Which laws do I break...

[Firefight]

hey Nigel,

could be a couple of different senarios..

Note sure about contarctors working on or near road, however if a Truck spilt the sand/metal/whatever, this these are the offences and possible penaltys(sp?)


http://www.police.govt.nz/service/ro...ardsguide.html

scroll down to N 353-- N301-- N302.


F/F

[sisterecho]

Along a similar line, what about the signage around the works? Should I make a complaint to contractor, transit? It's a country road out to Castlepoint.

For example the speed limit is 100 km/hr, 50 km/hr temporary sign before works, then there was a 70 km/hr sign on the other side!

And later on that road is from 100, 30 temp, then nothing at all on the other side. Coming back the other way there is a 100 works end sign on the back of the 30 sign.

I suggest all complaints on State highways should go through Transit New Zealand. They will either deal with the issue direct, or assign the query/complaint to their consultant.

[ManDownUnder]

I suggest all complaints on State highways should go through Transit New Zealand. They will either deal with the issue direct, or assign the query/complaint to their consultant.

Thanks and the question of who is responsible, and what performance criteria is expected, has been put to the Auckland regional manager. Will post any responses I get

[Toaster]

I used to nut off at the authorities about it when I was a cop. It was really hard to get anyone to clean it up despite my repeated ranting about it being a significant danger to motorcyclists. One time I did get the gravel cleaned up and it was all back there within a few days. Blimmin' hopeless! A particularly bad spot is Pine Valley/Kahikatea Flat Rd intersection. Not a good one to take at speed going onto Pine Valley Rd I can tell ya!

[Sanx]

http://www.police.govt.nz/service/ro...ardsguide.html

There seem to be a few things missing from that long list of infringements, such as:

Inspection item: Fuel or lubricant tank leaking and causing spillage of fuel or lubricant [N6969]
Unsatisfactory condition: Operated a heavy motor vehicle leaking or incorrectly sealed fuel or lubricant tanks causing spillage of contents onto the road surface.
Enforcement action: Place vehicle out of service by a notice in writing (Use a TON) until the tanks have been correctly sealed or repaired and the spillage contained.
Maximum penalty: Corporate Maximum $50,000. Driver may be taken round the back and given a good going over by a few big blokes with lengths of 2x4. He should also be forced to lick spilled fuel or lubricant from the road surface.

So ... who should I submit this to for inclusion in the rules?

[Ixion]

Well, there is

Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004
Part 7 Driver responsibility and occupant protection (r 7.1 to r 7.22)
7.16 Dangerous substances on roads

(1)This clause applies if any of the following falls or escapes from a vehicle on a road:
(a)a slippery substance:
(b)a piercing or dangerous substance:
(c)glass:
(d)any other substance of any kind that, because of its size or nature, constitutes or could constitute a danger to road users.

(2)If removal of the substance or glass can be achieved quickly and safely, the driver of any vehicle involved must immediately remove it or cause it to be removed.

(3)If removal of the substance or glass cannot be achieved quickly and safely and there is a likelihood of harm being caused to the public or to any person, the driver of any vehicle involved must warn the public or report the occurrence immediately to the nearest police station or to a member of the police.

(4)If all the drivers of the vehicles involved are physically incapacitated and unable to comply with subclause (2) or subclause (3), a person removing any vehicle concerned from the scene must comply with subclause (2) or subclause (3) (as the case requires).

Note quite what you are after though.

There is a common law offence of depositing any matter on the Queen's Highway to the common danger.

[ManDownUnder]

Well, there is


Note quite what you are after though.

You're right - close but no banana.. thanks anyway

There is a common law offence of depositing any matter on the Queen's Highway to the common danger.

THAT's the one I'm after - does said rule/infringement have a name and associated penalty?

[spudchucka]

If I got a bucket of sand and gravel and deliberatley spread it on the apex of a corner?

Or - to rephrase, am I allowed to do this? Why? or Why not.

Which law(s) do I break?

How are transit exempt from those rules where they leave crap all over the road without warning signs etc - through laziness or standard practice (read "negligence")?

Qualified opinions only please guys.

Either of these look like they could fit your scenario, however culpability would depend somewhat upon the ability to prove mens rea; whether you did it intending to endanger or whether it was an act of carelessness.

Summary Offences Act 1981
Offences Against Persons or Property
12 Acts endangering safety

12Acts endangering safety

Every person is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or a fine not exceeding [$2,000] who, in any public place, without reasonable excuse and in circumstances likely to cause injury,—

(a)Places or makes any obstruction; or

(b)Digs and leaves any hole; or

(c)Removes any protective structure or any warning sign or device.

Crimes Act 1961
Part 7 Crimes against religion, morality, and public welfare (s 123 to s 150)
Crimes against public welfare
145 Criminal nuisance

145Criminal nuisance

(1)Every one commits criminal nuisance who does any unlawful act or omits to discharge any legal duty, such act or omission being one which he knew would endanger the lives, safety, or health of the public, or the life, safety, or health of any individual.

(2)Every one who commits criminal nuisance is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year.

[ManDownUnder]

Either of these look like they could fit your scenario, however culpability would depend somewhat upon the ability to prove mens rea; whether you did it intending to endanger or whether it was an act of carelessness.

Top man - thanks Spud

[Big Dave]

As per Jills Pea-ing problem - there is a precedent that awarded damages to a motorcyclist felled by unsignposted roadworks.

[Lucy]

Thanks and the question of who is responsible, and what performance criteria is expected, has been put to the Auckland regional manager. Will post any responses I get

I'm glad you are also questioning real world authorities, and will be interested to see if you get sense from them. I can understand where you are coming from ,but posting on KB but demanding only 'qualified people reply' is a bit daft. IMO. Might as well ask a question in a pub and demand only qualified people reply!

[ManDownUnder]

I'm glad you are also questioning real world authorities, and will be interested to see if you get sense from them. I can understand where you are coming from ,but posting on KB but demanding only 'qualified people reply' is a bit daft. IMO. Might as well ask a question in a pub and demand only qualified people reply!

I hear what you're sayin' but cops know the law, as do a number of others on here (lawyers and those well versed in the ways of the corrupt...). But anything posted here is taken with the suitable dose of salt depending on the author.

'twas simply a request for those that have a firm knowledge of the subject area rather than the free for all KB normally turns into when opinions are freely offered in the face of reality.

[Lucy]

I hear what you're sayin' but cops know the law, as do a number of others on here (lawyers and those well versed in the ways of the corrupt...). But anything posted here is taken with the suitable dose of salt depending on the author.

'twas simply a request for those that have a firm knowledge of the subject area rather than the free for all KB normally turns into when opinions are freely offered in the face of reality.

Fair enough - but usually when people ask for serious input, seems to bring out the worst in people! This hasnt, you must be a well respected bloke. Well done.

[ManDownUnder]

This just in from Tranzit

There are three aspects to this, which should apply to roads irrespective of the road controlling authority; i.e. whether the road is State Highways or a local one looked after by council. The primary issue is that of safety in that loose material does not get onto a road so that markings are obscured, or that materials do not effect vehicles traveling over them.

The first of these aspects is to have measures in place to either lower speed where loose materials might be encountered or give some pre-warning. Such an example is that of a chip sealed road, which at the end of 48 hours after sealing, is swept and pavement marked, then the temporary speed restriction removed. This sort of requirement is usually written into the contract under which the work is being carried out.

If there is construction works then the contract conditions usually requires that no materials are spread off site.

Thirdly if materials are inadvertently dropped from a passing vehicle, then they need to be removed in a timely manner. In some instances this will require emergency action and cleaned up as soon as practical or if within the maintenance contract response times, if there is no imminent danger to passing traffic. If a truck operator spills materials onto the road then they can be prosecuted for an insecure load as well as been held liable for third party damage.

I hope this covers you concern. However, if you are aware of any location on SH's where you believe there is loose metal, please keep us informed. We will have the location inspected and the situation rectified.
===
... so I asked...

What is the best course of action in those situations where a contractor fails to adequately sweep the surface resulting in vehicle damage? My concern stems from a number of incidents (and a good number of "near misses") in the motorcycling community where our safety is compromised by the presence of a relatively small amount of loose chip.

I realise it's impractical to always get 100% of loose material of the road, and freely concede the burden of safety is shared by the motorist needing to drive (or ride) to the conditions. A particularly concerning situation that affects bikes is loose chip present on the apex of a corner - out of sight on approach, greatly reducing traction while leaning through the corner, reducing braking, and reducing manoeuvring capability.

In a situation of unmarked chip, or other residual debris causing a loss of control resulting in loss of control and accident, is Transit or the contractor ultimately responsible for costs incurred?

[vifferman]

If a truck operator spills materials onto the road then they can be prosecuted for an insecure load as well as been held liable for third party damage.

Recently, we were on the Southern M'way, and a truck travelling at over 100km/h pulled out into the lane ahead of us. We were bombarded by gravel falling from the truck and bouncing off the car's windscreen, bonnet and roof (glad we weren't on the bike!). This crap appeared to be falling not from the tray of the truck, but from its chassis, presumably as a consequence of the truck being filled or emptied. It was farkn dangerous, and I was rather pissed off that there was no polis anywhere nearby on the motorway.