Damage to car caused by road - claim submitted

eskbanker

angelasocks said:

Wider shot uploaded - below

So was the street light directly above the island operational, and what's the speed limit?

facade

Having seen the picture, it may be that they are suggesting those strange broken double white lines have the same meaning as broken chevrons and you shouldn't drive over/cross  them unless it is necessary and safe to do so (I can't find any reference to those markings in TSRGD 2016 though so I doubt if they have any legal standing). Or they could just be suggesting that you should not try and straddle an island.....

They are allowed to build islands in the middle of the road as traffic calming measures under The Highways (Traffic Calming) Regulations 1999.

However (from the above)

8.—(1) Where a build-out, chicane, island, pinch-point, rumble device or any combination of such works is constructed or maintained in a highway, the highway authority for that highway shall place and maintain traffic signs in such positions as the authority may consider requisite for the purpose of providing adequate warning of the presence of such traffic calming works, unless those traffic calming works are so constructed as themselves to provide adequate visual warning for persons using that highway.

(2) No traffic sign shall be required to warn of the presence of a traffic calming work on a highway which is in a 20 miles per hour zone.

So it seems to me that it depends on how long those Keep Left signs were missing for (unless it was a 20mph zone). If someone took them out hours before, it is hardly the Council's fault, but if they have been missing and reported for days then I'd argue that lack of adequate signage is to blame and the Council are responsible.

As to whether driving between the humps is careless driving, I do it when it is safe and I'd certainly go to court if necessary to argue that a careful & competent driver would not bounce his/her car over mounds in the road when it can be avoided by driving between them in the absence of oncoming traffic.

Car_54

facade said:

As to whether driving between the humps is careless driving, I do it when it is safe and I'd certainly go to court if necessary to argue that a careful & competent driver would not bounce his/her car over mounds in the road when it can be avoided by driving between them in the absence of oncoming traffic.

But on the other hand, a careful and competent driver is expected to obey the Highway Code, and keep to the left. There are exceptions, but avoiding speed bumps isn’t one of them.

And on the third hand, isn’t the purpose of the bumps to slow you down so that you don’t bounce?

Their other unspoken purpose is social engineering. Those of us who can afford bigger cars can straddle them!

facade

Car_54 said:

<snip>
But on the other hand, a careful and competent driver is expected to obey the Highway Code, and keep to the left. There are exceptions, but avoiding speed bumps isn’t one of them.

And on the third hand, isn’t the purpose of the bumps to slow you down so that you don’t bounce?

Their other unspoken purpose is social engineering. Those of us who can afford bigger cars can straddle them!

I don't see anything in the Highway code about not avoiding vehicle damaging obstructions in the road

It is a plot designed to discourage the Peasants from driving, by damaging their cars and  their spines*, or just making the whole thing so annoying that that they accept that they have to stay within walking distance of their homes at all times, except when toiling to pay taxes.

Whereas the Elites in their chauffeured ZiLs & Humvees (depending on the colour of the council) are unaffected

* have you ever tried driving over those "spinebreaker" plastic lumps nailed to the road (in 30mph limits) in anything other than a vehicle with air suspension or a wide enough track to miss them?

Car_54

facade said:

Car_54 said:

<snip>
But on the other hand, a careful and competent driver is expected to obey the Highway Code, and keep to the left. There are exceptions, but avoiding speed bumps isn’t one of them.

And on the third hand, isn’t the purpose of the bumps to slow you down so that you don’t bounce?

Their other unspoken purpose is social engineering. Those of us who can afford bigger cars can straddle them!

I don't see anything in the Highway code about not avoiding vehicle damaging obstructions in the road

Look harder. Rule 160.

sheramber

I interpret the white lines as being lane markings indicating  the extent of the lane. 

if you didn't see the bollard base would you also not have seen a person who had collapsed in the middle of the  road and run over them.

 Were you concentrating on avoiding the speed bump rather than  paying attention to the road ahead of you?

DullGreyGuy

angelasocks said:

It was late at night and dark - don't know if that makes any difference, yes I had headlights on. 

It does in that the Highway Code says you should be driving appropriately for the road conditions and so if you are struggling to see because its night time you should be driving slower etc 

A famous case where a driver hit a lamppost that had been left 2' into the road (long story) the judge deemed the driver was driving inappropriately despite claiming they were only going 10 miles per hour due to going up hill and being blinded by a low sun. 

facade

Car_54 said:

facade said:

Car_54 said:

<snip>
But on the other hand, a careful and competent driver is expected to obey the Highway Code, and keep to the left. There are exceptions, but avoiding speed bumps isn’t one of them.

And on the third hand, isn’t the purpose of the bumps to slow you down so that you don’t bounce?

Their other unspoken purpose is social engineering. Those of us who can afford bigger cars can straddle them!

I don't see anything in the Highway code about not avoiding vehicle damaging obstructions in the road

Look harder. Rule 160.

Rule 160

Once moving you should

• keep to the left, unless road signs or markings indicate otherwise. The exceptions are when you want to overtake, turn right or pass parked vehicles or pedestrians in the road

So you can only move out in the 4 exceptions listed?

You just plough on through deep potholes, large puddles, wet mud on the road, debris from other vehicles, planks of wood with nails in etc. because they are not specifically mentioned? I rather think not

Like most people, I'm doing all I can to minimise damage to myself and my car. That council even recognises this which is why they built the island and used signage to force people over the bumps in the first place.

A Keep Left sign forces drivers to go over the hump, as the RTA makes not complying with the sign an offence, whereas ignoring a "should" in the HC is not an offence in itself, but leaves you open to a charge of careless in the event that Something Bad happens as a consequence.

Should the OP have seen the island, carefully camouflaged to not stand out from the road surface, at night? 

Given the road markings, I would realistically suggest they should have been expecting something inside those widening white marks even if the island was very difficult to pick out.

So the act of hitting the island could be careless.

The question is are those marks sufficient warning in the absence of the Keep Left signs?

Which, if the answer is no, leads to the second question- how long have the council known the Keep Left signs were missing, and is this an acceptable time to have not replaced them?

Tbh, I think this one is going to be a lost cause without considerable investment in Legal assistance.

The most pragmatic course of action is to invest money that would have been used fighting the council over responsibility in a vehicle capable of driving over the humps, either because it has air suspension or wide enough track.

angelasocks

Thank you all for comments - very well thought out.  I'm working today so should have time later to properly read through the comments and do more research before I decide what to do.

Yes it is looking unlikely I'll get anywhere however my main worry is that if the Council reject my claim on the basis that I have been driving carelessly will there be repercussions ie involving the police or something - that's what I don't know. 

Thank you again

DullGreyGuy

angelasocks said:

Yes it is looking unlikely I'll get anywhere however my main worry is that if the Council reject my claim on the basis that I have been driving carelessly will there be repercussions ie involving the police or something - that's what I don't know. 

Just look how many car accidents there are every day, almost every single one involves someone being careless. Try calling the police to a minor RTA and you'll find the level of interest as long as no one is injured, no debris blocking the road and no threats of violence etc. 

If the police were interested they'd require insurers to handover the details of the at fault party in every RTA but that doesn't happen.