Bollards - can they be illegal

Ms-Money-Penny

darich wrote: »

Exactly right.
The bollard will NOT have been in the middle of the road - they will have a kerb surround and may or may not be marked although i don't think that's a legal requirement. Almost certain in fact.

If your daughter has clipped a bollard that's behind a kerb then she's either driving on the pavement/island, driving too fast to contro lthe vehicle, or is unaware of the size of her vehicle. Or a combination of more than one of the above.
In any case, the bollard behind a kerb means your daughter was driving on an area clearly designated "not for vehicles" and as such will have no claim.
I work for the council and have seen several people try to claim for incidents like this. One driver cut a corner on a new streetscape scheme and hit a new stainless steel bollard which was approx 450mm from the kerb (the normal distance). In the office we simply laughed at the claim and the driver was sent a reply to the effect that he has no claim and should not be driving on the footway.

As per my last reply the concrete lumps WERE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD

Ms-Money-Penny

rabbitmad wrote: »

they were damaged at christmas according to the op so 3 months for the council to repair the damage is not unreasonable.

To the op was the accident during daylight?

it happened 10 pm at night

Ms-Money-Penny

Pictures uploaded hopefully

So you will see the photo's were taken 2hours after the accident as my daughter did not have her mobile phone with her. The police called the council who erected the arrow signs and orange cones.

As you will see the BOLLARDS (sorry concrete lumps) ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD

cogito

On the face of things, their position should have been properly highlighted.

Ms-Money-Penny

FAO Rabbitmad - this is the 'daughter in question' replying. Who the hell do you think you are? I had just pulled off from traffic lights so could hardly say i was doing 20 MPH. This thread was posted asking for advice not an extremely out of order remark. And you are being extremely AGEIST, just because i am young then i must speed? Does that mean because you are ancient you don't drive over 5MPH ???? Stereo-typing is sooo '99

FAO Darich - You do not know what you are speaking about so please do not bother replying. As you can see from the pictures they are not on a KERB. From a fortune cookie i once read... Better to stay silent and people assume you are an idiot rather than open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Sagaris

In the first picture, are there road markings leading up to the bollard?

darich

Ms-Money-Penny wrote: »

FAO Darich - You do not know what you are speaking about so please do not bother replying. As you can see from the pictures they are not on a KERB. From a fortune cookie i once read... Better to stay silent and people assume you are an idiot rather than open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Hmmm...i heard the same thing.
Road markings in image 1 looks like a central reserve to me....why were you driving on a central reserve?
"it's a very wide road" someone once said. how much space do you need?
the bollards "ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD". In this country it's customary to drive on one side. Usually the left.
If you had just pulled away from traffic lights then the area in question will have lighting columns....Street lamps to the uninitiated like yourself.
Given then, that the area is urban and lit, I wonder how you missed such a huge obstruction lying, as you put it "in the middle of the road"

From your photos i can clearly see LARGE KERBS behind which would have been the bollards in question. Incidentally, those kerbs are called trief kerbs so you can sound at least half knowledgeable when you try to blame someone else. Those trief kerbs then would mean that your daughter hit a central reserve with a bollard on it.

Not every bollard is lit, nor are they required to be. Not every central reserve is lit, nor are they required to be.

And exactly what did i say/post that gives you the right call me "an idiot"? I'm not the one who smashed into a clearly visible object.

Most drivers simply drive round them.

foxyd3vil12

darich wrote: »

Hmmm...i heard the same thing.
Road markings in image 1 looks like a central reserve to me....why were you driving on a central reserve?
"it's a very wide road" someone once said. how much space do you need?
the bollards "ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD". In this country it's customary to drive on one side. Usually the left.
If you had just pulled away from traffic lights then the area in question will have lighting columns....Street lamps to the uninitiated like yourself.
Given then, that the area is urban and lit, I wonder how you missed such a huge obstruction lying, as you put it "in the middle of the road"

From your photos i can clearly see LARGE KERBS behind which would have been the bollards in question. Incidentally, those kerbs are called trief kerbs so you can sound at least half knowledgeable when you try to blame someone else. Those trief kerbs then would mean that your daughter hit a central reserve with a bollard on it.

Not every bollard is lit, nor are they required to be. Not every central reserve is lit, nor are they required to be.

And exactly what did i say/post that gives you the right call me "an idiot"? I'm not the one who smashed into a clearly visible object.

Most drivers simply drive round them.

having viewed these photos, it is particularly dark and if she had just gone around a parked car, then she would not have seen them. if there had been previous incidents, then that bollard should have been marked.

theres a thing called torte law which states the council should be liable for negligence if this is the case, so surely op has a case for negligence against the council.

she wants advise from us, not aggro so lets give helpful advice and keep the pettyness aside!

Ms-Money-Penny

What part of 'there were no bollards on the kerbs' do you not understand? The cones and signs shown on the pic had been put up after i'd got back from the hospital.

The pics were taken on my phone so the view is hardly wide enough to show the whole street, who ever investigates the claims only needs to go to the scene of the accident and see the location of the traffic lights.

I was passing a parked car so had to pull out wider as not to hit the car and then next thing i knew airbag blew up in my face. So funnily enough, can you believe it, i had not intended to endanger my life.

And the object is clearly visible to you because your looking at a picture i've taken a picture of it, you'd be hard pushed if you couldn't

I don't appreciate your comments its very distressing being made out to be a money grabber looking for someone to blame when the fact remains the police said it was illeagal and this was the 3rd accident to happen in a matter of 3-4 months because the council had neglected to put up signs or warning.

Also didn't call you an idiot so please read the post correctly before commenting. Again.

vikingaero

I'm 50/50 on this one.

Firstly there are clear lane markings and a hatched area in the first photo.

But it seems to me that kerbs like those normally have plastic rectangular bollards on top with keep left signs and are illuminated from underneath. In my area these keep on being vandalised/pinched by drunken pedestrians. So it may be that the Council have some case to answer. OP can you lift up one of those traffic cones and see if there is a lighting plate underneath it?