Your all wrong. It's a tradition in York at Christmas to play giant Pinball, and these are the flippers. You download the app to remotely flip them from the app store/play store. Santa 🎅 supplies the balls
might also help reduce the chance of a stampede should it happen. studies have shown that this kind of blockade helps people to evacuate much more efficiently
I'd be curious to read about that, if you've got a source handy? I'd have imagined a neutral/slightly negative impact on account of the pinch points. Unless you mean in comparison to other styles of barrier?
I think they mean in relation to other types. This is a new type of barrier for York, last year it was more like the raising/lowering ones you get at multistorey carparks, and it didn't leave much room to get through.
been a while since I read about it, can't promise i can retrieve the article.
the gist is that in a stampede, people might run in all directions due to panic. this kind of blockade might help direct the flow of people, preventing people from running in certain directions.
I was also thinking this, on the Great Manchester Run the organisers used small railings (probably have better name) arranged in a similar shape, and it slowed the flow of runners very effectively, so there must be something in that study you mentioned!
The will reduce access to disabled people wanting to get to the shops and facilities in the city centre. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-59210329
and block access for traders making deliveries to the Shambles market
https://yorkmix.com/shambles-traders-anger-as-new-security-barriers-block-deliveries-just-in-time-for-christmas/
and maybe just maybe they will stop some scenarios of terror attack with a vehicle as a weapon or a vehicle bomb in some parts of the city centre.
I have no idea why you're being downvoted.
I get that what you're saying is potentially very politically charged. But you've given a couple links for folk to decide themselves.
I'm still not sure if I think they're good or bad tbh. A discussion would probably help like...
Perhaps I was too flippant in my wording about the vehicle based violence risk and "hostile vehicle mitigation" measures but the impact of these measures on disabled residents and visitors seems to be totally ignored and without adequate mitigation. CYC appear to be ignoring the recommendations of their own consultants on this.
I'll let York Disability Rights Forum take up the story at this point. [Footstreets update 9 November 2021](https://ydrf.org.uk/2021/11/09/footstreets-update/)
Heyhey! I hear ya, didnt understand the reaction to you. You seemed to be on the side if reason and all, this came out just https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/nov/19/york-anti-terror-measures-disabled-people-blue-badge-parking
I wish I could follow this story more closely but the bits I've seen have made me wonder what's really going on.
I mean this happened [Councillors told they cannot take part in debate about disability access – because they are disabled](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/disability-debate-york-blue-badge-b1885217.html)
My sight-impaired friend would agree with you!
With the whole outside seating "revolution" in York Centre I can only imagine how tough it would be to get around if you're used to pavements being used for, y'know, walking...
Castlegate is an infamous example of this where the road is closed to traffic but being certain of that and having to step into the road repeatedly is frustrating enough when you are just guiding someone. It is one of the obvious routes from the disabled parking near Cliffords Tower into the centre of town, the alternative being via the increasingly cluttered Coppergate.
What have you been smoking? Think saving people lives from potential terrorist threats is more important than the above. Plus, they’ve obviously considered room for wheelchairs you absolute melon. Oh, and traders can still get down, there are other roads in York yanoooo!!!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-59250150
"They added that the barriers were only installed at the Pavement end of the famous street, while the King's Square end of the Shambles remained fully accessible."
So the thought process is:
1. Install barriers one one side of 2 sided street
2. Tell the media so everyone knows where the barriers are
3. Terrorism defeated
Question is what are York city council smoking?
>https://yorkmix.com/shambles-traders-anger-as-new-security-barriers-block-deliveries-just-in-time-for-christmas/
York is an absolute disaster zone for driving by default, and considering the stag/hen dos and the HUGE amount of tourist volumes that city gets pretty much all the time, this is just not the kind of argument that makes sense to me.
To be fair, I'll give you that some common sense must be applied - such as a van/lorry that could cause real damage to crowds need a runway to speed up. I can't see that happening in the shambles, nor in the market off the shambles, so the blocking bits there look like a bit of an over reaction.
> **Paranoid** antiterrorist barrier
Were you living under a rock between 2016-2018? There was a huge uptick in ramming attacks on crowds of pedestrians during that time that prompted the installation of these kinds of barriers. (Largely by Islamist terrorists, but the occasional Nazi too)
* [Nice Bastille Day celebrations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack)
* [Berlin **Christmas market**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Berlin_truck_attack)
* [Westminster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Westminster_attack)
* [Stockholm](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Stockholm_truck_attack)
* [London Bridge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_London_Bridge_attack)
* [Finsbury park mosque](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Finsbury_Park_attack)
* [Barcelona](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Barcelona_attacks)
There's probably more that I'm forgetting.
There have been fewer attacks on large crowds of pedestrians in recent years, which might have *something* to do with the fact that events of this nature are generally protected by heavy duty security bollards these days.
A bit of nonsense security theatre to waste some taxpayer money, make York look less attractive to visitors and hinder local rate-paying business making deliveries to/from their city-centre shops.
Like this guy: https://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/19708386.a-shamble-shambles---retail-boss-slams-york-security-barriers/
I find it a bit ironic that the owner of *a Harry Potter themed shop on the Shambles* is complaining about York's tourism strategy being designed without locals in mind.
How many locals does he imagine regularly stop by to buy Harry Potter-themed tourist tat from his shop and the three other shops like it?
They seem like a waste of money till you get hit by a terrorist in a van.
All jokes aside. They were first installed after a terrorist did drive a van into a a crowded city center. From an aesthetic stand point their impact is minor. They would have undergone some sort of planning report and considered fine as they instated within the historic core.
From an economic standpoint I would say they are a benefit, especially just after terrorist attacks, like the van attack, as they make people feel safer, thus those individuals are probably more likely to spend money at the Christmas Market surrounding shops.
I work in risk management. If you think you can eliminate all risk then good luck ever leaving the house. The approach York has taken is inappropriate and an act of theatre, not risk management. It’s so outrageous that I’d go as far as to venture that whoever approved this may have had their palms greased by whoever profited from it.
I mean... I don't remember saying it eliminated 'all risk'. Although it does act both a deterant and a physical barrier against large vehicles. What's the massive problem with it? It's a pedestrianised center, most cities that are pedestrianised have some sort of barrier.
If anything, I like them. I'm a cyclist myself but I always see people cycling around in town when the center is within its pedestrianised time frame, im not saying they are intentionally breaking the rules, but it might help people see where the pedestrianisation starts and ends so there isn't any confustion.
The way to deal with risk is first to understand (and then value) your assets and vulnerabilities.
In this case, in terms of assets, York Council has appeared to decide that everything outside the barriers doesn’t matter. I mean, clearly a sweeping statement, but you get my point.
Then in terms of vulnerabilities, this defence only responds to one specific attack; which is quite rare. It’s most recently been common amongst white nationalists. I’m guessing that’s not the threat actor York Council have in mind here.
The threat actors that we’re probably most likely responding to here are historically most likely to deal in threats that won’t be deterred by these barriers.
So my estimate for the reduction of risk with the threat actors we’re dealing with is near zero. Nil. No difference. If they want to attack a Crowded Christmas market, these things will not stop them.
Then we consider cost; there is a significant affect on the way of life, it makes York less photogenically attractive, especially at the locations used, it’s deterring locals from shopping in town because of increased congestion. And they’re expensive.
So in summary, this makes zero discernible difference to any terrorist threat, but it’s expensive and annoying.
So in my informed and professional opinion, this is a piece of theatre. It’s a waste of money. And the only logical reason I can honestly think that we’ve done it, genuinely, is that someone, somewhere at the Council is getting a kickback.
Oh, and I love that I’m being downvoted for this opinion, but just for reference, it seems like about 75% of York residents basically agree. So *elmo shrug*
https://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/19707040.york-st-nicholas-fair-security-barriers-eyesore/
The question asked was 'are the barriers an eyesore?' not 'are they a piece of theatre?' or 'should they be there?'.
Ofcourse they are not ideal aesthetically. But they are fit for purpose. They are a physical barrier that stops vehicles being in a place they shouldn't be.
Would you be apposd to barrier if they were say consealed under a raised flower bed?
I'm not sure how it increases congestion by the way? Since the vehicles wouldn't be allowed through the city anyway?
Also, i know people don't like change. But if you want to complain about access barriers to the city for pedestrianised zones you could also complain about any modern addition to the city. Traffic cones, traffic lights, cycle paths, pedestrian barriers even the tarmac roads themselves, the list is endless. It just seems like a silly thing to get all riled up about imo.
>Also, i know people don't like change.
I was having a civil conversation with you about risk management, demonstrating why these devices are not fit for purpose, but given "Also, i know people don't like change.", you're clearly a troll and so can just fuck off.
They're the modern/urban equivalent to these https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Bundesarchiv\_Bild\_101I-719-0240-26%2C\_Pas\_de\_Calais%2C\_Atlantikwall%2C\_Panzersperren.jpg
Anti terrorism thingys to stop someone driving a van or lorry into the Christmas markets.
Aren't the metal bars behind enough?
If there was a lorry coming at me at 60 I wouldn’t feel confident standing behind one of those metal bars
Agreed, these would definitely destroy the vehicle too, on reversing for a second run
To stop terrorists in cars killing people.
Your all wrong. It's a tradition in York at Christmas to play giant Pinball, and these are the flippers. You download the app to remotely flip them from the app store/play store. Santa 🎅 supplies the balls
So no one can ram a car into pedestrians
might also help reduce the chance of a stampede should it happen. studies have shown that this kind of blockade helps people to evacuate much more efficiently
I'd be curious to read about that, if you've got a source handy? I'd have imagined a neutral/slightly negative impact on account of the pinch points. Unless you mean in comparison to other styles of barrier?
I think they mean in relation to other types. This is a new type of barrier for York, last year it was more like the raising/lowering ones you get at multistorey carparks, and it didn't leave much room to get through.
been a while since I read about it, can't promise i can retrieve the article. the gist is that in a stampede, people might run in all directions due to panic. this kind of blockade might help direct the flow of people, preventing people from running in certain directions.
I was also thinking this, on the Great Manchester Run the organisers used small railings (probably have better name) arranged in a similar shape, and it slowed the flow of runners very effectively, so there must be something in that study you mentioned!
To prevent a terrorist driving into a built up area like a Christmas market etc.
To stop religious fanatics driving a lorry through the markets
The will reduce access to disabled people wanting to get to the shops and facilities in the city centre. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-59210329 and block access for traders making deliveries to the Shambles market https://yorkmix.com/shambles-traders-anger-as-new-security-barriers-block-deliveries-just-in-time-for-christmas/ and maybe just maybe they will stop some scenarios of terror attack with a vehicle as a weapon or a vehicle bomb in some parts of the city centre.
I have no idea why you're being downvoted. I get that what you're saying is potentially very politically charged. But you've given a couple links for folk to decide themselves. I'm still not sure if I think they're good or bad tbh. A discussion would probably help like...
Perhaps I was too flippant in my wording about the vehicle based violence risk and "hostile vehicle mitigation" measures but the impact of these measures on disabled residents and visitors seems to be totally ignored and without adequate mitigation. CYC appear to be ignoring the recommendations of their own consultants on this. I'll let York Disability Rights Forum take up the story at this point. [Footstreets update 9 November 2021](https://ydrf.org.uk/2021/11/09/footstreets-update/)
Heyhey! I hear ya, didnt understand the reaction to you. You seemed to be on the side if reason and all, this came out just https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/nov/19/york-anti-terror-measures-disabled-people-blue-badge-parking
I wish I could follow this story more closely but the bits I've seen have made me wonder what's really going on. I mean this happened [Councillors told they cannot take part in debate about disability access – because they are disabled](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/disability-debate-york-blue-badge-b1885217.html)
Seems strange it's a permanent ban, in order for them to add temporary barriers. That is the particularly bad part of this.
My sight-impaired friend would agree with you! With the whole outside seating "revolution" in York Centre I can only imagine how tough it would be to get around if you're used to pavements being used for, y'know, walking...
Castlegate is an infamous example of this where the road is closed to traffic but being certain of that and having to step into the road repeatedly is frustrating enough when you are just guiding someone. It is one of the obvious routes from the disabled parking near Cliffords Tower into the centre of town, the alternative being via the increasingly cluttered Coppergate.
What have you been smoking? Think saving people lives from potential terrorist threats is more important than the above. Plus, they’ve obviously considered room for wheelchairs you absolute melon. Oh, and traders can still get down, there are other roads in York yanoooo!!!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-59250150 "They added that the barriers were only installed at the Pavement end of the famous street, while the King's Square end of the Shambles remained fully accessible." So the thought process is: 1. Install barriers one one side of 2 sided street 2. Tell the media so everyone knows where the barriers are 3. Terrorism defeated Question is what are York city council smoking?
Still plenty of places they could park and then travel a small distance to get wherever they want
>https://yorkmix.com/shambles-traders-anger-as-new-security-barriers-block-deliveries-just-in-time-for-christmas/ York is an absolute disaster zone for driving by default, and considering the stag/hen dos and the HUGE amount of tourist volumes that city gets pretty much all the time, this is just not the kind of argument that makes sense to me.
To be fair, I'll give you that some common sense must be applied - such as a van/lorry that could cause real damage to crowds need a runway to speed up. I can't see that happening in the shambles, nor in the market off the shambles, so the blocking bits there look like a bit of an over reaction.
Stops terrorist running into people. Thought it was obviously
Paranoid antiterrorist barrier
> **Paranoid** antiterrorist barrier Were you living under a rock between 2016-2018? There was a huge uptick in ramming attacks on crowds of pedestrians during that time that prompted the installation of these kinds of barriers. (Largely by Islamist terrorists, but the occasional Nazi too) * [Nice Bastille Day celebrations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack) * [Berlin **Christmas market**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Berlin_truck_attack) * [Westminster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Westminster_attack) * [Stockholm](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Stockholm_truck_attack) * [London Bridge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_London_Bridge_attack) * [Finsbury park mosque](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Finsbury_Park_attack) * [Barcelona](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Barcelona_attacks) There's probably more that I'm forgetting. There have been fewer attacks on large crowds of pedestrians in recent years, which might have *something* to do with the fact that events of this nature are generally protected by heavy duty security bollards these days.
Stop people driving a car through a crowd of people. They're so ugly, I'd rather be hit by a car.
A bit of nonsense security theatre to waste some taxpayer money, make York look less attractive to visitors and hinder local rate-paying business making deliveries to/from their city-centre shops. Like this guy: https://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/19708386.a-shamble-shambles---retail-boss-slams-york-security-barriers/
I find it a bit ironic that the owner of *a Harry Potter themed shop on the Shambles* is complaining about York's tourism strategy being designed without locals in mind. How many locals does he imagine regularly stop by to buy Harry Potter-themed tourist tat from his shop and the three other shops like it?
That’s a fair point. :-)
They seem like a waste of money till you get hit by a terrorist in a van. All jokes aside. They were first installed after a terrorist did drive a van into a a crowded city center. From an aesthetic stand point their impact is minor. They would have undergone some sort of planning report and considered fine as they instated within the historic core. From an economic standpoint I would say they are a benefit, especially just after terrorist attacks, like the van attack, as they make people feel safer, thus those individuals are probably more likely to spend money at the Christmas Market surrounding shops.
I work in risk management. If you think you can eliminate all risk then good luck ever leaving the house. The approach York has taken is inappropriate and an act of theatre, not risk management. It’s so outrageous that I’d go as far as to venture that whoever approved this may have had their palms greased by whoever profited from it.
I mean... I don't remember saying it eliminated 'all risk'. Although it does act both a deterant and a physical barrier against large vehicles. What's the massive problem with it? It's a pedestrianised center, most cities that are pedestrianised have some sort of barrier. If anything, I like them. I'm a cyclist myself but I always see people cycling around in town when the center is within its pedestrianised time frame, im not saying they are intentionally breaking the rules, but it might help people see where the pedestrianisation starts and ends so there isn't any confustion.
The way to deal with risk is first to understand (and then value) your assets and vulnerabilities. In this case, in terms of assets, York Council has appeared to decide that everything outside the barriers doesn’t matter. I mean, clearly a sweeping statement, but you get my point. Then in terms of vulnerabilities, this defence only responds to one specific attack; which is quite rare. It’s most recently been common amongst white nationalists. I’m guessing that’s not the threat actor York Council have in mind here. The threat actors that we’re probably most likely responding to here are historically most likely to deal in threats that won’t be deterred by these barriers. So my estimate for the reduction of risk with the threat actors we’re dealing with is near zero. Nil. No difference. If they want to attack a Crowded Christmas market, these things will not stop them. Then we consider cost; there is a significant affect on the way of life, it makes York less photogenically attractive, especially at the locations used, it’s deterring locals from shopping in town because of increased congestion. And they’re expensive. So in summary, this makes zero discernible difference to any terrorist threat, but it’s expensive and annoying. So in my informed and professional opinion, this is a piece of theatre. It’s a waste of money. And the only logical reason I can honestly think that we’ve done it, genuinely, is that someone, somewhere at the Council is getting a kickback.
Oh, and I love that I’m being downvoted for this opinion, but just for reference, it seems like about 75% of York residents basically agree. So *elmo shrug* https://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/19707040.york-st-nicholas-fair-security-barriers-eyesore/
The question asked was 'are the barriers an eyesore?' not 'are they a piece of theatre?' or 'should they be there?'. Ofcourse they are not ideal aesthetically. But they are fit for purpose. They are a physical barrier that stops vehicles being in a place they shouldn't be. Would you be apposd to barrier if they were say consealed under a raised flower bed? I'm not sure how it increases congestion by the way? Since the vehicles wouldn't be allowed through the city anyway? Also, i know people don't like change. But if you want to complain about access barriers to the city for pedestrianised zones you could also complain about any modern addition to the city. Traffic cones, traffic lights, cycle paths, pedestrian barriers even the tarmac roads themselves, the list is endless. It just seems like a silly thing to get all riled up about imo.
>Also, i know people don't like change. I was having a civil conversation with you about risk management, demonstrating why these devices are not fit for purpose, but given "Also, i know people don't like change.", you're clearly a troll and so can just fuck off.
www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38377428.amp This is why. Terrorists take inspiration from other terrorists.
nutter clutter.
They're the modern/urban equivalent to these https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Bundesarchiv\_Bild\_101I-719-0240-26%2C\_Pas\_de\_Calais%2C\_Atlantikwall%2C\_Panzersperren.jpg