Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: One way traffic spikes
FightBack Forums > Discussion > The Flame Pit
Mnementh
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
stamfordman
This is best in the flame pit section.

is she going to complain to the council? What's the location?



notmeatloaf
Bit difficult to tell without a location but in general there are plenty of places it is highly unwise to drive through. There is some duty as a driver to use your eyes and avoid them. Classic one seems to be bollards in supermarkets which upsets people who fail to see a 4ft high pole.

At work we use barriers. They are on a break lock so that if someone drives through them they snap back rather than smash an expensive piece of fibreglass.

Unfortunately on a fairly frequent basis someone gets their passenger to nip out the car and break the barrier back so they skip the parking charge. Unfortunately when designing car parks you have to bear the lowest common denominator in mind. I guess it would take the council longer to notice, longer to fix and so lose revenue for longer compared to security popping out to fix it here.
Mnementh
QUOTE (stamfordman @ Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 18:21) *
This is best in the flame pit section.

is she going to complain to the council? What's the location?


Thank you.

Here's the location: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5592095,0...3312!8i6656

I have no idea if she's going to complain. She actually pulled over to feed her baby.

There is of course signage on the floor and she should have been more careful. To me it just seemed odd that the council, or anybody is permitted to damage vehicles in this way for what is a minor civil infringement, potentially leaving vulnerable drivers in a very difficult situation. I always thought you could fine, clamp, etc, but not physically damage a vehicle.
southpaw82
If she consented to the damage...
Mnementh
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 20:51) *
If she consented to the damage...


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!)?
stamfordman
I presume they want to stop, er, unsavoury behaviour late at night while letting people out but it's a bit drastic for such a small spot.

nigelbb
QUOTE (Mnementh @ Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 21:04) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 20:51) *
If she consented to the damage...


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!)?

Both clamping & any other form of immobilisation is expressly forbidden by POFA 2012

Offence of immobilising etc. vehicles
(1)A person commits an offence who, without lawful authority—
(a)immobilises a motor vehicle by the attachment to the vehicle, or a part of it, of an immobilising device, or
(b)moves, or restricts the movement of, such a vehicle by any means,intending to prevent or inhibit the removal of the vehicle by a person otherwise entitled to remove it.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9...tion/54/enacted
southpaw82
QUOTE (Mnementh @ Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 21:04) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 20:51) *
If she consented to the damage...


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!)?

In general, you can consent to me doing anything to your property. Whilst proving your consent to some quite drastic damage might be difficult it is possible. A decent number of signs saying, basically, "drive here at your own risk" means the driver has assumed the risk of damage and chosen to proceed.
cp8759
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 21:40) *
QUOTE (Mnementh @ Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 21:04) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 20:51) *
If she consented to the damage...


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!)?

In general, you can consent to me doing anything to your property. Whilst proving your consent to some quite drastic damage might be difficult it is possible. A decent number of signs saying, basically, "drive here at your own risk" means the driver has assumed the risk of damage and chosen to proceed.

There are some limitations on that though, see Arthur & Anr -v- Anker & Anr [1997] QB 564 as quoted in Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106 (The leading case law on clamping before the PoFA ban on clamping came in) (my emphasis):

"The judge found that Mr Arthur knew of and consented to the risk of clamping, ... I would not accept that the clamper could exact any unreasonable or exorbitant charge for releasing the car, and the court would be very slow to find implied acceptance of such a charge. The same would be true if the warning were not of clamping or towing away but of conduct by or on behalf of the land owner which would cause damage to the car."

So on that authoritative interpretation, signs saying "If you park here you consent to the land owner "keeing" your doors" wouldn't be a defence to a tort allegation.

In this case I'm not sure "drive here at your own risk" quite covers one-way traffic spikes. In my mind, "drive here at your own risk" means "if you drive here and you're unfortunate enough to damage your property, for example snapping your suspension in a pot-hole, or some other fortuitous damage occurs, tough". But installing spikes which would cause reasonably foreseeable damage to a vehicle is different, as the land owner would have taken active steps to install them and it would be reasonably foreseeable to him that persons driving on that land might suffer damage to their property. If it were my land, I would want to have a sign, to the "bound to be seen" standard as per Vine, saying "WARNING: If you drive in through the exist, severe damage may occur to your car" or words to that effect.
Mnementh
QUOTE (nigelbb @ Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 21:37) *
QUOTE (Mnementh @ Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 21:04) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 20:51) *
If she consented to the damage...


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!)?

Both clamping & any other form of immobilisation is expressly forbidden by POFA 2012

Offence of immobilising etc. vehicles
(1)A person commits an offence who, without lawful authority—
(a)immobilises a motor vehicle by the attachment to the vehicle, or a part of it, of an immobilising device, or
(b)moves, or restricts the movement of, such a vehicle by any means,intending to prevent or inhibit the removal of the vehicle by a person otherwise entitled to remove it.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9...tion/54/enacted


Isn't shredding the tyres a form of immobilisation?
southpaw82
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"
nigelbb
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.
samthecat
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.
DancingDad
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
Mnementh
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.


Is the "intention" relevant here if the only possible outcome for not following the rules is immobilisation? I suppose it comes down to why "immobilisation" is forbidden.

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.
samthecat
It's relevant to that specific piece of legislation and is included in the wording.

With regards to the council possibly being negligent or not making the signs clear enough then intent would be largely irrelephant.
cp8759
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.
stamfordman
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.
cp8759
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.
jdh
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.
Mnementh
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?
DancingDad
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.
typefish
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?
nigelbb
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!)?
southpaw82
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.
The Rookie
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.
jdh
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.
cp8759
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.
typefish
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 23:15) *
The council don't install potholes


Sure about that?
Mnementh
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.
notmeatloaf
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.
southpaw82
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.
StuartBu
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?
DancingDad
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/
PASTMYBEST
I swallowed a pip today, can i sue granny smith rolleyes.gif
Fredd
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
Churchmouse
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
typefish
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 is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2018 Invision Power Services, Inc.