Bell type bollard

theydev

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82057574#Comment_82057574

The ones around me, they are like cast iron and quite a lot have been knocked over or broken in the past few years. I seem to recall the older type with sort of a squared off top with ribs were made of either steel or thicker iron. The new ones do like nice but they don't really seem that sturdy if they are hit but they are not on corners for protection more for edges of the laybye etc.

Not near me but I did come across these types also a solid (bolted through I guess or something) concrete ball, they look bigger than the picture shows.

Edited to get a better picture.

oldagetraveller1

I'm personally all for them if they deter triple Cs.

EnPointe

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82057546#Comment_82057546

the TL;DR of this from the point of view of the council, insurers and the police is

driver fails to observe or drive correctly and safely and then won't take accountability for their own lack of observation and possible criminality

Goudy

I have a certain (just a tad) amount of sympathy as all these images do highlight one of my bug bears and that is the idiotic vision town planners have to blend the road where vehicles drive, into the pavement where pedestrians walk. Then set a big lump of iron or other obstacles on the corner to try and separate them again. It makes no sense.

Yes you shouldn't drive on the pavement and you have as you've hit that bollard on it, but I wish they wouldn't merge the two like this.

There is a junction near me where is used to have railings that ran around the corners of the junction and just a few yards further along, zebra crossings to cross the streets. You couldn't cut the corner and you could cross safely. What more could you ask for?

They ripped the railing and crossings out, extended the pavements out into the road and blended them into the road.

After three serious incidents involving pedestrians and road users, they went back and stuck up bollards on the corners, but cyclists still cut the corners behind the bollards so it was only a matter of time before other incidents started to happen, and sure enough they did.

Two were basically ignored, cyclists hitting pedestrians as they cut the corner. Then a cyclist got hit rejoining the road after cutting the corner. So they changed the junction to a no left turn (except cycles of course) and stuck cameras on the junction.

Now they want to pedestrianise the street altogether as it's a "dangerous junction to pedestrians". It never f**king was until they ruined it!

I think this was the plan all along, otherwise why blend the pavement and road to appear as the same thing?

I took this up with my local councillor and they just fobbed my off, going on about their safer streets campaign. But they have failed miserably as they took something that was already safe and turned it into a danger.

LightFlare

Regardless - the OP should be informing his insurance company about the incident

photome

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82057528#Comment_82057528

it was visible when you approached the junction same as if it had been a small child standing there,

Mildly_Miffed

@Goudy said…
"I have a certain (just a tad) amount of sympathy as all these images do highlight one of my bug bears and that is the idiotic vision town planners have to blend the road where vehicles drive, into the pavement where pedestrians walk."

Except while that's true further back on Roman Road, where the bollard is lies outside that block-paved area. The bollard is on a clearly differentiated pavement. Even if there was not the surface differentiation, there are double yellow lines around the corner acting as a further visual differentiator.

Even within that block-paved area, there is a clear kerb line, which is outside where the bollard is.

If you look at older streetview images, the restaurant has previously had seating and an awning on the portion of the pavement the OP thought fit to drive on…
https://maps.app.goo.gl/9hKPRhvd7YDua4uB7

Goudy

Yes, they've done the same on the other side of the road.

Roman Rd - Google Maps

But this time they have extended the Parnell Road pavement out across the end of Roman Road, past the actual pavement on Roman Road and put a bollard there. This bollard "appears" to be in the middle of the road. That was never how it would have been in the past.

But why extend the pavement out into the road? It's narrowed the junction off so what was road is now pavement and to protect that part of the pavement they have used bollards. They created a need for the bollards.

Okay, there is a parking space close to that junction, but they don't need to permanently blocked that off. It's road if a car is parked there or not, if there isn't you should still be able to drive on it.

I bet when it hadn't been narrowed, they wouldn't have been a need for both bollards on either side of the junction.

Question is why have they narrowed that junction by extending the pavement out into the road? It's hardly a busy or especially wide junction for pedestrians to cross. Why pinch three or four feet of that junction?

Town planners are redesigning what already works, then finding solutions to problems they have created and it's all coming to a street near you.

Baldytyke88

If the road/corner is narrower, that forces vehicles to either slow down or hit something.

flaneurs_lobster

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82061048#Comment_82061048

Exactly, that's what "traffic calming" means.