• The post you are reporting:
   
  Let me hazard a guess. It's probably because someone somewhere has done a risk assessment and in their infiintie wisdom come to the conclusion that a pedestrian is more likely to be injured by the rusty barrier than by a car, and therefore as the barriers are council's responsibiltiy they think it will be more costly to be sued than to remove the barriers. Risk assessment has therefore decided it is cheaper (for the council!) to remove them.
  
  Question, what if a pedestrian is injured or killed in a place where a barrier has been removed? Who is liable then if it can be shown that the barrier could have prevented the injury or death?

Report Post

Your Name

Reason