Who is to blame?

[Mikester]

If it is as described then you have to think about these things.

Its dark and an unlit carriageway. So if there was water up ahead, you wouldnt see it unless you have full beams on.

He probably didnt have full beams on as he mentions a car coming the other way.

He was doing 55 in 60 so not light speed.

There was no warning, or signs.

I think we would have all done exactly the same thing here probably as i cant see how, other than sixth sense you would know it was there?

On the flip side, if a pipe bursts and floods a road. The water company/council/highways/police cant be everywhere instantly.

The pipe could of burst 5mins before or 2 hours. If nobody reports it previous to the crash then nobody will fix it.

I have no idea if you can claim from the water company but think you would be doing well to get some money out of them! If you dont try you dont get!

[Len]

Couple of things worry me about this.
NSL in a lighted area with a kerb. That is not standard practice.

As for the driving he saw spray ahead and did either nothing or next to.
Which lane were you in? If inside did you consider moving to outer lane where water would be shallower?

[Mikester]

Couple of things worry me about this.
NSL in a lighted area with a kerb. That is not standard practice.

As for the driving he saw spray ahead and did either nothing or next to.
Which lane were you in? If inside did you consider moving to outer lane where water would be shallower?

Driving home last night along a unlit single carriageway around 11pm. The road starts off at 40mph then changes to NSL after a short while. I had passed the 40mph section and was slowly increasing my speed to around 55mph.

As I approach the first slight bend I notice in the distance that the car coming in the opposite direction has what appears to be spray in front of its headlights. Approximately half a second later I hit standing water... LOTS OF IT!!! the car aquaplanes and before I can do anything I have spun about 30 degrees and smacked straight into the kerb. At this point I have water gushing over my bonnet, so I am assuming a burst water pipe.

I manage to get the car back onto the road, straightened up and drive home (with a horrible scraping noise). The rest of the road is a gradual down hill, and no one is managing to drive over 20mph as water is still spraying up and over the bonnet and virtually flooded by the time I got to the bottom of the hill.


Now looking at the car the front left side wheel is fcuked. the front bumper is bent i.e. hanging off. So my question is 'who is to blame?' will i be able to claim money for the damage back from the council/water company or will I have to foot the bill myself?? 

Len,

He said it was unlit in his first post. He also said he hit the water half a second after seeing the spray. He also mentioned it was a single carriageway, so i hope he was on his side of the road and not going for a head on into the car coming the other way.

Also local to me i can think of a few national speed limit, single carriageway roads with kerbs and foot paths that run for miles with no street lights.

[Len]

I didnt say it was unusual, just not standard practice.

Half a second is plenty of time to react.

[Mikester]

I didnt say it was unusual, just not standard practice.

Half a second is plenty of time to react.

Not being picky Len, promise! But even if you have F1 Driver reaction times, half a second wont stop you from 55mph or even get you on the brakes to slow you to half that speed.

Of course everyone is different mind. Age, fatigue, cars, road, weather etc all play a part.

Let's start with the basics. A vehicle traveling at 60 mph covers 88 feet per second. But stopping that vehicle takes over 4.5 seconds and covers a distance of 271 feet. Why? Because there's more involved in braking than the actual time your brakes are applied to the wheels (called "effective braking"). In particular, "perception time" and "reaction time" add considerable distance to stopping your car.

Perception time is the three-quarters of a second it takes for you to realize that you need to brake. Reaction time is the three-quarters of a second it takes to move your foot to the brake pedal. When you combine perception and reaction time, a full 132 feet will pass before your car even begins to slow down from 60 mph. So from the time you perceive a braking situation until the time your car comes to a complete stop, a total of 4.6 seconds elapses. During that time your car travels — it bears repeating — a total of more than 270 feet. That's almost the length of a football field. Of course, the faster you go, the more time and distance it takes to stop.

[JulesS3]

Bollocks to that

So my car stops in the same distance as a people carrier traveling the same speed, though my brakes are significantly larger!?

[_Adam_]

this forum is looking less like "here's my helpful advice" and more like "this is why you're wrong and it's good enough for you".

I understand the help and sarcasm, but the help has gone quiet and the sarcasm has turned into just being a dick. with 0.5 seconds to react and stop, I challenge anyone to not damage their car. he couldn't even slam on the brakes as he was on a bend and either way he's still going kerbside.

if you read the OP and title, Mr. R32 is simply asking if he has any grounds to claim some money back from damages caused by an accidental flood. it's a yes or no question.

like mum said, if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all

[Mikester]

nuts to that

So my car stops in the same distance as a people carrier traveling the same speed, though my brakes are significantly larger!?

Your missing the point...

Within seeing something that MIGHT need braking for, whilst you are still accelerating and not expecting the hazard...

It takes you more than .5 seconds to THINK "i need to brake".

Then take your foot of the accelerator.

And then hit the brakes.

And of course, even if you did manage that. You are still doing 55mph and the OP states that in that .5 seconds he then hit the water.

Of course the OP could be exaggerating figures but going on what he says, it seems unlikely he could of got on the brakes, let alone brake enough to mean he wouldnt skid into the kurb.

Or that is my take on it anyway.

[JulesS3]

I completely dodged the point, pisses me off they have these guidlines. Its why the speed limit is so low because little cars with crap brakes cant stop quick enough!

[Mikester]

I completely dodged the point, pisses me off they have these guidlines. Its why the speed limit is so low because little cars with crap brakes cant stop quick enough!

Indeed, there is a huge difference in braking ability on the road but we cant change that even with a scrapage scheme!

Point im making which you are fully aware of is .5 seconds isnt enough to even get on the brakes regardless of your car.

Think my replies have dismissed all of the doubt!

Back to getting money out of the Water company... Good luck!