Rising Bollard Revue

December 15, 2006 3:55 AM

Rising bollards in the middle of the road are becoming more used in the UK to physically enforce traffic restrictions, such as roads open only to buses and taxis. But some drivers in Manchester think the law doesn't apply to them. See what happens when they try to tailgate behind authorized vehicles. Also, see a video of what happens when a loaded lorry is rammed into an anti-terrorist rising bollard at full speed.
posted by grouse (127 comments total)

Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Now all we need are Professional Thumpers to come 'round thumping queue-jumpers on the head.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:06 AM on December 15, 2006

There's another here of a rather more enthusiastic run at the bollards.
posted by Auz at 4:11 AM on December 15, 2006

But some drivers in Manchester think the law doesn't apply to them.

More drivers every day, everywhere. I think municipalities should use these instead of cameras for those who run red lights.

(Also, sharpen the point so it skewers the driver on the way through the vehicle.)
posted by Enron Hubbard at 4:12 AM on December 15, 2006

Well, the devices aren't supposed to be for punishment, merely to stop the vehicle from going into a mainly pedestrian area. As you can see they stop as soon as a vehicle is detected on top of them. However they go up quickly enough that the vehicle isn't on top until it has already collided with the bollard.
posted by grouse at 4:16 AM on December 15, 2006

Cool! I want some. I can just sit here by my window and trigger them willy nilly. Do they go up fast enough to actually launch things?

It seems that they should not go up so fast after an authorized vehicle goes by. What if for example there were another bus.
posted by Gungho at 4:27 AM on December 15, 2006

What if for example there were another bus.

There are traffic signals in front of the bollards, and they turn red as soon as the first bus starts going through. The second bus is supposed to wait for the lights to turn green. And that is generally what they do.

It's implausible that someone would hit the bollards unless they are drunk or accelerating in order to tailgate, which they know is naughty, because there are big "do not enter" signs in front of the site.
posted by grouse at 4:39 AM on December 15, 2006

What if for example there were another bus.

Buses and other authorized vehicles probably carry around a proximity device that triggers the bollards to retract, akin to an EasyPass for toll-highway drivers in the U.S. Since all municipal vehicles are likely trained to stop in front of the bollards regardless, I think it unlikely that there would be such an accident.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:39 AM on December 15, 2006

It seems that they should not go up so fast after an authorized vehicle goes by. What if for example there were another bus.

Presumably, when the second bus came into detection range, the bollard mechanism would detect & authorize it using the same mechanism it did for the first bus, and retract, or leave retracted, the bollards.
posted by kcds at 4:45 AM on December 15, 2006

Bollards??? Bollocks!!!
posted by ZenMasterThis at 4:55 AM on December 15, 2006

Surely we can come up with a better solution to traffic control than wrecking cars and sending people through the windshield no? Seems good for embassies and such but a rather bad idea for general urban use especially consider the speed of deployment and automated nature. Those things are ripe for some spectacular hacking if you ask me.
posted by well_balanced at 4:55 AM on December 15, 2006

J.G. Ballard bollard ballad; try that three times fast.
posted by Smart Dalek at 4:57 AM on December 15, 2006

Does the righteousness extend to possibly causing injury to passengers and children? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to use a highly visible traffic gate instead of popup bollards?

I say this because as a driver in an unfamiliar city I have made mistakes - fortunately they never resulted in the sudden arrest of my forward momentum and air-bag triggering. Visibility behind buses is seriously restricted, particularly double deckers, and tailgating is routine in the stop and go traffic in an urban center.

It's fun to make people are evil and stupid cracks and giggle about it but it is also very easy to miss traffic signs in England - they are all over the place and their are hundreds of them constantly fighting for your attention.

This is a design flaw. Particulary when the roads are open to through traffic on the weekends. Those people probably wouldn't try to run the barrier if they could see some indication that it was active like the lowering of a barrier arm.
posted by srboisvert at 5:04 AM on December 15, 2006

srboisvert: I find your lack of snark...disturbing.
posted by felix betachat at 5:09 AM on December 15, 2006

Surely we can come up with a better solution to traffic control than wrecking cars and sending people through the windshield no?

If drivers would let us, sure. But we have yellow=go faster, right=go even faster. We have right turn on red where people don't even pretend to stop first anymore, and if you should actually stop them for breaking the law, they explode into rage at how *DARE* you cite them, don't you know there are murders and terrorists out there.

(Total murder and non-negligent manslaughter deaths, US, 2005, 16,692. Total traffic fatalities, US, 2005, 43,200.)

Nothing else seems to be working, so why not?

BTW, not only should the driver of the black minivan be charged for driving against a no-entry, and billed for whatever damages they caused, he should also be charged with child endangerment. At least they had the kid in a car seat in the back seat, but in my eyes, driving like a complete idiot with a child in the car is child endangerment, period.

As to the guy who's head broke the windshield. Seatbelts, motherfucker, can you wear them? I will admit the very slight possibility that they were pretensioner belts that failed, but that's a *very* slight possibility. Anyone who's studied car accidents knows exactly what that fracture pattern means. It means "If you'd be doing twice that speed, you'd have gone through, idiot."

They were tailgating behind a large vehicle, moving too fast for the area, and they ignored the very large and multiple signs saying "Do. Not. Enter."

I'm supposed to cry for them? Fuck that. I think the bollard should have more power. It could be an Olympic Sport. Idiot Car Flipping.

"It's a double twisting double gainer, and look at that transaxle bounce. That's a 9.7 for sure."
posted by eriko at 5:15 AM on December 15, 2006 [1 favorite]

There's a hefty toll to enter Foggy Londontown by car already, correct?
posted by bardic at 5:18 AM on December 15, 2006

srboisvert: "Does the righteousness extend to possibly causing injury to passengers and children? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to use a highly visible traffic gate instead of popup bollards?
"

I believe that that particular street has been pedestrian only for some time, and despite that fact, scores of pedestrians have been injured and at least one killed due to motorists ignoring the signs and driving where they aren't supposed to be.

None of the motorists in those videos looked lost to me. They looked to be deliberately accelerating in the hopes of making it through *before* the bollards came up.

So if passengers and children are injured, then it seems to me that the driver is the person to blame -- in precisely the same way that he would be if he tried to play chicken by running a red light.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 5:26 AM on December 15, 2006

if you make it in successfully, don't you have to get out, too?
posted by lester's sock puppet at 5:36 AM on December 15, 2006

Yeah, but since you also have to fight a Rancor to leave a couple more bollards aren't really that big a deal.
posted by Science! at 5:45 AM on December 15, 2006 [1 favorite]

Let's see -- driving recklessly, making a run at driving on a street where you're not supposed to be driving, not wearing seatbelts?

My ability to sympathize? Zero.
posted by Astro Zombie at 5:46 AM on December 15, 2006

Transit vehicles seem to be more resistant to bumps on the road than passenger cars. Perhaps the road leading up to the bollards could be cobblestoned in a manner that forces passenger cars to slow down and consider stopping. Impeding progress towards the bollards difficult for small vehicles might reduce the chances of hapless tourists crashing into them. The (reduced, hopefully) bumpiness in the transit vehicle could serve as a tactile reminder that the bus is stopping soon.
posted by crysflame at 5:46 AM on December 15, 2006

Does the righteousness extend to possibly causing injury to passengers and children? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to use a highly visible traffic gate instead of popup bollards?

The most egregious example (the black minivan) not only puts his child at risk by attempting to circumvent the law but the child in the buggy beside the intersection. What if the parent had stepped into the intersection just after the bus had passed?
posted by smcniven at 5:48 AM on December 15, 2006

Reminds me of shotgun booby traps for catching burglars.
posted by StickyCarpet at 5:48 AM on December 15, 2006

They were tailgating behind a large vehicle, moving too fast for the area, and they ignored the very large and multiple signs saying "Do. Not. Enter."

Exactly. If these idiots can't see the enormous do not enter signs and red traffic signals, then they probably won't be able to see pedestrians (which are smaller and moving) before they hit them.

But it's hard to contemplate that they didn't see these things—more that they were willfully ignoring them. You can especially see this with the first car, who is blocked by the bollards, then reverses out and tries to tailgate the next bus. That was accidental? Nuh-uh.

There's a hefty toll to enter Foggy Londontown by car already, correct?

Yep, it's £8 ($15.75) per day to drive into Central London. But even that won't let you drive into a pedestrian/bus-only zone as the cars in this video are trying to do.
posted by grouse at 5:56 AM on December 15, 2006

There's a hefty toll to enter Foggy Londontown by car already, correct?

Yes. If you insist on driving into Central London during the workday, it'll cost you (IRRC) &8UKP. Residents in the zone get a 90% discount, certain other vehicles are free.

Predicted result? Economic disaster.

Real result? Reduced congestion, and the ability for London Transport to significantly increase the number of buses in London, since they could move, and a marked lack of economic disaster.

Now, this is a bad idea in most cities -- if you don't have a very pervasive transit network, you won't be able to force people out of cars, which means you aren't given them the choice of "drive and pay, or don't drive and pay less."

But in a few cities, you can (and IMHO, should) do this. London is one of them. New York City, in particular, lower Manhattan, is another that has the transit density to make it work. Chicago and Boston don't -- the areas that are well covered aren't large enough, and they aren't the areas with the worst congestion issues.

The other issue is you have to keep you transit systems moving. London, in particular, has a problem with this, after the great Privatization Schemes of the Thatcher era left little unimportant things like basic maintenance off the list (so unprofitable!) and the reliability of the network plummeted. There's also the issue of the tube's age and the technology that was used to build it, and the land it was built on -- the tracks creep slowly, and one of the things they do every night is move some of them back into line. Fixing that is a matter of rebuilding entire lines, this will take years and cost billions.
posted by eriko at 6:01 AM on December 15, 2006 [2 favorites]

We need these in the US. But first we'll actually need to make some spaces where cars aren't allowed.
posted by Mayor Curley at 6:02 AM on December 15, 2006

London, in particular, has a problem with this, after the great Privatization Schemes of the Thatcher era...

At least they kept their busses. Too important to experiment with appararantly, unlike the rest of the country...
posted by vbfg at 6:07 AM on December 15, 2006

IMO, it would be better to use those pop-up tire shredding spikes than these bollards. Same car-stopping and expensive-damage-causing power, but without the obvious risk of passenger and driver injury.

I mean, I don't sympathize with these drivers either, but at the same time, I find it difficult to argue that public safety devices shouldn't be designed to minimize risk to everyone affected by them. I would think a device that forces you to replace all your tires, and possibly wheels as well, and pay for a tow, and pay the mandatory brutal fine that comes along with being towed out of this no-driving zone ought to be enough. We don't really need to add cranial and spinal injury to that, do we?
posted by rusty at 6:10 AM on December 15, 2006 [4 favorites]

I'd love to see something similar in the States. Specifically, to stop people from blowing red lights at busy intersections. The number of times I've nearly been hit by some asshole who is apparently Too Important to Stop On Red... some people won't learn until they sideswipe a family of 4 and cause a fatality or two. I'd gladly trade the risk of one moron hitting a post if it saves the lives of people who follow the traffic laws correctly.

I'm not saying these are needed at EVERY intersection, of course, but there are definitely high-risk crossroads that could use a rising bollard.
posted by caution live frogs at 6:13 AM on December 15, 2006

We need these in the US. But first we'll actually need to make some spaces where cars aren't allowed.

They tried that in many places during misguided urban renewal projects in the seventies. In most of the places where it was done, that I know of, most of the retail businesses died within a few years.
posted by octothorpe at 6:14 AM on December 15, 2006

The zeitgeist today seems to have this strange belief that rules are only rules and nothing more, and when you break them you can get "caught" and that's about the extent of it.

These accidents are not because of bad design or confusion. They are because people expected a loose enforcement of traffic regulations would trump. It's like, "I know the bollard's coming up, but it's a Do-Not-Enter violation ... surely the penalty for driving through it is just a ticket and not a wrecked car, so therefore there must be enough time to drive my car through."

And thus, disbelief for when reality trumps beaurocracy.
posted by cotterpin at 6:15 AM on December 15, 2006 [1 favorite]

It's a shame that some drivers never mind the bollards.
posted by Bromius at 6:15 AM on December 15, 2006 [2 favorites]

That's interesting. I wonder why they didn't use those spikes, all the reasons you listed sound good. The spikes aren't as visible, but paired with the already present signals and a simple, fast gate the blocked road would be just as obvious.
posted by Science! at 6:15 AM on December 15, 2006

I just love the way the pedestrians look at the car with the dazed people staggering out, shake their heads, and carry on!
posted by nielm at 6:17 AM on December 15, 2006

Re: fees paid to drive in city: But in a few cities, you can (and IMHO, should) do this.

I'm pretty sure Singapore has this. My host parents had a little box mounted on their windshield that (they told me) informed the city whenever they drove into its limits. As a result, whenever we came in from Johor Bahru, we took the bus.
posted by arcticwoman at 6:20 AM on December 15, 2006

IMO, it would be better to use those pop-up tire shredding spikes than these bollards. Same car-stopping and expensive-damage-causing power, but without the obvious risk of passenger and driver injury.

But with the added risk of a car travelling at high speed (to avoid the spikeys) with 4 slashed tires into a street that is normally pedestrian-only. I like the bollards better, at least then only the jackhole driver gets hurt.
posted by antifuse at 6:22 AM on December 15, 2006 [1 favorite]

The Benny Hill music was a nice touch on the video....
posted by fluffycreature at 6:28 AM on December 15, 2006

That's interesting. I wonder why they didn't use those spikes, all the reasons you listed sound good. The spikes aren't as visible, but paired with the already present signals and a simple, fast gate the blocked road would be just as obvious.

Perhaps to allow bicycles or scooters? I'm not sure of the regulations in Manchester.
posted by armage at 6:31 AM on December 15, 2006

That's interesting. I wonder why they didn't use those spikes, all the reasons you listed sound good. The spikes aren't as visible, but paired with the already present signals and a simple, fast gate the blocked road would be just as obvious.

As demonstrated in the anti-terrorist bollard video, the bollard stops vehicles in their tracks. With blown out tires, you can still drive the car forward. And imagine if someone accidentally drives into those tire-spikes at 40mph? They lose control and careen off into pedestrians or other traffic. The bollard has more effective stopping power.
posted by slimepuppy at 6:35 AM on December 15, 2006 [1 favorite]

I just love the way the pedestrians look at the car with the dazed people staggering out, shake their heads, and carry on!

Yep, probably thinking the exact thing I did when I saw the video... Fucking idiots.
posted by twistedonion at 6:38 AM on December 15, 2006

As I understand it, it is not safe to have sharp spike devices on the ground in an area pedestrians approach, and manufacturers of such devices advice they are not to be used in such places. So it wouldn't be appropriate to protect a pedestrian zone.
posted by grouse at 6:38 AM on December 15, 2006

(Total murder and non-negligent manslaughter deaths, US, 2005, 16,692. Total traffic fatalities, US, 2005, 43,200.)

Nothing else seems to be working, so why not?

If you want to decrease the number of injuries, and you actually increase the number of injuries and damage, then you've failed, obviously.

Why use a bollard and not a gate? Gates work fine, and they don't cause this much damage if run through.
posted by delmoi at 6:38 AM on December 15, 2006 [1 favorite]

Too add some local knowledge. The barriers shown stop cars entering the shopping center of Manchester, which are usually full of people in busy shopping times - and have been done in Manchesters current "quick turn everything into a bus lane, and everything that wasnt a bus lane into a one way street and reverse the direction of every one way street" which has made driving around that part of town and especially the northern quarter more frustrating than before.

And another thing. ROFL.

The last white van to try them - it looks like the guy in the passenger seat wasnt seat belted in and must head but the windscreen as it appears to smash.

Back the local knowledge. Yes on Sundays and after 9pm, I think, you can drive down those streets no problems. But I think the majority of us have forget this and just go the usual other routes, crawling down Deansgate or crawling around the inner ring road.

As you can get your way through the streets from the Albert Square area to Shudehill no probs, skip over King Street, accross the top of Market Street and down High Street - but the only way back, without going down Deansgate or the inner ring road, is via this now bollarded road. And so, this bollarded road is a ball ache.

But. The High Street, a one way, single track road that goes atop Market Street will soon be closed to cars to. Or at least it makes sense to be. Its a road in an other wise very pedestrian area and on Saturday afternoons is frankly just dangerous.

Fun though. If you have a really noisy car, scaring shoppers out the way by gunning your engine.

Oh Manchester, how I love you so.
posted by 13twelve at 6:44 AM on December 15, 2006

Hurrah for Manchester! "What Manchester does today, the world does tomorrow" as they said in the 19th Century...

The area around those bollards is heavily pedestrianised, and access is generally only for buses and taxis: there are large illuminated signs and raised roadway, indicating limited access and different road rules, but it is possible to make a mistake, especially in a very busy and potentially-unfamiliar city centre.

However, I'd argue that those people are trying to tailgate deliberately: the centre of Manchester is a maze of one-way streets, so if you've ended up on Deansgate it's quite a detour to get to Piccadilly unless you go down that street. Publicity like this will discourage people from attempting the bollards, and the rate of cars destroyed will fall.
posted by alasdair at 6:45 AM on December 15, 2006

And another thing. Wow I'm impressed at the stregth of those bollards.

And one more thing. The really really really really annoying thing about these bollards is that its almost impossible to get into the situation where you can stand on top of one as it rises. I've tried at least 4 or 5 times.

But rest assured tonight when I finish work, I'll be the one playing on those bollards.

Watch out for the youtube videos soon lol
(probably title for page "stupid mancunian breaks head playing on traffic bollards - what a tool")
posted by 13twelve at 6:48 AM on December 15, 2006

If you want to decrease the number of injuries, and you actually increase the number of injuries and damage, then you've failed, obviously.

No, because the bollards eliminate most vehicles from a pedestrian zone, which decreases the deaths and injuries to the pedestrians in the zone, none of which were their fault.

Gates work fine, and they don't cause this much damage if run through.

Any gate strong enough to arrest the vehicle would cause just as much damage. And breakaway gates simply aren't effective because too many people try to run through them, just like the people trying to run the bollards here.
posted by grouse at 6:48 AM on December 15, 2006

We also seem to be avoiding the more important question this post raises. Bollard, queue, lorry? Do you people get together every few years and make up the most ridiculous words you can think of then try and get the rest of the world to accept them?
posted by Science! at 6:51 AM on December 15, 2006 [2 favorites]

For what it's worth, Science!, the first time I ever saw the word bollard it was in relation to bollards used to protect the U.S. Capitol building.
posted by grouse at 6:55 AM on December 15, 2006

That's hilarious because bollard sounds like an insult for a stupid person. Yeah, we don't have a lot of good security guards here.
posted by Science! at 6:58 AM on December 15, 2006

And gates would stop cyclists from going through.
posted by matthewr at 7:02 AM on December 15, 2006

"Floydd Foont & The Rising Bollard Revue" is my new band name.
posted by Floydd at 7:12 AM on December 15, 2006

caution live frogs writes "I'd love to see something similar in the States."

If that happened I'm sure some Mercedes-driving too-important-for-the-rules asshole would end up suing the city where it's installed.
posted by clevershark at 7:14 AM on December 15, 2006

Science! writes "Do you people get together every few years and make up the most ridiculous words you can think of then try and get the rest of the world to accept them?"

"ENGLISH! DO YOU SPEAK IT MOTHERF****R?" -Pulp Fiction
posted by clevershark at 7:16 AM on December 15, 2006

(I was joking, but if one looks for an authority on English one should look to England, really)
posted by clevershark at 7:20 AM on December 15, 2006

I'm fine with punishing idiots for being idiots. But there are a lot of non-idiots involved in these situations, including kids in the back seat and a bunch of pedestrians that very nearly got nailed by the black mini-van bouncing off the bollards. I'm not sure maiming or death are appropriate punishments for driving in a pedestrian zone, and I'm damned sure they're not appropriate punishments for the lesser crimes of being in the car with someone who was driving in a pedestrian zone and standing nearby while someone drives in a pedestrian zone.
posted by jacquilynne at 7:21 AM on December 15, 2006

I must have missed the "maiming or death" part in that video. I must be sure to watch it again more closely.
posted by clevershark at 7:26 AM on December 15, 2006

Get a little drunk first. It makes it so much funnier.
posted by Science! at 7:31 AM on December 15, 2006

I must be sure to watch it again more closely.

It's at the end.
posted by smackfu at 7:42 AM on December 15, 2006

The Benny Hill music was a nice touch on the video....

The song is "Tijuana Taxi" by Herb Alpert and the Tijuana Brass.
posted by ericb at 7:45 AM on December 15, 2006

This is not a punishment. It is to make a pedestrian zone safer. The punishment will come later when those who are caught by the camera driving into the bollards are prosecuted for dangerous driving.

If people willfully endanger their own children with dangerous and illegal driving, there is little that can be done to stop it in advance. But we can stop them from endangering other people's children. Yes, the children of people who don't drive cars deserve to be safe as well.
posted by grouse at 7:51 AM on December 15, 2006

If people willfully endanger their own children with dangerous and illegal driving, there is little that can be done to stop it in advance.

Exactly.
posted by ericb at 7:54 AM on December 15, 2006

if one looks for an authority on English one should look to England

Have you ever heard someone speak with a Cockney accent? I don't know what it is, but it sure ain't English!
posted by papakwanz at 7:58 AM on December 15, 2006

I must have missed the "maiming or death" part in that video. I must be sure to watch it again more closely.

The driver of the black mini-van repeatedly clutches his head in pain. The driver of the final truck damn near goes through the windshield. I'd say it's only a matter of time until an actual death is caused by these things - and it'll probably be of an innocent bystander that gets a car flipped on top of them or something of that sort.
posted by jacquilynne at 8:05 AM on December 15, 2006

Is that a rising bollard or are you just happy to see me?

(It took sixty-one posts for someone to say this?!)
posted by scratch at 8:06 AM on December 15, 2006 [1 favorite]

Why use a bollard and not a gate?

Because after one dumbfuck busts through the gate, there's no more gate to stop other drivers until the city can get back and repair it at great cost.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:06 AM on December 15, 2006

I'd say it's only a matter of time until an actual death is caused by these things - and it'll probably be of an innocent bystander that gets a car flipped on top of them or something of that sort.

But even if it does, if it prevents more than one pedestrian death during that period, it's still a net winner.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:08 AM on December 15, 2006

I'd say it's only a matter of time until an actual death is caused by these things

That's like saying that a death from someone running a red light is caused by the traffic signal or the car with the right of way. No. It is caused by the person who is breaking the law.

it'll probably be of an innocent bystander that gets a car flipped on top of them or something of that sort.

If someone is accelerating into one of these bollards fast enough to flip over, then the pedestrians on the other side definitely would have been dead without it.

If there is something that needs to be taken off the road to make us safer, it's not the bollard, but the car.
posted by grouse at 8:12 AM on December 15, 2006

The driver of the black mini-van repeatedly clutches his head in pain.

I saw that, but I wasn't sure if it was pain or "oh-God-oh-God-what-the-fuck-am-I-supposed-to-do-now."
posted by Faint of Butt at 8:20 AM on December 15, 2006

If someone is accelerating into one of these bollards fast enough to flip over, then the pedestrians on the other side definitely would have been dead without it.

Definetly? Cars drive fast all the time without killing people. The chance of killing someone while driving quickly is, IMO, much greater if you smash into a bollard.
posted by delmoi at 8:26 AM on December 15, 2006

It seemed to me like a combination of whiplash and ringing ears from the airbag deployment, with a healthy dash of "oh-God-oh-God-what-the-fuck-am-I-supposed-to-do-now" rather than a lasting injury.
posted by matthewr at 8:27 AM on December 15, 2006

Bollard, queue, lorry?

Perfectly cromulent words, old chap.
posted by matthewr at 8:28 AM on December 15, 2006

Because after one dumbfuck busts through the gate, there's no more gate to stop other drivers until the city can get back and repair it at great cost.

I think a flexible gate would be cheaper then these bollard contraptions. They can't be cheap. It seems like they're using these they're the sort of "you have to call up to find out how much they cost" type of thing.
posted by delmoi at 8:30 AM on December 15, 2006

Fair enough.

To be honest the vast majority (all) of what I know about British English comes from The Office and The Ricky Gervais Show.
posted by Science! at 8:32 AM on December 15, 2006

It's a perfectly reasonable method of enforcement. Someone who is willing to flaunt the law and risk an accident by tailgating to circumvent the automatic bollards should lose their license to drive.
posted by JJ86 at 8:33 AM on December 15, 2006

Cars drive fast all the time without killing people.

Yes, but if these people can't see multiple big "do not enter" signs and red traffic signals, they wouldn't be able to see less prominent obstacles like people.
posted by grouse at 8:34 AM on December 15, 2006

What sort of gate is 'flexible'?

Anyhoo, gates don't let cyclists through, and it's only a matter of time before someone jams the gate open — but you can hardly jam the bollard down.
posted by matthewr at 8:34 AM on December 15, 2006

I've also found Britain for Americans to be an indispensable resource for understanding cultural differences.
posted by Science! at 8:34 AM on December 15, 2006

Which is to say that the sorts of people who are bad enough drivers to run into these bollards are not good enough to accelerate through a busy pedestrian zone without hitting someone.
posted by grouse at 8:35 AM on December 15, 2006

Have you ever heard someone speak with a Cockney accent? I don't know what it is, but it sure ain't English!

Have you ever heard someone speak with an American accent? I don't know what it is, but it definitely isn't English!

Repeat back and forth ad infinitum...
posted by greycap at 9:07 AM on December 15, 2006

As far as the dude in the black van, it looked distinctly like him agonizing over the kid in the carseat crying while letting his wife take care of it, and feeling stupid too. It definitely doesn't look like physical pain.

I'm surprised this wasn't brought up, but the entire problem is solved easily by having a mirror next to the bollards. The driver stops about a meter past them, allows them to rise, then carries on. It would actually be stupid to NOT do this, seeing as how some of the pedestrians are put at risk by some of the dumb stunts.
posted by rolypolyman at 9:07 AM on December 15, 2006

Well if you mean that a bus driver stops and checks the mirror and only proceeds when the snicker bollards are up and any vehicle behind has stops, then you are placing the bus/truck/lorry driver in a traffic law enforcement position and opening them up to being sued for not stopping, not stopping long enough or any other factors.
posted by Science! at 9:11 AM on December 15, 2006

ROU_Xenophobe: "Why use a bollard and not a gate?

Because after one dumbfuck busts through the gate, there's no more gate to stop other drivers until the city can get back and repair it at great cost."

And the one on the carpark around the corner from me lasted about a day before the local kids tore it off.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 9:13 AM on December 15, 2006

I don't see why they can't be replaced with a giant wall of foam. All the stopping power, twice the comic relief.

Hmm... or maybe a loop-de-loop....
posted by tehloki at 9:24 AM on December 15, 2006 [1 favorite]

That's it, I'm starting a band called "Lorry and the Rising Bollards." Who's with me?
posted by Foosnark at 9:35 AM on December 15, 2006

I cant agree with the bulk of posters on this thread.

To me these things are an example of bad design - surely there are other ways of getting drivers not to drive in these areas other than causing severe amounts of damage to their cars and injuring the occupants.

Many comments have claimed that these drivers are tailgating and driving dangerously. To me most of the drivers in the video seem to be driving like any normal people do in congested city centres i.e. relatively slowly (under 20 mph) and as a result close to the vehicle in front of them.

This is where the problem is - they are so close to the vehicle in front that they cant even actually see the bollard in front of them in the split second before they hit it. This is exactly how everyone else drives and they shouldnt be blamed for hitting the things in the first place because they are driving dangerously, on the contrary I feel that they are driving perfectly normally.

I agree that they shouldnt be there in the first place however not being able to see the warning signs on the video I am curious to see exactly how well signposted they are. I am sure that if people knew there were bollards in the road ahead that will spring up, destroy their cars and possibly injure them and their fellow occupants that would not be going down the road. These people still go down the road however so in that respect I think the signs have failed in warning drivers of the consequences to them continuing down the road.

You may say that it doesnt matter what the consequences are people should still follow the rules but ask yourself. Say you get pulled over for speeding 10 kmph over the limit would you expect the police officer to destroy your car with a crowbar and smack you over the head with it a few times? Would you feel that is fair? Is physical abuse plus severe financial damage appropriate punishment for a crime that MAY have resulted in pedestrian injury and death?.

Please note the MAY in my sentence - every single driver who runs into one of these things can expect massive repair
bills and a decent physical hit plus the decent chance of much worse injury and death. Whereas there is only a small
chance that they will actually hit someone.

Some of you may say yes especially those who have been the victims of reckless drivers in city centres but the problem
that I can see is that these bollards are not just affecting the type of reckless driver who perhaps gets drunk and
speeds in a city centre but will also affect normal people who have merely missed a road sign and get massive repair
bills and physical trauma as a result.

Imagine what is going to happen when the first driver with a child in the backseat with no seatbelt on hits one of these things at 20mph? Boomgates perhaps in conjunction with things like speedbumps plus cameras would seem to me to be a much better solution - boomgates are much, much more visible and would not cause the same amount of damage when hit. They would still frustrate drivers and not let them through thus discouraging them from future trips through the city centre but noone would be killed!

Peoples punishment for not paying attention to a road sign should not be a destroyed car and physical trauma. It seems
to me that the council that approved this has a slighly militant perspective on car drivers and is more interested in
punishing drivers that are borderline negligent than in actually finding a solution that will truly make the streets
safer for everyone - both pedestrians and drivers alike.
posted by benny at 9:42 AM on December 15, 2006

This is where the problem is - they are so close to the vehicle in front that they cant even actually see the bollard in front of them in the split second before they hit it. This is exactly how everyone else drives and they shouldn't be blamed for hitting the things in the first place because they are driving dangerously, on the contrary I feel that they are driving perfectly normally.

The first car clearly knew they were there and was trying to bypass them via tailgating. (It pulled up, and then backed away to wait for an authorized vehicle so it could try to slip through.)
posted by Karmakaze at 9:51 AM on December 15, 2006

I'm starting a band called "Lorry and the Rising Bollards." Who's with me?
You can join my Revue Foosnark.
posted by Floydd at 9:52 AM on December 15, 2006

benny: I agree with you entirely in principle, but the way you presented your arguments tells me that you didn't look at this very clearly. See the layout of the area with the bollards? It's not just your average street, it's a lane designed specifically for public transport. The first car in the video even stops, sees the bollards, backs up, and then rushes in behind the bus as it goes through. These drivers obviously knew what was supposed to happen when they drove over the bollards, and thought they could simply cheat the system.

The issue here isn't the presence of the stopping device, but the amount of injury and damage it causes (which is where I agree with you). You'd think that in the interests of saving lives, they wouldn't implement something with the capacity for such wholesale destruction. It's so brute-force, so callous.. it's like they thought it up for a larf and then it got implemented anyway. I am sure there are much more elegant, less destructive ways of stopping a car going under 20mph. Like my "giant wall of foam" idea. Instead of bollards popping up, a steel plate buffered with 4' of foam springs out and brings the offending vehicle to an abrupt, silly halt.
posted by tehloki at 9:59 AM on December 15, 2006

It's so brute-force, so callous..

Stupid hurts. Stupid has always hurt. Stupid should always hurt. Pain makes people not stupid.
posted by Science! at 10:03 AM on December 15, 2006

A giant, Wile E. Coyote-esque rubber band. That is my contribution.
posted by furiousthought at 10:08 AM on December 15, 2006

We have rising bollards as part of the city centre core traffic scheme here in Cambridge, and one of the county councilors claims that this has reduced serious accidents by 94 percent.
posted by grouse at 10:18 AM on December 15, 2006

No parrots were involved in an accident on the M1 today, when a lorry carrying high octane fuel was in collision with a bollard. That is a bollard and not a parrot. A spokesman for parrots said he was glad no parrots were involved.

posted by George_Spiggott at 10:22 AM on December 15, 2006 [1 favorite]

The fear of death or even serious injury I think is over-stated. To die from colliding with these, you'd need to be traveling at a speed well in excess of the 15-20 mph shown here (unless you're sighting down a hunting knife while not wearing your seatbelt when you hit). To do that, you'd have to be approaching the waiting bus at a good clip while it's stationary, and then time it exactly AND avoid running into the back of the bus in front as you went through. If you're doing all that, fuck you, nice to see you exit the gene pool.

The bollards are actually quite elegant. A wall or gate would have a much greater chance of injuring an innocent bystander--simply think through how the wall or gate would be put into place quickly after a bus passes, and there isn't a way to do so without there being a good chance that a person walking nearby might not get caught up in it. The bollards only need to rise about 8" to do their job...the rest is just a visual deterrent.
posted by maxwelton at 10:25 AM on December 15, 2006

Until Britain enacts strong bollard control as in the United States, the carnage will continue.

We need these in the US. But first we'll actually need to make some spaces where cars aren't allowed.

They tried that in many places during misguided urban renewal projects in the seventies. In most of the places where it was done, that I know of, most of the retail businesses died within a few years.

Urban planners did come up with the bright idea of the pedestrian mall a generation ago, but -- at least in the US -- it is widely perceived as a failure. The retail market that supposedly draws the pedestrians depends somewhat on passing vehicles and people who want to come to that store specifically, so a pedestrian mall frustrates both of those. Additionally, it was determined that wider sidewalks with the same number of pedestrians look less busy and are -- paradoxically to the intent -- less attractive. Turns out people like bustle.

Now, European city centers are generally a lot tighter than those in the US (possible exception: Paris, due to infamous rebuilding by Napoleon). Manchester looks like a place where you need a pedestrian mall because the streets are so small. If there are other transport options such as busses, and people don't object to using them (as in the US), then you can keep the retail traffic humming along.

It's crazy. Americans will go to the mall to hit one store, park in a four-story garage, take an elevator and a pedestrian bridge, cross through a major department store, and walk a block or two equivalent. For a store downtown, though, they want to drive up and park within a block at most. It's all about perception, really.
posted by dhartung at 10:44 AM on December 15, 2006

Reminds me of this security system. This one wasn't the drivers fault though.

Also, as I live near a city center and frequently walk there, I think that these would be a great thing to have in the US.
posted by Four Flavors at 10:47 AM on December 15, 2006

Excellent idea, these bollards. It may cause some injury while people are still being stupid enough to try and 'outrun' them, but eventually they will get the idea.

My only qualm is this: it looked like none of the other pedestrians even stopped to ask if the people were ok... they just ignored the whole ordeal and when back to whatever it is they were doing. Do the people of London believe these people 'got what they deserved' for trying to go where they are restricted to drive? Do they just not care if anyone got hurt?
posted by triolus at 11:02 AM on December 15, 2006

I like how the women in head-holding-guy's car gets the kid out of the back seat and walks away. I sort of hope that's the end of their relationship--"I left him there, whining, his van stuck on the rising bollard, and I never went back."
posted by not that girl at 11:03 AM on December 15, 2006

Wow, this thread totally changed my opinion of what I saw in the video. My first thought was that something this dangerous to drivers should really be reconsidered. I had no idea that there were signs and warnings or that the road was predominantly designed for bus traffic.

What that tells me is that these people were intentionally trying to circumvent the law (like people who jump red lights, as stated above). And for that, I have little sympathy.

I can see two things that will cut down on drivers being harmed by this: 1.) add a rotating light to the top of the bollard. Have it active whenever it's moving up and keep it on for 10 seconds after it's locked into place. That will make them more visible and potentially less likely to be hit. And 2.) take these videos and make a Fox type "Scariest Police Chases" kind of video out of it. Put the show into heavy rotation and make it clear that if you hit one of these things, you are going to be on TV. This will inform people of the danger, and could reduce the number of cars doing for fear of the driver being shamed on national TV.
posted by quin at 11:05 AM on December 15, 2006

Pardon me, Manchester, not London.

Forgive an American.
posted by triolus at 11:07 AM on December 15, 2006

As far as I know, it's just a couple of idiots from time to time who collide with the bollards, rather than widespread carnage. Seems like a reasonable price to pay, considering all the pedestrian-car accidents they prevent.
posted by matthewr at 11:12 AM on December 15, 2006

At an absolute minimum for safe driving, a car should maintain several car lengths. Even if cars are traveling at 10-15mph you should maintain that distance. This is especially important when following a large vehicle that you can't see past. No sane driver should be tailgating a bus or truck.

The argument about using bollards instead of gates is not really that strong in this thread. If an automatic bollard is hit, I can guaranty it will go out of service which means access will be restricted until it is repaired. It even would be a simple matter to jam it so that it doesn't descend which could also create problems. I still think it is an excellent solution for some areas. With some simple measures it could be used without any inadvertent accidents.

Obviously here in Wisconsin with snow and the use of salt on the roads, these type of bollards would be useless. A gate would be much more effective here.
posted by JJ86 at 11:17 AM on December 15, 2006

So, if speed bumps are affectionately referred to as sleeping policemen, then I suppose a bollard would be a policeman with a sudden hardon, no?
posted by SteveInMaine at 11:21 AM on December 15, 2006

To me Bollards seem like an awesome solution to the problem. These would be very useful in American Bike/Bus lanes to keep the people who think that those lanes are secret lanes meant only for them from enjoying the ride.
posted by drezdn at 11:27 AM on December 15, 2006

Bollard, queue, lorry?

Hairy blighter, dicky-birded, feathered back on his sammy, took a waspy, flipped over on his Betty Harpers and caught his can in the Bertie.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:28 AM on December 15, 2006

Urban planners did come up with the bright idea of the pedestrian mall a generation ago, but -- at least in the US -- it is widely perceived as a failure. The retail market that supposedly draws the pedestrians depends somewhat on passing vehicles and people who want to come to that store specifically, so a pedestrian mall frustrates both of those.

The issue is that pedestrian malls aren't an attractor in and of themselves, they're a multiplier. They won't bring people into who don't want to be there, but they will bring in more people if people already want to go there.

The best example is the Pearl Street Mall in Boulder, CO -- so successful that at least one enclosed mall in the city failed. The canonical bad example is the State Street Mall in Chicago, which managed to make State Street look even less attractive than it did with cars. Admittedly, this was at a time where the city center as a whole wasn't exactly charming, but State Street did everything exactly wrong. Nicollet Mall in Minneapolis doesn't seem to be a failure to me, but I've only seen it a couple of times.

It's not just Pedestrian Malls that fall awry of this. The St. Louis Centre tried to build an enclosed mall downtown, complete with anchoring department stores. The result? Complete and utter failure. One of the anchors is gone, the mall is shuttered, and the other anchor is now a Macy's.

The big problem of 1970's Urban Architecture is that "If you build it, they will come" turns out to be basically false. Once they realized that, people started thinking more about the problem, and we started to get urban malls that didn't suck. The San Antonio Riverwalk leaps to mind as how to do such things right.
posted by eriko at 11:38 AM on December 15, 2006

State Street in Madison, WI would be another example of a successful pedestrian only street.
posted by drezdn at 11:46 AM on December 15, 2006

JJ86, did you watch the video with the truck? That bollard to the truck *out*, and then was still able to retract into the ground.
posted by notsnot at 11:51 AM on December 15, 2006

If an automatic bollard is hit, I can guaranty it will go out of service which means access will be restricted until it is repaired.

Wrong. Check out the last link in the main post. A loaded transport truck hits one at full speed. The truck is destroyed, the bollard - perfectly fine.
posted by arcticwoman at 12:01 PM on December 15, 2006

I loved this comment from the youtube page:

those exact same bollards are permanently down on sundays. i showed this to my mum on saturday. on sunday i directed her down that road, and assured her that they would not go up. she physically jumped when i shouted CRUNCH at the exact moment we passed over them :-) lol</i?
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 12:02 PM on December 15, 2006

Nicollet Mall in Minneapolis doesn't seem to be a failure to me, but I've only seen it a couple of times.

Retail on Nicollet seems to do ok, but that's largely because the pedestrian mall works in conjunction with an excellent skyway system, enclosed shopping, and nearby cheap parking garages. I used to shop downtown all the time, preferring to deal with downtown rather than suburban parking lot idiots.

One solution I can see to the bollard problem is simply putting in two sets of bollards, like a canal lock.
posted by nathan_teske at 12:06 PM on December 15, 2006

Look, here's the thing: if you're driving a car, you have significant responsibilities. If you are driving recklessly, and hit one of these things -- or even if you just made a simple mistake and hit one -- that's a mistake of sufficient size that you might have hit a pedestrian.

As the person responsible for the safe operation of the vehicle, these bollards transfer the consequences directly -- rather than indirectly, via fines and whatnot -- to you. You act irresponsibly, or even just a bit carelessly, and you injure yourself and your property.

Try as I might, I can't get around the idea that this is exactly as it should be.
posted by davejay at 12:09 PM on December 15, 2006

Where exactly in Manchester is this? It's a while since I lived there and I can't figure it out from the video.
posted by cillit bang at 12:11 PM on December 15, 2006

These bollards remind me of the suggestion of putting sharpened spikes on a car's steering wheel pointing at the driver's chest. If this were the norm, we'd have much more careful drivers.
posted by tippiedog at 1:05 PM on December 15, 2006

These bollards remind me of the suggestion of putting sharpened spikes on a car's steering wheel pointing at the driver's chest. If this were the norm, we'd have much more careful drivers.

If this were the norm, we'd have much fewer drivers. Which also would be cool.
posted by pracowity at 1:33 PM on December 15, 2006

But first we'll actually need to make some spaces where cars aren't allowed.
posted by Mayor Curley

You mean like this?
posted by or at 1:37 PM on December 15, 2006

or: Where is that? Boston?
posted by speug at 3:17 PM on December 15, 2006

The only problems with this that I can think of now that can't be dismissed as "they deserved it" are very clueless tourists, non-english-speakers, and the extremely elderly.
posted by tehloki at 3:20 PM on December 15, 2006

If bollards are outlawed, only outlaws will have bollards.
posted by tim_in_oz at 3:24 PM on December 15, 2006 [1 favorite]

speug - yes, it's Downtown Crossing.
posted by or at 5:41 PM on December 15, 2006

Where exactly in Manchester is this?

Just outside the new Marks & Spencers: that's the other side of M&S from Exchange Square.

It's also the other end of St. Anne's Square from St. Anne's Church, if that's more help.

If you start at the Arndale Centre you get to it if you walk from the food court, Boots on your left, towards Kendals. It's where that old jeweller's shop is - the one with the big sign about "wedding rings by weight".

Hey, it's fun to be talking about Manchester and not New York City! I feel all important!
posted by alasdair at 6:28 PM on December 15, 2006

Ah, I knew it was around there but I couldn't figure out exactly which direction. It's heading east towards the Arndale, right?

I used to live in Salford and get off the bus right there every week. The bollards must be new.
posted by cillit bang at 8:34 PM on December 15, 2006

I've encountered The Bollards in Cambridge.. I'm not a local, so wasn't familiar with which roads went where. Being able to get into the centre via an obvious non-bollarded route was easy enough, but geting out again in the dark with seemingly every road blocked by the bloody things and no helpful signage pointing motorists in the right direction that I could see took a lot of trial and error.

And as for the congestion charge in London, all that's done is restrict driving to those for whom £8 a day is negligable (i.e. those with big expensive petrol-guzzling cars) and it still takes an hour to travel 4 miles on a bus. Bicycles and motorbikes are the best bet for transport in London.
posted by dickasso at 1:21 AM on December 16, 2006

I love these bollards. Those videos are a metaphor for life.
posted by breath at 3:13 AM on December 16, 2006

Peoples punishment for not paying attention to a road sign should not be a destroyed car and physical trauma.

But even without these bollards the punishment for not paying attention to road signs is often a destroyed car and physical trauma. This manages to constrain these punishments to just the offending vehicle, rather than killing innocent pedestrians and road users.
posted by markr at 5:28 PM on December 16, 2006

I'm really glad it was Ralph Nader advocating for vehicle safety measures and not you vindictive lot.
posted by srboisvert at 6:34 AM on December 17, 2006

These look to me like a very poorly-designed excuse for a public-safety device. The engineers who designed them and the bureaucrats who installed them should be ashamed of themselves. (and get sued and lose their licenses). There are safer ways to stop a vehicle -- ever heard of arresting wires?

Traffic calming is a complex area where spleen and venom do not substitute for good sense. There are some (a very few) traffic calming and directing devices that work -- and this isn't one of them.

Clearly, the drivers in the video were being unsafe and deserve to be punished. But hold on. I've been lost plenty of times and ended up behind a bus. A sideways glance to try to read a sign -- ummm ... did that say "do not enter"? WHAM!

No, I wouldn't have hit a pedestrian, because pedestrians do not rise up out of the roadway like malevolent mushrooms. It's not funny, it is stupid and unsafe. Don't let your sense of vindication at seeing someone get their just deserts blind you to the fact that an innocent someone is inevitably going to get some unjust ones ...
posted by nickp at 4:34 PM on December 17, 2006

Well, a better solution would be a system that automatically bills a ticket to the owner's credit card and turns off the car if it is dangerous for the car to continue that way (and then phones the towing service or police to have the disabled vehicle pulled back to where it belongs and re-enabled). In situations that aren't dangerous, or that would be more dangerous if the car stopped, it could just flash a warning on the display, bill your card, and let you carry on but X dollars poorer. Or there could be a delayed stop -- you have X minutes to find a safe place to pull over before the car is disabled and the cops are dispatched. There doesn't need to be a physical barrier at all, other than a sensor in the road.

And nothing would calm traffic more than instantly billing drivers X dollars * Y seconds * Z mph over the limit when they speed through slow areas. The meter would start running on your dashboard and you'd slow right down or run right out of money. (If you exceeded your credit limit, it could shut off your car until you arranged payment.)

But such systems have to be installed in every vehicle. Until that happens, physical barriers that automatically deploy and retract are required. If you don't like bollards, submit your superior design and make lots of money.
posted by pracowity at 12:15 AM on December 18, 2006

I wonder how many of the people arguing for or against rising bollards are familiar with them. I suspect that most arguing against are not, because if they were they would know first-hand how much they improve safety and how seldom drivers run into them.

It is basically impossible that any of the people ramming the bollards in any of these videos were lost, or tried to travel into the pedestrian zone accidentally. No, this would not happen to you.

You have to ignore two big do not enter signs, and a red traffic signal. As far as the directional signs, it is going the wrong way down a one-way street and ignoring a red light. It's also an unusual road layout that would cause any decent driver to slow down and think.

Additionally, none of the drivers just "ended up behind a bus." They all gunned their accelerator, and some even broke other traffic laws in order to get to the bollards faster. They all knew what they were doing (or thought they did) and I'm confident that any of them would be convicted of dangerous driving (reckless driving in the U.S.).

The bollards improve safety for innocent pedestrians. They drastically reduce serious accidents (by 94 percent here in Cambridge). The Manchester bollards in this video were specifically installed because of a high casualty rate on that street (and with driving like that, I'm not surprised).
posted by grouse at 2:56 AM on December 18, 2006