Could the Roads Authority be sued for putting a dangerous barrier on a road?

DubVelo

OK, point of interest really;

I was driving down a road the other day that had those steel cable & metal post barriers all down the centre line. This was in a 100 km/h zone and my first thought was 'Jaysus, if you came off on a motorbike and slid into that, the results would just be horrific'. Fairly narrow lane too, it's got to be the most dangerous looking bit of straight road I've ever seen.

It turns out these things are now banned in several European countries. You only need common sense to see virtually any accident involving a motorcycle would most likely result in fatal or life-changing injuries and of course studies back this up.

So, the barriers are designed to make the road a bit safer for cars, but make it horrifically more dangerous for someone using a bike.
Supposing someone on a motorcycle was badly injured, could they take a case against the NRA or the county council for installing a hazardous obstacle? How about against the manufacturer of the barrier?

gctest50

They need to be visited by an wire cutter repeatedly

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCn6_Ouj64Q

Pro Hoc Vice

DubVelo wrote: »

OK, point of interest really;

I was driving down a road the other day that had those steel cable & metal post barriers all down the centre line. This was in a 100 km/h zone and my first thought was 'Jaysus, if you came off on a motorbike and slid into that, the results would just be horrific'. Fairly narrow lane too, it's got to be the most dangerous looking bit of straight road I've ever seen.

It turns out these things are now banned in several European countries. You only need common sense to see virtually any accident involving a motorcycle would most likely result in fatal or life-changing injuries and of course studies back this up.

So, the barriers are designed to make the road a bit safer for cars, but make it horrifically more dangerous for someone using a bike.
Supposing someone on a motorcycle was badly injured, could they take a case against the NRA or the county council for installing a hazardous obstacle? How about against the manufacturer of the barrier?

Simple answer yes, and I know of at least one case.

Victor

gctest50 wrote: »

They need to be visited by an wire cutter repeatedly

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCn6_Ouj64Q

I suspect that might no be in compliance with the manufactures instructions and the angle is greater than the angle that a vehicle would strike the barrier at.

godtabh

Victor wrote: »

I suspect that might no be in compliance with the manufactures instructions and the angle is greater than the angle that a vehicle would strike the barrier at.

As fat as I can remember the design angle is 45 degrees to the plane of the crash barrier. Its been a while.

The crash barrier is designed to absorb the energy of a crash. The barriers in question are meant to be tensioned which is then released on impact.

They are lethal for motorbikes.

conorh91

Victor wrote: »

I suspect that might no be in compliance with the manufactures instructions and the angle is greater than the angle that a vehicle would strike the barrier at.

isn't the State/ roads authority effectively immune from suit regarding negligence (failure to maintain the road) and wouldn't non-compliance with manufacturers instructions come under that category?

Pro Hoc Vice

conorh91 wrote: »

isn't the State/ roads authority effectively immune from suit regarding negligence (failure to maintain the road) and wouldn't non-compliance with manufacturers instructions come under that category?

No.

conorh91

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

No.

no to which?

gctest50

Victor wrote: »

I suspect that might no be in compliance with the manufactures instructions and the angle is greater than the angle that a vehicle would strike the barrier at.

Things don't always comply with manufacturers instructions though

AN elderly couple had a lucky escape when their car ricocheted off a wall, went backwards over a 10-foot drop and flipped into a river.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/elderly-couples-miracle-escape-from-car-plunge-30403509.html

godtabh wrote: »

They are lethal for motorbikes.

For sure - wasn't there something about a load of the cable barriers being installed just before it became illegal to put in any more ?

.

Santa Cruz

conorh91 wrote: »

isn't the State/ roads authority effectively immune from suit regarding negligence (failure to maintain the road) and wouldn't non-compliance with manufacturers instructions come under that category?

They have no such immunity. However in the event of an accident I would get an engineer out to assess the roadway/fittings as soon as possible

Pro Hoc Vice

conorh91 wrote: »

no to which?

The NRA can be sued and not following the manufactures guidelines would be a ground to find negligence.

conorh91

Santa Cruz wrote: »

They have no such immunity.

I did say effectively immune, by which I simply mean a high degree of protection from suit in respect of maintenance that would not usually be the case in other countries.

godtabh

gctest50 wrote: »

Things don't always comply with manufacturers instructions though

Completely different situation. That is a 100 (at least) year old bridge. I didnt have manufacturers instructions!

Also unlikely that is within the NRAs scope. More likely Roscommon County Council.

Most (if not all) LA have bridge inspection schedules. Some are better than others. Some use a probabilistic approach to upgrades that is based on a factor determined by the probability of something happening and consequence of that happening.

Pro Hoc Vice

conorh91 wrote: »

I did say effectively immune, by which I simply mean a high degree of protection from suit in respect of maintenance that would not usually be the case in other countries.

Sort of in that normal wear and tear may not be negligent. As you said effectively immune from negligence, a properly constructed road wearing away is not negligent.

conorh91

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Sort of in that normal wear and tear may not be negligent. As you said effectively immune from negligence, a properly constructed road wearing away is not negligent.

In the uk and elsewhere, a standard test for negligence arises.

In Ireland, you have to instead show misfeasance if you want to sue the NRA for not doing its job in maintaining the road. Misfeasance is a much higher burden to overcome, of course, and totally exceptional.

edit

my understanding wasn't quite right, this is the situation in ireland...

“[Any such authority is] liable in damages for injuries suffered by a road user if they have been negligent in doing repairs or in interfering with the  road. They are not liable for injuries suffered or caused by the want of repair of a  road. This is the familiar distinction-they are liable for mis-feasance but not for nonfeasance.”

(Kelly v. Mayo County Council [1964] I.R. 315)

Pro Hoc Vice

conorh91 wrote: »

In the uk and elsewhere, a standard test for negligence arises.

In Ireland, you have to instead show misfeasance if you want to sue the NRA for not doing its job in maintaining the road. Misfeasance is a much higher burden to overcome, of course, and totally exceptional.

edit

my understanding wasn't quite right, this is the situation in ireland...

“[Any such authority is] liable in damages for injuries suffered by a road user if they have been negligent in doing repairs or in interfering with the  road. They are not liable for injuries suffered or caused by the want of repair of a  road. This is the familiar distinction-they are liable for mis-feasance but not for nonfeasance.”

(Kelly v. Mayo County Council [1964] I.R. 315)

Is that not exactly what I said.

Pat Mustard

DubVelo wrote: »

I was driving down a road the other day that had those steel cable & metal post barriers all down the centre line. This was in a 100 km/h zone and my first thought was 'Jaysus, if you came off on a motorbike and slid into that, the results would just be horrific'. Fairly narrow lane too, it's got to be the most dangerous looking bit of straight road I've ever seen.

It turns out these things are now banned in several European countries. You only need common sense to see virtually any accident involving a motorcycle would most likely result in fatal or life-changing injuries and of course studies back this up.

Some time back, I mentioned these barriers to an engineer involved in this line of business.

He was of the opinion that if barriers are required, even though these types of barriers can cause horrific injuries to motorcyclists, that the barriers are not necessarily inappropriate, depending on how and where used. He gave an example of solid concrete barriers being used, which would be more likely to result in fatal injuries, but less likely to result in personal injury litigation.

It seems that these post and cable barriers are not killing motorcyclists to the same extent, whereas other barriers are killing more of them.

conorh91

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Is that not exactly what I said.

Sorry yes, it just wasn't clear to me if the misfeasance/ nonfeasance distinction was specifically your understanding too, or whether you were applying the tort of negligence as it applies elsewhere. I can see now we're in agreement.

I assume this 'immunity' is why the NRA doesn't experience the litigation directed at its UK counterparts, I just thought other people, who were not aware, might be interested in this corios in our laws.

Victor

conorh91 wrote: »

I assume this 'immunity' is why the NRA doesn't experience the litigation directed at its UK counterparts, I just thought other people, who were not aware, might be interested in this corios in our laws.

The councils own the roads, not the NRA, hence the NRA would rarely be sued.

conorh91

Victor wrote: »

The councils own the roads, not the NRA, hence the NRA would rarely be sued.

It's not aquestion of ownership so much as duty of care.

This immunity, insofar as it can be decribed as such, applies to councils as well, emanating from the time of the Grand Juries in Ireland.

Greenmachine

They had those on the m50 at one stage. It was either when they were adding the last few kilometres in either direction or during the widening phase.

DubVelo

The Mustard wrote: »

Some time back, I mentioned these barriers to an engineer involved in this line of business.

He was of the opinion that if barriers are required, even though these types of barriers can cause horrific injuries to motorcyclists, that the barriers are not necessarily inappropriate, depending on how and where used. He gave an example of solid concrete barriers being used, which would be more likely to result in fatal injuries, but less likely to result in personal injury litigation.

It seems that these post and cable barriers are not killing motorcyclists to the same extent, whereas other barriers are killing more of them.

I'd much rather slide along a nice smooth concrete barrier than have my limbs sliced off by sharp metal posts.

I've been reading some stuff by the European Road Assessment Programme, I don't think yer man's opinion matches up with reality. Certainly no one in his family rides.

A couple of quotes;
They mention some figures from the US:

From 2000-
2005, the number of car occupants fatally injured in guardrail
collisions decreased by 31 per cent, but among motorcyclists
increased by 73 per cent. Approximately, one in eight
motorcyclists who struck a guardrail were fatally injured – a
fatality risk over 80 times higher than for car occupants

From EU:

Crash barriers - that routinely save the lives of car occupants but can cause traumatic death and injury to bikers - account for up to one in every six rider road deaths, and can cause five times the severity of injury. In collisions with crash barriers, bikers are 15 times more likely to be killed than car occupants.

Pat Mustard

A couple of quotes;
They mention some figures from the US:
From 2000-
2005, the number of car occupants fatally injured in guardrail
collisions decreased by 31 per cent, but among motorcyclists
increased by 73 per cent. Approximately, one in eight
motorcyclists who struck a guardrail were fatally injured – a
fatality risk over 80 times higher than for car occupants

This does not compare the risks from post and rail barriers versus concrete barriers.

From EU:
Crash barriers - that routinely save the lives of car occupants but can cause traumatic death and injury to bikers - account for up to one in every six rider road deaths, and can cause five times the severity of injury. In collisions with crash barriers, bikers are 15 times more likely to be killed than car occupants.

This does not compare risks from post and rail barriers versus concrete barriers, either.

DubVelo wrote: »

I'd much rather slide along a nice smooth concrete barrier than have my limbs sliced off by sharp metal posts.

And I'd rather be on holiday in the South of France. This wasn't my point.

DubVelo

Sorry, I was a bit unclear, the figures were generally referring to rail & post and wire & post type barriers.

Here's the source: http://eurorap.org/knowledge-base/news-homepage/2008/safety-measures-for-motorcycles-can-cut-biker-deaths-by-half-says-eurorap/

Barrier support posts are particularly aggressive, irrespective of the barriers' other components, causing a five-fold increase in injury severity compared to the average motorcycle crash.
Motorcycle-friendly systems have been shown to halve fatalities and offer up to 400% rates of return.

You would have to hit a concrete barrier more or less head-on (in a car) for it to be more dangerous than a rail or wire guard, and that is not going to happen in this centre median sort of use.

Pat Mustard

DubVelo wrote: »

Sorry, I was a bit unclear, the figures were generally referring to rail & post and wire & post type barriers.

Here's the source: http://eurorap.org/knowledge-base/news-homepage/2008/safety-measures-for-motorcycles-can-cut-biker-deaths-by-half-says-eurorap/

You would have to hit a concrete barrier more or less head-on (in a car) for it to be more dangerous than a rail or wire guard, and that is not going to happen in this centre median sort of use.

I don't know one way or another. I'm not an expert.

All that I can tell you is that an expert in the field told me that a motorcyclist would be less likely to survive a collision with a concrete barrier.