[Smeggy]

Hello everyone.

Im wondering if anyone can advise me here, as im seriously angry.

Yesterday I drove over a speed hump at only 1-2mph (i.e. as carefully as i could) and it has caused serious damage to the front underside of my car. Ive had two verbal quotes so far of around £750 for the repair to the fibreglass, and i know that these quotes are realistic.

A friend measured the hump and it was 100mm..but i have gone over thousands of humps before without issue, so the slope angle on this must be an issue.

Does anyone know where i stand legally here? Ive read that humps are recommended to be 75mm, but can be up to 100mm.

My car is a Lotus, and the ground clearance is 150mm - and the other cars i've measured in the street are the same - it is not unusually low.

Do i have recourse for compensation, as the fact remains that the hump has seriously damged my car, and i drove over it carefully. I'm so angry, and am really worried. Who can i speak to?

Many thanks

[Snowball]

Unless your car has been specifically lowered/modified so as to make it non-standard in terms of it being a normal production model, then you do have a case against the local authority. Those responsible for these speed humps are not allowed to design them in a way that can damage vehicles (except for when the purpose of the humps has been ignored). This includes any lack of future maintenance. For example, some speed humps near to us became deeper on the exit side, due to the thump of the rear wheels of buses as they left the humps. They had to renew them.

About 8 years ago, I bought a VW Golf estate. I found that, when I reversed out of my driveway, the profile of the pavement ramp was such that it caused my front trim to be pulled off as it scraped the ground. Fortunately, it was a push-on fitting so it could be refitted.
But the authority had to respect my complaint, and the whole width of the pavement had to be dug out and relaid.

Start by complaining to your local authority at the town hall. They should advise you of the appropriate department that is responsible. It may require some persistence, but don't give in. Good luck.

[Smeggy]

Thanks for your response - i hope you are right.

The car is bog standard, and has not been lowered.

Yes, i have sent an email to the council over this, so we shall see what they say. I am worried that they will say "The hump complies with regulations" and tell me to get lost. I think this may be the crux of the dispute.

Personally, i cannot see any argument here: the hump damaged my car, end of story. But I have very little faith in our judicial system, and even less in our councils.

[Snowball]

Smeggy, sounds as though you have a case for them to answer. "Conformity to regulations" is no defence if those regulations cause damage to road-standard vehicles. Put your case in writing, and keep copies. It might be a good idea to put your insurers in the frame, if you haven't already done so. If you have legal services in your policy, it may be possible to get them to approach the local authority. They do have a bit more clout when it comes to getting jobsworths to see the light. Keep at them, but keep your correspondence polite and business-like.

[Smeggy]

Yep, noted about not being aggressive in correspondence - i shall be calm and collected.

It makes sense what you say about conforming to regulations, so you are cheering me up.

I am loathe to inform my insurers of this, as it will have a detrimental effect on my premium. I learned the hard way last year that the premium goes up if any issue or claim is raised. Even fixing a stone chip has a penalty. Last year someone drove into my empty, parked car, and after claiming on their inurance, my premiums on my 2 cars rocketed, and i'd have been better off paying for the damage myself.

Do you work on the legal side, or is your knowledge from your personal experience with your car?

[Snowball]

Where you have a "no fault" claim, that is charged against the other driver, and his/her insurance company pays the costs in full (i.e., your insurer pays nothing out), then your premium should not be affected.
Were I in that situation, I would complain to the insurance ombudsman. That is fradulent practice.
When you are involved in an accident, it is a condition of most insurance policies that, even if the other driver admits fault and pays out personally, you are still required to inform your insurers.

I have been with the same insurer for over 20 years, and have protected NCB. In that time I have had one "own fault" claim; manoeuvring a motorhome in a tight carpark, and the "helpful bystander" managed to back me into another vehicle.
My NCB and premium were not affected.

This April, I had my second RTC; a hit-and-run driver thumped my car from behind. The police are still making inquiries, but my car has already been repaired and I just had to pay my £100 excess. My legal services department are pursuing refund of this through the Motor Insurance Bureau.

My inclination is that you are with the wrong insurance company.

[Rolebama]

Before you can make a claim, you will have to satisfy the Council of the following:
If the hump is 100mm, and your car has 150mm ground clearance, how come it was damaged if you drove over it so carefully? (The simple maths of this will give them grounds to reject a claim.)
You also state that the other cars have the same clearance, have any of them been damaged by this hump? (Again, if yours is the only complaint, it gives them grounds to reject any claim.)
When your friend measured the hump, was this in your presence? (You really need to take photgraphs proving the height, and gradient of the ramps on either side.)
The answers to these questions will probably give the Council enough 'wriggle room' to avoid any responsibility. I

[Loony]

Originally Posted by Smeggy

Does anyone know where i stand legally here? Ive read that humps are recommended to be 75mm, but can be up to 100mm.

Here is the size regulations

Nature, dimensions and location of road humps
4. - (1) Subject to regulation 7, no road hump shall be constructed or maintained in a highway unless-



(a) each face of it across the carriageway of the highway in which it is constructed is at right angles to an imaginary line along the centre of that carriageway;

(b) it has a minimum length of 900 millimetres measured parallel to an imaginary line along the centre of that carriageway from the point where one face meets the surface of that carriageway to the point where the other face meets the surface of that carriageway;

(c) the highest point on it is not less than 25 millimetres nor more than 100 millimetres higher than an imaginary line parallel to the centre line of that carriageway connecting the surface of that carriageway on one side of the road hump to the surface of that carriageway on the other side of the road hump and passing vertically below that point; and,

(d) no vertical face of any material forming part of that road hump exceeds 6 millimetres measured vertically from top to bottom of that face.

[Smeggy]

[QUOTE=Snowball;41209]Where you have a "no fault" claim, that is charged against the other driver, and his/her insurance company pays the costs in full (i.e., your insurer pays nothing out), then your premium should not be affected.
QUOTE]

Indeed - it shouldnt. But it is, and not many people know that. This is why the first thing any insurer asks is "have you been involved in a claim, fault or non fault." Their algorithms see you as a higher risk if you have been involved in any incident.

[Smeggy]

Originally Posted by Rolebama

Before you can make a claim, you will have to satisfy the Council of the following:
If the hump is 100mm, and your car has 150mm ground clearance, how come it was damaged if you drove over it so carefully? (The simple maths of this will give them grounds to reject a claim.)
You also state that the other cars have the same clearance, have any of them been damaged by this hump? (Again, if yours is the only complaint, it gives them grounds to reject any claim.)
When your friend measured the hump, was this in your presence? (You really need to take photgraphs proving the height, and gradient of the ramps on either side.)
The answers to these questions will probably give the Council enough 'wriggle room' to avoid any responsibility. I

Yes, i dont know how i managed to hit it if only 10cm, but i assure you i did (and how!), so either my friend's measurement is wrong, or the camber of the main road dips down to a trough, creating an effectively higher hump when it meets the bump on the adjoining side road..

Most cars are not made of fibreglass, so they would not crack as mine did, but just scrape or bend. When my VW golf banger scrapes a hump, i dont really care. So i bet many others do the same, but few make official complaints.

[Snowball]

Static clearance beneath a vehicle is not by itself a reliable measure for comparison between different vehicles. Differences in front and/or rear overhang outside the wheelbase area will produce different arcs of movement as a vehicle passes over the leading and trailing edges of speed humps. Allowance must also be made for vehicle heights in their fully-loaded condition, and the extra dipping of the suspension that would occur, even at very low speeds.

In poor visibility conditions, and in a strange area, it is possible for a driver to meet a speed hump too late to slow down sufficiently to avoid a harsh bump. And I am not referring to speeding. In the majority of cases, speed humps have warning approach signs, but no specified maximum speed. So, in a 30 mph limit, what is the proper speed to pass over a hump? Near to us, there are such speed humps where I reduce my speed to about 15 mph, but the humps are still a little uncomfortable and, at this low speed, I occasionally get the odd toot of annoyance.

In erecting these humps, the authority is not relieved of its duty of care, and cannot apply any disclaimers if it is proven that a road vehicle which meets all the Construction and Use Regulations criteria can be damaged when passing over speed humps at a reasonably reduced level of speed.

How that "reasonable level of speed reduction" is determined is a matter that seems open to question but, if the speed limit is 30 mph, and no other reduced limits have been applied on approaching the humps, then can it not be argued that a speed of 30 mph should be safe over the humps?

Personally, I would never hit them at 30 mph, but I think that, if damaged occurred at a reduced speed of (say) 15 to 20 mph, then I believe that a driver would have a case for compensation.
Don't forget that, even on the approaches to schools, the common speed warning signs are set at 20 mph.

[Smeggy]

[QUOTE=Loony;41219](c) the highest point on it is not less than 25 millimetres nor more than 100 millimetres higher than an imaginary line parallel to the centre line of that carriageway connecting the surface of that carriageway on one side of the road hump to the surface of that carriageway on the other side of the road hump and passing vertically below that point; and,
QUOTE]

This is my concern. I need to get back there myself and measure it. Great, it's miles away :(

[Smeggy]

Originally Posted by Snowball

Static clearance beneath a vehicle is not by itself a reliable measure for comparison between different vehicles. Differences in front and/or rear overhang outside the wheelbase area will produce different arcs of movement as a vehicle passes over the leading and trailing edges of speed humps. Allowance must also be made for vehicle heights in their fully-loaded condition, and the extra dipping of the suspension that would occur, even at very low speeds.

Ding.

Thanks for all your help on this folks btw, I really appreciate it!

What fecks me off is that i wasnt going to go home that way, but decided to do someone a favour by collecting their disabled daughter from school. Where's the karma in that?

[Snowball]

[QUOTE=Smeggy;41223]

Originally Posted by Snowball

Where you have a "no fault" claim, that is charged against the other driver, and his/her insurance company pays the costs in full (i.e., your insurer pays nothing out), then your premium should not be affected.
QUOTE]

Indeed - it shouldnt. But it is, and not many people know that. This is why the first thing any insurer asks is "have you been involved in a claim, fault or non fault." Their algorithms see you as a higher risk if you have been involved in any incident.

It does surprise me and, in my case, the premium was not increased, which is as I expected.

Also, I would also like to see how an insurer could consider a driver to be an increased risk if he/she had properly parked their car in a parking space on a carpark, and it was damaged in their absence.

[Smeggy]

[QUOTE=Snowball;41231]

Originally Posted by Smeggy

It does surprise me and, in my case, the premium was not increased, which is as I expected.

Also, I would also like to see how an insurer could consider a driver to be an increased risk if he/she had properly parked their car in a parking space on a carpark, and it was damaged in their absence.

Exactly. However, there are quite a few people on the car forum i use who had the same happen to them, resulting in an increase.

[Rolebama]

Snowball: Your comment: 'Static clearance beneath a vehicle is not by itself a reliable measure for comparison between different vehicles' I agree entirely, but it is not the stand that most Councils take.
Also: 'Also, I would also like to see how an insurer could consider a driver to be an increased risk if he/she had properly parked their car in a parking space on a carpark, and it was damaged in their absence' As I posted on another thread, a friend of mine has had his car hit twice in works car park, both incidents caught on CCTV, other drivers insurer paid for repairs on both occasions, and he has been told he is now considered high risk by his own insurer and his next premium is going to be loaded 10% to reflect this.

[Snowball]

Rolebama, I understand what you are saying, but I find it disgusting that innocent drivers can be penalised as "high risk", simply because another driver committed a driving fault.
They might just as well issue a warning on the policy that you are at risk of attracting increased premiums if you venture into the public domain with your vehicle; irrespective of how careful and fault-free your own driving may be.

Also, if the other driver, or his/her insurer, pays up for the RTC that driver has caused, then for your own insurer to increase the premium, even though no fault has been committed and your own insurer is not out of pocket, this is not insureance cover; it is plain and simple fraud. If it happened to me, I would raise a stink in every quarter open to me.

[sabber]

If you can prove the bump is not built up to the specified legal standards, then you can take the council to court. The bumps must meet certain specifications to stop them damaging people's cars, and if you drove at such a low speed as you've claimed, then there must be something wrong with the bump. Go for it.

[Wonderful Wend]

Hi, read your thread, I have got similar problem. I have a V. Corsa Comfort. I had three coil springs broken, found at MOT, I feel due to the speed cushions in my road. These are rubber type cushions, bolted to the road. There are bolts protruding above the cushions, the cushion on/off edges are off the road, and will not lay flat. I too have tried to claim from the Local Council, however they say they comply with the regulations - how can they. They have not been maintained, and debris gets under the edges so they will not lay flat to the road.

The regulations state that " it has no vertical face of any material forming part of that road hump exceeding 6mm measured vertically from top to bottom of that face" That is fine, and that is what mine is, however they are also in places 19 mm off the road surface. How can that comply with regulations?.

I sympathise with you, but I feel you will just get knocked by by the Council, unless there is some way you can prove they were negligent. That is what I intend to do with my council, as they have a duty of care, they put the speed cushions in the road, and they have a duty to maintain them.

Good luck mate. you probably will need it.

[98selitb]

Originally Posted by Snowball

Also, I would also like to see how an insurer could consider a driver to be an increased risk if he/she had properly parked their car in a parking space on a carpark, and it was damaged in their absence.

I tried arguing this disgusting and increasingly common practice on another forum with a group of insurance company employees! They were adamant that even if you have an accident for which you were completely blameless, you are statistically more likely to be involved in an accident in future, this being their 'justification' to increase your premium even if you are proved 100% not to blame. They will bend meaningless, unrelated statistics in any way they can to get a bit extra cash.

Sadly this is now commonplace, I also know several people who have had this happen to them - either being in an RTC for which they were judged 100% not to blame, or a bump in a car park when they had parked safely, legally within their bay and they were absent from their car at the time - both these circumstances will now more often than not see your premium increased. Sadly it is a no-claims bonus, not a non-fault bonus.

I can't remember who it was, but I remember a user of this forum posting a few months ago with a story of a friend of theirs who has had the misfortune of having their empty parked car bumped in a car park several times through no fault of their own and has thus had their premium increased as they are seen as a higher risk.

If you ask me, the practice of increasing the premiums of innocent accident victims is a scam and should be made illegal.

[smudger]

Yea! exactly, and to make things worse, all the companies work the same system, so its not like you can change companies in the hope of better treatment!

We all Must have insurance, its the law, and these insurance companies are simply taking advantage of that!

They all promise you the earth, just to get your custom, then once they have you, they think they can scam you in the second year, if we are daft enough to fall for it:eek:

[Rolebama]

Smudger, with regard to your comments above.
Years ago, I used the same company for year after year, as I honestly believed they offered good value for money, and I was happy with them all round. Then the insurer I was with was bought out, and I did not like the Policy changes this caused. Since the advent of the comparison websites, I was changing my insurer every year for cost reasons, as none of them seemed particularly better than others. Until last year. My second year with this company was only £2 difference. I had the collision last August, and this year, with the loss of three yrs NCB, I paid an extra £75 or so. I did try other companies for quotes, but with the collison outstanding, I could not match this price. (I am still in contact with them re collision blame.) So, at the moment, I am relatively happy that I have landed on my feet with this company. An added bonus is that they cover my ICE to full replacement value, should it be stolen, at no extra cost. I could not get this with any other company I approached. I am also covered up to £4000 worth of goods in my car during the month of December, which I think is good. In the event of a claim against these values, there is no excess and no loss of NCB.

[AdamB]

[QUOTE=Snowball;41204]Smeggy, sounds as though you have a case for them to answer. "Conformity to regulations" is no defence if those regulations cause damage to road-standard vehicles.

Not necessarily. Regulations evolve all the time. You cannot be expected to rebuild everything to comply with new regs every time ne ones come out. 100mm is acceptable height of a road hump under OLD spec, however there is no legislation that enforces LA's to rebuild.

They do have a bit more clout when it comes to getting jobsworths to see the light.

Quality comment. Perhaps you dont care where all your council taxes goes nowadays? Paying out and investgating fraudulent claims is where it normally goes. Its jobsworths like me that would actually prefer it was allocated to maintenance rather that kept for paying out all the time.

[AdamB]

Originally Posted by Wonderful Wend

Hi, read your thread, I have got similar problem. I have a V. Corsa Comfort. I had three coil springs broken, found at MOT, I feel due to the speed cushions in my road. These are rubber type cushions, bolted to the road. There are bolts protruding above the cushions, the cushion on/off edges are off the road, and will not lay flat. I too have tried to claim from the Local Council, however they say they comply with the regulations - how can they. They have not been maintained, and debris gets under the edges so they will not lay flat to the road.

The regulations state that " it has no vertical face of any material forming part of that road hump exceeding 6mm measured vertically from top to bottom of that face" That is fine, and that is what mine is, however they are also in places 19 mm off the road surface. How can that comply with regulations?.

I sympathise with you, but I feel you will just get knocked by by the Council, unless there is some way you can prove they were negligent. That is what I intend to do with my council, as they have a duty of care, they put the speed cushions in the road, and they have a duty to maintain them.

Good luck mate. you probably will need it.

The voice of common mis-conception and the blame culture that has added to the staedy decline of GB. You have perhaps heard of wear and tear? 3 springs broken by rubber humps? i'd have liked to have seen that claim on my desk.!

Adam B
Highway Engineer

[98selitb]

Originally Posted by AdamB

The voice of common mis-conception and the blame culture that has added to the staedy decline of GB. You have perhaps heard of wear and tear? 3 springs broken by rubber humps? i'd have liked to have seen that claim on my desk.!

Adam B
Highway Engineer

I have heard of wear-and-tear, and it happens to speed humps too, not just cars.

[AdamB]

Originally Posted by 98selitb

I have heard of wear-and-tear, and it happens to speed humps too, not just cars.

Not denying that it does. Nothing is indestructable. Although to claim that 3 springs are broken on a car because of speed humps seems a bit far fetched.

Mind you, these are the days when you trip on a manhole cover, and put in a claim for damage your new Armani suit, rip your stone island jacket, smash your brand new iphone, smash your ray-ban sunglasses and get blood all over your £200 shirt. Well thats whats put on the claim for it must be true? musnt it? We should just pay out, we are only the council.......

[wagolynn]

Originally Posted by Wonderful Wend

Hi, read your thread, I have got similar problem. I have a V. Corsa Comfort. I had three coil springs broken, found at MOT, I feel due to the speed cushions in my road. These are rubber type cushions, bolted to the road. There are bolts protruding above the cushions, the cushion on/off edges are off the road, and will not lay flat. I too have tried to claim from the Local Council, however they say they comply with the regulations - how can they. They have not been maintained, and debris gets under the edges so they will not lay flat to the road.

The regulations state that " it has no vertical face of any material forming part of that road hump exceeding 6mm measured vertically from top to bottom of that face" That is fine, and that is what mine is, however they are also in places 19 mm off the road surface. How can that comply with regulations?.

I sympathise with you, but I feel you will just get knocked by by the Council, unless there is some way you can prove they were negligent. That is what I intend to do with my council, as they have a duty of care, they put the speed cushions in the road, and they have a duty to maintain them.

Good luck mate. you probably will need it.

I would not expect speed bumps to break coil springs unless you hit the bump very fast say 40 – 50 MPH. If you were talking about wear on the suspension bushes etc. then I would be with you. Coil springs are a problem, if they are too soft they get a permanent set, they eventually become too short or if they are too hard they will suffer fatigue and break. In your case it sounds like the latter.

[smudger]

In these modern times where folk sue for any personal injury after a fall or trip, why is it that a driver cant sue the council or road authority who lay these speed bumps.

After all, the speed bumps are put there because of a small minority of drivers who seem to totally ignore speed limits in built up areas, and its because of their actions that we all have to put up with these bumps.

Would it not be more effective to ban these speeders rather than make all drivers suffer?:(

[98selitb]

¬

Originally Posted by AdamB

Mind you, these are the days when you trip on a manhole cover, and put in a claim for damage your new Armani suit, rip your stone island jacket, smash your brand new iphone, smash your ray-ban sunglasses and get blood all over your £200 shirt. Well thats whats put on the claim for it must be true? musnt it? We should just pay out, we are only the council.......

I am definitely with you there Adam. People who do this and go round sueing left, right and centre are an absolute disgrace. They should have been looking where they were going in the first place. Although they probably were looking but chose to 'fall over' so that they could get compensation for it. The people who sue for no reason and apply for all this stupid compensation from the taxpayer-funded council are just as bad as those who fiddle their expenses. If only the police had the power to prosecute people who went round trying to sue people the whole time for stupid reasons...

Sorry, rant over!

[wagolynn]

Originally Posted by wagolynn

I would not expect speed bumps to break coil springs unless you hit the bump very fast say 40 – 50 MPH. If you were talking about wear on the suspension bushes etc. then I would be with you. Coil springs are a problem, if they are too soft they get a permanent set, they eventually become too short or if they are too hard they will suffer fatigue and break. In your case it sounds like the latter.

Oh dear I left post #27 unclear, I was referring to the hardness or softness of the steel of the spring not the spring rate.