TRAVEL.com ® Travel Forums - View Single Post - Advantages to route and traction learning

22nd April 2008, 12:03 PM

On 22 Apr, 16:43, Charles Ellson <char...@ellson.> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 08:20:30 -0700 (PDT), MIG
>
>
>
>
>
> <googles...@doreenbird.co.uk> wrote:
> >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?
>
> Ditto for moveable obstructions then.

I see a clear difference between hit by something and hitting
something. If you don't, then so be it: we disagree.

The question remains as to whether the enforcement is a greater danger
to the public than the crime. I think that in the Manchester cases,
where cars were crashed in order to enforce rules about congestion, it
was.

If someone managed to tailgate an ambulance into a pedestrianised
area, it might be rather different.

22nd April 2008, 12:03 PM	#3 (permalink)
MIG Guest Posts: n/a Classified Rating: % ()	Advantages to route and traction learning On 22 Apr, 16:43, Charles Ellson <char...@ellson.> wrote: > On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 08:20:30 -0700 (PDT), MIG > > > > > > <googles...@doreenbird.co.uk> wrote: > >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? > > Ditto for moveable obstructions then. I see a clear difference between hit by something and hitting something. If you don't, then so be it: we disagree. The question remains as to whether the enforcement is a greater danger to the public than the crime. I think that in the Manchester cases, where cars were crashed in order to enforce rules about congestion, it was. If someone managed to tailgate an ambulance into a pedestrianised area, it might be rather different.