Mysterious Device - ATG Bollard Access Device?

[sterowley]

Does no one agree with me that they are totally unreasonable - in the legal meaning - no matter how stupid the people may be.

I'm not allowed to use unreasonable force on a burglar - in fact, none, if he does not attack me.

So, am I allowed to go out and ruin his car?

The only ones using force are those stupid enough to drive into them. Worth every penny watching self serving idiots drive into and damage their cars.

They are designed to stop/retract if they detect something in the way. But just like the electric gate and pedestrian example if the pedestrians runs quick enough there going to en into then. same with the cars.

If people who drive cars would behave and not drive into places hey shouldn't then yeah they would have no purpose but as they can't this is what has to done to prevent them.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I realise that this appeals to baser instincts and may be regarded as poetic justice but is there another case of people's property being significantly damaged for what is, after all, a very minor offence?

This from the local authority who, I am sure, in other respects are probably excessively politically correct - unless you owe "them" money.

Also, if these are only stupid people, is it the modern way to punish the afflicted? It could also cause significant injury, even to a bystander.

We shall have to wait for the first court case.

 

[JohnW2]

I realise that this appeals to baser instincts and may be regarded as poetic justice but is there another case of people's property being significantly damaged for what is, after all, a very minor offence?

Just once more, I will repeat my view - that the intent is not to damage property ("for a minor offence"). The bollards, when raised, are intended to deny access to unauthorised vehicle, and it happens that people who choose to put their vehicles "in harms way" (despite warnings) when the bollard is rising may end up with a damaged car.

It's really no different from any other situation in which a person chooses to ignore a warning sign ("Danger - live parts inside", "Stay in car in lions area", "Dangerous currents - do not swim here", "Do not smoke - highly inflammable gases", "Do not cross railway line whist red lights are flashing" etc. etc. etc.) In all of those cases, those who choose to ignore the warnings are entirely responsible for any harm to persons or property which results.

We shall have to wait for the first court case.

I'm sure there will have been some - or, at least, attempts at them. As I said, the issue of cars being damaged by barriers that they were attempting to abuse have existed for many decades. A court case could, of course, be against the owner of the car - a criminal case for infringing by-laws or a (civil or 'criminal damage') one relating to the consequential damage to the bollard!

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Just once more, I will repeat my view - that the intent is not to damage property ("for a minor offence"). The bollards, when raised, are intended to deny access to unauthorised vehicle, and it happens that people who choose to put their vehicles "in harms way" (despite warnings) when the bollard is rising may end up with a damaged car.

I don't think it is quite like that. I realise I seem to be alone in this but -

Your warning sign examples indicate the presence of a permanent danger.

They do not, for example, install a machine to crush you or your car if you ignore the signs.

The only danger in this case is the preventative measure itself.

You are not allowed to install an automatic weapon aimed at intruders to your home who have ignored a sign.
Even 'Beware of the Dog' signs are taken as an admission that you know your dog is dangerous so must be controlled to prevent them injuring people.

 

[JohnW2]

Your warning sign examples indicate the presence of a permanent danger.

Not necessarily ... "Danger of death IF you cross track whilst red lights are flashing" ... "Danger of death IF you open this enclosure" ... "Danger of damage to your car IF you attempt to drive it whilst it is clamped" etc.

Whatever, we clearly disagree, but I don't think I've got any more to say than what I've already said.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

What is the fine for driving in a restricted are? £60.

Look at it another way.

Why not just put up a sign saying "If you drive into this area, you will be photographed and you will be fined five thousand pounds".
Clamping is a good example. It is being/has been curtailed because of over-zealous application.
What is the best way to deter illegal parking? It is NOT to immobilise the vehicle in the place where it is causing the obstruction, is it?

 

[JohnD]

yes

Rich people order their chauffeurs to park on double yellows because a fine is of no consequence. However being clamped upsets them because it causes real inconvenience.

The sight of the lift-up tow trucks finds Lambo owners stampeding out of fashionable bars.

Even plumbers often take a chance on a fine if they think the probability of being caught is low.

Consider what the maximum penalty for smoking is.

Yet people still do it because the penalty is not immediate, certain and personal. Which an effective deterrent has to be.

 

[stillp]

Look at it the other way round: they are not barriers that rise to damage miscreants' vehicles, they are barriers that can be lowered to allow access by authorised vehicles.

 

[JohnD]

When I walk through my front door, I close it behind me.

If a petty criminal runs at it and breaks his nose, is it my fault for having a door?

 

[EFLImpudence]

Look at it the other way round: they are not barriers that rise to damage miscreants' vehicles,

... but that is what they can do - at hugely disproportionate costs of repair and initial installation.

they are barriers that can be lowered to allow access by authorised vehicles.

Normal barriers do the same.
Therefore it must be the intention to cause serious damage.

Alright, I have democratically lost the argument but ...

 

[EFLImpudence]

When I walk through my front door, I close it behind me.

If a petty criminal runs at it and breaks his nose, is it my fault for having a door?

No, but you would not be allowed to have a spike shoot out of the floor when he did it.

 

[JohnW2]

Normal barriers do the same. ... Therefore it must be the intention to cause serious damage.

As I said before, they do not "do the same". As I said, nearly all 'normal barriers' are essentially 'symbolic' (like a piece of tape saying "Police Line - Do not Cross") and provide little physical impediment to 'passing' the barrier. In fact, they are not really 'barriers' at all, any more than the 'police tape' is.

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

Normal barriers do the same.

Which normal barriers? There are lots of fixed barriers, and if you drive into those you'd expect to damage your car.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Not to the extent of these things.

 

[stillp]

Not to the extent of these things

Depends how fast you drive at them I suppose, and whether we're thinking of say the anti-ramraid bollards outside shops or the rising barriers on a multi-storey car park exit. I would suggest that the rising bollards have a similar function to the first of those, that of keeping unauthorised vehicles out of certain areas.