Legal position regarding speed ramps on a private road

a_ominous

I travel this road on occasions, still a private road, according to council who also say as such it has no speed limits, but that's a different matter.

The road initially had no ramps, for 2 years, IIRC. Road was closed for 2 weeks to put up these ramps. From what I understand from Irish Statute Books the ramps are not legal on several counts which the county council seem to be ignoring. So anything I can do to push this?

L1011

If its a private road those regs won't apply.

The majority of councils in Ireland don't obey those regulations at all with their own ramps either, unfortunately.

Tow

a_ominous wrote: »

So anything I can do to push this?

Its a laugh.

There are ramps on a road in Tallaght which a driver went over them and hit his head off the car roof. To cut a long story short the ramps were proved not to meet the councils own specs and the driver got a couple of hundred thousand compo. The council to this never bothered to fix the ramps afterwards...

TheChrisD

That's the Adamstown Link road, isn't it?

a_ominous

TheChrisD wrote: »

That's the Adamstown Link road, isn't it?

Yup.

I know a lot of ramps are in a cr@p state since the bad winter of 2010 and very little done to fix them. I suppose once people start suing the councils for damage to themselves or their cars, they won't pay attention. When roads are there, they have to maintain the things. Road tax boycott anyone? Nah.

101sean

It's unbelievable the places they put ramps here, I used to design traffic calming schemes in the UK and you'd never get away with what gets put in here.

Alternatives need to be looked at as ramps cause damage to suspension and tyres, increase pollution, slow emergency vehicles and cause damage to adjacent properties.

monument

Here's the crossing before the ramps were put in:



Why was the ramp (or more correctly "pedestrian table" or "speed table") put in?

And why is there a footpath for nearly 1.5km along a railway line when there's crossing at both ends? It's a perfect example of why separated bus lanes and general traffic lanes should have been used. For example for this section along the railway you'd have:

wide footpath | two-way cycle track | two-way busway | two-way road (no crossings on the general road but Luas-link pedestrian crossing between the footpaths and the bus stops)

a_ominous wrote: »

From what I understand from Irish Statute Books the ramps are not legal on several counts...

What is a ramp?

ROAD TRAFFIC (BOLLARDS AND RAMPS) REGULATIONS, 1988.
...
"the Act" means the Road Traffic Act, 1961 (No. 24 of 1961);
...

"ramp" has the meaning assigned to it by section 101 A of the Act;

And, so, let's follow that up...

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT, 1961.

101. Provision of car parks by local authorities.

Nothing in that section about ramps and nothing comes up with in a search for ramps. I'm open to correction on any of the above, but if it is not defined it's not covered.

nompere

You're looking at Section 101 - but the reference is to Section 101A. It's a separate section, subsequently inserted into the original legislation.

monument

nompere wrote: »

You're looking at Section 101 - but the reference is to Section 101A. It's a separate section, subsequently inserted into the original legislation.

Oh dear god, I see what they done -- just renorforces the idea that the road traffic acts need cleaning up and consolidation. Anyway...

Section 101a defines a ramp as: "‘ramp’ means an artificial hump in or on the surface of a roadway;"

Going by that it could be easily said that "speed tables" are not under law "ramps" - a hump draws more of an image of a normal speed ramp... and general definitions of humps as being "rounded" does not fully fit with speed tables which by their nature are mostly flat.

But there's no need to get into such a legalistic argument! Section 38 of the 1994 Road Traffic Act supersedes and outranks the older regulations (again road traffic acts and regs are a bloody maze): http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1994/en/act/pub/0007/sec0038.html#sec38

There is a bit of spring cleaning planned, according to the minister this year, the regulations linked to by the op are in the process of being revoked: http://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2012-06-19.2583.0

But to be clear, even before the old regs are revoked, an act adopted by the Dail superses and outranks regulations set by a minister.

foggy_lad

If I lived in the area and had children i would be delighted to see speed ramps being placed there to stop people using it as a race track just because they see it as having no speed limit!

SLOW DOWN and the speed hump/bump/ramp wont be a problem for you!

average_runner

a_ominous wrote: »

Yup.

I know a lot of ramps are in a cr@p state since the bad winter of 2010 and very little done to fix them. I suppose once people start suing the councils for damage to themselves or their cars, they won't pay attention. When roads are there, they have to maintain the things. Road tax boycott anyone? Nah.

I live close to that road and the ramps are a great addition to that road.

Cars are constantly doing over a 100k on that road before the ramps, the road is expose to an entrance from the park where alot of kids play also.

Also late at night cars used to race on that road.


Hopefully they put some on Griffeen Avenue next to slow down the cars.

I also drive pn both roads.

average_runner

101sean wrote: »

It's unbelievable the places they put ramps here, I used to design traffic calming schemes in the UK and you'd never get away with what gets put in here.

Alternatives need to be looked at as ramps cause damage to suspension and tyres, increase pollution, slow emergency vehicles and cause damage to adjacent properties.

Just drive over at the proper speed and you be grand, they arent bad ramps. Better than the real small hard ones.

Tarabuses

MYOB wrote: »

If its a private road those regs won't apply.

The majority of councils in Ireland don't obey those regulations at all with their own ramps either, unfortunately.

I like the regulation that says "have a maximum height at the centre above the road surface of 10 centimetres". I don't think I've ever seen a ramp with a minimum height of 10 centimetres and some of the mountains I have encountered are horrendous.

seamus

a_ominous wrote: »

I know a lot of ramps are in a cr@p state since the bad winter of 2010 and very little done to fix them. I suppose once people start suing the councils for damage to themselves or their cars, they won't pay attention.

Any attempt to sue would fail. Failure to maintain roads or road furniture is not actionable under tort and so the council would not be required to pay any compensation for damage as a result of roads/ramps which have fallen into disrepair.

It's a well-trodden path in tort law - doing nothing is not the same as doing something wrong. You can only sue under tort is someone has done something wrong.

The issue of ramps after the 2010 winter was a bit of a kick in the teeth - councils spent chunks of their budgets during the Celtic tiger eras ripping up tarmac speed bumps and replacing them with the more expensive and less resilient red-brick speed bumps, presumably to try and add a degree of class to an area.
Then after we run out of money, the weather comes along and destroys them. The councils can't afford to repair or replace them.

L1011

Tarabuses wrote: »

I like the regulation that says "have a maximum height at the centre above the road surface of 10 centimetres". I don't think I've ever seen a ramp with a minimum height of 10 centimetres and some of the mountains I have encountered are horrendous.

The main one flouted is probably the bus route one - I've rarely seen ramps put on a road that's NOT a bus route. There's, from memory, two ramps in all of Maynooth that aren't on bus routes; every other single one is...

monument

MYOB wrote: »

The main one flouted is probably the bus route one - I've rarely seen ramps put on a road that's NOT a bus route. There's, from memory, two ramps in all of Maynooth that aren't on bus routes; every other single one is...

As said already the SI enacted by a minister has been superseded by an act enacted by the Dail:

Road Traffic Act, 1994

Traffic calming measures.

38.—(1) A road authority may, in the interest of the safety and convenience of road users, provide such traffic calming measures as they consider desirable in respect of public roads in their charge.

(2) A road authority may remove any traffic calming measures provided by them under this section.

(3) Before providing or removing traffic calming measures under this section of such class or classes as may be prescribed, a road authority shall—

(a) consult with the Commissioner;

(b) publish a notice in one or more newspapers circulating in the functional area of the authority—

(i) indicating that it is proposed to provide or remove the measures, and

(ii) stating that representations in relation to the proposal may be made in writing to the road authority before a specified date (which shall be not less than one month after the publication of the notice);

(c) consider any observations made by the Commissioner or any representations made pursuant to paragraph (b) (ii).

(4) The making of a decision to provide or remove traffic calming measures of a class prescribed under subsection (3) and the consideration of observations or representations under paragraph (c) of that subsection shall be reserved functions.

(5) Traffic calming measures shall not be provided or removed in respect of a national road without the prior consent of the National Roads Authority.

(6) The Minister may issue general guidelines to road authorities relating to traffic calming measures under this section and may amend or cancel any such guidelines and, where any such guidelines are, for the time being, in force, road authorities shall have regard to such guidelines when performing functions under this section.

(7) A traffic calming measure provided under this section shall be deemed to be a structure forming part of the public road concerned and necessary for the safety of road users.

(8) (a) A person who, without lawful authority, removes or damages or attempts to remove or damage a traffic calming measure provided under this section shall be guilty of an offence.

(b) An offence under this subsection may be prosecuted by the road authority in whose functional area the acts constituting the offence were done.

(9) In this section—

“provide” includes erect or place, maintain and (in the case of an instrument for giving signals by mechanical means) operate and cognate words shall be construed accordingly; and

“traffic calming measures” means measures which restrict or control the speed or movement of, or which prevent, restrict or control access to a public road or roads by, mechanically propelled vehicles (whether generally or of a particular class) and measures which facilitate the safe use of public roads by different classes of traffic (including pedestrians and cyclists) and includes the provision of traffic signs, road markings, bollards, posts, poles, chicanes, rumble areas, raised, lowered or modified road surfaces, ramps, speed cushions, speed tables or other similar works or devices, islands or central reservations, roundabouts, modified junctions, works to reduce or modify the width of the roadway and landscaping, planting or other similar works.

L1011

monument wrote: »

As said already the SI enacted by a minister has been superseded by an act enacted by the Dail:

In that case, the ramps on the link road in my estate are still illegal as they definitely never published any notice before slapping them in. Under the 88 spec they were too short, too high, on a bus route and one of them was beside a culvert; just as well I didn't try and challenge under them... they're fairly ineffective and non-irritant though; unlike some others in the town.

KCC appear to see the notification provisions of all road traffic laws as optional - many of their special speed limits are invalid as a result.