Drivers who 'beggar belief'

Mike Keegan

March 28, 2008

| Submit Comments | Comments (19) | Previous | Next

Another driver caught out

A LEADING councillor has hit out at drivers whose actions `beggar belief' after another car ploughed into Manchester city centre's rising bollards.

Neil Swannick slammed those who try to `tailgate' buses through the road restrictions after the latest crash.

The rising poles were installed in June 2006 at points across the city centre.

They restrict access and retract when sensors detect the approach of authorised vehicles, such as buses and ambulances. Footage of some of the bollard crashes proved a massive hit on the M.E.N. website, manchestereveningnews.co.uk

This time a blue Ford Fiesta came off second best on Tuesday afternoon.

Coun Swannick attacked those who tried to cheat the system. He said: "There are traffic signs in place that clearly prohibit the passage of vehicles other than buses through the bollards.

"Car drivers who choose to ignore the signs are not only committing a road traffic offence, they are also being very foolish and risk their own safety and that of any passengers."

What do you think? Have your say.

| Submit Comments | Comments (19) | Previous | Next

Showing comments 1 to 19 and replies | View All

Tony Seaton (28/03/2008 at 09:58)

The offence for disobaying a traffic sign is fine and points. Capital punshment dished out by a traffic bollard is not in the uk statutes.
What right have councils to impose concussion on the driver or an innocent passenger?

Fran M, Stockport (28/03/2008 at 10:03)

Whatever the rights and wrongs of a driver commiting an offence in this case the council still has a duty of care to the public. A driver unfamiliar to the city could quite easily find themselves in a situation where they have ventured into the wrong place. There is a forest of signs and the city is a busy place and so it is understandable that such an incident could happen by accident. I am not trying to defend motorists who are trying to be clever. However, that does not relieve MCC of it's duty of care and I belive that with the proper legal representation someone could bring a prosecution against MCC under the Health and Safety at Work Act. They don't even necessarily have to be in a collision with these bollards to have a case.

Broadsword, Oldham (28/03/2008 at 10:21)

I might buy myself an old car, test out these rising bollards and then bung in a legal claim for injury.

Openshaw Bob (28/03/2008 at 10:22)

I agree, if someone is aware that they are in the wrong but are trying to sneak through then fine. However, I was looking at these signs yesterday and they aren't very clear. If you were new to the city and went down Cross Street and saw a bus going through you'd think it was OK for you too as it doesn't exactly look like you're going into a bus station.

If the councillor wants to get uppity about road traffic offences in the city centre then look at the number of buses that go through on red. A case in point, yesterday I walked from Deansgate station to Kendals. At every junction when the 'green man' was on, a bus came through.

Mike S, Manchester (28/03/2008 at 10:29)

Spot the law student - how exactly would the Health and Safety at Work act apply to people (probably not council employees) driving their cars through the streets of Manchester?

If these people were not driving recklessly and dangerously by tailgating at speed behind buses they would never make it to the bollards before they came back up - they work very quickly. Most of them have waited for a bus to come along so that the bollards drop - i.e. they know full well that they're not supposed to enter. Further, the signs could not be clearer.

I for one am glad they're they're. It stops these idiots from careering along what are basically pedestrianised areas.

MsD, Manchester (28/03/2008 at 10:33)

I wonder what the lawyer, Nick "Mr Loophole" Freeman could do with one of these cases ?

Openshaw Bob (28/03/2008 at 10:51)

Mike S, cars aren't the problem. You talk about cars careering along what is basically a pedestrian area, well a few weeks back I and about ten others were trying to cross at the zebra crossing in Piccadilly bus station. Five buses went 'careering' through as they were trying to make it through the lights 0 two did, the others went through on red and then blocked the road. Anyway, not one bus stopped for the zebra crossing, but after the fifth bus went through there was a good gap between that and the sixth so people prudently stepped out. Guess what? The bus just speeded up! I remonsatrated with the driver and was told in no uncertain terms what I could do. THINK.

Fran M, Stockport (28/03/2008 at 10:58)

Mike S

Health and Safety at Work Act Section 3 may cover this area. This places general duties on employers and the self-employed towards persons other than their employees i.e. the general public. There certainly seems to be a failure in duty of care.

ace, manchester (28/03/2008 at 11:06)

The standard of driving is terrible in britain,Where i live people actually park on the pelican zig zags while they do shopping? and they park on the pavements blocking the view of traffic trying to enterb a main road.its time to enforce driving standards never mind speeding.And ive noticed that quite a lot of cars must have faulty indicators???because very few people use them now....

Mark Spencer, Ashton-under-Lyne, Lancashire. (28/03/2008 at 11:08)

There should be a saftey mechanism which stops the bollards rising if there is something in the way

Picture my 85 year old dad on his 8 MPH mobility scooter following a vehicle when the bollards rose - now Mr Councillor who do you think would be to blame?

And by the looks of the pic - the yellow lines do not look to be legal

Paul in Manchester, Manchester (28/03/2008 at 11:54)

It seems the same old arguments are being rolled out yet again. I'm sorry, but the ONLY way you can hit a bollard is a) if you drive straight into while it's up, or b) you're so close to a bus that it hits you while it's rising. In either case, it's the drivers fault. There are no excuses. Yes, you may be new to the city, but does that excuse poor driving? Surely if you're new to a place you drive slowly and cautiously, not tailgate a bus and turn a blind eye to road signs? If you don't see signs and bollards, what hope do pedestrians have?!

ace, manchester (28/03/2008 at 12:09)

"Car drivers who choose to ignore the signs" That is where the drivers go wrong? they dont read the signs .at the bank i use in openshaw its a no entry but every time i am parked i see cars driving the wrong way down the street on lots of occassions? just because drivers are to lazy to read the signs,or they dont know what the sign means.But if the latter is right they need re-testing.No entry means just that "NO ENTRY" not i can take a chance.

Mike S, Manchester (28/03/2008 at 12:11)

I thought you'd mention section 3. I don't think it's applicable but, in any event, two words - contributory negligence.

You'd claim on your insurance and your insurance company would never sue the council as they know that they'd lose. You'd either have to admit you didn't see the obvious signs (driving without due care and attention) or that you were driving so close behind the bus that you couldn't stop in time (reckless driving - or whatever the offences are called nowadays). Either would potentially make you liable to a criminal driving conviction.

However, re the other posts, I agree the bus drivers seem to be getting worse but thankfully only the free buses are allowed after 11am (I believe). They don't seem to be quite so crazy.

Openshaw Bob (28/03/2008 at 12:36)

Say you are new to Manchester, you don't quite know where you are going (one way streets, street closed because apartments are being built) and you turn from John Dalton Street onto Cross Street. As you are turning left there are still buses coming through the other way on red (it happens all the time here), you are still not quite sure where you are goig but need to be near M&S, you carry on through the lights at the King Street (buses coming through on red from top of King Street) you drive down Cross Street and there are people walking in the road and you are concentrating on people steeping out etc. You see these bollards and you see a bus slowly approach them and go through, you follow and you suffer severe internal injuries. Whose fault is that?

What some of you are saying is that the measure of causing you personal injury is sufficient punishment for going down this road. What next, traffic wardens beating people with iron bars for parking on a single yellow.

Mad Welsh Scotsman, Cadishead (28/03/2008 at 13:00)

Openshaw Bob, the main point is that if you step one foot onto a zebra crossing you automatically have the right of way and vehicles are lawfully obliged to stop for you

nshark, manchester (28/03/2008 at 13:23)

Ace, I agree with you. I am sick of having to put up with drivers not indicating, and just generally thinking they are the only ones on the road. I drive from the NCP in the Arndale every weekday, and the sights I see are unbelievable. I have even seen people using Withy Grove as a one way street, sat waiting on the right hand side of the road outside Hard Rock Cafe waiting for the lights to change. The signs for these bollards are as clear as day, and its peoples ignorance what causes these accidents. I normally find people who don't know the city drive round at 5mph, so they would definately not drive into these things as they come up so quick. Personally I think the majoriy of drivers in Manchester need to re-take their test - this includes taxi drivers AND bus drivers.

Guten Tag (28/03/2008 at 13:30)

I'm a little lost at some of the comments today. Is it Friday already? "What if a mobility scooter got caught", etc. The bollards react down then up within seconds. To collide with the bollard means you were TAILGATING the authorised vehicle. The bollard doesn't stay down for minute(s) after the authorised vehicle has gone through. Its seconds. So it's the drivers fault. There are enough traffic sign warnings on the approach, and enough time to stop and realise you are not authorised to go through before getting near the bollards for those unsure of their surroundsing. So that just leaves the chancers and maybe those who are not fit to drive.

Fran M, Stockport (28/03/2008 at 14:02)

Contributary negligence does not remove the obligation of duty of care.

Openshaw Bob (28/03/2008 at 14:12)

But we did step onto the crossing but the buses weren't stopping. Legal right of way doesn't help when being faced with being hit by a bus. The drivers have an attitude problem.

Back to the bollards though. I remember a few months ago the big wheel in exchange square stopped working for about an hour. In these days of heightened terrorist alerts what if the emergency services were needed and they had to wait for these bollards?

Why have the bollards at all? It seems that they have created an accident blackspot. Why not have a sentry box like on a car park? Cost of wages no doubt but one day when someone is decapitated or killed by these bollards the price of wages will seem chaep.

()

Report

News