Tractor low loader crash

[john p]

Looks like the driver had a fair lick of speed on....

Probably looking at face book on his phone at same time as most of the ag contractors ( or cut price plant haulage for the construction trade) seem to.

[scbk]

25 minutes ago, Matthew Storrs said:

Digger bucket should have been tied down anyway so can’t see it raising on its own.

 

just seen the digger has split from its undercarriage- blimey!

That's the thing, maybes the bucket wasn't tied down?

[scbk]

11 minutes ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Total "de-rail" (?) is the requirement for the owner of animals to fence against them breaking out different for common land?  Surely the boundary of the common grazing area should be fenced to prevent animals leaving the common land?  Or might this example have historic implications where the railway placed a line through an area of existing common land and accepted a liability to fence?

 

It seems odd since my understanding of the 'norm' (if such a thing exists) would be that the owner of the animal is responsible to prevent it breaking out of the area in which it is kept??

 

 

I have no idea of crofting law, but no doubt the grazings will predate the railway. Bare in mind the animals roam pretty freely in those parts, and roads have cattle grids

[Matthew Storrs]

9 minutes ago, john p said:

Probably looking at face book on his phone at same time as most of the ag contractors ( or cut price plant haulage for the construction trade) seem to.

I know what you mean, but I know a few farmers with displaced farm round here that cart their swing shovels on behind a tractor, generally it means you can get it accross fields etc where a lorry wouldn’t get to.

 

admittedly I don’t see a digger on the back of anything but a tractor round there ‘ere parts!

[openspaceman]

1 hour ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Total "de-rail" (?) is the requirement for the owner of animals to fence against them breaking out different for common land?  Surely the boundary of the common grazing area should be fenced to prevent animals leaving the common land?  Or might this example have historic implications where the railway placed a line through an area of existing common land and accepted a liability to fence?

The common land bit is a red herring as there is generally no common law requirement to fence, just the liability if animals cause damage.

 

Rail is a different case:

 

The Railway Safety (Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 1997

 

Unauthorised access

3.—(1) So far as is reasonably practicable, a person in control of any infrastructure of a transport system to which this regulation applies shall ensure, where and to the extent necessary for safety, that unauthorised access to that infrastructure is prevented.

(2) In paragraph (1) “access” means access by any person not at work on the transport system or by any animal.

(3) This regulation applies to any transport system except that it does not apply to any part of such a system which—

(a)is within a harbour, harbour area, maintenance or goods depot; or

(b)is part of a factory, mine or quarry,

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

34 minutes ago, openspaceman said:

The common land bit is a red herring as there is generally no common law requirement to fence, just the liability if animals cause damage.

 

Rail is a different case:

 

The Railway Safety (Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 1997

 

Unauthorised access

3.—(1) So far as is reasonably practicable, a person in control of any infrastructure of a transport system to which this regulation applies shall ensure, where and to the extent necessary for safety, that unauthorised access to that infrastructure is prevented.

(2) In paragraph (1) “access” means access by any person not at work on the transport system or by any animal.

(3) This regulation applies to any transport system except that it does not apply to any part of such a system which—

(a)is within a harbour, harbour area, maintenance or goods depot; or

(b)is part of a factory, mine or quarry,

??

 

Ah, understood, no liability to fence, but liability (if not fenced) for damage caused by an animal which strays beyond boundaries. 

 

Which one takes precedence then? The railways responsibility to keep people / animals out, or the animal owners responsibility to keep them in??

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/22/section/2

 

(notwithstanding the additional complexities of Scottish law?)

[richy_B]

10 hours ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Looks like the driver had a fair lick of speed on....

I hadn't spotted that either. How much force would it take to do that!  He must have been racing along. 

[aspenarb]

He got a long way through the bridge before the digger hit anything,   https://www.google.com/maps/@52.2741909,-3.3309767,3a,75y,314.76h,94.05t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sZNW3CeBuPirOPcCCQPMGCA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DZNW3CeBuPirOPcCCQPMGCA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D71.554565%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656.

 

Bob

[openspaceman]

3 hours ago, richy_B said:

I hadn't spotted that either. How much force would it take to do that!  He must have been racing along. 

Probably was doing over 40kph. Looks like boom had swung off to nearside, strikes abutment and impact separates slew ring. Digger now fits under bridge and is dragged along by outfit's momentum. I wonder at what stage tractor  overturned.

Edited April 28, 2018 by openspaceman
spelling

[openspaceman]

10 hours ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

??

 

Which one takes precedence then? The railways responsibility to keep people / animals out, or the animal owners responsibility to keep them in??

The railway was developed with an act of parliament in most cases , so the duty to fence out on safety grounds will follow that.