[QUOTE=Mangetout]
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?
[/QUOTE]
Yes. It is acceptable to allow a person to damage their own property under certain circumstances. It is not acceptable to booby-trap something to allow someone to unknowingly injure themselves. Property damage is tamer and more acceptable than injury.
[QUOTE=GorillaMan]
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?)
[/QUOTE]
Exactly. The company didn’t want to stop vehicles from entering, just advise them to stop. If they don’t (they most always do) security will go get them. Great fun in an otherwise boring job.
I have no idea what the high security situation is in the location where the video was shot. I tried to read the signs, but they were pretty blurry. Probably a nuclear waste site or some such. 
Waste delivery trucks disguised as busses.
Bollards, eh? Thanks. 
The very first company truck I ever drove had a sticker on the dash, that I think is right on point here. It said:
Driver, you are responsible for the safety of the vehicle.
This pretty much sums it up. The driver is the person ultimately responsible for the safety of the car. Not the garage owner, not the sign maker, the driver is the person responsible.
[QUOTE=mangeorge]
Exactly. The company didn’t want to stop vehicles from entering, just advise them to stop. If they don’t (they most always do) security will go get them. Great fun in an otherwise boring job.
I have no idea what the high security situation is in the location where the video was shot. I tried to read the signs, but they were pretty blurry. Probably a nuclear waste site or some such. Waste delivery trucks disguised as busses.
Bollards, eh? Thanks.
[/QUOTE]
In this particular situation, the bollards are in a place where many cars just ignored the earlier ‘buses only’ signs. As did vans making deliveries (see the white van in the end of the clip), who’d then block the road when parking. The only way these had been enforced was by having police there the whole time, and I suppose the bollards were chosen as a cheaper option. (And although not a high security location as such, unauthorised trucks being parked on the road there would probably cause a few concerns!)
In your case, if there were going to be security staff available anyway, then it certainly makes sense to go for a different option.
[QUOTE=brad_d]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Well, you raise a valid point, though I’m not sure you quite understand exactly the depth of my supposedly cogent point above (perhaps I should have been even more cogent 
).
Wee Bairn considers it somehow unfair that one’s car can be damaged by a device placed by a property owner on his own property when the device is relatively innocuous and/or not easy to spot. Jodi has in numerous posts explained how there is no particular legal concept that bars the use of these devices. Yet Wee Bairn continues to assert that there is something inherently “wrong” with these devices.
My point was this: for there to be something “wrong” in the legal sense with the devices, one has to point to some law which prohibits the use of the devices, either by specifically banning the device in question (or devices of a general category which would include the device in question), or by compensating people who run afoul of such devices through the mechanism of civil lawsuits. Such a law has not been identified by Wee Bairn or anyone else so far as I can tell. That is to say, while Wee Bairn finds the idea repugnant, he/she doesn’t point to any particular aspect of either statutory or common law that says, “thou shalt not use a device that can damage the property of another person when that property is on your own real property and that person is engaged in activities which you have prohibited on your real property.” This is the sine qua non of an attempt to assert that the activity complained of is not “legal.”
Now, if the issue is a debate about what should be legal, then the proper forum is Great Debates, or In My Humble Opinion. But a General Question is not a debate, and the question has been answered. My attempt at a cogent point was to refocus Wee Bairn to the actual issue for which he/she seeks an answer, and, perhaps, to help out with an attempt to establish any point about the devices that he/she cares to make by laying a proper foundation for such a discussion.
I’ve tried to find some info on how many drivers have actually driven over these adequately signed spikes. I don’t know anyone, nor does anyone I know know anyone who has.
The only mention Ive heard is where a driver has driven over the spikes while being persued, and I don’t think that is germane to this OP’s question.
I do understand that one might see the potential damage that could be done by the spikes as a little excessive.
Same for those bollards.
An interesting point is that the spikes don’r directly stop the vehicle. One could drive on the flats, or replace the tires, I guess. Switch them with a nearby similar car. 
Peace,
mangeorge
A wee bairn is a little kid. A term of endearment, I suppose.
[QUOTE=Dag Otto]
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.
[/QUOTE]
More accurately, the business owner may not give a damn about people who are trying to leave without paying, or leave/enter in a manner that is unsafe. I suspect the business owner does give a damn about legitimate customers.
One example, probably not typical, is the person who owns a parking garage near my house. The garage takes up about half a city block, with entrances on parallel streets. On nights when business is slow he opens both, enviting customers in. But on nights when the playhouse across the street is having an event, and the garage is guaranreed to fill, he closes one of the entrances and makes his customers wait in (long) line in their cars. Not very considerate, but good business sense.
BTW, he has gates that lift.
Oh yeah, when the patrons leave there’s still only one entrance (egress) open. there’s an employee there the whole time.
[QUOTE=mangeorge]
But on nights when the playhouse across the street is having an event, and the garage is guaranreed to fill, he closes one of the entrances and makes his customers wait in (long) line in their cars. Not very considerate, but good business sense.
[/QUOTE]
You’ve lost me. Why is this good business sense? How does this improve business?
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
You’ve lost me. Why is this good business sense? How does this improve business?
[/QUOTE]
Because the garage fills with paying customers using one employee instead of two.
No?
[QUOTE=mangeorge]
Because the garage fills with paying customers using one employee instead of two.
No?
[/QUOTE]
I suppose. It may be good for the bottom line in the short term, but it seems like pissing off potential customers by making them wait to attend an event with a specific start time would be bad for the *business *in the long run.
*Decreasing *your staff as trade *increases *seems counter intuitive to me. The guy sounds like a jerk, with no concept of customer loyalty. But, if it works for him …
[QUOTE=kidchameleon]
Like stopping on train tracks? :dubious:
[/QUOTE]
A train does not exist solely to cause harm, tire spikes do.
DSYoungESQ, which post number of yours? I will gladly address. It’s a long thread. 
If you mean the one in big red letters that is part of the question, is it and if so, what was the basis? I understand its legal if there’s not a law against, but maybe no one has challenged this, and if they would, it would be found to be illegal. Sativa Divniorum is legal, only becasue no one has gotten around to making it illegal yet. Maybe same thing here. Maybe business owners here are taking advanatage of it while they can?
My OP asked the rhetorical question “how are these legal”, in a way asking “are these legal, I don’t see how they can be”. No one has cited anything definitive as to if they are or are not. We all know if a truck hauling lagre rocks in an open bed has a sign “not responsible for falling rocks”, that does not mean they are not liable- if something falls off of my unprotected truck, how would I not be liable?
So I was asking is something similar at work here. A set-up where a person claims they are not liable, but legally, if sued, they would be. Maybe no one has ever challenged it becasue they did not know they could win the case. Maybe someone has challenged and one- that doesn’t automatically everyone of these would go away- that would take a law or something.
And let’s say it is totallay legal and courts agree, I understand all the posts explaining why it is OK, I’m not the type who can’t see another point of view, and if I read a post which made me think “ok I agree with that” , I would gladly offer a mea culpa.
But my personal feelings on the matter remain- the one I encountered was not for safety, it was strictly to prevent loss of revenue. And I don’t agree with the active/passive “you did it to yourself”, mainly becasue the one I encountered had a 2 x 3 sign to the right of the car, which I defintitely could have missed. I could see the point, assuming it is legal, if there were huge sings plastered in multiple places. And yes, there are stupid people in the world, but also foreigners, elderly, sleepy, etc.
And the comparisons to train tracks and barbed wire fences, those you can cleraly see and everyone but an alien is aware of. Sever tire damage, the first time I saw one I was 30 and didn’t know what the hell the set up was or what it meant- back up an inch? 10 feet? Back into the parking space?
Good thing I wasn’t driving a manual, or that few inches backup you sometimes get when getting in gear may have cost me two tires. And I make a distinction between private property which is a public business and an electrified fence around an off limits nuclear facility or something.
I think other methods could be used to achieve the same result. If it is legal, I’ll acknowlege that, but there any many laws I don’t agree with. But I do appreciate everyone’s opinion.
I don’t understand why they even have those tire spikes. Can’t they just put a concrete barrier or something in the same spot? Tire spikes just seem… mean.
May I suggest that part of the problem here seems to be with the use of the word “illegal.”
When DSYoungEsq says that something isn’t illegal unless there is a law prohibiting it, he is talking about criminal law. There are, of course, many actions not specifically prohibited for which you can be civilly liable for damages. These actions are only “prohibited by law” in the sense that any unreasonable action is.
When Wee Bairn says something is illegal, he’s referring to this latter sense. So I don’t really see how DSYoungEsq’s addresses the point.
On topic, while I can’t find any cases of car-owners suing, there are a handful of cases of pedestrians being injured by these tire spikes. In these cases, the defendant typically cites the rule **Jodi **refers to about the obviousness of the danger (and the warning). But there are times when even a well-warned danger is still “illegal” in this “responsible for civil damages” sense. And the defendants have sometimes lost.
ETA: I see that **DSYoungEsq **later clarifies the distinction between criminally and civilly illegal, but I still think the clarification was in order given the ensuing conversation.
Well you could make the same argument about the curbs next to the exit. Or for that matter curbs anywhere If you pull too close you will either tear the sidewall out of a high performance radial tire, or scratch the living hell out of your very expensive mag wheels. How can curbs be legal?
Simple, Driver, you are responsible for the safety of your vehicle.
Or drainage ditches next to rural roads, if you get a flat and try to pull off the road to change it, your car will fall into a ditch and have to towed out, probably with a couple grand worth of damage to it. How can drainage ditches be legal. Simple, Driver, you are responsible for the safety of your vehicle.
From the OP:
If you don’t get the oil changed in your car the car maker will void the warranty. I have denied many a turbocharger warranty claim for this reason. Why is this legal? Driver, you are responsible for the maintenance of your vehicle.
Are you serious? The first one of these I saw was in about 1965. Either you are at least 15 years older than I am, spent the first 29.5 years of your life on a desert island, or are not terrible observant. As far as what the signs meant, perhaps looking around and noticing the large spikey things protruding from the ground, might have been a clue? I was not even of driving age when I saw my first set, and it was blindingly obvious to me what they were, how they worked, and what was their purpose.
Is there anything similar to the attractive nuisance doctrine that would protect people (adults) of diminished capacity?
Also, is there a means for the offender to change his/her mind once in the lot and pay the fee and leave unmolested? A phone number among all those signs, for example.
I plan to go look at one of these lots today so I’ll have a better idea of what everyone’s talking about.
[QUOTE=Blalron]
I don’t understand why they even have those tire spikes. Can’t they just put a concrete barrier or something in the same spot? Tire spikes just seem… mean.
[/QUOTE]
Because the point of tire spikes is to allow traffic to pass in one direction and not the other. Concrete walls tend to lack that feature.
Yes. Getting distracted and forgetting about danger you just saw right in front of you is what children do, which is why we don’t let them pilot 1-3 tons of steel down the street. If blowing out your tires gets you to finally wake up, pay attention and start driving like an adult, then I’m all in favor of it.
What about this?
I’m behind another car. I have a manual and the exit is on an uphill. The car in front of me jams on their brakes so I (unintentionally) end up just over the spikes. When the other car leaves, I hit the gas but (as stickshifts are prone to do going uphill), I roll back just a bit - just enough to ruin my tires.
Any liability on the owner?