Advice please - damaged my car on a speed hump :(

FiremanDave

photome wrote: »

Do they tell him exactly that? when have speed humps been put on footpaths

A solid white line indicates the edge of the carriageway. Or do you know another meaning?

AdrianC

Makes me wonder why I bothered linking to the HC Road Markings leaflet back up in post 31.
Hi-ho. Here it is again :- https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/312242/the-highway-code-road-markings.pdf

Roll on periodic driving licence re-tests...

pitkin2020

Its a private road and I would say the owners of the park have decided to add a walkway to the road way rather than pay for a pavement to be installed, a white line is much cheaper. It probably has very little foot traffic but they have done it to please all.
Either way the road clearly sags either side of the speed causing it to be lower, lower than what it should be you wont know without measuring it.

I would suspect though they will argue the fact that as the line is a solid white line you should not have crossed it even if it is the done thing on that road section, thats going to be their get out clause!!

Daniel_san

FiremanDave wrote: »

I would say this applies.

They have marked at area for pedestrians to walk on which is where your car was damaged. As its not a road the common sense approach should be taken. The park have clearly marked the edge of the carriageway and you chose to drive over the line at your own risk causing damage. Had you remained within the lines it would have not occurred so your fault.

What do others think?

Remaining within the lines means no space for 2 cars to pass, so my choice was to reverse up the road to a point where I hope the oncoming car would turn off, allowing me to move forward (likely to then find another oncoming car and repeat the same process), or move over and use the available space, after checking to ensure nobody was walking/riding along the road. With hindsight, moving over, stopping, letting the cars through, then driving over the hump at an angle, would have been the best bet, but that's with hindsight, which is a wonderful thing.

As yourself what you would do in that situation, reverse up, or use the available space, without bumping up any kerbs, go slow, and pass the oncoming traffic?

I had no reason to suspect that the road would dip lower the other side of the hump. Yes it was different, maybe repaired at some stage, but crikey, aren't half the road in the UK these days it means I'll take extreme care, but crawling over a hump and still ending up with damage because the road dips, is a pain!

matttye

My view is that you shouldn't have entered the pedestrian area because you drove beyond the end of the carriageway (as indicated by the white lines). I think the damage caused is your fault and wouldn't have occurred if you had used the road correctly.

I'm sure a lot of cars can get away with misusing the road but you, knowing that you have a low car, should not have tried it.

My car would've been fine there as there's a massive gap between the sides and the road.

FiremanDave

pitkin2020 wrote: »

Its a private road and I would say the owners of the park have decided to add a walkway to the road way rather than pay for a pavement to be installed, a white line is much cheaper. It probably has very little foot traffic but they have done it to please all.
Either way the road clearly sags either side of the speed causing it to be lower, lower than what it should be you wont know without measuring it.

I would suspect though they will argue the fact that as the line is a solid white line you should not have crossed it even if it is the done thing on that road section, thats going to be their get out clause!!

You can see it so why didn't the driver?

Saying it clearly sags will meet a response of well why did you drive into it?

Claims are won on negligence not stupidity.

FiremanDave

Daniel_san wrote: »

Remaining within the lines means no space for 2 cars to pass, so my choice was to reverse up the road to a point where I hope the oncoming car would turn off, allowing me to move forward (likely to then find another oncoming car and repeat the same process), or move over and use the available space, after checking to ensure nobody was walking/riding along the road. With hindsight, moving over, stopping, letting the cars through, then driving over the hump at an angle, would have been the best bet, but that's with hindsight, which is a wonderful thing.

As yourself what you would do in that situation, reverse up, or use the available space, without bumping up any kerbs, go slow, and pass the oncoming traffic?

I had no reason to suspect that the road would dip lower the other side of the hump. Yes it was different, maybe repaired at some stage, but crikey, aren't half the road in the UK these days it means I'll take extreme care, but crawling over a hump and still ending up with damage because the road dips, is a pain!

Exactly you chose to do it so why should they pay?

Daniel_san

pitkin2020 wrote: »

Its a private road and I would say the owners of the park have decided to add a walkway to the road way rather than pay for a pavement to be installed, a white line is much cheaper. It probably has very little foot traffic but they have done it to please all.
Either way the road clearly sags either side of the speed causing it to be lower, lower than what it should be you wont know without measuring it.

I would suspect though they will argue the fact that as the line is a solid white line you should not have crossed it even if it is the done thing on that road section, thats going to be their get out clause!!

I think that's the fairest assessment tbh and I suspect you are right. Given the feedback on tripadvisor as to the state of the place and my experience of the same, I think chalking it up to experience would probably be the easiest option.

FiremanDave

Daniel_san wrote: »

I think that's the fairest assessment tbh and I suspect you are right. Given the feedback on tripadvisor as to the state of the place and my experience of the same, I think chalking it up to experience would probably be the easiest option.

Does it mention the drive or speed bumps?

matttye

For what it's worth I can see why you did what you did and I probably would've done the same, but the difference is I would be calling myself an idiot afterwards rather than trying to get someone else to pay