Another attack by an inanimate object

I’ve written before about bollards causing trouble for motorists; it seems they are still up to their dirty tricks.

A van mounted a bollard in Horsham town centre this morning (Thursday) and had to be removed by a motoring assistance vehicle.

Screen shot 2013-08-01 at 15.55.29

West Sussex Fire and Rescue and Sussex Police were present at the scene of the collision just outside Barclays bank on the Carfax, which occurred just before 10.30am.

Driver Jason Shuker, who is from Hertfordshire and is unfamiliar with the area, was not hurt in the incident but admitted he was ‘shaken up’.

He said: “I feel like crying to be honest. I have just had a new engine fitted and now I have to get another one – because of something that could have been avoided by having the junction marked. There is not much parking here, there is no ‘stop, brake’ sign at the end of the road, the junction is not marked clearly and an accident has occurred.”

The van, which suffered significant damage in the collision, was removed from the bollard at about 12.30pm.

Jason added: “Obviously I am a little gutted because I have come here to do work. I am going to be pursuing the matter because I don’t think I was at fault.”

Here’s the offending object, viewed from the direction the driver crashed into it. You can see the remains of the large oil spill that the fire brigade have had to mop up.


The bollard lies at the mouth of a junction, on the right. You can just about see the No Entry sign to the right of the bollard – you can’t drive into this side road from the Carfax, where this crash occurred, so the driver was presumably attempting to park at the side of the road, like the Range Rover.

I suspect that, in the cold light of day, the driver will know he’s talking absolute rubbish. He drove over a large object because he wasn’t paying attention to where he was going. The fact that there are ‘no clear markings’ in the side road, or ‘stop, brake’ signs (what does a ‘brake’ sign look like, for god’s sake!) is completely irrelevant. He made a mistake and isn’t man enough to admit it.

Instead of fruitlessly ‘pursuing the matter’ further, the most sensible course of action should be an apology to West Sussex Fire and Rescue for wasting their valuable time.

This entry was posted in Bollards, Dangerous driving, Inanimate objects. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Another attack by an inanimate object

  1. livinginabox says:

    My money is on an “I’m in the van”, type phone call. [Loud bang] ” Oh! F***! F***! F***!” “Who put that f***ing bollard there!”

  2. That bollard would be about the size of a small child…

    An eye test and retake of his driving test would be the logical response.

    • Fred says:

      A ban on him driving would be the logical response, I value his ability to drive much much less than potentially saving someone’s child.

  3. Street view and the double yellows you can just about see under the oil in your photo shows that there were markings: there were double-yellows marking the edge of the carriageway, which he crossed in order to get on top of the bollard.

    So it looks rather like he was attempting to park illegally, obscuring a junction and obstructing pedestrians using this island to cross the road. I assume the bollard is there to stop exactly this.

    Like the previous incident of bollard demolition, you have to be glad that with observational skills like this, they hit the bollard before hitting a person.

  4. Ian says:

    The bollards are just not nice enough, clearly. Maybe Keith Brown could go down and paint them a nice colour (and they can keep nice Keith as well, please)

    • Richard says:

      Perhaps we should run a Niceway Code campaign, urging bollards to be nice to drivers and vice versa? Peace would ensue, surely…. good thing the bollard was a bit of a hard-nut, unlike small children, and I liked its reaction to the poor driving.

  5. Ben Holroyd says:

    Thanks for this, after nearly being killed multiple times today (you’d have thought the nice weather would have brought out peoples good side ), this goes some way to cheering me up.
    From what I’ve seen of white van man parking, that first picture looks pretty standard, except for the bonnet being up, I would have thought the driver would have been quite pleased with his parking ‘skill’.

  6. Fred says:

    There is a thing that van drivers do, especially in the construction industry – they pull up on the pavement and if anyone comes along say they’re here for ‘the works’. He was probably doing that stupidly, or maybe his van just took a shine to the bollard.

  7. Fred says:

    Luckily all the oil went down the gutter in to the drainage and is now safely in the local river.

  8. Neil Jones says:

    Thinking about attacks by inanimate objects, I was interested by the following article in today’s Ely News “Five people injured as post smashes windscreen. Five people were injured in a crash at Soham yesterday after a wooden post smashed through the windscreen of the car they were in. The East of England Ambulance Service were alerted to …. a report of a vehicle colliding with a fence and stationary vehicles in a garden. [An ambulance spokesman said] ‘The driver of the vehicle … received a serious injury after a wooden fence post came through the windscreen striking him’.” One has to read the article quite carefully to realise that the post came through the windscreen because the car crashed into it/was driven into it, and not somehow of its own accord.

  9. I would like to know why West Sussex Fire and Rescue aren’t billing him for their valuable time? Why is it that motorists always look to blame others for their own stupidity, it is as if they turn off their brains when they get behind the wheel…

    • pm says:

      To be fair, its normal practice for the emergency services (and the NHS in particular) to rescue people from their own idiocy, for free. Its by no means only motorists this principal applies to (I would suggest it applies particularly to all consumers of alcohol), and I actually think its a reasonable rule because the alternative can get very nasty and excessively Darwinian.

      However, it does make it all the more infuriating when sanctimonious helmet-obsessives go on about cyclists who have accidents while not wearing a helmet shouldn’t get free health care.

      And I do think motorists ought to be billed for the damage they do to the infrastructure that they like to crash into. Though in this case it appears the bollard was, mercifully, unharmed.

      And furthermore, creating problems and then looking to blame anyone but themselves does seem to be a speciality of motorists as a collective. Congestion isn’t due to too many cars or bad parking, no, its those pesky cyclists. Injuries to other road users aren’t the fault of bad drivers, no, its the road users failing to wear sufficient body armour that’s the problem. Etc, etc.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.