Your thoughts on an incident
Comments
-
JVB66 yes you are correct, if the public have access to the private land/road then traffic laws are applicable.
I did mention why were the barriers so long that they meet in the centre of the road when the site takes large and wide loads in, somewhat bigger than mine. But I guess it is their prerogative to install how they seem fit.
0 -
JVB66, I am blaming the site for an incident I was involved in, there is no denying that i was the driver and i took the line i choose as i deemed it safe.. My point is that this could have been avoided from the offset with adequate safety devices that were recommended by the installation company, the acknowledge that large loads go through, remember to implement something under the machines directive and DHF regulations all possible scenarios that could occur have to eliminated through a risk assessment and the state of art would need to be exhausted to overcome the hazard,
The site CHOOSE to ignore and that is how it stands. Duty of care.
0 -
This is a thread which has sparked a lot of interest but might it not be better to stop any more speculation and repeated opinions and await the result of the case from Goodchild tomorrow?
5 -
But as with any driver of long articulated vehicles will/should know the trailer does not follow the exact line of the "tractor unit" hence to keep within their side of the carriageway a wider sweep is required ,as when turning, i as probably all those who tow am sure will admit to scuffing the nearside tyre when doing a left turn ,you only have to note the amount of damage on sites that is the result of not allowing space for the trailer
0 -
Thankyou surfer, That is the most constructive reply i am going to take on board,
That is why I have came onto here to get information to form a better defence, i am just a normal bloke who went about his business and i am in a hole as i have a legal team fighting me.
Anyways i hope and wish for the post to stay open as it is being very useful to me.
Remember it is all opinions and no one to me is being malicious at all.
0 -
The machines directive and DHF regulations does seem, to me, to be the only way that you might have a favourable outcome. As your caravan struck the closed barrier which had safely descended rather than the barrier striking your caravan however after the barriers closure I am not at all sure of the validity of such a claim. I have no evidence of what safety might or might not have been installed.
0 -
might as well be graffiti painted on the road as you cannot be fined for crossing those solid white lines.
Something to take away THANKS Surfer
Highway code:
A broken white line. This marks the centre of the road. When this line lengthens and the gaps shorten, it means that there is a hazard ahead. Do not cross it unless you can see the road is clear
0 -
However the general public do not have access to the campsite. Any person who enters the campsite has to pay to stay at the campsite and during your stay, the campsite should be taking due care to ensure that you or your property are not injured. When you pay a common law contract is formed that should include this protection.
Similar amy apply if you paid to store a caravan in a storage site and it then was stolen. The owner of the storage site would have been negligent in his duty of care as you had paid them to store your caravan safely.
0 -
Similar amy apply if you paid to store a caravan in a storage site and it then was stolen. The owner of the storage site would have been negligent in his duty of care as you had paid them to store your caravan safely.
We are off topic but I thought that whilst the owner had a duty of care the mere fact that a caravan was stolen does not make the owner automatically negligent if he has taken 'reasonable' care
2 -
Easyt, they were advised to have safety beams/photocells fitted which detect an object if the lazer (invisible) is broken, they have fitted these after the event and were advised through a risk assessment to be installed as part of the installation, secondly they were advised to have fobs so that the staff can control the barriers within the road. The statements put forward is that they only utilised the inward entry fob and decided not to use the exit barrier to be controlled by a fob, as I state this could have been prevented with the measures put to them but i guess they cost cut or decided not to for abc.
Now look at it this way, the member of staff could see the barrier come down, he looks at my car/caravan position and with that fob that wasn't set up for the exit barrier he could have pressed a button and raised it up.
I hope part of my argument is shedding some light from me
0 -
Surfer i see where your coming from but from my memory anyone can drive off the A1 and into the site gates and drive along the road to the barriers, I dont know what angle to form in putting this forward, although it would be great if it was private land end of but I dont want to look an even more fool by saying it isnt when it could be.
I think more research from me.
0 -
We can look at the storage site as a different, but in the same respect. must meet a standard of reasonable care, If the owner of the site locks up for the day and forgets to put the padlock on the gate, caravans get stolen then they are liable, in my mind as he didnt meet security measures.
Same principal whether in security devices or safety devices, measures need to be put in place to eliminate any risk or hazard.
Its good to through ideas around - thanks
0 -
To say that the mirror issue is irrelevant is questionable. I think courts would, in such instances, look for all reasonable efforts by the driver and the company to carry out actions to prevent issues and accidents occurring. I'm sure they would look towards the Highway Code and modem traffic management practices for guidance at the very least.
So, firstly I reckon it would be reasonable to have the legally required vision aids fitted to ones vehicle, secondly it would be reasonable to have markings on the road depicting carriageways. Thirdly, they would consider responsibility of users to maintain personal safety, that of others and also respective properties.
Putting aside those issues we are not privy to we can only consider the video evidence. It looks to me that the site owners applied a degree of due diligence in their controls but could have done better. I think we also have to consider the reasons behind installing the controls in the first place and also take into account if no controls had been present, would that have been better, not necessarily for the claimant in this instance, but for all users, everyone, including the owners.
However, this particular incident has to be considered on its own respect taking into account al that above.
1 -
To avoid any confusion about a point that might well be a distraction in court, there is NO legal requirement to have additional mirrors for towing. The requirement is for the driver to have a particular view of the road beside and behind the trailer, as detailed in a diagram some pages back in this thread.
If that view can be obtailed with the "standard" mirrors then nothing additional is required. It is where that view is not achieved that additional mirrors are required to provide that view.
0 -
While I agree that the white line has no legal standing it does mark the extent of the lane into the site. The whole point of the line is to guide you safely in and to go over it does indicate you are not taking due care. That lack of a nearside mirror could easily sink the case, a decent defence solicitor would clearly suggest that this was the action of someone who takes risks.
Having dealt with barrier claims I do know there is usually a delay in these operating so the security guard trying to raise the barrier might not have worked.
Not sure a a laser system would have saved the day as you would normally have one for each side so one on the exit would not help. I do not have full details of what had been suggested though.i
0 -
Although it would appear that you were a bit careless in moving forward with the offside barrier coming down, in practice we all know that there is a lot to look out for when towing and sometimes we misjudge things. It seems to me that it was daft for the other barrier to be closing as you were passing through the entrance and it is also unfortunate that there was no obvious warning. I think that you have a strong case.
0 -
No, it was a two way system, entrance and exit along with road markings to show it and further proof of that system by use of half barriers. You overstepped the mark after pulling away and not aware of the consequences.
I hope the judge is a caravanner though, might be in your favour
0 -
Not without knowing both your repair costs and out of pocket expenses in bringing the case. The video seemed to show that you were possibly 10m back from the barrier when both you and it started into motion.
Maybe you started the case on a matter of principle?
0 -
From dealing with the claims I have to disagree.
The allegation is that he had to pull out because he could not be sure there was no cyclist close in to the caravan. The reason for this is that the car did not have the legal requirement of an extending mirror that would give a view down the side of the caravan. If there had been the required mirror it would have been clear there was no cyclist there and therefore no need to move across the white line, which again you should not do. The idea that it is not illegal to do so is no defence.
The layout may not have been ideal but I cannot say that it was dangerous. I have sympathy for the OP as I have managed to drive under a barrier in rather different circumstances, but in our case it only damaged the TV aerial, but I had to accept it was my fault.
What you have here is to me a serious fault in not having the correct mirror which is illegal and a momentary lack of concentration, which we all have from time to time.
There is a chance that the site might have to pay a contribution to the damage sustained by the caravan, but personally I would not be confident. As I aid in my previous post the best chance for the OP is that the other side offer a compromise of some sort to try and save on the unrecoverable costs they will incur in defending the claim.
Frankly the only reason the other barrier hit the caravan was because the OP had crossed the central white line and should not have done so. We will have to wait for the answer though.
0 -
The allegation is that he had to pull out because he could not be sure there was no cyclist close in to the caravan
No I mentioned that to show I was aware of there could be, that wasnt the reason I pulled over, the reason was to avoid the fence to which I gave my self some extra room, How was I to know the length of the barrier and that it was coming down? It is easy to say you should of seen.
Thanks for the reply
0 -
I somewhat agree Navigatuer
The law is: You must have an adequate view of the road behind you
When the mirror strap failed on the way and not to far from the site, i removed it for caution. I took the judgement that I had an adequate view of the road behind me, I adjusted my mirror to give a wider angle as it is electronic from my door card.
0 -
The safety beams run from one barrier across the road to the other barrier, how they are setup I dont know but the installation company told me that if they were put in place as advised from the beginning, the barriers had only been in operation for a minth, then these safety beams would have prevented the accident. His words.
The fob when pressed would stop the barrier in its descent and raise it back to the upright position. The member of staff had nearly 4 seconds from him seeing it, checking my position and then the impact. that is adequate time for him to simply press the button and then maybe speak to me maybe and let me know what went on.
Since the incident both such devises have been installed and more to the point they are claiming the cost of them onto me through the counterclaim.
0
