You can't teach stupid

[YHT]

bit of a shame if one is an a Land Rover that was perfectly safe and capable of wading through?

[another_clean_sheet]

Originally Posted by VVC-Geeza

Yes I know, but unlikely you would see it before entering the water.The road should be closed off to save motorists from themselves.

Would you not stop and ascertain the situation rather than blindly going through?

[stevestrat]

Originally Posted by another_clean_sheet

Would you not stop and ascertain the situation rather than blindly going through?

Sensible people would but are we talking about sensible people

[VVC-Geeza]

Originally Posted by another_clean_sheet

Would you not stop and ascertain the situation rather than blindly going through?

Yes I would!

[another_clean_sheet]

Originally Posted by VVC-Geeza

Yes I would!

I meant to say one rather than you

[boater]

Interesting - but I don't think an insurance company could refuse a claim resulting from a flooded car having been driven through a ford.

The road is open and signing is to warn of the ford ahead - in no way telling drivers that to proceed is unsafe or may result in the vehicle becoming immobilised. A bend warning sign does much the same thing and does not advise of severity or of a suitable maximum speed in order to negotiate it safely. It is left to the drivers discretion to decide how to proceed. If he/she gets it wrong and the car is damaged I think they would still have a valid claim.

The Highway Authority has a responsibility to ensure that roads are fit for purpose and in this case are doing nothing to suggest otherwise. If they are made aware of a road defect such as a pothole and do nothing about it and it causes an accident or maybe a broken spring then the person affected would have a valid claim against them. This situation is really no different. To discharge their responsibilities more reasonably they could set up variable message signs to warn vehicles of the depth of water at any given time with supplementary wording at certain times such as "only suitable for hgv's, 4x4's etc"

That is my view anyway.

[macafee2]

Originally Posted by boater

Interesting - but I don't think an insurance company could refuse a claim resulting from a flooded car having been driven through a ford.

The road is open and signing is to warn of the ford ahead - in no way telling drivers that to proceed is unsafe or may result in the vehicle becoming immobilised. A bend warning sign does much the same thing and does not advise of severity or of a suitable maximum speed in order to negotiate it safely. It is left to the drivers discretion to decide how to proceed. If he/she gets it wrong and the car is damaged I think they would still have a valid claim.

The Highway Authority has a responsibility to ensure that roads are fit for purpose and in this case are doing nothing to suggest otherwise. If they are made aware of a road defect such as a pothole and do nothing about it and it causes an accident or maybe a broken spring then the person affected would have a valid claim against them. This situation is really no different. To discharge their responsibilities more reasonably they could set up variable message signs to warn vehicles of the depth of water at any given time with supplementary wording at certain times such as "only suitable for hgv's, 4x4's etc"

That is my view anyway.

does a warning sign not show that they have warned drivers of a hazard and therefore drivers should show caution? Do you think drivers bear no responsibility for damaging their cars by driving though deep water? They deliberately drove through the ford, perhaps without making any checks as to the suitability of their vehicle or depth of water. Why do some drivers would show caution and not proceed while others carry on and damage their vehicles?

macafee2

[boater]

Originally Posted by macafee2

does a warning sign not show that they have warned drivers of a hazard and therefore drivers should show caution? Do you think drivers bear no responsibility for damaging their cars by driving though deep water? They deliberately drove through the ford, perhaps without making any checks as to the suitability of their vehicle or depth of water. Why do some drivers would show caution and not proceed while others carry on and damage their vehicles?

macafee2

Yes the sign gives a warning but there are many fords where the depth of water never threatens the security of traffic using that road. Drivers do have responsibility for the safety of themselves and others at all times - no argument. Some decide to proceed and others do not - a matter of individual judgement. Some get it right and some get it wrong. Accidents always mean that someone got something wrong but insurance is for all eventualities.

[MSS]

Originally Posted by boater

Interesting - but I don't think an insurance company could refuse a claim resulting from a flooded car having been driven through a ford.

The road is open and signing is to warn of the ford ahead - in no way telling drivers that to proceed is unsafe or may result in the vehicle becoming immobilised. A bend warning sign does much the same thing and does not advise of severity or of a suitable maximum speed in order to negotiate it safely. It is left to the drivers discretion to decide how to proceed. If he/she gets it wrong and the car is damaged I think they would still have a valid claim.

The Highway Authority has a responsibility to ensure that roads are fit for purpose and in this case are doing nothing to suggest otherwise. If they are made aware of a road defect such as a pothole and do nothing about it and it causes an accident or maybe a broken spring then the person affected would have a valid claim against them. This situation is really no different. To discharge their responsibilities more reasonably they could set up variable message signs to warn vehicles of the depth of water at any given time with supplementary wording at certain times such as "only suitable for hgv's, 4x4's etc"

That is my view anyway.

A view that will most likely prove to be wrong and rightly so. Responsible drivers should not have to pay for the idiotic actions of others through increased premiums!
See https://www.confused.com/car-insuran...d-flood-damage

https://www.admiral.com/magazine/gui...r-flood-damage

https://carinsurance.arrivealive.co....ough-water.php

A ford is not a defect in the roadway. It is a feature of that particular roadway and one that requires the appropriate level of care from the driver. Driving through flood water would most likely fail the 'common sense test' applied by the Financial Services Ombudsman.

[HarryM1BYT]

Originally Posted by VVC-Geeza

Yes I know, but unlikely you would see it before entering the water.The road should be closed off to save motorists from themselves.

What - no Youtube videos then..