Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Private profiles - please note that profiles marked as private will soon be public. This will facilitate moderation so mods can view users' warning histories. All of your posts across the site will appear on your profile page (including PI, RI). Groups posts will remain private except to users who have access to the same Groups as you. Thread here
Some important site news, please read here. Thanks!

What do people make of this overhanging [public] building?

  • 25-11-2021 1:10pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 2,203 ✭✭✭ techguy


    Hi Guys,

    I have an issue with the following building. Street view link.

    The building in question is "Nenagh Arts Centre" and also locally as "The Town Hall". It is a public building built that was rebuilt back in 2010ish by the local council.

    My issue with this is how the building hangs out over the public road. You can also see a small footpath that has been installed, at a guess, to protect the overhanging structure, since it could be low enough for a truck to hit it. The road is a straight run, except for the footpath, which turns that part of road into a chicane.

    At the moment, there are no bollards/markings to alert road users of it's presence.

    The context of my issue is that I drove up that road the other day. I did not see the kerb sticking out in my way and I proceeded to drive over the kerb puncturing both passenger side tyres and damaging the wheels. I plan on claiming compensation from the council.

    Interested to hear peoples thoughts on this one.

    Many thanks

    This is how things currently look.

    In July 2018 there was one hazard marker - note there be two present. See second photo showing the other one broken off.




«134

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 37,356 ✭✭✭✭ ohnonotgmail


    I think you will struggle with your claim. unless the accident happened at night.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,203 ✭✭✭ techguy


    Perhaps.

    But you see, two signs were installed on day one. I would say that those signs were installed "so that nobody hits the kerb"..

    If those signs were there, I would genuinely not have hit the kerb.



  • Registered Users Posts: 494 ✭✭ Billgirlylegs


    It all hinges on how much sh1t you are prepared to endure. They will probably claim that you were driving without due care and attention. Agree with Needles73 comment re planning. Is there a shortage of space in Nenagh, or could the Architects not read a tape measure?

    My suggestion is to make a quick decision, take action and then forget about it.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 43,463 Mod ✭✭✭✭ magicbastarder


    i'd suggest that the overhanging building and you hitting the kerb are separate issues, so one does not necessarily inform the other. footpaths come and go and you're generally expected to be able to see them, the question would arise as to why you didn't see this one.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,203 ✭✭✭ techguy


    Thanks guys,

    I see the point about footpath.

    Ultimately the question that keeps coming into my head is. "Why were signs installed on the foothpath" I argue it was so people would be made aware that there was an obstacle to be kept to the right of.

    I don't think it's totally clear from the photos, but the road is straight as a die, and this literally sticks out into the road.

    They can say what they like, but if they (council) are going to install a footpath that protrudes out into the path of cars, they have a duty of care to make sure it's clearly indicated.. and "should have seen it" isn't a valid defence in my opinion.



  • Registered Users Posts: 543 ✭✭✭ Needles73


    Is it actually a foot path. Is there an access to the buildings grounds there. Or would it really be more akin to a traffic island ?



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 43,463 Mod ✭✭✭✭ magicbastarder


    the issue probably boils down to whether those signs were placed there as a courtesy, or placed there as a requirement because some reg mandated they were as a result of the road design; if the latter, you may have more luck.



  • Registered Users Posts: 440 ✭✭ Paranoid Mandroid


    Not helpful to you at all OP but that is desperate. I can't believe they left it like that and I'd imagine you're not the first person to have that happen to them.



  • Moderators, Regional North West Moderators Posts: 43,707 Mod ✭✭✭✭ muffler


    Hard to tell from the pics but can 2 vehicles comfortably pass where the footpath is?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,203 ✭✭✭ techguy


    There is some access to the building there. While it is a footpath etc, It could possibly be called a traffic island because it protrudes out into the way of traffic.


    Well, I would say that there is legislation that says you can't just install a footpath out on the road so that cars need to swerve to avoid it, without any warning or indication of it's presence. That is like road planning 101, I would say.

    I totally agree.. I mean I genuinely didn't see it. Had the signs been there like they were supposed to, then I would definitely have seen it and not hit it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,203 ✭✭✭ techguy


    Hi

    It's actually a one way street, so that isn't really an issue, I guess.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,866 ✭✭✭ Stone Deaf 4evr


    If that building is recent enough, you'll be able to look it up on the planning website to see what was put in place for it.


    As a pundit on the internet though, I'm going to play devils advocate and say that you've not got a hope.

    That sticking out path looks to be serving an access gate, as the driver of a vehicle, the onus is on you to pay attention to your surroundings. We wouldnt even be having this discussion if you'd hit a pedestrian who was coming out that gate at the time.



  • Moderators, Regional North West Moderators Posts: 43,707 Mod ✭✭✭✭ muffler




  • Moderators, Regional North West Moderators Posts: 43,707 Mod ✭✭✭✭ muffler


    One other question ... Are there any advance warning signs to indicate the road is narrowing?



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭ cml387


    Barrack room lawyer here. IMO the OP has a case in that there were warning signs present which were presumably knocked down and not replaced.

    Therefore the council knew a hazard was there and failed in their duty to replace the warning signs once they were knocked down.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,203 ✭✭✭ techguy


    I hear you..

    On hitting a pedestrian though.. I'm pretty sure a very similar conversation would be had if a pedestrian was hit. You see, there are standards to be upheld when it comes to buildings and roads.

    The footpath is literally protruding out into the road. And to be frank considering the safety of pedestrians it's even a much bigger hazard. So the person who steps out thinks they are doing so, safely.. but imagine their shock when they realise that they are actually directly in front of oncoming traffic.. then imagine a person driving up the road being given no warning about any possibility of a pedestrian of footpath etc.. due to the warning signs being removed. Anyway, let's not go off topic here.

    None at all.

    Couldn't agree more. My whole argument is based on the premise that the council constructed an inconspicuous obstacle the protrudes way out into the road.. then installed signs to alert drivers of it's presence... in case they hit it. Those signs are now gone. I argue the council is responsible for any issues arising due to their absence.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 43,463 Mod ✭✭✭✭ magicbastarder


    I argue the council is responsible for any issues arising due to their absence.

    in other words, you drove into a footpath but it wasn't your fault.

    "I mean I genuinely didn't see it. Had the signs been there like they were supposed to, then I would definitely have seen it and not hit it."

    this is cringeworthy. you're explicitly saying you need hazards in the road to be signposted for you.



  • Subscribers Posts: 36,633 ✭✭✭✭ sydthebeat


    That's clearly NOT a foot path???

    Totally agree with he lack of signage, but stop calling it a foot path. It's not connected to anything and it leads no where.

    The council could easily argue its a traffic calming chicane, and if you hit it and punctured your tyres you were going too fast



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 43,463 Mod ✭✭✭✭ magicbastarder


    OK, sorry, it's not a footpath. whatever name you put on it, it's not invisible.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,740 ✭✭✭ John_Rambo


    Signs needed "don't crash in to the kerb and don't crash in to pedestrians"

    Cool looking building though, nice ones further down the road too.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,203 ✭✭✭ techguy


    Er yea, pretty much. As cringeworthy as you think it is. Let's take the sign that should be there but was removed... remove every single one of them from the roads and see how many accidents there are.

    And yes I am absolutely saying that hazards in the road need to be signposted for me in order to prevent accidents. I'm pretty sure most would agree that those types of signs are a good idea, even if you cringe at it. Because let's face it, at the end of the day we want to avoid accidents.

    It's not really a footpath in the traditional sense, but there is an access to the building there, where a person can step out. So I guess, had that footpath/landing pad not been in place and no signs. A person who steps out that doorway/entrance would be stepping out onto a road with oncoming traffic.

    So here you are saying the "footpath" or whatever is not visible, i'm not sure if how you stand on this whole argument now. You are berating me for needing obstacles signposted.. but now you are admitting that it's not visible.

    But those signs do actually exist. Let's not loose the run of ourselves here. I'm not talking about my accidentally having swerved into a footpath that was parallel to my roadway. I'm talking about following a straight line, and hitting an unmarked/unsigned footpath (or whatever you call) that protruded into the road way.

    The signs that out to be there to bring this interruption to flow of traffic are missing, and let's assume they were put there to alert drivers. Traffic calming or not.. a council can't just magic an obstacle to make you slow down. Considering there are humans exiting onto that footpath, that would make humans part of the traffic calming measure.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 43,463 Mod ✭✭✭✭ magicbastarder


    You are berating me for needing obstacles signposted.. but now you are admitting that it's not visible.

    i said it's not INvisible.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,203 ✭✭✭ techguy



    I see your point, but I think I am a decent enough driver. I've been driving all over London for the last 6 odd years. I think I am able to drive. If anything I have become accustomed to the roads not being like the wild west and getting used to a certain maintained standard of obstacles being as per road traffic regulations.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,203 ✭✭✭ techguy


    Oh haha, I guess I was reading what I wanted lol.



  • Registered Users Posts: 37,376 ✭✭✭✭ Mellor


    The overhand is pretty minor. Barely sticks over the boundary wall. If at all.

    I don’t think the island is there to protect the building. It’s there because there is an entrance there. You can’t have people stepping out of a concealed entrance into the path of traffic.

    You keep saying things like “it’s dangerous to have a footpath in the path of traffic”, or “road is straight”. I think that’s the issue. You don’t seem to make the connection the the road isn’t in fact straight and it bends here. Roads change direction, chicanes and traffic calming devices exist. Attentive driving means looking out for road chances.

    I take your point that it could have been signposted better. And it could have been designed better from the get go. Maybe you might have a case I’d the council wanted damages from you. But the fact you left the road and drive over the kerb, it’s a hard sell that your not liable for your tyre damage.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,478 ✭✭✭ dmigsy


    I don't know about the legalities regarding planning or signage requirements but I'd be more concerned about your vision, awareness or attentiveness while driving if you hit that. There's double yellow lines around it. How did you not see it?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 527 ✭✭✭ SC024


    suck it up buttercup, not every mishap or boo boo is another persons / institutions / companies fault. take it on the chin, learn the lesson, pay more attention in future & get on with it :) maybe try specsavers on your next road trip ;-)



Advertisement