Traffic diversions 31 October 2015 at 9:35AM in Motoring 37 replies 2K views

rolls99

Posted to motoring as I don't see a more appropriate thread....


Locally weve just found out a road which has been closed since March, has had the closure extended until March 2016 - the road should have been reopened yesterday, but with two days notice, the works were "extended". The diversion (for us) means 2.8 additional miles each way on a regular journey we make - and obviously more or less for others depending where in town they stay.


It's obviously a "Long shot", but has anyone ever heard of people claiming money for any of this - in particular short notice extensions.


Personally, while emergency road works and other unforeseen circumstances are one thing, as a general rule, I think diversions (while annoying) are just one of those things: but, in situations like this where the work is hardly "emergency" and after seven months of closures, for people to face several more months of increased costs due to someone else's "Work" doesn't feel fair..

GwylimT

Life generally isn't fair.

Where I used to live I had a 17 mile diversion for almost six months to get to my place of work and the nearest supermarket. Personally I was very pleased they maintained the bridge instead of leaving it in a state until it became an emergency.

Inner_Zone

There is a road in Scotland which used to (maybe still does) regularly get blocked, I think the diversion is nearly 100 miles. Puts 2.8 miles into perspective.

rolls99

I completely agree with you. I've read another post, where the general consensus of replies was much as you say.


My point, however, isn't that I don't agree in principle with road closures, but, in the case of this road, the closure is not for any purpose of safety of structures or the road: it is closed to allow the (rather large) business which operates either side of the road to basically put pipework in under said road.


Thus, although the company employs people the closure is not related to any safety issue and doesn't "improve" anything for people generally, and isn't to repair anything.


Given the fact the works were planned a long while back and the original closure was well advertised, although people (myself included) sighed, it was just "one of those things".


Whether or not there is any "good reason" why the company concerned only realised they basically needed to extend there 7-month closure to a full year with two days notice is possibly by the by, but in theory this could surely keep happening, and whether or not there's a "reason", it does cost people money - especially over such lengthy periods of time.


I was considering a frivolous invoice to them for, say, 30 litres of fuel costs (far less than actual cost) - to see what they say.


There's obviously far more important things going on, I know, but I just wondered if there was ever any precedent for the fact that with a company's "actions", such as this, caused a "cost", surely, when it starts going on for a year then it could be seen as costs borne by others?

societys_child

after seven months of closures, for people to face several more months of increased costs due to someone else's "Work" doesn't feel fair..

Who's closed the road and what non-emergency "Work" are they doing? Doubt they're doing it just for a laugh.
edit: I've read your explanation now. An invoice? You're having a laugh now . . .

Iceweasel

Unfortunately I don't think there is any way that you could claim any form of compensation for this.

The council (or whoever is doing the work) will cite all sorts of unforeseeable things that have occurred to extend the length of time the diversion will be in place.

Now if we still had such a thing as 'Road Tax' or even a 'Road Fund Licence' then I would be suggesting that you claim a partial refund.

But unfortunately Road Tax was abolished in 1937 in order that the government use the cash for other things.

I think that a certain Mr W L Spencer-Churchill in particular saw and grabbed the opportunity to order a few more bits of military kit in preparation for a predicted armed conflict.

Was that good or bad? You tell me.

tykesi

rolls99 wrote: »

I was considering a frivolous invoice to them for, say, 30 litres of fuel costs (far less than actual cost) - to see what they say.

Please don't. Our councils are stretched thin enough as it is without causing anyone injury when they fall off their chair lauging at you...

Moto2

Spare a thought for the residents of Rothbury in Northumberland

Boxing day 2012 a landslip caused a closure on the main road into it
Work started to repair it 2 years later, They think they'll be finished early 2016
The detour is 12 miles

rolls99

The work is nothing to do with the local authority.


The road, actually runs through an industrial area which was built around the road (which existed long before the industry).. The company has lobbied for years to have the road closed to the public but it is always refused because anyone heading east has to make the diversion (double back basically) to get where they are going.


The works in question are related to the company "servicing" its plant on either side of the road - this has nothing to do with anything other than the company - it is not a safety issue, road safety or any other issue - they are basically "running" lines, pipes etc (for their own use) under the road, and state that (although their own vehicles and delivery vehicles still use the road for access) the public can't for "Safety reasons" - which might be perfectly reasonable, but it is the fact the company has chosen to do these works (as opposed to having to) which is the difference between most other roadworks.

The benefit in the end will only go to the company.


Given that (for instance) companies, banks etc often make "Good will payments" (with the greatest of respect to recipients) for, sometimes "Less than tangible reasons", it's obvious that this is often of course because the company doesn't want to lose custom and so pay "Compensation".

In the case of this company, however, there is no need for them to "Pay" anything as the public are not direct customers, even although their works do have a tangible cost to the public.


I suppose my question is really more a theoretical one, and in business morals don't really come into it, but, could the argument be - particularly since the length of these "Works" is purely to suit the company and this does "Cost" people, would they be "Morally" obliged to say "Here is a few quid for the cost of...".


I think the difference is, these are not "standard" roadworks.

Norman_Castle

Iceweasel wrote: »

But unfortunately Road Tax was abolished in 1937 in order that the government use the cash for other things.

Really?.

GwylimT

It isn't necessary for any property to have a mains water supply, yet all buildings do and this requires roads and pavements to be dug up. So OP please explain why it was okay to inconvenience people when things like your home, place work etc was built it was okay to inconvenience people for work that was optional.