|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Another Cycle Lane Letter
Bob Downie wrote:
Good luck with your letter. I only got a response after 2 months only because I got a cycle friendly journalist to follow up on it. Well the EDC website claims they reply to e-mails in 10 days so I'll see what happens. The road is wide enough for a safe cycle lane if they eliminate the joke right turn lane which isn't wide enough for a car anyway. They could take the right turn lane away and move the cycle lane out without affecting traffic flow. Any car needing to undertake a vehicle waiting to turn right would just move into the cycle lane. The expensive option would be widening the road by taking 3 feet off the pavement. I don't see that happening. Or just take the lane away all together. It's no use to me and at the moment directs inexperienced cyclists into the one place on the road they should not be. I would like to think that the danger of a legal claim would mean they would do something but I am not certain that it will. My dad brought to their attention a dangerous tree next to a road. The base of the tree had been fire damaged. There was an obvious danger that the next high winds would bring the tree down with danger to road users. They did nothing. A few months later high winds brought the tree down on top of some schoolchildren. Luckily it was the smaller limbs that hit them not the trunk and there were only slight injuries. Iain |
Ads |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Another Cycle Lane Letter
wrote in message
oups.com... Bob Downie wrote: My dad brought to their attention a dangerous tree next to a road. The base of the tree had been fire damaged. There was an obvious danger that the next high winds would bring the tree down with danger to road users. They did nothing. A few months later high winds brought the tree down on top of some schoolchildren. Luckily it was the smaller limbs that hit them not the trunk and there were only slight injuries. A falling council-owned tree fell and killed three people. It had been reported as dangerous by several people http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1528432.stm http://www.charteredforesters.org/ne...news_july.html www.JohnPitcock.com |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Another Cycle Lane Letter
In article
"John Pitcock" wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Bob Downie wrote: My dad brought to their attention a dangerous tree next to a road. The base of the tree had been fire damaged. There was an obvious danger that the next high winds would bring the tree down with danger to road users. They did nothing. A few months later high winds brought the tree down on top of some schoolchildren. Luckily it was the smaller limbs that hit them not the trunk and there were only slight injuries. A falling council-owned tree fell and killed three people. It had been reported as dangerous by several people http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1528432.stm http://www.charteredforesters.org/ne...news_july.html "Acting Chief Executive, Stewart Dobson commented by saying 'The Council deeply regrets this tragic accident which resulted in the deaths of three people.'" The tree had been reported as dangerous, the council had done nothing to remedy it, and it's an 'accident'? I hope the families of the people who were killed took civil proceedings. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Another Cycle Lane Letter
John Pitcock (nospam) wrote:
A falling council-owned tree fell and killed three people. It had been reported as dangerous by several people http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1528432.stm http://www.charteredforesters.org/ne...news_july.html From the bbc link "The HSE has charged the local authority with breaching section 3(1) of the 1974 Act, which requires employers to ensure the safety of those not in their employment." and from www.healthandsafety.co.uk/haswa.htm Section 3 (1) states "General duties of employers and self-employed to persons other than their employees. 3. (1) It shall be the duty of every employer to conduct his undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons not in his employment who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety. " I am not a lawyer but I think section 3(1) could make the council liable under the HS at Work Act for any death or injury caused by a sub-standard cycle lane. Especially after it has been drawn to their attention. Whether the HSE would be interested in taking any enforcement action against a council to require them to upgrade a cycle facility to a minimum standard is another matter. Hopefully the question won't arise as it is obvious to a blind man that the cycle lane in Milngavie Rd is dangerous and I'm sure my local council will rectify the problem.. Iain |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Another Cycle Lane Letter
wrote [snip] Hopefully the question won't arise as it is obvious to a blind man that the cycle lane in Milngavie Rd is dangerous and I'm sure my local council will rectify the problem.. Iain Generally, if there is some standard written by a technical organization, courts assume the standard will be written by a group of experts who know, more than the court will, what is ok. Sometimes standards are not really standards, but only guidelines. A guideline is a standard that you don't actually have to follow, if your technical expertise tells you it is ok to install a substandard facility. It's a bit like the Highway Code, which only really applies if the word "must" is in that rule. That said, I've often thought it might be worth while trying to talk to the insurance companies that insure councils, just to ask them whether they are ever worried about councils' bike facility designs. Jeremy Parker |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Another Cycle Lane Letter
Jeremy Parker wrote: It's a bit like the Highway Code, which only really applies if the word "must" is in that rule. I would argue that a failure to comply with highway code rules is only covered by the criminal law if "must" is used but that failure to follow other rules could result in civil liability. As stated on page 1 of the highway code. www.highwaycode.gov.uk/ "Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words MUST / MUST NOT. In addition the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, it itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under Traffic Acts to establish liability." The same thing may apply to any public body causing danger by failing to follow recognised design standards and at the same time creating an unnecessary hazard.. Iain |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A new(ish) Cycle Lane revisited | Bob Downie | UK | 28 | November 28th 06 12:22 AM |
A new(ish) Cycle Lane | Bob Downie | UK | 46 | September 6th 06 10:59 PM |
Cycle Lane from School | peter.kidwell | UK | 2 | June 19th 04 02:37 PM |
cycle lane removed | dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers | UK | 2 | May 27th 04 03:42 PM |
Another dodgy cycle lane ... | elyob | UK | 4 | January 23rd 04 10:59 AM |