Private roads

[Raykay]

Insurance is required for the use of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place - s.143, Road Traffic Act 1988. It would depend on the status of the location if s.143 applies or not.

[A9NWIL]

Insurance is required for the use of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place - s.143, Road Traffic Act 1988. It would depend on the status of the location if s.143 applies or not.

Yes I know its required, but I wonder if insurers would automatically cover those areas? Thats my actual question here.

[jimboLL]

Insurance is required for the use of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place - s.143, Road Traffic Act 1988. It would depend on the status of the location if s.143 applies or not.

Yes I know its required, but I wonder if insurers would automatically cover those areas? Thats my actual question here.

They have to cover those areas, otherwise the insurance doesn't meet the requirements of the RTA (I appreciate this is a bit of a circular argument, but it does make sense). Many insurers will specifically exclude certain areas where RTA does not apply (eg airfields), but by implication all non-RTA areas are excluded and all RTA areas are included.

[WHBM]

This is not my understanding. If you have an accident with the car in a private place (eg supermarket car park) the requirement is for you to have insurance for public liability etc for that, just like a road. Likewise for the comprehensive aspects; quite a number of cars catch fire and are destroyed parked on driveways at home.

Airports are a particular exclusion, for which specific "Airside Insurance" is specially available for those who need it, eg contractors where construction activities are going on, as the potential liability for damage to an aircraft is huge and regarded as a special risk by insurers.

Don't laugh but this happens. Contractor customer (nameless) was working on a RAF airbase in East Anglia some years ago when a 1 ton dumper had been left with the engine running and somehow dropped into gear and set off at slow walking pace driverless and unnoticed put-putting across the airfield. 10 minutes later it had entered the aircraft parking area and struck an aircraft, which as luck would have it was not a military one, who would probably have absorbed the cost, but was a visiting civilian one. The costs, and the huge amount of insurance paperwork, went on for ever. The day after it happened the contractor put down concrete vehicle barriers all round the site. Yes, they did have Airside Insurance (they had to show it to the RAF before they started on site).

[Fenlander]

I have a very occasional requirement to go airside and it does make a noticeable difference to our insurance quote and is a "refer to underwriter" instruction that makes it harder for us to do the usual online comparisons, so we use a broker for the dirty work.

[Raykay]

This is not my understanding. If you have an accident with the car in a private place (eg supermarket car park) the requirement is for you to have insurance for public liability etc for that, just like a road. Likewise for the comprehensive aspects; quite a number of cars catch fire and are destroyed parked on driveways at home.

The difference is that the requirement for RTA insurance cover would apply to a supermarket (or similar) car park as 'other public place'. A driveway at home would not normally be considered to be 'other public place', so RTA insurance cover is not required, but there may be other insurance cover for that vehicle.

[WHBM]

Long ago we had a construction site that was about a mile long inside a large (secure) industrial premises. There was an employee who was disqualified but nevertheless drove the Land-Rovers up and down within the site, which I always thought was incorrect but the general view was that it was fine.

[Bryn666]

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/n ... d-repairs/

The aforementioned Albany Road. Typical nonsense journalism from a Newsquest rag because the road has always been unadopted and has never been council maintained so no "forcing" has been caused.

[Berk]

I have a very occasional requirement to go airside and it does make a noticeable difference to our insurance quote and is a "refer to underwriter" instruction that makes it harder for us to do the usual online comparisons, so we use a broker for the dirty work.

Can’t you just get covering notes for those occasions, or are they too frequent??

[Berk]

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/n ... d-repairs/

The aforementioned Albany Road. Typical nonsense journalism from a Newsquest rag because the road has always been unadopted and has never been council maintained so no "forcing" has been caused.

Indeed. Not unless there’d been a reasonable prospect of adoption, and the councils declined. Or insisted on expensive maintenance or other conditions prior to adoption.

[Euan]

To me it seems perfectly reasonable that if the road is unadopted it should not be expected to be maintained by the council. What would be useful though would be if there was wider knowledge over which roads are unadopted and which ones are adopted. Sometimes the style of street signs might be useful to determine whether or not the street is adopted.

[Berk]

Yes, I was going to suggest just that. Some councils seem to have a random approach - whether they use white, blue or green-backed signs. Perhaps save the green or blue for unadopted streets??

Then again, if it’s unadopted, who pays for that??

[Euan]

Yes, I was going to suggest just that. Some councils seem to have a random approach - whether they use white, blue or green-backed signs. Perhaps save the green or blue for unadopted streets??

Then again, if it’s unadopted, who pays for that??

Unadopted or private roads would not be able to be given any single form of identification on the ground purely because different owners will have different rules. It would only be adopted roads that could be given a single identification method on signs, although given the very wide extent of them it might not be worth it. The only alternative might be for owners of unadopted roads to be given some sort of signage guidance that is only advisory and not strictly enforced.

[A9NWIL]

Insurance is required for the use of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place - s.143, Road Traffic Act 1988. It would depend on the status of the location if s.143 applies or not.

Yes I know its required, but I wonder if insurers would automatically cover those areas? Thats my actual question here.

They have to cover those areas, otherwise the insurance doesn't meet the requirements of the RTA (I appreciate this is a bit of a circular argument, but it does make sense). Many insurers will specifically exclude certain areas where RTA does not apply (eg airfields), but by implication all non-RTA areas are excluded and all RTA areas are included.

Ah I see thanks, reason I ask is someone recently told me that a private driveway isnt covered even if there are no gates or barriers, meaning anyone could drive from the road onto the drive as easily as one road to another.

[A9NWIL]

To me it seems perfectly reasonable that if the road is unadopted it should not be expected to be maintained by the council. What would be useful though would be if there was wider knowledge over which roads are unadopted and which ones are adopted. Sometimes the style of street signs might be useful to determine whether or not the street is adopted.

Perhaps the local authority should put signs up, on their side, saying you are now leaving the publicly maintained road network, or the other way saying you are entering the publicly maintained road network. Then you would always know if you are entering an unadopted road.

[A9NWIL]

Yes, I was going to suggest just that. Some councils seem to have a random approach - whether they use white, blue or green-backed signs. Perhaps save the green or blue for unadopted streets??

Then again, if it’s unadopted, who pays for that??

Unadopted or private roads would not be able to be given any single form of identification on the ground purely because different owners will have different rules. It would only be adopted roads that could be given a single identification method on signs, although given the very wide extent of them it might not be worth it. The only alternative might be for owners of unadopted roads to be given some sort of signage guidance that is only advisory and not strictly enforced.

I assume that only default speed limits of either 30mph (streetlights the right distance), 60mph single carriageways and 70mph dual carriageways (if there is any of them that are unadopted) apply. No speed limit orders could be applied to them I would have thought.

[jimboLL]

Yes I know its required, but I wonder if insurers would automatically cover those areas? Thats my actual question here.

They have to cover those areas, otherwise the insurance doesn't meet the requirements of the RTA (I appreciate this is a bit of a circular argument, but it does make sense). Many insurers will specifically exclude certain areas where RTA does not apply (eg airfields), but by implication all non-RTA areas are excluded and all RTA areas are included.

Ah I see thanks, reason I ask is someone recently told me that a private driveway isnt covered even if there are no gates or barriers, meaning anyone could drive from the road onto the drive as easily as one road to another.

The insurer I worked for did include cover on driveways. However it should be noted that the insured person cannot also be a third party. You might be surprised how many people get a brand new car and, due to unfamiliarity with the controls, take it home and crash straight into their own garage! In this instance the car would be covered under a comp policy, but no claim could be made in respect of the garage.

[Bryn666]

You can ask for a local authority to apply a TRO or a speed limit on an unadopted road. You just have to pay for it. The signs would attract a commuted sum.

[Berk]

There’s a thought. Do unadapted roads meet the criteria to become restricted roads if all other conditions are met??

[Fenlander]

I have a very occasional requirement to go airside and it does make a noticeable difference to our insurance quote and is a "refer to underwriter" instruction that makes it harder for us to do the usual online comparisons, so we use a broker for the dirty work.

Can’t you just get covering notes for those occasions, or are they too frequent??

Sort of, we visit on a semi regular basis on a date known in advance but also in a reactive way which could be an evening or weekend so it would take a lot of messing around to sort each time.