Need a gantry crane for a one time use.

[SouthernChap]

So lets say someone hits your house and kills you inside.
Or someone takes out your house while you are not home.

Nope, putting up a rock is self defense. It's not like he's putting poles up right on the border of the road.. Those are dumb. I've seen them, and they don't allow for any avoidance at all.

Nope, taking out your firearm and shooting someone who you reasonably believe has come into your home with malicious intention (assuming certain parameters) is self-defence.

Putting an immovable object where you believe someone may drive their vehicle, that may foreseeably cause the death or permanent disablement of anybody in the vehicle is not self-defence.

You've completely ignored any and all possible circumstances other than lone reckless driver that I talked about in my post.

I mean are you saying there is literally no other solution but to say "Fekk it, if a child dies in that car, it's fine and dandy, the property owner should have no moral responsibility"?

Or maybe you're saying that people should be free to choose whatever solution they fancy or suits them, regardless of the consequences to anybody else? That people should be free to set the punishment for stupidity on their property to a potential death penalty?

Either way, I'm afraid that I think that counts as pretty damn amoral.

 

[woodchucker]

Nope, taking out your firearm and shooting someone who you reasonably believe has come into your home with malicious intention (assuming certain parameters) is self-defence.

Putting an immovable object where you believe someone may drive their vehicle, that may foreseeably cause the death or permanent disablement of anybody in the vehicle is not self-defence.

You've completely ignored any and all possible circumstances other than lone reckless driver that I talked about in my post.

I mean are you saying there is literally no other solution but to say "Fekk it, if a child dies in that car, it's fine and dandy, the property owner should have no moral responsibility"?

Or maybe you're saying that people should be free to choose whatever solution they fancy or suits them, regardless of the consequences to anybody else? That people should be free to set the punishment for stupidity on their property to a potential death penalty?

Either way, I'm afraid that I think that counts as pretty damn amoral.

Well putting up something that prevents a missile (car or truck) to drive into or through my house is a defensive move.
I understand your point, to a point. But I have to protect myself if it repeatedly shows that I'm in peril. As far as the danger to the car, the town has to put up a sign to warn people ahead of the danger. But like so many other things does it really work.

I got all worked up the other day when I found a new stop sign on a country road 150 feet from the police station. It is now a 4 way stop. A kid was driving to school, at a high rate of speed in front of the police station. So that's his first sign he passed (the police station), he T boned a car that had stopped at the sign to cross the road, but then continued to cross the road, probably because he/she didn't realize the excessive speed that the other driver was driving at. 1 girl died (passenger), her brother (passenger) was in critical and not expected to survive.. but did. The driver had minor injuries.
The reaction of the town was to put up a stop sign on the rural road. STUPID... it does nothing to stop this. The high rate of speed and police station (basically a sign) did nothing to prevent this. Adding a stop sign would probably have not prevented this accident, but there we go, they added a stop sign. We have other areas that have regular crashes, but nothing gets done at those to solve the problem.

We have a T intersection where cars don't stop at the stop sign, and plow into a power pole. The pole gets replaced regularly. You may ask, why the pole is not moved a few feet to prevent injury, but it isn't. It just keeps getting replaced. First they drill a hole to the right, next time to the left, next to the right. So we keep approx the same spot. I would have thought they drill a new hole each time, but they eventually pull the old plug out and pack it in for the next time. If the pole were moved the cars wouldn't hit the house behind it, as they are not aligned... So in this case is the power/telephone companies immoral for keeping the pole there?

 

[SouthernChap]

Well putting up something that prevents a missile (car or truck) to drive into or through my house is a defensive move.
I understand your point, to a point. But I have to protect myself if it repeatedly shows that I'm in peril. As far as the danger to the car, the town has to put up a sign to warn people ahead of the danger. But like so many other things does it really work.

I got all worked up the other day when I found a new stop sign on a country road 150 feet from the police station. It is now a 4 way stop. A kid was driving to school, at a high rate of speed in front of the police station. So that's his first sign he passed (the police station), he T boned a car that had stopped at the sign to cross the road, but then continued to cross the road, probably because he/she didn't realize the excessive speed that the other driver was driving at. 1 girl died (passenger), her brother (passenger) was in critical and not expected to survive.. but did. The driver had minor injuries.
The reaction of the town was to put up a stop sign on the rural road. STUPID... it does nothing to stop this. The high rate of speed and police station (basically a sign) did nothing to prevent this. Adding a stop sign would probably have not prevented this accident, but there we go, they added a stop sign. We have other areas that have regular crashes, but nothing gets done at those to solve the problem.

We have a T intersection where cars don't stop at the stop sign, and plow into a power pole. The pole gets replaced regularly. You may ask, why the pole is not moved a few feet to prevent injury, but it isn't. It just keeps getting replaced. First they drill a hole to the right, next time to the left, next to the right. So we keep approx the same spot. I would have thought they drill a new hole each time, but they eventually pull the old plug out and pack it in for the next time. If the pole were moved the cars wouldn't hit the house behind it, as they are not aligned... So in this case is the power/telephone companies immoral for keeping the pole there?

Firstly, I'd like to make it crystal clear that I did not say you were amoral. I said that the perspective you were offering was amoral.

People hold views, but someone isn't necessarily (or even often) the views they hold.

The power company choosing an amoral course? Sure, probably. Organisations that are profit led are generally pretty much amoral. That's why in the West we have laws that attempt to regulate their behaviour (as well as the laws that apply to individuals). Their decisions about pole placement is almost certainly about either the convenience of those doing the work or reducing costs for the company (or both).

That said, the fact that the pole has to be replaced suggests that it at least gives a little on impact. It is taking some of the energy of the impact by damage to the pole or by movement of the footings it's in.

A ton rock is a different matter.

See those concrete 'vehicle stopping' security emplacements around some public buildings? Those are intended not to move, not to break or crumple, but to prevent a vehicle getting by at any cost. The risks to anyone that might be affected by those 'vehicle stoppers' has been carefully considered, and a decision to use them has been made. Those who decided they should be used have concluded that stopping a vehicle getting through is more important than the lives of the vehicle inhabitants.

Well, those people are generally elected officials in your and my country and count on our votes, so if enough of us disagree, we can get that changed. That those 'vehicle stoppers' are still there, suggests that enough of us agree that the weight placed on protecting the public institutions in those buildings is worth the potential risk to the inhabitants of vehicles that collide with them.

The OP has decided to install their own 'vehicle stopper' but either they have not fully considered the risks* to potentially innocent people (which given the frustration they must feel, is pretty understandable) of this solution versus other solutions, or they have weighed the risks of their solution versus the risks to themselves (sorry, property can go hang, no property in and of itself, is worth killing someone else over) in a way that personally I consider to be wrongheaded.

The OP wants to protect themselves and their family; that desire is entirely to be expected and reasonable. Choosing a particular solution that could have such severe consequences to people who may not even be responsible for a crash is not reasonable.


* Risk being not just probability of an outcome but the combination of a probability of an outcome combined with the severity of that outcome; as far as can be known the probability of a catastrophic asteroid collision with earth is low but the severity is high; the probability of one of us painfully hitting our head against something annoyingly sharp in the next year is reasonably high but eh...we'll likely get away with a few choice words and some minor, irritating pain.

 

[woodchucker]

Firstly, I'd like to make it crystal clear that I did not say you were amoral. I said that the perspective you were offering was amoral.

no offense taken, I just thought we were having a conversation. Just a plain conversation. we are good.

 

[SouthernChap]

no offense taken, I just thought we were having a conversation. Just a plain conversation. we are good.

I'm glad about that, thank you.

This applies to the OP too. I may strongly disagree with their solution but nobody is one decision they make in their lives, or for that matter, even a series of decisions, (I suppose as long as the character of that series of decisions doesn't match the overwhelming majority of the character of their decisions).

 

[Ultradog MN]

anybody else? That people should be free to set the punishment for stupidity on their property to a potential death penalty?

Either way, I'm afraid that I think that counts as pretty damn amoral.

It is neither my right nor my responsibility to prevent others from being stupid or careless.
It IS my right and responsibility to prevent harm to myself, my loved ones and my property.
If a huge boulder legally and strategically placed on my land will provide needed safety to me and mine I see No moral implications about what might?? occur should someone act stupid and careless.

 

[whitmore]

For crowd protection against vehicles, architectural features like
concrete bollards or enormous planter pots are commonplace.

And, for protection against tanks, ditches or mines are useful.

A rock isn't a step too far, though a minefield would be.
On the other hand, the easiest way to accomplish the task might be
a ditch or a concrete planter pot with some dirt fill and decorative
herbals. The empty pot isn't hard to emplace like a solid bit of rock.

Your initial plantings can be fast-growing flowers, and add in
a few boxwoods to build some altitude over the decades.

 

[rwdenney]

Transportation agencies erect barrier rails all the time to prevent vehicles from leaving the highway. They do it in situations where leaving the highway poses substantial risk to the person doing the leaving, such as when the toe slope exceeds a certain angle. But they also do it in front of roadside hazards, such as traffic signal poles or overhead freeway guide sign structures that are not designed to break away when struck by a vehicle. (Regular roadside signs and utility poles are indeed designed to break away.) Sometimes they do it to protect high-value infrastructure, like a traffic signal controller cabinet.

A lot of design consideration goes into those barrier rails, particularly their end treatments, to minimize injury if a vehicle spears it. In a lot of states, not following standard engineering practice for roadside barriers is a tort for which the agency can be held liable.

In every case, it could be argued that the drivers whose injuries they are trying to minimize are either stupid, careless, or both. Otherwise, they would not be leaving the traveled way in the first place. But still effort goes into the design of the barrier rail to minimize injury. And even then that assumption isn't true. Supposing a person swerves to the right to avoid a head-on collision with an opposing vehicle that has strayed over the centerline? They aren't the ones being either stupid or careless when they move to the right, if necessary right off the road, to avoid the head-on crash.

I think if there was a substantial risk and experience with cars threatening my residential structure, I'd be persistently and if necessary publicly lobbying the responsible agency for the installation of a guard rail.

I recall a story from my youth, probably apocryphal, of a fellow who responded to repeated destruction of his mailbox by setting the mailbox on a 6" steel pipe sunk 8 feet deep and filled with concrete. Guess who was the defendant in a wrongful death claim in court?

(Yes, I'm in that line of work.)

Rick "respectfully submitted" Denney

 

[rwdenney]

For crowd protection against vehicles, architectural features like
concrete bollards or enormous planter pots are commonplace.

And, for protection against tanks, ditches or mines are useful.

A rock isn't a step too far, though a minefield would be.
On the other hand, the easiest way to accomplish the task might be
a ditch or a concrete planter pot with some dirt fill and decorative
herbals. The empty pot isn't hard to emplace like a solid bit of rock.

Your initial plantings can be fast-growing flowers, and add in
a few boxwoods to build some altitude over the decades.

Bollards are only used when travel speeds are really quite low. That wasn't the impression I had of this case. In many states, if a person came to injury striking a bollard that wasn't appropriately designed or placed, the agency placing them might be liable in a tort-claims court. States vary on how much public agencies can be held liable for their torts, but private individuals have less protection everywhere.

Hiding a hazard with plantings might actually increase the liability, because the nature of the hazard is intentionally obscured.

Rick "again, respectfully submitted" Denney

 

[m1kemex]

Bollards are only used when travel speeds are really quite low. That wasn't the impression I had of this case. In many states, if a person came to injury striking a bollard that wasn't appropriately designed or placed, the agency placing them might be liable in a tort-claims court. States vary on how much public agencies can be held liable for their torts, but private individuals have less protection everywhere.

Hiding a hazard with plantings might actually increase the liability, because the nature of the hazard is intentionally obscured.

This.

I think my responsibility to my neighbors ends at my property lines.

Not really.

You may have a lot of freedom in your own property, but it doesn't mean it floats in Limbo. For example, in some places you ARE requiered to fence your property precisely to avoid any ambiguity on where it ends and where public property begins. Or bloody disputes with your neighbors. Not doing so could be interpreted as an act of negligence on your part.

Actually, road laws take precedence over private property in many instances. I know the US is quite allergic to the concept, but in most places private property can even be confiscated (with due compensation) if it's in the way of some large scale public project, such as a road.

In general, other rights can be balanced against the goal of making roads safe for everyone. Even if a bunch of douches have used the corner of your property as an improvised lane, that doesn't give you the right to put something dangerous in the way. After all, a driver just passing by doesn't need to know that the path left by all the other cars is your property, and not some lane designated by the county, unless clearly marked as such.

At the very least put a reflective sign over the rock that can be seen from all corners.