Skip to main content

Unlit bollard liability for UK authorities

A ruling by a court in Cambridge is likely to have major implications for councils and authorities across the UK after a cyclist won compensation when he collided with a bollard at night. These were placed on a cycle route to prevent vehicular access to the cycle path, which runs alongside the River Cam and is used day and night by cyclists who commute to/from Cambridge, as a safer alternative to using the busy A10.
April 19, 2012 Read time: 2 mins
RSSA ruling by a court in Cambridge is likely to have major implications for councils and authorities across the UK after a cyclist won compensation when he collided with a bollard at night. These were placed on a cycle route to prevent vehicular access to the cycle path, which runs alongside the River Cam and is used day and night by cyclists who commute to/from Cambridge, as a safer alternative to using the busy A10.

The cyclist collided with the unlit bollard at night and successfully argued that putting an obstruction on a pathway with no lighting is negligent of the cyclist’s right to use the path which, according to city planners, is the safest route.

However, the financial and social cost of removing bollards is significant as this would allow fly tipping and vehicle access to previously prohibited areas. Faced with the prospect of having to take potentially expensive action at the scene of the incident, such as running electricity and lighting systems to where the bollards are deployed, Cambridge solved the problem for around US$15 by using Traxeyes glow-in-the-dark marker studs. Using photo-luminescent crystal technology, these devices glow brightly for 12 hours after just eight minutes of daylight and are guaranteed for five years operation. Importantly, no wiring, electricity or batteries are required and installation is quick and simple.

Related Content

  • IAM shocked by the worst speeders in England and Wales
    February 12, 2015
    The UK’s Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM) has lifted the lid on the worst examples of excessive speeding caught on safety cameras across England and Wales in 2014. Britain’s two worst speeders were caught at 146mph, both by Kent Police on the M25, one travelling anti-clockwise, the other going clockwise. There were three other recorded instances of speeds of 140mph or more; 145mph on the M6 toll road (70mph limit), 141mph on the A1 Great Ponton Northbound road (70mph limit) and 140mph on the A5 C
  • Smart parking technologies: solving drivers parking pain
    March 30, 2017
    Smarter parking can benefit city authorities and other road users as well as drivers looking for a space, argues Dr Graham Cookson. As witnessed by the recent announcements at the Consumer Electronics Show, the automotive industry continues to focus on the driving experience; moving from speed and handling towards safety and efficiency.
  • Do buses need subsidies in congestion charging areas
    June 20, 2016
    David Crawford takes a look at the debate surrounding bus subsidies. Subsidies for public transport are a well-known and frequently-used policy tool directed at reducing the high environmental and social costs of peak-period traffic congestion. But at the end of last year the Swedish Centre for Transport Studies published a working paper entitled ‘Should buses still be subsidised in Stockholm?’ This concluded that the subsidy levels currently being applied in Stockholm could be nearly halved by setting bus
  • Costing transit is complicated case
    August 19, 2015
    David Crawford welcomes fresh thinking from Canada. Public transit improvements can bring society “significantly more value” than conventional transport models normally indicate, argues Canadian researcher Todd Litman. “Traditional evaluation practices originally developed to assess roadway improvements, and focus primarily on vehicle travel speeds and operating costs. “They do not generally quantify or monetise basic mobility benefits, vehicle ownership and parking cost savings, or efficient land developme