T&M closure due to car crash

[Emerald]

well according to this news report BW is still alive and kicking.

 

http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/Car-left-dangling-bridge/story-17276753-detail/story.html

[Grace and Favour]

well according to this news report BW is still alive and kicking.

 

http://www.thisisder...tail/story.html

 

What can one expect of a female journalist?

 

 

 

 

 

 

(coat!)

[Ray T]

At the talk some of us went to at Hatton Monday, Vince Moran mentioned the costs that hit and run motorists cause to the canal bridges.

 

He also said that Pewsley Bridge on the K & A had been hit so many times that CRT had put up a CCTV camera to catch the culprits.

 

At least with this damage CRT can reclaim repair costs from the drivers insurance, assuming they were insured.

 

As far as calling CRT, BW, I worked for GPO / Post Office Telephones / BT my whole working career. Some 20 years after GPO ceased to exist when I called on clients / customers I still got introduced as "The man from the GPO".

Edited November 9, 2012 by Ray T

[furnessvale]

As far as calling CRT, BW, I worked for GPO / Post Office Telephones / BT my whole working career. Some 20 years after GPO ceased to exist when I called on clients / customers I still got introduced as "The man from the GPO".

 

The GPO was a trusted reputable brand. As for BW............can someone remind me who or what were they?

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[alan_fincher]

The GPO was a trusted reputable brand.

Care to remind us back in some of the days of GPO/Post Office Telephones just how many months you had to wait to get a phone installed.

 

Or about the joys of sharing "Party" lines, because the network consistently had no capacity for growth.

 

Or when the engineers cabled all the way up to the phone outlet as a weekday job, leaving the junction box at the end, but then "ran out of time", and booked a full Saturday morning's overtime to come and do the 2 minute job of actually fitting the phone to the end of it........

 

Yes, the "good old days" with a "reputable brand" were always better, weren't they ?.......

[ditchcrawler]

Care to remind us back in some of the days of GPO/Post Office Telephones just how many months you had to wait to get a phone installed.

 

Or about the joys of sharing "Party" lines, because the network consistently had no capacity for growth.

 

Or when the engineers cabled all the way up to the phone outlet as a weekday job, leaving the junction box at the end, but then "ran out of time", and booked a full Saturday morning's overtime to come and do the 2 minute job of actually fitting the phone to the end of it........

 

Yes, the "good old days" with a "reputable brand" were always better, weren't they ?.......

I think you summed that up quite well

[George94]

Surely the cost of bridge repairs caused by bad driving should be paid for by the organisation responsible for the road.

[mrsmelly]

Surely the cost of bridge repairs caused by bad driving should be paid for by the organisation responsible for the road.

 

That would make sense, so obviously not the way things are done.

 

Tim

[PaulD]

Surely the cost of bridge repairs caused by bad driving should be paid for by the organisation responsible for the road.

 

Surely the cost of bridge repairs caused by bad driving should be paid for by the organisation responsible for the road the driver.

 

Paul

Edited November 10, 2012 by PaulD

[steven wilkinson]

Surely the cost of bridge repairs caused by bad driving should be paid for by the organisation responsible for the road the driver.

 

Paul

 

Too right! I pay enough to drive my car - and get very little in return (relatively) - without having to get even less in order for 'the council' to pay for halfwits that knock down walls and such like!

 

you knock it down - you pay to put it back up again!

[George94]

Surely the cost of bridge repairs caused by bad driving should be paid for by the organisation responsible for the road the driver.

 

Paul

 

Indeed. But, but it should be for the Highway authority to repair the damage and claim from the driver.

[carlt]

Surely the cost of bridge repairs caused by bad driving should be paid for by the organisation responsible for the road.

When I was a Highways Engineer this was a question raised frequently.

 

The Highway authority is responsible for the maintenance of the road (usually but not always the case) but not the bits that are required for navigation.

 

The road would work just as well if the waterway was filled in or culverted so if the navigation wants the waterway to be navigable (without contravening the Highways Act) then they have to fund the difference.

 

 

The situation is often different when the bridge crosses a waterway with a right of navigation.

 

Indeed. But, but it should be for the Highway authority to repair the damage and claim from the driver.

Why?

 

The bridge is there for the convenience of the waterway, not the Public Highway.

[RLWP]

Surely the cost of bridge repairs caused by bad driving should be paid for by the organisation responsible for the road.

 

This came up at the CRT meeting I went to. As Vince Moran said, CRT recovers costs from the driver's insurers - but people don't leave their details. They have now installed a CCTV camera on one bridge that gets regular strikes to gather registration numbers.

 

Richard

[steven wilkinson]

is the general rule of thumb (there are bound to be exceptions though) the bridge is the responsibility of what goes OVER the bridge, not under it?

[carlt]

is the general rule of thumb (there are bound to be exceptions though) the bridge is the responsibility of what goes OVER the bridge, not under it?

No, see my earlier post.

[furnessvale]

I think you summed that up quite well

 

Oh dear. I knew I should have used a smiley or different wording. My dig at BW has turned out to be praise of the GPO. Never mind, better luck next time.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Oh dear. I knew I should have used a smiley or different wording. My dig at BW has turned out to be praise of the GPO. Never mind, better luck next time.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

 

An IWA FOI request found that BW needed to spend £3.3 million a year (2010/11) keeping its bridges in the current state of repair but it was spending well under half that.

 

I can't really see why the situation with 'hit and runs' is any different under CaRT to that which existed under BW.

Edited November 10, 2012 by Allan(nb Albert)

[matty40s]

The road in question only has a slight bend where the bridge is, and there was no frost or fog when the accident happened.

I would say that the costs would be paid by the drivers insurance co.

[steven wilkinson]

No, see my earlier post.

 

I knew there would be an exception somewhere!

[carlt]

I knew there would be an exception somewhere!

It's not an exception it is the general rule that if a bridge goes over (or under) a highway then the highway authority is only responsible for maintaining the road surface unless there is a statutory right of navigation and then it becomes a bit murkier.

Edited November 10, 2012 by carlt

[steven wilkinson]

thats what I said! (apart from the navigation bit - which you clarified! Thank you )

[carlt]

thats what I said! (apart from the navigation bit - which you clarified! Thank you )

Sorry my post wasn't clear so I've edited it.

 

Over or under doesn't matter, the responsibility for the maintenance of the bridge is generally not the responsibility of the highway authority.

 

If a road goes over a canal then the waterway authority has a statutory obligation to maintain the structure in a condition that will enable the highway authority to put a road on it.

[NBDensie]

Sorry my post wasn't clear so I've edited it.

 

Over or under doesn't matter, the responsibility for the maintenance of the bridge is generally not the responsibility of the highway authority.

 

If a road goes over a canal then the waterway authority has a statutory obligation to maintain the structure in a condition that will enable the highway authority to put a road on it.

 

I have no reason to doubt that that is the legal case, however the argument for it seems a little weak. After all as a boater its no concern of mine whether traffic can get from one side of the canal to the other so the bridge is as much if not more for the convenience of the road user. Perhaps right of passage trumps right of navigation.

 

But surely there must be some limit to this obligation. I assume that CART arent responsible for maintaining the 6 lane motorway fly-overs that happen to cross a canal. What about other major road bridges? And railway bridges? Also I seem to remember there was a problem with bridges built for farmers' use. These may be the responsibility of the landowner, though it may well be a little difficult to get them to pay.

[furnessvale]

I have no reason to doubt that that is the legal case, however the argument for it seems a little weak. After all as a boater its no concern of mine whether traffic can get from one side of the canal to the other so the bridge is as much if not more for the convenience of the road user. Perhaps right of passage trumps right of navigation.

 

But surely there must be some limit to this obligation. I assume that CART arent responsible for maintaining the 6 lane motorway fly-overs that happen to cross a canal. What about other major road bridges? And railway bridges? Also I seem to remember there was a problem with bridges built for farmers' use. These may be the responsibility of the landowner, though it may well be a little difficult to get them to pay.

In simple terms, who was there first comes into play.

 

If the road was there before the canal or railway then it is reasonable that the newcomer has to pay for, and maintain, his crossing. Therefore, a new road crossing an existing canal will pay. Likewise a new canal crossing an existing road will pay, even if that "new" canal was built in 1790.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

Edited November 10, 2012 by furnessvale

[Mike Todd]

When I was a Highways Engineer this was a question raised frequently.

 

The Highway authority is responsible for the maintenance of the road (usually but not always the case) but not the bits that are required for navigation.

 

The road would work just as well if the waterway was filled in or culverted so if the navigation wants the waterway to be navigable (without contravening the Highways Act) then they have to fund the difference.

 

 

The situation is often different when the bridge crosses a waterway with a right of navigation.

 

 

Why?

 

The bridge is there for the convenience of the waterway, not the Public Highway.

 

I think you will find that in most cases the waterway was there before the road