So for the sake of literally a few quids worth of wheat or barley, it is acceptable to put up poorly designed yet substantial barrier that may well kill or maim someone who would otherwise be unhurt in the vast majority of incidents previously.
Roadside barrier
- Thread starter mudman
- Start date
shakey jake
Well-Known Member
No body has to drive that fast that they cant take a corner. Why shouldnt the farmer protect what he owns?
It's not the farmer's fault if someone drives dangerously and puts themselves in the situation where they come off the road. It's not the farmer's responsibility to take a risk to their property because people drive dangerously.
As a parent, if my kids do something like that, it's more my fault/responsibility as the one who raised them than it is the fault/responsibility of the farmer.
Ultimately though it's the responsibility of the person behind the wheel to drive safely. I learned that the hard way, as someone who put a car in a ditch whilst driving friends as a teenager. No-one's fault but mine and fortunately the car was the only casualty. Still haunts me, as it should.
Loki
Well-Known Member
Hi
First, are the 'obstructions' on the 'Highway'? if they are then it is not permitted under the Highways Act 1980, unless the (fencing/obstruction) is not outside 2m of the Highway boundary, otherwise a planning application and permission is required. At or beyond 2m of the Highway boundary, the adjacent Landowner can do whatever he wants........
Within 2m of the Highway boundary, a planning application is required for anything over 0.9m.
There are areas outside of nominal as seen fencing that is still within ownership of the adjacent Landowner - I have one - where the Landowner is responsibleand and owns hence is responsible for the what appears as 'wide 'highway' verge' (many a Muntjac seen here...!).........that is kept 'manicured'.
On another section, many a car has gone through the Estate boundary on a bend, where there is a Gatehouse to the Estate. Concrete posts, with chains between, below 0.9m, means the Gatehouse is somewhat less open to the risk of a car coming through..........
L
First, are the 'obstructions' on the 'Highway'? if they are then it is not permitted under the Highways Act 1980, unless the (fencing/obstruction) is not outside 2m of the Highway boundary, otherwise a planning application and permission is required. At or beyond 2m of the Highway boundary, the adjacent Landowner can do whatever he wants........
Within 2m of the Highway boundary, a planning application is required for anything over 0.9m.
There are areas outside of nominal as seen fencing that is still within ownership of the adjacent Landowner - I have one - where the Landowner is responsibleand and owns hence is responsible for the what appears as 'wide 'highway' verge' (many a Muntjac seen here...!).........that is kept 'manicured'.
On another section, many a car has gone through the Estate boundary on a bend, where there is a Gatehouse to the Estate. Concrete posts, with chains between, below 0.9m, means the Gatehouse is somewhat less open to the risk of a car coming through..........
L
palmer_mike
Well-Known Member
No, that's not what that's saying...
Siggy
Well-Known Member
agreed! drivers have a responsibility to maintain control of their vehicle and (explicitly) do everything they can to avoid collisions
Think you need to consider the root cause of your hypothetical miscalculation here chap.
No, read the first post. These are a couple of tight bends in flat and featureless arable land. The field boundaries are the usual gappy hawthorne hedges planted 250 years ago. On these beds it is obvious people relatively regularly lose control of their vehicle and end up in the field. Flat arable fields. The landowner has, and only on these tight bends, filled in these points of exit shall we call them, with solids fences constructed with telegraph poles. Vastly increasing the risk the risk of death or injury to anyone who leaves the road at these places than they would have been exposed to previously.
palmer_mike
Well-Known Member
Young drivers make stupid mistakes chap. If you never did then you are definitely in the minority.
There is a gateway on a tight bend and the farmer has put a poacher blocker on all the gateways as the fly tippers just smash the gates and dump their toot, the twits who drive too fast find their car impaled on the blocker. He planted a hedge up to the gate way and it was driven through so just put a big log inside the boundary, inert items are hit by moving vehicle's not the other way around despite many insurance claim statements
If he'd spent £££ and planted large trees there would you still be objecting?
So who's responsible when the car driver disappears into the night after the crash and farmers cattle end up on road causing another accident
Made plenty but obviously none serious enough to be fatal !
A: this is a wholly arable area.So who's responsible when the car driver disappears into the night after the crash and farmers cattle end up on road causing another accident
B: all the damage will equate to a few quid bearing in mind a 25 kg sack of wheat cost me £5, that’s a lot of wheelings worth of damage.
C: I suppose in your scenario the farmer would prefer a paraplegic or dead kid on his conscience rather than his cattle going walkabout?
Yes as the driver must take responsibility for their actions and passengers, farmer is only protecting his property and its got extreme because it probably happens every week.
You should write to council and ask them to install several speed bumps on the approach to the corner that will slow them down before the corner.
Everyone happy
shakey jake
Well-Known Member
When is the area worth enough you think its ok to protect?
Similar threads
