Bow Wave

[Jen-in-Wellies]

When on the water you should never create a breaking wave.

Tenbury Wells High St during the floods this weekend. Slow down when passing moored buildings.

 

[MtB]

And more mesmerising video footage from Rufford ford (and other fords):

 

 

[IanD]

5 hours ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

When on the water you should never create a breaking wave.

Tenbury Wells High St during the floods this weekend. Slow down when passing moored buildings.

 

The tractor driver has now been arrested...

[Secret Garden]

Happens with drivers from many walks of life I'm afraid. in the village where I live (Crawley Oxfordshire), only yesterday before the road was eventually closed drivers were enjoying their bow waves not caring at the residents standing next to them trying to keep the surges they caused out of houses...

I enjoy the moments most when that expensive bang happens as they hydro-lock the engine.

Other simply wet the electrics and then ask for a push from those in wellies, unbelievable.

[Graham Davis]

As mentioned in the other thread that mentions this incident, the tractor driver has now been identified and arrested.

[LadyG]

12 hours ago, MtB said:

And more mesmerising video footage from Rufford ford (and other fords):

 

 

Vital journey, empty crates,,,.?

[blackrose]

13 hours ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

When on the water you should never create a breaking wave.

Tenbury Wells High St during the floods this weekend. Slow down when passing moored buildings.

 

 

And these are the farmers who seek public support for continuing to avoid inheritance tax that everyone else has to pay? 

 

Even if the tractor driver was an employee rather then the landowner it's still the employer's responsibility to ensure their drivers behave responsibly on public roads.

 

 

[Jen-in-Wellies]

7 minutes ago, blackrose said:

 

And these are the farmers who seek public support for continuing to avoid inheritance tax that everyone else has to pay? 

 

Even if the tractor driver was an employee rather then the landowner it's still the employer's responsibility to ensure their drivers behave responsibly on public roads.

 

 

Tenbury's not a big place. It will be well known who the tractor driver is by now. He won't be able to show his face for a long time, regardless of the legal repercussions.

[Stroudwater1]

28 minutes ago, blackrose said:

 

 

Even if the tractor driver was an employee rather then the landowner it's still the employer's responsibility to ensure their drivers behave responsibly on public roads.

 

 

Eh? I asked my boss if she could accept responsible for my speeding ticket on my way to see someone on work business but for some strange reason she declined. 
 

It’s surely the employees/drivers responsibility here unless some strange contractural oddity exists defining specific responsibilities which I would be surprised exists.

However I suspect the prosecution authorities will struggle to prove damage was caused by the tractor despite the wave created. The driver may admit it though which is possibly their best hope.

 

[matty40s]

3 minutes ago, Stroudwater1 said:

 

However I suspect the prosecution authorities will struggle to prove damage was caused by the tractor despite the wave created. The driver may admit it though which is possibly their best hope.

 

It may not, there is plenty of In-shop CCTV that shows exactly when and how the damage is caused to the shops....you can see the wave coming on an few, then the tractor as the windows cave in, or doors blast open.

[Momac]

1 hour ago, blackrose said:

Even if the tractor driver was an employee rather then the landowner it's still the employer's responsibility to ensure their drivers behave responsibly on public roads.

This is not correct.

It is  always 100% the drivers responsibility. 

[haggis]

Sorry as this may be entering in to the politics area but as a country person and a farmers daughter, I must speak out about the comments being made on the forum about farmers inheritance tax.

On the face of it, it may look like farmers are being treated leniently compared with others but perhaps the following should be considered.

When you take into account the cost of land, farm buildings, machinery and livestock, many farms will be valued at well over a £1m. However, the money the farm makes is often well below £10k per annum and this is to run the farm as well as supporting the farmer and his family. If inheritance tax has to be paid at 20% of the value above £1m, the only way this can be paid is by selling the farm and if this happens a lot, the ability of this country to produce its own food gets even lower.

On the other hand you get the wealthy people who buy farms to reduce inheritance tax but they seldom use the farm to contribute to the nations food needs. I agree that they should pay the "normal" inheritance rates. 

[Mike Todd]

12 hours ago, Momac said:

This is not correct.

It is  always 100% the drivers responsibility. 

The two are not mutually exclusive. 

 

Employers always have a duty to take reasonable care to ensure the welfare of employees and third parties they deal with in the course of their work. At the same time, employees remain responsible for their actions (not just driving, but especially so as specific legislation covers that))

 

This duality (generally a concept that causes many people difficulty!) does help to expand legal costs when that comes into consideration, especially if someone is seeking redress. It has also been argued that it is why so few companies, and their controlling boards and executives, are held criminally responsible - see Grenfell Tower enquiry, for example. (In that case, the culpability consideration has spread much wider than the narrow one of employer/employee to include suppliers and commissioners, such as the Local Authority that created a context in which cutting corners was encouraged)

[Momac]

26 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

The two are not mutually exclusive. 

 

Employers always have a duty to take reasonable care to ensure the welfare of employees and third parties they deal with in the course of their work. At the same time, employees remain responsible for their actions (not just driving, but especially so as specific legislation covers that))

 

This duality (generally a concept that causes many people difficulty!) does help to expand legal costs when that comes into consideration, especially if someone is seeking redress. It has also been argued that it is why so few companies, and their controlling boards and executives, are held criminally responsible - see Grenfell Tower enquiry, for example. (In that case, the culpability consideration has spread much wider than the narrow one of employer/employee to include suppliers and commissioners, such as the Local Authority that created a context in which cutting corners was encouraged)

To avoid over complication the subject should be kept to driving on the road. 

[junior]

On 26/11/2024 at 21:34, Stroudwater1 said:

 

However I suspect the prosecution authorities will struggle to prove damage was caused by the tractor despite the wave created. The driver may admit it though which is possibly their best hope.

 

I don't know what he or she has been arrested for, but that footage alone should be enough to charge with Dangerous or Careless Driving. That's a state based offence and there would be no need to prove any damage was caused.

[NarrowboatTor]

The driver of the tractor stated they were attempting to get to a child in danger trapped in the floods.

No damage was intended and they are extremely sorry if it was caused (according to more reports on the matter).

[IanD]

23 minutes ago, NarrowboatTor said:

The driver of the tractor stated they were attempting to get to a child in danger trapped in the floods.

No damage was intended and they are extremely sorry if it was caused (according to more reports on the matter).

Two sides to every story, as so often the case. Whether this is true or just an excuse to try and wriggle out of being blamed remains to be seen -- either way an insurance claim for damages against the driver seems likely, let's hope they were covered...

[NarrowboatTor]

Whether it's true or not is a good question although the urgency of driving appears to be someone under duress and close to panic, not joyriding through a village for the hell of it, always two sides to a story as you say.

Should it be true a human life is usually worth a touch more than a shop front.

[IanD]

34 minutes ago, NarrowboatTor said:

Whether it's true or not is a good question although the urgency of driving appears to be someone under duress and close to panic, not joyriding through a village for the hell of it, always two sides to a story as you say.

Should it be true a human life is usually worth a touch more than a shop front.

And the police and courts usually recognise this, so he would very likely not be prosecuted -- and if he was there would be a public outcry... 🙂

 

Insurance companies are however famously insensitive to reasoning like this, it's all about the money... 😞 

[Ronaldo47]

23 hours ago, IanD said:

And the police and courts usually recognise this, so he would very likely not be prosecuted -- and if he was there would be a public outcry... 🙂

 

Insurance companies are however famously insensitive to reasoning like this, it's all about the money... 😞 

On the other hand, it appears that drivers who enter restricted areas such as bus lanes to allow an ambulance or fire engine to pass, have been fined. My understanding, from stories in the press, is that the only circumstances under which such transgressions, or ignoring a red traffic light, are excusable, are when  under the instruction of a police officer in uniform. Uniformed firemen and ambulance crew don't count.

Edited Friday at 14:11 by Ronaldo47
Typos

[Graham Davis]

33 minutes ago, Ronaldo47 said:

On the other hand, it appears that drivers who enter restricted areas such as bus lanes to allow an ambulance or fire engine to pass, have been fined. My understanding, from stories in the press, is that the only circumstances under which such transgressions, or ignoring a red traffic light, are excusable, are when  under the instruction of a police officer in uniform. Uniformed firemen and ambulance crew don't count.

Correct!

In respect of the tractor driver, he had ignored official Road Closure Notices on the road into Tenbury, so a prosecution can be made because of that aswell as for the damage he has caused.

[ian Papworth]

Just a farmer making waves.....again

[magpie patrick]

3 hours ago, Ronaldo47 said:

On the other hand, it appears that drivers who enter restricted areas such as bus lanes to allow an ambulance or fire engine to pass, have been fined. 

 

This is partly the result of automated enforcement. A police officer seeing you move into a bus lane to let an ambulance with blue lights on go past is unlikely to book you. The camera does catch you and now it's your job to justify your actions. Automated enforcement has many benefits but it does take reason out of the equation. 

[Jim Riley]

Tenbury is sooo down market and passe these days dahlings, us cognoscenti prefer Elevenbury. 

Edited Friday at 18:02 by Jim Riley

[Mike Tee]

I don't understand why the ambulance or fire truck (presumably on blue lights) wasn't itself in the bus lane. That makes far more sense.