OT: Rising Bollards - a reprise

[Dave Larrington]

In news:[email protected],
Pyromancer <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine
to tell us:

> Ok, all very good reasons why there needs to be a *lot* more
> continuous surveillance, ID cards, RFID in people and vehicles, etc
> are needed to defeat this kind of lawlessness.

URL:http://www.no2id.net/resources/images/BlairBarcode.jpg

See my case? It's resting.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
The elder stoat leads, in all circumstances.

 

[Daniel Barlow]

Matt B wrote:
> - Which of us has tried to cause disruption by:
> -- posting inflammatory messages?
> -- starting off-topic threads?
> -- posting insulting messages?
> -- posting otherwise inappropriate messages?
>
> I make it 4-0, I think, by that definition, he is therefore the champion.

My scorecard says 4-4, actually. At least, I don't have inside
information as to either of your motivations, but that's the net effect.

If you truly believe your stated position that the roads would work
better with no special treatment and mutual respect between different
classes of road user, you could do worse than begin treating the road
users on this forum with some of that respect. This would involve e.g.
listening to what they have to say and considering that some of it might
actually have some validity, instead of always automatically taking a
contrary line just for the sake of it.

> I don't expect you to reconsider your view though, I know you must
> demonstrate loyalty to the thought police.

It's not your arguments people have issues with (indeed, there have been
several interesting discussions on Friesland, Home Zones, etc in this
group in the past). It's your attitude - as demonstrated by comments
like that one.


-dan

--
http://www.coruskate.net/

 

[Matt B]

Daniel Barlow wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>> - Which of us has tried to cause disruption by:
>> -- posting inflammatory messages?
>> -- starting off-topic threads?
>> -- posting insulting messages?
>> -- posting otherwise inappropriate messages?
>>
>> I make it 4-0, I think, by that definition, he is therefore the champion.
>
> My scorecard says 4-4, actually. At least, I don't have inside
> information as to either of your motivations, but that's the net effect.

I'd be interested to know which of my posts you thought fell into any of
those categories. I've never intended to 'cause disruption', and have
always been careful to avoid such things, particularly inflammatory or
insulting ones. I have started OT threads in bygone years, but was
careful to mark the subjects 'OT: ***'.

> If you truly believe your stated position that the roads would work
> better with no special treatment

If by 'no special treatment' you mean removing all things which hint
that motorised traffic should be shown some sort or reverence, then yes.
Remove kerbs, lines, signals, signs in shared urban spaces.

> and mutual respect between different
> classes of road user, you could do worse than begin treating the road
> users on this forum with some of that respect.

Have I failed that test? Despite much provocation, and unsympathetic
responses, I thought I was quite measured.

> This would involve e.g.
> listening to what they have to say and considering that some of it might
> actually have some validity,

Regurgitating failed measures, which are not supported by any sound
science, and indeed which, as in the case of speed cameras, are proven
not to be as effective as other measures, rarely has validity.

> instead of always automatically taking a
> contrary line just for the sake of it.

I support views I agree with. I offer contrary views to, or evidence
against, views I find abhorrent, or which I believe are rooted in
prejudice, bigotry or are based on preconceptions.

>> I don't expect you to reconsider your view though, I know you must
>> demonstrate loyalty to the thought police.
>
> It's not your arguments people have issues with ...
> It's your attitude - as demonstrated by comments
> like that one.

Yes, that was a bit rash, although there are a few bullies here, I think
you'll agree, attempting to influence people's actions. I'd had a
frustrating day day with "spindrift's" totally bigoted, unsubstantiated
and misleading posts, and reacted to another, what to me at the seemed,
unreasonable denigration of my motives.

--
Matt B

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Dave Larrington
('[email protected]') wrote:

> In news:[email protected],
> Pyromancer <[email protected]> tweaked the
> Babbage-Engine to tell us:
>
>> Ok, all very good reasons why there needs to be a *lot* more
>> continuous surveillance, ID cards, RFID in people and vehicles, etc
>> are needed to defeat this kind of lawlessness.
>
> URL:http://www.no2id.net/resources/images/BlairBarcode.jpg
>
> See my case? It's resting.

It must be tired, poor thing.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Windows 95:
You, you, you! You make a grown man cry...
M. Jagger/K. Richards

 

[David Martin]

Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>, Dave Larrington
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
> > In news:[email protected],
> > Pyromancer <[email protected]> tweaked the
> > Babbage-Engine to tell us:
> >
> >> Ok, all very good reasons why there needs to be a *lot* more
> >> continuous surveillance, ID cards, RFID in people and vehicles, etc
> >> are needed to defeat this kind of lawlessness.
> >
> > URL:http://www.no2id.net/resources/images/BlairBarcode.jpg
> >
> > See my case? It's resting.
>
> It must be tired, poor thing.

It's pining for the fjords..

...d

 

[ian henden]

"Tom Crispin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
[...]

> However, I fully support the spiking of motorists cars when driving
> into a restricted area, and think they'd be a good idea at traffic
> light juctions to catch those amber gamblers, while allowing cyclists
> to glide safely through. That'd really give the motorists something
> to moan about.

If the car driver is "amber gamling", then surely (in normal circumstances)
the cyclist is "amber gambling" as well. You, as a teacher, condone
this???? And we haven't even started discussing the question of
stereotyping ... which, according to SWMBO ( and a primary teacher to boot)
tells me is something that teachers ought not to encourage. Something about
assumptions.

 

[ian henden]

"dkahn400" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tony Raven wrote:
>
>> My solution is very simple. It's used on US military bases. When the
>> bus goes through it stops on the far side of the bollards until they
>> have risen before driving on. It could be a condition of being given
>> access that you do so.
>
> This could be automated with a second set of bollards a little way in
> front of the first. First set goes down, bus drives up to second set,
> first set goes up, second set goes down, bus drives away, second set
> goes up. Any tailgater blocking the first set will have to back away
> before the bus can move.
>
> If it saves just one sump, etc.
>
On the face of it, OK... but.... to work, wouldn't the vehicles have to be a
fixed length? Shortest bus I have driven was about 20 ft.... the longest,
59 feet 9 inches. Easily fit one or two cars behind the shortest bus, in a
space designed to accomodate the longest......

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 22:56:35 GMT, "ian henden" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Tom Crispin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>[...]
>
>> However, I fully support the spiking of motorists cars when driving
>> into a restricted area, and think they'd be a good idea at traffic
>> light juctions to catch those amber gamblers, while allowing cyclists
>> to glide safely through. That'd really give the motorists something
>> to moan about.
>
>If the car driver is "amber gamling", then surely (in normal circumstances)
>the cyclist is "amber gambling" as well. You, as a teacher, condone
>this???? And we haven't even started discussing the question of
>stereotyping ... which, according to SWMBO ( and a primary teacher to boot)
>tells me is something that teachers ought not to encourage. Something about
>assumptions.

Would a smiley have helped? ;-)

 

[Tony Raven]

ian henden wrote on 06/12/2006 23:10 +0100:
> "dkahn400" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Tony Raven wrote:
>>
>>> My solution is very simple. It's used on US military bases. When the
>>> bus goes through it stops on the far side of the bollards until they
>>> have risen before driving on. It could be a condition of being given
>>> access that you do so.
>> This could be automated with a second set of bollards a little way in
>> front of the first. First set goes down, bus drives up to second set,
>> first set goes up, second set goes down, bus drives away, second set
>> goes up. Any tailgater blocking the first set will have to back away
>> before the bus can move.
>>
>> If it saves just one sump, etc.
>>
> On the face of it, OK... but.... to work, wouldn't the vehicles have to be a
> fixed length? Shortest bus I have driven was about 20 ft.... the longest,
> 59 feet 9 inches. Easily fit one or two cars behind the shortest bus, in a
> space designed to accomodate the longest......
>

I wonder how you ever manage to park your car if you go around looking
for a bus sized space for it. Or do you, like the rest of us, manage to
adjust to the fact you are in a shorter vehicle and position it accordingly?

There is the small matter also of rear view mirrors (or cameras in many
buses) that can tell you whether there is anyone behind you and you
don't move off it there is. Or do you not use mirrors either?


--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Tony Raven wrote:
>ian henden wrote on 06/12/2006 23:10 +0100:
>> "dkahn400" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> Tony Raven wrote:
>>>
>>>> My solution is very simple. It's used on US military bases. When the
>>>> bus goes through it stops on the far side of the bollards until they
>>>> have risen before driving on. It could be a condition of being given
>>>> access that you do so.
>>> This could be automated with a second set of bollards a little way in
>>> front of the first. First set goes down, bus drives up to second set,
>>> first set goes up, second set goes down, bus drives away, second set
>>> goes up. Any tailgater blocking the first set will have to back away
>>> before the bus can move.
>>>
>>> If it saves just one sump, etc.
>>>
>> On the face of it, OK... but.... to work, wouldn't the vehicles have to be a
>> fixed length? Shortest bus I have driven was about 20 ft.... the longest,
>> 59 feet 9 inches. Easily fit one or two cars behind the shortest bus, in a
>> space designed to accomodate the longest......
>
>I wonder how you ever manage to park your car if you go around looking
>for a bus sized space for it. Or do you, like the rest of us, manage to
>adjust to the fact you are in a shorter vehicle and position it accordingly?
>
>There is the small matter also of rear view mirrors (or cameras in many
>buses) that can tell you whether there is anyone behind you and you
>don't move off it there is. Or do you not use mirrors either?

If all bus drivers can be relied on to do that, the suggested second set
of bollards is redundant. If they can't all be relied on to do that, then
the second set of bollards doesn't reliably ensure the bus is positioned
appropriately to block tailgaters but allow the first set up.

In practise, on routes where most but not all bus drivers are competent
and most but not all buses are the same length, they might or might not
be worthwhile.

 

[Simon Brooke]

> "dkahn400" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Tony Raven wrote:
>>
>>> My solution is very simple. It's used on US military bases. When the
>>> bus goes through it stops on the far side of the bollards until they
>>> have risen before driving on. It could be a condition of being given
>>> access that you do so.
>>
>> This could be automated with a second set of bollards a little way in
>> front of the first. First set goes down, bus drives up to second set,
>> first set goes up, second set goes down, bus drives away, second set
>> goes up. Any tailgater blocking the first set will have to back away
>> before the bus can move.
>>
>> If it saves just one sump, etc.

Sorry, Dave (and Tony), I don't see any benefit of this. On the contrary I
see great disbenefit.

The advantage of wrecking people's sumps (and then making them pay a bill
to repair any damage done to the bollard) is pretty straightforward: it
has a powerful deterrent effect (quite apart from the fact we all get to
laugh at them on YouTube).

We're not saving innocents here. We're not saving poor deserving cases.
These are people who have deliberately driven through the most clear and
obvious no entry signs on the British road network. They deserve to have
their cars wrecked, and we deserve to have the pleasure of watching it.

If it saves just one numptie's sump, it's doing the wrong thing - we /want/
to see that hot oil on the road.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Sending your money to someone just because they've erected
;; a barrier of obscurity and secrets around the tools you
;; need to use your data does not help the economy or spur
;; innovation. - Waffle Iron Slashdot, June 16th, 2002

 

[Tony Raven]

Alan Braggins wrote on 07/12/2006 13:23 +0100:
>
> If all bus drivers can be relied on to do that, the suggested second
> set of bollards is redundant. If they can't all be relied on to do
> that, then the second set of bollards doesn't reliably ensure the bus
> is positioned appropriately to block tailgaters but allow the first
> set up.
>
> In practise, on routes where most but not all bus drivers are
> competent and most but not all buses are the same length, they might
> or might not be worthwhile.

As I said originally, make it part of your being given teh access
control equipment for your vehicle that you do not let a tailgater
through. Very simple, have a few buses lose their equipment and the bus
companies will soon make sure the drivers comply. Its not difficult
unless you want to pretend it is.

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 18:15:54 +0000, Simon Brooke
<[email protected]> wrote:

>If it saves just one numptie's sump, it's doing the wrong thing - we /want/
>to see that hot oil on the road.

Provided they are sent the bill to clean up the pollution so innocent
cyclists don't end up sliding on the mess.

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Tony Raven wrote:
>Alan Braggins wrote on 07/12/2006 13:23 +0100:
>>
>> If all bus drivers can be relied on to do that, the suggested second
>> set of bollards is redundant.
>
>As I said originally, make it part of your being given teh access
>control equipment for your vehicle that you do not let a tailgater
>through. Very simple, have a few buses lose their equipment and the bus
>companies will soon make sure the drivers comply.

Exactly.

 

[Mark Thompson]

Simon Brooke wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> If it saves just one numptie's sump, it's doing the wrong thing - we
> /want/ to see that hot oil on the road.

<www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/230/230320
_up_and_down_week_for_the_bollards.html>

Another one here. Seems to have driven straight into it thobut.

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>
Mark Thompson
<pleasegivegenerously@warmmail*_turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com> wrote:
> Simon Brooke wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > If it saves just one numptie's sump, it's doing the wrong thing - we
> > /want/ to see that hot oil on the road.
>
> <www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/230/230320
> _up_and_down_week_for_the_bollards.html>
>
> Another one here. Seems to have driven straight into it thobut.
>
//
Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign, claimed the
bollards were "no more than booby traps designed to catch the unwary".
//

But any driver who is so unobservant that he fails to notice the
warnings or so reckless as to try to beat the bollards truly is a booby
and deserves to be trapped.

 

[Tony Raven]

Rob Morley wrote on 09/12/2006 02:35 +0100:
>
> //
> Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign, claimed the
> bollards were "no more than booby traps designed to catch the unwary".
> //
>
> But any driver who is so unobservant that he fails to notice the
> warnings or so reckless as to try to beat the bollards truly is a booby
> and deserves to be trapped.

Ah but PS is the spokesman for the congenitally blind motorists who
can't spot a bright orange box by the road or read their speedometer either.

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

 

[Al C-F]

Rob Morley wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>
> Mark Thompson
> <pleasegivegenerously@warmmail*_turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com> wrote:
>
>>Simon Brooke wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>
>>>If it saves just one numptie's sump, it's doing the wrong thing - we
>>>/want/ to see that hot oil on the road.
>>
>><www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/230/230320
>>_up_and_down_week_for_the_bollards.html>
>>
>>Another one here. Seems to have driven straight into it thobut.
>>
>
> //
> Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign, claimed the
> bollards were "no more than booby traps designed to catch the unwary".
> //
>
> But any driver who is so unobservant that he fails to notice the
> warnings or so reckless as to try to beat the bollards truly is a booby
> and deserves to be trapped.

"He demanded to know if a risk assessment had been carried out by the
council."

I'm sure he could have just asked. Politely.

 

[Tony Raven]

Al C-F wrote on 10/12/2006 22:14 +0100:
> Rob Morley wrote:
>>
>> But any driver who is so unobservant that he fails to notice the
>> warnings or so reckless as to try to beat the bollards truly is a
>> booby and deserves to be trapped.
>
> "He demanded to know if a risk assessment had been carried out by the
> council."
>

I wonder if he did a risk assessment himself before attempting the
manoeuvre?

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

 

[David Hansen]

On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 02:35:24 -0000 someone who may be Rob Morley
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign, claimed the
>bollards were "no more than booby traps designed to catch the unwary".
>//
>
>But any driver who is so unobservant that he fails to notice the
>warnings or so reckless as to try to beat the bollards truly is a booby
>and deserves to be trapped.

Neither are they likely to be able to determine a safe speed, which
is why speed limits provide some guidance. Mr Smith has shot himself
in the foot again.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54