ASSESSING POTENTIAL RISKS FACED BY ROAD AUTHORITIES AND COUNCILS FROM ROAD ACCIDENTS
Issue: December/January 2009
Lastly, it is apparent that councils and road authorities receive voluminous communication from the public about local safety concerns, and near miss situations, often over many years before an actual fatal or serious injury collision occurs. Without over generalising, we would recommend a more proactive approach be adopted in regard to such communication with a view of finding how safety could be improved rather than having what appear, when reading such correspondence in hindsight, to be rationalisations for not taking action.
Case Studies
DVExperts have investigated many collisions where councils or road authorities have been party to a subsequent law suit. Eight case examples are provided to illustrate the great care that needs to be taken by such agencies to reduce hazards and the results when they do not:
Case 1: Pothole on Road
The driver in this case allegedly swerved to avoid this 300mm pothole on a bend. The driver lost control and impacted with a tree on the nature strip to the inside of the curve. Council maintenance reports showed that potholes of this nature were given a two month maintenance priority, which potentially exposed it to claims of this nature for extended periods, and exposed motorists to unnecessary risk.
Case 2: Motorcycle on Bridge
A motorcyclist was crossing over a wooden bridge. The motorcyclist lost control as they moved across the wooden deck from the centre to the left of the bridge, causing them to fall off the motorcycle and impact the steel rails on the side, catching the pins and resulting in serious arm injuries. The steel rails had been installed just a few months earlier as part of a maintenance program following a fire. The claims against the council involved included failure to provide appropriate warning or speed reduction signage, failing to conduct a safety audit and installing a steel structure with protruding bolts and without an adequate safety barrier. While the hazard was clearly evident to any approaching motorists or cyclists, measures to shield such hazards are also practical.
Case 3: Injury at BMX Track
A 14 year old was riding around in an off-street BMX track. The boy fell from his bicycle whilst traversing a ‘jump’, a specially crafted mound of dirt, resulting in significant internal injuries and nervous shock. The suitability of the jump was questioned in terms of its safety, particularly with an allegation the soil was insufficiently compacted, causing the front wheel of the bike to stop suddenly in the loose soil. The maintenance and signage at the BMX track was also brought into question.
Case 4: Bicycle v Vehicle Collision
The 16 year old cyclist was riding a bicycle from a side road into a ‘T’ intersection with a main road. The cyclist turned right into the main road when she was struck by a vehicle which was already travelling on that road.
Correspondence was located which referred to the lack of visibility at the intersection, some dating back as far as 35 years. The restricted visibility was due to a dip in the main road, high property fencing and the absence of a splayed property line. The council also dropped the prevailing speed limit of the main road from 100km/h to 80km/h, however this occurred after the incident in question.
Case 5: Car v Safety Barrier Rollover
A vehicle was being driven on a gravel road when it lost control and collided with a roadside guardrail. The vehicle rolled over from the impact, rendering the driver a quadriplegic as a result.The council was alleged to not have provided adequate warning signs and not to have checked or maintained the surface of the road regularly, particularly in light of increased traffic volumes due to a road closure elsewhere. Questions were also raised about the safety barrier which was in place, particularly whether it was suitable because of its low height.
Case 6: Truck Rollover on Bend
A tipper truck towing a quad dog tipping trailer, both with full loads of gravel, was approaching a sharp right hand bend. The truck rolled over to its left whilst negotiating the bend. It was alleged that the road surface through the bend had a reverse camber.
The curve also followed a downhill approach and lacked signage warning of the adverse conditions at the bend. Measurements at the scene found that the bend tightened and indeed presented adverse camber at its exit, lowering the speed at which such vehicles could safely negotiate the curve.
Case 7: Bicycle v Bicycle at Tunnel
Two cyclists travelling in opposite directions on a bicycle path collided at the entrance to an underpass. One rider was approaching the entrance, whilst the other cyclist was exiting the tunnel, and they collided head on. One of the riders impacted his head on the wall of the underpass as a result of the collision, resulting in quadriplegia.