Lief, the injury caused to car occupants by hitting one those posts is going to be a lot less severe than the injury caused to any pedestrians who get hit if the post isn't there. But, as others suggest, I suspect that they are predominantly an anti-parking device.
Either anti-parking, or pedestrian 'safety' is my guess. I would put the likelihood of a pedestrian being present at ~1% and the likelihood of the post being present at 100% so the driver loses out. I also dispute your belief that pedestrians would come out worse, except of course for the elderly who might suffer life threatening/destroying injuries.
Leif
|
I also dispute your belief that pedestrians would come out worse, except of course for the elderly who might suffer life threatening/destroying injuries.
Would you like to test it?
You stand or walk on the pavement, and I'll drive your car.
First I drive into you, and then move on and drive into a bollard at the same speed. I'll have seat-belt, airbag(s) and crumble zone between me and the bollard, and you'll have nowt except your trouser leg between you and a ton of metal.
|
>> I also dispute your belief that pedestrians would come >> out worse, except of course for the elderly who might suffer >> life threatening/destroying injuries. Would you like to test it? You stand or walk on the pavement, and I'll drive your car. First I drive into you, and then move on and drive into a bollard at the same speed. I'll have seat-belt, airbag(s) and crumble zone between me and the bollard, and you'll have nowt except your trouser leg between you and a ton of metal.
Charming. I never thought a HJ forum user would threaten to drive a car at me. I'm not sure if you are trying to be offensive.
Anyway, you completely missed the point that I made, namely that the likelihood of there being a pedestrian to hit is miniscule, whereas the likelihood of hitting the bollard is 100%.
Regarding impacts, I have been hit by a car doing maybe 20mph. It was my fault, and I suffered not even a graze and the coffee cup I was carrying was fine too. I have also hit someone in my car doing about 20mph at most. They went flying through the air, and suffered not even a graze. It was the cyclists fault. No doubt higher speeds will cause injury and as I said an elderly person might suffer serious injury even at low speeds. But the probability of hitting a pedestrian is tiny. Hitting a metal post is problematic because it does not yield. Any my car does not have a passenger air bag, or air bags in the rear, and many cars do not even have air bags. If you are driving an Austin Metro - pause to laugh - well, you'd better pray. And what happens if there is an elderly and frail person in the car or a pregnant woman? And what if it's a motorbike that swerves to avoid an impact and hits the bollard. And of course there is the issue of why should my car be written off just because there is a 1 in 100 chance that I would have hit a pedestrian, and a 1 in 10,000 chance that the pedestrian would have been hurt.
Sorry but I don't buy your extremist viewpoint.
Leif
|
Charming. I never thought a HJ forum user would threaten to drive a car at me. I'm not sure if you are trying to be offensive.
C'mon Lief, I was being tongue-in-cheek. Sorry for not making that explicit.
You were lucky when hit by a car (albeit at relatively low speed), but many people are not. You suggest that the chances of a pedestrian being hurt when hit by a car are 1 in 100: now that's my idea of extremism.
|
Yes I guessed you were tongue in cheek.
Sorry but you are knowingly misreading my posts. I have repeatedly said that the chance of HITTING a pedestrian is about 1 in 100 (a rough guess) because there are so few on the pavements, whereas bollards are always there. The probability of a pedestrian being hurt is thus much less. Another posting confirms that they offer a threat to motorists. I would hope that 'safety' measures taken into account motorists as well as pedestrians.
I also find them very ugly, though Slough is not exactly the best of places anyway.
I have written to Slough Council to ask about the posts, and also what they are doing about the dangerous cyclists who care little for their own safety.
Leif
|
Sorry but you are knowingly misreading my posts.
Umm, no I'm not -- though may not have written what you intended to write. See below.
I have repeatedly said that the chance of HITTING a pedestrian is about 1 in 100 (a rough guess) because there are so few on the pavements, whereas bollards are always there.
But you also said that "there is a 1 in 100 chance that I would have hit a pedestrian, and a 1 in 10,000 chance that the pedestrian would have been hurt".
I can read that as meaning either that when hit, a pedestrian has a 1:100 chance of being injured (10,000 divided by 100), or a raw 1:10,000 chance of injury. I took the less extreme figure.
If a car hits a pedestrian, I'd guess the chances of being hurt are well above 50%, probably closer to 100%. The seriousness of the injuries are another matter, but I don't think that I would take being thrown "flying through the air" as not being hurt, even if it didn't cause a cut. Even if (miraculously) nothing was broken or sprained, the bruises would not be my idea of fun.
The last time I was involved in any sort of colision was more than 20 years ago, on my bike: car overtook on damp road, pulled in, jabbed on brakes, I skidded into the back of it. Impact speed probably less than 10mph, and no cuts or broken bones, but the bruising was horrible even though a lot of the impact was absorbed by the badly-bent cycle forks.
|
>> Sorry but you are knowingly misreading my posts. Umm, no I'm not -- though may not have written what you intended to write. See below.
Yes, you are misinterpreting my post, and you continue to do so by ignoring most of the relevant details. I accept that we disagree on the probability of a pedestrian being hurt but for that to happen the pedestrian must first be hit.
The probability of a car hitting a post is the probability of the car mounting the kerb. The probability of the car hitting the pedestrian is the probability of the car mounting the kerb multipled by the probability of a pedestrian being on that part of the pavement, assuming simple Bayesian statistics. Simple observation over many years tells me that the number of pedestrians on the pavements is very low therefore the probability of a pedestrian being hit by a car (in the absence of a bollard) is much much less than the probability of the car hitting a bollard. Hence erecting a bollard protects pedestrians from very unlikely events at the expense of much more likely injury to car occupants.
Regarding damage to the car being small, I very much disagree. A post is a dangerous obstacle because it is narrow and unyielding. Last year Top Gear drove some old cars into a concrete wall at a nominal speed of 30mph. In practice Clarkson was doing IIRC about 40mph at the time of impact, and walked away unhurt. The crumple zone protected him. This year Fifth Gear collided a radio controlled car going at 45 mph into a lamppost. From the mangled wreckage it was obvious that the occupant would have had no chance. The difference is not the tiny speed difference, but rather that a wall spreads the impact over a wide area, and allows the crumple zone to absorb kinetic energy, whereas a post has much less surface area, and concentrates the force into a small area. Hence the crumple zone is of little use, and the car decelerates much faster with much more deformation. That is why government studies into safe road designs avoid the inclusion of posts at the side of the road.
For what its worth I have much less objection to fences, as a car would bounce off, or if head on, would at least spread the force over a wide area. I know this as a fence probably saved my life. Many years ago on an icy morning in Loughborough I was casually walking along a road when a car coming down a side road failed to stop, and skidded at about 30mph straight towards me. It collided with a metal fence along the edge of the pavement, a few feet from me, and bounced off, only to drive away. If the fence had not have been there, I might have been crushed against a wall. If the car had instead hit a post side on at eh drivers door, then the driver may well have sustained serious injuries (think wire cutter and butter).
Obviously in some areas with a high pedestrian density my arguments do not apply, and anyway a 20mph limit, fencing and traffic calming would be appropriate.
Leif
|
Yes, you are misinterpreting my post, and you continue to do so by ignoring most of the relevant details.
No, I'm not. You made three arguments, and don't like the fact that I'm not very interested in one of them. It's a pity that you can't accept the disagreement, rather than resorting to tiresome accusations of misinterpretation.
One is that there is a 1:100 chance of a pedestrian being in your path (against a 1:1 chance of the post being in your way) . I can take no view on that, 'cos I don't know the road.
But your second claim is that a pedestrian being hit by a car which has swerved off the highway has a 1:100 chance of being injured. I'm afraid that's simply silly, at best.
Then you have a third claim, on which you put no figures, that the occupant of the car which departed the highway at x mph stands a higher chance of injury than the pedestrian (who would likely be hit at much the same speed).
I disagree strongly with both your second and third claims, just as I am appalled by the choice implicit in your argument: that having chosen to drive a car, you would prefer in extremis to be able to drive into another human being rather than hitting a solid inanimate object.
You may not like that being spelt out, but that's the consequence of your argument. If you don't like the risk of driving into a post at X mph, why not just slow down to a speed where you are safe rather than complaining about a measure to keep cars separated from those not in cars?
Yes, I know you'd prefer a fence. But apart from the cost, that has the disadvantage of sealing off the pavement, preventing cyclists dismounting to wheel their bikes, passengers getting out of cars, and pedestrians from crossing the road. All so you can go a bit faster?
|
>> Yes, you are misinterpreting my post, and you continue to do >> so by ignoring most of the relevant details. No, I'm not. You made three arguments, and don't like the fact that I'm not very interested in one of them. It's a pity that you can't accept the disagreement, rather than resorting to tiresome accusations of misinterpretation. One is that there is a 1:100 chance of a pedestrian being in your path (against a 1:1 chance of the post being in your way) . I can take no view on that, 'cos I don't know the road.
Fair enough.
But your second claim is that a pedestrian being hit by a car which has swerved off the highway has a 1:100 chance of being injured. I'm afraid that's simply silly, at best.
As I said, we disagree about the probability. Let's reduce it to 10% then bearing in mind that this is a 30mph zone.
Then you have a third claim, on which you put no figures, that the occupant of the car which departed the highway at x mph stands a higher chance of injury than the pedestrian (who would likely be hit at much the same speed).
No, no and no. I have said no such thing and I don't like you misrepresenting my arguments or crediting such fatuous ideas to me.
I disagree strongly with both your second and third claims, just as I am appalled by the choice implicit in your argument: that having chosen to drive a car, you would prefer in extremis to be able to drive into another human being rather than hitting a solid inanimate object.
You have a damned cheek. That is complete and total bull. Now you really are misrepresenting what I have said.
You may not like that being spelt out, but that's the consequence of your argument. If you don't like the risk of driving into a post at X mph, why not just slow down to a speed where you are safe rather than complaining about a measure to keep cars separated from those not in cars? Yes, I know you'd prefer a fence. But apart from the cost, that has the disadvantage of sealing off the pavement, preventing cyclists dismounting to wheel their bikes, passengers getting out of cars, and pedestrians from crossing the road. All so you can go a bit faster?
What's that rubbish about me wanting to go a bit faster? What cheek. I have a clean licence, have never ever had a speeding ticket or been stopped for speeding, often drive less than the speed limit, have taken advanced driving lessons and been told by an IAM observer before the first lesson that my driving was okay but lacked technical finesse (rough gear changes, much smoother now), so basically up yours you cheeky ******.
How often do I have to repeat this? POSTS ARE DANGEROUS OBSTACLES and FENCES ARE NOT.
I resent your twisting my arguments and have no interest in responding.
Leif
|
>> Then you have a third claim, on which you put no >> figures, that the occupant of the car which departed the highway >> at x mph stands a higher chance of injury than the >> pedestrian (who would likely be hit at much the same speed). No, no and no. I have said no such thing and I don't like you misrepresenting my arguments or crediting such fatuous ideas to me.
Are you the same Leif who wrote above "I also dispute your belief that pedestrians would come out worse, except of course for the elderly who might suffer life threatening/destroying injuries"?
See the post at www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=31478&...e -- looks pretty clear to me.
|
|
Either anti-parking, or pedestrian 'safety' is my guess. I would put
Unless of course there are shops on the road in which case anti ram raid precautions may be another possibility?
|
|
|
|
|
