Cycling Equipment · Public discussion

Bollards

Started by Email address hidden · · Last activity · 88 posts · 1,563 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Cycling Equipment
Published
19 July 2007
Last activity
12 August 2007
Original author
Email address hidden
Posts
88
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
1,563
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 61–80 of 88
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. email hidden said:


    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.

    Oh, you're "sure" the baby was fine? That vehicle was, rather
    stupidly, moving fast to beat the bollards and stopped with
    significant force.

    I'm not so sure a young, undeveloped baby's head and neck bouncing
    forward and then snapping with those G-forces is a good thing - but if
    you're sure, I guess it's OK.

  2. Quoted message said:

    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....

    There are already vehicles driving through the area, notably large
    buses and evidently delivery drivers. FWIW - delivery drivers are
    *always* in a hurry and bus drivers are not exactly known for their
    courtesy to things in the way of their schedule. Pedestrians in that
    area are already vehicle aware.

    I'm not defending the error of the drivers - I just think the penalty
    is too severe. This is not a "vehicle free" area.

  3. On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 23:54:29 -0700, Dane Buson <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:
    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.

    This is one of the reasons the Ralph Nader (years before he went
    totally off the wall) campaigned against the Corvair design in the
    USA. With a rear engine, there was little to prevent the steering box
    from being shoved back and the column impaling the driver. I believe
    there may have been an additional design issue with the steering
    gearbox being located ahead of the front axle, so that it took the
    first hit from any impact.

  4. still me said:
    email hidden said:


    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.

    Oh, you're "sure" the baby was fine? That vehicle was, rather
    stupidly, moving fast to beat the bollards and stopped with
    significant force.

    I'm not so sure a young, undeveloped baby's head and neck bouncing
    forward and then snapping with those G-forces is a good thing - but if
    you're sure, I guess it's OK.

    I'm not sure, but it looks to me as though the driver side
    airbag deployed. That might explain the hands to the head.

    --
    Joe Riel

  5. still me said:
    Quoted message said:

    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....

    There are already vehicles driving through the area, notably large
    buses and evidently delivery drivers. FWIW - delivery drivers are
    *always* in a hurry and bus drivers are not exactly known for their
    courtesy to things in the way of their schedule.

    I noted that the first bus pulls away while a passenger is disembarking.

    --
    Joe Riel

  6. Joe Riel said:


    I noted that the first bus pulls away while a passenger is disembarking.

    Meh. I miss the old London buses with no doors. Even if I'd missed one
    at the bus stop, I could sprint down the block and hop on.

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

  7. Quoted message said:

    On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 17:05:43 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    Per [email hidden]:

    Quoted message said:

    http://tinyurl.com/ybfsmj

    Great choice of music!

    I don't get the last one - with the two vans.

    Seems like maybe tradesmen or delivery people or some such are
    authorized to enter the area and the second guy might have just
    been following the first one in to some job site or delivery
    location and maybe didn't even see the things.

    OTOH, you'd think that bollard lore would be pretty firmly
    entrenched in the public consciousness after a few years...

    Dear Pete,

    In that final brief episode, the van with legitimate business and a
    radio control is pulling through the bollards, while the jackass
    behind him with no radio to control the bollards is obviously trying
    to blast through the pedestrian crossing from another angle--the
    bollards may have stopped him from hitting the van ahead of him.

    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.

    http://tinyurl.com/ybfsmj

    Every summer, [censored] just like the ones in the video drive half a
    mile the wrong way through the City Park in Pueblo, head-on into
    one-way traffic around blind corners, because the east entrance to the
    park is closed with a metal gate on Sundays.

    These jerks invariably claim that they didn't see the signs saying
    "no-entrance" and "wrong-way" when they came to the 20-foot wide gate
    closing their half of the street, stopped, and then swerved three
    lanes over.

    For some odd reason, the morons lose their ability to read glaringly
    obvious signs only early in the morning, when they think that there
    won't be any traffic coming through the one-way street--just as the
    idiots in the videos are blind to the signs only when they think they
    can blast past through behind a legitimate car and go fast enough to
    escape the rising bollards--which they have sat and watched, rising
    and falling, as they planned their attack.

    Cheers,

    Carl Fogel

    Here's the east entrance to the City Park on a Sunday:

    http://i16.tinypic.com/4y4rrk0.jpg

    And here's a closer view:

    http://i10.tinypic.com/6254l5d.jpg

    Imagine the gray car swerving to enter the park the wrong way down the
    one-way street, past the do-not-enter and other signs, about to crash
    head-on into the red car.

    Now imagine that the red car is you on a bicycle doing 20 mph
    somewhere back along the half-mile one-way road around several blind
    corners, not expecting some moron to drive the wrong way through the
    park in order to get to his early morning softball game.

    Of course, these idiots like to drive _fast_ when they're going the
    wrong way down the one-way street. Perhaps they hope that going faster
    will reduce their exposure.

    One idiot claimed not to have seen the signs, even when witnesses
    walking dogs stated that they saw him stop his car at the entrance and
    stare at the signs.

    Then he changed their defense to how-else-could-I-get-to-the-game,
    whereupon the cop pointed out that there are two signs saying use the
    other entrance at the west side of the park at Pueblo Boulevard, plus
    the do-not-enter sign. Besides, the cop added, the idiot obviously
    knew that the road was one-way, since he'd been going to games all
    summer and therefore knew that there's no other way out of the park.

    I left while they were waiting for the tow truck. The idiot's car
    didn't work too well after he swerved off the road and into the rock
    wall to avoid hitting the car ahead me head-on.

    I was awfully glad that there had been a car ahead of me that morning.
    The moron driving the wrong way through the park might not have
    swerved for a mere bicycle.

    Cheers,

    Carl Fogel

  8. Per still me:

    Quoted message said:

    I'm not defending the error of the drivers - I just think the penalty
    is too severe. This is not a "vehicle free" area.

    In addition, it's non-judicial and uncontrolled.

    Great entertainment. Lousy law enforcement.
    --
    PeteCresswell

  9. (PeteCresswell) said:

    Great entertainment. Lousy law enforcement.

    So barriers coming down on railroad crossings are lousy law enforcement?

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

  10. Per Luigi de Guzman:

    Quoted message said:

    So barriers coming down on railroad crossings are lousy law enforcement?

    No. Because they do not cause a vehicle to stop abruptly.

    Typically they break or bend away - probably causing some
    cosmetic damage to the vehicle, but not causing it to abruptly
    stop - as opposed to the bollards' potential for passenger injury
    and vehicle damage by virtue of stopping some moron's vehicle
    cold from a previously-undetermined speed

    The more moronic the driver, the greater the speed...I guess...
    but that's no comfort to the non-participant passengers or maybe
    one or more pedestrians standing in the wrong place at the wrong
    time. Did you see the rear end of that black SUV jump to the
    side?

    It also does not met out a judicially-controlled/metered
    punishment. Instead it inflicts damage/injury relatively
    randomly.
    --
    PeteCresswell

  11. On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 23:02:23 GMT, Luigi de Guzman <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:
    (PeteCresswell) said:

    Great entertainment. Lousy law enforcement.

    So barriers coming down on railroad crossings are lousy law enforcement?

    Dear Luigi,

    Yes--anything that stops bicyclists, pedestrians, or drivers from
    doing as they please is a bad idea.

    This bicycle crash is about the same as the bollards:

    How unfair of that RR crossing sign to lower when the rider was
    blasting through far too fast to stop! Who is responsible for this
    outrage?

    This demonstration of a car versus a train is self-described as
    "gratutitous" from the master of such staged destruction films (love
    the rakishly tilted hard hat), with repeated slow motion reviews:

    Clearly, the threat of a 1,000-pound-fine sign is excessive! Why do
    the authorities insist on such draconian measures?

    Sadly, real train-car crashes happen every 90 minutes in the U.S., as
    this video points out:

    It's not as dramatic as the others. In fact, it's tedious, with shot
    after shot of the car after the accident and the final depressing
    message. Sort of like real life, rather than entertainment.

    And here's a short film of a pedestrian clearly victimized by poor law
    enforcement:

    I couldn't find any pictures of a legitimate vehicle being hit from
    behind by someone trying to blast through rising bollards, much less
    pictures of pedestrians being killed by the same sort of thing. It's
    almost as if the rising bollards work quite well at protecting the
    rest of us.

    Here are two more cheerful bike versus rising bollard videos:

    A slightly less cheerful video of some drunks out trying to smash what
    they mistakenly think are collapsible lighted bollards:

    How dangerous and thoughtless of the authorities to include a solid
    bollard!

    Cheers,

    Carl Fogel

  12. Quoted message said:

    On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 23:02:23 GMT, Luigi de Guzman <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:
    (PeteCresswell) said:

    Great entertainment. Lousy law enforcement.

    So barriers coming down on railroad crossings are lousy law enforcement?

    First off, there is a dramatic difference results here. A car driving
    across a railroad track when a train arrives will cause a major
    accident, with severe and typically fatal injuries to the vehicle
    occupants and possibly train occupants. A car driving into the
    "special vehicle" area controlled by the bollards will just be another
    vehicle in the area, with little danger to anyone that was not already
    there.

    Second, a railroad type barrier, instead of the aggressive bollards,
    would be a good idea.

    Quoted message said:

    Dear Luigi,

    Yes--anything that stops bicyclists, pedestrians, or drivers from
    doing as they please is a bad idea.

    No one has suggested that.

  13. still me said:

    On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 01:09:27 -0700, "[email hidden]"

    Quoted message said:

    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.

    Oh, you're "sure" the baby was fine? That vehicle was, rather
    stupidly, moving fast to beat the bollards and stopped with


    ^^^^^^^^

    Quoted message said:

    significant force.

    I'm not so sure a young, undeveloped baby's head and neck bouncing
    forward and then snapping with those G-forces is a good thing - but if
    you're sure, I guess it's OK.

    Well, we should just evaluate all traffic furniture
    based on the likelihood that someone with a baby will
    drive into it, then. Think of the children!

    It's baby evolution in action. Babies who pick parents
    that doen't behave like idiots in motor vehicles have a
    better chance of growing up to be undamaged adults. The
    unlucky babies or those who make bad choices grow up to
    post to rec.bicycles.tech and .racing. And the ones that
    actually got dropped on their heads grow up to race
    bicycles.

    Ben
    used to race bicycles

  14. Luigi de Guzman said:
    Quoted message said:

    Great entertainment. Lousy law enforcement.

    Quoted message said:

    So barriers coming down on railroad crossings are lousy law
    enforcement?

    What's worse, is that occasionally people on whose cars the crossing
    barriers descend,become immobile, allowing oncoming trains to smash
    their car and their person even though there is no traffic in front or
    behind the car. Crossing gates in this area are linked with the road
    traffic lights so that those on the crossing get a green light until
    after the gates have closed, to allow them free passage off the
    tracks.

    These crossing gates have always been break-away (thin wood) design
    but more recently have gotten a latched hinge that will allow pushing
    the arm back without it breaking. That hasn't affected on-the-tracks
    stoppers. On the other hand, these crossing gates made by USS:

    http://www.switch.com/crossing/model95.html

    are "let" down and can manually be raised at any time. Try it and
    see. People have had the barrier come down onto their laps, so to
    speak, and froze in place until death came. They could have given the
    gate a shove upward and driven off safely but were mentally paralyzed.

    Jobst Brandt

  15. email hidden said:
    still me said:

    On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 01:09:27 -0700, "[email hidden]"

    Quoted message said:

    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.

    Oh, you're "sure" the baby was fine? That vehicle was, rather
    stupidly, moving fast to beat the bollards and stopped with


    ^^^^^^^^

    Quoted message said:

    significant force.

    I'm not so sure a young, undeveloped baby's head and neck bouncing
    forward and then snapping with those G-forces is a good thing - but if
    you're sure, I guess it's OK.

    Well, we should just evaluate all traffic furniture
    based on the likelihood that someone with a baby will
    drive into it, then. Think of the children!

    It's baby evolution in action. Babies who pick parents
    that doen't behave like idiots in motor vehicles have a
    better chance of growing up to be undamaged adults. The
    unlucky babies or those who make bad choices grow up to
    post to rec.bicycles.tech and .racing. And the ones that
    actually got dropped on their heads grow up to race
    bicycles.

    Ben
    used to race bicycles

    Dear Ben & SM,

    "Last week was the best week for dead babies we have ever had. Of the
    seventy-four deaths occurring in the city [San Francisco circa 1875],
    more than half were of infants under two years of age. Thirty were
    under one year. Whom the gods love die young, particularly if their
    parents get drunk and neglect them."

    --p. 3, "The Ambrose Bierce Satanic Reader"

    Alas, Bierce flourished in the pre-rising-bollard era, so we lack any
    direct comments. He applauded successful suicides (a life-long
    obsession that did not include his son's triumph), but was often
    cruelly witty about those whose attempts to destroy themselves ended
    in nothing more thane spectacular failures.

    Cheers,

    Carl Fogel

  16. On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 19:21:33 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    Per Luigi de Guzman:

    Quoted message said:

    So barriers coming down on railroad crossings are lousy law enforcement?

    No. Because they do not cause a vehicle to stop abruptly.

    Typically they break or bend away - probably causing some
    cosmetic damage to the vehicle, but not causing it to abruptly
    stop - as opposed to the bollards' potential for passenger injury
    and vehicle damage by virtue of stopping some moron's vehicle
    cold from a previously-undetermined speed

    The more moronic the driver, the greater the speed...I guess...
    but that's no comfort to the non-participant passengers or maybe
    one or more pedestrians standing in the wrong place at the wrong
    time. Did you see the rear end of that black SUV jump to the
    side?

    It also does not met out a judicially-controlled/metered
    punishment. Instead it inflicts damage/injury relatively
    randomly.

    Dear Pete,

    Here's a railroad barrier coming down and causing an idiot to stop
    abruptly:

    Ah, how much safer if the black SUV blasting into a clearly marked
    steel barrier while tailgating a legal vehicle had managed to hit a
    few other cars and pedestrians!

    It's not about punishment. It's about idiots ramming clearly marked
    steel barriers after watching and stupidly thinking that they can
    blast through without the radio control.

    Cheers,

    Carl Fogel

  17. On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 00:17:37 GMT, still me <[email hidden]>
    wrote:

    [snip]

    Quoted message said:

    Second, a railroad type barrier, instead of the aggressive bollards,
    would be a good idea.

    [snip]

    Dear SM,

    Sorry, but a flimsy railroad-style arm would be promptly smashed.
    Anyone familiar with traffic barriers can tell you that.

    Indeed, a common and all-too-plausible claim at accident scenes is
    that no arm came down at the railroad crossing--an earlier driver had
    smashed it.

    Here's a trend with such arms:

    The rising bollards protect the often-broken arm.

    I suppose that you could put a button on a post that the driver could
    reach if he wasn't too impatient to roll his window down, marked
    "Please press if you prefer not to obey the large signs."

    Cheers,

    Carl Fogel

  18. Per [email hidden]:

    Quoted message said:

    Here's a railroad barrier coming down and causing an idiot to stop
    abruptly:

    Ouch! That must've hurt.

    You can almost hear the guy saying "WTF!????".
    --
    PeteCresswell

  19. In article
    <[email hidden]>,

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 17:05:43 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    Per [email hidden]:
    >http://tinyurl.com/ybfsmj

    Great choice of music!

    I don't get the last one - with the two vans.

    Seems like maybe tradesmen or delivery people or some such are
    authorized to enter the area and the second guy might have just
    been following the first one in to some job site or delivery
    location and maybe didn't even see the things.

    OTOH, you'd think that bollard lore would be pretty firmly
    entrenched in the public consciousness after a few years...

    Dear Pete,

    In that final brief episode, the van with legitimate business and a
    radio control is pulling through the bollards, while the jackass
    behind him with no radio to control the bollards is obviously trying
    to blast through the pedestrian crossing from another angle--the
    bollards may have stopped him from hitting the van ahead of him.

    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.

    http://tinyurl.com/ybfsmj

    Every summer, [censored] just like the ones in the video drive half a
    mile the wrong way through the City Park in Pueblo, head-on into
    one-way traffic around blind corners, because the east entrance to the
    park is closed with a metal gate on Sundays.

    These jerks invariably claim that they didn't see the signs saying
    "no-entrance" and "wrong-way" when they came to the 20-foot wide gate
    closing their half of the street, stopped, and then swerved three
    lanes over.

    For some odd reason, the morons lose their ability to read glaringly
    obvious signs only early in the morning, when they think that there
    won't be any traffic coming through the one-way street--just as the
    idiots in the videos are blind to the signs only when they think they
    can blast past through behind a legitimate car and go fast enough to
    escape the rising bollards--which they have sat and watched, rising
    and falling, as they planned their attack.

    Cheers,

    Carl Fogel

    Here's the east entrance to the City Park on a Sunday:

    http://i16.tinypic.com/4y4rrk0.jpg

    And here's a closer view:

    http://i10.tinypic.com/6254l5d.jpg

    Imagine the gray car swerving to enter the park the wrong way down the
    one-way street, past the do-not-enter and other signs, about to crash
    head-on into the red car.

    An inattentive driver will smash into the Road Closed
    sign. Only a chiseler will go around.

    --
    Michael Press

  20. In article
    <[email hidden]>,

    still me said:

    First off, there is a dramatic difference results here. A car driving
    across a railroad track when a train arrives will cause a major
    accident, with severe and typically fatal injuries to the vehicle
    occupants and possibly train occupants. A car driving into the
    "special vehicle" area controlled by the bollards will just be another
    vehicle in the area, with little danger to anyone that was not already
    there.

    A driver who illegally enters a proscribed zone has
    already demonstrated his unfitness to be there.

    --
    Michael Press

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.