Get in touch: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting YORK to 80360 or send an email»
News coverage for York, Ryedale, East Yorkshire, Harrogate and Selby.
Popular topics: Community Stadium | Snow | Germany Beck | ftr | Queen's visit | Council tax
9:11am Friday 19th March 2010 in
A YOUNG motorist has been left with 16 stitches in his cheek – and with his car written off – after becoming the latest victim of York’s controversial rising bollard.
Jack Small, 18, says he did not realise access was restricted to Stonebow on a Saturday when he drove over the bollard in the road.
The equipment rose up and speared his engine, thrusting the car into the air. Jack said his face first hit the windscreen and then the steering wheel, forcing his teeth to bite through his left cheek.
He said the car was left moving around like a ride simulator before it rolled off the bollard.
He said: “I was taken to hospital by ambulance and given about 16 stitches, half of them inside my cheek and half of them outside. I think I will be left with a permanent scar. There was engine oil everywhere and the car’s a write-off.”
He said he was dropping off a friend when the incident happened on Saturday morning. “The warning light normally flashes I think, but it wasn’t flashing and I thought the restrictions only applied Monday to Friday.
“A car was coming on to the mini-roundabout from the side, but then he waved for me to go on, so I followed another car which was crossing the bollard without any problem.”
He said he was now off work sick and the loss of his car – a V-reg Vauxhall Astra – would make it difficult to return to his job as a joiner at Stamford Bridge. He said police also wanted to speak to him about the incident.
His mother, Sandra Hardgrave, said: “I think it’s absolutely ridiculous this can happen. They could surely have some sort of sensor, so that if a vehicle is passing over it stops rising.”
She said she would like to thank an unknown woman who stopped to help her son after he was hurt.
City of York Council said today it was satisfied with four flashing warning lights and several signs at the approach to the bollard.
A spokeswoman said the lights were functioning normally at the moment, and authority was not aware of any problem with them at the time of the incident. “There is also a large sign on the approach to the mini-roundabout in front of the bollard which warns drivers of its presence,” she said. “It clearly states the bollard’s times of operation: Mon-Sat, 8am to 6pm. There are two signs giving the same information in front of the bollard.”
She said the bollard had worked normally since the incident, but suffered some damage and the council would seek to recover the costs of replacing this from the driver or his insurance.
THE automatic rising bollard in Stonebow provoked controversy from the day it was installed in October 2000 – at a cost of £60,000 – in a bid to stop all traffic except registered buses and taxis driving towards Pavement.
Within days of its launch, a taxi driver escaped with a bump to his head when his car was brought to a standstill by the equipment. Within days, a second car struck it and a flashing warning sign was introduced. After five accidents in a fortnight, the bollard was suspended while highways bosses studied footage of the accidents.
In 2001, the bollard claimed its first bus victim – the number 7 to Acomb. In 2005 a paramedic was taken to hospital with whiplash injuries after his ambulance hit the device as it was speeding to a 999 call.
Last October, an elderly woman was treated by paramedics after colliding with the bollard.
City of York Council says vehicles collide with the bollard about two to three times a year.
Comments(85)
Garrowby Turnoff
says...
9:19am Fri 19 Mar 10
Silver
says...
9:29am Fri 19 Mar 10
AdmiralNN
says...
9:31am Fri 19 Mar 10
evelyn_trent
says...
9:42am Fri 19 Mar 10
sundance1970
says...
9:43am Fri 19 Mar 10
maybejustmaybe
says...
10:00am Fri 19 Mar 10
AngryandFrustrated
says...
10:00am Fri 19 Mar 10
feller
says...
10:01am Fri 19 Mar 10
AngryandFrustrated
says...
10:05am Fri 19 Mar 10
Alucard
says...
10:12am Fri 19 Mar 10
mystic_genius
says...
10:16am Fri 19 Mar 10
Zetkin wrote:I'm not sure I'm with you. How can a fatality be the result of an 'accident' like this?
I'm as anti-car as they come, but do we have to witness a fatality before this dangerous equipment is removed?
Silver
says...
10:17am Fri 19 Mar 10
Alucard wrote:I'd be more sympathetic to an elderly female driver. As the shock could have killed her, also it could be blamed on her memory. But he's a young driver more then likely learn to drive in York. Surely he'd know it was there and he was cocky and tried to beat it and failed. Now he has to pay the price harsh but true
What, not an elderly female driver? What will all you folk do
TooRad
says...
10:18am Fri 19 Mar 10
Beckster
says...
10:20am Fri 19 Mar 10
evelyn_trent
says...
10:38am Fri 19 Mar 10
Confused Again
says...
10:42am Fri 19 Mar 10
Beckster wrote:Exactly, give him a fine for not wearing his seatbelt. How else did his face hit the windscreen.
If he'd worn his seatbelt, his face wouldn't have hit anything...... !
Beckster
says...
10:48am Fri 19 Mar 10
Garrowby Turnoff
says...
11:12am Fri 19 Mar 10
This is from a Dept of Transport leaflet outlining guides for Councils regarding rising bollards and which City of York Council have appeared to have ignored:-
“The system should ensure that bollards cannot rise beneath a vehicle because of the danger this would create. It is better to risk a certain amount of violation by "tailgating" vehicles, rather that put road users at risk.”
http://www.dft.gov.u
k/pgr/roads/tpm/tal/
signsandsignals/risi
ngbollards?page=2
AdmiralNN
says...
11:23am Fri 19 Mar 10
Garrowby Turnoff wrote:shame they remove the comments after a set amount of time cause if my memory serves me correctly you got a real pasting.
As I wrote last year...This is from a Dept of Transport leaflet outlining guides for Councils regarding rising bollards and which City of York Council have appeared to have ignored:- “The system should ensure that bollards cannot rise beneath a vehicle because of the danger this would create. It is better to risk a certain amount of violation by "tailgating" vehicles, rather that put road users at risk.” http://www.dft.gov.u k/pgr/roads/tpm/tal/ signsandsignals/risi ngbollards?page=2
retrorigg
says...
11:43am Fri 19 Mar 10
pedalling paul
says...
11:49am Fri 19 Mar 10
Garrowby Turnoff wrote:You're beginning to sound like a transport professional....? Hmmm! But then some commentators think that I'm a Councillor.....!
As I wrote last year...This is from a Dept of Transport leaflet outlining guides for Councils regarding rising bollards and which City of York Council have appeared to have ignored:- “The system should ensure that bollards cannot rise beneath a vehicle because of the danger this would create. It is better to risk a certain amount of violation by "tailgating" vehicles, rather that put road users at risk.” http://www.dft.gov.u k/pgr/roads/tpm/tal/ signsandsignals/risi ngbollards?page=2
exyork
says...
11:50am Fri 19 Mar 10
Garrowby Turnoff
says...
11:53am Fri 19 Mar 10
AdmiralNN wrote:LOL. I'm still here AdmiralNN. How annoying for you that a senior seaman like yourself has had his bullying opinions challenged.
Garrowby Turnoff wrote: As I wrote last year...shame they remove the comments after a set amount of time cause if my memory serves me correctly you got a real pasting. ' and then your grovelled some BS and disappeared off the boards for a few days. ' Couldnt keep away though eh?This is from a Dept of Transport leaflet outlining guides for Councils regarding rising bollards and which City of York Council have appeared to have ignored:- “The system should ensure that bollards cannot rise beneath a vehicle because of the danger this would create. It is better to risk a certain amount of violation by "tailgating" vehicles, rather that put road users at risk.” http://www.dft.gov.u k/pgr/roads/tpm/tal/ signsandsignals/risi ngbollards?page=2
AdmiralNN
says...
12:08pm Fri 19 Mar 10
Garrowby Turnoff wrote:Retirement must be dull.
AdmiralNN wrote:LOL. I'm still here AdmiralNN. How annoying for you that a senior seaman like yourself has had his bullying opinions challenged.Garrowby Turnoff wrote: As I wrote last year...shame they remove the comments after a set amount of time cause if my memory serves me correctly you got a real pasting. ' and then your grovelled some BS and disappeared off the boards for a few days. ' Couldnt keep away though eh?This is from a Dept of Transport leaflet outlining guides for Councils regarding rising bollards and which City of York Council have appeared to have ignored:- “The system should ensure that bollards cannot rise beneath a vehicle because of the danger this would create. It is better to risk a certain amount of violation by "tailgating" vehicles, rather that put road users at risk.” http://www.dft.gov.u k/pgr/roads/tpm/tal/ signsandsignals/risi ngbollards?page=2
Sandbunny
says...
12:18pm Fri 19 Mar 10
The Grim Reaper
says...
12:25pm Fri 19 Mar 10
pedalling paul wrote:Yes, and some people think you are intelligent. Only some - most know you are not Goody Two Pedals.
Garrowby Turnoff wrote: As I wrote last year...You're beginning to sound like a transport professional....? Hmmm! But then some commentators think that I'm a Councillor.....!This is from a Dept of Transport leaflet outlining guides for Councils regarding rising bollards and which City of York Council have appeared to have ignored:- “The system should ensure that bollards cannot rise beneath a vehicle because of the danger this would create. It is better to risk a certain amount of violation by "tailgating" vehicles, rather that put road users at risk.” http://www.dft.gov.u k/pgr/roads/tpm/tal/ signsandsignals/risi ngbollards?page=2
Fred the Shred
says...
12:32pm Fri 19 Mar 10
Henry Swanson
says...
12:51pm Fri 19 Mar 10
Kynnersley
says...
12:54pm Fri 19 Mar 10
Kynnersley
says...
1:04pm Fri 19 Mar 10
Henry Swanson wrote:You are supposed to learn the Highway Code to pass your test, therefore being only 18 he would have past his test fairly recently and therefore should heve been fully aware of the rules, including wearing a seatbelt, if he'd been wearting one he would not have got those injuries.
I think everyone is being a little harsh here, the poor kid was an inexperienced driver, who obviousley didnt know the rules and ended up by all accounts quite seriousley injured..... whilst I agree that he maybe should have paid more attention to the road signs I dont think its a good thing that this bollard can cause so much damage..... What if it had been a pensioner driving or a parent and chils, would you all be so quick to judge??
Silver
says...
1:08pm Fri 19 Mar 10
Henry Swanson wrote:I'm glad he'll recover but he'll have learnt a lesson. This guy is young and lives in York, I'm still fairly new to the area after only living here for 4 years. I know there's a bollard there and so did he. But if I see a rising bollard I think "If I try to beat it getting back up I'm gonna lose and I'm gonna break my car it's not worth the risk" He obviously thought differently and he's paid the price for that. But he shouldn't have done it. Although it does seem a few people are getting angry. Normally they get annoyed when someone gets away with things but this lad hasn't. There's not much more you can do this kid to make him feel bad. He's hurt himself and wrecked his car, if he doesn't learn from his mistake now then he is an idiot but I think he probably will
I think everyone is being a little harsh here, the poor kid was an inexperienced driver, who obviousley didnt know the rules and ended up by all accounts quite seriousley injured..... whilst I agree that he maybe should have paid more attention to the road signs I dont think its a good thing that this bollard can cause so much damage..... What if it had been a pensioner driving or a parent and chils, would you all be so quick to judge??
YorkCityLuke
says...
1:09pm Fri 19 Mar 10
On the ball York
says...
1:14pm Fri 19 Mar 10
oldgoat
says...
1:15pm Fri 19 Mar 10
Henry Swanson wrote:It's the responsibility of a driver to be aware of road conditions, obey traffic signs, and not produce lame excuses!
I think everyone is being a little harsh here, the poor kid was an inexperienced driver, who obviousley didnt know the rules and ended up by all accounts quite seriousley injured..... whilst I agree that he maybe should have paid more attention to the road signs I dont think its a good thing that this bollard can cause so much damage..... What if it had been a pensioner driving or a parent and chils, would you all be so quick to judge??
Bishlad
says...
1:29pm Fri 19 Mar 10
Canardvert
says...
1:33pm Fri 19 Mar 10
Garrowby Turnoff
says...
1:53pm Fri 19 Mar 10
retrorigg
says...
2:00pm Fri 19 Mar 10
Silver
says...
2:02pm Fri 19 Mar 10
Garrowby Turnoff wrote:But would you drive over that bollard? Cars are expensive and if you make a mistake with them something has to happen. Because some mistakes you can't undo but you can learn from them. Yes he made a mistake but sometimes you have to pay for your mistake.
The punishment doesn't fit the crime - by a mile. £10K damage to vehicles for a driving error is too severe. Everyone makes mistakes, that's why they put erasers on pencils and a ‘delete’ key on your keyboard, but I know of no other driving offense that warrants such criminal damage in punishment. Based on the disregarding of Government guidelines I presented above, I would issue a counter claim for excessive damages.
TheManWithTheFuManchuMoustache
says...
2:16pm Fri 19 Mar 10
Garrowby Turnoff wrote:Ah so it's OK to run over a little old lady on a crossing because you didn't see the the signs - after all it would just be a 'simple driving error' and 'everyone makes mistakes'.
The punishment doesn't fit the crime - by a mile. £10K damage to vehicles for a driving error is too severe. Everyone makes mistakes, that's why they put erasers on pencils and a ‘delete’ key on your keyboard, but I know of no other driving offense that warrants such criminal damage in punishment. Based on the disregarding of Government guidelines I presented above, I would issue a counter claim for excessive damages.
agabbiecabby
says...
2:47pm Fri 19 Mar 10
AngryandFrustrated
says...
2:57pm Fri 19 Mar 10
Garrowby Turnoff wrote:You are being very supportive of him - is he a relation?!!
The punishment doesn't fit the crime - by a mile. £10K damage to vehicles for a driving error is too severe. Everyone makes mistakes, that's why they put erasers on pencils and a ‘delete’ key on your keyboard, but I know of no other driving offense that warrants such criminal damage in punishment. Based on the disregarding of Government guidelines I presented above, I would issue a counter claim for excessive damages.
fenderbassman
says...
3:13pm Fri 19 Mar 10
Henry Swanson
says...
3:14pm Fri 19 Mar 10
Garrowby Turnoff
says...
3:20pm Fri 19 Mar 10
AngryandFrustrated wrote:No relation. He is one of hundreds of similar cases every year who suffer feudal and medieval punishment for a driving error. It is definitely possible to follow an unmarked vehicle with a transmitter aboard across the rising bollard. Lights and signs are often overrun every day in ordinary driving mistakes without car wrecking being the punishment. On average £5K damage is inflicted on these vehicles which compares with fines imposed for drink driving or High Speed motoring offenses endangering innocent lives. I would sue the council if they used a ball and chain to wreck my home if I failed to stop at a red light... wouldn't you?
Garrowby Turnoff wrote: The punishment doesn't fit the crime - by a mile. £10K damage to vehicles for a driving error is too severe. Everyone makes mistakes, that's why they put erasers on pencils and a ‘delete’ key on your keyboard, but I know of no other driving offense that warrants such criminal damage in punishment. Based on the disregarding of Government guidelines I presented above, I would issue a counter claim for excessive damages.You are being very supportive of him - is he a relation?!!
again
says...
3:30pm Fri 19 Mar 10
AdmiralNN
says...
3:39pm Fri 19 Mar 10
I would sue the council if they used a ball and chain to wreck my home if I failed to stop at a red light...
TheManWithTheFuManchuMoustache
says...
3:39pm Fri 19 Mar 10
Garrowby Turnoff wrote:Feudal and medieval punishment?
AngryandFrustrated wrote:No relation. He is one of hundreds of similar cases every year who suffer feudal and medieval punishment for a driving error. It is definitely possible to follow an unmarked vehicle with a transmitter aboard across the rising bollard. Lights and signs are often overrun every day in ordinary driving mistakes without car wrecking being the punishment. On average £5K damage is inflicted on these vehicles which compares with fines imposed for drink driving or High Speed motoring offenses endangering innocent lives. I would sue the council if they used a ball and chain to wreck my home if I failed to stop at a red light... wouldn't you?Garrowby Turnoff wrote: The punishment doesn't fit the crime - by a mile. £10K damage to vehicles for a driving error is too severe. Everyone makes mistakes, that's why they put erasers on pencils and a ‘delete’ key on your keyboard, but I know of no other driving offense that warrants such criminal damage in punishment. Based on the disregarding of Government guidelines I presented above, I would issue a counter claim for excessive damages.You are being very supportive of him - is he a relation?!!
sun seeker's
says...
3:46pm Fri 19 Mar 10
Silver wrote:Maybe thats half the problem? To many signs means that the important ones just get lossed within the "jungle" of, "do this", "don't do that", "turn here", "stop here", "don't stop there"...........
It does have a lot of signs, as a young motorist he was more then likely cocky and regretting it. Even if you know the times I'd avoid the area like the plague, driver error plain and simple although hard way to learn a lesson
AngryandFrustrated
says...
3:48pm Fri 19 Mar 10
Garrowby Turnoff wrote:You are missing the point - the sanction for jumping a red light is not to have your house demolished. However, the sanctions for driving irresponsibly (whether intended or not) can be anything from nothing to wrecking your car and killing someone.
AngryandFrustrated wrote:No relation. He is one of hundreds of similar cases every year who suffer feudal and medieval punishment for a driving error. It is definitely possible to follow an unmarked vehicle with a transmitter aboard across the rising bollard. Lights and signs are often overrun every day in ordinary driving mistakes without car wrecking being the punishment. On average £5K damage is inflicted on these vehicles which compares with fines imposed for drink driving or High Speed motoring offenses endangering innocent lives. I would sue the council if they used a ball and chain to wreck my home if I failed to stop at a red light... wouldn't you?Garrowby Turnoff wrote: The punishment doesn't fit the crime - by a mile. £10K damage to vehicles for a driving error is too severe. Everyone makes mistakes, that's why they put erasers on pencils and a ‘delete’ key on your keyboard, but I know of no other driving offense that warrants such criminal damage in punishment. Based on the disregarding of Government guidelines I presented above, I would issue a counter claim for excessive damages.You are being very supportive of him - is he a relation?!!
kelly80
says...
3:54pm Fri 19 Mar 10
leninwasright
says...
4:38pm Fri 19 Mar 10
Garrowby Turnoff
says...
4:51pm Fri 19 Mar 10
kelly80 wrote:Admit it Kelly, you and the salty seadog are the same person posting under different names...
Hey GTBW I see the admiral has sussed you as well, pity my earlier comment was removed, you really do spout some BS
azz70
says...
4:55pm Fri 19 Mar 10
AdmiralNN
says...
4:59pm Fri 19 Mar 10
Garrowby Turnoff wrote:Yeah, thanks GTBW if all else fails you can always fall back on the old your the same as him, admit it line.
kelly80 wrote: Hey GTBW I see the admiral has sussed you as well, pity my earlier comment was removed, you really do spout some BSAdmit it Kelly, you and the salty seadog are the same person posting under different names... BTW It wasn't a pity.
Garrowby Turnoff
says...
5:00pm Fri 19 Mar 10
AngryandFrustrated
says...
5:06pm Fri 19 Mar 10
Garrowby Turnoff wrote:Consider it done!!!
Right... now... this is the deal. I'll stop posting about medieval rising bollards if you lot will donate £30 to Sport Relief like me:- . https://www.sportrel ief.com/fundraise/ho w-to-pay-your-money- in/pay-in-fundraisin g-online
Caecilius
says...
5:23pm Fri 19 Mar 10
Garrowby Turnoff wrote:It's not a punishment, though, is it? It's simply the consequence of his action. If you decide (for example) to kick a large rock, you may well end up with some broken toes. That won't be because a couple of policemen jump out from behind it and pin you to the ground while one of them smashes your toes with a hammer as a summary punishment; it'll be because the rock is very hard and that's what happens if you're stupid enough to kick it.
AngryandFrustrated wrote:No relation. He is one of hundreds of similar cases every year who suffer feudal and medieval punishment for a driving error. It is definitely possible to follow an unmarked vehicle with a transmitter aboard across the rising bollard. Lights and signs are often overrun every day in ordinary driving mistakes without car wrecking being the punishment. On average £5K damage is inflicted on these vehicles which compares with fines imposed for drink driving or High Speed motoring offenses endangering innocent lives. I would sue the council if they used a ball and chain to wreck my home if I failed to stop at a red light... wouldn't you?Garrowby Turnoff wrote: The punishment doesn't fit the crime - by a mile. £10K damage to vehicles for a driving error is too severe. Everyone makes mistakes, that's why they put erasers on pencils and a ‘delete’ key on your keyboard, but I know of no other driving offense that warrants such criminal damage in punishment. Based on the disregarding of Government guidelines I presented above, I would issue a counter claim for excessive damages.You are being very supportive of him - is he a relation?!!
kelly80
says...
5:24pm Fri 19 Mar 10
Kynnersley
says...
6:24pm Fri 19 Mar 10
azz70 wrote:Well if he does not look where he's ging he deserves to be off the road, making the roads a lot safer.
i happen to known that the rear passenger told me in person that them selfs and the driver were not wearing seat belts and that the driver his friend was not paying attention and was busy looking at his friend in the back seat at the time and had just followed the car infront. this would explain why he never saw the sign, he simply was not looking.
Kynnersley
says...
6:27pm Fri 19 Mar 10
Garrowby Turnoff wrote:A V Reg Astra is worth no where near £10k.
The punishment doesn't fit the crime - by a mile. £10K damage to vehicles for a driving error is too severe. Everyone makes mistakes, that's why they put erasers on pencils and a ‘delete’ key on your keyboard, but I know of no other driving offense that warrants such criminal damage in punishment. Based on the disregarding of Government guidelines I presented above, I would issue a counter claim for excessive damages.
Sawday2
says...
6:58pm Fri 19 Mar 10
Confused
says...
7:32pm Fri 19 Mar 10
Sawday2 wrote:Why even try and bring cyclist into this debate as they are actually allowed past the bollard
Maybe the problem is too many signs. By the time you have read them all you are over the bollard! If car drivers are going to be caught wouldn't it be fair to replace the bollard with a net to catch cyclists as well or is it a case of one law for one...
sundance1970
says...
8:26pm Fri 19 Mar 10
retrorigg wrote:ooooohhhhh i say!!!!!
its his own fault pure and simple, he should not have been there, he should have done what every other non law abiding driver does and avoided the bollard by going thru st saviourgate , its time the police stopped all these selfish drivers usin illegal routes
Mister Sheen
says...
8:36pm Fri 19 Mar 10
Mister Sheen
says...
9:04pm Fri 19 Mar 10
pedalling paul
says...
9:05pm Fri 19 Mar 10
Sawday2 wrote:Tch....tch....tch...
Maybe the problem is too many signs. By the time you have read them all you are over the bollard! If car drivers are going to be caught wouldn't it be fair to replace the bollard with a net to catch cyclists as well or is it a case of one law for one...
yawn..
says...
10:55pm Fri 19 Mar 10
Splat
says...
9:00am Sat 20 Mar 10
Mister Sheen
says...
9:21am Sat 20 Mar 10
Mister Sheen
says...
9:27am Sat 20 Mar 10
Mister Sheen
says...
9:35am Sat 20 Mar 10
AdmiralNN
says...
9:42am Sat 20 Mar 10
kelly80 wrote:Whoa! by all means speak for yourself kelly, but im pretty 'anti' myself. I just think on this story the lad is at fault more than the bollard.
Well GTBW you are so far off the mark, however it does show that two like minded individuals, me and the admiral, can really see you for what you are, anti establishment, anti local government, anti everything that does not fit your 60s throwback backwater world, try for the glass half full approach, you never know you might like it, just don't fill the glass with BS, you don't need a top up, you are full of it already.
sammy07
says...
9:59am Sat 20 Mar 10
Mister Sheen
says...
1:35pm Sat 20 Mar 10
Bogsy
says...
3:37pm Sat 20 Mar 10
sun seeker's
says...
5:18pm Sat 20 Mar 10
Bogsy wrote:I could do with a new car! This sounds better than the "scrappage allowance".
The restriction has not been signed in accordance with the law. The council can be sued for damages. Firstly the council need to have in place a traffic regulation order (TRO) prohibiting motor vehicles from using that stretch of road. If there is no order then the prohbition is unlawful and the bollard is an obstruction of the highway. If there is a TRO prohibiting vehicles then the prohibition needs to be signed in accordance with the law using signs that are prescribed by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directives 2002 (TSRGD 2002). Unfortunately the council has failed in it's statutory duty to sign the no motor vehicles prohibition and bollard hazard in accordance with the law. The prohibition of motor vehicles sign is to diagram 619 of the TSRGD 2002 and so the accompanying plate giving the times of prohibition should be to diagram 620 in the TSRGD 2002. However, the plate used is not a permitted variant of diagram 620 meaning the sign is unlawful as it does not comply with s.64 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 by being prescribed. In addition the triangle danger ahead sign to diagram 562 in the TSRGD 2002 used in Stonebow, is not used in conjunction with a permitted variant of an accompanying sign to diagram 563 in the TSRGD 2002. This again means the hazard is not signed in accordance with the law. Due to these signage failings the injured party has a strong claim for damages and injury. It is important to note that the times given on the unlawful sign only apply to the period the prohibition of motor vehicles applies. There is nothing to indicate the operational times that apply to the rising bollard. If the young lad involved reads this then my advice is to get yourself some legal advice to commence a claim for compensation due to the damage and injuries received.
Lady Muck of NP
says...
6:42pm Sat 20 Mar 10
chillout
says...
9:42am Sun 21 Mar 10
harogut-the-cat
says...
11:10am Sun 21 Mar 10
Kynnersley
says...
2:04pm Sun 21 Mar 10
Lady Muck of NP wrote:The injuries were self inflicted by NOT wearing a seatbelt.
It is highly likely the young male driver ignored any warning regarding the rising bollard, however the punishment should not be a wrecked car or injuries that require hospitalisation. If a person had inflicted the damage and injuries they would no doubt have been arrested.
azz70
says...
2:12pm Sun 21 Mar 10
Mister Sheen
says...
8:17am Mon 22 Mar 10
oldgoat
says...
5:00pm Thu 25 Mar 10
Bogsy wrote:Sorry, what?
The restriction has not been signed in accordance with the law. The council can be sued for damages.
Firstly the council need to have in place a traffic regulation order (TRO) prohibiting motor vehicles from using that stretch of road. If there is no order then the prohbition is unlawful and the bollard is an obstruction of the highway.
If there is a TRO prohibiting vehicles then the prohibition needs to be signed in accordance with the law using signs that are prescribed by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directives 2002 (TSRGD 2002).
Unfortunately the council has failed in it's statutory duty to sign the no motor vehicles prohibition and bollard hazard in accordance with the law.
The prohibition of motor vehicles sign is to diagram 619 of the TSRGD 2002 and so the accompanying plate giving the times of prohibition should be to diagram 620 in the TSRGD 2002. However, the plate used is not a permitted variant of diagram 620 meaning the sign is unlawful as it does not comply with s.64 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 by being prescribed.
In addition the triangle danger ahead sign to diagram 562 in the TSRGD 2002 used in Stonebow, is not used in conjunction with a permitted variant of an accompanying sign to diagram 563 in the TSRGD 2002. This again means the hazard is not signed in accordance with the law.
Due to these signage failings the injured party has a strong claim for damages and injury.
It is important to note that the times given on the unlawful sign only apply to the period the prohibition of motor vehicles applies. There is nothing to indicate the operational times that apply to the rising bollard.
If the young lad involved reads this then my advice is to get yourself some legal advice to commence a claim for compensation due to the damage and injuries received.
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Looking for a new career? Find a job in York and all around North Yorkshire
Search Now »
Love and friendship - find your perfect match.
Search Now »
Find properties for sale and rent in and around York.
Search Now »
Find used vehicles for sale all over Yorkshire and the North.
Search Now »
Zetkin says...
9:18am Fri 19 Mar 10