MIG

On 22 Apr, 16:08, Charles Ellson <char...@ellson.> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 05:24:45 -0700 (PDT), MIG
>
>
>
>
>
> <googles...@doreenbird.co.uk> wrote:
> >On 22 Apr, 12:13, David Hansen <SENDdavidNOhS...@spidacom.co.uk>
> >wrote:
> >> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 03:47:38 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be MIG
> >> <googles...@doreenbird.co.uk> wrote this:-
>
> >> >I don't see the problem with fixed bollards* enforcing a
> >> >pedestrianised area, but since they were rising bollards, the area
> >> >can't have been pedestrianised (or restricted to bikes).  So the
> >> >impression of those pedestrians was rather unfortunate.
>
> >> Not in the least.
>
> >> The area has been pedestrianised, but with access permitted to bike
> >> riders at all times and access permitted to motor vehicle operators
> >> (to access buildings) at certain times of the day. Nothing
> >> particularly unusual about this. It was and is all clearly indicated
> >> by signs, but the unacceptable face of motoring were convinced that
> >> they are above the law. The bollards have curbed their enthusiasm
> >> for breaking the law, which is excellent. More please.
>
> >> There are some videos on-line about criminals trying to break the
> >> law in Manchester and being arrested by similar bollards. Excellent.
>
> >One of which shows a small child in a buggy being yanked out of the
> >way of a crashing car.  Hilarious.  The bollards concerned are on a
> >bus route, so not in any way protecting a pedestrianised area.
>
> >Again, punishment is the job of the courts.  Why stop at bollards?
> >Why not just fire a machine gun in the general direction of any
> >criminal and anyone standing nearby?
>
> Is it "punishment" if a careless driver damages his vehicle on a kerb,
> central barrier or various other obstructions used to limit the free
> movement of motor vehicles ?

Of course not. Why on Earth would it be?