Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Newbury Today Forum _ Newbury News _ Another car 'bollarded'
Posted by: hamster Feb 12 2010, 04:13 PM
A BMW X5 was bollarded at the entrance to Northbrook Street by Waterstones book shop this afternoon causing quite a storm among the bus drivers and thier horns.
The driver managed to limp the vehicle into West Street with much screeching of rubber from his front wheels now at a peculiar angle. The height of his vehicle possibly saved him from more damage occuring.
With all the roadworks and hoarding at that very location I am not surprised this happened..
Posted by: BMR Feb 12 2010, 04:37 PM
Shame. Given that BMW drivers own the road, you would have thought he would have had control over the bollards. Was hs name Canute? 
Posted by: spartacus Feb 12 2010, 06:31 PM
Surprised that it was the Northbrook Street bollards for a change.... They're hardly ever ram raided...
Posted by: dannyboy Feb 12 2010, 09:20 PM
almost
Posted by: gardeb Feb 13 2010, 04:03 PM
Should have been looking where they were going.
Lucky it wasn't a person that suddenly appeared in the road in front of the car.
Posted by: gel Feb 13 2010, 06:38 PM
Lucky it wasn't a person that suddenly appeared in the road in front of the car.
His Canute mind set was that BMW drivers think that
Bollards
Make
Way
and traffic restrictions are only applicable to non BMW drivers.
They should nick him too as he was committing a traffic violation too presumably
ie ignoring traffic sign??
No doubt caught on camera; will we be seeing?
Posted by: Iommi Feb 13 2010, 10:26 PM
For some, it might be that activity that 'inspires' accidents like this.
Posted by: lordtup Feb 14 2010, 01:11 PM
Maybe the producers of the BBC programme Top Gear should road test various vehicles over these bollards in order to ascertain the best buy.
Personally I favour the Centurion tank , but I understand the running costs are pretty high. Failing that a Heinkel bubble car would easily fit between them , 
Posted by: JeffG Feb 14 2010, 04:59 PM
Perhaps they were looking at the Specsavers shop which is near there
Posted by: Blake Feb 14 2010, 09:16 PM
This just keeps getting better!
I'd love to have seen the look on the face of this idiot driver when it all happened.
Anyone got any photos of the offender and the vehicle?
Posted by: On the edge Feb 15 2010, 01:37 PM
I'd love to have seen the look on the face of this idiot driver when it all happened.
Anyone got any photos of the offender and the vehicle?
Even better, anyone got photos of the cretins who still use mobiles whilst driving? Or the idiot drivers who stay in the centre lane of a motorway in breach of the highway code...
Posted by: Iommi Feb 15 2010, 04:22 PM
I would, but it would only be of my ear! As for lanes, I usually stay in the outside lane...often going faster than the legal limit!
Posted by: dannyboy May 5 2010, 07:00 PM
Oil & Sand in Bart Street I see........
Posted by: Bill1 May 5 2010, 07:10 PM
Yup.
Some inattentive Hooray Henry this time!
Posted by: Biker1 May 5 2010, 07:16 PM
Oh it's you is it?.................. the one I have to undertake when on my bike!
Posted by: HJD May 5 2010, 08:25 PM
Watch out for Brewmaster & his Video Camera.
Posted by: dannyboy May 5 2010, 09:10 PM
videoing while driving? tut tut
Posted by: Blake May 6 2010, 03:07 PM
It seems like ages since we had any bollardees.
What idiot was it this time? Yet another fool who "did not see the signs"?
Posted by: Iommi May 6 2010, 04:14 PM
According to you, that's all it could be.
Posted by: x2lls May 6 2010, 05:49 PM
Lucky it wasn't a person that suddenly appeared in the road in front of the car.
People don't suddenly pop up from under a car...
Posted by: dannyboy May 6 2010, 06:10 PM
neither do the bollards.
and there are umpteen warning signs stating that there are bollards & drivers need to beware. A driver who fails to spot all of these would just as likely not spot a pedestrian.
Posted by: Iommi May 6 2010, 06:35 PM
I suspect even people that have spotted warning signs in their time, have 'managed' to hit pedestrians in the road (and perhaps even off it).
Posted by: Biker1 May 7 2010, 08:30 AM
Is this another bollard thread or the same one...................or am I stuck in "Groundhog Day"?
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome May 7 2010, 10:00 AM
I see some lady has impaled themselves on a bollard this morning in Bartholomew Street.
They really should be shooting those p0rn films in private studios......
Posted by: x2lls May 7 2010, 10:31 AM
They really should be shooting those p0rn films in private studios......
When you say 'impaled', are you saying they came up underneath the vehicle?
Posted by: Biker1 May 7 2010, 10:38 AM
OH No! not this one again!!!!!
Posted by: Iommi May 7 2010, 11:49 AM
Yes he is...
Yeah, I know. Great, innit...
Posted by: Strafin May 7 2010, 05:27 PM
Technically they do...
But only if you time it right.
Posted by: Strafin May 10 2010, 04:27 PM
“The rising bollards have once again prevented a driver from putting shoppers who would not be expecting vehicles to be using the route at risk.”
Quoted from Phil Spray
Does he not realise that shoppers are expecting vehicles because buses, council vehicles, taxis and the emergency services all still drive down there regularly.
Posted by: HJD May 10 2010, 04:37 PM
Quoted from Phil Spray
Does he not realise that shoppers are expecting vehicles because buses, council vehicles, taxis and the emergency services all still drive down there regularly.
Not forgetting the lunatic cyclists & kamikaze mobility scooter drivers.
Posted by: Iommi May 10 2010, 05:05 PM
Quoted from Phil Spray
Does he not realise that shoppers are expecting vehicles because buses, council vehicles, taxis and the emergency services all still drive down there regularly.
Quite! More baloney from the creators of spin and mirth.
Posted by: Jayjay May 10 2010, 05:57 PM
Quoted from Phil Spray
Does he not realise that shoppers are expecting vehicles because buses, council vehicles, taxis and the emergency services all still drive down there regularly.
Drivers of the 'buses, council vehicles, taxis and emergency services' know they are in a pedestrian area so will be aware of pedestrians, they are also professional drivers.
Doubt if somebody who missed all the signage, didn't see the bollards or wondered why there were no other cars on the road just loads of pedestrians was aware he was in a pedestrian area or professional.
Posted by: Iommi May 10 2010, 06:02 PM
Being professional doesn't mean good. Some taxi and bus drivers in the restricted zone have received criticism before now. The other thing is, I would imagine people that run the bollards, would probably be following a bus, or the like, so wouldn't necessarily be that much of a risk anyway.
Posted by: Biker1 May 10 2010, 06:54 PM
I see in "The Advertiser" that this incident has erroneously been reported as the bollards "rose up underneath" the car.
This must be an error in their facts or a typo.
What they, of course, should have said was rose up IN FRONT OF ! 
Posted by: dannyboy May 10 2010, 07:37 PM
This must be an error in their facts or a typo.
What they, of course, should have said was rose up IN FRONT OF !
Who cares where they rose.
The driver should pay attention to roadsigns!
Posted by: Iommi May 10 2010, 07:39 PM
I suspect the driver realises that now. Oh well, at least that's another potential pedestrian killer removed from the road for a few days.
Posted by: Strafin May 10 2010, 08:06 PM
Well if I see someone doing something wrong in their car should I lob a brick through the window then?
Posted by: On the edge May 10 2010, 09:15 PM
Only if you work for Highways at West Berkshire Council.
Posted by: dannyboy May 11 2010, 09:24 AM
No.
Posted by: Biker1 May 11 2010, 07:32 PM
Rather a lot of people so it seems going by previous posts and claims by errant drivers!
Posted by: Strafin May 11 2010, 08:04 PM
I think most people accept that they rise up under the car unless you are completely over them before they ascend.
Posted by: Biker1 May 11 2010, 08:31 PM
Eh?
Posted by: Iommi May 11 2010, 08:43 PM
Go-on biker...'it 'im. You know how much this issue means to you!
Posted by: Strafin May 11 2010, 09:12 PM
What I mean by that is of course that they don't stop ascending until they're hit, but according to Biker, they won't start to rise unless there is nothing above them, right?
Posted by: x2lls May 12 2010, 03:04 AM
Any new system that is installed should have a design specification. I doubt it exists on a council website though. Anyone have access?
Posted by: Biker1 May 12 2010, 10:25 AM
Rather than continuously repeat myself I draw your attention to the posts http://forum.newburytoday.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=567&st=20 particularly post 28.
Posted by: Biker1 May 12 2010, 10:28 AM
Read paragraph 2 http://www.atgaccess.com/Bollards/Automatic/Bollards/VP700-%281%29.aspx
I'm not giving up Iommi!
(Has anybody tried the pushbike test yet?)
Posted by: Iommi May 12 2010, 11:10 AM
The thing is, whether the bollards rise up and hit the car, or the car rolls over party descending, but protruding bollards, still results in the same outcome. When the driver starts to drive off, the bollards are not in view to the driver...then WHAM!
Posted by: Biker1 May 12 2010, 11:17 AM
Yes that's right they have not fully descended and are probably out of sight to the driver when the impact occurs.
How many red & white signs and chicanes do you have to install before it becomes foolproof?
I don't think they ever will.
Perhaps to safeguard even the most unobservant of drivers another system needs to be introduced until full pedestrianisation with the buses being routed via Parkway.
(I presume this is what is happening and the bollards will then cease to be an issue?)
04:04 am x2lls! are you a shift worker or just an insomniac?
Posted by: Jayjay May 12 2010, 01:26 PM
If they have driven over the bollards apparently nothing at all was in view to the driver. Not the 6ft notices or the warnings all the way along the approach.
Posted by: Iommi May 12 2010, 02:25 PM
You've lost me, would you re-word this so I can understand what you mean?
Posted by: Bloggo May 12 2010, 03:01 PM
Yes, that is probably right.
Posted by: Jayjay May 12 2010, 07:46 PM
Sorry you dont understand. Reworded - they didn't see the bollards, they didn't see the notices, they didn't see the signs - in fact they didn't see very much at all.
Posted by: Iommi May 12 2010, 08:04 PM
Ah right, I wasn't actually defending them, only trying to describe how bollards can appear to rise-up and 'impale cars' because one minute there's just a road, then the next minute, the car loses a couple of drive shafts.
I think, however, sign posts in busy areas are a poor form of traffic control. There is often too much to take in for the stranger and one only usually takes notice of what's directly in front of them, or if you are a female driving in a shopping environment, virtually everything bar what's in front of you 
.
Posted by: x2lls May 12 2010, 09:06 PM
Not shift but do standby ( I'm a database administrator), and sometimes stay up very late.
Posted by: Darren Jun 14 2010, 06:12 PM
Looks like someone performed a car -v- bollard test in Bartholomew St today.
Going by the recovery wagon and the mess on the road, the car lost.
Posted by: spartacus Jun 14 2010, 06:27 PM
Nothing much on the Wharf St bollards recently, but it still seems (despite even MORE signs going up, with low level warnings for drivers) that Bartholomew St attracts the lemmings in their motor vehicles.....
Posted by: misc Jun 15 2010, 07:38 AM
I saw a car almost hit a bollard on the way into the Council Offices the other day. One car had gone through, the bollard started to rise and a following car continued towards it obliviously until a security person jumped out in front and shouted at the driver. She stopped with inches to spare...
Posted by: Ben01635 Jun 15 2010, 11:59 AM
Hi All,
Been following this debate for a while now and thought I'd chip in my two cents! - Although I agree that drivers are probably not paying the attention they should, I don't think the signage is quite right. The way I see it, and particualry at the Kennet Centre end of town, there are no signs for No Motorised Vehicle Access, or at least not directly before the bolllards (the one with the motrobike over the car). I think the problem is that the plentiful warning signs, and I agree there are many of them, aren't proper road signs and I think this is why they are overlooked by motorists that are not familiar with the area. The old no vehicle access sign should be recognised by all motorists and is a clear indication to stop and think, rather than just the red background rectangular signs which a motorist may overlook. - The 'correct' signage is at the McDonalds end of town, directly before the bollards, so why not at the Kennet Centre end with similar positioning?
Posted by: Iommi Jun 15 2010, 12:48 PM
The problem is, I feel, is a number of things that come together. It is at a junction that has two rights of way according to the time of day. The signage is plentiful, possibly to distraction. Rising bollards are not common throughout the district. Drivers who think they can beat them. People unfamiliar with the road layout.
I don't think it is any one thing, although the motorist is ultimately responsible.
Posted by: pinkfluffyclouds Jun 15 2010, 12:49 PM
Been following this debate for a while now and thought I'd chip in my two cents! - Although I agree that drivers are probably not paying the attention they should, I don't think the signage is quite right. The way I see it, and particualry at the Kennet Centre end of town, there are no signs for No Motorised Vehicle Access, or at least not directly before the bolllards (the one with the motrobike over the car). I think the problem is that the plentiful warning signs, and I agree there are many of them, aren't proper road signs and I think this is why they are overlooked by motorists that are not familiar with the area. The old no vehicle access sign should be recognised by all motorists and is a clear indication to stop and think, rather than just the red background rectangular signs which a motorist may overlook. - The 'correct' signage is at the McDonalds end of town, directly before the bollards, so why not at the Kennet Centre end with similar positioning?
So if the 'correct' signage is at the McDonalds end of town then how come as many people have come to blows up there too??
The sign with the motorbike over the car really would not help as I am sure a lot of people on the road don't even know this sign (and yes I am one of them I had to recently look it up in the highway code whilst helping my son with his thory !!! I much prefer the BIG RED SIGN that says WARNING Rising Bollards Authorised Vehicles Only 10 am to 6 pm - so much clearer than a motorcycle doing stunts over a car
Posted by: pinkfluffyclouds Jun 15 2010, 01:05 PM
Oh..............
I just looked on Street View - and the "correct signage" is already in place one on either side of the road !!!!
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=rg145xr&sll=53.800651,-4.064941&sspn=12.426641,28.168945&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Newbury,+Berkshire+RG145XR,+United+Kingdom&ll=51.399189,-1.325848&spn=0,0.001719&z=19&layer=c&cbll=51.399223,-1.325726&panoid=wbxy2gAM10DIq9kM7cjnZA&cbp=12,19.58,,1,8.7
Posted by: dannyboy Jun 15 2010, 01:15 PM
The way I see it, and particualry at the Kennet Centre end of town, there are no signs for No Motorised Vehicle Access, or at least not directly before the bolllards (the one with the motrobike over the car).
There most certainly are 'No Vehicluar Access' signs. 2 of them.
Posted by: Ben01635 Jun 15 2010, 01:21 PM
I just looked on Street View - and the "correct signage" is already in place one on either side of the road !!!!
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=rg145xr&sll=53.800651,-4.064941&sspn=12.426641,28.168945&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Newbury,+Berkshire+RG145XR,+United+Kingdom&ll=51.399189,-1.325848&spn=0,0.001719&z=19&layer=c&cbll=51.399223,-1.325726&panoid=wbxy2gAM10DIq9kM7cjnZA&cbp=12,19.58,,1,8.7
I made a point of putting correct into quotes as I don't actually know what the correct signage would be. I know the signs do exist as you point out in your link, but these are right on top of the trafic lights on an already busy and completcated junction (people unfamilar with the area are probably trying to decide if they need the left or right lane for the car park, while checking the trafic lights, and looking out for pedestrians crossing the road. I feel the signs should be relocated directly before the bollards where the opening to Kennet Centre car park is.
But as pointed out previously.....the signs are adequately placed at the other end of town and people still hit the bollards!
Posted by: Iommi Jun 15 2010, 01:26 PM
I don't think they have. Bart St seems to get more than its fair share.
For me, the most natural sign is 'NO ENTRY' with a 'Right Turn Only' sign below it, but I understand that this is not permissible.
Posted by: pinkfluffyclouds Jun 15 2010, 09:09 PM
For me, the most natural sign is 'NO ENTRY' with a 'Right Turn Only' sign below it, but I understand that this is not permissible.
Sorry Iommi you are wrong. I witnessed a car being poleaxed outside McDonalds and have heard of at least another 3 there. Also about two at the Museum ones and about 5 at the Bart Street end.
I do actually have sympathy for visitors as it is obviously confusing in a strange town. Personally I would prefer an arm like barrier which would at most cause a scratch on the roof of the car if it came down rather than ripping the engine out
Posted by: spartacus Jun 15 2010, 09:26 PM
Posted by: pinkfluffyclouds Jun 15 2010, 09:44 PM
Hey Spartacus you are clever I tried to do that earlier and all I could manage to do was get a link to that page.. Tried all sorts but anyway think you have managed to do what I was trying to. The signs are past the traffic lights but obviously before the bollards otherwise they would be pointless... I drive past them every day and have done so for however long they have been there and I have never noticed them only the BIG RED SIGN !! My point.. Road traffic signs are not always seen.
Posted by: Iommi Jun 15 2010, 09:51 PM
I didn't say the other places didn't get them, only that the Bart St gets the lions share. Something you seem to acknowledge.
Posted by: spartacus Jun 15 2010, 09:52 PM
But I reckon the 'NO ENTRY' sign (Red with white bar) COULD be used here.
Only buses are allowed through this link on Bartholomew St. The ONLY signs you are allowed to use with the NO ENTRY sign are the top two here:
The 'NO ENTRY' CANNOT be used at the Wharf St entry as that's for taxis (not a permitted variant)
This NO ENTRY can't be used at the Northbrook Street entrance as it isn't electronic like Bartholomew St (the NO ENTRY needs to disappear when the pedestrian zone is open as you're not allowed a sign saying NO ENTRY 10am - 6pm)
Why not change the flying motor bike sign on Bartholomew Street and replace it with the NO ENTRY? It's an electronic sign that isn't displayed when the pedestrian area is open so it would work and would probably get the message across better to all those dim drivers..
After all, it's the Bartholomew Street bollards that are now taking the main abuse.......
By Jove..... I think WE've only gone and got it....!! Wonder if WBC will make the change before others get hit?
(editted to keep Iommi sweet...
)
Posted by: spartacus Jun 15 2010, 09:58 PM
The panels rotate out if view when the pedestrian zone is open for traffic and the bollards are lowered after 6pm. So if you're a responsible driver who drives through town after 6pm (rather than the tailgating dimwits with limited vision) that probably explains why you didn't see them......
Posted by: Iommi Jun 15 2010, 10:13 PM
I'd like to think it was team work!
Posted by: spartacus Jun 15 2010, 10:16 PM
post editted in appreciation of our collective brainstorming efforts........
Posted by: pinkfluffyclouds Jun 16 2010, 07:45 AM
The panels rotate out if view when the pedestrian zone is open for traffic and the bollards are lowered after 6pm. So if you're a responsible driver who drives through town after 6pm (rather than the tailgating dimwits with limited vision) that probably explains why you didn't see them......
PHEW really thought I was being stupid by not seeing the signs
. I did not drive down there this morning so could not check but will look tomorrow. Great idea about the no entry being on the rotating sign rather than the stunt bike BUT WBC won't do anything about it I am sure but even if there is no entry possibly people will still try and get through by tagging on to the back of the bus. 
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)