Traffic problem

[Le Sanglier]

Personally, I have done the Stop/Go thing countless times, held traffic on red/red, as have countless others before. But you need to maintain a polite and courteous manner if you expect cooperation from the public. To lose tempers isn't really ideal, is less than professional and reflects badly on the whole team. Though I can sympathise if the driver did actually tap him, I'd bear in mind that he maybe trying to justify his actions by exaggerating the truth somewhat, in an endeavour to get off the hook.

 

 

Good point.

[woody paul]

The lad was carrying out a job to keep drivers safe, so hitting him with a car is way out of order. Hitting the car means he may have left his finger prints on it which means there was contact. Report it to police see what they say, if you did get the reg of car give that to them may be the driver has a record for the same at some point or if he does it again to some one next time the lad in the road may not be as well off as yours.

[Chunkymunky]

There are two separate issues here. As a regular utiliser of my chapter 8 training i think signage should be..

 

Men at work sign.

Traffic management sign each end.

Sounds like your men were positioned right. I presume you were only working small areas at a time?

Doesn't sound like you did anything wrong. Traffic lights would not have been viable. The only other option tm wise might have been a temporary closure but that requires council approval.

 

As for the other issue. Personally as the employer i would report it myself to the police. Was the registration taken? Technically it was an assault with a deadly weapon. Thats how police interpret a deliberate case of car used as a weapon. We had similar last year when a transit deliberately crashed through cones to avoid lights and hit a removed man hole cover injuring a colleague.

 

The damage could be argued away and as an assault had taken place i don't believe your lad would be found culpable.

[Woodreeve]

Thanks all for the feedback, noted. Incidentally the reg number was taken and the matter reported by the estate it would seem.

 

Ill let you know of any developments.

 

Cheers :-)

 

 

Sent using Arbtalk Mobile App

[ChunksBigBro]

HI Guys,

We operate a TM company, the legal side of the coin from the TM side will be..

1. were the guys trained under NSWRA 1991 to use stop boards?

2. did you notify or have highways permission to implement TM?

3. Was the site set out to the standard in Chapter 8?

 

I would say if the answer to any of the above is no then i would just leave it, otherwise it could come back and bite you! (bit like the old home owner beating up the burglar, but the burglar being the victim!)

 

If you want any more advice PM me, if you let me know your site layout ill be able to tell me what you should've had out TM wise.

 

Likewise if anyone else wants any advice PM me, advice is always free!!

 

CBB

[roycurwen1]

HI Guys,

We operate a TM company, the legal side of the coin from the TM side will be..

1. were the guys trained under NSWRA 1991 to use stop boards?

2. did you notify or have highways permission to implement TM?

3. Was the site set out to the standard in Chapter 8?

 

I would say if the answer to any of the above is no then i would just leave it, otherwise it could come back and bite you! (bit like the old home owner beating up the burglar, but the burglar being the victim!)

 

If you want any more advice PM me, if you let me know your site layout ill be able to tell me what you should've had out TM wise.

 

Likewise if anyone else wants any advice PM me, advice is always free!!

 

CBB

Sounds like a good man to have on your side lads ! I M O i would take note .Good on ye

mate

[Dean Lofthouse]

On the other side of the coin..

 

Did the driver know the guys were or weren,t trained under nswra

Did the driver know they had or hadn't informed highways

Did the driver know the site was or wasn't set out to chapter eigth

 

Assault is assault, the above is no defence against it

[roycurwen1]

On the other side of the coin..

 

Did the driver know the guys were or weren,t trained under nswra

Did the driver know they had or hadn't informed highways

Did the driver know the site was or wasn't set out to chapter eigth

 

Assault is assault, the above is no defence against it

 

I see your point Dean but if ther was an investigation into the incident all the above would come out , who needs the agro .... ATB Roy

[Rich Rule]

There are two separate issues here. As a regular utiliser of my chapter 8 training i think signage should be..

 

Men at work sign.

Traffic management sign each end.

Sounds like your men were positioned right. I presume you were only working small areas at a time?

Doesn't sound like you did anything wrong. Traffic lights would not have been viable. The only other option tm wise might have been a temporary closure but that requires council approval.

 

As for the other issue. Personally as the employer i would report it myself to the police. Was the registration taken? Technically it was an assault with a deadly weapon. Thats how police interpret a deliberate case of car used as a weapon. We had similar last year when a transit deliberately crashed through cones to avoid lights and hit a removed man hole cover injuring a colleague.

 

The damage could be argued away and as an assault had taken place i don't believe your lad would be found culpable.

 

Whe I was about 18 years old a college friend of mine was sent down for the above.

 

Another guy owed him money and he saw him in the local town, so to scare him up a bit he mounted the curb with no intention of doing any damage. The other lad dived into a garden and reported it to the police.

 

My friend ended up in court and a prison sentence for the above.