3 ms·

> when bollards might prevent the need for many emergency responses I doubt that? If a bollard stops a car which would have caused an emergency that is often r

> when bollards might prevent the need for many emergency responses I doubt that? If a bollard stops a car which would have caused an emergency that is often reason enough for an emergency response in itself. It doesn’t change the number of emergency calls, just changes the form of the emergency. Also the whole argument you are making is silly. A bollard on a street crossing can prevent some kind of emergencies (the kind a runaway vehicle would cause). It absolutely does nothing to prevent other kind of emergencies (like fires caused by faulty wires, or hearth attacks) but might lenghten the response time for those. There would be maybe some form of irony if emergency responses were only required because of runaway cars, but that is far from the case.

woodruffw 2y ago
> I doubt that? If a bollard stops a car which would have caused an emergency that is often reason enough for an emergency response in itself. It doesn’t change the number of emergency calls, just changes the form of the emergency. A somewhat common automotive accident in NYC is one where a driver falls asleep or unconscious at the wheel, causing (or nearly causing) a mass casualty event on a sidewalk. These kinds of tragedies can happen at low speeds, since the car rolls forwards silently over the curb and hits pedestrians or cyclists from behind. Bollards would stop this, just like they would stop cyclists from being backed into by trucks in bike lanes, and pedestrians from being sideswept on non-daylit corners, etc. Of course, these are contrived examples. But the larger phenomenon holds: a single driver injured after collision with a bollard requires fewer emergency resources than a driver plus pedestrians injured after collision with a building. I'll point out again: other cities have solutions for this that clearly work without impeding emergency response. Compare London's emergency response times[1] to NYC's[2]. [1]: https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/questions-mayor/find-an-answer/metropolitan-police-response-times https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-do... [2]: https://www.nyc.gov/site/911reporting/reports/end-to-end-response-time.page https://www.nyc.gov/site/911reporting/reports/end-to-end-res...

woodruffw 2y ago

> I doubt that? If a bollard stops a car which would have caused an emergency that is often reason enough for an emergency response in itself. It doesn’t change the number of emergency calls, just changes the form of the emergency. A somewhat common automotive accident in NYC is one where a driver falls asleep or unconscious at the wheel, causing (or nearly causing) a mass casualty event on a sidewalk. These kinds of tragedies can happen at low speeds, since the car rolls forwards silently over the curb and hits pedestrians or cyclists from behind. Bollards would stop this, just like they would stop cyclists from being backed into by trucks in bike lanes, and pedestrians from being sideswept on non-daylit corners, etc. Of course, these are contrived examples. But the larger phenomenon holds: a single driver injured after collision with a bollard requires fewer emergency resources than a driver plus pedestrians injured after collision with a building. I'll point out again: other cities have solutions for this that clearly work without impeding emergency response. Compare London's emergency response times[1] to NYC's[2]. [1]: https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/questions-mayor/find-an-answer/metropolitan-police-response-times https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-do... [2]: https://www.nyc.gov/site/911reporting/reports/end-to-end-response-time.page https://www.nyc.gov/site/911reporting/reports/end-to-end-res...