would create. It is better to risk a certain amount of violation by "tailgating" vehicles, rather that put road users at risk."

The engine was shunted into the footwell of the car. I can see that one day there is going to be a fatality due to these bollards.

27 accidents in 10 months should prove the point to any sensible person.

Posted by: AmieB Jun 9 2009, 09:08 AM

Im sorry that your daughter has suffered some injuries through her incident. I do not think people are idiots as some people state, but i do think people are driving with no care and attention.
You state your daughter knew the time was 5.58pm, so she would have known to wait until 6pm. I dont know how she was confused with the signs if she knew she wasn;t allowed through until after 6pm, that means she read them???? If she understood that part than she must have read the signs, but chose to follow the car infront of her instead of waiting.
I have seen myself how many signs there are and there is enough and at the correct height.

A lot of us agree on here the bollards are the wrong method to use to stop people entering the town - they are too ruthless. But a bit more attention paid by the driver might help.......

Posted by: Darren Jun 9 2009, 09:22 AM

Would anyone like to put a percentage of how many vehicles damaged against the amount of traffic that gets to them, realises what's happened and take the car park route?

Posted by: Bill1 Jun 9 2009, 11:35 AM

Sorry to hear that another person has been hit by the bollards and hope she will be ok.

My question is this.

If she was hit following another private vehicle at just before 6pm, how did the first one get away with it?

Posted by: Andrea Jun 9 2009, 12:20 PM

We're all just going around in circles now.

TD&H, the majority of us are NOT pro-bollard as you state and no, we are not stupid. We've been constructive in trying to come up with alternatives to the current bollard situation. I think we can rule out adding flashing lights where the bollards are as it doesn't seem to stop the dutch from trying to cheat the system! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZdLjKl0lHc&NR=1

And the signs in Manchester are definitely obvious! One person even reversed, waited for the bus to go through, and tried to sneak in behind the bus! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_Cw0QJU8ro

Yes we know that not all the bollard incidents are just people who are trying to sneak passed... the rest are people who were not paying enough attention.

I agree that a written off car and injuries are too extreme of a punishment, which is why we have been suggesting alternatives.

TD&H, I did think your idea of having a parking enforcement officer monitoring the bollards was a good idea, but considering there are 3 sets of bollards in Newbury, that's 3 parking enforcement officers required everyday from 10am to 6pm. I'm not entirely sure what their wages are, I think they were something like £19k? (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) That's £57K per year on top of maintenance costs? Unless you were suggesting just having them stand there with no bollards or anything?

Personally I believe the best course of action is to remove the bollards completely, replace them with an arm barrier and a camera so if someone does sneak in beind a bus/taxi, then they can get flashed and sent a ticket in the post. This will reduce the maintenance costs significantly as there won't be damage (unless they drive through the arm while it's down of course!) and the fines from people who go through can be used towards the maintenance costs.

Posted by: Bill1 Jun 9 2009, 02:22 PM

[quote name='Andrea' date='Jun 9 2009, 01:20 PM' post='757']
We're all just going around in circles now.
/quote]


Well that would be a start

Maybe when the cinema road closure ends eh?

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jun 9 2009, 02:27 PM

Andrea - Finally a voice or reason. The Bartholomew St Bollards seeem to get hit the most. They are broken (again) following the collision so this would be a good time to remove them.

Posted by: Biker1 Jun 9 2009, 03:20 PM

The bollards do not "rise beneath a vehicle" because they have sensors that do not allow this.
The bollards have to rise IN FRONT of the vehicle for it to hit them so there must be a delay from the vehicle in front.

I have seen bicycles follow a bus through and the sensors detect even this and lower again.

Posted by: JeffG Jun 9 2009, 03:22 PM

Thanks for that : I had a good giggle at the Dutch bollard runners, especially at the end where the bollards are intelligent enough to know when they're broken, and switch to a flashing amber light

Posted by: Hugh Saskin Jun 9 2009, 04:30 PM

Another query here - this concerns time. Is it now a requirement that a car or a driver must have a clock or a watch, correct to within a minute, so they can know that 6.01 pm is ok to go through but that 5.59 pm is not? Say your watch was fast - what then?

Posted by: JohnL Jun 9 2009, 08:21 PM

If you read my posting carefully it doesn't say my daughter knew the time - do you know the exact time at this moment - but she knew it was approximately 6 pm. We now know it was around 5.58 pm because a witness posted this on another local forum and took a picture immediately which was time stamped at 5.59 pm. I have now been told that taxis and private cars are not allowed through the bollards although my daughter followed a private car, also mentioned on the other forum by the witness and she did not see the bollards retract for that. All this indicates a bollard malfunction.

We are not all perfect and every one makes the odd unintentional mistake whilst driving, as I am sure all drivers will own up to, but they don't usually end up in the loss of a vehicle and injury apparently condoned by the Council that is supposed to protect its citizens. It is disgraceful that West Berks Council (WBC) show complacency or plain stubborn bloody-mindedness over this issue when 26 other people have been involved in similar incidents in the last 10 months and WBC are prepared to let this risk of injury carry on. If you read the reports of other incidents on this site time and again they are visitors to the town and people confused by the signage, not people trying to break the law, take short cuts or do anything other than drive safely to their destination. WBC has to recognise that this system is a failure as people are suffering injury and damage to property when it could be avoided. Nearly 3 avoidable accidents a month in a town centre caused by council equipment is not acceptable under any stretch of the imagination.

I would also add that I have been told today that paramedics have been called to many of these incidents and that there have been others injured.

What would you think if God forbid a mother miscarried because of such an incident, or a child was injured or someone died? These are all real possibilities.

What do you think of the fact that the council is ignoring the guidance laid down by the Department for Transport who are the experts?

I'd like to see responses to these last points please.

Posted by: JohnL Jun 9 2009, 08:34 PM

My daughter's car has damage in the engine compartment up behind the bumper so that doesn't seem to tally with what you are saying.

How do the sensors detect the difference between a bike and a car? And do the lower if someone waves a hand over them?

Whatever the argument simpler, clearer signage and a conventional car park barrier, CCTV or at the very least a set of flashing lights and an audible warning would stop the unnecessary damage and injury which is at the heart of what I am calling for in ALL our interests.

Posted by: AmieB Jun 10 2009, 07:43 AM

I dont know why a private vehicle was allowed through and your daughter not. Was it a private taxi? I can see why your daughter would follow the driver infront if she thought it was 6pm and thought it was ok. I still disagree about your comments on the signs though. Theres plenty of them if you look......

I totally agree with you on your 1st point as I have said this before. I do not dispute the fact that the bollards are dangerous and cause serious damage. We have nearly all said on here that another method is needed, and Andreas reason was spot on.

I can not answer on the decision the council makes. Maybe after all the incidents they will think of changing it.......but this
is West Berkshire Council

Posted by: Simon Jun 10 2009, 07:59 AM

Or another way to avoid this problem would be to permanently leave them up so that nothing can get through them. Is it that much of an issue driving round town and parking up for anything that you need to do in town? (yes i know the town now rips us off by having to pay for car parks after 6pm)

I think that the council either need to make it 100% pedestrianised or scrap the whole plan and let all vehicles back through

Posted by: Gumbo Jun 10 2009, 09:36 AM

JohnL, I have stated my views on this a number of times and I fully agree with you. But as I have also stated you will find that a lot of people on this site will never admit they make mistakes and they will offer zero sympathy to your plight.

Have you sort legal advice on this at all? Have you contacted WBC? Has anybody who has had a run-in with one of bollards done either of these, if so what was the outcome?

I do wish WBC listened to local people but seeing as only 45% of the council’s top earners actually live in West Berkshire I guess they implement these things and then bu&&er back off to where they live without a care in the world

Posted by: Blake Jun 10 2009, 09:49 AM

I cannot see anyone being killed by the bollards unless they drove into them at an illegal speed. That seems like an over dramatisation.

Perhaps we could solve the people driving into them by a page in the Highway Code and better training of drivers by driving instructors.

Posted by: Biker1 Jun 10 2009, 03:38 PM

That's not a bad idea except that I won't be able to sneak past them on my bike any more.

Posted by: Andy Jun 10 2009, 05:04 PM

Why can't the buses (and taxis at the Wharf Street) just stop at a certain point after passing to allow the bollards to rise directly behind them and so blocking any vehicle following through, the ensuing driver would then see them rise in front whilst still stationary.

Seems to me this would be a simple possible solution, that would not cost anything at all.

Posted by: Road User Jun 11 2009, 09:44 AM

Well it wouldn't make any difference if the driver behind the buss was trying to tailgate. They would be so close they wouldn't be able to see the bollards rise and would still run into them.

What I want to know is why we are letting people use the pathetic excuse "It was everyone else's fault but my own because I don't want to take any responsibility for my actions" That pretty much sums up the excuses (paraphrased) so far given by the people who have hit them. This is the exact situation the compensation sharks are waiting for and why the cost of insurance is going up for everyone.

By all means put a flashing sign or a traffic light system in but you will still get the same pathetic excuses when people run into them.

They will still say "I didn't see the sign, there was no where to turn, on and on," as long as it has nothing to do with taking responsibility for what they have done.

Posted by: JohnL Jun 11 2009, 09:54 AM

In Cambridge a driver died from a heart attack after hitting the bollards http://www.thatcanadiangirl.co.uk/blog/2006/05/15/there-are-bad-drivers/ . What ever the argumant, it's very unlikely he would have died on that day if he had not hit them and possibly still be alive now.

Posted by: JohnL Jun 11 2009, 10:04 AM

I have asked WBC for cctv footage, H&S assessment for the bollards, details of time and date of incidents, records of injuries, medical attendance, profile of victims i.e. local or visitor etc. so we will wait and see.

My aim is to have these bollards replaced my something safe asap. Regardless of blame etc. there is no excuse for this kind of danger to be ignored and worst still apparently seen as acceptable by WBC... it is not, as most people here agree. Their email reply didn't show any concern for my daughter or ask if she was OK now.

Posted by: Gumbo Jun 11 2009, 11:50 AM

Oh so you do not see a bollard rising up into a running engine of a motor vehicle potentially dangerous?

Posted by: GrumblingAgain Jun 11 2009, 01:08 PM

Out of interest as a public road user, what steps is your daughter going to take to improve her road/driving observation skills? and as it has been proven that she ignores or misses vital road signs, do you think it's right that she continues to drive on public roads, given that she is clearly a danger to other road users?

We live in a culture where every hazard known to man has to be made highly visible, so should her repaired or future vehicle come with some kind of warning brightly painted all over it?

After all, you think safety is paramount - safety includes other people besides just your daughter. Risk awareness and hazard protection works both ways.

Posted by: Andrea Jun 11 2009, 01:40 PM

Hmm, that's a bit harsh and completely unneccessary. Did you not read the scenario the daughter was in? I can understand how she could have missed it. She was driving in the area at 'approximately' 6:00 pm, which is when the bollards go down, and she saw a private car (or what she thought was a private car) go through. I can honestly say that if I saw that, I'd have thought the bollards were down because it was after 6:00 pm. I'm not questioning her observation skills at all because it genuinly seems to have been an honest mistake. This is a perfect example to why these bollards are too extreme. Innocent people who were not trying to beat the system are being injured!

What do you think, GrumblingAgain, do you think the bollards should stay and continue damaging car after car and causing injurings to the occupants of the car? Or should the council re-think the situation and come up with another way? I'm sorry but it seems like anyone with half a brain would see that the bollards are dangerous and need to be changed. Do you enjoy criticising everyone that hits the bollards?

It really does annoy me that all you do is assume the woman wasn't paying attention and you don't seem to even care that she was injured. She will probably be having to visit doctors for some time now because of this. I feel sorry for her and hope that the council will change their views on the bollards and scrap them once and for all!

Posted by: Gumbo Jun 11 2009, 02:13 PM

Once again a post from somebody who never makes a mistake. GrumblingAgain doesn't really do you justice, I think you should rename yourself Mr Perfect. I on the other hand live in the real world and realise that even with the best signage in the world people still make errors, it is part of what makes us human.........Even you Mr Perfect. What has been pointed out a million and one times to you pro-bollard people is that the punishment for these human errors does not fit the crime. The chance of an accident should somebody slip through the net is zero, therefore to destroy their vehicle and cause injury to the driver is wrong. There are much better and cheaper alternatives. The problem WBC face is that they spent money implementing this fancy rising bollard system so to remove it will mean they have to admit they were wrong in the first place and that they wasted taxpayers money........the chances of that happening I think are slim.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jun 11 2009, 02:27 PM

Grumbling again - I presume you are perfect and have never made an error in your life before? Do you work for WBC?

Posted by: JeffG Jun 11 2009, 03:20 PM

Just to add my feelings to the others on GrumblingAgain's crass and unfeeling post: absolute disgust that anyone could post something like this.

Posted by: Bill1 Jun 11 2009, 03:52 PM

I agree with every bit of criticism Grumbling Again is getting, but do wonder why he needed to be asked, with no small hint of cynicism, if he worked for WBC.

They employ thousands of right minded people who, like the Police for example, try their best with the resources at their disposal and their instructions from the powers that be.

The bollards MUST go, when you see other posts on this forum discussing how serious repeat offenders are walking scot free it astounds me that this minor mistake leads to such brutal and wanton destruction.

Posted by: Hugh Saskin Jun 11 2009, 05:56 PM

Leaving contemptuous and inane comments quickly behind us, if you look in the current NWN you will see that under the headline 'Bollards ruining town's reputation', WBC have said that a review into the bollards should be completed before the end of the year and, 'whilst they definitely prevent vehicles driving through a pedestrian zone and threatening pedestrian safety, we are very concerned about the the number of incidents of vehicles colliding with the bollards'. Any bets as to what the outcome might be?

Posted by: GrumblingAgain Jun 11 2009, 06:54 PM

No I don't work for WBC, I am just someone who lost a relative because a motorist had a moment of not paying attention to what they were doing, in EXACTLY the same way our bollard hitters do, and I am sick and tired of hearing the same excuses being trotted out that it is all the bollards fault that the drivers ignored the very basic rule of "NO MOTOR VEHICLES except...." and collided with them. Colliding with the bollards is the consequence not the cause.

Now you may think my comments are crass or insensitive, you may want to heap in with the "me too" aghast comments, you're welcome. But I have the right to my views and just because my views might be different, it doesn't automatically mean you must be right and I must be wrong. If I offended anyone then I am sorry you found it offensive, but I am not sorry for having my point of view.

I haven't once tried to claim to be perfect, yet others seem happy to dictate in a self-righteous way that "because a few motorists a month happen to collide with bollards" it proves their point that they're dangerous. No it doesn't. You are no more right than I am wrong. Thousands of motorists use Newbury each day and manage NOT to ignore the signs and hence the bollards so it's pretty clear where the minority lies.

For the millionth and one time, when you drive a motor vehicle on PUBLIC ROADS you have a DUTY to all other road users. That includes PAYING ATTENTION AT ALL TIMES and when you don't, do not be surprised when you get caught out. For the millionth and one time, it is the unobservant driving, tailgating and disobedience of motoring laws that is causing the accidents, not the bollards rising up out of the ground.

I am not pro or anti-bollard. They are there to do a job. Whether they are bollards, a brick wall, an arm, a policeman, a stinger device, a ramp or a million CCTV cameras, it doesn't really matter, they are there to stop the cars passing for whatever reason the council, the police or the authorities have decided.

What I am though is ANTI BAD OR CARELESS DRIVING because I do not accept that careless driving (yes I know we are all human and make mistakes) should be dismissed as "oh it's minor, it doesn't matter". It does matter and it's offensive to pretend otherwise.

Posted by: Darren Jun 11 2009, 09:53 PM

OK, this appears to descending into personal attack..


Here's a poser...

I think it's fair to say, that the bollards are a controversial choice. So, what should they be replaced with?

1. A rasing/lowering arm across the road.
2. Someone stationed at the point during hours of operation.
3. A large raising 'ramp' with a curved front so any damage is minimised
4. A permenant barrier in operation 24/7/365 with access only for emergency service.

Thouhgts, comments...

Posted by: AmieB Jun 12 2009, 08:50 AM

I'd go with number 1. Paying for someone to stand at the bollards is a waste of money when there are a few dotted around.
I dont see why the bollards cant be raised all the time, then lowered when access is allowed?

Posted by: J C Jun 12 2009, 09:16 AM

5. No vehicles (except emergency) between 10am and 6pm
6. CCTV to identify how people are trying to get through, beit a genuine mistake or tailgating.

If a barrier was to be used then I suspect that a lot more people would try tailgating as you cannot allow a barrier to hit a vehicle as this would be much more dangerous than rising bollards as it could smash the windscreen.

Posted by: Wicca Jun 12 2009, 10:27 AM

My thoughts exactly about the raising/lowering arm, people will still manage to hit it. A ramp with a curved front could still cause expensive damage if hit hard enough.

I think a combination of 2 and 6 might work.

Posted by: Hugh Saskin Jun 12 2009, 10:48 AM

Might it be an idea that all those interested should forward their thoughts and suggestions to WBC regarding bollards and ask that they be submitted to those conducting the review, rather than just keep posting ideas on here?

Posted by: Andrea Jun 12 2009, 10:48 AM

Only people who were purposely trying to get through knowing full well that they aren't allowed would get hit but the rising arm. Anyone who tries to say they didn't see an arm barrier is completely full of it cause it's impossible to miss them! Add a camera to flash the drivers who get through and send them tickets. I don't see how anyone could argue with this one!

Posted by: Bill1 Jun 12 2009, 01:11 PM

Good idea Hugh.

Posted by: Biker1 Jun 12 2009, 03:40 PM

Hear Hear GA

One of the best replies I have read so far on this ongoing topic.

Posted by: Iommi Jun 12 2009, 06:54 PM

Most motorists have a moment of not paying attention and regrettably, sometimes this can be fatal.

When the WBC put these bollards in, they would, or should have considered the consequences. That is to say, they knew people would hit them. just like if a road is built, consideration to its design would be made that would make a difference on its safety factor. The shape of the bends, the camber, barriers, etc, all make a difference to the safety of the road. I presume a risk assessment was made for the installation of the bollards. This might have detailed the relative risks of having them against not having them. My understanding is that there were no accidents to pedestrians or drivers when there were no bollards. Now we have bollards, we seem to be getting a lot of accidents.

Now it is true that the likelihood of a car hurting someone is increased with traffic illegally passing through the high street, but I presume it would also be true to say there would be fewer accidents recorded if there were no bollards.

Yes, drivers are at fault, but I think the design and the signage are not good enough to stop the amount of unobservant or confused drivers from being struck by, or striking the bollards. I am also not convinced that these drivers who are hit by bollards are necessarily any more dangerous than someone who has just been lucky in that they have managed to avoid being in an accident when they make an observational error.

Perhaps if tailgating was permitted (delayed rising of the bollards), we would reduce the amount of accidents, but not pose too much risk to pedestrians. After all, all they would be doing is following a slow moving bus, or similar. I'd also say that due to the fact that the pedestrian area is not exclusively a pedestrian area, pedestrians are still somewhat on the alert for motor vehicles anyway.

In truth, I don't think there is a better alternative to the current situation, except if we could simply stop all normal vehicular access to the high street (That can only happen successfully if we have better access to the rear of the shops, like a western inner distribution road). I can imagine how officers in the council might feel if they removed the bollards and a pedestrian was badly injured, or worse, that was hit by a stray driver.

Posted by: Hugh Saskin Jun 12 2009, 07:01 PM

Seems a bit old hat, I fear, now that WBC are actually reviewing rising bollards in Newbury given their 'concern about the the number of incidents of vehicles colliding with the bollards'- so suggest any future comments or suggestions be directed straight to them. BTW am I right in thinking that they are legally mandated to provide responses to members of the public, just like other government agencies?

Posted by: dangerousbollards Jun 12 2009, 08:00 PM

If you are not familiar with the area you have no hope of reading and understanding the signs whilst keeping an eye on traffic and pedestrians. Barriers would be just as effective and would be less dangerous. As for the signs - how about a 'no entry' sign for a start. A smaller sign indicating permitted hours of access could be added. The bottom line is the bollards should be removed. Anybody interested in signing a petition?

If you want to see a driver's view of the signs see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dd6Bn5T4lCY

Oh by the way, contrary to what someone has claimed, the video starts before the first sign and I was driving at 10-15mph.

Posted by: Andy Jun 13 2009, 12:10 AM

Possibly missable if right behind a bus?

Posted by: CircuitW1zard Jun 13 2009, 08:23 AM

GrumblingAgain:- Whilst I agree that a lot of the time people are pushing their luck by tailgating buses/taxi's and therefore them hitting the bollards is their own fault I think that on this most recent occasion you are missing the key message.

I was the witness that posted in the other forum and has the picture of the wrecked car. I can confirm that what appears to be a private car went over the bollards well before the car that hit them. They remained down at 5:58pm. One would assume as not everyones clocks are syncronised that the council clock was at 6pm and the bollards were down for the night. This poor lady drove towards the bollards and they came up under her car and appeared to rip the bottom of her engine off. How can you accuse her of driving without due care and attention? Should the council put a digital clock next to the bollards so that we are aware of the time they think it is?

Even the parking attendants from the adjacent car park said the bollards should not have come up.

Posted by: CircuitW1zard Jun 13 2009, 08:25 AM

Oops. Double post due to this moderation thingy!!

Posted by: Andy Jun 13 2009, 09:43 AM

Now I understand....giant keyboard in the way!!!!

Posted by: dangerousbollards Jun 13 2009, 02:47 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dd6Bn5T4lCY might work better!

Posted by: Bill1 Jun 13 2009, 07:48 PM

I'd certainly notice Girls Aloud Andy!

Posted by: JeffG Jun 14 2009, 08:28 AM

Nope. Third time lucky?

Posted by: dangerousbollards Jun 14 2009, 08:36 AM

In your dreams.

Posted by: GMR Jun 14 2009, 09:38 AM

I was in town yesterday when another car almost hit the bollards..... she only stopped in time. Well, mainly because somebody jumped out in front of the car to stop the driver. I noticed no "thank you", just a reverse down the road and gone. She didn't even wind down his window to acknowledge the good samaritan. Maybe she thought he was a molester trying to stop her and get his wicked way.

Posted by: Bill1 Jun 14 2009, 05:53 PM

An uncourteous driver?

Quelle suprise!

Posted by: Andy Jun 14 2009, 06:35 PM

That at least works.

There are 2 points which stand out....

1. The car driver is way too close to the bus to notice anything except the bus

2. If the bollards had been in operation, then the bus and car would have stopped (negating the highlighted "By the time you've read this, you've hit them" slogan as inaccurate). That being the case, if the car had been sufficiently away from the bus as stated in point 1, not only would it have had additional time to to see and adhere to the signs when in motion, but also after having stopped.

If anything, I think the video substantially backs up the fact that it poor driving that is probably the root cause of most of these incidents.

Posted by: Andrea Jun 15 2009, 07:16 AM

I watched the video just looking ahead but I still couldn't miss the big caution (!) sign. There are plenty of signs, although some are too wordy, but I don't think you proved your point with that video.

Posted by: GreenGerkin Jun 15 2009, 09:21 AM

i completely agree, as i comented in the video there is a big red triangle with an exclaimation mark, a sign of danger, recognised in all of europe!

the wordy signs r hard to take in though

Posted by: WTF Jun 15 2009, 11:16 AM

I watched the video and I have to say the signage is non-standard and extremely poor - too many and too hard to read! Most road signs are symbols, not text extending to sentences?! The bus doesn't obscure anything and the car does not seem particularly close given the slow speed. I would say the average road user unfamiliar with the area would have difficulty taking it all in.

Posted by: GMR Jun 15 2009, 12:49 PM

Aren't most of them when they face a collision

Posted by: Richard Head Jun 15 2009, 07:38 PM

If you can't read the signs slow down and drop back from the vehicle in front, in that case the driver is far too close to the bus however all the signs are clearly visible.

There are numerous signs there including a standard "No Vehicles" sign, a red one saying "WARNING" and they're all before the one that says "STOP".

Anyone who can't see these is a dangerous driver and should have their licence taken away.

Posted by: Toni Jun 16 2009, 11:01 AM

I have recently visited Brussels and Lyon (France). Both cities have many rising bollards and they have something in common - they are much more solid than the bollards in Newbury with a greater diameter and are slightly less high, they also have no yellow reflecting tape or anything else that makes them more visible. You really would not want to hit one of these under any circumstances. The other thing they have in common? Not a single sign indicating their presence - no street signs or other markings - and yet I never saw any evidence of damage to any bollards or oil on the road around them indicating they had ever been hit.
Perhaps drivers in Newbury hit the bollards because they are distracted by the signs? Yet some people want even more signs! Perhaps we just need to look where we are going and not follow the vehicle in front too closely. Failing that, the Institute of Advanced Motorists and RoSPA provide excellent training courses - much cheaper than a written-off car.
At least it's only a bollard and not a pedestrian that get's hit.

Posted by: Bill1 Jun 16 2009, 11:54 AM

Toni.

Are you aware that our bollards rise up from ground level?

It sounds to me like the ones you describe in Lyon and Brussels are permanently up.

Posted by: AmieB Jun 16 2009, 12:01 PM

I dont see why the Newbury bollards can not be permanently up, that why they can not be missed!

Posted by: GMR Jun 16 2009, 12:16 PM

They are permanently up... they only go down to let police or buses through... it is then that cars following behind get caught. It is the buses in front that obscure the sign posts.

Posted by: AmieB Jun 16 2009, 12:25 PM

Ah right ok...

Not blaming the bus now are we for people going over the bollards....?!

Posted by: Gumbo Jun 16 2009, 12:56 PM

Well the bus drivers should be able to see the cars behind them, would it not be the nice thing to do to get out and advise the driver they are just about to get their car totaled?!

Posted by: GMR Jun 16 2009, 12:57 PM

Personally I am not blaming anybody as I cycle/ walk.... however, people who crash into them need somebody to blame so maybe I've found a solution for them

Posted by: AmieB Jun 16 2009, 01:28 PM

Posted by: Bill1 Jun 16 2009, 01:52 PM

I whole heartedly agree Gumbo.

Posted by: Andy1 Jun 16 2009, 03:55 PM

Seems to be a high number of driver oblivious to the bollards and or the signs for them. If they can't read the signs, then they are a danger on the road. Imagine what other signs they miss or are unable to read.

Posted by: GMR Jun 16 2009, 04:29 PM

Have you thought we might be being unfair here? The persons who were driving the cars might have a disability; i.e. that they suffer from blindness.

Posted by: GreenGerkin Jun 16 2009, 06:23 PM

lol

Posted by: Wicca Jun 16 2009, 09:49 PM

Nice thought about the bus driver's stopping and warning driver's about the bollards, pity it will stay a thought though.

Posted by: dangerousbollards Jun 17 2009, 06:57 PM

Really?

Posted by: GMR Jun 17 2009, 07:13 PM

Obviously - well, at least to him; why do you think he calls himself Richard Head? Dick to his friends. He probably belongs to the perfect brigade. Only people who are totally perfect and have never committed a sin can dare walk amongst us... in his case; drive.

Posted by: dangerousbollards Jun 17 2009, 07:29 PM

The accident was my fault. This is not in question. I made a mistake. Unlike some of the posters here, I am human. But I am not a dangerous driver, I have very good eyesight, I was not speeding, tailgating etc etc. I was unfamiliar with the area and made a mistake.

The issues I think worthy of discussion are whether the signs are adequate for the job and whether somebody unfamiliar with the area who finds themselves entering a prohibited area deserves to have their car wrecked.

On the first issue, the number of people who have been caught suggests the signs are inadequate - how many people do you know who would knowingly play Russian roulette with their cars? It is not the quantity of signs that is at fault, but their style, size and position. Remember, it's easy to see the signs when you're looking out for them (reading them all is difficult even then) but try to put yourself in the position of an unsuspecting driver. As I said before, it would be far clearer to use a conventional 'no entry' sign with the hours in which the restriction is lifted underneath. As for the rising bollards, they should be painted a bright yellow or similar and should not come up as quickly as they do. As reported in http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/autoexpressnews/203888/rising_bollards_set_for_a_fall.html the way they have been deployed breaks the Department of Transport Guidelines. I have looked at the detail and they raise a number of questions which I will take up with WBC.

On the second issue, how many of you have never broken a speed limit? A traffic offence such as driving in a prohibited area is no more serious and arguably far less serious than speeding. Would it be reasonable if systems were introduced to bring speeding cars to a halt by causing £000's worth of damage and risking injury or death to the driver or others?

For completeness, I have posted a http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=og3CZWsKUC8 which shows the additional sign some people have referred to. I hold my hand up to not reading that one either. But I suggest that there should be a sign on both sides of the road, as there are two lanes of traffic and if you are in the right lane you would not be looking over to the other side of the road to read such a small sign. Perhaps more to the point, as you can probably appreciate from the video - it is partially obscured by foliage!

Anyway, I understand the council is reviewing the use of rising bollards and I hope those involved will see sense and replace them with something better. My suggestion would be cameras like they use in London to catch people using bus lanes.

Posted by: dangerousbollards Jun 17 2009, 07:32 PM

Well said

That aside, he's missed the point.

Posted by: Richard Head Jun 18 2009, 07:19 AM

I never drive without due care an attention as some of the drivers mentioned here have, that's totally different to making a mistake, it's a concious decision not to slow down and look at one's surroundings, they make their choice and should live with the consequences.

If someone (or many people) suffers as a result of these actions it's their own fault, "I didn't see the signs" or "I didn't see the child" is almost always no excuse when one causes harm to themselves, their property or other people.

Posted by: Simon Jun 18 2009, 09:16 AM

There is loads of talk about this subject and I seem to be agreeing with certain points made by both sides, so will have to remain sat on the fence.

I would like to know though, if the NWN has sent any reporters to WBC to see what they are doing about this hot topic? Are they willing to take on board of the suggestions made in this forum?

Posted by: GMR Jun 18 2009, 10:00 AM

Hi Richard,

It is possible that the car drivers where so close to the bus in front that the sign posts where obscured. I've been behind buses/ high lorries in the past and I've never seen the signs in front because the large vehicle as obscured the sign. By the time you've reached the bollards it is usually too late.

That is just one explanation why people might collide with the bollards; another one, as I have mentioned, could be blindness.

Posted by: Hugh Saskin Jun 18 2009, 03:41 PM

A very brave thing to say, Richard, and one that may come back to haunt you in later life. Statistically, it is just not possible to go through life without making at least one mistake....

Posted by: Simon Jun 18 2009, 03:44 PM

Richard....

Are you trying to say that you have never driven above the legal speed limit? Forgotten to inidicate at a round about or turning?

I tip my hat to you sir

Posted by: Bill1 Jun 18 2009, 03:54 PM

Richard wrote "I never drive without due care an attention as some of the drivers mentioned here have"

And yet you can't spell a simple three letter word like and????? you must have been typing without due care and attention

Posted by: Richard Head Jun 18 2009, 05:51 PM

We're not talking about making a mistake here though are we, we're talking about ignoring five to ten road signs and various other bits of warning paraphernalia.

Surely no one's that daft are they, to miss all ten or so warnings?

Posted by: Iommi Jun 18 2009, 07:23 PM

If they weren't, I doubt we wouldn't be having this debate. Good design is all about making it more difficult to do the wrong thing. People make careers out of designing these things. My feeling is, that area is not well designed. Even now and I am familiar with the area, have to stop, think and observe while the traffic lights are red, to see if there has been any changes to the scheme. As junctions go, I think 'that' Bart St one is the most peculiar in town.

Posted by: Darren Jun 19 2009, 08:38 AM

how come the ones in the Wharf don't seem to get hit anywhere near as many times now or the Northbrook St one before the work started?

Posted by: GMR Jun 19 2009, 09:21 AM

Again; I think it is because cars are behind buses when they do it and can't see the signs. Buses don't go down the Wharf.

Posted by: dangerousbollards Jun 19 2009, 08:09 PM

I agree with you that being behind a bus (not tailgating) doesn't help. However, the signs are really, really poor. The first sign is impossible for anybody to take in whilst driving and is hidden by foilage. The only way is to take it in is to stand in front of it! Whoever designed it has no idea about good design.

Posted by: GMR Jun 19 2009, 08:14 PM

I did speak to one of the Engineers a couple of months ago and he told me the signs were badly placed. However, every time a car hits them they make money by issuing the person with a ticket. Plus their insurance has to pay out. This process keeps everybody occupied and the council get money. So maybe the signs were placed in the right place.

Posted by: dannyboy Jun 20 2009, 12:48 PM

there is one VERY clear sign which is a vehicle prohibition sign. No wording on it at all. It means NO MOTOR VEHICLES. The drivers who hit the bollards ignore this basic highway code sign. Either through arrogance, ignorance or incompetence. Whichever way you look at it, it is driving without due care & attention.
It is like driving into a one way street the wrong way, crashing into an oncomming car & claiming 'but I didn't see the no entry sign'

Posted by: Iommi Jun 20 2009, 02:56 PM

Newbury has a number of these one-way streets, but I haven't heard of a car crashing head on in this manner. I therefore suggest that this isn't a suitable comparison.

Posted by: GrumblingAgain Jun 20 2009, 03:26 PM

dannyboy, I'm afraid you're wasting your time pointing out that valid observation on this site I also mentioned the meaning of that sign way back but to many on this board it seems that failing to spot road signs nowadays is a perfectly acceptable way to drive and if anything untoward happens as a result of failing to spot the signs it's everyone else's fault except the driver's.



No you're wrong there, it is a very good example and here are some more...

Failing to spot a give way sign then pulling into the path of fast traffic to cause a crash.
Failing to spot a sharp bend to the left (or right) sign then coming off the road causing a crash.
Failing to spot a barriered (full, half or even none) level crossing sign then colliding with a train to cause a horrific crash.
Failing to spot a sign saying "road flooded" then aquaplanning straight off the road into a ditch to crash.
Failing to spot the No Entry sign and entering a motorway the wrong way causing a nasty crash.
Failing to spot the Slow Down Fog sign then pilling into the back of a traffic jam, causing a crash.
Failing to spot the "deer crossing" sign then around the next bend hitting a deer in middle of the road causing a crash.

All of these probably have not happened in the streets of Newbury but I suggest they are good comparisons nevertheless.

Posted by: Iommi Jun 20 2009, 03:57 PM

You start by saying...

You then go on to describe some imaginary scenarios, then state...


... I therefore would like to repeat, 'Newbury has a number of these one-way streets, but I haven't heard of a car crashing head on in this manner. I therefore suggest that this isn't a suitable comparison'.

The subtext to my point is, just because someone might miss one of these prohibition signs, doesn't necessarily automatically mean carnage, just as a car impaled on rising bollards mean the life of a pedestrian is saved. What is true though, if someone fails to acknowledge the signage, there will almost certainly be an accident should the driver's negligence coincide with the bollards rising.

Posted by: Hugh Saskin Jun 20 2009, 08:19 PM

All pretty boring stuff now - you ARE actively submitting your thoughts to WBC, aren't you?
Otherwise not doing any good at all, I fear

Posted by: Iommi Jun 20 2009, 11:57 PM

Perhaps you would point us to a post that demonstrates this point of view.


Again, where has suggested said this?

Posted by: GrumblingAgain Jun 21 2009, 10:21 AM

It was clear that dannyboy was comparing missing a road sign (no motor vehicles) leading to a crash (with the bollards) AND missing a road sign (no entry) leading to a crash (with an oncoming car). They are very similar actions - missing sign then complaining about subsequent collision.

You said that because there has been no collision in a one way street in Newbury (got proof?) he couldn’t therefore make the comparison. What rubbish! Cars do and have missed no-entry signs and collided.

They both also share a point that you may spot the rest of the signage or the bollards (and avoid the crash) and you might spot the oncoming car (and avoid the crash).

I added my examples to expose the flaw in your argument – just because a certain combination of missing sign and subsequent accident hasn’t actually happened in a street in Newbury, Berkshire, United Kingdom, it doesn’t mean they have never happened, so dannyboy’s comparison is correct and your retort is incorrect.



I don't think dannyboy said (in that post) that missing signs WOULD cause carnage. He make a comparison. I agree with him, you disagree.

Posted by: GrumblingAgain Jun 21 2009, 10:29 AM

I have mentioned it I think twice, maybe even three times in this thread. Feel free to go looking back. Or not.

I think I used these words if it helps you...

MotorCycle jumping the Car sign (No motor vehicles) and they fail to notice the No Motor Vehicle Sign,

Posted by: Hugh Saskin Jun 21 2009, 10:34 AM

Given that you appear to be a road safety expert, will you confirm that you are sharing your expertise on rising bollards with WBC, please? Your knowledge deserves the widest promulgation...

Posted by: GrumblingAgain Jun 21 2009, 10:36 AM

Don't read it then if you're easily bored. I am not going to blindly swallow your points of view just to keep you entertained.

I am not quite sure what WBC have to do with me writing a reply to comments made by dannyboy or iommi, I don't recall writing Dear WBC this is what I think you should do.....

Posted by: Hugh Saskin Jun 21 2009, 10:52 AM

I'd love to see the response you'd get from WBC - now that REALLY would be entertaining lol

Posted by: Iommi Jun 21 2009, 01:14 PM

You wrote...


...so I asked where people have demonstrated that they hold these points of view. I don't remember any posts that show people hold these points of view, viz, that people do think it is an acceptable driving standard and that it is everyone else's fault.

Posted by: Iommi Jun 21 2009, 01:55 PM

I realise that, but that wasn't the point I was making, so I will repeat...

'just because someone might miss one of these prohibition signs, doesn't necessarily automatically mean carnage, just as a car impaled on rising bollards mean the life of a pedestrian is saved. What is true though, if someone fails to acknowledge the signage, there will almost certainly be an accident should the driver's negligence coincide with the bollards rising.'


Forgive me, but it seems that one of the points being debated here is a failure to comprehend (the signage), yet regrettably you seem to have demonstrated an ability to do this yourself.

I never said there have been no collisions, I said, 'Newbury has a number of these one-way streets, but I haven't heard of a car crashing head on in this manner...', I am merely stating that I have not heard of this happening, yet I am hearing of people running into, or over the bollards, on almost a weekly basis. I don't think I need to provide proof because I am simply stating opinion going by experience, not by research.


Again, my point about the comparison is, in my view, invalid, because the result of missing a one way sign, for instance, doesn't almost guarantee an accident (although I am sure they do happen), yet failure to acknowledge the signs for the bollards does. This is why I didn't see the scenarios as similar. I have now made this point several times, I hope it is clearer now.


I'm not sure what your point is here, but only recently someone was seen driving the wrong way up the Bart St pedestrian zone. Whilst this was an example of some poor driving and observation, no-one was hurt and there was no accident I understand.


I think you are becoming confused here. Your examples were, I believe, a work of fiction (albeit I would imagine they have happened), so I fail to see how producing fictional examples refute my opinions. I am please, however, that you this time didn't use such disrespectful language like 'rubbish' in this passage.

My point of view is based on Newbury traffic control measures, so I wish to focus on them. I am trying to demonstrate that a failure to acknowledge a sign doesn't automatically result in an accident, except where there are rising bollards. West Berkshire Council have decided to install a system where by should a driver fail to acknowledge the pedestrianisation signs, there will almost certainly be an accident.


That is right, but I only wish we could simply debate the merits of the arguments without resorting to calling people's points of view as 'rubbish' - especially when they have little in substance to back the repudiation up.

My view, as I have stated before, isn't that I think the drivers are innocent, only that I understand that the area in Bart St is a poor piece of road design. The driver is primarily at fault, always was and always will be.

One other point to consider; every time there is an accident, that is one extra statistic that could affect all our insurance premiums.

Posted by: Gumbo Jun 22 2009, 09:28 AM

No words? are you sure? surely that can't be right as at certain times this road does allow all vehicles so their must be some words (or numbers) to explain the timings. Also at the weekend I did notice a brilliant sign about 10 yards before the bollards that warned drivers of rising bollards in 40 yards. There is no way on earth that it was 40 yards before the bollards, so if I was unfortunate enough to get my car destroyed by the bollards I would be checking how inaccurate that signage was.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jun 22 2009, 09:31 AM

I'm like soooooooooooooooo Bored with the bollards thread now...........

Posted by: dannyboy Jun 22 2009, 09:32 AM

but you'd be wrong.

Posted by: Iommi Jun 22 2009, 09:35 AM

Then why read it or reply to this thread. Why not just ignore it?


Are you suggesting I have heard of head-on accidents in one-way streets? I can assure you I have not.

If what you are saying is that there are head-on accidents in Newbury's one way streets, then I am quite prepared to believe it, but it seems nothing like on the scale of the bollarding that occurs in Bart St.

Posted by: GMR Jun 22 2009, 09:39 AM

You beat me to it.... I was just going to say that. If people find something boring then they don't have to read it. Obviously this thread is causing debate and is popular so it can't be that boring (not to all people, anyway!)

Posted by: AmieB Jun 22 2009, 10:37 AM

I agree - if your bored with it than dont read it!

Posted by: Bill1 Jun 22 2009, 10:59 AM

Iommi wrote "Are you suggesting I have heard of head-on accidents in one-way streets? I can assure you I have not."

I am quite sure Iommi knows whether he has heard anything or not.

I will say though that I live in a one way street and only last week had to flag down a car and point out that they were heading the wrong way up it. I then helped him get out of the situation by stopping a car entering in the right way while the errant driver sorted his misnomer out. He blamed his satnav! I respectfully pointed out that he had passed a no entry and three one way signs, but then I suppose his attention was mainly focused on the gizmo on his dashboard.........

Posted by: Bill1 Jun 22 2009, 11:01 AM

You beat to pointing out that they beat me to it. (There we are thats another post notched up, but I'll never catch GMR though)

Posted by: GMR Jun 22 2009, 11:36 AM

Don't be so defeatist my friend..... this country wasn't built on people who wanted to give up so easily... it was built on idiots who didn't have a clue, didn't know where they were going but eventually got there.

It was Winston Churchill who said “A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.”

Posted by: Hugh Saskin Jun 22 2009, 11:45 AM

Reminds me of the old joke -

Q What's a creche?

A It's when two motor cars collide in Haslemere

Posted by: dangerousbollards Jun 22 2009, 08:18 PM

There's a thought. Common decency. Unfortunately people like you seem to be a dying breed. Apart from the traffic warden who approached me after the accident - he was professional, but was also polite, considerate and a great help. Oh, by the way, he did say that the bollards were badly signed.

SO to all those perfect drivers, who never go over the speed limit and read every sign they drive past, perhaps you need to come off the moral high ground and join the rest of humanity before you die of altitude sickness.

Posted by: dangerousbollards Jun 22 2009, 08:19 PM

Hmm. Have you read every single road sign you've driven past?

Posted by: JeffG Jun 22 2009, 08:23 PM

I'd have thought that a car close behind a bus would not be visible to the driver in any case. I'm thinking about the notice on the back of many lorries "If you can't see my mirrors, I can't see you".

I'd be glad to be corrected by anyone who knows better.

Posted by: dangerousbollards Jun 22 2009, 08:36 PM

Here is a further reason why the bollards ought to be scrapped.

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

Posted by: Iommi Jun 22 2009, 10:13 PM

I understand that around 70% of people polled in the NWN would prefer the bollards remain. Permitting democracy to prevail should mean the bollards stay. It is disappointing though, that the junctions and roads in the town couldn't be designed to make driving in the pedestrian area less likely, without the destruction that otherwise ensues. There are people that take a chance, but there are a number that do it unwittingly. We all can sling abuse at people that make these types of mistake, but I would be surprised if any of us haven't made a life threatening mistake in our time. This is a part of the reason I have my stance, I don't like to see people being so pious and almost vicious over the misfortune of others.

Posted by: GMR Jun 22 2009, 10:49 PM

70% in the NWN is not a proper representation of everybody in Newbury. Not everybody bothered to reply because it wasn’t an official pole.

I do believe the problem, as I have said, is because cars are tailgating behind buses and can’t see the signs clearly. Whether the car driver is to blame or not it would be helpful if the council relooked at the problem; maybe request the bus drivers to check to see if anybody is behind them and get them to do the decent thing and let the car driver know that they are entering a highly discussed area.

On the matter of bus drivers; I have seen – in the past – bus drivers smiling to themselves when a car that was following them hit the bollards. Unfortunately I was in front of the bus – heading towards the bus – so I was unable to warn the car behind the bus.

Posted by: Iommi Jun 22 2009, 11:51 PM

I realise that, but I would have imagined a closer percentage than that if there was any real concern for the bollards and their part in the issue.

As for buses warning, I'm not sure that it is practical. I remember reading of how a taxi driver did just as you suggested but the car driver ignored him and subsequently crashed into the wharf bollards!

Posted by: J C Jun 23 2009, 07:54 AM

Ah but if the cars are too close behind the bus then the bus might not see them

Posted by: GrumblingAgain Jun 23 2009, 07:58 AM

No I am not, no I will not and no, why?. I don't see you telling us all what's so special about your comments, why you feel that you are qualified to make comments...

Posted by: GrumblingAgain Jun 23 2009, 07:59 AM

Posted by: GrumblingAgain Jun 23 2009, 08:05 AM

No. People who ignore road signs GIVING ORDERS have an increased chance of being a risk to other road users. Why do people think this is perfectly acceptable?

Posted by: GrumblingAgain Jun 23 2009, 08:07 AM

Well I beat you all by making the same point ahead of you all

Posted by: Gumbo Jun 23 2009, 08:32 AM

Polls can be be very misleading and often designed to give the answer the person who is doing it wants. I doubt if at the outset the full facts on the poor road layout, too complicated signage and destruction done to peoples property was provided.

Posted by: dannyboy Jun 23 2009, 09:15 AM

If people were more willing to accept reponsibility for their actions instead of sounding like a bunch of politicians & blaming everyone & everything else for their misfortune, I'd bet many would be more sympathetic.
Trouble is people are told never to accept responsibility in a car accident, and this coupled with the culture of 'claim where there is blame' is changing the way people act in certain situations. Add in the fact that wintnesses & close friends are unlikely to say 'Well, you didn't see the roadsigns did you' after the event only re-inforces the notion that the driver is somehow not at fault.

If there was was any blame on the part of the council, I guarantee you that the bollards would have gone a long time ago. Insurance companies don't like paying up for legitimate claims & wriggle & conive to avoid paying up. If there was even a glimer of a chance the council were wrong the Insurance compaines would have had WBC paying for repairs to cars since day one. Insurance companies don't need to wait for a driver to seek legal redress - they have legal teams acting in their own interests to look at any chance of shifting the blame & the cost.

Posted by: dannyboy Jun 23 2009, 09:17 AM

It depends how long the vehicle you are in is. Whilst it is true that if you cannot see the mirrors the driver of the long vehicle will not be able to see you - literally you - he may still be able to see the latter half of the vehicle you are driving.

Posted by: Iommi Jun 23 2009, 09:25 AM

Can you quote me anyone on this board that thinks this driving is perfectly acceptable? I don't remember anyone endorsing the driving of the people that are hit by, or drive into the bollards.


I think this is only partly true, I understand that West Berkshire Council are unable to recover full cost of repair to these bollards when there is a crash. If the legal position of these bollards were water tight, I would expect full cost to be recovered.

Posted by: GMR Jun 23 2009, 09:28 AM

If somebody was given a warning and then that person decided to ignore them; then shame on them. But it doesn't hurt to be publicly spirited.

Posted by: GMR Jun 23 2009, 09:30 AM

Trust me, the bus drivers can see who is behind them. They've got mirrors all over the place. If they can't see then they shouldn't be on the road. However, and saying that; it is convenient for some drivers not to see

Posted by: Iommi Jun 23 2009, 10:07 AM

It wouldn't surprise me if there wasn't some kind of regulation that would prevent the driver getting out under these circumstances.

Posted by: GMR Jun 23 2009, 10:20 AM

Yeah, he also might be worried about getting punched in the nose.

There is a regulation for everything nowadays so you are properly right.

Posted by: dannyboy Jun 23 2009, 10:49 AM

there are no 'grey areas' in law. Things are either right, or wrong. No insurer is going to waive the chance to pass the costs onto someone other than themselves. The figures quoted for the bollard upkeep was reported by the NWN in a way to make it sound as if they had cost far more than they have. Case of a reporter being 'economical with the facts' .

Posted by: Iommi Jun 23 2009, 11:18 AM

I don't think this is quite true. Depending on what type of law. There's knock for knock and there are times when blame is proportioned.


I'd be interested in knowing where.

This is lifted from the article...http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article.aspx?articleID=9622, Thu, March 26 2009.

"...Newburytoday can reveal that since 1999 – when the first rising bollards were installed in Northbrook Street – until January this year, West Berkshire Council has spent £56,997.10 on maintenance and repairs.

The district council confirmed the figure this week, which accounts for Newbury’s three sets of rising bollards, in Northbrook Street, Wharf Street and Bartholomew Street.

Of the total amount, only £18,361.26 has been reclaimed from the insurance companies of drivers involved in vehicle strikes on the bollards.
This has left taxpayers to foot £36,635.84 of the cost, although the council said that it was in the process of reclaiming a further £13,266.34.

A spokeswoman for West Berkshire Council, Peta Stoddart-Crompton, said: “The council can only recover the cost of any damage that is supported by appropriate witness statements and other relevant evidence that will be accepted by the court.”..."

Perhaps I have read in to this more than I should, but the spokeswoman for the Council implies that full costs are not always recovered. I see little here that seems to be embellished, indeed, I would have expected the Council to refute the claims, but I don't remember this happening. Perhaps the Council should improve the public relations so that misleading stories are properly dealt with.

I suppose maintenance costs might include routine maintenance and not just collision costs. At the end of the day, whether the costs is for collisions or not, it seems the bollards cost money beyond that recovered from insurance claims.

Posted by: GMR Jun 23 2009, 11:41 AM

If they are costing that much maybe they should think about scrapping them and come up with a better idea. The problem isn't going away so why not rethink the whole thing; unless the whole point of the exercise is to keep everybody amused and to create a good talking/ forum debate.

Posted by: Wicca Jun 23 2009, 12:17 PM

My partner drives for newbury buses, the time pressure they are under to complete their rounds is tight enough. If they were to stop everytime they passed the bollards, they would have no chance of completing their duties in time.

Posted by: Andrea Jun 23 2009, 12:20 PM

I can imagine. Newbury Buses has been under so much pressure recently from all the road works, the last thing they need is something else to delay them!

Posted by: GMR Jun 23 2009, 12:21 PM

That is the problem; the pressure companies put on their employees. No wonder we are living in a pressure pot society.

Posted by: Hugh Saskin Jun 23 2009, 02:48 PM

Yes, and imagine the consequences if the bus stopped short and the bollards rose under the ar$e end of the bus - just where the engine is. Oh,calamity!

Posted by: GMR Jun 23 2009, 03:06 PM

Don't you mean "deep joy!!!"

Posted by: Gumbo Jun 23 2009, 03:11 PM

Especially for all those bollard lovers out there who like to see misery.

Posted by: Hugh Saskin Jun 23 2009, 04:15 PM

Yes, and then we would have the usual righteous comments on the lines of 'I've no sympathy at all with the bus driver involved. I never make mistakes when driving, he shouldn't either'.

Posted by: Hugh Saskin Jun 23 2009, 04:43 PM

Errr, since you ask, I happen to be a certificated Accident Investigator (A.D. Little trained) and successfully made a living at it for some years - lol . Will be very interested, therefore, to see what recommendations come out of the WBC review into bollards....

Posted by: Hugh Saskin Jun 23 2009, 05:52 PM

Since we're on the subject and you asked first - perhaps you will now give us your qualifications (apart from a driving licence, I hope ) ?

Posted by: Andy1 Jun 23 2009, 09:03 PM

Errr, Successful accident investigator for many years. A bit of a contradiction. If all accident investigators were successfull, surely there wouldn't be so many re-ocurring accidents

Posted by: GMR Jun 23 2009, 09:29 PM

Successful in creating the accident i think he means. If he had stopped it he'd be out of work and turkey's don't vote for Christmas.

Posted by: Biker1 Jun 23 2009, 10:36 PM

Can't happen.

As I said before sensors in the road prevent the bollards rising BENEATH a vehicle.

Posted by: GMR Jun 23 2009, 11:33 PM

If that is the case then why did all those cars get hit? And some of them where hit from underneath. In fact; if that is the case this thread is redundant.

Posted by: Hugh Saskin Jun 24 2009, 05:53 AM

Blimey, Andy, had to earn a crust, didn't I?

Like to think I did my little bit and it is a fact that the number of accidents generally have diminished over the years, albeit for various reasons. In this case, if bollards are to remain, the best that can be expected is to reduce the likelihood of drivers driving vehicles into the bollards, or having the bollards rise under them. As I have said before, it will be interesting to see what recommendations the review for WBC produces (and if they are accepted).

Posted by: Iommi Jun 24 2009, 08:07 AM

Most accidents I have read about, are of bollards rising as the car passes over.

Posted by: Biker1 Jun 24 2009, 08:08 AM

Because they hit the bollards after they had started rising when the bus had cleared them.
The bus could sit there all day over the bollards and they would not rise until it was clear.

If the bollards have not fully risen and locked in the "up" position then they will lower again if they detect another vehicle passing.
The reason the cars hit them is because they are following the bus and the bollards have started to rise after it has cleared.
If they have not locked in the fully up position then they will start to lower again when they detect the car following.
However, the cars are following too close, or too fast, or both, for them to fully lower again so they hit them.
This gives the impression that the bollards have risen beneath the vehicle as they are not fully risen.

I ma not saying this is the best method of operation or that the bollards are infallible, I am just trying to explain how they operate.

Posted by: Iommi Jun 24 2009, 08:15 AM

What is too fast or close?

The 'reaction time' of the bollards is not fast enough to react as a car passes over them. The bollards will drop if they meet resistance, but only if a vehicle is stationary would there be no damage. As soon as a car moves (and this would be when the bollards are not visible to the driver), there is a risk of damage.

Damage is not cause by the force of the bollard rising, but due to the vehicle moving over them as they rise. This speed can be quite slow and still badly damage the vehicle (and the bollard).

Posted by: Biker1 Jun 24 2009, 08:48 AM

I heave never heard of anyone hitting the Nothbrook Street bollards.
Correct me if I am wrong.

I wonder why that is?
What is the difference that allows this?

Posted by: Biker1 Jun 24 2009, 08:53 AM

I agree - maybe the sensors that cause the bollards to lower again should be so positioned so that they lowered in time to avoid a collision.
(However you then have the problem of them allowing vehicles to pass into the semi - pedestrianised zone by tailgating.)

Posted by: GMR Jun 24 2009, 09:39 AM

Fair enough.... but that proves what I said earlier. That cars are so close to the bus in front that they can't see the signs.

Posted by: Iommi Jun 24 2009, 11:21 AM

I'm not sure it proves anything. How do you define too close?

Posted by: Road User Jun 24 2009, 12:18 PM

Wouldn't that be the two second rule? If you can't count two seconds between you and the vehicle in front then you are too close. I would say common sense but it's been a long time since I have seen that exhibited by the general public (both in vehicles and wandering around aimlessly)......

Posted by: GMR Jun 24 2009, 01:23 PM

If a car is up your backside and hits the bollards and it is too close. And as another member said; the two second rule.

Posted by: Iommi Jun 24 2009, 02:16 PM

I don't think that is enough. 2 seconds at 10 mph is about 10 metres. That's stopping distance when a hazard is present ahead, this doesn't take into account reading and acknowledging the signage. I suggest, maybe one would need at least another 2 seconds to absorb that. So that would be 20 metres. Accepting this is true, virtually everyone drives too close.

The distance from the junction to the bollards is about 10 yards, this is 9.1 metres... can you see where I'm going with this?

Posted by: GMR Jun 24 2009, 03:01 PM

Yes, I see what you are saying.

Posted by: Hugh Saskin Jun 24 2009, 04:42 PM

Nor have I and this question was asked some time ago. If you can determine why this should be then perhaps there is what they call 'a transferable lesson' with regard to preventing the other bollards being hit.

Posted by: J C Jun 24 2009, 05:04 PM

I've been wondering about this too, maybe as it is the only set on a 2-way road? I don't believe that there are bollards on the side of the road driving towards the clocktower so no need for drivers to tailgate as they can drive on the wrong side of the road to get around it.

Posted by: Iommi Jun 24 2009, 05:30 PM

I actually have, I know someone that hit them when fully extended. Poor visibility with driving rain, he simply ran into them!


It is rare. I can only think that the environment is more conducive to someone wondering what the islands and so-on are all about. Also it is easy to abort progress and turn right down West St. I think the area is less confusing to a stranger, where as the junction at Bart St and Market St is unusual and confusing to a stranger.

Posted by: dangerousbollards Jul 5 2009, 04:45 PM

Unless you are an expert on bollards, your post is pointless speculation, isn't it?

Posted by: dangerousbollards Jul 5 2009, 04:49 PM

There are no 'grey' areas in law? Don't be ridiculous. There are plenty of grey areas that are tested in court day after day. Do you understand anything about the legal system in this country?

Posted by: dannyboy Jul 6 2009, 09:25 AM

Yes I do, thanks. There are not plenty of grey areas tested in court every day. What is contested in court every day is whether or not a person, or legal entity is guilty or innocent. A precedent may be set. If it is then the law is changed.

Posted by: dangerousbollards Jul 7 2009, 08:44 PM

OK. You don't have much of a grasp then.

Posted by: dannyboy Jul 8 2009, 04:51 PM

but a tighter one than you. And I can drive. Properly

Posted by: Hugh Saskin Jul 8 2009, 06:48 PM

This may come as news to you, but so can most people. It's when they make a mistake (or driver error to give it another name) that the trouble starts. Promise never to make one, cross your heart and hope to die?

Posted by: dannyboy Jul 9 2009, 10:27 AM

A mistake?!? I think it is called driving without due care & attention.
but whatever, I'd be man enough to admit my error & not bleat on about wrong signs, confusing road layouts & being nwe to the area.

Posted by: Hugh Saskin Jul 9 2009, 02:32 PM

and what's this - are you telling us that this is the primary function of a coroner's court - or a county court? Like us mere mortals, perhaps you haven't quite got the grasp of subjects that you think you have....

Posted by: dannyboy Jul 9 2009, 04:25 PM

but we are not talking about that kind of court are we.

Posted by: Hugh Saskin Jul 9 2009, 04:59 PM

Errr, why not? It is entirely probable that either of those courts could become involved as a result of an incident or incidents involving these bollards. Plenty of grey areas when you get to a county court, believe me.

Posted by: Hugh Saskin Jul 9 2009, 05:15 PM

can you define nwe to the area then?