Bollards

I should also add that in Washington, DC, there are an awful lot of
access-controlled areas--take the 1600 block of Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW, for instance (that's right in front of the White House). The
preference here is not for rising bollards, but rather a steel
quarter-round section the width of a vehicle lane. The barrier rises up
to a height of about three feet from the surface of the roadway. When the
barrier is raised, a driver can see STOP written on it in letters three
feet high.

There is no mention of DANGER--YOUR CAR WILL BE DAMAGED IF YOU TRY TO RUSH
THROUGH THIS BARRIER.

--
Luigi de Guzman
http://ouij.livejournal.com

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 23:41:48 GMT, still me <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As for "not seeing the things," play the opening scene again--no
reasonable person is going believe anyone who claims that he failed to
see those two huge signs on either side of the barriers.

It's a little hard to tell, but I don't think those signs say anything
like "severe vehicle damage and personal injury will occur". I think
you need more warning than "authorized vehicles only" when the result
may be serious personal injury for an infraction.

People can be absent minded, or just plain ignorant, or just plain
violating the law for personal benefit; I think the penalty here
exceeds the infraction.

Dear Bob,

It's the penalty for stupidity.

These people are not absent-minded--look at the video again.

They are plainly trying to blast through the rising bollards behind a
legitimate vehicle and have no one to blame but themselves.

They have obviously sat, watched, and planned their attempt to zoom
through. They stupidly thought that the bollards would not rise fast
enough to hit them, despite seeing how fast the bollards rise.

They might as well complain if they were killed trying to draft
without headlights at night behind an ambulance through a red light at
a busy intersection.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Luigi de Guzman said:

I should also add that in Washington, DC, there are an awful lot of
access-controlled areas--take the 1600 block of Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW, for instance (that's right in front of the White House). The
preference here is not for rising bollards, but rather a steel
quarter-round section the width of a vehicle lane. The barrier rises up
to a height of about three feet from the surface of the roadway. When the
barrier is raised, a driver can see STOP written on it in letters three
feet high.

There is no mention of DANGER--YOUR CAR WILL BE DAMAGED IF YOU TRY TO RUSH
THROUGH THIS BARRIER.

Yeah, well, the cops with guns standing beside them kind of get the
point across, though.

nate

(HATES driving through DC)

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

still me said:

Quoted message said:

As for "not seeing the things," play the opening scene again--no
reasonable person is going believe anyone who claims that he failed to
see those two huge signs on either side of the barriers.

It's a little hard to tell, but I don't think those signs say anything
like "severe vehicle damage and personal injury will occur". I think
you need more warning than "authorized vehicles only" when the result
may be serious personal injury for an infraction.

People can be absent minded, or just plain ignorant, or just plain
violating the law for personal benefit; I think the penalty here
exceeds the infraction.

Such people should not be permitted to drive a motor-car; as well as being
(as shown) a danger to themselves, they are a danger - when behind the
wheel - to others.

_ said:

Such people should not be permitted to drive a motor-car; as well as being
(as shown) a danger to themselves, they are a danger - when behind the
wheel - to others.

Maybe. Lots of people make mistakes and errors in judgement which in
retrospect look pretty foolish. I bet everyone here has done that at
one time or another. For me, it's usually right about when I say to
myself "this is a stupid idea" that I discover I am correct.

For violations, the penalty should match the error. Here, the penalty
should be a ticket. A simple camera (and they seem to have lots of
them in the UK from what I hear) would allow them to send you a fat
ticket while not either ruining your car or endangering your physical
safety.

After all, what exactly is the violation? Obviously buses, delivery
vehicles, no doubt other "special" vehicles are allowed through here
on a regular basis. It's not like pedestrians will not expect vehicles
in this area - just a limited number. It's not like they are
attempting to enter a secured area. This is a minor infraction, the
penalty should be equally minor.

[email hidden said:

"]http://tinyurl.com/ybfsmj

Smartasses, they are!

Jobst Brandt

I see the makings of a Mr Bean episode here.

Michael Press said:

Quoted post said:

It wouldn't be such a bad thing if driving _required_ more attention.

We could start by outlawing air bags, and requiring that a television
be installed on the dashboard of every car.

I thought the traditional line was "install an eight inch spike on the
center of the steering wheel"?

--
Dane Buson - [email hidden]
"It is wonderful to be here in the great state of Chicago..."
-Dan Quayle

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Dane Buson said:

Michael Press said:

Quoted post said:

It wouldn't be such a bad thing if driving _required_ more attention.

We could start by outlawing air bags, and requiring that a television
be installed on the dashboard of every car.

I thought the traditional line was "install an eight inch spike on the
center of the steering wheel"?

All in good time. You know that the steel spike was
removed from the center of the steering wheel, or do
you?

Once upon a time, the steering column connection to the
forward end of the undercarriage was impervious to
impacts sustained when the automobile collided with
other objects. In a forward impact the undercarriage
moved backward relative to the passenger compartment,
driving the steering column into the thorax of the
vehicle operator who typically was himself moving
forward relative to the passenger compartment.

--
Michael Press

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Dane Buson said:

"It is wonderful to be here in the great state of Chicago..."
-Dan Quayle

A funny movie was made with the Vice President
character a goof on Dan Quayle.

_My_Fellow_Americans_ [1996]

--
Michael Press

still me said:

_ said:

Such people should not be permitted to drive a motor-car; as well as being
(as shown) a danger to themselves, they are a danger - when behind the
wheel - to others.

Maybe. Lots of people make mistakes and errors in judgement which in
retrospect look pretty foolish.

Driving your motorcar onto a rising bollard, in the face of huge signs
warning you not to do so, needs no retrospection. It is foolish on its
face, and such people should have their priviledge of driving removed.

still me said:

_ said:

Such people should not be permitted to drive a motor-car; as well as being
(as shown) a danger to themselves, they are a danger - when behind the
wheel - to others.

Maybe. Lots of people make mistakes and errors in judgement which in
retrospect look pretty foolish. I bet everyone here has done that at
one time or another. For me, it's usually right about when I say to
myself "this is a stupid idea" that I discover I am correct.

For violations, the penalty should match the error. Here, the penalty
should be a ticket. A simple camera (and they seem to have lots of
them in the UK from what I hear) would allow them to send you a fat
ticket while not either ruining your car or endangering your physical
safety.

After all, what exactly is the violation? Obviously buses, delivery
vehicles, no doubt other "special" vehicles are allowed through here
on a regular basis. It's not like pedestrians will not expect vehicles
in this area - just a limited number. It's not like they are
attempting to enter a secured area. This is a minor infraction, the
penalty should be equally minor.

I don't know why you're trying to make that point here. This group is full of
cyclists and being creatures who NEVER violate any law of the road are perfectly
happy with the most draconian, injurious penalties possible.

The reaction will be real interesting when one of those cameras catches a
cyclist getting fubared by one of those things.

Ron

RonSonic said:

I don't know why you're trying to make that point here. This group is full of
cyclists and being creatures who NEVER violate any law of the road are perfectly
happy with the most draconian, injurious penalties possible.

Exactly. Extending the logic here would have us installing pop up tire
shredders triggered when highway speeders passed our auto detector.
After all, the Speed Limit signs have been warning them for years,
they should certainly get it by now. It's time to take action against
them!

So what if they crash and burn, they really should know better.

I also have an idea for illegal parkers involving a portable car
crusher - I think it would cut _way_ down on that problem.

RonSonic said:

still me said:

On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 10:25:38 GMT, _
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Such people should not be permitted to drive a motor-car; as well as being
(as shown) a danger to themselves, they are a danger - when behind the
wheel - to others.

Quoted message said:

Maybe. Lots of people make mistakes and errors in judgement which in
retrospect look pretty foolish. I bet everyone here has done that at
one time or another. For me, it's usually right about when I say to
myself "this is a stupid idea" that I discover I am correct.

Quoted message said:

For violations, the penalty should match the error. Here, the penalty
should be a ticket. A simple camera (and they seem to have lots of
them in the UK from what I hear) would allow them to send you a fat
ticket while not either ruining your car or endangering your physical
safety.

Quoted message said:

After all, what exactly is the violation? Obviously buses, delivery
vehicles, no doubt other "special" vehicles are allowed through here
on a regular basis. It's not like pedestrians will not expect vehicles
in this area - just a limited number. It's not like they are
attempting to enter a secured area. This is a minor infraction, the
penalty should be equally minor.

I don't know why you're trying to make that point here. This group is full of
cyclists and being creatures who NEVER violate any law of the road are perfectly
happy with the most draconian, injurious penalties possible.

The reaction will be real interesting when one of those cameras catches a
cyclist getting fubared by one of those things.

Over in the fixie thread, nearly everyone in the group is
ranting about how horrible those lawbreaking hipsters
with no front brake are. So I don't think you're seeing
anti-cager, pro-bike bias, so much as RBT Curmudgeon Syndrome.

However, for anyone who's ever been injured by dooring,
cut off, or otherwise victimized by sudden road hazards
on a bicycle, it is sort of entertaining to watch Jaws 2:
Revenge of the Bollards. Keeping in mind that a signal
was run, nobody even got hurt and the damage was mostly
to undercarriages, I think the Schadenfreude is pretty
harmless.

Ben

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

For violations, the penalty should match the error. Here, the penalty
should be a ticket. A simple camera (and they seem to have lots of
them in the UK from what I hear) would allow them to send you a fat
ticket while not either ruining your car or endangering your physical
safety.

After all, what exactly is the violation? Obviously buses, delivery
vehicles, no doubt other "special" vehicles are allowed through here
on a regular basis. It's not like pedestrians will not expect vehicles
in this area - just a limited number.

And of course all the drivers too thick-skulled to see the restricted
area signs are trained to drive in pedestrian malls, just like transit
drivers, so we don't have to worry about a motorist plowing into a group
of pedestrians or anything....
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/West/07/16/farmers.market.crash/index.html

--
[email hidden] is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Updated Infrared Photography Gallery:
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/photo/ir.html>

Per [email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

nobody even got hurt

I wouldn't be too sure of that with the black SUV. At least one
person was holding their head and two people rushed around to
check on something/somebody in the back seat.

Got forbid somebody's 80-something-year-old parents were in the
back seat.

Also, the time stamps on the video weren't all that far apart -
suggesting that this particular form of entertainment happens
fairly often. Given that, I'd think the numbers would catch up
with them and somebody has been grievously injured by now.

It's kind of like the Philly police towing an illegally parked
car to a tow lot that's five miles away down on the river and not
served by public transportation when some poor schlemiel from out
of town didn't see the sign a half-block away that said that
street was a tow zone between 4 in the afternoon and six in the
evening..... or some cop walked up the street attaching
"Temporary No Parking - Tow Zone" signs to the street lamps and
then walked down said street writing tickets. (Seen it done with
my own eyes....)

i.e. the *real* punishment meted out is non-judicial,
uncontrolled, and all out of proportion to the crime.
--
PeteCresswell

In article
<[email hidden]>,
"[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Over in the fixie thread, nearly everyone in the group is
ranting about how horrible those lawbreaking hipsters
with no front brake are. So I don't think you're seeing
anti-cager, pro-bike bias, so much as RBT Curmudgeon Syndrome.

However, for anyone who's ever been injured by dooring,
cut off, or otherwise victimized by sudden road hazards
on a bicycle, it is sort of entertaining to watch Jaws 2:
Revenge of the Bollards. Keeping in mind that a signal
was run, nobody even got hurt and the damage was mostly
to undercarriages, I think the Schadenfreude is pretty
harmless.

Great, Can I have some of that schadenfreude with a
side of potato salad and a liter of beer?

--
Michael Press

Quoted message said:

RonSonic said:

The reaction will be real interesting when one of those cameras catches a
cyclist getting fubared by one of those things.

Over in the fixie thread, nearly everyone in the group is
ranting about how horrible those lawbreaking hipsters
with no front brake are. So I don't think you're seeing
anti-cager, pro-bike bias, so much as RBT Curmudgeon Syndrome.

Naw, I just don't think they're all that bright. Lots of the Fast
Friday crowd here in Seattle don't have front brakes. They mostly seem
to spend time hanging out and doing trackstands. [0] Lots of my group
of bike hooligans ride fixed gears and single speeds. But I'm pretty
sure they all have a reasonable set of brakes.

One observation is that the people with no brakes [3] don't tend to ride
long distances or go ridiculously fast.

There are of course exceptions to every rule.

Counter-example: Ted Shred

Quoted message said:

However, for anyone who's ever been injured by dooring, cut off, or
otherwise victimized by sudden road hazards on a bicycle, it is sort
of entertaining to watch Jaws 2: Revenge of the Bollards. Keeping in
mind that a signal was run, nobody even got hurt and the damage was
mostly to undercarriages, I think the Schadenfreude is pretty
harmless.

I want to know who I petition to get some installed at Pike Place Market
personally.

[0] Oh, how youth is wasted on the young. [2]
[1] Except for some of them who actually race their bikes on the track.
But I think they all have separate track bikes.
[2] Then again, I certainly slacked every chance I could get. ;-)
[3] Other than back-braking with their legs.

--
Dane Buson - [email hidden]
"When the revolution comes, we're going to need a longer wall".

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Dane Buson said:

Michael Press said:

"[email hidden]" <[email hidden]> wrote:

> It wouldn't be such a bad thing if driving _required_ more attention.

We could start by outlawing air bags, and requiring that a television
be installed on the dashboard of every car.

I thought the traditional line was "install an eight inch spike on the
center of the steering wheel"?

All in good time. You know that the steel spike was
removed from the center of the steering wheel, or do
you?

Before my time, but I was aware of it.

Quoted message said:

Once upon a time, the steering column connection to the
forward end of the undercarriage was impervious to
impacts sustained when the automobile collided with
other objects. In a forward impact the undercarriage
moved backward relative to the passenger compartment,
driving the steering column into the thorax of the
vehicle operator who typically was himself moving
forward relative to the passenger compartment.

Thankfully, I wasn't aware of it in that sort of detail previously.

--
Dane Buson - [email hidden]
A computer without a Microsoft Operating system
is like a dog without bricks tied to it's head.

(PeteCresswell) said:

Per [email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

nobody even got hurt

I wouldn't be too sure of that with the black SUV. At least one
person was holding their head and two people rushed around to
check on something/somebody in the back seat.

That was somebody with hands to their head in "oh my god,
what have I done" mode, rushing around to check on the
baby in the back seat (IIRC you can see them removing
the car seat). I'm sure the baby was fine. The car
wasn't going highway speed - anyone wearing a seat belt
probably got bruises at the most.

Quoted message said:

Got forbid somebody's 80-something-year-old parents were in the
back seat.

Newsflash: cars are dangerous. If you're worried about
the 8-month or 80-year olds in the back seat, don't run
signals! You could get sideswiped by another car ...
I ride my bike a little more carefully when carrying
my laptop, and drive slower with passengers who have a
tendency to carsickness. It ain't that hard.

Quoted message said:

Also, the time stamps on the video weren't all that far apart -
suggesting that this particular form of entertainment happens
fairly often. Given that, I'd think the numbers would catch up
with them and somebody has been grievously injured by now.

It's kind of like the Philly police towing an illegally parked
car to a tow lot that's five miles away down on the river and not
served by public transportation when some poor schlemiel from out
of town didn't see the sign a half-block away that said that
street was a tow zone between 4 in the afternoon and six in the
evening..... or some cop walked up the street attaching
"Temporary No Parking - Tow Zone" signs to the street lamps and
then walked down said street writing tickets. (Seen it done with
my own eyes....)

i.e. the *real* punishment meted out is non-judicial,
uncontrolled, and all out of proportion to the crime.

I know about arbitary Philly cops, but this is a moving
violation, which can be an actual crime, not a parking
ticket. It's kind of like trying to beat the gates at
railroad tracks - a little more excusable since bollards
are less familiar than rail gates, but it still falls
under the rubric of "Don't Do Stupid [censored]."

Ben

email hidden said:

RonSonic said:

still me said:

On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 10:25:38 GMT, _
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

>Such people should not be permitted to drive a motor-car; as well as being
>(as shown) a danger to themselves, they are a danger - when behind the
>wheel - to others.

Quoted message said:

Maybe. Lots of people make mistakes and errors in judgement which in
retrospect look pretty foolish. I bet everyone here has done that at
one time or another. For me, it's usually right about when I say to
myself "this is a stupid idea" that I discover I am correct.

Quoted message said:

For violations, the penalty should match the error. Here, the penalty
should be a ticket. A simple camera (and they seem to have lots of
them in the UK from what I hear) would allow them to send you a fat
ticket while not either ruining your car or endangering your physical
safety.

Quoted message said:

After all, what exactly is the violation? Obviously buses, delivery
vehicles, no doubt other "special" vehicles are allowed through here
on a regular basis. It's not like pedestrians will not expect vehicles
in this area - just a limited number. It's not like they are
attempting to enter a secured area. This is a minor infraction, the
penalty should be equally minor.

I don't know why you're trying to make that point here. This group is full of
cyclists and being creatures who NEVER violate any law of the road are perfectly
happy with the most draconian, injurious penalties possible.

The reaction will be real interesting when one of those cameras catches a
cyclist getting fubared by one of those things.

Over in the fixie thread, nearly everyone in the group is
ranting about how horrible those lawbreaking hipsters
with no front brake are. So I don't think you're seeing
anti-cager, pro-bike bias, so much as RBT Curmudgeon Syndrome.

However, for anyone who's ever been injured by dooring,
cut off, or otherwise victimized by sudden road hazards
on a bicycle, it is sort of entertaining to watch Jaws 2:
Revenge of the Bollards. Keeping in mind that a signal
was run, nobody even got hurt and the damage was mostly
to undercarriages, I think the Schadenfreude is pretty
harmless.

There is that.

Ron