Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

JohnM

The consequences of road closures

29 posts in this topic

Fortunately, its seems that there we no injuries in the accident that closed the M62 and forced the postponement of last night's game.

see http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/M62-motorway-remains-closed-tanker-spill-forces/story-18099786-detail/story.html#axzz2KP7EBW4m

Set me thinking, though. This incident, and the others like it the seem to occur with monotonous regularity, has meant that many people have incurred costs as a result. It may be that the KC Stadium can recover some of these from their insurance company. However, what if it can't? And what if you are stuck in a queue because some stupid tosser has caused an accident? What redress do you have? Anyone know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

can yu imagine the uproar if similar delays had happened on therail system?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

can yu imagine the uproar if similar delays had happened on therail system?

Imagine? Don't we get this (and the furore) every winter (snow) or autumn (leaves)? We don't need to imagine it. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fortunately, its seems that there we no injuries in the accident that closed the M62 and forced the postponement of last night's game.

see http://www.thisishul...l#axzz2KP7EBW4m

Set me thinking, though. This incident, and the others like it the seem to occur with monotonous regularity, has meant that many people have incurred costs as a result. It may be that the KC Stadium can recover some of these from their insurance company. However, what if it can't? And what if you are stuck in a queue because some stupid tosser has caused an accident? What redress do you have? Anyone know?

I'd say be thankful you're not in it.

*"you're" in the general sense, not necessarily aimed at you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was told the tanker driver died... :unsure:

wwhich puts any spin off debates about this incident firmly in threir place

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except its not correct, as far as I know. I would not have raised the topic if that had been the case. The delay was it seems to the consequence of the resultant chemical spill. That is why I posted the link: http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/M62-motorway-remains-closed-tanker-spill-forces/story-18099786-detail/story.html#axzz2KP7EBW4m. No mention of any injuries.

Humberside Fire and Rescue Service put a 300-metre exclusion zone in place around the stricken tanker following what was described as "the biggest chemical spill in the region for a decade".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to accept these things will happen in an modern society.

If it becomes necessary to close a motorway after a chemical spill for safety reasons then you have to accept it, unless your some total nutter who thinks the correct course of action if your house is on fire is to go inside, sit on the couch and try to read the paper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine? Don't we get this (and the furore) every winter (snow) or autumn (leaves)? We don't need to imagine it. :)

my point was that delays on the roads are taken for granted and go unremarked upon.

The rail system has many shortcomings but compars favourably imho with road transport when it coms to punctuality and reliability

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not explained myself properly.

If an idiot driver is proved to be at fault in an accident..say he runs into your car and damages your car, then although you would be covered by your own insurance, your insurance company would seek to recover the loss from the guilty driver or his insurance company. that might cost say £1,000 or £10,000 maybe .

OK, now say that as a result of the same incident, the motorway is blocked for thee hours, and you are stuck in a tailback that prevents you form catching your flight to Aus, for example. You claim the cost of the lost flight on your holiday insurance but why should you not be able to make a claim against the guilty driver instead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not explained myself properly.

If an idiot driver is proved to be at fault in an accident..say he runs into your car and damages your car, then although you would be covered by your own insurance, your insurance company would seek to recover the loss from the guilty driver or his insurance company. that might cost say £1,000 or £10,000 maybe .

OK, now say that as a result of the same incident, the motorway is blocked for thee hours, and you are stuck in a tailback that prevents you form catching your flight to Aus, for example. You claim the cost of the lost flight on your holiday insurance but why should you not be able to make a claim against the guilty driver instead?

It might come down to proving 'you' were affected. And how far wide the net is cast. All insurance is open to fraudulant claims you'd get people joining traffic in order to claim!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my point was that delays on the roads are taken for granted and go unremarked upon.

The rail system has many shortcomings but compars favourably imho with road transport when it coms to punctuality and reliability

Not exactly a fair comparison though. As is bore out by many accidents the roads are a highly volatile, the rail system being far more controlled in comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not explained myself properly.

If an idiot driver is proved to be at fault in an accident..say he runs into your car and damages your car, then although you would be covered by your own insurance, your insurance company would seek to recover the loss from the guilty driver or his insurance company. that might cost say £1,000 or £10,000 maybe .

OK, now say that as a result of the same incident, the motorway is blocked for thee hours, and you are stuck in a tailback that prevents you form catching your flight to Aus, for example. You claim the cost of the lost flight on your holiday insurance but why should you not be able to make a claim against the guilty driver instead?

You might be able to but if there are enough claims then the guilty driver is unlikely to be able to pay. That's why holiday insurance exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not explained myself properly.

If an idiot driver is proved to be at fault in an accident..say he runs into your car and damages your car, then although you would be covered by your own insurance, your insurance company would seek to recover the loss from the guilty driver or his insurance company. that might cost say £1,000 or £10,000 maybe .

OK, now say that as a result of the same incident, the motorway is blocked for thee hours, and you are stuck in a tailback that prevents you form catching your flight to Aus, for example. You claim the cost of the lost flight on your holiday insurance but why should you not be able to make a claim against the guilty driver instead?

Because extending liability to that extent would create tens of millions of cases and lead to a legal nightmare of claims and counter claims, then exponentially inflated premiums and the collapse of the entire insurance system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not exactly a fair comparison though. As is bore out by many accidents the roads are a highly volatile, the rail system being far more controlled in comparison.

surely this mkes the comparison mor telling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my point was that delays on the roads are taken for granted and go unremarked upon.

The rail system has many shortcomings but compars favourably imho with road transport when it coms to punctuality and reliability

Quite. I was only teasing you about the use of "imagine", hence the smiley. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite. I was only teasing you about the use of "imagine", hence the smiley. :)

oh

well aright then. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because extending liability to that extent would create tens of millions of cases and lead to a legal nightmare of claims and counter claims, then exponentially inflated premiums and the collapse of the entire insurance system.

Quite so. Just remembered..does the nhs still have the arrangement where road accident victims get charged for the ambulance/s and e? Wasn't it sbout £35?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite so. Just remembered..does the nhs still have the arrangement where road accident victims get charged for the ambulance/s and e? Wasn't it sbout £35?

I wasn't charged when I was knocked down in 2010. :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it was for car accidents. Maybe its stopped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it was for car accidents. Maybe its stopped.

It still exists. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the collapse of the entire insurance system.

A plan with no downsides then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it was for car accidents. Maybe its stopped.

I've twice had the experience of being billed for an ambulance, and also for clearing up the the road, following accidents I didn't cause.

I politely declined to pay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 10th April 2017

Rugby League World - April 2017