Mysterious Device - ATG Bollard Access Device?

[eveares]

Have always wondered what these things are in my local town center. I think they are something to do with local barrier/bollard control according to the website below. Maybe they are RFID card readers.

http://www.atgaccess.com/

There is two of them, always lit up red, spaced about 5-10 meters apart from each other.

See the street view of them here.

Mysterious Control Device?

Main View

• eveares
• 19 Nov 2016

Close-up view

• eveares
• 19 Nov 2016

Also wonder how secure/hack-able they are?

Regards: Elliott.

 

[JohnD]

you can see the control columns in the Cambridge clip at 1.10

ATG bollards

 

[EFLImpudence]

I've never seen them before.

Proof that nothing is too draconian nor too expensive when you have a little power and are spending someone else's money.

 

[333rocky333]

Theres a video doing the rounds of a car trying to tailgate a bus through and wasnt quick enough

Oops never see johnds video

 

[securespark]

The damage to that 7.5 tonner at 50 is catastrophic!

 

[SimonH2]

Of those 3 videos, the first is in Manchester where they just couldn't get people to respect a pedestrianised zone. The same clips were in the local news some years ago. It has to be said that the signage there could not be described as "discrete" - there really are some 'kin huge warning signs and they specifically warn against trying to tailgate.
The third one is for an anti-terrorist bollard designed to protect high risk areas. It's not the same as the regular ones which I suspect might not be undamaged after such an impact.

 

[stillp]

All the drivers were heard to say "Oh bollards" I think.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Does no one agree with me that they are totally unreasonable - in the legal meaning - no matter how stupid the people may be.

I'm not allowed to use unreasonable force on a burglar - in fact, none, if he does not attack me.

So, am I allowed to go out and ruin his car?

 

[ericmark]

Looking at the wagon demo, that would kill anyone in the cab, if safety is the reason then must be no traffic not selected traffic, with maybe the exception of Ambulance and Fire. There is no reason to allow bus and taxi but not any other vehicle which would do so much damage. We have some local to me in a bus station, you can drive to either side but not through them. They will not allow police, fire or ambulance through which seems daft. Now next county they have some which only allow emergency vehicles through that makes some sense. Oh and bus station ones now not working, seems a bus company went bust, and company who took over did not have buses with the equipment fitted so whole system turned off. So you do get the odd car sneak through, not many, maybe as also access to police station, but since switched off for so long if switched on again they would likely get some car driver, most likely would be police car, as they seem to take the short cut more than any other driver. Or bus where one is following other and second one does not have the sensor working. There were quite a few buses which had to turn around in police station and that was clearly a danger to people using the buses.

 

[JohnW2]

Does no one agree with me that they are totally unreasonable - in the legal meaning - no matter how stupid the people may be.

Interesting question.

I'm not allowed to use unreasonable force on a burglar - in fact, none, if he does not attack me.

True, although I think you may be allowed to use 'reasonable force' if you choose to effect a ("citizen's") arrest and (s)he resists that arrest.

So, am I allowed to go out and ruin his car?

You're obviously not allowed to go out and 'wilfully' ruin his car as an act of punishment/retribution/whatever, but the bollards are a little different from that - since it is an deliberate act of the driver (despite warnings) that will have put the car "in harm's way" ... perhaps a bit like someone who (again despite 'warnings') chooses to 'park' their car on a level crossing!

Although it's far from her line of practice/experience, I'll ask my barrister daughter when I next see her!

It's not a new issue, nor peculiar to rising bollards. Many years ago a friend of mine tried to get into a 'private' car park (which had a standard 'rising barrier') by tailgating a legitimate user (who had a key, code, or whatever) and the barrier came crashing down onto the top of his car!

Kind Regards, John

 

[Echo the husky]

Looking at the wagon demo, that would kill anyone in the cab

I can't imagine it would be all that great for a driver driving a loaded wagon into a solid wall at 50MPH!

You're obviously not allowed to go out and 'wilfully' ruin his car as an act of punishment/retribution/whatever,

That's a shame, I'd like to do that to the scummy person who stole the wing mirror cover off of my car in the tesco car park last week! They were just out of shot from the cars cctv.

 

[EFLImpudence]

True, although I think you may be allowed to use 'reasonable force' if you choose to effect a ("citizen's") arrest and (s)he resists that arrest.

Would it be reasonable for me to have an unstoppable metal rod to rise between his legs while doing that.

I look forward to hearing the view of your daughter.

Although I presume the council must be allowed to do it, I think it is totally unacceptable.


What about a man with a machine gun to pepper the cars, not the people, that encroach on the pedestrian area?

 

[JohnW2]

Although I presume the council must be allowed to do it, I think it is totally unacceptable.

I think that you are perhaps over-interpreting the situation. I don't think there is any intention that the rising bollards should damage cars (even if they 'break rules'), and if they were thinking of installing them for that purpose, then I don't think that would be allowed. Rather, the purpose/intent is surely that, when raised, the bollards present a barrier to vehicular traffic. Since there is inevitably an intermediate stage between 'down' and 'up', there is clearly a risk that any vehicle which, having broken rules, is over the bollard when it rises will be damaged. However, I can't see what the council could reasonably be expect to do to mitigate that risk other than to display prominent and warnings.

Do you think that the raising of Tower Bridge should be banned (as "unreasonable" or "unacceptable"), on the grounds that it is not reasonable that someone who ignores warning signs and red lights and speeds up the rising bridge should end up falling into the Thames?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

No, because raising Tower Bridge is necessary.

I consider those bollards to be willful damage.
Whilst the signs may be prominent (and you may consider that that is all that is necessary) the bollards, when down, are not and, clearly, are dangerous when they rise.
I presume no unsuspecting pedestrian has ever dashed across behind a bus and been propelled into the air.
Why can they not use normal barriers which are visible?

Consider, instead of Tower Bridge, private electric gates. They are not allowed to crush people just because they may be intending to trespass.

 

[JohnW2]

I consider those bollards to be willful damage.

As I said, I don't believe that to be the intent, and nor do I believe they would be allowed if that were the expressed intent.

Whilst the signs may be prominent (and you may consider that that is all that is necessary) the bollards, when down, are not and, clearly, are dangerous when they rise. ... Why can they not use normal barriers which are visible?

'Normal barriers' are just 'symbolic' - they do not provide significant impediment to someone who chooses to 'drive through them'.

... private electric gates. They are not allowed to crush people just because they may be intending to trespass.

If you were asking a different question, then I would probably be agreeing with you - namely why are rising bollards not required to stop moving (and maybe even retract) if they sense contact with something (just as with electric gates)? (although the problem then would be that if people knew that's how they behaved, they would exploit that loophole!).

Kind Regards, John