The Wharf Street bollards were totally wrecked on Wednesday afternoon (25th August), after an altercation with a Mercedes Sprinter van.
The driver is alleged to have said that he didn’t see any signs at all and was just following the directions from his Tom Tom. He was also following a taxi.
The green Mercedes van complete with a personalised number plate (E4 RAG) was on its way to collect clothes from the charity shops in the Market Place.
The road had to be closed overnight awaiting the arrival of “Bollard Man” on Thursday morning. Both bollards had to be replaced.
Bollard bashing continues unabated in Wharf Street and Bartholomew Street. Many incidents go unreported if the damage has not disabled the vehicle.
Even after spending thousands of pounds on the Bartholomew Street bollards, there appears to be at least one incident a week at this location.
totally wrecked?? they were working the next morning!!!
"Even after spending thousands of pounds on the Bartholomew Street bollards, there appears to be at least one incident a week at this location." Thats rubbish!! where did you get that figure from ?!?!?
And besides, "The driver is alleged to have said that he didn’t see any signs at all and was just following the directions from his Tom Tom. He was also following a taxi"
thats says it all! a professional driver who dosen't look where he is going...everyones elses fault except the driver eh...
The driver is alleged to have said that he didn’t see any signs at all and was just following the directions from his Tom Tom. He was also following a taxi.
Who knows what could have happened had this guy gotten into the pedestrian zone, given that he (allegedly) admitted to missing all the warning signs and just following what his sat-nav told him. This is clearly someone who isn't paying attention to what's going on around him. In this instance I would say the bollards did their job exactly as they should.
I believe Bollard Man was on site at 7.00am and they were repaired by 9.30am
as i said, they were working the next morning..and were fully operational at 10am. so they weren't "totally wrecked" were they?
over exageration is a major problem in this town, and this forum, just read other posts. people make the problem seem a hellof a lot worse worse to kick up a manic discussion about it...worse than the daily mail this forum i tell thee
anyway, its irrelevant when they were repaired or any of that s h i t...
the driver was a numpty, wizzing along in a dream world, thinking he can drive everywhere, when the signs are quite clear to any person that is able to see correctly. I hope he injured himself so he is unable to drive on the roads again..he is a danger to pedestrians
They just had the usual damage, which was obviously not a problem to repair. They were fixed within 2 hours...a usual amount of time. "Totally wrecked" implies that this damage was a lot worse...and would have taken a lot longer to repair surely?? there was no damage to the road surface, so its not like the van ripped the bollards out of the ground.
They just had the usual damage, which was obviously not a problem to repair. They were fixed within 2 hours...a usual amount of time. "Totally wrecked" implies that this damage was a lot worse...and would have taken a lot longer to repair surely?? there was no damage to the road surface, so its not like the van ripped the bollards out of the ground.
You are obviously a young "know it all" little shit.
hmmm.... No rude word filter on this fekin forum it seems
Anyhoo... They had a tap and stopped working. Didn't wreck the van presumably so can't have been too severe. I think it was just the fact that they wouldn't go fully down into the housing after being hit and were still showing about 4 inches or so above ground overnight.
Of more interest is these businesses that suck up off the back of other genrous people's charitable donations and are able to afford to drive around in Mercedes with personalised plates.
Almost as bad as the chuggers who get 'employed' to fleece passing people in the shopping areas. People get conned into giving but don't realise that all they're doing is paying for the chuggers.... Fcukin con men the lot of 'em
As a Green Meanie (yes, i'm one of them evil/angelic CEOs, i've finally cracked and broken my silence, after reading this forum for some time, send your PMs now )
I feel I have to add my opinion to this discussion...Spartacus is correct, there was a minor collision with the bollards involving a large van. (being driven by a professional driver I might add, who realised what he had done at the scene) They were left down as a safety precaution, and were reparied in a timely fashion the following morning. These bollards are not designed to damage vehicles, just like a brick wall isn't...but if you drive into either...
As a Green Meanie (yes, i'm one of them evil/angelic CEOs, i've finally cracked and broken my silence, after reading this forum for some time, send your PMs now )
I feel I have to add my opinion to this discussion...Spartacus is correct, there was a minor collision with the bollards involving a large van. (being driven by a professional driver I might add, who realised what he had done at the scene) They were left down as a safety precaution, and were reparied in a timely fashion the following morning. These bollards are not designed to damage vehicles, just like a brick wall isn't...but if you drive into either...
Er.. Brick walls don't shoot up underneath you. Regardless of the arguments on the rising bollards, your analogy is flawed.
The bollards were NOT totally wrecked.....and do NOT 'shoot' up under your car. What they do do though is prevent anyone driving without due care and attention from entering a pedestrianised area. Threep.
I would have thought, unless it goes to court, driving without due car and attention can only be an allegation?
It could be any sort of driving, but unless it goes to court, it is unproven; hence my previous pedantic posts.
It's obviously driving without due care and attention, legally whether the driver is guilty of the crime of Driving Without Due Care And Attention has yet to be proved, if you really want to be pedantic.
It's obviously driving without due care and attention, legally whether the driver is guilty of the crime of Driving Without Due Care And Attention has yet to be proved, if you really want to be pedantic.
String 'em up Guv, its the only language they understand. I had that User23 in the cab the other day - very bright bloke, very balanced indeed.
It's obviously driving without due care and attention, legally whether the driver is guilty of the crime of Driving Without Due Care And Attention has yet to be proved, if you really want to be pedantic.
Equally then, the bollards rising up underneath the vehicle can only be an allegation, until it is proven in court.
You are right, but you can only rightly claim criminal damage in court. As we seem not have had either party do it yet (go to court), it is yet to be challenged.
What I don't understand and has never been explained properly, is why the council cannot claim all costs from the driver for the repair of the bollards.
What I don't understand and has never been explained properly, is why the council cannot claim all costs from the driver for the repair of the bollards.
Perhaps they do, a freedom of information letter to them (WBC), should you want to find out for sure, would probably be the correct route. You could then let us all know the facts.
“The council can only recover the cost of any damage that is supported by appropriate witness statements and other relevant evidence that will be accepted by the court.”
You are right, but you can only rightly claim criminal damage in court. As we seem not have had either party do it yet (go to court), it is yet to be challenged.
What I don't understand and has never been explained properly, is why the council cannot claim all costs from the driver for the repair of the bollards.
Perhaps greenmeanie61 could explain?
Perhaps they are scared of a counter claim? or maybe they are simply scared of not being able to prove that the damage to the bollards was caused by that particular car/driver. Without video evidence there is no real proof that a given driver actually caused the damage to the bollards – ie working bollards, car, collision, named driver getting out of car, bollards now not working. WBC are probably scared the evidence of damaged bollards is only circumstantial and the claim would probably get thrown out. Is there CCTV constantly monitoring/recording all 3 sets of bollards?
edit - which is exactly what you were saying in your following comment - [embarassed smiley symbol]
Going the other way, why has nobody actually successfully made a claim against WBC for the damage to their vehicles, or even attempted a claim? Usually, if there is a hint of a loophole which will result in £compo, the ambulance chasing lawyers are straight in there. The silence seems to suggest that the bollards and associated signage are completely legal and watertight and cannot be challenged, no matter how much people protest about them or claim the bollards are highly dangerous etc.
I'm sure the signage is legal, but I regret that we cannot recover all the costs of repair. I also regret that cars have to get damaged 'for the cause'. Usually one is not permitted to install things that can damage other people's property or health, even if they indulge in minor traffic offences.
If people drive through the pedestrian zone, the risk to the pedestrian is small. In most cases a car will be following a bus or taxi. There is no-one to blame but the driver if someone hits these bollards, but we have to question if the bollard are an appropriate method of traffic enforcement. That is where the debate is to be had I feel.
I have to ask again, why can we not get full cost of repair? That remains unanswered. Why would an insurance company be willing to pay some, but not all. Surely the driver is the proof. They hit the bollards; they failed to acknowledge the signs; they should pay (via insurance - which, incidentally, will affect all of us in some measure).
Thanks User23, that BBC is excellent an story and proves my point. Lets travel back in time 15 years, in a far far away time when SatNavs didn't exist...
"I didn't see the signs officer, I was reading my map book, because I don't know where I am going, and suddenly, these pesky bollards crept out on me...its not my fault!!"" - Is this the same as following a sat nav and ploughing into the bollards? I think it is. We deal with the drivers who hit the bollards, and most of the time, they acknowledge that fact that they have been unattentive and didn't read the signs. Whose fault is that?
If there was a barrier, similar to the car park barriers, it would get bent all the time by the drunk idiots that plague Newbury (just like how they damage the barriers in the Wharf area) Costs would be the same, if not higher, and it increases the chance of the barrier striking someone on the head. And you can bet that people would drive into that too! I've seen with my own eyes, some drivers just carry on and drive through our car park barriers, ... and they're white with red reflective tape on them.
A big metal gate would require a council staff member, standing next to the gate all day to let buses through.
No barriers would result in people getting run over...most drivers speed through the area when ther bollards aren't up, I say that it would be the same during the pedestrian hours.
There is no way to compensate for peoples bad driving. Its as simple as that i'm afraid.
We, as Parking Services, never get involved in the claims after the initial strike. Our responsibilty is to ensure the driver is ok, record any damage to the vehicle (which is presented to Highways), and deal with any damage to the bollards, by either testing them or reporting them to the repair company. The highways department then deal with the strike after our initial involment.
Car Parks were lumbered with the bollards years ago, just because they are near our office, and are usually are are the only council staff out and about.. If we had a choice, Parking would have no involment with the bollards, apart from maybe making sure the driver is ok when a strike occurs...
A FoI request, or speaking to your local councillor would be the best way to get all the facts, as I dont know them.
No barriers would result in people getting run over...most drivers speed through the area when the bollards aren't up, I say that it would be the same during the pedestrian hours..
Did anyone get run-over before the bollards were installed, and has anyone got run-over when the bollards have been faulty? I doubt, however, whether someone following a bus or taxi (these are the people who normally come to grief) is a danger to anyone. I have, mind you, heared complaints about taxi drivers speeding through the square!
Again, it still doesn't explain why full costs cannot be recovered. There was a news item (linked to previously on this thread) that states as much.
One other point, it seems a lot of effort to go to, to protect an under-used open space.
Did anyone get run-over before the bollards were installed, and has anyone got run-over when the bollards have been faulty?
Thats only because most drivers still obey the signs when the bollards are faulty. If all of the traffic was allowed to drive through the centre of the town all day, then it does increase the dangers, but, I agree, little more than anywhere else. We would certainly be alot busier!! This debate will run forever and ever, with no one solution suiting eveyone.
I personally think that the Market Place should be free of all vehicles (including Taxis) at all times. This would allow for more events/cafes to function in the middle of the square, 24/7. I think North Bartholomew Sreet and Northbrook street should be closed to vehicles between 11am and 5pm, to make the shared use area much more safer. The buses are dangerous along Northbrook Street (I sometimes walk along here upwards of 20 times a day), and although no-one has been hurt yet, they do sometimes drive through too fast, expecting people just to get out of their way, when they should be giving the pedestrians right of way. There should be a 10mph limit for vehicles during this time in Northbrook Street, and it should be enforced.
I can't claim the cost of cleaning my traps if a poacher leaves his flesh all over it. What's the difference?
A couple of thing. For a start, does the poacher stand about until the authorities turn up? Second, what if the poacher damages them and renders them inoperable, then perhaps you would be interested in remedial action at no cost to you. Mind you, I hardly see the connection in cleaning equipment that might need cleaning anyway, and the cash that is not recovered by the council for repair to the bollards.
A couple of thing. For a start, does the poacher stand about until the authorities turn up? Second, what if the poacher damages them and renders them inoperable, then perhaps you would be interested in remedial action at no cost to you. Mind you, I hardly see the connection in cleaning equipment that might need cleaning anyway, and the cash that is not recovered by the council for repair to the bollards.
Poachers often do badly damage the equipment getting out. Sorry you can't see the connection. After all as the bollards are expected to do what they do, pretty poor design thgat needs costly attention every time it 'catches one'. Good job alarm systems don't work on the same basis.
Poachers often do badly damage the equipment getting out. Sorry you can't see the connection.
I don't think it is like for like. Poachers don't hang about waiting; do they? If they do, I doubt they have insurance, as a driver would usually have.
I don't think it is like for like. Poachers don't hang about waiting; do they? If they do, I doubt they have insurance, as a driver would usually have.
No they don't hang about - but they do get caught. In both cases, no one is going to pay unless a demand is made. I don'tb see what insurance has to do with the matter. The claim is against the driver or the poacher. All any insurance will do is possibly settle their liability, if it doesn't they pay themselves.
I don'tb see what insurance has to do with the matter. The claim is against the driver or the poacher. All any insurance will do is possibly settle their liability, if it doesn't they pay themselves.
Exactly, their liability should be to cover the cost of the accident. For heaven's sake, Old Goat, I am talking about loss of tax payers money here! Something you (I assume) and I pay!
I get the feeling you are arguing for the sake of being contradictory, and not due to any tangible rationalé.
That is your choice, is it not? Besides, you'd have to prove that the poacher did the damage. With the bollards, the evidence is clear.
Exactly, their liability should be to cover the cost of the accident. For heaven's sake, Old Goat, I am talking about loss of tax payers money here! Something you (I assume) and I pay!
I get the feeling you are arguing for the sake of being contradictory, and not due to any tangible rationalé.
No I'm arguing for logic and basic common sense. The waste of tax payers money occurred when the wretched things were installed - again, because no one excercised any logic or basic common sense.
By the way, I don't see the difference between 'tax payers money' or 'my money' its all the same - I end up out of pocket.
This is certainly true of the bollards. Your traps are up to you.
What is nonsensical about the bollards? I don't like them either, but I don't know of a suitable alternative, based on the reason we have them.
There are several alternatives - which have been enunciated several times in other threads. As a tool for meeting the requirement they are a) designed very badly, needing specialist and costly attention when they operate against those in the wrong. b) the solution is was over expensive against the original justification. Some of this could have been addressed before they were installed if those responsible had sat down and thought about the consequences. Yes there is a requirement to meet but we've simply thrown money at it without much thought. Ironically, something the both parties in power round here have been rightly castigating the Labour government for doing!
There have been alternative ideas, but none would prevent unauthorised drivers from driving in a pedestrian zone while allowing permitted vehicles to do so. greenmeanie61 provided what seemed like a plausible summary of the other ideas, so this looks like the best of a bad bunch - in terms of what they are meant to do.
There have been alternative ideas, but none would prevent unauthorised drivers from driving in a pedestrian zone while allowing permitted vehicles to do so. greenmeanie61 provided what seemed like a plausible summary of the other ideas, so this looks like the best of a bad bunch - in terms of what they are meant to do.
I agree BUT does the actual requirement need such an expensive? In other words does it really need to be a total lock out? Again, the arguments for and against have been rehersed here and in other places - so not worth replaying. The key thing I have against was the ill informed process prior to installation - which put the town in this position.
There have been alternative ideas, but none would prevent unauthorised drivers from driving in a pedestrian zone while allowing permitted vehicles to do so. greenmeanie61 provided what seemed like a plausible summary of the other ideas, so this looks like the best of a bad bunch - in terms of what they are meant to do.
Exactly. Whilst it can be debated whether we need some sort of barrier at the entrance to the pedestrian areas but it seems it's been studied and determined that the bollards are the most cost effective method of doing this.
Exactly. Whilst it can be debated whether we need some sort of barrier at the entrance to the pedestrian areas but it seems it's been studied and determined that the bollards are the most cost effective method of doing this.
Its just a shame that those in 'authority' have chosen to remain silent because if they hadn't that would have stifled any further debate. And no, on this subject I can't be ar**ed to put in a Freedom of Information Request.
When I retire I am minded to get heavily involved. An appropriate party to get some policy and an election. The real issue is far wider than bollards - they are just an amusing detraction.
'cause you come one here saying things are crap and that it was a lack of common sense, etc. This would suggest you know better, but yet, you have not said anything to convince me you do. It is much easier to criticise, than it is to create.
'cause you come one here saying things are crap and that it was a lack of common sense, etc. This would suggest you know better, but yet, you have not said anything to convince me you do. It is much easier to criticise, than it is to create.
Rubbish! When people do outline a way forward, or different ways of doing things here, particularly when its radical they either get no response or a torrent of 'oooh that won't work' or 'never done it like that before' or 'not invented here'. Forums such as these are often sold as debating; they aren't - simply a club for people who like arguing! Nothing wrong with that - simply releases steam; nothing moree nothing less! As for anything serious, don't think so.
Rubbish! When people do outline a way forward, or different ways of doing things here, particularly when its radical they either get no response or a torrent of 'oooh that won't work' or 'never done it like that before' or 'not invented here'. Forums such as these are often sold as debating; they aren't - simply a club for people who like arguing! Nothing wrong with that - simply releases steam; nothing moree nothing less! As for anything serious, don't think so.
I'd have to agree. Forums like this serve as a place to have a moan or for people to say they could do things much better without knowing all the facts.
Rubbish! When people do outline a way forward, or different ways of doing things here, particularly when its radical they either get no response or a torrent of 'oooh that won't work' or 'never done it like that before' or 'not invented here'. Forums such as these are often sold as debating; they aren't - simply a club for people who like arguing! Nothing wrong with that - simply releases steam; nothing moree nothing less! As for anything serious, don't think so.
That is your prerogative, but that shouldn't prevent constructive criticism, yours is just to moan. I'm still waiting for you pearls of wisdom, I suspect, however, your just full of bovine excrement.
I'd have to agree. Forums like this serve as a place to have a moan or for people to say they could do things much better without knowing all the facts.
That is your prerogative, but that shouldn't prevent constructive criticism, yours is just to moan. I'm still waiting for you pearls of wisdom, I suspect, however, your just full of bovine excrement.
Such a shame you haven't the wit or intelligence to come up with anything other than lavatorial insults!
Unfortunately this forum is not big enough to have several moderators watching the threads, and the way it is going, it is doomed to just get smaller and smaller. Pity though!
I'm sure there are (or were) many out there who would join in, if it was toned own a bit, and had much less of the mud-slinging bitchyness that is now rife!
Totally off topic now, as the thread is about bollards, not bollox!
Such a shame you haven't the wit or intelligence to come up with anything other than lavatorial insults!
Lavatorial insults would have meant using the real word, but at least I don't pretend to know better, where as...
You came on here saying that the bollards are a nonsense, then when asked, you hide behind 'it has all been said before'. Well that is a cop-out. I'd like to know why you think they are a nonsense. If it helps I agree, but like I said previously, I cannot think of a better option for keep unauthorised drivers out of the pedestrian zone.
For Petes sake, what is it with you lot? Its all very personal isn't it?!
When someone like Old Goat come on here spouting the odds, it would be useful if they could reinforce opinions with reasoned arguments, but sadly no. People like Old Goat's only interest is to say how crap everything is, and how he can do better, yet when challenge, they shrink; hence my what he is full of comment, which superseded his unnecessary rudeness with his 'rubbish' comment to me (and then went to prove me right).
Old Goat's reaction of 'rubbish' was totally unnecessary, I said nothing to deserve it. He complains of etiquette, yet when someone posts in good faith, his response is with words like 'rubbish'. That is bound to provoke a response. Especially as with every reply, he proves me more and more correct.
greenmeaniw61, hitherto, you have been respectful, considerate and rational. I see no reason why you or anyone else need to be concerned about me, or anyone else on this board, if those attributes exist in a post.
Lavatorial insults would have meant using the real word, but at least I don't pretend to know better, where as...
You came on here saying that the bollards are a nonsense, then when asked, you hide behind 'it has all been said before'. Well that is a cop-out. I'd like to know why you think they are a nonsense. If it helps I agree, but like I said previously, I cannot think of a better option for keep unauthorised drivers out of the pedestrian zone.
When someone like Old Goat come on here spouting the odds, it would be useful if they could reinforce opinions with reasoned arguments, but sadly no. People like Old Goat's only interest is to say how crap everything is, and how he can do better, yet when challenge, they shrink; hence my what he is full of comment, which superseded his unnecessary rudeness with his 'rubbish' comment to me (and then went to prove me right).
Old Goat's reaction of 'rubbish' was totally unnecessary, I said nothing to deserve it. He complains of etiquette, yet when someone posts in good faith, his response is with words like 'rubbish'. That is bound to provoke a response. Especially as with every reply, he proves me more and more correct.
greenmeaniw61, hitherto, you have been respectful, considerate and rational. I see no reason why you or anyone else need to be concerned about me, or anyone else on this board, if those attributes exist in a post.
Old Goat's reaction of 'rubbish' was totally unnecessary, I said nothing to deserve it. He complains of etiquette, yet when someone posts in good faith, his response is with words like 'rubbish'. That is bound to provoke a response. Especially as with every reply, he proves me more and more correct.
Use the Ignore facility if you feel this way, I certainly have with those that I feel are here just to wind people up and as a result I never get to see their posts. This benefits everyone not just oneself as one is not drawn into pointless bickering with them.
Logged
Female
Male
