Harefield Road West Ruislip bridge bashes

[Falcon1200]

This would be financially bad for society. Very few Lorry drivers have several million quid stuffed down the back of the sofa, so all that would happen is these people would be forced to sell all their assets for not a lot and then be declared bankrupt.

I agree, despite having dealt with more bridge strikes than I care to remember! (three in one shift, on one occasion). The vehicle driver should be subject to existing law. However IMHO their employer should be dealt with far more severely than at present, and this should extend to third party arrangements, for example when a supermarket contracts a haulier, the supermarket should also be held responsible for their conduct; Not to penalise hauliers or their customers, but to incentivise them to provide proper training for their drivers and equipment for their vehicles, to prevent bridges from being struck in the first place.

 

[philthetube]

You've studiously avoided saying who should pay for the bridge rebuilds! Should NR, as the railway operator to benefit, or the DfT, for the good of the country, or the relevant highway authority, as it's their road safety that will improve? Each has different methods of raising money.
Btw hauliers already insure, I was saying get the costs of the insures not the drivers individually. If signs aren't working then absolutely they should be reviewed, although never in a million years are you going to be rebuilding every single arched bridge over a road in Britain.
And the road network must be able to support emergency response times and such like - it's not as simple as 'do a Beeching'. Even if it's only 1 house at the end of a farm track, if it's the access road it needs to stay. Realigning would often be just as expensive as rebuilding the bridge.

I think you might be in that time span. (sorry)

 

[BrianW]

You've studiously avoided saying who should pay for the bridge rebuilds! Should NR, as the railway operator to benefit, or the DfT, for the good of the country, or the relevant highway authority, as it's their road safety that will improve? Each has different methods of raising money.
Btw hauliers already insure, I was saying get the costs of the insures not the drivers individually. If signs aren't working then absolutely they should be reviewed, although never in a million years are you going to be rebuilding every single arched bridge over a road in Britain.
And the road network must be able to support emergency response times and such like - it's not as simple as 'do a Beeching'. Even if it's only 1 house at the end of a farm track, if it's the access road it needs to stay. Realigning would often be just as expensive as rebuilding the bridge.

IIUC (I'm no lawyer, so disclaiming any responsibility for what may wrongly be perceived to be 'legal advice'!) the driver is responsible for his/her actions. If an employee they may be able to look to the employer, esp if the employer told them in some way to take that route, or put pressure on eg with an unreasonable expectation in terms of time which encouraged the driver to 'cut corners' either literally or by speeding for instance. If 'self-employed' the driver will have to look to him/herself or the small print of their insurances. My perception of the 'haulage industry' is one with a lot of self-employment, including pseudo self employment. IR35 relates. Pimlico Plumbers and Uber come to mind in other industries. I don't know the haulage industry well enough to 'name names', let alone the financial wherewithall to resist claims for defamation! I also recognise the potential dilemma of government wishing to promote entrepreneurialism and growth by such as limited liability and taxation arrangements, and HMRC seeking to maximise tax income.That's way above my paygrade to address. Governments have determined what insurances must be had; courts have decided who pays and how much for errors of judgment.

Many roads have been closed or realigned eg when a motorway comes by, to improve safety or to cater for changing traffic flows.

Is there anything that may be learned from the closing down of farm crossings to improve safety - is compensation paid if e.g tractors have to travel further?

Who paid for the costs of the Plymouth bridge strike? Tesco? Driver? Network Rail? Delay Repay?
Or this bridge strike: https://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/...-reds-bus-crash-sees-side-ripped-off/?ref=rss.
Or this at Sheringham level crossing:https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/level-crossing-collision-on-the-north-norfolk-railway.173724/

 

[Chris M]

Who paid for the costs of the Plymouth bridge strike? Tesco? Driver? Network Rail? Delay Repay?
Or this bridge strike: https://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/...-reds-bus-crash-sees-side-ripped-off/?ref=rss.
Or this at Sheringham level crossing:https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/level-crossing-collision-on-the-north-norfolk-railway.173724/

AIUI Network Rail pay the costs of bridge strikes, and then try and recover as much of them as they can from vehicle insurers.
In a 2018 article a Network Rail person said

“Historically, there has been a reluctance to prosecute drivers for careless driving and their failure to comply with road traffic signs. We’re not quite sure why, but we are working very closely with police, the Home Office and the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) and traffic commissioners to toughen up on enforcement.

“In the claims world, there is this term ‘consequential loss’, and until 2010 we struggled to argue that Schedule 8 payments were included in this. Hauliers were happy to pay for repairs but not Schedule 8 payments, so we took them to court and won in 2010, and then on appeal in 2011 and again in 2015. The judge said ‘shut up and pay up’, so we now have legal precedence to claim it all back.

I've not found anything more recent that suggests things have significantly changed since then

 

[43066]

IIUC (I'm no lawyer, so disclaiming any responsibility for what may wrongly be perceived to be 'legal advice'!) the driver is responsible for his/her actions. If an employee they may be able to look to the employer, esp if the employer told them in some way to take that route, or put pressure on eg with an unreasonable expectation in terms of time which encouraged the driver to 'cut corners' either literally or by speeding for instance. If 'self-employed' the driver will have to look to him/herself or the small print of their insurances.

Vicarious liability is what you’re driving at (sorry!). Ie the long established tort law principle that an employer is vicariously liable for the negligence of their employees when acting in the course of their employment: in this case driving lorries into low bridges. This is important to protect third parties (NR in this case) against this kind of damage, because it would make no sense to sue an individual lorry driver for hundreds of thousands or mullions of pounds.

In practice this will mean a claim against the haulage company, almost certainly paid for by their insurance. The driver might well face internal disciplinary proceedings/the sack, but that’s about it as far as they’re concerned.

See also medical negligence claims which are invariably brought against NHS trusts rather than individual doctors and nurses for similar reasons.