Broken down on motorway - charged for the privilege?
Discussion
saaby93 said:
AJI said:
Not sure what the big issue is here.
Motorist causes damage/concern to HA asset which requires repair/inspection to be carried out. And some think that the taxpayer should fund this?
If the motorist is asked to pay directly due to having no insurance then totally their fault.
If motorist has insurance then simply pass the claim on to them as UK insurers are required to provide 3rd party coverage.
I'm sure if the insurance company has any issues they are free to accept or decline the HA/conctractor charges request and the matter can go to court just like any other civil case.
A couple of things came out of the programmeMotorist causes damage/concern to HA asset which requires repair/inspection to be carried out. And some think that the taxpayer should fund this?
If the motorist is asked to pay directly due to having no insurance then totally their fault.
If motorist has insurance then simply pass the claim on to them as UK insurers are required to provide 3rd party coverage.
I'm sure if the insurance company has any issues they are free to accept or decline the HA/conctractor charges request and the matter can go to court just like any other civil case.
The maintenance contracts are for looking after a section of road. Within that contract will be making sure the road is clear so no lumps of concrete, tyre debris etc. The guys are already driving up and down so they shouldnt charge anyone for just being there.
The items were slightly interelated but if I have it right and it's still on iplayer
A motorcyclist hit a lump of concrete and flew over the central barrier. He was invoiced for damage to the central barrier which he hadnt done. He argued about it but the contractors got hold of his insurance and despite him arguing his insurers paid anyway.
Someone asked if the contarctors should be liable as theyre supposed to make sure there isnt a lump of concrete in the highway. Liable for what? The guy said he regularly checked that stretch of motorway and the central barrier was never replaced as it wasnt damaged.
Someone else pulled over onto the hard shoulder. The lads were passing by and closed lane1 while the RAC came out. She didnt ask them to close it. Later received a bill for closing the motorway. (Allegedly this is what theyre already paid to do in their contract)
Another time charges for replacing 8 sections of barrier when 3 were repaired
It looked like it was about the contractor believing as soon as insurance was involved they could inflate a charge to cover anything, even if they were already being paid to do that, or if nothing had happened
Amongst it all there did seem a few things that might be chargable i.e. outside the contract for maintaining the motorway
AJI said:
Not sure what the big issue is here.
Motorist causes damage/concern to HA asset which requires repair/inspection to be carried out. And some think that the taxpayer should fund this?
It's just moving the burden from 'the taxpayer' to 'the motorist', by which I mean all motorists, through higher third party insurance rates (with a small increase in insurance premium tax).Motorist causes damage/concern to HA asset which requires repair/inspection to be carried out. And some think that the taxpayer should fund this?
I wonder if a 'talked down' jumper would be then presented with a bill for closure of the motorway...
"Woman threatening to jump closes M60 anticlockwise at Bredbury"
http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s...
"Woman threatening to jump closes M60 anticlockwise at Bredbury"
http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s...
xRIEx said:
AJI said:
Not sure what the big issue is here.
Motorist causes damage/concern to HA asset which requires repair/inspection to be carried out. And some think that the taxpayer should fund this?
It's just moving the burden from 'the taxpayer' to 'the motorist', by which I mean all motorists, through higher third party insurance rates (with a small increase in insurance premium tax).Motorist causes damage/concern to HA asset which requires repair/inspection to be carried out. And some think that the taxpayer should fund this?
Highways pays the contractors to look after the road.
If theres a small diesel spill the lads close off a carriageway clear it up with some bags of sand unclose the road and move on
All covered in the contract
If they spot a car further along on the hardshoulder with an ex-engine they can try to pursue the driver for the cost of clearing up the motorway.
Add contractor back office costs, insurer costs, policy holder costs
If they can get the money theyre laughing - but how much has it cost us all?
Was it covered anyway in the contract?
Was it an act of god or a deliberate action on the part of the insured?
i.e. is it really covered by insurance anyway?
If anyone is chasing up insurers should it be Highways rather than the contracter?
Isnt it much easier and cheaper just to cover all costs in the contract than add buracracy chasing down someone to pay?
saaby93 said:
Was it an act of god or a deliberate action on the part of the insured?
i.e. is it really covered by insurance anyway?
Deliberate or not, it's still covered; if someone steals your car and causes damage, your insurer will pay out. If damage is caused and the insurer believes it is outside the terms of the policy, they will pay and then try to recover the costs from the insured.i.e. is it really covered by insurance anyway?
Agree that if it's covered by the contract then it should not be paid. Unscrupulous maintenance companies need to be regulated, because as we've seen with personal injury claims, insurers won't fight back.
saaby93 said:
Isnt it much easier and cheaper just to cover all costs in the contract than add buracracy chasing down someone to pay?
I understand what you're saying here but emergency costs for unforseen events would be more or less impossible to factor in to a maintenance contract.A system of paying for each emergency repair as and when it occurs is a much better way to cost it rather than having government staticians factor in a pre-determined amount of taxpayer's money to cover for all posiible accidents over a period of time.
I could see the latter system getting much more 'abuse' than the existing, not to mention this being yet another potential government funding pot for them to dip in to when they please.
The existing system forces the need for private motor insurance and making the motorist accountable for their actions.
I guess it just requires insurance companies to request itemised billing if they are not happy with what they've been asked to pay?
And again if that's not good enough there is our wonderful civil court system
blueg33 said:
I hit a barrier due to a slippery substannce on the road (this was the police comment, Ithought something had broken on the rear suspension, straight line at circa 40mph accelerating gently and wham 360 spin into barrier), I got a bill for the barrier of about £2500 on top of the £5k repair cost to the car
surely if there's a slippery substance on the road (other than ice) then it's down to the highways agency to refund YOUR costs as this accident is not down to you? As an aside - look at the amount of crap you have to go through to try and reclaim for damaged wheels/tyres due to piss poor maintenance of roads, I suspect the even bigger scandal is arse-raping we get and the 'one-wayness' of all things related to officialdom 
irocfan said:
surely if there's a slippery substance on the road (other than ice) then it's down to the highways agency to refund YOUR costs as this accident is not down to you?
Not quite.The HA contractor does not have it in their contract to pay for the accidents of the private motorist.
The slippery surface, if discovered on a routine/scheduled 'patrol', would be 'deal' with in the contractual fashion. They will have a procedure and a timescale for dealing with this.
However if you are the unfortunate first set of vehicles to encounter the adverse condition then the contractor is not at fault. (Unless they do not 'deal' with the issue within the contractual text - I would have thought).
Unforseen road conditions are something that you are taught to account for in your driving test. And as such the motorist and their insurance are accountable for damage to HA assets.
irocfan said:
As an aside - look at the amount of crap you have to go through to try and reclaim for damaged wheels/tyres due to piss poor maintenance of roads, I suspect the even bigger scandal is arse-raping we get and the 'one-wayness' of all things related to officialdom
Agreed. Again the motorist has a claim if the pothole is known about and nothing done about it within a set time period.But taking all the responsibility away from the motorist's actions and placing it as a further burdon on to the taxpayer is not the way forward.
Some is not motorists actions though - theres duty of care on behalf of highways.
Is the road fit for purpose.
There was an example in the clip where someone slid off the road on gravel.
It turns out that sliding off the road there on gravel is a common occurence and it's the contractors lorries that spill the gravel while delivering to the depot.
The motorist is unlikely to know that piece of road is more slippery than the rest. Even if he did know - what should he do about it? The remedy is to stop dropping gravel on the road.
Another clip was about a section that suffers from known standing water. If a motorist comes off is it his fault? - or should highways realign the road so it drains properly.
If a motorist slides off there and hits the barrier - who pays for his car and/or the barrier?
Is the road fit for purpose.
There was an example in the clip where someone slid off the road on gravel.
It turns out that sliding off the road there on gravel is a common occurence and it's the contractors lorries that spill the gravel while delivering to the depot.
The motorist is unlikely to know that piece of road is more slippery than the rest. Even if he did know - what should he do about it? The remedy is to stop dropping gravel on the road.
Another clip was about a section that suffers from known standing water. If a motorist comes off is it his fault? - or should highways realign the road so it drains properly.
If a motorist slides off there and hits the barrier - who pays for his car and/or the barrier?
saaby93 said:
Some is not motorists actions though - theres duty of care on behalf of highways.
Is the road fit for purpose.
There was an example in the clip where someone slid off the road on gravel.
It turns out that sliding off the road there on gravel is a common occurence and it's the contractors lorries that spill the gravel while delivering to the depot.
The motorist is unlikely to know that piece of road is more slippery than the rest. Even if he did know - what should he do about it? The remedy is to stop dropping gravel on the road.
Another clip was about a section that suffers from known standing water. If a motorist comes off is it his fault? - or should highways realign the road so it drains properly.
If a motorist slides off there and hits the barrier - who pays for his car and/or the barrier?
Just my view from previously working within the sector, but the first part of your reply here is correct, there is a duty of care and this is set out in the maintenance contract.Is the road fit for purpose.
There was an example in the clip where someone slid off the road on gravel.
It turns out that sliding off the road there on gravel is a common occurence and it's the contractors lorries that spill the gravel while delivering to the depot.
The motorist is unlikely to know that piece of road is more slippery than the rest. Even if he did know - what should he do about it? The remedy is to stop dropping gravel on the road.
Another clip was about a section that suffers from known standing water. If a motorist comes off is it his fault? - or should highways realign the road so it drains properly.
If a motorist slides off there and hits the barrier - who pays for his car and/or the barrier?
In your example, gravel on the road resulting in vehicles having accidents should have the insurance company fighting the case on behalf of the motorist. Just about each and every action done by companies like road contractos etc. these days have a risk assessment register that should contain views/opinions/controls/limits etc. over just about every action that takes place.
So in this case turning HGVs dropping gravel, if in the past has caused even just one accident, should now have its place within the risk register. And as such there should be an action to mitigate the risks as a result.
If this is not happening then the insurance company should fight their case. If not, then as is being pointed out in this thread, the contractor companies are 'getting away with it'.
But again going back to basics, you're right in that the driver of a car can not forsee every type of road condition (especially at night), but there is also the responsibility for the driver to drive at a speed that will give him/her enough time/distance to stop if one were to approach something such as mud/gravel on the road.
In the water example, again the first responsibility is on the motorist to not enter in to a flooded part of the road at a speed whereby the car will aquaplane. But also again there is a duty of care from the maintenance contract. As mentioned previously if you are the first vehicle to encounter the flood and the contractor is unaware from their periodic patrols then the contract is not at fault. The responsibility is on the motorist to not place themselves and others in danger.
But if the flood is known and nothing is being done within the set time limit then the contractor is at fault.
To add - if its a road design issue and a known problem then signage should be on the road to inform the motorist. And again its the motorist's responsiblity to drive accroding to the signs.
(The above is purely my own opinion based on certain experiences within the sector - although I was not 1st hand involved with the contract text and their full list of responsibilities/liability - please don't accept my views/opinions as fact).
Edited by AJI on Monday 8th October 15:30
AJI said:
Just my view from previously working within the sector,
Very useful for you to post here 
AJI said:
To add - if its a road design issue and a known problem then signage should be on the road to inform the motorist. And again its the motorist's responsiblity to drive accroding to the signs.
that raises anothr can of worms. 
Take a dual carriageway where a 100yds or so length regularly has standing water. Most times the road is dry so no problem. When its raining drivers adjust their speed for conditions but unaware of the stretch that has standing water. most drivers pass through it ok. From time to time someone hits the water at slightly the wrong angle or they might have rear wheel rather than front wheel drive or they're not used to driving on a skid pan.
They spin off. Is it their fault when all they were doing was driving at what they thought was appropriate? Or is it the authority's problem since they know this happens regularly?
In response instead of attending to drainage the authority erects some of those skiddy car red triangle signs.
When its dry there's no problem drivers assume the road is just the same there as the rest of the road.
In the wet theyve adjusted their speed due to wet conditions and see the skid risk sign and are not sure what they should do. If they ease off any more will that promote a skid? What will cause a skid? Should they go on a skid pan course? Most drivers go through ok. The odd driver still gets caught out even though taken note of the sign.
Is it still the authority's problem?
Do they have a duty of care to fix the skid risk rather than erecting a sign telling you might be the unlucky one to skid off?
It's not like a normal hazard such as a bend where you can work out your speed to go around it.
Edited by saaby93 on Monday 8th October 16:34
saaby93 said:
that raises anothr can of worms.
Take a dual carriageway where a 100yds or so length regularly has standing water. Most times the road is dry so no problem. When its raining drivers adjust their speed for conditions but unaware of the stretch that has standing water. most drivers pass through it ok. From time to time someone hits the water at slightly the wrong angle or they might have rear wheel rather than front wheel drive or they're not used to driving on a skid pan.
They spin off. Is it their fault when all they were doing was driving at what they thought was appropriate? Or is it the authority's problem since they know this happens regularly?
All I can say is that if the contractor acting on bahalf of the HA are aware of a risk they have to act on it. This can be anything from simply signage up to a full re-design and road improvement project. It will depend on what gets approved and how much money is available for potential improvements. Take a dual carriageway where a 100yds or so length regularly has standing water. Most times the road is dry so no problem. When its raining drivers adjust their speed for conditions but unaware of the stretch that has standing water. most drivers pass through it ok. From time to time someone hits the water at slightly the wrong angle or they might have rear wheel rather than front wheel drive or they're not used to driving on a skid pan.
They spin off. Is it their fault when all they were doing was driving at what they thought was appropriate? Or is it the authority's problem since they know this happens regularly?
If its just simple signing (such as the red triangle with 'flood', or even red triangle with 'slippery surface') then its down to the motorist to act accordigly.
So both 'parties' have 'duty of care' (or responsibilities) over their actions, one being the contractor that signs the HA operating contract and the other being the motorist that signs up to these conditions when they sign their driving licence.
saaby93 said:
If they ease off any more will that promote a skid? What will cause a skid? Should they go on a skid pan course? Most drivers go through ok. The odd driver still gets caught out even though taken note of the sign.
Aquaplaining is down to a few factors.The most important one is tread depth and you'd be surprised how many motorists drive in the winter months (and seemingly now our very wet summer months) with tread depth that is close to the legal limit before thinking of renewing their tyres.
It is the tread depth that has a huge impact on how fast one can go through standing water for the likes of a car. At national speed limits (and restricted limits for any particular road) a new tyre can cope with most cases of standing water that would be most likely encountered on the network. (This is a responsibility of the motorist of course).
If the road develops any more significant water build up then the police would usually close the road/lane and consider it flooded. There would then be erect signage and often the relevant temporary traffic management to guide traffic pass the flood. It can of course also be total road closure if the police deem it necessary. (This is the responsibility of the contractor and police).
saaby93 said:
Do they have a duty of care to fix the skid risk rather than erecting a sign telling you might be the unlucky one to skid off?
It's not like a normal hazard such as a bend where you can work out your speed to go around it.
I don't think they 'have' to do a full road improvement if the funds and the 'case for it' can not be approved. Even if there are a few skid accidents. It's not like a normal hazard such as a bend where you can work out your speed to go around it.
If however the KSI figures came in to play this would automatically trigger a response.
If erecting a sign is deemed sufficient then again it will be down to the motorist to drive accordingly to the signage.
I'm am guessing the 'unlucky one' in your example is the one that ignores the signage or has poor condition tyres.
(Otherwise it wouldn't be the case of an unlucky 'one' it would be the unlucky 'everyone', which I'm sure is not the case).
Hope this answers your queries but again this is just my opinion and may differ from the actual facts of the HA contract texts.
AJI said:
I don't think they 'have' to do a full road improvement if the funds and the 'case for it' can not be approved. Even if there are a few skid accidents.
If however the KSI figures came in to play this would automatically trigger a response.
If erecting a sign is deemed sufficient then again it will be down to the motorist to drive accordingly to the signage.
I'm am guessing the 'unlucky one' in your example is the one that ignores the signage or has poor condition tyres.
(Otherwise it wouldn't be the case of an unlucky 'one' it would be the unlucky 'everyone', which I'm sure is not the case).
Thanks for running with this If however the KSI figures came in to play this would automatically trigger a response.
If erecting a sign is deemed sufficient then again it will be down to the motorist to drive accordingly to the signage.
I'm am guessing the 'unlucky one' in your example is the one that ignores the signage or has poor condition tyres.
(Otherwise it wouldn't be the case of an unlucky 'one' it would be the unlucky 'everyone', which I'm sure is not the case).
I've seen quite a few now where it's not due to treating the signage any different to anyone else and nothing to do with tyres. Luck chance and risk doesn't work like that.
The question is who or what deems the sign sufficient?
If a road gets flooded to a few inches and someone puts out temporary flood signs, you know there's likely to be a flood. You dont know how deep it is so you dont know quite what to do, so you check what everyone else is doing. If theyre driving through creating a bit of a wash youre tempted to do the same. If only the hardy 4x4s are going through and most people turning around you could make a different decision.
If a few weeks later the signs are still there, everyone's driving through as though there is no flood because there isnt.
Later that night the flood returns and some unlucky ~* drives straight into the flood and drowns the engine.
The signs are there but crying wolf - everyone ignoring them.
Whose fault?
I am not familiar with the highway maintenance industry but I am sure they operate in much the same way as all contracting industries.
e.g.
Secure the contract under competitive tendering, usually at wafer thin margins. Make your profit on variation orders and claims against the client.
If you can't make the claim against the client look for claims against other parties or contractors.
Make the claim as high as possible (as high as you can dream up but I don't mean fraud) based on an expectation of negotiation with the other side who can negotiate with you at the same level and who are likely to be working on a back claim that they have pushed to the limit as well.
A lot of time is spent on this activity but it works out reasonably well as this is usually a negotiation between equals.
In the highway maintenance industry negotiating with third party insurers will be easier for the contractors (we know how often and how easily they fall over) but the easiest mark will be the motorist, many of whom will have no idea how to defend themselves against this kind of tactic.
There will be project managers in the highway contracting companies with the specific tasks of maximising additional charges, who will have the training and knowledge to push these claims to the absolute limit.
It is going to be a problem if increasingly they are launched on the general public. Somewhere down the line there will be a scandal similar to PPI if this is not carefully and fairly regulated.
I also think if the accident is caused by debris/water/oil on the road that has not been cleared, the highway maintenance contractor might be able to argue 'force majeure' if they have had insufficient time to rectify the situation, but to then claim damages against a motorist in an incident caused by the debris is not reasonable, unless the motorist was clearly reckless.
Should the debris have not been cleared in a reasonable time, the motorist should be able to recover all damages from the contractor.
e.g.
Secure the contract under competitive tendering, usually at wafer thin margins. Make your profit on variation orders and claims against the client.
If you can't make the claim against the client look for claims against other parties or contractors.
Make the claim as high as possible (as high as you can dream up but I don't mean fraud) based on an expectation of negotiation with the other side who can negotiate with you at the same level and who are likely to be working on a back claim that they have pushed to the limit as well.
A lot of time is spent on this activity but it works out reasonably well as this is usually a negotiation between equals.
In the highway maintenance industry negotiating with third party insurers will be easier for the contractors (we know how often and how easily they fall over) but the easiest mark will be the motorist, many of whom will have no idea how to defend themselves against this kind of tactic.
There will be project managers in the highway contracting companies with the specific tasks of maximising additional charges, who will have the training and knowledge to push these claims to the absolute limit.
It is going to be a problem if increasingly they are launched on the general public. Somewhere down the line there will be a scandal similar to PPI if this is not carefully and fairly regulated.
I also think if the accident is caused by debris/water/oil on the road that has not been cleared, the highway maintenance contractor might be able to argue 'force majeure' if they have had insufficient time to rectify the situation, but to then claim damages against a motorist in an incident caused by the debris is not reasonable, unless the motorist was clearly reckless.
Should the debris have not been cleared in a reasonable time, the motorist should be able to recover all damages from the contractor.
saaby93 said:
The question is who or what deems the sign sufficient?
I do know each contract has its own so called 'contingency plan'. Within this plan there is an HA approved response to network incidents, a network incident can range from minor to major events, so from small partial carriage way flooding to a full bridge collapse for example.They like to cover all the "what if's" questions and backed up with a response to keep the approaching public safe etc.
This 'contingency plan' is issued to the HA and also to the police and other authorities with an interest in the highway networks.
So its the collective input and approval of actions based on existing road traffic acts and signage within the traffic signs manual that enable the 'correct/appropriate' response based on events that take place on the network.
The above is my own interpretation put in a generalised manner.
saaby93 said:
If a road gets flooded to a few inches and someone puts out temporary flood signs, you know there's likely to be a flood. You dont know how deep it is so you dont know quite what to do, so you check what everyone else is doing. If theyre driving through creating a bit of a wash youre tempted to do the same. If only the hardy 4x4s are going through and most people turning around you could make a different decision.
If a few weeks later the signs are still there, everyone's driving through as though there is no flood because there isnt.
Later that night the flood returns and some unlucky ~* drives straight into the flood and drowns the engine.
The signs are there but crying wolf - everyone ignoring them.
Whose fault?
In your highlighted case above 100% driver's fault if there is a sign and the driver chooses to not take in to account the meaning of the sign.If a few weeks later the signs are still there, everyone's driving through as though there is no flood because there isnt.
Later that night the flood returns and some unlucky ~* drives straight into the flood and drowns the engine.
The signs are there but crying wolf - everyone ignoring them.
Whose fault?
A 'flood' sign is there to show there could be a possible danger/hazzard ahead and is there as a 'warning' (ie. triangle sign). If the driver chooses to ignore the warning and treat the sign as 'crying wolf' then only the driver is to blame. (irrespective if there is a flood or not and also irrespective of other driver's action - the authority have shown duty of care by placing a warning).
The sign in these cases although they can often 'cry wolf' are there to highlight a possible danger, and would hopefully make the driver look out for possible water. If the driver sees water on the road and drives in to a flood then only the driver is to blame.
A system does not exist whereby action can take plance 'on the second' as the road conditions change, otherwise the taxpayer would have to invest in either electronic monitoring systems to cover ALL the road network or have manned positions to report back ALL along the network.
What they do have is partial coverage such as CCTV cameras, regular 'patrols', public phone ins to the call centres etc. This coverage at the moment is deemed sufficient on the balance of accidents and risks (and also cost obviously).
AJI said:
In your highlighted case above 100% driver's fault if there is a sign and the driver chooses to not take in to account the meaning of the sign.
But the driver did take into account the sign It had been out for weeks, no floods so took into account that it was meaningless.
I think that's why signs have to be relevant and only put the signs out when the problem is there
If bend signs are installed where there is no bend, everyone gets used to bend signs being meaningless. What happens at the next bend sign where it turns out to be a right angle?
Put up a sign afterwards 'ha ha gotcha'
Agree about signs not 'having' to go out the second conditions change. That would be largely impossible ( and unreasonable?).
Signs as soon as it's known something is untoward should be enough?
and also not leaving the signs out when conditions are back to normal for reasons above
Edited by saaby93 on Tuesday 9th October 11:44
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff