ATJ
Well-Known Forumite
Unless he's found to be medically unfit to drive I hope
-
Welcome to Stafford Forum. Please or sign-up and start posting!
Essex Bridge to be demolished
- Thread starter cardigan29
- Start date
Gramaisc
Forum O. G.
Third party damage is the only thing that you are required to be insured for.
proactive
Enjoying a drop of red.
Indeed. Insuring your own losses is an optional extra.
That's a brilliant, well-informed comment, NOT!!!
As others have rightly stated, the only insurance legally required is third party cover. In this case the bridge owners would be the third party. If the driver only has third party cover the insurers won't pay for the repairs to the car but will be legally obliged to pay for any damage to innocent third parties. That's the main purpose of vehicle insurance cover.
Last edited:
ATJ
Well-Known Forumite
Of course the insurance is only valid if he was driving legally. Part of me hopes he was because it's a publically owned bridge (thank god, otherwise it would never get repaired in a manner befitting its status). Part of me, as a driver, suspects he wasn't and is sick of entitled unfit drivers pushing up insurance costs.
Gramaisc
Forum O. G.
The old Uninsured Drivers Agreement was replaced last year.
https://h-f.co.uk/knowledge/uninsur...at-it-means-for-the-motor-insurance-industry/
https://h-f.co.uk/knowledge/uninsur...at-it-means-for-the-motor-insurance-industry/
There should be three removable bollards stopping cars from using the track but the middle one has been broken for some time and not repaired making it possible to drive a car between the other two bollards, if the council had repaired the middle bollard as soon as it was broken this would not have happened!
proactive
Enjoying a drop of red.
If the person driving the car hadn't been a dick, this would not have happened.
True but there are a lot of dicks around hence the need for bollards in the first place.
proactive
Enjoying a drop of red.
Utter nonsense.
if the posts weren't necessary the council would not have installed them. this incident just goes to show how necessary these are. a poor motorist lost on a dark winters night trying to find their way. misjudges the width of the bridge leading to a terrible incident. this is not to let the motorist off the hook, By looking at the pictures the vehicle wasn't travelling at a safe speed for the conditions as they not only made contact with the bridge but smashed into it at speed. this suggests the driver wasn't in full control of the vehicle nor was the vehicle being driven safely had a pedestrian been on the bridge the consequences could have been fatal.
HopesDad
Don't feed the troll
It is not nonsense at all. The council is clearly negligent. The three bollards were necessary, to stop exactly this kind of thing happening. If they weren't, the council would not have installed them in the first place.
Had the council repaired and replaced the middle bollard, the car would have hit the bollard (which was its purpose) and the bridge would have been saved. Any half decent lawyer will point this out in court, and the council (i.e. Us the ratepayers) will be landed with the bill for repairing the bridge (which will not be cheap) instead of the idiot driver.
God forbid if a couple had been walking across that bridge at the time and been mowed down and killed, would that have been the councils fault as well ?????
It is a drivers responsibility to take due care, there are many bridges in the county that are passable by single file traffic only for example. A driver would have to consider this and cross in safety. To do this a driver has to be in control and not going at speed, if they were they would have easily been able to slow down, assess and stop safely in this instance.
It is clear by how the car as ended up that at the very least the driver was wreckless and someone...including themselves or passengers ( if any) could have been killed. I willbe surprised if the driver is not charged.
This has got nothing to do with a missing bollard, that comment is almost as stupid as the driver.
It is a drivers responsibility to take due care, there are many bridges in the county that are passable by single file traffic only for example. A driver would have to consider this and cross in safety. To do this a driver has to be in control and not going at speed, if they were they would have easily been able to slow down, assess and stop safely in this instance.
It is clear by how the car as ended up that at the very least the driver was wreckless and someone...including themselves or passengers ( if any) could have been killed. I willbe surprised if the driver is not charged.
This has got nothing to do with a missing bollard, that comment is almost as stupid as the driver.