Bollards - can they be illegal

Ms-Money-Penny

Thank you very much Dogbot and Foxydevil That has been very helpful advice for me to look into and I will contact a solicitor in the morning.

Ms-Money-Penny

Hi vikingaero, no they were not illuminated underneath its just smashed up concrete/pavings from where the previous bollards had been.

foxyd3vil12

cogito wrote: »

If the bollards were originally lit, they were lit in order to warn motorists of the hazard. If the lights had been damaged, the council had a responsibility to replace them and if they knew about it and failed to act, they would have difficulty in defending a claim. They have a legal responsibility to maintain the highway and there is a good chance of a claim succeeding.

Same thing with potholes in the road. Councils don't repair them because it's cheaper to pay a few claims for damaged vehicles and has the side effect of slowing traffic down.

QUOTE DARICH - 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.


These 2 quotes just show the irony though. that surely is right cognito so why darich would the council not do this??? answer welcomed!

SolicitorMidlands

There was a case some time ago - I will find it

darich

Ms-Money-Penny wrote: »

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.

the part i didn't understand is that in posts 1, 3 and 14 you clearly stated you had hit bollards. now you haven't.

i'm sure it is distressing but i've never made you out to be a moneygrabber. not once have i even mentioned it. The closest i've come to mentioning money is to say that your claim may be rejected.

The police, whilst knowledgeable, do not know every rule or law regarding carriageway furniture. The police are normally included in consultation for traffic calming as are all the emergency services so if they are illegal as the officer claimed, then it would have been flagged up at consultation, or rejected out of hand. Since neither happened, it leads me to believe they whilst they may not be ideal or perfect, they are not illegal.

And if you didn't call me an idiot, then rabbit mad didn't call you a fast driver.

And if you know the bollards have been there for several months why didn't you make the necessary adjustments to your driving to accommodate a known hazard?

darich

foxyd3vil12 wrote: »

QUOTE DARICH - 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.


These 2 quotes just show the irony though. that surely is right cognito so why darich would the council not do this??? answer welcomed!

Not quite sure what irony you're referring to. I know the council has a responsiblity to maintain the carriageway and i also know that many pothole claims are paid out all over the uk. i also know that the financial restrictions placed upon public bodies are horrendous. Not repairing potholes to slow traffic is a nonsense. Not repairing potholes because of lack of funds is another thing entirely.

Ms-Money-Penny

There has been a misunderstanding then, my mum wrote the 1st few posts. Unmarked bollards but the bollards weren't there so just hit the concrete/kurbs/islands which ever you want to call them.

I was told by someone who lived on the road that had witnessed the crash that they had not been there since december, i did not know myself until i was dragged out of the car and saw them. All that was there until after MY accident was just the concrete/kurbs/islands the cones and signs shown in the pics were only put up a few hours later.

I have been on street view and found a picture of what used to be there...




I assumed they were the rectangle white light bollards, did not know this is what was supposed to be there. Don't know what these ones are called

Ms-Money-Penny

And if you know the bollards have been there for several months why didn't you make the necessary adjustments to your driving to accommodate a known hazard?[/QUOTE]


I am not local to that area and the only reason i knew the bollards had been like that for several months was that a local witness had told me.

RabbitMad

I never assumed your daughter was a young racer - I said she was going to fast to get back on to her side of the road to avoid the "bollards". They are two different things.

Now you have posted a few photos and clarified that your daughter actually hit a raised kerb I would still maintain the basic message in my post. Your daughter hit a stationary object.

The road markings clearly show where the road goes - ok it was dark but still the road markings show where the road goes so I don't think she is blameless in this instance.

And further more the council will only be negligent if they knew that the bollards had been removed and had not replaced them in a reasonable time.

So lets say the original accident happened in December, it might well be the middle to the end of January until the correct department at the council are informed. A week later a site visit is booked in to assess the damage / repair required. Quotes are obtained to repair the daamage but in the mean time a cone is placed there (I would bet a lot of money on this as it would be standard procedure). A cone won't stay there for more than a week before some dunken people move it, along comes your daughter and CRASH. I don't think the council will be found at fault. If the insurance company do go after the council it is unlikely to be any more than 50/50 (i.e the council accept half the responsibility and pay half the claim) more likely 20/80 (i.e they will accept 20% as it is cheaper to do than than argue the whole way)

darich

RabbitMad wrote: »

I never assumed your daughter was a young racer - I said she was going to fast to get back on to her side of the road to avoid the "bollards". They are two different things.

Now you have posted a few photos and clarified that your daughter actually hit a raised kerb I would still maintain the basic message in my post. Your daughter hit a stationary object.

The road markings clearly show where the road goes - ok it was dark but still the road markings show where the road goes so I don't think she is blameless in this instance.

And further more the council will only be negligent if they knew that the bollards had been removed and had not replaced them in a reasonable time.

So lets say the original accident happened in December, it might well be the middle to the end of January until the correct department at the council are informed. A week later a site visit is booked in to assess the damage / repair required. Quotes are obtained to repair the daamage but in the mean time a cone is placed there (I would bet a lot of money on this as it would be standard procedure). A cone won't stay there for more than a week before some dunken people move it, along comes your daughter and CRASH. I don't think the council will be found at fault. If the insurance company do go after the council it is unlikely to be any more than 50/50 (i.e the council accept half the responsibility and pay half the claim) more likely 20/80 (i.e they will accept 20% as it is cheaper to do than than argue the whole way)

The council may also be exceptionally busy with gritting roads and keeping roads clear.
Replacing stationary objects would be low priority.