This is sooo wrong..

[V8MoneyPit]

I find this story so wrong on just about every level. What do you think?

http://new.edp24.co.uk/search/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=News&itemid=NOED05%20Mar%202009%2008:38:33:110&tBrand=EDPOnline&tCategory=search

[Gordo]

That's never a 10mph crash!

It's a bit like the girl who drove on to the railway tracks at a level crossing because her sat. nav. told her to turn left.

Engage brain before engaging gear...

[Mud-muncher1]

Just read this and by the looks of the picture of the barrier they do have grounds for a claim, it seems the the barriers anchor point are not adequate for the job as they only look like they were only about 400/ 600mm deap with no solid structure behind them, speed wouldn't of be the factor of a case but the pushing weight of a vehicle against them would, in my opinion the barrier looks ok for a perdestrian bridge but not a road bridge and it makes you think how many other bridges in there area are of the same standards?

Jav.

[V8MoneyPit]

Just read this and by the looks of the picture of the barrier they do have grounds for a claim, it seems the the barriers anchor point are not adequate for the job as they only look like they were only about 400/ 600mm deap with no solid structure behind them, speed wouldn't of be the factor of a case but the pushing weight of a vehicle against them would, in my opinion the barrier looks ok for a perdestrian bridge but not a road bridge and it makes you think how many other bridges in there area are of the same standards?

Jav.

But what about her driving standards in the first place? My biggest concern is that she crashed in the first place and is now trying to blame someone else! If there had been crash barriers and her car had suffered damage from them, would she try sueing the Council because they were *too* strong???

[Yoshi]

Sorry, but i disagree, if that bridge is open to vehicular use then it should have railings to a standard to stop a vehicle going over.  If indeed she was going at 10mph (just cos something looks like it wasnt doesnt make it not true, so unless you were there you cant comment on how fast she was going) then the proper barriers would have caused minimal damage and her insurer would pay out on it as black ice/slippery surface is not driver error.

There is nothing in the driving test at the moment to deal with what you are supposed to do in the event you car slides/skids, or at least there wasnt when i did mine in 2003, so therefore the woman cannot be blamed if the car hit sommat slippery and she slammed her brakes on.  Seeing as how people arent taught to do otherwise then there is nothing that can be done until such time as it is integrated into the DSA test.

[Blue72]

i would say they have a case to claim HOWEVER it will also come to light when investigated the actual speed, if and when she slid etc etc. Now im no maths genuis but a few sums using some basics laws of phyics seem to tell me that the so called ice or slide would have had to have accelerated her car to an imapct speed that the barriers couldnt take? OR that the barriers where held down with duck tape??
Time will tell and although she could get her claim, she could also get sued for damage to property or driving without due care???

[floyd fan]

Doesnt matter if she was doing 10mph or 50, so long as she was within the speed limit for that road. If its a national speed limit road then the barrier should be able to take an impact based on that.

[Banjo]

She must be a poor driver to hit it in the first place. It makes me laugh people want all this safety to allow for their crap driving, what happens next time when she's driving past a school  ?.

[Mark Y]

It's always someone Else's fault  :twisted:

[Mud-muncher1]

Just read this and by the looks of the picture of the barrier they do have grounds for a claim, it seems the the barriers anchor point are not adequate for the job as they only look like they were only about 400/ 600mm deap with no solid structure behind them, speed wouldn't of be the factor of a case but the pushing weight of a vehicle against them would, in my opinion the barrier looks ok for a perdestrian bridge but not a road bridge and it makes you think how many other bridges in there area are of the same standards?

Jav.

But what about her driving standards in the first place? My biggest concern is that she crashed in the first place and is now trying to blame someone else! If there had been crash barriers and her car had suffered damage from them, would she try sueing the Council because they were *too* strong???

To be honest the woman's driving ability is not the factor of the crash, it's the barriers that are being questioned and as barriers for road use are tested extensively with 44 tone trucks hitting and slamming into them from all angles, the one in the article looks like if anyone over 18 stone man or let alone a car even pushing on it that it would give way and not do what it is intended to do by deflecting any objects that hit it


Jav

[V8MoneyPit]

My problem with all this is with the blame culture. As said above 'it's always someone elses fault'. It isn't. The fault for the crash lies with the person who crashed. If that is taken to it's natural conclusion, how can the Council be sued for the railings, whether they were up to the job or not? Thinking it through, I guess the possibility is to sue for the difference in damage compared to if she had just hit a crash barrier.

[Yoshi]

I guess the possibility is to sue for the difference in damage compared to if she had just hit a crash barrier.

Which is all i interpret the article stated?  It was mainly pointed at the fact the rails were inadequate for the job in hand??

[V8MoneyPit]

But why sue in the first place. Again, to answer my own question (!), if there is any legal responsibility for the Council to fit a specific type of barrier, then she has a case. If there are no rules for bridge barrier, surely she has no case?

When would it stop though? Should we have masive crash barriers along every stretch of road that has the risk of vehicle/occupant damage if someone skids off? Should we cut down all the trees to make 'spin off' areas on all bends? I'm sure you get my drift, if you'll pardon the pun!

[Disco Matt]

That's never a 10mph crash!

It's a bit like the girl who drove on to the railway tracks at a level crossing because her sat. nav. told her to turn left.

Engage brain before engaging gear...

I'd be inclined to agree. At a low speed (assuming you were at least trying to steer) I'd expect the kerb to help keep you on the road.

Possibly the bridges should have proper "Armco" barriers, but I can't help but think of the roads near me which have an even flimsier fence with a 100ft vertical drop the other side of it. The fence is only of any use in marking the bend, but I've yet to hear of anyone managing an Italian Job-style accident through it.

[Yoshi]

When would it stop though? Should we have masive crash barriers along every stretch of road that has the risk of vehicle/occupant damage if someone skids off? Should we cut down all the trees to make 'spin off' areas on all bends? I'm sure you get my drift, if you'll pardon the pun!

Actually i do think we should have those massive crash barriers along every stretch of road, also in the central reservations of these roads.

I also think that the driving licences should be issued as they are at the moment.  The driving test is a joke, it should be alot more intensive with a minimum training period beforehand.

As to the details of her crash, unless any of us were there then we cannot speculate on what "has" happened in the incident.

[Lord Shagg-Pyle]

The bit that I'm interested in is the bit that says she slid on mud on the road. That puts a different perspective on it. How did that get there? Was it from an agricultural vehicle? If so, thedriver/operator/owner may well be liable. Was it run off from recent heavy weather, or badly maintained verges? If so, Highways may be liable.

[V8MoneyPit]

Actually i do think we should have those massive crash barriers along every stretch of road, also in the central reservations of these roads.

And you are, of course, perfectly entitled to your view. But I suspect you might be in a minority given the potential cost, both financially and environmentally.

The driving test is a joke, it should be alot more intensive with a minimum training period beforehand.

Now your talking my language  :thumbup: I agree 100%. Of course, if this driver was trained better she *might* have been able to avoid the incident.

As to the details of her crash, unless any of us were there then we cannot speculate on what "has" happened in the incident.

Fully agree. My issue is with the blame being passed to someone else.

If mud on the road made the car skid and it was 'unavoidable' as she seems to be suggesting, why wasn't there a huge pile of other cars in the river? Driving ability has a massive effect on all crashes, or rather, lack of it. Your comment on the driving test and licence issuing is spot on. Better training and more frequent testing would do more for road safety than any barrier.

[LiftedDisco]

Er... is this not a case of the driver having the basic facts wrong?

Insurance covers you for accidental damage - whether from slipping on a banana skin, having a meteor fall on your car or falling off the road as in this instance.

The issue is one for the insurers to consider - unless they are able to wriggle out of the policy cover for having fitted an undeclared but upmarket CD player, they need to pay and then IF they think the damage caused has been made worse by the negligence of the council, they may consider action against the council to recover sums that they have already paid out to their insured.

She, the driver, is spouting rubbish and potentially jeapordising her own claim.

Also worth considering that both her driving and the edge protection on the bridge look fairly suspect as well, but that's not my point here...

[Llanigraham]

I think you will find that very few bridges actually have "crash barriers" fitted on them. Under legislation they are not required.

[SteveGoodz]

If this woman was really driving at 10mph and didn't see a patch of mud - large enough to cause her vehicle to go completely out of control - in sufficient time to be able to stop then I think the Police should be looking at a prosecution for driving without due care and attention.

The woman is a danger to everyone else on the road ... on the pavement ... or indeed in the river.

[carbore]

Do we need crash barriers along every inch of road at all times, can you imagine the cost. Wed end up looking like monnaco mind you.

Why not put fences up along side roads to stop pedestrians crossing them and getting hit, that would work.

Stupid claim from a chancer, but her insurance co should pay out as thats what insurance is for.

[Gordo]

If it's the bridge I think it is, there are a couple of T-junctions (one each side of the bridge, one on each side of the road - staggered), and a 40mph speed limit. The main road is straight for several miles in each direction. Good visibility in all directions - both from the two side roads and the main road.

Google Map.

[Sider]

To be honest the woman's driving ability is not the factor of the crash, it's the barriers that are being questioned and as barriers for road use are tested extensively with 44 tone trucks hitting and slamming into them from all angles, the one in the article looks like if anyone over 18 stone man or let alone a car even pushing on it that it would give way and not do what it is intended to do by deflecting any objects that hit it


Jav

I'm still to see the crash barrier on the public highway that will stop a 44 ton artic on full frontal at 40 mph. I have seen a double barrier sunk in rebar concrete 500mm deep being ripped off by a shunter doing ~20mph

[Lord Shagg-Pyle]

TFF and not driving according to the conditions. The cause of most prangs on our roads.

[mike142sl]

I can understand cars loosing control on ice and consequently accelerating as a result. Ice is often all over the road and path but mud? usually in a specific area rather than all over. I suspect there is less to this than meets the eye.

[SteveGoodz]

I can understand cars loosing control on ice and consequently accelerating as a result.

How can a vehicle accelerate if it's skidding on ice (unless it's going down hill)?

If there's no traction (friction) to maintain control then there's no traction to make it go faster either.

[Skibum346]

I can understand cars loosing control on ice...

Oh... it's the cars that lose control...?   :doh:

Here was me thinking it was the drivers...!  8-[

[Rich_P]

I can understand cars loosing control on ice and consequently accelerating as a result.

How can a vehicle accelerate if it's skidding on ice (unless it's going down hill)?

If there's no traction (friction) to maintain control then there's no traction to make it go faster either.

If there's absolute no traction maybe.  But you can still have enough traction to accelerate but accelerate out of control, in other words something along the lines of an uncontrolled powerslide that ends in a big spin.

[Chris Putt]

[Edited] You shouldnt need the barriers to stop you. PERIOD. If you need that then YOU have lost control, not the car, not anyone else.

As LSP points out its not driving in accordance with the conditions.

I hate this culture that we as a nation seem to be adopting.  Bunch of leaches, like the Americans. Where possible find blame in something else, therefore advocating yourself and squeezing money out of others. Great. Well done Britain.

[CaptainColourful]

 :roll:
That's wrecked the fishing !

Surely the only real factor here is that it's down to pilot error ?
There must be 1000's of similar bridges all over the country, yet it's rare to fall off one unless you are not paying attention to the road conditions.

Why was she only doing 10mph anyway ?
I would suggest she was going a little faster and had already lost control before she even reached the bridge.
If 10mph was her true speed she should get done for loitering 

The council can't be held responsible for her not being able to keep on the black stuff. Others manage it.
It's idiots like her that put the price of insurance up for the rest of us.


l