Criminal Action against Highways Authority
Criminal Action against Highways Authority
Author
Discussion

B 7 VP

Original Poster:

633 posts

260 months

Thursday 26th February 2004
quotequote all
So once again on Eastern Englands roads, the lack of salting has resulted in many accidents, causing Death and injuries, on Tuesday/Wednesday morning.Weather forecasts from last Sunday, advised below freezing Temps ALL this week.The negligent and incompetant highways authorities had ststed just a few weeks ago , they were NOW ready for everything, with their state of Art forecast systems and equipment.Can a legal person advise us , of why a case of criminal negligence, Causing Death, Injury. ++++++, has/is not being brought against the HA, and more important , the So called Safety partnerships.These Parasites are supposed to exist for what their name imply,s but are as efficient and truthfull, as the whitehall Politburo.Where are the Activists for EU human right,s and the slime from transport 2000 +++.Will the TV films showing glasslike main road surfaces be admissable, together with the Highways Dept idiot saying "Drivers must take more care".

PetrolTed

34,460 posts

321 months

Thursday 26th February 2004
quotequote all
What?!

I really don't see why the Highways Authority should be expected to keep all roads ice free 100% of the time.

We don't live in a perfect world. Enough of this compensation/blame culture.

Oh look ... the road hasn't been gritted. I'd better be careful, or shall I just drive on regardless and sue them if I crash

cptsideways

13,749 posts

270 months

Thursday 26th February 2004
quotequote all
I don't get it either


Its freezing outside, there WILL be ice on the road you will DIE if you don't adjust your speed & driving style etc.

What is this country coming to, I blame it on the speedscamera brigade, if your not speeding it's safe is Bo**ox

Drive according to the conditions not what the council have done.


Ps this is not a go at anybody personally just the system

count duckula

1,324 posts

292 months

Thursday 26th February 2004
quotequote all
Remember speed kills, so by doing 30 in a 30 limit regardless of conditions is fine be it ice/snow or sun.


Malc

t-c

198 posts

276 months

Thursday 26th February 2004
quotequote all
On December the 1st last year, new legislation came into force making it a legal requirement for all local authorities, in all practical circumstances to maintain the roads so that they are ice and snow free.

Now in a situation where an unexpected amount of snow fell overnight for example, then they would probably get away with it, but in a case such as we have at the moment where the forcast was for ice and snow, that excuse cannot be used.

There are already a few civil cases under way under this legislation, I will keep you posted on the outcome, although it will probably take 12 months or so!

james_j

3,996 posts

273 months

Thursday 26th February 2004
quotequote all
But surely if you stick to the speed limit, everything will be OK, won't it?

As an aside, in my area, the council has actually been pretty good with their salting, even driving past the house and salting at 2am one morning.

PetrolTed

34,460 posts

321 months

Thursday 26th February 2004
quotequote all
We're drowning in legislation.

mojocvh

16,837 posts

280 months

Thursday 26th February 2004
quotequote all
Dunno Ted, if you paid near £2k in CT then broke an arm after falling on black ice outside your residence you might have a different viewpoint (maybe)

Mojo.

swilly

9,699 posts

292 months

Thursday 26th February 2004
quotequote all
PetrolTed said:

I really don't see why the Highways Authority should be expected to keep all roads ice free 100% of the time.

We don't live in a perfect world. Enough of this compensation/blame culture.


We already pay for this through tax for motorways and trunk roads and through council tax for local roads.

It seems a waste for all those nice yellow trucks to sit around doing nothing.

PetrolTed

34,460 posts

321 months

Thursday 26th February 2004
quotequote all
mojocvh said:
Dunno Ted, if you paid near £2k in CT then broke an arm after falling on black ice outside your residence you might have a different viewpoint (maybe)

Mojo.


True, but in the old days shit happened. Now someone's always to blame.

icamm

2,153 posts

278 months

Thursday 26th February 2004
quotequote all
Part of the problem is that "nanny state" has decided that they will do everything for us so we now get to blame them when they can't.

Maybe if the politburo wound it's neck in, and stopped trying to dictate every facet of our lives, then people would start to think for themselves again (rather than about themselves).

jap-car

698 posts

268 months

Friday 27th February 2004
quotequote all
We don't get much gritting round here. This means my car doesn't rust and I get free skid-pan practice.

Deester

1,607 posts

278 months

Friday 27th February 2004
quotequote all
It seems that modern society is out to protect the beings, creating a false sense of security and feeling the need to blame someone when it all goes wrong.

Life is not predictable.

As Ted said, "Life is a lottery"

bogush

481 posts

284 months

Friday 27th February 2004
quotequote all
PetrolTed said:

True, but in the old days shit happened. Now someone's always to blame.


Nope:

In the old days grit happened!

B 7 VP

Original Poster:

633 posts

260 months

Saturday 28th February 2004
quotequote all
The point wasnt to claim compensation, but to get the highways authorities and safety partnerships to wake up, and pay attention.after the 2003 fiasco when Hundreds were stranded for 20hrs, HA said it will never happen again.Is it too much to expect that they pay attention for 2-3 weeks a year, so the £millions of our Tax paid equipment is used for its purpose.So again this week undriverable sheet of glass roads, many accidents and a fatality, not poss to adjust to the conditions, so stay at home, NO wages ? NO!, sue them-now someone WILL pay attention, not for the damages but for the News coverage of Negligent, overpaid, dreamers.t-c said there is now a legal requirement for ALL authorities to ensure the Roads are treated, and various claims are going through the system.NOW they Will pay attention.so it will save someones life.

sqwib

208 posts

267 months

Sunday 29th February 2004
quotequote all
Goddammit, I am sick and tired of this bone-headed 'I pay my taxes therefore I should get better service' argument.

What is 'idiotic' about advising that 'drivers should take more care' in freezing conditions?

Do motorists wish to absolve themselves of all responsibility for their own safety by the constant regurgitation of this moronic mantra? Do they all believe that they can drive their cars around as if it were mid-July all the year round? Do they not understand that 'driving according to the conditions' is not particularly difficult, and is, in any case, an essential and legally enforceable requirement? Do they not understand that by their insistence on making their journeys despite all sensible warnings to the contrary they are, every single one of them, adding to the potential chaos.

It isn't the Highways Authority's fault that drivers insist on ignoring the weather conditions. If you get stuck in snowdrifts for 20 hours, more fool you. Me, I'd rather lose a day's pay and stay at home.

jenkinsd

46 posts

262 months

Sunday 29th February 2004
quotequote all
That was unnecessarily vitriolic sqwib

I think we all adjust our driving to suit conditions but if you have to use your car to get to work you don't have the luxury of being able to stay at home.

All B 7 VP was saying was that you expect with the millions raised in tax (indirect, direct and stealth) the roads should be in such a condition to allow most drivers to be able to complete their journeys to work without the risk of incident caused by poor road maintenance (I don't think it's that an excessive expectation).

The nature of life today is that many of us are expected to drive long distances as part of our jobs (not just commuting or the school run) and it is perfectly reasonable to expect the authorities to do all they can to ensure that these journeys are as safe as practicable, that should include ensuring all foreseeable hazards are dealt with.

With regard to the ‘snowdrift’ discussion, I believe this was on the M11 where people returning from work and generally going about their working lives were stranded due to the motorway not being treated (it wasn’t as if they had the opportunity to make the decision to stay at home) even the authorities considered this unacceptable and carried out a major incident review of process promising it would never happen again.

Finally, when we disagree with a post, let's not hurl abuse it is not necessary.

Jenks

Purple AK

343 posts

261 months

Sunday 29th February 2004
quotequote all
jenkinsd said:
the roads should be in such a condition to allow most drivers to be able to complete their journeys to work without the risk of incident caused by poor road maintenance (I don't think it's that an excessive expectation).


Poor road maintenance is not the cause of incidents, accidents or deaths. The cause is bad driving, be it inappropriate speed, tailgateing or inabillity to drive in adverse conditions. Its drivers that cause incidents, Not roads.
Chris

jenkinsd

46 posts

262 months

Sunday 29th February 2004
quotequote all
Can see what you are getting at Chris, but many of us call for road 'engineering' solutions (rather than cameras) to make roads safer, so roads are recognised as being culpable in some circumstances.

sqwib

208 posts

267 months

Sunday 29th February 2004
quotequote all
My post offered a point of view opposing the title of this thread.

Cynical? Maybe. Forthright? Yes, OK.

Vitriolic? Abusive? No, I don't think so.