Car damage - can I claim against the council?

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

AdrianC wrote: »

Given that my car is fitted with headlights, which I use, and there are streetlights there... I'd like to think that an absolute maximum closing speed of three car lengths per second, I'd be able to twig that there's a problem ahead...

I mean, it's not as if there's no warning sign of the distance between the top of the bridge and the road surface, is there?

...but your obvious clues are gone though.

AdrianC

IanMSpencer wrote: »

...but your obvious clues are gone though.

No, they're still there.

The road dips clearly in the approach towards the bridge.
The pavement levels and a brick wall starts, with a railing to prevent pedestrians stepping onto a road surface that isn't there.
The height warning on the bridge tells you the distance to the road surface is much greater than you can see the distance to the pavement is.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

AdrianC wrote: »

No, they're still there.

The road dips clearly in the approach towards the bridge.
The pavement levels and a brick wall starts, with a railing to prevent pedestrians stepping onto a road surface that isn't there.
The height warning on the bridge tells you the distance to the road surface is much greater than you can see the distance to the pavement is.

So you've passed the advanced driving course observation, it doesn't mean to the layman that these clues are obvious.

The clear road dip can be obscured and then the apparent clue becomes the line of the pavement.

The railing is a clue, but its purpose is an assumption, railings are common street furniture and I doubt many people would consider a railing as an indicator of a drop unless they could see the drop. For example, railings might simply indicate an area where pedestrians make risky road crossing attempts.

How many drivers consider low bridge signs? Not relevant, most car drivers probably could not relate the height in feet to an actual distance (especially when I was one of the last to have any education in feet and inches, just for a couple of years).

These are of course all useful guides as to whether there is a problem, but that assumes you have recognised that there is a problem and then an astute driver can use these clues to determine what to do.

It comes back to the very first post, the OP was surprised. We can argue that they should not have been, but without seeing what they saw, I think it is rather judgemental to assume that they should have the skills to spot the clues. The advanced drivers course has to spell the art of observation out and most attendees do not consider that they are being told to suck the eggs of obviousness!

Car_54

No

Even if you spot all the clues, they may tell you where the road surface would normally be, but the floodwater may have changed that. The surface - or even the roadbed - may be eroded, "normal" deep potholes will be invisible, there may be currents, or hidden debris.

The expert advice "Stop and assess how deep the water is" holds good. A sensible way of doing that is to wait in your warm dry car and watch someone else drive through. Or not.

System

IanMSpencer wrote: »

Now you imagine it is dark, and it is flooded to the level just below the railings. You have not driven that road before. What would you see?

Signs warning of a low bridge, the road dropping and a wall being illuminated by your headlights and a great big black bit where the road should be.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

Car_54 wrote: »

Even if you spot all the clues, they may tell you where the road surface would normally be, but the floodwater may have changed that. The surface - or even the roadbed - may be eroded, "normal" deep potholes will be invisible, there may be currents, or hidden debris.

The expert advice "Stop and assess how deep the water is" holds good. A sensible way of doing that is to wait in your warm dry car and watch someone else drive through. Or not.

Totally agree, but all this assumes you have recognised that there is a flood in the first place. Our OP made the mistake of not grasping that water on the road could be a flood.

The darkness meant that whilst I could see the shimmer of the water, I didn’t realise that there was a dip in the road which is where I got into difficulties.

I think the basic lesson is that you cannot look at water and know what is underneath it, therefore, regardless of flooding, you should always avoid driving through standing water. That's not about assessing the clues, but simply recognising that once you see a pool of water, all bets are off as to what is underneath it.

Nodding_Donkey

Little_Lene wrote: »

I’m questioning further purely because of the number of vehicles that have been caught out in the same circumstances.

Doesn't that just prove that there are a number of stupid people about?

GDB2222

Nodding_Donkey wrote: »

Doesn't that just prove that there are a number of stupid people about?

True, but the council's duty is to maintain the roads in a state fit for the whole population, including the stupid ones.

Cameron1590_2

Hello,

Section 41 of the highways act 1980, provides a legal duty on Councils to maintain roads that are owned by them. It
requires them to ensure that they are free of damaged that would cause injury or damage to people and property.

If you were to submit a claim against the Council, I would expect the Council to use section 58 of the highways act 1980 to defend itself.

The council would defend itself on the basis that it took reasonable measures etc to protect members of the public from danger (by closing the road). You would then have to argue that it didn’t.

If it went to court, the court would look at:

a. The character of the highway and the traffic which was reasonably expected to use it;
b. The standard of maintenance appropriate for a highway of that character and used by such traffic;
c. The state of repair in which a reasonable person would have expected to find the highway.

Your only argument is that, the drainage isn’t adequately maintained (not sure on what road it was and it’s draingage system so can’t comment on this, it’s an assumption). The other argument is that the road wasn’t closed in line with chapter 8 safety at road works code of practice. The other question is how often should the council be reasonably expected to inspect the traffic management and ensure it’s still in place.

Hope that helps.

Cameron

P.s sorry about typos, I’m on my phone!