Help with speed bump damage.

[maxgas]

Hi all!

As per the title my Lexus has suffered a broken spring and both shocks having to be replaced
after going over a speed bump. There was a almighty bang as if somebody had hit the car , my
wife was driving slowly as this particular bump is evil. Any way long story short we have taken
pictures and measured the height and it is 140 mm , now I know it is supposed too be not more
then 100 mm so it is not legal. We will be taking this further but before we do , can I just ask
if any body else has has a similar issue and succesfully claimed.?

Will our own measurements be ok or do we need a independent person to carry out measurments/
etc.

Any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks.

[Drumroll]

Good luck proving you didn't hit the "bump" at excessive speed.

[Zetec-S]

Public road or private property?

[amancalledrob]

Drumroll said:

Good luck proving you didn't hit the "bump" at excessive speed.

This doesn't answer any of the questions in the original post. What was your motivation for posting it?

[The Surveyor]

You are correct that the guidance indicates a maximum height of any traffic calming is 100mm. If the one your wife has hit is actually 140mm you should have a strong case to confirm that the hump is too high.

Your difficulty is confirming that your Lexus has suffered the damage reported as a result of her passing over the hump at a slow speed as you claim. Logically, if the hump was too high, you are more likely to suffer damage to the underside of the car rather than breaking the dampers and a spring. Rising up and over a 140mm hump at a sensible speed is simply not going to damage a cars suspension any more than doing the same over a 100mm hump.

If that was the case, they would have a queue of other road users reporting the same damage from the same hump.

It does sounds like the hump was hit too hard, but the fact that the hump is to high gives you an opportunity to claim. Similar to claims for pot-hole damage I would guess.

[Drumroll]

amancalledrob said:

Drumroll said:

Good luck proving you didn't hit the "bump" at excessive speed.

This doesn't answer any of the questions in the original post. What was your motivation for posting it?

Perfectly valid question and one that will be asked when the OP puts in a claim.

So the OP says "my wife was doing 10MPH over the "bump"" The council (or whoever) gets in a mechanical engineer who says the damage to the car is consistent with the car hitting the bump at speed.

[The Surveyor]

amancalledrob said:

Drumroll said:

Good luck proving you didn't hit the "bump" at excessive speed.

This doesn't answer any of the questions in the original post. What was your motivation for posting it?

Maybe just to point out that the easy response from any Local Authority who has a squeezed highway maintenance budget is to respond by suggesting that the damage was caused because the driver failed to slow down sufficiently for the speed bump, and that was the reason for the damage rather than it being an inch too high. At a time when not all claims against a council are simply taken on face value, and are sometimes challenged, you are as likely to get a response of 'prove it' as you are of 'sorry, here is a fat wedge of tax payers money'.

[DIW35]

I think he was pointing out that the council will probably try to claim that you would only have suffered such damage if you were travelling at an excessive speed. For your claim against them to be successful, they may expect you to be able to prove that the damage was caused purely by the size of the hump and not by the speed it was negotiated.

ETA : Ninja'd

[amancalledrob]

The Surveyor said:

Maybe just to point out that the easy response from any Local Authority who has a squeezed highway maintenance budget is to respond by suggesting that the damage was caused because the driver failed to slow down sufficiently for the speed bump, and that was the reason for the damage rather than it being an inch too high. At a time when not all claims against a council are simply taken on face value, and are sometimes challenged, you are as likely to get a response of 'prove it' as you are of 'sorry, here is a fat wedge of tax payers money'.

Good point well made

[Nezquick]

I'm no expert, but I'd say that anything which caused an "almighty bang" doesn't really suggest to me that the speeds involved were all that slow.

[Quickmoose]

I live near Wantage, Oxford.
The roads here are like rutted bridleways.
I think Friday I'm going to 'GoPro' at ground level. my morning commute in and send that along with invoice copies for two lots of top-mount bearings that have been shot to pieces.. in less than 4 months... and to be clear these are urban 30 mph roads with zebra crossings and roundabouts, not roads I 'race' on in my 1.3TD Fiat....
I have the form and will let you know how it goes....

(NB I'm aware the bearings are a part renowned for not lasting well....but 2 lots in under 2000 miles is not on)

Good luck OP!

[Rick101]

I'd be interested in challenging a hump on my way to work.

it's a steep rise flat top type across the full width of the carriageway. From what I can see they can be up to 185cm high.

Will get some photos and measurements.

Is it just a matter of writing to the council? I'd assume it is council owned but lots of Railway land around there so can't be sure.

[maxgas]

The bang sound came from the spring actually snapping.

The council must ensure that speed bump complies with the regulations and it clearly does not,
we have to drive over this sodding thing every week as it is near to a block of flats that we have
to maintain under contract. Therefore my argument is that constantly driving over this bloody
thing as caused the wear and eventual failure.

It does not comply to the regs therfore the council is in breach of its duty of care to ensure it comples and
is maintained .

On a public road by the way .

[Yipper]

If the car was traveling below the set legal speed-limit for that road (e.g. 30mph), and the hump was correctly measured too big (e.g. 140mm), and both those facts can be proved, the council is liable and will have to pony up for the repairs.

[essIII]

Surely the council will just point out that the suspension had been fitted to the car for X years, gradually declining over time as other 'wear & tear' items do - the fact that it finally collapsed on/near a speed bump doesn't mean it was caused by that speed bump - more likely caused by the previous XX,XXXX miles of use.

[MitchT]

Nezquick said:

I'm no expert, but I'd say that anything which caused an "almighty bang" doesn't really suggest to me that the speeds involved were all that slow.

I once had a coil spring go with an almighty bang. I was driving out of the car park of an apartment block at the time. Probably less than 10mph.

As has been said though, the speed hump, however carefully negotiated and regardless of its legality or otherwise, could simply have been the straw that broke the camel's back after years of wear to the coil springs. A speed hump of excessive height would more likely cause grounding issues than broken springs. The general presence of speed humps might accelerate this process of course.

[The Surveyor]

Yipper said:

If the car was traveling below the set legal speed-limit for that road (e.g. 30mph), and the hump was correctly measured too big (e.g. 140mm), and both those facts can be proved, the council is liable and will have to pony up for the repairs.

Good points.

I agree that the height is excessive and when notified of this, they should bring the height back down to the recommended 100mm max.

The one little fly in the ointment, is how do he prove to the Council that his wife was 'travelling below the set legal speed limit' to point where you can claim this as 'fact'?

Bear in mind the point of 'traffic calming' is to slow vehicles down and they do that by making it very uncomfortable to speed over them. Those going over them too fast, by its very nature has a potential to damage a car. Such damage is caused by the traffic calming doing the job they have been installed to do.

In theory, the Council are simply negligent for installing traffic calming measure which are too high, that along should give the OP a valid claim, but how easy that is will depend on just how helpful they are willing to be. The OP should be ready for a bumpy ride!

[fat80b]

MitchT said:

I once had a coil spring go with an almighty bang. I was driving out of the car park of an apartment block at the time. Probably less than 10mph.

As has been said though, the speed hump, however carefully negotiated and regardless of its legality or otherwise, could simply have been the straw that broke the camel's back after years of wear to the coil springs.

Similar happened to me - coil spring (BMW E46) gave way coming out of a car park at less than 10 mph, no speed bumps involved.

Maybe it's actually car park exits that damage springs.....

[maxgas]

The OP should be ready for a bumpy ride!


Haha good one !

I have photographic evidence, and a video from Lexus showing the damage. Also these humps are
not marked and no street signs warning that they are ahead. However we know they are there as we
have to drive over the damn unpleasent things weekly!

Let battle commence!!

[The Surveyor]

maxgas said:

The bang sound came from the spring actually snapping.

The council must ensure that speed bump complies with the regulations and it clearly does not,
we have to drive over this sodding thing every week as it is near to a block of flats that we have
to maintain under contract. Therefore my argument is that constantly driving over this bloody
thing as caused the wear and eventual failure.

It does not comply to the regs therfore the council is in breach of its duty of care to ensure it comples and
is maintained .

On a public road by the way .

Let us know how you get on, it's an interesting twist on the pot-hole and wheel damage claim scenario. In those cases, the council is only negligent if they don't repair a pothole which is reported IIRC, in your situation, there is a clear indication of negligence as they have built the traffic calming too high.