Damage from debris in road

cutandshut

vikingaero wrote: »

Not getting involved in the semantics of stopping distances or driving ability.

I imagine the company will deny it and there is nothing realistically you can do.

But I would report the company to VOSA for having their vehicles carrying insecure loads. VOSA may opt to spot check their vehicles.

The lorry probably belonged to a sub-contractor and an insecure load is wholly the responsibility of the driver.

Iceweasel

Paradigm wrote: »

If it can be proved/is likely the Construction co "dropped", "left" or "deposited" the debris then yes.

I think a decent defence lawyer would be suggesting that:

a reasonably competent driver would be expected to exercise a degree of caution as it would not be unreasonable to expect gravel and stones in the vicinity of a construction site'

This thread is developing into the first draft of a 'made for TV' courtroom drama. :rotfl:

john342

It is not reasonable to expect rubble in the road. My mother told me she phoned the local police station this afternoon who said the company would be breaking the law if they had left any rubble in the road regardless of if they did it intentionally or not. She was provided with a crime reference number.

Iceweasel wrote: »

I think a decent defence lawyer would be suggesting that:

a reasonably competent driver would be expected to exercise a degree of caution as it would not be unreasonable to expect gravel and stones in the vicinity of a construction site'

This thread is developing into the first draft of a 'made for TV' courtroom drama. :rotfl:

AdrianC

vaio wrote: »

Is not a 6" high rock pretty much analogous to a 6" hole in the road in terms of visibility?

Not really, since the height of something proud of the surface tends to be more visible than something sunken beneath it.

There certainly is liability for damage done by holes, the common defence being the council didn't know about it

Holes tend to stay put, as well as developing over time.

rather than pretty spurious suggestions about driving at a speed you can see & stop.

Are you suggesting the highway code is "spurious"? But, yes, I'd say that if somebody hits a large pothole then that was largely their own fault.

And that's before you consider the fact that the (presumably higher or luckier) car/van/bus in front of the OP would have obscured the view of the rock until it was too late.

It didn't exist.

In moving traffic the requirement is to be driving at a speed/distance that you can stop if the vehicle in front needs to brake to a stop, not that you must be driving at a speed/distance that you can stop if something falls off (or unexpectedly appears from under) the vehicle in front.

Care to point us to a reference authoritative enough to trump the Highway Code?

But since it's admitted that the OP's mother didn't brake at all, that's academic.

AdrianC

john342 wrote: »

It is not reasonable to expect rubble in the road.

It's becoming increasingly clear that you're not interested in the answer to the question posed in the final sentence of your original post - unless it supports your preconceptions. With that in mind, I suggest she contacts her insurers without further delay.

Good luck.

Paradigm

Iceweasel wrote: »

I think a decent defence lawyer would be suggesting that:

Think what you like, it doesn't alter the fact that depositing mud, rocks or anything else is an offence... the Highways act says so & offenders can be prosecuted.

john342

I clearly stated she did brake because of the parked lorry.

Also while I was not there at the time, when I went to the road to take photographs the road was covered in other rocks dirt/sand/grit which would of likely affected the ability to see the rock.

AdrianC wrote: »

Not really, since the height of something proud of the surface tends to be more visible than something sunken beneath it.



Holes tend to stay put, as well as developing over time.



Are you suggesting the highway code is "spurious"? But, yes, I'd say that if somebody hits a large pothole then that was largely their own fault.



It didn't exist.



Care to point us to a reference authoritative enough to trump the Highway Code?

But since it's admitted that the OP's mother didn't brake at all, that's academic.

john342

No, that is not the case at all. This issue is that people are bringing up the issue of being able to stop in the distance you can see if clear but are not making convincing arguments why this should apply. For some reason people are suggesting a rock is an exception but not a nail or pothole.

AdrianC wrote: »

It's becoming increasingly clear that you're not interested in the answer to the question posed in the final sentence of your original post - unless it supports your preconceptions. With that in mind, I suggest she contacts her insurers without further delay.

Good luck.

Joe_Horner

john342 wrote: »

No, that is not the case at all. This issue is that people are bringing up the issue of being able to stop in the distance you can see if clear but are not making convincing arguments why this should apply.

Because it should ALWAYS apply when you're driving.

The fact that so many people try to find excuses why it doesn't in a particular case is one of the main reasons why so many people get killed on our roads each year.

The funny thing is, if drivers finally got the message on that and applied it then we could get rid of all speed limits and traffic calming, to the huge benefit of everyone.

john342

Okay, then please explain why it would not apply to successful claims for pothole damage. Surely they should of seen the pothole and either avoided it or stopped, right?

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Because it should ALWAYS apply when you're driving.

The fact that so many people try to find excuses why it doesn't in a particular case is one of the main reasons why so many people get killed on our roads each year.

The funny thing is, if drivers finally got the message on that and applied it then we could get rid of all speed limits and traffic calming, to the huge benefit of everyone.