Broken down on motorway - charged for the privilege?

[saaby93]

Beeb reporting some goings on here ( or a plug for their programme later)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19833237

Any PHers received a bill?

[saaby93]

xRIEx said:

BBC said:

Sheila Kaur-Patel, who works as a BBC production manager, was shocked

Missed that
I hope this isnt a BBC creates it's own story story

[saaby93]

xRIEx said:

saaby93 said:

Missed that
I hope this isnt a BBC creates it's own story story

That did occur to me while I was quoting.

shes just a motorist now
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19861145
on radio 5 tonight 9pm

Edited by saaby93 on Sunday 7th October 21:06

[saaby93]

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 programme
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

[saaby93]

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).

It's not as simple as that

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]

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?

[saaby93]

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]

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
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?

[saaby93]

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