Perhaps one of you could explain to me what the difference is between a lot owner personally damaging a car for the driver failing to do what the owner wants and the owner setting a device to damage the car for the driver failing to do what the lot owner wants. From my POV, the end result is the same and the intent on the part of the owner is the same.
The question was supposed to be related to entering a unattended lot and finding it full. It was in response to Jodi’s “Sure I have. So?”.
See?
Trying to drive a vehicle through a barrier designed to prevent such will almost certainly damage it, be it a lowered barrier, a closed gate, a permanent cement post, a solid wall, a two-foot-high curb, or a spike strip. I don’t consider the resulting damage punishment by the business, except in a uselessly broad sense.
Particularly with regard to vehicles, traffic flow is very often defined with physical obstacles. When people leave the designated flow pattern, they often encounter these obstacles, and yes, damage to the vehicle may result.
It does appear that your only beef with the spike strips is that (you feel) they are not obvious enough. It appears you consider trying to drive the wrong way over a spike strip an honest mistake, easily made in a moment of inattention, but I doubt you would feel the same about an attempt to drive through the chain link fence or cement wall six feet to the right of the spikes because, well, those are pretty hard to miss.
I understand your view (if I’ve deduced it correctly), but I do not share it. All spike strips I have encountered are VERY clearly signed, and it would (IMO) take extreme inattention to drive over one in the wrong direction. Someone who does so, in my opinion, is no more deserving of sympathy than someone who plows their car into a closed gate or fence.
Ok, let’s dispose of one aspect of this rather stupid excuse for a debate right now:
It’s legal unless there is a law prohibiting it.
Ok, now we can, presumably, resume the debate by asking the OP, and any who are of similar thought, what evidence they have of a law which would prohibit the practice…?
I see it as the same as the difference between (a) a closed metal gate which would damage a vehicle that attempted to crash through it and (b) no gate, but a “Do Not Enter” sign beside which the owner waits with a baseball bat to smash the front bumper of vehicles that try to pass.
The end result is the same - damage to cars which try to pass through. I personally see a large difference in the two situations (a is OK to me, but b is not), but IANAL and so cannot comment with any authority on what legal distinction there may be.
The bollards are fully intended to stop vehicles entering the restricted zone other than those permitted. Note that in each case, it’s a bus or a Royal Mail van for which the bollards lower, and the following vehicle hits the rising bollards. The beginning of the clip makes it very clear that the driver first drove up to the bollards, then reversed, and tried to tailgate behind the bus. Darwin awards are being kept in waiting for these Mancunians (I am right in thinking this is outside M&S, aren’t I?)
After all fhese years, if the lot owners had to pay for tire damage, they’ld be using something else.
I wonder about using super glue traps that glue the tires to the road. That would be hilarious. They stop to merge at the road and the car stays put.
On the other hand it would be funny to read that somebody used a cutting torch on the spikes at night to remove them all.
Shoplifters and bank robbers can hardly be considered patrons.
I’ve never gotton a dye pack from a bank, and the one time I encountered a dye-tag that hadn’t been removed from a purchase, I brought the item and reciept back to the store.
No harm or damage to me, just an inconvienence
That’s a good bit of it. Who among us hasn’t seen any sort of danger, got distracted and forgot it was there? For this you deserve a new set of tires?
Like stopping on train tracks? :dubious:
Just one, or all three? 
Just face it. If you drive over a clearly-signed hazard, either forward or in reverse, it’s your mistake. Pay up.
Apparently, yes.
Suppose instead of the Tire Damage sign you somehow missed the No Entry sign and ended up in a head on crash? There are perfectly valid consequences to inattention and this is one of them. I expect people to notice stop signs, red lights, and other vehicles on the road. I expect people to notice speed limit signs in my neighborhood. I expect people to notice “traffic calming” devices in the road. Any and all of these are used on public and private property.
If you are operating a 4000 lbs hunk of metal and can’t be aware of your surroundings enough to notice well marked commonplace hazards then I’m having a difficult time raising too much compassion for your plight.
As to the legal aspects, all the places online selling these systems mention posting signs in accordance with appropriate ordinances. Seems like they are perfectly legal and have some rules and regs requiring good signs.
I note that my most cogent post is still being ignored. Perhaps Wee Bairn would care to address the point? 
Wee Bairn I too have have almost come a cropper to this phenomenon.
At a Block Buster in Crawley which has a very small race-track style parking lot.
Go the right way and there are 10 slots available to plonk your car.
Go the wrong way there is a large set of teeth that will eat your tyres.
Fortunately my passenger told me to stop as they had been there before and knew of the toothed menace.
Small signs at night don’t work very well.
I remember thinking as we drove out over the the teeth (the right way) I would have been well and truly FUBAR had I gone there on my own. I didn’t see the teeth at all.
Bear in mind this wasn’t some sinkhole estate this was the car park to Block Buster video.
The fact that the car owner controls whether the damage is done or not. The owner’s intent is not to actually damage the cars, but to prevent people from exiting illegally or unsafely, and using the threat of car damage to prevent them from doing so. The CAR OWNER damages the car, not the garage owner. Whether the car is actually damaged or not is completely under the control of the CAR OWNER.
This is a huge difference.
Perhaps he’s been stunned by its cogency.
How is it different from a fence or wall topped with spikes or barbed/razor wire? - sure, it’s injury instead of property damage, but that only serves to make the road spikes look tame and acceptable, doesn’t it?
I’m not Wee Bairn, but I’ll actually step to his defense here, sort of…
Answering the question “Why is X legal?” with “Because no law makes it illegal,” is technically correct but badly misses the point, IMO. I take that as a given, and instead read the implied question to be, “Why have no laws been passed in <whatever jurisdiction> prohibiting X?” - which is a perfectly valid thing to ask, and usually generates a more useful response.
According to Telemark’s online searching, there are in fact local ordinances in many or most locations governing these things, so it’s not quite “anything goes.” I have not checked on any of these, but I suspect that unsigned spike strips, or inadequately signed spike strips, have in fact been outlawed by appropriate legislation in many jurisdictions - based on the very objections that Wee Bairn has been raising in this thread.
And I would agree with that, because the signs are a crucial part of the obstacle. Without adequate signage, they become booby traps and are correctly banned.
Wee Bairn has been arguing that the versions that are legal are still basically booby traps, essentially because he disagrees with the legislated threshold of “adequacy”, and implicitly advocates changing the legislation. It’s a valid position, even though I disagree with it.
A fence is clearly a barrier. A spike strip is in the traffic lane. You have to go out of your way to get to the top of a fence. Driving down a traffic lane is much easier, in fact you are expected to drive down it (in the right direction).
Fine. So spike strips are OK to use. I’m convinced. However, I’ll say that they are only used because the business owner really doesn’t give a damn about customer service. The use of the spikes won’t hurt his business, even if they piss some customers off.
I’ll politely add a couple of cents here: the purpose of these tire damage deals is to prevent access through the damage of tires. We have them on the exit lanes on base, and it can (and I think has) been argued that the devices prevented unauthorized access. Yeah, it sucks to be you if you try to sneak into a parking lot, but that’s the risk you take if you’re trying to gain surreptitious acess to something.
Tripler
Hell man, they post signs not to do something–adequate warning.