Car Accident - Council denying liability

jordan12291257

Hi All,
I am new to the MSE forums so not sure if this is in the correct category but here goes. In March I was had car accident where I hit an unmarked road crossing in the middle of the road (which had missing luminous bollards). As described this crossing was unmarked and virtually impossible to see at night for road users. Luckily myself and the passengers were not hurt but the car has quite a bit of damage to it. I wrote to the council explaining what had happened and attached photos of my car and of the crossing involved. After several emails back and forth they said they needed 30 days to investigate the situation and would come back to me. 30 days has been I have just had a letter back saying they acknowledge what has happened however they deny liability for the accident on the basis that they check the road once a month and last time they checked the bollards weren’t missing. 

Need some advice on how to handle this situation now?

Thanks

Jordan

AdrianC

You drove into a stationary traffic island - and you think it's the council's fault because it didn't have bollards so couldn't possibly have been visible...?

Pay for your own damage, and make a mental note for the future to turn your headlights on at night and look out of the windscreen.

452

jordan12291257 said:

Hi All,
I am new to the MSE forums so not sure if this is in the correct category but here goes. In March I was had car accident where I hit an unmarked road crossing in the middle of the road (which had missing luminous bollards). As described this crossing was unmarked and virtually impossible to see at night for road users. Luckily myself and the passengers were not hurt but the car has quite a bit of damage to it. I wrote to the council explaining what had happened and attached photos of my car and of the crossing involved. After several emails back and forth they said they needed 30 days to investigate the situation and would come back to me. 30 days has been I have just had a letter back saying they acknowledge what has happened however they deny liability for the accident on the basis that they check the road once a month and last time they checked the bollards weren’t missing. 

Need some advice on how to handle this situation now?

Thanks

Jordan

Claim on your insurance or pay yourself. 

Given you've already informed them you may as well claim.

daveyjp

I could understand if it was an unpainted speed cushion, but how do you hit what I assume is a central crossing point refuge if you are on your side of the road?

AdrianC

daveyjp said:

I could understand if it was an unpainted speed cushion, but how do you hit what I assume is a central crossing point refuge if you are on your side of the road?

It could, feasibly, have been a traffic calming island to move you to the other side of the road, a "chicane"...

He says, charitably. Perhaps the OP would be so kind as to oblige us with a Streetview image so we can better understand the situation?

shaun_from_Africa

jordan12291257 said:

In March I was had car accident where I hit an unmarked road crossing in the middle of the road (which had missing luminous bollards). As described this crossing was unmarked and virtually impossible to see at night for road users.

Replace "unmarked road crossing" with "pedestrian crossing the road" and ask yourself if you would have been expected to keep an eye out for such hazards whilst driving on a road at night?
I'm as confused as daveyjp. How did you hit a crossing that would be in the centre of the road?

Scrapit

Well to counter the posts above if a sign isn't needed why is there one there?  The road traffic signage act probbably requires it to avoid things like this happening. But I'm also struggling to see how such an island would be invisible and what does the accident say about the drivers lane position?

Car_54

I imagine the OP isn't describing a pedestrian crossing - which would have lights, road markings, etc. - but a "suggested" crossing, with a central reservation and dropped kerbs. However, even those generally have a coloured surface, or even a hump, to make them more visible.

AdrianC

Scrapit said:

Well to counter the posts above if a sign isn't needed why is there one there?

So local authorities should only provide the bare legal minimum of signage?

The road traffic signage act probbably requires it to avoid things like this happening.

There is no such thing.
Do you mean The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016...? http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/contents/made

Have a read of... https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/244067/traffic-bollards-low-level.pdf
"All of these traffic management features can present a hazard to road users unless they are visible at all times, including at night and in adverse weather conditions. Traffic bollards are often used to highlight these features and typically the bollards will include keep left or keep right signs to guide traffic. However, there is no direct requirement for a traffic bollard or a traffic sign to be used, and there will be times when either or both can be reasonably omitted"

But that's irrelevant. There had been bollards there - whether required or through choice. However, they had gone missing through means unknown since the local authority's last inspection of that road. That inspection was within the frequency permitted for that class of road. Even if it had been outside that frequency, they would have had a window of time to reinstate them.

Ultimately, the road user is 100% liable for not driving into stationary things, whether they be unlit traffic islands, potholes, or a sack of anvils which has just fallen off the back of a truck.

jordan12291257

Sorry people clearly not enough information. I was turning from one road onto another road, a car coming from straight ahead, I was turning right and so was they obviously both opposite ways. So I had to move over towards the right. If the crossing didn’t need bollards they wouldn’t have had them there in the first place, so they are clearly there for a reason?

Scrapit

AdrianC said:

Scrapit said:

Well to counter the posts above if a sign isn't needed why is there one there?

So local authorities should only provide the bare legal minimum of signage?

The road traffic signage act probbably requires it to avoid things like this happening.

There is no such thing.
Do you mean The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016...? http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/contents/made

Have a read of... https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/244067/traffic-bollards-low-level.pdf
"All of these traffic management features can present a hazard to road users unless they are visible at all times, including at night and in adverse weather conditions. Traffic bollards are often used to highlight these features and typically the bollards will include keep left or keep right signs to guide traffic. However, there is no direct requirement for a traffic bollard or a traffic sign to be used, and there will be times when either or both can be reasonably omitted"

But that's irrelevant. There had been bollards there - whether required or through choice. However, they had gone missing through means unknown since the local authority's last inspection of that road. That inspection was within the frequency permitted for that class of road. Even if it had been outside that frequency, they would have had a window of time to reinstate them.

Ultimately, the road user is 100% liable for not driving into stationary things, whether they be unlit traffic islands, potholes, or a sack of anvils which has just fallen off the back of a truck.

Didn't read all of that but yes, I expect only the minimum signage. If more is required then the minimum needs to be extended to reflect that. If there is more, why? The only places I can think of excess signage are oft struck rail way bridges and that's for obviously good reason.