Chat & Social > The Bar - General Chat
This is sooo wrong..
Lord Shagg-Pyle:
The bit that I'm interested in is the bit that says she slid on mud on the road. That puts a different perspective on it. How did that get there? Was it from an agricultural vehicle? If so, thedriver/operator/owner may well be liable. Was it run off from recent heavy weather, or badly maintained verges? If so, Highways may be liable.
V8MoneyPit:
--- Quote from: BadgersRover on March 09, 2009, 17:10:47 ---Actually i do think we should have those massive crash barriers along every stretch of road, also in the central reservations of these roads.
--- End quote ---
And you are, of course, perfectly entitled to your view. But I suspect you might be in a minority given the potential cost, both financially and environmentally.
--- Quote from: BadgersRover on March 09, 2009, 17:10:47 ---The driving test is a joke, it should be alot more intensive with a minimum training period beforehand.
--- End quote ---
Now your talking my language :thumbup: I agree 100%. Of course, if this driver was trained better she *might* have been able to avoid the incident.
--- Quote from: BadgersRover on March 09, 2009, 17:10:47 ---As to the details of her crash, unless any of us were there then we cannot speculate on what "has" happened in the incident.
--- End quote ---
Fully agree. My issue is with the blame being passed to someone else.
If mud on the road made the car skid and it was 'unavoidable' as she seems to be suggesting, why wasn't there a huge pile of other cars in the river? Driving ability has a massive effect on all crashes, or rather, lack of it. Your comment on the driving test and licence issuing is spot on. Better training and more frequent testing would do more for road safety than any barrier.
LiftedDisco:
Er... is this not a case of the driver having the basic facts wrong?
Insurance covers you for accidental damage - whether from slipping on a banana skin, having a meteor fall on your car or falling off the road as in this instance.
The issue is one for the insurers to consider - unless they are able to wriggle out of the policy cover for having fitted an undeclared but upmarket CD player, they need to pay and then IF they think the damage caused has been made worse by the negligence of the council, they may consider action against the council to recover sums that they have already paid out to their insured.
She, the driver, is spouting rubbish and potentially jeapordising her own claim.
Also worth considering that both her driving and the edge protection on the bridge look fairly suspect as well, but that's not my point here...
Llanigraham:
I think you will find that very few bridges actually have "crash barriers" fitted on them. Under legislation they are not required.
SteveGoodz:
If this woman was really driving at 10mph and didn't see a patch of mud - large enough to cause her vehicle to go completely out of control - in sufficient time to be able to stop then I think the Police should be looking at a prosecution for driving without due care and attention.
The woman is a danger to everyone else on the road ... on the pavement ... or indeed in the river.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version