Car punctured because of kerb

pinkteapot

As has previously been said, even if the gap is too narrow if you go through it slowly enough then it won't rip your tyre. Just slow down!

roonaldo

The council is not going to pay for this. Its a similar argument to the problem with pot holes causing damage, only kerbs can be avoided.

ILW

pinkteapot wrote: »

As has previously been said, even if the gap is too narrow if you go through it slowly enough then it won't rip your tyre. Just slow down!

Most women seem to virtually stop before going through a width restriction. Never understood why, it's not as if the thing is going to move.

tifo

roonaldo wrote: »

The council is not going to pay for this. Its a similar argument to the problem with pot holes causing damage, only kerbs can be avoided.

The council do pay for damage caused by a pothole.

But from tyre hitting a kerb? Probably not. And i've done it a few times (by mistake when turning). It's your own fault. Just drive carefully.

Cpu2007

Thank you for the replies.
who do I need to contact to fix that kerb?, because even if few of you are saying that there is not rip if you go slow,i still believe that damage is done.I always go at speed which is less then or 5mph because as u can see the car is parked right after, so i dont need to go fast as i have to break anyway.
if there is something sharp on the road and the car goes on it,no matter what speed,your are most likely to get your tyre punctured.

Vortigern

ILW wrote: »

Or alternatively, drivers could just look where they are going.

Additionally, drivers should look where they're going, but there's no need to introduce artificial and dangerous hazards.

There's a sudden pinch point on a road I use regularly. There's a guard rail on the protusion with its horizontal top rail parallel to the road. It's not easy to see at night.

(Risk Assessment) I can't help feeling that one day I'll pass that spot and find that a car has hit the protusion and the top rail has impaled the car's passenger. If that should ever happen, I hope the emergency services attending will send graphic photos to the idiot who designed the road scheme.

The victims may be young, irresponsible, and drunk; they may be old and doddery. The fact that they may have contributed to their own demise does not make it any easier for their families.

dunstonh

but there's no need to introduce artificial and dangerous hazards.

I agree.

A couple of years ago, a driver in a town near us died in an accident by going too fast through an artificial speed reducing scheme (kerbs sticking out on both sides requiring you to effectively zig zag through them).

I got hit with a fine last year in Islington by going through a wide gap in the middle of a road rather than the high kerbed narrow gaps. There was no traffic and it was not a main road and thought it safer to avoid using them and go for the safer middle gap. It turns out it is just a method to generate money as it has a camera on it and the wide gap in the middle is there to entice people to use it (no warnings saying you cannot use it). Internet shows many people getting caught out with it.

Cpu2007

I don't mind the putting these kinds of things on the road as far as they are useful.
However they are useless most of the time and even though they do so,they should atleast consider that what they are doing is causing damage to driver vehicle.
No doubt uk is considered one of the worst countries for damaged roads.