What I don't understand and has never been explained properly, is why the council cannot claim all costs from the driver for the repair of the bollards.
Perhaps they do, a freedom of information letter to them (WBC), should you want to find out for sure, would probably be the correct route. You could then let us all know the facts.
“The council can only recover the cost of any damage that is supported by appropriate witness statements and other relevant evidence that will be accepted by the court.”
You are right, but you can only rightly claim criminal damage in court. As we seem not have had either party do it yet (go to court), it is yet to be challenged.
What I don't understand and has never been explained properly, is why the council cannot claim all costs from the driver for the repair of the bollards.
Perhaps greenmeanie61 could explain?
Perhaps they are scared of a counter claim? or maybe they are simply scared of not being able to prove that the damage to the bollards was caused by that particular car/driver. Without video evidence there is no real proof that a given driver actually caused the damage to the bollards – ie working bollards, car, collision, named driver getting out of car, bollards now not working. WBC are probably scared the evidence of damaged bollards is only circumstantial and the claim would probably get thrown out. Is there CCTV constantly monitoring/recording all 3 sets of bollards?
edit - which is exactly what you were saying in your following comment - [embarassed smiley symbol]
Going the other way, why has nobody actually successfully made a claim against WBC for the damage to their vehicles, or even attempted a claim? Usually, if there is a hint of a loophole which will result in £compo, the ambulance chasing lawyers are straight in there. The silence seems to suggest that the bollards and associated signage are completely legal and watertight and cannot be challenged, no matter how much people protest about them or claim the bollards are highly dangerous etc.
I'm sure the signage is legal, but I regret that we cannot recover all the costs of repair. I also regret that cars have to get damaged 'for the cause'. Usually one is not permitted to install things that can damage other people's property or health, even if they indulge in minor traffic offences.
If people drive through the pedestrian zone, the risk to the pedestrian is small. In most cases a car will be following a bus or taxi. There is no-one to blame but the driver if someone hits these bollards, but we have to question if the bollard are an appropriate method of traffic enforcement. That is where the debate is to be had I feel.
I have to ask again, why can we not get full cost of repair? That remains unanswered. Why would an insurance company be willing to pay some, but not all. Surely the driver is the proof. They hit the bollards; they failed to acknowledge the signs; they should pay (via insurance - which, incidentally, will affect all of us in some measure).
Thanks User23, that BBC is excellent an story and proves my point. Lets travel back in time 15 years, in a far far away time when SatNavs didn't exist...
"I didn't see the signs officer, I was reading my map book, because I don't know where I am going, and suddenly, these pesky bollards crept out on me...its not my fault!!"" - Is this the same as following a sat nav and ploughing into the bollards? I think it is. We deal with the drivers who hit the bollards, and most of the time, they acknowledge that fact that they have been unattentive and didn't read the signs. Whose fault is that?
If there was a barrier, similar to the car park barriers, it would get bent all the time by the drunk idiots that plague Newbury (just like how they damage the barriers in the Wharf area) Costs would be the same, if not higher, and it increases the chance of the barrier striking someone on the head. And you can bet that people would drive into that too! I've seen with my own eyes, some drivers just carry on and drive through our car park barriers, ... and they're white with red reflective tape on them.
A big metal gate would require a council staff member, standing next to the gate all day to let buses through.
No barriers would result in people getting run over...most drivers speed through the area when ther bollards aren't up, I say that it would be the same during the pedestrian hours.
There is no way to compensate for peoples bad driving. Its as simple as that i'm afraid.
We, as Parking Services, never get involved in the claims after the initial strike. Our responsibilty is to ensure the driver is ok, record any damage to the vehicle (which is presented to Highways), and deal with any damage to the bollards, by either testing them or reporting them to the repair company. The highways department then deal with the strike after our initial involment.
Car Parks were lumbered with the bollards years ago, just because they are near our office, and are usually are are the only council staff out and about.. If we had a choice, Parking would have no involment with the bollards, apart from maybe making sure the driver is ok when a strike occurs...
A FoI request, or speaking to your local councillor would be the best way to get all the facts, as I dont know them.
No barriers would result in people getting run over...most drivers speed through the area when the bollards aren't up, I say that it would be the same during the pedestrian hours..
Did anyone get run-over before the bollards were installed, and has anyone got run-over when the bollards have been faulty? I doubt, however, whether someone following a bus or taxi (these are the people who normally come to grief) is a danger to anyone. I have, mind you, heared complaints about taxi drivers speeding through the square!
Again, it still doesn't explain why full costs cannot be recovered. There was a news item (linked to previously on this thread) that states as much.
One other point, it seems a lot of effort to go to, to protect an under-used open space.
Did anyone get run-over before the bollards were installed, and has anyone got run-over when the bollards have been faulty?
Thats only because most drivers still obey the signs when the bollards are faulty. If all of the traffic was allowed to drive through the centre of the town all day, then it does increase the dangers, but, I agree, little more than anywhere else. We would certainly be alot busier!! This debate will run forever and ever, with no one solution suiting eveyone.
I personally think that the Market Place should be free of all vehicles (including Taxis) at all times. This would allow for more events/cafes to function in the middle of the square, 24/7. I think North Bartholomew Sreet and Northbrook street should be closed to vehicles between 11am and 5pm, to make the shared use area much more safer. The buses are dangerous along Northbrook Street (I sometimes walk along here upwards of 20 times a day), and although no-one has been hurt yet, they do sometimes drive through too fast, expecting people just to get out of their way, when they should be giving the pedestrians right of way. There should be a 10mph limit for vehicles during this time in Northbrook Street, and it should be enforced.
I can't claim the cost of cleaning my traps if a poacher leaves his flesh all over it. What's the difference?
A couple of thing. For a start, does the poacher stand about until the authorities turn up? Second, what if the poacher damages them and renders them inoperable, then perhaps you would be interested in remedial action at no cost to you. Mind you, I hardly see the connection in cleaning equipment that might need cleaning anyway, and the cash that is not recovered by the council for repair to the bollards.
A couple of thing. For a start, does the poacher stand about until the authorities turn up? Second, what if the poacher damages them and renders them inoperable, then perhaps you would be interested in remedial action at no cost to you. Mind you, I hardly see the connection in cleaning equipment that might need cleaning anyway, and the cash that is not recovered by the council for repair to the bollards.
Poachers often do badly damage the equipment getting out. Sorry you can't see the connection. After all as the bollards are expected to do what they do, pretty poor design thgat needs costly attention every time it 'catches one'. Good job alarm systems don't work on the same basis.
Poachers often do badly damage the equipment getting out. Sorry you can't see the connection.
I don't think it is like for like. Poachers don't hang about waiting; do they? If they do, I doubt they have insurance, as a driver would usually have.
I don't think it is like for like. Poachers don't hang about waiting; do they? If they do, I doubt they have insurance, as a driver would usually have.
No they don't hang about - but they do get caught. In both cases, no one is going to pay unless a demand is made. I don'tb see what insurance has to do with the matter. The claim is against the driver or the poacher. All any insurance will do is possibly settle their liability, if it doesn't they pay themselves.
I don'tb see what insurance has to do with the matter. The claim is against the driver or the poacher. All any insurance will do is possibly settle their liability, if it doesn't they pay themselves.
Exactly, their liability should be to cover the cost of the accident. For heaven's sake, Old Goat, I am talking about loss of tax payers money here! Something you (I assume) and I pay!
I get the feeling you are arguing for the sake of being contradictory, and not due to any tangible rationalé.
Logged
Male
