M50 incident flat tyres

yoke

Travelling at the speed limit on a very windy day a few months ago on the m50, I had something which I imagine was a small rock slam really hard into the lower part of the driver door of my car, very close to the front wheel.
I got off the motorway and checked the damage - the paintwork was scratched down to the metal in what looked like a spray over an area about the size of a €20 note, but no real other damage. Luckily there was no dent due to the shape of the area that it hit - it tends to press in a tiny bit and rebound, which is what I think happened, considering the force which the object hit with had jolted the car.
Anyway as a thought exercise I wondered who would pay for the damage if the item had hit the front tyre and caused a blowout/crash/pile-up/injuries, considering I was on a toll road that is supposed to be kept clear of debris at all times by a private company, so I decided to follow up.
Fingal county council gave me the number of some company which is responsible for maintaining the m50, and they basically kept repeating that they weren't responsible for any damage etc etc - I had only a small amount of paint damage on my car which I didn't give a sh*t about as it could be touched up easily, so I didn't follow up, but I did make a mental note that the company seemed like a shower of c*nts to deal with on the phone and I'd expect anyone trying to claim off them for a more serious incident would probably need a solicitors help.

OP - if it's the same company I dealt with, you'll probably need to take them to court if you want to recoup any expenses. Of course, court can go either way...

Then again, my expectations may have been wrongly set by Fingal County Council, and perhaps the company was right in the phone call to tell me they were not responsible (and that would mean they weren't actually a shower of c*nts) - logically I would have thought Fingal county council would have been the entity who I should be claiming off, since I have no contract with the private company myself - this is why I rang fingal coco first. If true, then fingal county council are absolute **** for fobbing me off onto the private company who THEY have a contract with

rosmoke

Thanks @yoke.
Yeah, I find it normal that with that many cameras around and as I wasn't the only one affected and there is proof that I needed the platform and a few seconds ago I paid the toll it should be something that can be done.

It's not a big value I know, it's just not my fault and it could have gone a lot more worst and the responsible should pay.

This remembers me of someone who was carrying some furniture on the n7 a few weeks ago on the top of his car but it was poorly secured and he lost parts of it on the way.
Negligence costs.

Optimalprimerib

Stheno wrote: »

In my case my timing belt went near the n4 junction.
I pulled onto the hard shoulder and rang my insurance as I've breakdown cover but ten minutes later the m50 guys arrived.

I think it's the only motorway with this service

So you we're driving a car not fit for the road? If you had the car properly serviced this would not have happened. Very irresponsible imo.

Del2005

Alena Massive Teenager wrote: »

Don't agree, your driving at 120 and the car in front smashed into a metal bar throws it up in the air and you have a split second to swerve or hit it knowing you probably have cars left and right and you could cause a catastrophic accident if you swerve.

That 2 second gap would appear very very small when you take into account human behavior, speed involved, shock etc.

It's a load of bollox to say if the 2 second gap had been adhered to everything would have been fine.

How do you know he didn't leave a 2 second gap ? even if he left a 3 or 4 second gap he probably would have still hit it.

I always leave a huge gap when driving and if a piece of metal flew in my direction when doing 120 the last thing I would do is wildly swing into an ajoining lane which is what seems some are suggesting should have been the course of action. Or you could slam on the brakes and cause a massive pileup and again maybe a fatality, pick your poison

Even if you had enough time to brake smoothly you would still have to hit it or else you have the time to look left and right before swerving, yeah right.

The basic principle of our roads is that you are supposed to be able to stop safely in your own lane the distance that you can see. The fact that no driver adheres to the rule is the reason why the OP was damaged.


OP I don't think that you'll have much luck going after the M50 franchise operator. They are responsible for debris but even if the bar had been reported, which is what needs to happen if you hit a pothole the next person to hit is covered if a reasonable time has gone by for the repair to be done, they will just point out that it was too dangerous for them to remove the item.

It's a pain but unless they can find the registration of the vehicle that lost the item its not one else's responsibility for the repair but yours.

Hurrache

yoke wrote: »

Then again, my expectations may have been wrongly set by Fingal County Council, and perhaps the company was right in the phone call to tell me they were not responsible (and that would mean they weren't actually a shower of c*nts) - logically I would have thought Fingal county council would have been the entity who I should be claiming off, since I have no contract with the private company myself - this is why I rang fingal coco first. If true, then fingal county council are absolute **** for fobbing me off onto the private company who THEY have a contract with

You've no contract with Fingal either. And it's entirely unreasonable to claim off the operator, unless you can prove negligence in some way such as that someone had already called about the hazard and it wasn't removed within a reasonable amount of time.

Otherwise the solution people may want is to have a maintenance vehicle drive behind every single vehicle that uses the road so they catch whatever piece of debris before it hits the ground.

Gravelly

Stheno wrote: »

How did the cars the up claims was ahead of them avoid It? Honestly I'm sick to death of people not wanting to take responsibilityfor their ****ups

Not put very nicely, but this is pretty much what it comes down to. Despite the desire these days to have somebody (else) be responsible for everything that happens in life, sometimes you just have to suck it up and move on.

I stopped to help a lady with a puncture a few months ago, and while I was changing her tyre, she was on the phone to a friend telling them she was planning to "sue the council" because she had hit a pothole.

seamus

Shit Happens Act, 1976.

Proving the bar came from another vehicle is one thing. Proving negligence is another thing entirely.

There is no criminal case to answer here, so you would have to go to court to force the M50 operator to provide you with footage, then go to court, again, to force the dept of transport to reveal to you the identity of the company to whom the other vehicle is registered.

And that's before you can even try to make a claim off their insurance and argue blame. Which you may lose.

Life is too short, move on.

Blazer

Optimalprimerib wrote: »

So you we're driving a car not fit for the road? If you had the car properly serviced this would not have happened. Very irresponsible imo.

Jesus Christ......where to even begin, but I suggest removing write access from the motors forum if you’re going to be writing garbage like that.

GBX

Would the M50 company go through the footage and willingly hand over reg details of another driver? Would data protection come into it from their part?

btkm8unsl0w5r4

OP not your fault for sure. Question is who is to blame. In this world it seems anything bad happens to anyone and there has to be a third part to blame. Sometimes nobody is at fault. The truck I am sure had no intention of leaving debris on the road and no idea it happened, or else they broke down too. Either way we share the road with others and its a risk of that pursuit. We have to stop this culture of blame and compensation in society. Sometimes things happen, nobody was hurt, damage was minor.

jca

Mohammed Ambitious Milkshake wrote: »

OP not your fault for sure. Question is who is to blame. In this world it seems anything bad happens to anyone and there has to be a third part to blame. Sometimes nobody is at fault. The truck I am sure had no intention of leaving debris on the road and no idea it happened, or else they broke down too. Either way we share the road with others and its a risk of that pursuit. We have to stop this culture of blame and compensation in society. Sometimes things happen, nobody was hurt, damage was minor.

The most sensible post of this ridiculous thread. Suck it up and move on.

Del2005

GBX wrote: »

Would the M50 company go through the footage and willingly hand over reg details of another driver? Would data protection come into it from their part?

Only the Gardai can request CCTV footage.

GBX

Del2005 wrote: »

Only the Gardai can request CCTV footage.

So unless they decide to follow up unfortunately the OP will be left with the bill.

rosmoke

I was asking this because I am aware of cases where drivers went over pot holes and claimed from the council and won, because it's council's responsibility to maintain the roads safe.

Another case I remember was when a guy was cycling on a rainy day, hit a pothole (was water .. so he couldn't see it) and remain paralysed for the rest of his life.

I know it's a minor thing and I have to fork out probably 260e, and maybe other parts have been affected aswell.

I wouldn't have time for court and it looks like it's getting messy with footage .. think we can close the thread.

Thank you!

yoke

Hurrache wrote: »

You've no contract with Fingal either.
<...>
Otherwise the solution people may want is to have a maintenance vehicle drive behind every single vehicle that uses the road so they catch whatever piece of debris before it hits the ground.

But Fingal are funded by the state, and they have specific responsibilities to deliver as part of that, so it is not the same as a private company who I have no contract with.
After all, I have no contract with the Gardai either, but I'd expect them to provide their services when applicable.

I'm not suggesting to have a maintenance vehicle tailgating every vehicle - but there has to be some method of measuring how much damage is being done by debris on the motorway, and working towards lowering it. As things stand, noone has any incentive to minimise the damage done by debris to motorists - the county council are apparently not accountable and motorists just suck it up and pay for their own damage.

Del2005

rosmoke wrote: »

I was asking this because I am aware of cases where drivers went over pot holes and claimed from the council and won, because it's council's responsibility to maintain the roads safe.

Another case I remember was when a guy was cycling on a rainy day, hit a pothole (was water .. so he couldn't see it) and remain paralysed for the rest of his life.

I know it's a minor thing and I have to fork out probably 260e, and maybe other parts have been affected aswell.

I wouldn't have time for court and it looks like it's getting messy with footage .. think we can close the thread.

Thank you!

If a defect in the road is notified to the council they are responsible for the future incidents if they don't repair it I a timely manner. So the first person to report a pot hole has to pay for themselves, if a person hits it a few days later they are covered.

The problem for the OP was that even after several vehicles had hit the item it was still too dangerous for the road workers to recover the item, so the franchise operator isn't responsible.

Del2005

yoke wrote: »

But Fingal are funded by the state, and they have specific responsibilities to deliver as part of that, so it is not the same as a private company who I have no contract with.
After all, I have no contract with the Gardai either, but I'd expect them to provide their services when applicable.

I'm not suggesting to have a maintenance vehicle tailgating every vehicle - but there has to be some method of measuring how much damage is being done by debris on the motorway, and working towards lowering it. As things stand, noone has any incentive to minimise the damage done by debris to motorists - the county council are apparently not accountable and motorists just suck it up and pay for their own damage.

Bits fall off vehicles all the time, just look at the amount of debris off vehicles along any busy road. The only way to make sure that nothing falls off vehicles is to ban traffic from the road.

If the vehicle can be identified and proven to be negligent then they will be responsible, otherwise its an act of God.

btkm8unsl0w5r4

rosmoke wrote: »

I was asking this because I am aware of cases where drivers went over pot holes and claimed from the council and won, because it's council's responsibility to maintain the roads safe.

Another case I remember was when a guy was cycling on a rainy day, hit a pothole (was water .. so he couldn't see it) and remain paralysed for the rest of his life.

I know it's a minor thing and I have to fork out probably 260e, and maybe other parts have been affected aswell.

I wouldn't have time for court and it looks like it's getting messy with footage .. think we can close the thread.

Thank you!

Well if the M50 motorway maintenance people left the debris on the road for ages, or failed to have the road a condition that was a risk to property or life you would have a valid claim against them. You know you could claim on your own insurance?

osarusan

Not your fault, but virtually no chance of getting anybody else to pay for the damage.

faceman

Not entirely the same circumstances but I’ll share my story. Was on my motorbike driving down a Dublin road one morning and came off when I hit an oil spill. Gardai were already present and witnessed my fall but hadn’t closed the road yet. I was injured and the bike damaged. Fortunately it was a low speed incident so could have been worse

Garda told me that if they find out who caused the spill I could claim off them and failing that he said to claim off the council.

Not sure if the same applies for the M50

GM228

rosmoke wrote: »

I was asking this because I am aware of cases where drivers went over pot holes and claimed from the council and won, because it's council's responsibility to maintain the roads safe.

Del2005 wrote: »

If a defect in the road is notified to the council they are responsible for the future incidents if they don't repair it I a timely manner. So the first person to report a pot hole has to pay for themselves, if a person hits it a few days later they are covered.

This is not true, the courts have held many times the Council is not liable for failure to repair/maintain roads. If they actually do make a repair though and as a result of the work there is damage then that's a different story.

Nonfeasance versus misfeasance.

GritBiscuit

rosmoke wrote: »

I was asking this because I am aware of cases where drivers went over pot holes and claimed from the council and won, because it's council's responsibility to maintain the roads safe.

Another case I remember was when a guy was cycling on a rainy day, hit a pothole (was water .. so he couldn't see it) and remain paralysed for the rest of his life.

I know it's a minor thing and I have to fork out probably 260e, and maybe other parts have been affected aswell.

I wouldn't have time for court and it looks like it's getting messy with footage .. think we can close the thread.

Thank you!

Civil action re negligence in terms of motoring incidents hinges on knowledge and reasonableness...as in your example above; did the local authority know a pot hole existed? Is it reasonable that there was a pot hole there at the time? (could it have developed overnight, for instance). Is it reasonable that the cyclist couldn't distinguish road from hole...and so on.

In your case even if you could track down the offending vehicle, you would then have to evidence that the driver either knew of the bar falling off their vehicle or it is reasonable that they should have known - and they took no steps to rectify the situation. The driver may well have not known or have contacted motorway services to have the bar safely removed. You'd need to do some detective work to see.

These situations suck. I had my windscreen smashed at speed when a lorry threw up debris from the road, causing me to break and have to pull in fairly sharpish with just mirrors and side windows to sight other traffic. Annoying, scary but just one of those things. As much damage as there is to your car, a couple of blow outs or the bar jamming under your car at those speeds could have meant a lot worse...glad you're okay, sorry about the bill you'll be left with

rosmoke

When I pay for my insurance, I am aware of the fact that any damage caused by my vehicle or items not secured properly is entirely my fault and my insurance is liable.

This goes both ways, if something fells from someone else's truck because he did not secure his cargo, his insurance covers it.

Gravelly

rosmoke wrote: »

When I pay for my insurance, I am aware of the fact that any damage caused by my vehicle or items not secured properly is entirely my fault and my insurance is liable.

This goes both ways, if something fells from someone else's truck because he did not secure his cargo, his insurance covers it.

If you can track him/her down, prove the part actually came from their truck, prove that they were negligent, etc. etc.

GritBiscuit

rosmoke wrote: »

...if something fells from someone else's truck because he did not secure his cargo, his insurance covers it.

That's true - but you have no evidence that is what happened. A long metal bar could be anything and have any number of origins, including previous accidents on that stretch of road...

If it was unsecured cargo then that is negligent - but you have to evidence who's cargo it was and that it was indeed unsecured.

btkm8unsl0w5r4

faceman wrote: »

Garda told me that if they find out who caused the spill I could claim off them and failing that he said to claim off the council.

did you succeed?

grogi

Stheno wrote: »

One could argue that if you were driving wihdue care and attention you'd have noticed the "huge and thick metal bar" and taken action to avoid It? Would you like a summons on top?

Sure the m50 is full of cameras which will have recorded your poor driving

Very poor trolling. We expect better from such an experienced user.

CrankyHaus

GritBiscuit wrote: »

That's true - but you have no evidence that is what happened. A long metal bar could be anything and have any number of origins, including previous accidents on that stretch of road...

If it was unsecured cargo then that is negligent - but you have to evidence who's cargo it was and that it was indeed unsecured.

FWIW I call M50 services or Garda Traffic watch on the rare occasion I see loads falling from vehicles, mainly to have the hazard cleared pronto to prevent accidents. I give the details of the vehicles it came from when possible.

I'm sure I'm not the only 'weirdo' doing this. A request to AGS and M50 services for any reports of falling loads IDing the offending vehicle may be more productive than calling M50 services to get them to accept liability (as one person reported doing earlier on the thread).

dr.fuzzenstein

In Germany at least, if I fail to clear snow and ice off my car and it hits the vehicle behind me, I am as liable as if I had crashed into them.
To my mind that is the only correct way. Otherwise you could lose things from your car, next car drives over it and I could give the response of some posters, which is a shrug of the shoulders and "should of seen it".
IMO, if you lose sh*t off your vehicle that causes damage to following vehicles, you are liable.
To suggest otherwise is idiotic.
Of course the problem is tracing the owner. If it has been lying there even a minute, there is absolutely no way to find the owner and it falls under TS.
Whether someone should have seen it and braked/swerved is an entirely different topic. If I braked for something small on the road here, I.e. without good reason, I am partly responsible.
So the OP driving over the metal shaft was in fact the correct way of doing things, unlike some "driving gods" here who would have stood on the brake/swerved wildly in the 3rd lane of the M50 at 120 km/h and caused a 25 vehicle pileup. :rolleyes:

bucketybuck

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

So the OP driving over the metal shaft was in fact the correct way of doing things, unlike some "driving gods" here who would have stood on the brake/swerved wildly in the 3rd lane of the M50 at 120 km/h and caused a 25 vehicle pileup. :rolleyes:

If you are driving a safe distance behind the first vehicle to hit the obstruction then none of that needs to happen, driving god or not. I wouldn't have thought that would be such a contentious notion.

BillyBobBS

I find it utterly astounding traffic wasn't stopped to remove the item. If a motorcycle had hit an object as described the rider may well have lost his/her life.

CJhaughey

bucketybuck wrote: »

If you are driving a safe distance behind the first vehicle to hit the obstruction then none of that needs to happen, driving god or not. I wouldn't have thought that would be such a contentious notion.

The problem is the M50 is a madhouse on wheels, leave a 2 second gap and you'll find that there will be two or three cars slip into that gap putting you back into a half second gap unless you continually drop back away from them, it doesn't take much space for an average idiot driver to think, That space needs filling with my car.

vandriver

There was a warning on the electronic notice boards about debris on the road.
I was on my way over to Santry and saw the offending bit of metal between lane 2 and 3(think truck drive shaft )

bucketybuck

CJhaughey wrote: »

The problem is the M50 is a madhouse on wheels, leave a 2 second gap and you'll find that there will be two or three cars slip into that gap putting you back into a half second gap unless you continually drop back away from them, it doesn't take much space for an average idiot driver to think, That space needs filling with my car.

Its rife with aggressive driving, no question about it. However we are talking about liability after hitting an obstruction so the important question will be the bare facts of how close you where to the car in front, not the reasons why.

Again, the first vehicle to meet and hit an unexpected obstruction may have some defence, but the 2nd and 3rd vehicles need to answer the question of why they couldn't react in time.

lawred2

Stheno wrote: »

Nope I'm serious

You didn't see it and just blindly drove into It?

Just pay up and move on.

jaysis - are you for real?

do you have access to the footage or something? Because you're making some serious leaps based on a few posts

rosmoke

bucketybuck wrote: »

Its rife with aggressive driving, no question about it. However we are talking about liability after hitting an obstruction so the important question will be the bare facts of how close you where to the car in front, not the reasons why.

Again, the first vehicle to meet and hit an unexpected obstruction may have some defence, but the 2nd and 3rd vehicles need to answer the question of why they couldn't react in time.

What was I supposed to do, swerve into the cars on my left or right, or come to a stall on m50 3rd lane ?

emo72

rosmoke wrote: »

What was I supposed to do, swerve into the cars on my left or right, or come to a stall on m50 3rd lane ?

I think your getting a hard time on here. You did nothing wrong but still ended up with a damaged car. I really don't think there's anything you can do about redress. Still you have my sympathies.

lawred2

emo72 wrote: »

I think your getting a hard time on here. You did nothing wrong but still ended up with a damaged car. I really don't think there's anything you can do about redress. Still you have my sympathies.

reality I'm afraid..

years ago on my way back from Galway I was behind a truck that dropped something that went right under my front left wheel. Made holy shít of the front left of the car.

Cost me a fortune in repairs.

rosmoke

Thank you @emo72.
I was determined to making a few phone calls and ask for footage, maybe we could see where it came from but if I have to involve the court .. it's not worth my time.

I can only be happy it wasn't a bike going over and it was only cars.

But then again, I'm not happy with myself as the driver who caused this prejudice to me and others goes without a lesson learned.

emo72

lawred2 wrote: »

reality I'm afraid..

years ago on my way back from Galway I was behind a truck that dropped something that went right under my front left wheel. Made holy shít of the front left of the car.

Cost me a fortune in repairs.

Yeah, reality sadly. A bit of sympathy for the lad wouldn't go amiss though. Some posters have not a shred of empathy. Tough ****e, suck it up type posts are not really needed. That's not aimed at you lawred. Emo is a sucker for a hard luck story.

lawred2

emo72 wrote: »

Yeah, reality sadly. A bit of sympathy for the lad wouldn't go amiss though. Some posters have not a shred of empathy. Tough ****e, suck it up type posts are not really needed. That's not aimed at you lawred. Emo is a sucker for a hard luck story.

ah yeah I feel for the OP. I know what it feels like.

Can't believe the accusations of recklessness and poor driving based on a couple of posts..

Must be said that the OP should be thankful that it's only monetary damage and nothing worse

rosmoke

Hope I can fix this, it's a bit deformed (has new tyre on it)

https://image.ibb.co/jWXfQx/wheel.jpg

bucketybuck

rosmoke wrote: »

What was I supposed to do, swerve into the cars on my left or right, or come to a stall on m50 3rd lane ?

How close were you to the car ahead of you that first hit the object?

What are you supposed to do? If you have enough distance between you and the car in front then you can safely slow down and then stop without having to swerve into any other lanes. Its not a gotcha question, its just a simple fact that if you want to put the liability onto someone else then you'll have to answer the question of how close you were to the flashing brake lights of that first vehicle.

davo10

This happened to a friend a couple of years ago on the M50 except he saw the piece fall off a lorry, but between swerving to try and avoid the metal and the speed of traffic, he didn't get the number plate of the lorry. He brought the metal piece to the nearest barracks and put what turned out to be part of a gearbox on the counter. After explaining what happened and asking if anything could be done, the Garda looked at the metal and said "gearbox, who owns you?", he turned to my friend and said unless h gets an answer from the gearbox, there was nothing they could do.

dr.fuzzenstein

bucketybuck wrote: »

If you are driving a safe distance behind the first vehicle to hit the obstruction then none of that needs to happen, driving god or not. I wouldn't have thought that would be such a contentious notion.

Not neccesarily always so.
If you are driving in heavy traffic with cars in front, behind and on your inside your options are limited.
If you swerve, you would take out the car beside you or cause them to swerve and cause a crash.
You cannot brake and come to a standstill on the outside lane of a motorway unless you are faced with a substantial obstacle.
You could leave a 100 meter gap to the car in front and there could be time to change lane, but then people would pass you on the inside and pull in in front of you.
So on the outside lane of a busy motorway your options are indeed limited. Even if you see it, you cannot always brake, swerve or change lanes. And if you drive slow enough to always avoid any obstacle in any situation, you most likely don't need to be in the outside lane in the first place.
At least in Germany if you slam on the brakes or swerve wildly and cause a crash for no good reason (cat, small dog, a pebble on the road), you are partially or even wholly responsible and I find that a good system.

bucketybuck

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Not neccesarily always so.

No.

If you are a safe distance behind the vehicle in front then by definition you have enough time to react safely to any incident.

And it must be said, people can stop on the M50, its not ideal but it happens every day, the suggestion that the only option would be to swerve into an adjoining lane is false. Assuming of course that the driver has left themselves room to stop if needed...

grogi

bucketybuck wrote: »

No.

If you are a safe distance behind the vehicle in front then by definition you have enough time to react safely to any incident.

And it must be said, people can stop on the M50, its not ideal but it happens every day, the suggestion that the only option would be to swerve into an adjoining lane is false. Assuming of course that the driver has left themselves room to stop if needed...

Without being hypocritical - have you ever tried to drive on a busy motorway and keep "safe" distance? It simply is impossible, any gap you leave in front of you will be filled immediately.

Bruthal

grogi wrote: »

Without being hypocritical - have you ever tried to drive on a busy motorway and keep "safe" distance? It simply is impossible, any gap you leave in front of you will be filled immediately.

Yes just the other day on the m50 a van behind me passed on hard shoulder (left lane for blanch exit) and squeezed in front of me to enable being 1 foot behind the truck I was behind. Clearly trying to hide front plate from toll cameras.

But any gap at all will be taken in seconds.

Bruthal

rosmoke wrote: »

Hope I can fix this, it's a bit deformed (has new tyre on it)

https://image.ibb.co/jWXfQx/wheel.jpg

It doesnt look drivable like that anyway.

bucketybuck

grogi wrote: »

Without being hypocritical - have you ever tried to drive on a busy motorway and keep "safe" distance? It simply is impossible, any gap you leave in front of you will be filled immediately.

I have already said that I fully appreciate that, I drive the M50 far too frequently. I am simply responding to the question of liability, because when it comes to the liability it might not be so simple as "its hard to keep a safe distance on a motorway".