PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

One way traffic spikes
Mnementh
post Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 16:38
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 71
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
Member No.: 38,567



Hello everyone.

Over the weekend I saw a lady with her two young children drive into a council owned car-park next to a duck pond. The entrance side was closed so she drove into the car-park through the exit side - which had one way traffic spikes and punctured/shredded 3 out of 4 of the car's tyres.

When I went to assist she explained it was a mistake and got confused because she cross a fast road when turning in and missed the sign which was placed after the spikes.

My question is that this device left a mother and her young children effectively stranded and caused expensive damage to her car - it doesn't seem reasonable or proportionate. I'm puzzled because while googling this subject some sites claim that it's illegal to use these devices in the UK. Wouldn't they also prevent access to emergency vehicles?

Thinking about it, it seems odd that anybody is allowed to cause damage to a vehicle as penalty for driving through the wrong gate.

Cheers
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 38)
Advertisement
post Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 16:38
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
jdh
post Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 12:31
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,579
Joined: 20 May 2004
From: Lincolnshire
Member No.: 1,224



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 11:59) *
I'm wandering if any claim based on inadequate warning is possible?
For instance, this is what a private car park thinks is needed.....
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.4757788,-...3312!8i6656


Rather less warning at this one, the blue car's back wheels are on top of the spikes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mnementh
post Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 12:49
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 71
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
Member No.: 38,567



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 13:01) *
QUOTE (Mnementh @ Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 12:14) *
Also, are there any rules as to what councils are permitted to do with regards to controlling traffic flow on public rights of way? Here it feels like using criminal damage to control traffic is a lawful strategy.

Albeit I recall councils having to reduce the size of speed humps because they were causing damage to vehicles.

I doubt a charge of criminal damage would be sustainable, but a civil claim for negligence might succeed.

Is it only negligence if the council intentionally installs a device that was designed to cause damage to property?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 13:38
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,366
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 13:18) *
QUOTE (stamfordman @ Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 13:09) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 11:59) *
I'm wandering if any claim based on inadequate warning is possible?
For instance, this is what a private car park thinks is needed.....
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.4757788,-...3312!8i6656



That's what I thought from the pic - there seems to be a small sign but can't read what's on it. Such a severe obstacle should have a big warning sign.

I still think that's inadequate. It warns of legal action (which is clearly nonsense), but no warning of possible damage to one's car.



For instance, had the gate been closed and someone drove into it, there would be no question of whose fault it was.
But if only a dark chain in a dark entry, less cut and dried.
Here there is a not too visible device that will damage the car but seemingly no (or limited) warnings.
I would not be thinking criminal damage but am thinking negligence in installing a device that is designed to damage but not including warnings that the reasonably competent driver should see.
No Entry signs as a minimum IMO.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
typefish
post Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 13:40
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,159
Joined: 28 Mar 2014
From: Corby
Member No.: 69,758



QUOTE (jdh @ Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 13:31) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 11:59) *
I'm wandering if any claim based on inadequate warning is possible?
For instance, this is what a private car park thinks is needed.....
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.4757788,-...3312!8i6656


Rather less warning at this one, the blue car's back wheels are on top of the spikes.


I thought that had gone?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nigelbb
post Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 14:31
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,231
Joined: 17 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,602



QUOTE (samthecat @ Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 11:03) *
QUOTE (nigelbb @ Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 05:46) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 22:41) *
QUOTE (Mnementh @ Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 22:33) *
Isn't shredding the tyres a form of immobilisation?

"by the attachment to the vehicle, or a part of it, of an immobilising device"

“restricts the movement of, such a vehicle by any means” would cover shredding the tyres.


But not the next part in that sentence.... "intending to prevent or inhibit the removal of the vehicle by a person otherwise entitled to remove it."

Spikes are there to stop people trying to enter the car park exit not to pop their tyres and immobilize their cars.

POFA 2012 does forbid the scenario described by Mnementh "Does that mean you can do whatever you like to the car, provided that you put a sign up? For example slash the tyres of a car parked across my driveway (with an appropriate warning sign!)?


--------------------
British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice(Appendix C contains Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 ) & can be found here http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Code-of-Pr...ance-monitoring
DfT Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...ing-charges.pdf
Damning OFT advice on levels of parking charges that was ignored by the BPA Ltd Reference Request Number: IAT/FOIA/135010 – 12 October 2012
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 14:58
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,576
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (nigelbb @ Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 15:31) *
POFA 2012 does forbid the scenario described by Mnementh "Does that mean you can do whatever you like to the car, provided that you put a sign up? For example slash the tyres of a car parked across my driveway (with an appropriate warning sign!)?

Depending on the circumstances. “Whatever” vs a specific example for a start.


--------------------


Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 15:13
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39,459
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Mnementh @ Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 13:49) *
Is it only negligence if the council intentionally installs a device that was designed to cause damage to property?

Obviously not. But not providing adequate warning could well be negligent regardless of the rights and wrongs of every other aspect.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jdh
post Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 18:11
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,579
Joined: 20 May 2004
From: Lincolnshire
Member No.: 1,224



QUOTE (typefish @ Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 14:40) *
QUOTE (jdh @ Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 13:31) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 11:59) *
I'm wandering if any claim based on inadequate warning is possible?
For instance, this is what a private car park thinks is needed.....
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.4757788,-...3312!8i6656


Rather less warning at this one, the blue car's back wheels are on top of the spikes.


I thought that had gone?

It was sTill there a month ago, I was amazed it still exists. There were more warning in the correct direction than the wrong way.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 22:15
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,605
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Mnementh @ Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 13:49) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 13:01) *
QUOTE (Mnementh @ Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 12:14) *
Also, are there any rules as to what councils are permitted to do with regards to controlling traffic flow on public rights of way? Here it feels like using criminal damage to control traffic is a lawful strategy.

Albeit I recall councils having to reduce the size of speed humps because they were causing damage to vehicles.

I doubt a charge of criminal damage would be sustainable, but a civil claim for negligence might succeed.

Is it only negligence if the council intentionally installs a device that was designed to cause damage to property?

No. The council don't install potholes for the purpose of causing injury or damage to property, but they can still get sued over them.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
typefish
post Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 08:17
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,159
Joined: 28 Mar 2014
From: Corby
Member No.: 69,758



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 23:15) *
The council don't install potholes


Sure about that?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mnementh
post Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 09:43
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 71
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
Member No.: 38,567



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 23:15) *
QUOTE (Mnementh @ Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 13:49) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 13:01) *
QUOTE (Mnementh @ Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 12:14) *
Also, are there any rules as to what councils are permitted to do with regards to controlling traffic flow on public rights of way? Here it feels like using criminal damage to control traffic is a lawful strategy.

Albeit I recall councils having to reduce the size of speed humps because they were causing damage to vehicles.

I doubt a charge of criminal damage would be sustainable, but a civil claim for negligence might succeed.

Is it only negligence if the council intentionally installs a device that was designed to cause damage to property?

No. The council don't install potholes for the purpose of causing injury or damage to property, but they can still get sued over them.


I guess my point was why wouldn't a charge of criminal damage be sustainable? The spikes were installed with the intention of causing damage to property - if their rules weren't followed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 10:40
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,468
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



Criminal damage has to be caused by someone taking an unreasonable risk. It is obviously reasonable for a council to manage their car park in a way that protects revenue.

It would be for a court to decide if the warning signage and method were reasonable or not.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 12:22
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,576
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 11:40) *
Criminal damage has to be caused by someone taking an unreasonable risk. It is obviously reasonable for a council to manage their car park in a way that protects revenue.

It would be for a court to decide if the warning signage and method were reasonable or not.

It’s not criminal damage if the ‘victim’ has consented to their property being damaged.


--------------------


Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
StuartBu
post Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 14:14
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,104
Joined: 1 Jan 2013
From: Glasgow
Member No.: 59,097



QUOTE (Mnementh @ Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 10:43) *
I guess my point was why wouldn't a charge of criminal damage be sustainable? The spikes were installed with the intention of causing damage to property - if their rules weren't followed.

What about spikes, razorwire or broken glass on top of garden walls to deter intruders...are those things ( or some of them) not illegal, even with signs?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 15:05
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,366
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (StuartBu @ Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 15:14) *
QUOTE (Mnementh @ Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 10:43) *
I guess my point was why wouldn't a charge of criminal damage be sustainable? The spikes were installed with the intention of causing damage to property - if their rules weren't followed.

What about spikes, razorwire or broken glass on top of garden walls to deter intruders...are those things ( or some of them) not illegal, even with signs?

AFAIK, not illegal but can leave the property owner exposed to claims....
One web site, check accuracy as always....
https://thecrimepreventionwebsite.com/garde...nces-and-walls/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 16:52
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,484
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



I swallowed a pip today, can i sue granny smith rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fredd
post Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 18:07
Post #37


Webmaster
Group Icon

Group: Root Admin
Posts: 7,117
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wokingham, UK
Member No.: 2



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 17:52) *
I swallowed a pip today, can i sue granny smith rolleyes.gif

It depends; if it was coated with cyanide, with a warning written on the outside of the apple in 6pt type with green ink, then possibly you can. wink.gif


--------------------
Regards,
Fredd

__________________________________________________________________________
Pepipoo relies on you
to keep this site running!
Donate to Pepipoo now using your
Visa, Mastercard, debit card or PayPal account
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 08:13
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,874
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



QUOTE (jdh @ Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 19:11) *
QUOTE (typefish @ Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 14:40) *
QUOTE (jdh @ Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 13:31) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 11:59) *
I'm wandering if any claim based on inadequate warning is possible?
For instance, this is what a private car park thinks is needed.....
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.4757788,-...3312!8i6656


Rather less warning at this one, the blue car's back wheels are on top of the spikes.


I thought that had gone?

It was sTill there a month ago, I was amazed it still exists. There were more warning in the correct direction than the wrong way.

That's shocking. There can't be any consent when there is no warning of damage at all and the object is "disguised" as a speed bump...

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
typefish
post Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 08:24
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,159
Joined: 28 Mar 2014
From: Corby
Member No.: 69,758



I drive past that every day and I keep forgetting to check :|

Yeah, afaik there's no immediately conspicuous no-entry signs or the like - just that blue sign that is almost covered in undergrowth

EDIT: Checked, it's still there but broken; half the spikes appear to be permanently retracted

This post has been edited by typefish: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 08:05
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Saturday, 22nd September 2018 - 19:47
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.