News RSS Feed Send your news, pictures & videos


News coverage for York, Ryedale, East Yorkshire, Harrogate and Selby.

Popular topics: Community Stadium | Snow | Germany Beck | ftr | Queen's visit | Council tax


Young driver becomes latest victim of rising bollard in Stonebow


A YOUNG motorist has been left with 16 stitches in his cheek – and with his car written off – after becoming the latest victim of York’s controversial rising bollard.

Jack Small, 18, says he did not realise access was restricted to Stonebow on a Saturday when he drove over the bollard in the road.

The equipment rose up and speared his engine, thrusting the car into the air. Jack said his face first hit the windscreen and then the steering wheel, forcing his teeth to bite through his left cheek.

He said the car was left moving around like a ride simulator before it rolled off the bollard.

He said: “I was taken to hospital by ambulance and given about 16 stitches, half of them inside my cheek and half of them outside. I think I will be left with a permanent scar. There was engine oil everywhere and the car’s a write-off.”

He said he was dropping off a friend when the incident happened on Saturday morning. “The warning light normally flashes I think, but it wasn’t flashing and I thought the restrictions only applied Monday to Friday.

“A car was coming on to the mini-roundabout from the side, but then he waved for me to go on, so I followed another car which was crossing the bollard without any problem.”

He said he was now off work sick and the loss of his car – a V-reg Vauxhall Astra – would make it difficult to return to his job as a joiner at Stamford Bridge. He said police also wanted to speak to him about the incident.

His mother, Sandra Hardgrave, said: “I think it’s absolutely ridiculous this can happen. They could surely have some sort of sensor, so that if a vehicle is passing over it stops rising.”

She said she would like to thank an unknown woman who stopped to help her son after he was hurt.

City of York Council said today it was satisfied with four flashing warning lights and several signs at the approach to the bollard.

A spokeswoman said the lights were functioning normally at the moment, and authority was not aware of any problem with them at the time of the incident. “There is also a large sign on the approach to the mini-roundabout in front of the bollard which warns drivers of its presence,” she said. “It clearly states the bollard’s times of operation: Mon-Sat, 8am to 6pm. There are two signs giving the same information in front of the bollard.”

She said the bollard had worked normally since the incident, but suffered some damage and the council would seek to recover the costs of replacing this from the driver or his insurance.


Ups and downs of traffic bollard

THE automatic rising bollard in Stonebow provoked controversy from the day it was installed in October 2000 – at a cost of £60,000 – in a bid to stop all traffic except registered buses and taxis driving towards Pavement.

Within days of its launch, a taxi driver escaped with a bump to his head when his car was brought to a standstill by the equipment. Within days, a second car struck it and a flashing warning sign was introduced. After five accidents in a fortnight, the bollard was suspended while highways bosses studied footage of the accidents.

In 2001, the bollard claimed its first bus victim – the number 7 to Acomb. In 2005 a paramedic was taken to hospital with whiplash injuries after his ambulance hit the device as it was speeding to a 999 call.

Last October, an elderly woman was treated by paramedics after colliding with the bollard.

City of York Council says vehicles collide with the bollard about two to three times a year.

Comments(85)

Zetkin says...
9:18am Fri 19 Mar 10

I'm as anti-car as they come, but do we have to witness a fatality before this dangerous equipment is removed?

Garrowby Turnoff says...
9:19am Fri 19 Mar 10

The driver should sue the smug council. It's like using a sawn-off shotgun with a piece of string tied to the trigger - and all for a piddling traffic restriction.

Silver says...
9:29am Fri 19 Mar 10

It does have a lot of signs, as a young motorist he was more then likely cocky and regretting it. Even if you know the times I'd avoid the area like the plague, driver error plain and simple although hard way to learn a lesson

AdmiralNN says...
9:31am Fri 19 Mar 10

The bollards dont come up fast enough to 'spear' the engine and the car is in a pretty bad way. arent their cameras watching these bollards? so come on press give us a laugh and lets see what really happened.

evelyn_trent says...
9:42am Fri 19 Mar 10

The idea of having a sensor stop the bollard coming up if a vehicle is illegally driving over it is risible.

sundance1970 says...
9:43am Fri 19 Mar 10

why dont people read signposts anymore, my god there's plenty of them.....shouldnt the headline read. young driver tries to beat bollard by following another vehicle through because this i'm sure is whats happened here.

maybejustmaybe says...
10:00am Fri 19 Mar 10

Would the same people run the gauntlet at a level crossing?

AngryandFrustrated says...
10:00am Fri 19 Mar 10

I guess you won't be surprised to hear that I have zippo sympathy for this lad - the rising bollard is used effectively in towns and cities across the UK and Europe and the only people that appear to have problems with them are:-

1. Those that don't bother reading the road signs

2. Those that read the road signs and then choose to ignore them

3. Those that try to be clever by trying to "nip-in" after a bus or authorised vehicle.

If this was the car that got caught at approx 11am on Saturday morning, the whole incident was witnessed by one of my friends whom I met at the Stonebow at 11.20 - she told me that whoever was driving the car had tried to "beat" the bollard - he or she (because I'm not sure if this driver is the same one) had seen the previous vehicle slow as the bollard went down and had effectively tried to "beat" it before it rose fully.

I also suspect a slight bit of exaggeration on the part of this young man - "The equipment rose up and speared his engine, thrusting the car into the air. Jack said his face first hit the windscreen and then the steering wheel, forcing his teeth to bite through his left cheek.

The bollard doesn't rise quickly enough to cause that sort of damage, unless of course he was trying to accelerate over it before it rose!

feller says...
10:01am Fri 19 Mar 10

not only are there loads of signs all over this bit, but there a green laight that showswhen its safe. Jope this muppet gets billed for the damage along with a visit from plod. There are too many people ignoring legal signs and markings in this city

AngryandFrustrated says...
10:05am Fri 19 Mar 10

"His mother, Sandra Hardgrave, said: “I think it’s absolutely ridiculous this can happen. They could surely have some sort of sensor, so that if a vehicle is passing over it stops rising.”

Any Mum will leap to the defence of their children - however this really is a most ridiculous comment - if the bollard stopped rising every time an unauthorised car went across it, it would render the bollard ineffective and useless. The point of the bollard being there is to stop unauthorised drivers, such as her son, breaking the traffic restrictions that are in place on that side of town!

Alucard says...
10:12am Fri 19 Mar 10

What, not an elderly female driver? What will all you folk do

mystic_genius says...
10:16am Fri 19 Mar 10

Zetkin wrote:
I'm as anti-car as they come, but do we have to witness a fatality before this dangerous equipment is removed?
I'm not sure I'm with you. How can a fatality be the result of an 'accident' like this?
`
As a self-appointed "young person", I would like to express my extreme gratitude towards Jack Small. Thank you. As a result of idiotic driving (there is no other excuse) by persons such as you, my insurance company will once again penalise me for the sole reason that I am in the same age bracket as you, in spite of the fact that I have never once been involved in an accident in 7 years of driving. Thank you.
`
And before anyone starts on my maths, I'm 24, I've been driving for 7 years, and insurance companies tend to classify anyone as beneath 25 as an aboration on the roads.
`
Perhaps next time you'll read road signs. You'll understand them and you'll adhere caution. If not, then everything that happens to you in your vehicle is your own fault. Stop trying to blame others.

Silver says...
10:17am Fri 19 Mar 10

Alucard wrote:
What, not an elderly female driver? What will all you folk do
I'd be more sympathetic to an elderly female driver. As the shock could have killed her, also it could be blamed on her memory. But he's a young driver more then likely learn to drive in York. Surely he'd know it was there and he was cocky and tried to beat it and failed. Now he has to pay the price harsh but true

TooRad says...
10:18am Fri 19 Mar 10

Absolutely typical of todays culture. No-one but no-one is ever willing to just hold up their hands and admit their mistake.
The signs are massive and obvious. If the driver is a York resident then like the rest of us he should know. Its common knowledge.
Further, when I cycle past this bollard, if I'm following a bus and the bollard starts to rise, when I approach on my little bike it drops again just in case.
I can only imagine it would do that damage if you were going at speed to try and beat it.

Beckster says...
10:20am Fri 19 Mar 10

If he'd worn his seatbelt, his face wouldn't have hit anything...... !

evelyn_trent says...
10:38am Fri 19 Mar 10

Didn't anyone get my 'risible' comment?

Confused Again says...
10:42am Fri 19 Mar 10

Beckster wrote:
If he'd worn his seatbelt, his face wouldn't have hit anything...... !
Exactly, give him a fine for not wearing his seatbelt. How else did his face hit the windscreen.
The boy is obviously a complete idiot.

Beckster says...
10:48am Fri 19 Mar 10

Furthermore, it is highly irresponsible of the Press to refer to someone who has chosen to flout a traffic restriction or any other law as a 'victim' of it! Would you be the victim of a level crossing barrier if you drove into it as it came down???!

Garrowby Turnoff says...
11:12am Fri 19 Mar 10

As I wrote last year...
This is from a Dept of Transport leaflet outlining guides for Councils regarding rising bollards and which City of York Council have appeared to have ignored:-

“The system should ensure that bollards cannot rise beneath a vehicle because of the danger this would create. It is better to risk a certain amount of violation by "tailgating" vehicles, rather that put road users at risk.”

http://www.dft.gov.u

k/pgr/roads/tpm/tal/

signsandsignals/risi

ngbollards?page=2

AdmiralNN says...
11:23am Fri 19 Mar 10

Garrowby Turnoff wrote:
As I wrote last year...
This is from a Dept of Transport leaflet outlining guides for Councils regarding rising bollards and which City of York Council have appeared to have ignored:- “The system should ensure that bollards cannot rise beneath a vehicle because of the danger this would create. It is better to risk a certain amount of violation by "tailgating" vehicles, rather that put road users at risk.” http://www.dft.gov.u k/pgr/roads/tpm/tal/ signsandsignals/risi ngbollards?page=2
shame they remove the comments after a set amount of time cause if my memory serves me correctly you got a real pasting.
'
and then your grovelled some BS and disappeared off the boards for a few days.
'
Couldnt keep away though eh?

retrorigg says...
11:43am Fri 19 Mar 10

its his own fault pure and simple, he should not have been there, he should have done what every other non law abiding driver does and avoided the bollard by going thru st saviourgate ,
its time the police stopped all these selfish drivers usin illegal routes

pedalling paul says...
11:49am Fri 19 Mar 10

Garrowby Turnoff wrote:
As I wrote last year...
This is from a Dept of Transport leaflet outlining guides for Councils regarding rising bollards and which City of York Council have appeared to have ignored:- “The system should ensure that bollards cannot rise beneath a vehicle because of the danger this would create. It is better to risk a certain amount of violation by "tailgating" vehicles, rather that put road users at risk.” http://www.dft.gov.u k/pgr/roads/tpm/tal/ signsandsignals/risi ngbollards?page=2
You're beginning to sound like a transport professional....? Hmmm! But then some commentators think that I'm a Councillor.....!

exyork says...
11:50am Fri 19 Mar 10

Another idiot who cant read basic road signs, just the same as no right turn into coney street, no right turn into queen street and the list goes on. Good for YCC for getting the money to fix. Maybe the camera there should record number plates and send out fines

Garrowby Turnoff says...
11:53am Fri 19 Mar 10

AdmiralNN wrote:
Garrowby Turnoff wrote: As I wrote last year...
This is from a Dept of Transport leaflet outlining guides for Councils regarding rising bollards and which City of York Council have appeared to have ignored:- “The system should ensure that bollards cannot rise beneath a vehicle because of the danger this would create. It is better to risk a certain amount of violation by "tailgating" vehicles, rather that put road users at risk.” http://www.dft.gov.u k/pgr/roads/tpm/tal/ signsandsignals/risi ngbollards?page=2
shame they remove the comments after a set amount of time cause if my memory serves me correctly you got a real pasting. ' and then your grovelled some BS and disappeared off the boards for a few days. ' Couldnt keep away though eh?
LOL. I'm still here AdmiralNN. How annoying for you that a senior seaman like yourself has had his bullying opinions challenged.

AdmiralNN says...
12:08pm Fri 19 Mar 10

Garrowby Turnoff wrote:
AdmiralNN wrote:
Garrowby Turnoff wrote: As I wrote last year...
This is from a Dept of Transport leaflet outlining guides for Councils regarding rising bollards and which City of York Council have appeared to have ignored:- “The system should ensure that bollards cannot rise beneath a vehicle because of the danger this would create. It is better to risk a certain amount of violation by "tailgating" vehicles, rather that put road users at risk.” http://www.dft.gov.u k/pgr/roads/tpm/tal/ signsandsignals/risi ngbollards?page=2
shame they remove the comments after a set amount of time cause if my memory serves me correctly you got a real pasting. ' and then your grovelled some BS and disappeared off the boards for a few days. ' Couldnt keep away though eh?
LOL. I'm still here AdmiralNN. How annoying for you that a senior seaman like yourself has had his bullying opinions challenged.
Retirement must be dull.

Sandbunny says...
12:18pm Fri 19 Mar 10

Poor wee laddie. Mum'll have to buy him a new brum-brum now. Perhaps he might use a bit of nous in future (but I doubt it) as boy racers new grow up.

The Grim Reaper says...
12:25pm Fri 19 Mar 10

pedalling paul wrote:
Garrowby Turnoff wrote: As I wrote last year...
This is from a Dept of Transport leaflet outlining guides for Councils regarding rising bollards and which City of York Council have appeared to have ignored:- “The system should ensure that bollards cannot rise beneath a vehicle because of the danger this would create. It is better to risk a certain amount of violation by "tailgating" vehicles, rather that put road users at risk.” http://www.dft.gov.u k/pgr/roads/tpm/tal/ signsandsignals/risi ngbollards?page=2
You're beginning to sound like a transport professional....? Hmmm! But then some commentators think that I'm a Councillor.....!
Yes, and some people think you are intelligent. Only some - most know you are not Goody Two Pedals.

Fred the Shred says...
12:32pm Fri 19 Mar 10

Why didn't he just drive illegally along St Saviourgate/Copperga
te/Piccadilly/Goodra
mgate like everyone else? The semi-pedestrianisati
on of the city centre is a complete farce.

Henry Swanson says...
12:51pm Fri 19 Mar 10

I think everyone is being a little harsh here, the poor kid was an inexperienced driver, who obviousley didnt know the rules and ended up by all accounts quite seriousley injured..... whilst I agree that he maybe should have paid more attention to the road signs I dont think its a good thing that this bollard can cause so much damage..... What if it had been a pensioner driving or a parent and chils, would you all be so quick to judge??

Kynnersley says...
12:54pm Fri 19 Mar 10

He must be either blind or just plain stupid, there are enough signs warning of the bollard and restricted access, he appears to be another idiot who thinks the highway code does not apply to him including wearing seats belts. If I was his mother I would not be running to The Press with my son's stupidity.
I love the password read-they

Kynnersley says...
1:04pm Fri 19 Mar 10

Henry Swanson wrote:
I think everyone is being a little harsh here, the poor kid was an inexperienced driver, who obviousley didnt know the rules and ended up by all accounts quite seriousley injured..... whilst I agree that he maybe should have paid more attention to the road signs I dont think its a good thing that this bollard can cause so much damage..... What if it had been a pensioner driving or a parent and chils, would you all be so quick to judge??
You are supposed to learn the Highway Code to pass your test, therefore being only 18 he would have past his test fairly recently and therefore should heve been fully aware of the rules, including wearing a seatbelt, if he'd been wearting one he would not have got those injuries.

Silver says...
1:08pm Fri 19 Mar 10

Henry Swanson wrote:
I think everyone is being a little harsh here, the poor kid was an inexperienced driver, who obviousley didnt know the rules and ended up by all accounts quite seriousley injured..... whilst I agree that he maybe should have paid more attention to the road signs I dont think its a good thing that this bollard can cause so much damage..... What if it had been a pensioner driving or a parent and chils, would you all be so quick to judge??
I'm glad he'll recover but he'll have learnt a lesson. This guy is young and lives in York, I'm still fairly new to the area after only living here for 4 years. I know there's a bollard there and so did he. But if I see a rising bollard I think "If I try to beat it getting back up I'm gonna lose and I'm gonna break my car it's not worth the risk" He obviously thought differently and he's paid the price for that. But he shouldn't have done it. Although it does seem a few people are getting angry. Normally they get annoyed when someone gets away with things but this lad hasn't. There's not much more you can do this kid to make him feel bad. He's hurt himself and wrecked his car, if he doesn't learn from his mistake now then he is an idiot but I think he probably will

YorkCityLuke says...
1:09pm Fri 19 Mar 10

Although the guy probably deserved it, surely the bollard shouldnt be trying to sneakily spear peoples cars - and should instead be totally unmissable. People have compared this to driving through a closing level crossing, which would be a fair argument, except that level crossings have lights and bells and a big fence which drops down to block the road. If there's even a chance that a person could miss the sign-posting for the rising bollard it needs to be improved in the interests of safety.

On the ball York says...
1:14pm Fri 19 Mar 10

Note to CYC, ensure that he pays for the damage he caused and not use taxpayers money - that will deter him from making the same mistake twice and hopefully will deter other tail-gaters who may try their luck at beating the bollard..
THE BOLLARD WILL ALWAYS WIN!!

oldgoat says...
1:15pm Fri 19 Mar 10

Henry Swanson wrote:
I think everyone is being a little harsh here, the poor kid was an inexperienced driver, who obviousley didnt know the rules and ended up by all accounts quite seriousley injured..... whilst I agree that he maybe should have paid more attention to the road signs I dont think its a good thing that this bollard can cause so much damage..... What if it had been a pensioner driving or a parent and chils, would you all be so quick to judge??
It's the responsibility of a driver to be aware of road conditions, obey traffic signs, and not produce lame excuses!

I cycled past the bollard this morning, behind a bus, and watched the bollard rise. It takes a second or so, but this lad must have been seriously tailgating to get stuck like that!

I also, when its legal to, drive over the bollard, and its never bothered me, since it does not rise up as a vehicle approaches, but drops as a registered vehicle approaches!

Bishlad says...
1:29pm Fri 19 Mar 10

This young man should have his licence taken away and made to sit the test again. How long can society continue to sympathise with idiots? Perhaps if he had have driven down the wrong lane of the motorway we would still have people making excuses. The lad was totally the architect of his own misfortune. I await the outcome of the court case with interest.

Canardvert says...
1:33pm Fri 19 Mar 10

Where is the story here? A young driver ignored the signs and is now getting Mummy to fight his battle. He broke the law, and will be punished. The loss of his car will be added incentive to think next time. So should we feel sorry for drink drivers now if they didn't know their behaviour could have horrendous consequences. Hopefully this young man will grow up!

Garrowby Turnoff says...
1:53pm Fri 19 Mar 10

The punishment doesn't fit the crime - by a mile. £10K damage to vehicles for a driving error is too severe. Everyone makes mistakes, that's why they put erasers on pencils and a ‘delete’ key on your keyboard, but I know of no other driving offense that warrants such criminal damage in punishment. Based on the disregarding of Government guidelines I presented above, I would issue a counter claim for excessive damages.

retrorigg says...
2:00pm Fri 19 Mar 10

why did the council decide on a mega expensive bollard in the first place when a simple up n down car park style barrier would have done the same job and wouldnt be spearing peoples cars (apparantly)

Silver says...
2:02pm Fri 19 Mar 10

Garrowby Turnoff wrote:
The punishment doesn't fit the crime - by a mile. £10K damage to vehicles for a driving error is too severe. Everyone makes mistakes, that's why they put erasers on pencils and a ‘delete’ key on your keyboard, but I know of no other driving offense that warrants such criminal damage in punishment. Based on the disregarding of Government guidelines I presented above, I would issue a counter claim for excessive damages.
But would you drive over that bollard? Cars are expensive and if you make a mistake with them something has to happen. Because some mistakes you can't undo but you can learn from them. Yes he made a mistake but sometimes you have to pay for your mistake.
I dislike the idea of their being a bollard but it does it's job and it's legal the fault is with him and there is a price attached to that no matter what you think, harsh maybe but true

TheManWithTheFuManchuMoustache says...
2:16pm Fri 19 Mar 10

Garrowby Turnoff wrote:
The punishment doesn't fit the crime - by a mile. £10K damage to vehicles for a driving error is too severe. Everyone makes mistakes, that's why they put erasers on pencils and a ‘delete’ key on your keyboard, but I know of no other driving offense that warrants such criminal damage in punishment. Based on the disregarding of Government guidelines I presented above, I would issue a counter claim for excessive damages.
Ah so it's OK to run over a little old lady on a crossing because you didn't see the the signs - after all it would just be a 'simple driving error' and 'everyone makes mistakes'.
Don't know why they can't just put a 'delete' key on cars.

agabbiecabby says...
2:47pm Fri 19 Mar 10

That bollard will go down for any vehicle that aproaches it, you just need to wait for a green light.
The council are at fault for leaving it that way, so this guy has no excuse to try to beat it.
If you want to see how these bollards work properly search on YouTube, any that do run into them are made to pay for the damage.
Come on CYC get that bollard operating properly and stop these people using it as a rat run.

AngryandFrustrated says...
2:57pm Fri 19 Mar 10

Garrowby Turnoff wrote:
The punishment doesn't fit the crime - by a mile. £10K damage to vehicles for a driving error is too severe. Everyone makes mistakes, that's why they put erasers on pencils and a ‘delete’ key on your keyboard, but I know of no other driving offense that warrants such criminal damage in punishment. Based on the disregarding of Government guidelines I presented above, I would issue a counter claim for excessive damages.
You are being very supportive of him - is he a relation?!!

fenderbassman says...
3:13pm Fri 19 Mar 10

these bollards are a dangerous menace to any vehicle , just look at the track record of the one mentioned, its had buses, ambulances and cars todate ! and they were not all driven by `boy racers`are the bollards legal? the councils health and safety brigade are quick to tell anyone else of petty infringments of rules yet it seems ok for them to install these dangerous hazards

Henry Swanson says...
3:14pm Fri 19 Mar 10

Hmm, I always just drive down St Saviourgate anyway, it is kinda pointless it being there when you can scoot around it!

Garrowby Turnoff says...
3:20pm Fri 19 Mar 10

AngryandFrustrated wrote:
Garrowby Turnoff wrote: The punishment doesn't fit the crime - by a mile. £10K damage to vehicles for a driving error is too severe. Everyone makes mistakes, that's why they put erasers on pencils and a ‘delete’ key on your keyboard, but I know of no other driving offense that warrants such criminal damage in punishment. Based on the disregarding of Government guidelines I presented above, I would issue a counter claim for excessive damages.
You are being very supportive of him - is he a relation?!!
No relation. He is one of hundreds of similar cases every year who suffer feudal and medieval punishment for a driving error. It is definitely possible to follow an unmarked vehicle with a transmitter aboard across the rising bollard. Lights and signs are often overrun every day in ordinary driving mistakes without car wrecking being the punishment. On average £5K damage is inflicted on these vehicles which compares with fines imposed for drink driving or High Speed motoring offenses endangering innocent lives. I would sue the council if they used a ball and chain to wreck my home if I failed to stop at a red light... wouldn't you?

again says...
3:30pm Fri 19 Mar 10

Sorry, but I can't find any sympathy for this 'victim'.

He's been given a lesson and got away with minor injuries. In a different situation his incompetence could have his life and/or those of others.

If he has weak-minded friends like Garrowby Turnoff then he doesn't need any enemies.

AdmiralNN says...
3:39pm Fri 19 Mar 10

I would sue the council if they used a ball and chain to wreck my home if I failed to stop at a red light...


Whats your home and stopping at a red light got to do with this story?
'
Spouting BS?

TheManWithTheFuManchuMoustache says...
3:39pm Fri 19 Mar 10

Garrowby Turnoff wrote:
AngryandFrustrated wrote:
Garrowby Turnoff wrote: The punishment doesn't fit the crime - by a mile. £10K damage to vehicles for a driving error is too severe. Everyone makes mistakes, that's why they put erasers on pencils and a ‘delete’ key on your keyboard, but I know of no other driving offense that warrants such criminal damage in punishment. Based on the disregarding of Government guidelines I presented above, I would issue a counter claim for excessive damages.
You are being very supportive of him - is he a relation?!!
No relation. He is one of hundreds of similar cases every year who suffer feudal and medieval punishment for a driving error. It is definitely possible to follow an unmarked vehicle with a transmitter aboard across the rising bollard. Lights and signs are often overrun every day in ordinary driving mistakes without car wrecking being the punishment. On average £5K damage is inflicted on these vehicles which compares with fines imposed for drink driving or High Speed motoring offenses endangering innocent lives. I would sue the council if they used a ball and chain to wreck my home if I failed to stop at a red light... wouldn't you?
Feudal and medieval punishment?
Are they going to brand the poor bloke?
A bollard that inflicts damage on innocent cars - does it chase after them?
A plot seems to have been mislaid somewhere.
Perhaps these poor drivers should try to hit a Ferrari next time they make an 'ordinary driving mistake' and see if that works out a bit cheaper.

Security words - spot-drug - I think I've spotted someone on them!

sun seeker's says...
3:46pm Fri 19 Mar 10

Silver wrote:
It does have a lot of signs, as a young motorist he was more then likely cocky and regretting it. Even if you know the times I'd avoid the area like the plague, driver error plain and simple although hard way to learn a lesson
Maybe thats half the problem? To many signs means that the important ones just get lossed within the "jungle" of, "do this", "don't do that", "turn here", "stop here", "don't stop there"...........

AngryandFrustrated says...
3:48pm Fri 19 Mar 10

Garrowby Turnoff wrote:
AngryandFrustrated wrote:
Garrowby Turnoff wrote: The punishment doesn't fit the crime - by a mile. £10K damage to vehicles for a driving error is too severe. Everyone makes mistakes, that's why they put erasers on pencils and a ‘delete’ key on your keyboard, but I know of no other driving offense that warrants such criminal damage in punishment. Based on the disregarding of Government guidelines I presented above, I would issue a counter claim for excessive damages.
You are being very supportive of him - is he a relation?!!
No relation. He is one of hundreds of similar cases every year who suffer feudal and medieval punishment for a driving error. It is definitely possible to follow an unmarked vehicle with a transmitter aboard across the rising bollard. Lights and signs are often overrun every day in ordinary driving mistakes without car wrecking being the punishment. On average £5K damage is inflicted on these vehicles which compares with fines imposed for drink driving or High Speed motoring offenses endangering innocent lives. I would sue the council if they used a ball and chain to wreck my home if I failed to stop at a red light... wouldn't you?
You are missing the point - the sanction for jumping a red light is not to have your house demolished. However, the sanctions for driving irresponsibly (whether intended or not) can be anything from nothing to wrecking your car and killing someone.

Lights and signs are often over-run every day but what happens if a person is knocked down and killed as a result? The chances are the car is a write off, you and your insurance company are sued for a lot more than £10k and the driver will face anything from points on his licence to 10 years in jail. We don't say, "Poor thing - he's only 18 and he didn't see the sign - he's suffered enough as his car has been written off"

The fact is the bollard is well sign-posted and as I said in my first posting, if it is the same accident as happened on Saturday morning, it was witnessed by a friend who clearly saw a car trying to beat the bollard as it rose. Even if it's not, maybe the loss of his car and a big bill to pay may make him pay more attention to road signs which will hopefully make him a better and safer driver - hell, it may even stop him from killing someone on a pedestrian crossing or similarly signed "road hazard".

Ultimately, if drivers want to play "beat the bollard" when they know (or ought to from paying attention to the road signs) then they do so at their own risk and they have to accept the consequences of their own actions. In this young lads case, it means the loss of his car and a potentially big bill (on the assumption that his insurance company refuse to pay).

kelly80 says...
3:54pm Fri 19 Mar 10

Hey GTBW I see the admiral has sussed you as well, pity my earlier comment was removed, you really do spout some BS

leninwasright says...
4:38pm Fri 19 Mar 10

It's his own fault. 1. He can't read, 2. Couldn't be bothered to read the signs. 3. Was incapacitated for whatever reason. 4. He's arrogant.
Delete where appropriate.
These devices are used all over Europe and in the UK for the very reason that they prevent unauthorised folk from accessing parts of cities. Clearly this one is doing its job and under no circumstances should it be removed.

Garrowby Turnoff says...
4:51pm Fri 19 Mar 10

kelly80 wrote:
Hey GTBW I see the admiral has sussed you as well, pity my earlier comment was removed, you really do spout some BS
Admit it Kelly, you and the salty seadog are the same person posting under different names...

BTW It wasn't a pity.

azz70 says...
4:55pm Fri 19 Mar 10

i happen to known that the rear passenger told me in person that them selfs and the driver were not wearing seat belts and that the driver his friend was not paying attention and was busy looking at his friend in the back seat at the time and had just followed the car infront. this would explain why he never saw the sign, he simply was not looking.

AdmiralNN says...
4:59pm Fri 19 Mar 10

Garrowby Turnoff wrote:
kelly80 wrote: Hey GTBW I see the admiral has sussed you as well, pity my earlier comment was removed, you really do spout some BS
Admit it Kelly, you and the salty seadog are the same person posting under different names... BTW It wasn't a pity.
Yeah, thanks GTBW if all else fails you can always fall back on the old your the same as him, admit it line.
'
History does repeat as this story and the subsequent comments prove.

Garrowby Turnoff says...
5:00pm Fri 19 Mar 10

Right... now... this is the deal.
I'll stop posting about medieval rising bollards if you lot will donate £30 to Sport Relief like me:-
.
https://www.sportrel
ief.com/fundraise/ho
w-to-pay-your-money-
in/pay-in-fundraisin
g-online

AngryandFrustrated says...
5:06pm Fri 19 Mar 10

Garrowby Turnoff wrote:
Right... now... this is the deal. I'll stop posting about medieval rising bollards if you lot will donate £30 to Sport Relief like me:- . https://www.sportrel ief.com/fundraise/ho w-to-pay-your-money- in/pay-in-fundraisin g-online
Consider it done!!!

Have a good weekend and mind the bollards!

Caecilius says...
5:23pm Fri 19 Mar 10

Garrowby Turnoff wrote:
AngryandFrustrated wrote:
Garrowby Turnoff wrote: The punishment doesn't fit the crime - by a mile. £10K damage to vehicles for a driving error is too severe. Everyone makes mistakes, that's why they put erasers on pencils and a ‘delete’ key on your keyboard, but I know of no other driving offense that warrants such criminal damage in punishment. Based on the disregarding of Government guidelines I presented above, I would issue a counter claim for excessive damages.
You are being very supportive of him - is he a relation?!!
No relation. He is one of hundreds of similar cases every year who suffer feudal and medieval punishment for a driving error. It is definitely possible to follow an unmarked vehicle with a transmitter aboard across the rising bollard. Lights and signs are often overrun every day in ordinary driving mistakes without car wrecking being the punishment. On average £5K damage is inflicted on these vehicles which compares with fines imposed for drink driving or High Speed motoring offenses endangering innocent lives. I would sue the council if they used a ball and chain to wreck my home if I failed to stop at a red light... wouldn't you?
It's not a punishment, though, is it? It's simply the consequence of his action. If you decide (for example) to kick a large rock, you may well end up with some broken toes. That won't be because a couple of policemen jump out from behind it and pin you to the ground while one of them smashes your toes with a hammer as a summary punishment; it'll be because the rock is very hard and that's what happens if you're stupid enough to kick it.

This seems to be a big problem these days: too many people (especially, but not only, a lot of youngsters) seem to believe that the world has been created especially for them and that therefore, no matter how idiotically they behave, nothing bad can possibly happen to them. Sometimes, they learn the hard way that they're wrong.

kelly80 says...
5:24pm Fri 19 Mar 10

Well GTBW you are so far off the mark, however it does show that two like minded individuals, me and the admiral, can really see you for what you are, anti establishment, anti local government, anti everything that does not fit your 60s throwback backwater world, try for the glass half full approach, you never know you might like it, just don't fill the glass with BS, you don't need a top up, you are full of it already.

Kynnersley says...
6:24pm Fri 19 Mar 10

azz70 wrote:
i happen to known that the rear passenger told me in person that them selfs and the driver were not wearing seat belts and that the driver his friend was not paying attention and was busy looking at his friend in the back seat at the time and had just followed the car infront. this would explain why he never saw the sign, he simply was not looking.
Well if he does not look where he's ging he deserves to be off the road, making the roads a lot safer.

Kynnersley says...
6:27pm Fri 19 Mar 10

Garrowby Turnoff wrote:
The punishment doesn't fit the crime - by a mile. £10K damage to vehicles for a driving error is too severe. Everyone makes mistakes, that's why they put erasers on pencils and a ‘delete’ key on your keyboard, but I know of no other driving offense that warrants such criminal damage in punishment. Based on the disregarding of Government guidelines I presented above, I would issue a counter claim for excessive damages.
A V Reg Astra is worth no where near £10k.

Sawday2 says...
6:58pm Fri 19 Mar 10

Maybe the problem is too many signs. By the time you have read them all you are over the bollard!

If car drivers are going to be caught wouldn't it be fair to replace the bollard with a net to catch cyclists as well or is it a case of one law for one...

Confused says...
7:32pm Fri 19 Mar 10

Sawday2 wrote:
Maybe the problem is too many signs. By the time you have read them all you are over the bollard! If car drivers are going to be caught wouldn't it be fair to replace the bollard with a net to catch cyclists as well or is it a case of one law for one...
Why even try and bring cyclist into this debate as they are actually allowed past the bollard

sundance1970 says...
8:26pm Fri 19 Mar 10

retrorigg wrote:
its his own fault pure and simple, he should not have been there, he should have done what every other non law abiding driver does and avoided the bollard by going thru st saviourgate , its time the police stopped all these selfish drivers usin illegal routes
ooooohhhhh i say!!!!!

Mister Sheen says...
8:36pm Fri 19 Mar 10

"Jack Small has a job!" That should be the headline. Not to worry, Jacky-boy, big brother - the "El Don of Dodsworth" will secure you a new one!

Mister Sheen says...
9:04pm Fri 19 Mar 10

....and he has a licence!?

pedalling paul says...
9:05pm Fri 19 Mar 10

Sawday2 wrote:
Maybe the problem is too many signs. By the time you have read them all you are over the bollard! If car drivers are going to be caught wouldn't it be fair to replace the bollard with a net to catch cyclists as well or is it a case of one law for one...
Tch....tch....tch...
.!

yawn.. says...
10:55pm Fri 19 Mar 10

Sorry the lad's had to have so many stitches but hey, the bollard is well signed.
The council should recover the cost of damage to the bollard and Tiny Tim should consider himself lucky he isn't being prosecuted for driving without due care and attention.!
..and mum, think of it as part of the growing up process. Perhaps in future he won't think he's God's innocent gift to the roads.

Splat says...
9:00am Sat 20 Mar 10

Look at the pic, the car was not speared. The bollard came up in front of the car. I was there when this happend. the stupid chav driving the astra was just showing off to his mates in the car trying to beat the system. He got caught out, GOOD. one less idiot driver on our roads,
there are Apx 4 large signs informing drivers that the bollard is in use 8am-6pm mon-sat, also he is local so he know the score, come on CyC we need more of these bollards, let have them in coppergate to stop the 1000's of idiot drivers using it as their own personal rat run,
back to the chav in the astra,
You have lost your car GOOD !!!
Your insurance will not pay for a new car GOOD !!!
Your insurance will go UP GOOD !!!
CyC will be sending you a invoice for the damage you casued. GOOD !!!
with a bit of luck the police will pay you a vist, and stick you on for driving with out due care and attention or carless driving and fine you and put points on your Licence GOOD !!!! all these factors should keep you off the road for a long long time, making it safer for us all.
any one that supports this idiot baffoon retard, must be a relation or friend of his, as for the press stating him as a victim !! he is a victim of his own stupidity,
once again I was there I saw him hit the bollard and bounce off it,

Mister Sheen says...
9:21am Sat 20 Mar 10

......and you think he'll have insurance??!! That Astra will be just another one of his brother's pool cars that he shares with his "associates". Soon be replaced!!

Mister Sheen says...
9:27am Sat 20 Mar 10

And why weren't the police in attendance at the scene in the first place? The subsequent impedance to traffic should have surely warranted a presence and a breath test / vehicle search. City centre CCTV or a following bus/ cab driver must have seen the carnage and called it in.

Mister Sheen says...
9:35am Sat 20 Mar 10

http://www.yorkpress
.co.uk/news/3997509.
__67_000_in_cash_is_
seized_in_Dodsworth_
Avenue_drugs_raid/

AdmiralNN says...
9:42am Sat 20 Mar 10

kelly80 wrote:
Well GTBW you are so far off the mark, however it does show that two like minded individuals, me and the admiral, can really see you for what you are, anti establishment, anti local government, anti everything that does not fit your 60s throwback backwater world, try for the glass half full approach, you never know you might like it, just don't fill the glass with BS, you don't need a top up, you are full of it already.
Whoa! by all means speak for yourself kelly, but im pretty 'anti' myself. I just think on this story the lad is at fault more than the bollard.
'
No more no less.
'
Ill speak for myself thanks

sammy07 says...
9:59am Sat 20 Mar 10

Im glad some people know who jack small and his brother is .complete and utter pair of wasters the pair of them, his brother drives a black astra similar to that. always droppin drugs off everywhere all over that side of town. i smiled so much when i saw jacks car im gonna print it off and stick it on the various notice boards around that side of york.,. fantastic!

Mister Sheen says...
1:35pm Sat 20 Mar 10

Hey Sammy! - wanna start a Facebook Group with me? "Fans of Stephen 'not-so small' Small". Could be in the same vein as "Friends of Plaggy Terry"! (Codewords safe-cell -- if only!!)

Bogsy says...
3:37pm Sat 20 Mar 10

The restriction has not been signed in accordance with the law. The council can be sued for damages.

Firstly the council need to have in place a traffic regulation order (TRO) prohibiting motor vehicles from using that stretch of road. If there is no order then the prohbition is unlawful and the bollard is an obstruction of the highway.

If there is a TRO prohibiting vehicles then the prohibition needs to be signed in accordance with the law using signs that are prescribed by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directives 2002 (TSRGD 2002).

Unfortunately the council has failed in it's statutory duty to sign the no motor vehicles prohibition and bollard hazard in accordance with the law.

The prohibition of motor vehicles sign is to diagram 619 of the TSRGD 2002 and so the accompanying plate giving the times of prohibition should be to diagram 620 in the TSRGD 2002. However, the plate used is not a permitted variant of diagram 620 meaning the sign is unlawful as it does not comply with s.64 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 by being prescribed.

In addition the triangle danger ahead sign to diagram 562 in the TSRGD 2002 used in Stonebow, is not used in conjunction with a permitted variant of an accompanying sign to diagram 563 in the TSRGD 2002. This again means the hazard is not signed in accordance with the law.

Due to these signage failings the injured party has a strong claim for damages and injury.

It is important to note that the times given on the unlawful sign only apply to the period the prohibition of motor vehicles applies. There is nothing to indicate the operational times that apply to the rising bollard.

If the young lad involved reads this then my advice is to get yourself some legal advice to commence a claim for compensation due to the damage and injuries received.

sun seeker's says...
5:18pm Sat 20 Mar 10

Bogsy wrote:
The restriction has not been signed in accordance with the law. The council can be sued for damages. Firstly the council need to have in place a traffic regulation order (TRO) prohibiting motor vehicles from using that stretch of road. If there is no order then the prohbition is unlawful and the bollard is an obstruction of the highway. If there is a TRO prohibiting vehicles then the prohibition needs to be signed in accordance with the law using signs that are prescribed by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directives 2002 (TSRGD 2002). Unfortunately the council has failed in it's statutory duty to sign the no motor vehicles prohibition and bollard hazard in accordance with the law. The prohibition of motor vehicles sign is to diagram 619 of the TSRGD 2002 and so the accompanying plate giving the times of prohibition should be to diagram 620 in the TSRGD 2002. However, the plate used is not a permitted variant of diagram 620 meaning the sign is unlawful as it does not comply with s.64 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 by being prescribed. In addition the triangle danger ahead sign to diagram 562 in the TSRGD 2002 used in Stonebow, is not used in conjunction with a permitted variant of an accompanying sign to diagram 563 in the TSRGD 2002. This again means the hazard is not signed in accordance with the law. Due to these signage failings the injured party has a strong claim for damages and injury. It is important to note that the times given on the unlawful sign only apply to the period the prohibition of motor vehicles applies. There is nothing to indicate the operational times that apply to the rising bollard. If the young lad involved reads this then my advice is to get yourself some legal advice to commence a claim for compensation due to the damage and injuries received.
I could do with a new car! This sounds better than the "scrappage allowance".

Lady Muck of NP says...
6:42pm Sat 20 Mar 10

It is highly likely the young male driver ignored any warning regarding the rising bollard, however the punishment should not be a wrecked car or injuries that require hospitalisation. If a person had inflicted the damage and injuries they would no doubt have been arrested.

chillout says...
9:42am Sun 21 Mar 10

as a very regular user of the stonebow bus gate i see lots of people successfully negotiating the bollard including those who shouldnt be really using it, if you proceed very slow and careful it works for anyone! try any other approach and you will have problems.i have noticed in particular very young drivers in small cars favour this route through the stonebow bollard, maybe they will think about it a tad more!

harogut-the-cat says...
11:10am Sun 21 Mar 10

I havnt read all the posts. but to the people who jump to his defence, should read the post from someone who said that they know someone who was in the car and they all did not have seatbelts on and at the time he was talking to someone in the back seat..... this can not be verified but say it was true..18year old , just passed test, car thats too big for him, car full of mates....its feasable. Now what if that Bollard was my son, daughter, wife, friend, or yours how would you defend him. The above dont with massive signs, flashing lights as they go about their buisness.

ps. There are probably a lot of people who know the family, and feel no sympathy for them at all, but thats another story..everything that is wrong with this contry, even the sweet mother.

Kynnersley says...
2:04pm Sun 21 Mar 10

Lady Muck of NP wrote:
It is highly likely the young male driver ignored any warning regarding the rising bollard, however the punishment should not be a wrecked car or injuries that require hospitalisation. If a person had inflicted the damage and injuries they would no doubt have been arrested.
The injuries were self inflicted by NOT wearing a seatbelt.

azz70 says...
2:12pm Sun 21 Mar 10

harogut-the-cat, York wrote...
11:10am Sun 21 Mar 10

I havnt read all the posts. but to the people who jump to his defence, should read the post from someone who said that they know someone who was in the car and they all did not have seatbelts on and at the time he was talking to someone in the back seat..... this can not be verified but say it was true..18year old , just passed test, car thats too big for him, car full of mates....its feasable. Now what if that Bollard was my son, daughter, wife, friend, or yours how would you defend him. The above dont with massive signs, flashing lights as they go about their buisness.

ps. There are probably a lot of people who know the family, and feel no sympathy for them at all, but thats another story..everything that is wrong with this contry, even the sweet mother.
I havnt read all the posts. but to the people who jump to his defence, should read the post from someone who said that they know someone who was in the car and they all did not have seatbelts on and at the time he was talking to someone in the back seat..... this can not be verified but say it was true..18year old , just passed test, car thats too big for him, car full of mates....its feasable. Now what if that Bollard was my son, daughter, wife, friend, or yours how would you defend him. The above dont with massive signs, flashing lights as they go about their buisness. ps. There are probably a lot of people who know the family, and feel no sympathy for them at all, but thats another story..everything that is wrong with this contry, even the sweet mother.

oh i can prove it. every word is on CCTV. well untill the shop reuse the tape anyway.

Mister Sheen says...
8:17am Mon 22 Mar 10

^^^^ YouTube please!!

oldgoat says...
5:00pm Thu 25 Mar 10

Bogsy wrote:
The restriction has not been signed in accordance with the law. The council can be sued for damages.

Firstly the council need to have in place a traffic regulation order (TRO) prohibiting motor vehicles from using that stretch of road. If there is no order then the prohbition is unlawful and the bollard is an obstruction of the highway.

If there is a TRO prohibiting vehicles then the prohibition needs to be signed in accordance with the law using signs that are prescribed by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directives 2002 (TSRGD 2002).

Unfortunately the council has failed in it's statutory duty to sign the no motor vehicles prohibition and bollard hazard in accordance with the law.

The prohibition of motor vehicles sign is to diagram 619 of the TSRGD 2002 and so the accompanying plate giving the times of prohibition should be to diagram 620 in the TSRGD 2002. However, the plate used is not a permitted variant of diagram 620 meaning the sign is unlawful as it does not comply with s.64 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 by being prescribed.

In addition the triangle danger ahead sign to diagram 562 in the TSRGD 2002 used in Stonebow, is not used in conjunction with a permitted variant of an accompanying sign to diagram 563 in the TSRGD 2002. This again means the hazard is not signed in accordance with the law.

Due to these signage failings the injured party has a strong claim for damages and injury.

It is important to note that the times given on the unlawful sign only apply to the period the prohibition of motor vehicles applies. There is nothing to indicate the operational times that apply to the rising bollard.

If the young lad involved reads this then my advice is to get yourself some legal advice to commence a claim for compensation due to the damage and injuries received.
Sorry, what?
Looking for a legal loophole to avoid having to admit fault? That's just where this ridiculous culture of litigation has come from.
So he wasn't paying attention to the road, or ignored the signs to show off. Tough.
And young drivers wonder why their insurance premiums are so high!


Sandra Hardgrave with her son Jack Small’s Vauxhall Astra car, which was struck by a rising bollard Sandra Hardgrave with her son Jack Small’s Vauxhall Astra car, which was struck by a rising bollard

Most popular


Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »

Local Businesses