Ran into a Pole at Low Speeds, Pole Fell over, May Have to Pay

WilhelmBargo on 14/01/2016 - 22:30
Last edited 15/01/2016 - 08:07 by 1 other user

Today I was driving through a round-about and a car infront of me slammed on there brakes so in order to avoid a collision I also slammed on mine. I swerved out of the way of the vehicle and collided with a pole at this point travelling approximately 10km/h. The police arrived and said I may have to pay for the poles replacement.

The fact that pole collapsed at such low speeds and did not even dint from the collision makes me wonder if this pole was not properly secured to the ground. Here are pictures of the pole.

http://imgur.com/RNHkmOd
http://imgur.com/DwhmkWA

What are peoples thoughts?

Thanks in advance.

Mod: Please do not vandalise post content. If there is an issue, use the report link.

Automotive

closed Comments

  • pais on 14/01/2016 - 23:39
    +106

    They're actually designed to break off at that point. The reason being is that it's better for people to pay for a new pole than to be seriously injured / killed when they hit it.

    The DoT will usually have guidelines as to when these are suitable (usually when there's a risk they could be hit, but the pole cannot be moved elsewhere for logistics reasons, i.e. it needs to light up the road you're driving on). The bottom line is that you hit it because you didn't allow a safe breaking distance, and nothing else beyond that is really relevant. Breakaways are about saving lives, not money.

    • ronnknee on 16/01/2016 - 21:34
      +6

      How ironic would it be if a car swerves into the pole to avoid hitting a pedestrian on the road, and crashes into the pole which causes the pole to fall onto the pedestrian.

  • Multiverse on 14/01/2016 - 23:52
    +31

    Pay for a new pole then drive away with the old one. Cement pole in a dark room with ladies dressed in skimpy attire and charge $10 entry fee plus 'extras'. There's the pole money police, who's laughing now!

    • OzzyOzbourne on 15/01/2016 - 20:26
      +5

      You mean the pole'ice, oh pol'itely pol'ease stop it.

  • zrach on 15/01/2016 - 00:27

    Just 10km/hr? Such a big damage?

  • Eeples on 15/01/2016 - 00:34
    +22

    You were too close to the car in front and you lost control; bad driving.

    The pole breaking saved yourself and/or your car getting damaged.

    Pay up and thank everyone around you for taking care of your safety, and thank your lucky stars that the pole wasn't a person.

  • gooddealmate on 15/01/2016 - 00:38
    +2

    10km/hr? I'm calling BullsHit. Yes, some Bulls must have Hit it beforehand, weakening the post of course…..

  • PoorStudent on 15/01/2016 - 03:13
    +2

    Today I was driving through a round-about and a car infront of me slammed on there brakes so in order to avoid a collision I also slammed on mine. I swerved out of the way of the vehicle and collided with a pole at this point travelling approximately 10km/h. The police arrived and said I may have to pay for the poles replacement.

    The fact that pole collapsed at such low speeds and did not even dint from the collision makes me wonder if this pole was not properly secured to the ground. Here are pictures of the pole.

    http://imgur.com/RNHkmOd
    http://imgur.com/DwhmkWA

    What are peoples thoughts?

    Thanks in advance.

    • modsec802 on 15/01/2016 - 06:22
      -1

      Yeah that doesn't look like a low speed impact.

  • djones145 on 15/01/2016 - 06:47
    +4

    shellys liquid nails, they hold practically anything together, based on the commercial

  • rigby75 on 15/01/2016 - 07:25
    +1

    The pole is designed to do that.

    I heard power poles normally cost 50k plus to replace.

    • Donaldhump on 15/01/2016 - 08:43
      +4

      40k just for the rorted o/t by the electricians from energex

    • DarwinBoy on 15/01/2016 - 14:01
      +13

      probably a couple of hundred for the pole and 10's of thousands for the 22 guys, crane truck, 12 supervisors and 'administration' paperwork.

    • hornoscous on 17/01/2016 - 14:19
      +1

      Most expensive part of a new post is the footing. A replacement here will utilse the existing footing. Posts are frangible and designed to shear at low speed impact, so this will be a new post only and wont be anywhere near 50k.

      But as previous posters have said, these posts collapse at low speed inpacts for road safety reasons. Be thankful it fell and absorbed the energy of the impact. It did its job well.

  • Davo1111 on 15/01/2016 - 07:25
    +1

    pay up op. You break, you buy.

    Doesn't matter if you hit a china shop or a brick store, you're still required to pay for damages

  • Gershom on 15/01/2016 - 08:23

    Think of it as pole dancing lessons.

  • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 15/01/2016 - 08:34
    +5

    Nice carefully framed photo.
    Where's the photo of the damage to your front bumper?

    You were going fast enough that you had to swerve and LEAVE THE ROAD and mount the curb and sidewalk to stop.
    Pay up.

  • terrys on 15/01/2016 - 08:38
    +5

    You could always take it to court - how many vehicles were blocked from access on the roadway the pole was blocking, and what were their subsequent losses? It would certainly be interesting to assess the responsibility for that.
    i'm starting to get really pissed at the number of outright nongs who seem to think that the safe distance to leave to the vehicle in front lessens in some reverse exponential factor with the height the numpty in the seat is sitting above the road. SUVS? - if you want to drive a small truck, learn how to drive a (profanity) small truck.

    • WhyAmICommenting on 16/01/2016 - 21:47
      +1

      Oh this is my favourite post of 2016 so far, especially the last paragraph.

      The other ones who like to ride you up the arse are young female drivers. Maybe there's something in that…

  • jatcave on 15/01/2016 - 08:38

    Here are some other road rules you may be unaware of
    http://www.mynrma.com.au/blog/2013/02/08/the-10-most-misunde…

  • Donaldhump on 15/01/2016 - 08:42
    +19

    poles are designed to snap easly…. for your own safety…yes you will haeto pay or your own insurance company.
    i cleaned up one at 60/70 kmh in 2004 when my car spun into it…. my car crash was 4 cars two poles, and a 250k bill, the labour was 110 an hour and light bulbs over 1k each apparently, plus 2 bmws etc etc…. but insurance paid it..thank god

    • stringbean402 on 15/01/2016 - 13:26
      +5

      Nice ! That'd a decent bill to rack up. I would be proud.

      • Donaldhump on 15/01/2016 - 13:27
        +15

        i had my car one week… suncorp would be pi$$ed, i made the news and everything….
        bought if for 4.5k, insured for 5k, excess $400….profit $100

        • mskeggs on 15/01/2016 - 18:35

          Glad you weren't killed! I would have had the brown underwear on.

        • Donaldhump on 15/01/2016 - 19:37
          +12

          @mskeggs: well i wet myself, luckily i hsd just snapped one off

    • mousie on 17/01/2016 - 08:37
      +3

      What were you doing playing burnout?

    • btst7000 on 17/01/2016 - 09:40

      250k? Jesus christ that's insane.

  • meumax on 15/01/2016 - 09:08
    +18

    I think that if the pole was more securely fixed to the ground then the damage to your car would have been worse. Plus you might have been hurt too.

    Would you rather pay for the pole or damage to your car and or medical bills for personal injury? There's no way you could have avoided a scenario where you would have to pay something to someone.

  • ericmclee on 15/01/2016 - 09:20
    +1

    Maybe you need to post to the "Find me a bargain" forum. There's probably bargains to be had somewhere.

  • oscargamer on 15/01/2016 - 10:12
    +8

    it's called a slip base

    as already mentioned, it's meant to do that

    it's not a power pole, it's a light pole

    don't forget the cost of the replacement armco that was also damaged

    do you have insurance?

    • stringbean402 on 15/01/2016 - 13:28
      +5

      Sweet design…. definitively works ! Look like the electrics are designed to disconnect without damage also.

    • smpantsonfire on 17/01/2016 - 15:23

      I'd love to see the report on the decision like this. When the safety of the idiot driver is more important than the safety of the innocent passerby the pole falls on and kills.

  • nikey2k27 on 15/01/2016 - 10:16

    You will have to pay to look around $2000 might all have pay for the guard rail. base on what cop put into his report, they design to do this.

  • JimB on 15/01/2016 - 10:26
    +2

    Can you take a photo of your car to show the amount of damage?

    Who called the police?

  • DarkOz on 15/01/2016 - 10:28
    +1

    Always apply the 3 seconds rule when you have a car accident in which you can't stop fast enough to avoid running into the car in front of you. We all don't do it but that's all okay if we don't have an accident…

  • mattyman on 15/01/2016 - 11:11
    +8

    Would've been cheaper to hit the car.

  • FittyFitty on 15/01/2016 - 11:15
    +1

    Cool story bro! You poled yourself, now you have to pay for the privilege. The real question is did the pole face north or south when felled?

  • spackbace on 15/01/2016 - 12:12
    +23

    This post needs a poll, to determine the outcome of the pole.

  • [Deactivated] on 15/01/2016 - 12:52

    You got brakes right but their wrong?

    • Davo1111 on 15/01/2016 - 15:12
      -3

      they're

      • [Deactivated] on 15/01/2016 - 15:32
        +8

        not if they own the wrong

  • dojomojo on 15/01/2016 - 12:53
    +1

    If the pole was more securely fixed, you would have injured yourself then sued the pole? Poor pole can't win either way…
    Just wait for the letter of demand & forward to your insurance company.

  • shortgum on 15/01/2016 - 12:57
    -3

    10kph no way to break this pole if firm fix… just saying

  • WT on 15/01/2016 - 13:14
    +2

    This is the newer design and if you look at it the bolts are designed to sheer or break.

    In this case i dont think it was installed properly but it shouldnt cost much to fix.

    If it was the older pole your car could have been badly damaged, even written off.

    If they make you pay, pay it. You broke it.

  • wheretobuychocettes on 15/01/2016 - 13:16
    +2

    I had an accident a few years back, took out a bunch of metal fence partition things (similar to this, but not someone's house: http://www.arcfences.com.au/arcfences/assets/Image/Product_B… ), probably a good 6 or so. Was told I might be up for costs, but never got any request for payment.

    Sit back and wait for people demanding money before you go worrying about it. :)

  • stringbean402 on 15/01/2016 - 13:43
    +8

    Impact force @ 10m/hr

    If the weight of the car is
    1450kg

    and the car is traveling with a speed:
    11km/hr

    then a crash which stopped the car in a distance d=
    0.1m (10cm)

    would result in an average impact force of
    175313 N
    19.70 tons!!

    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/carcr.html

    • clint-008 on 16/01/2016 - 15:18
      +12

      I am unsure how you came to this conclusions firstly your first line is wrong "Impact force @ 10m/hr" why is this expressed as 10 m/hr the speed is 10 km/h or in approriate SI units 2.78 m/s. If you are expressing your force as function of the slowdown distance it should be written as F = 1/2 m v^2 / d

      Meaning that for the force calculation to be correct
      m=1450 kg
      v= 10 km/h = 2.78 m/s
      d= 10 cm = 0.1 m
      and as such the force in Netwon's is
      F = 1/2 (1450) (2.78)^2 / 0.1 = 55941 kg⋅m/s^2 =55941 N

      You either have not applied the equation correctly or have not used the appropriate SI units correctly to establish your force calculation in terms of Newtons.

      Secondly here you have converted this from Newtons to short tons(2000 lbs=907.18474 kg). I would say here since we live a society that is largely dependent and reliant upon the metric system you should use metric tonnes such if expressing it in metric tonnes of force tf it should be
      1 kilogram of force is equal to 9.80665002864 newton and as you have 175313 N = 17.87 tonnes as opposed to 19.7 tons never the less its still acceptable I guess.

      In fact though using the correctly calculated 55941 N
      Tf =55941 N/(9.80665002864 N/kgf*1000 kg/t)= 5.7 tonnes or 6.28 tons if you really do prefer the U.S. derived short ton–force

      http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/impact-force-d_1780.html

      In reality though it is unlikely that the car had stopped in 10 cm as the pole was dislodged, the car continued to move and as such the impact force would be significantly less then that calculated using your parameters.

      • R3XNebular on 18/01/2016 - 23:20
        +2

        Thanks I now have a migraine.

      • FirstNameLastName on 19/01/2016 - 00:10
        +1

        I think he came to that conclusion by allowing for one passenger being an African Swallow.. which can indeed beat its wings at least 43 times every second.. rather than the European sort which is largely useless. But then of course African swallows are not migratory. So they couldn't be in/on the car.. but hmm… supposing two swallows were on the car together?

  • ML4M on 15/01/2016 - 13:58
    -7

    Op got brake checked. On a straight road some fault would have been on the car in front.
    But how fast did Op go into a roundabout?
    The police placed the blame on Op due to excessive speed? And being too close. Otherwise the car in front would be paying the bill.
    Hindsight Op you might be better off ramming the car in front you had insurance instead of swirving.
    Yes I seem to agree with above posts the light post is designed to break off. The pictures you posted look like you are lucky it didn't fall on any other passing car or people.

    • Roll Eyes on 16/01/2016 - 01:13
      +3

      I was going to write a reply with references (ie: the law) regarding how incorrect you are but your comment has given me brain freeze. Its concerning that you and your type have a licence.

      • cashews on 16/01/2016 - 11:29
        +4

        Yep there are very few circumstances where running into the back of someone is the fault of the person in front. It is up to the person behind to leave enough space to stop in an emergency.

  • wkd on 15/01/2016 - 14:33
    +3

    poles are meant to easily break so they dont kill you

  • TheBean on 15/01/2016 - 14:57

    Pole is designed to be tough with the angular shape as opposed to round, so at a low speed you would not expected too much damage/dent to the pole. How it fell is meant to be a safety thing from what I heard, hope it doesn't hurt your pocket too much. That sucks.

  • [Deactivated] on 15/01/2016 - 15:03
    +1

    I'm on the Fence about this one, but maybe someone could Post a deal on Poles so OP doesn't run into any more Bumps about this problem.

  • [Deactivated] on 15/01/2016 - 15:30
    +20

    If GTA has taught me anything you're lucky you didn't hit a wooden one or your car would have been totalled.

    • hayne on 16/01/2016 - 16:05

      So thoroughly rec'ed… I wish I could give you more than one upvote…

  • Max Power on 15/01/2016 - 16:47
    +1

    10 km/h on its own doesn't mean anything. Look up Newton's laws of motion.
    Take responsibility for your actions. It will make you a better person.

    • mskeggs on 15/01/2016 - 18:37
      +8

      And responsibility for equal and opposite reactions?

  • Herbse on 15/01/2016 - 17:00
    +1

    Part of the license program should be to teach people to not swerve blindly when faced with a collision.

    Anyway, why is this being discussed. If he has to pay, his insurance will cover property damage

    • momov3 on 15/01/2016 - 17:26

      Exactly what I was thinking. Comprehensive cover will cover OP for damage to persons and and property, this includes the pole. He/she would just pay the excess.

  • Parentheses on 15/01/2016 - 17:36
    +2

    The design of those hex poles is focused on being knocked over relatively easily - this is to make sure the damage is to the pole, and not the people in the car. They are also quite light, the dent in the guard rail is misleading as that is fairly thin and pliable as well - also by design.

    You will 100% have to pay for the pole, as well as obstruction and removal costs if any (esp. if they needed traffic redirection/cleanup). Here's hoping you have comprehensive insurance.

    • chumlee on 15/01/2016 - 17:46
      +1

      Are you sure they are designed to be knocked over relatively easily?? What if it falls on top of a car and crushes the occupants?

    • stringbean402 on 15/01/2016 - 18:14

      Yep.. somewhere in the range of 100-200kg depending on size.

      http://az276019.vo.msecnd.net/valmontstaging/ingaleps/street…

      • chumlee on 15/01/2016 - 18:26

        Yep according to that it's designed to fall. Learning something new everyday. Cheers

        • eug on 15/01/2016 - 18:31
          -1

          From the PDF:

          The revolutionary engineering design of Slip Base poles enables the pole to slip at the base and fall if a collision occurs. This ideally suits freeways and other high-speed roadways where the likelihood of a secondary accident, resulting from the falling pole, is accepted as being unlikely.

          The pole fell across a road… a secondary accident seems quite possible?

        • chumlee on 15/01/2016 - 18:47
          -1

          Based on OP's photo a secondary accident is likely. Maybe they have the wrong pole installed. Other pole that is in the PDF document would be better suited in this location.

        • stringbean402 on 15/01/2016 - 19:15

          @eug:

          Yep but hitting a 100kg object, although it will cause damage will unlikely cause anything major, especially if that 100kg object is loose on the ground. The flip-side is poles that snap cars in half when you hit them, but stay upright.

        • eug on 15/01/2016 - 20:39
          -1

          @jg86tsv:

          Yep but hitting a 100kg object, although it will cause damage will unlikely cause anything major,

          I'd be more concerned over the driver swerving to avoid a large metal pole falling across the road, possibly running into another car or a b barrier or something.

          The flip-side is poles that snap cars in half when you hit them, but stay upright.

          No, the pole just above the slip base one in that PDF listed is an impact-absorbing pole that's designed to stay attached to the base while absorbing the force of a strike. It is meant to be used in places where a falling pole is likely to result in another accident.

          • Under design criteria and circumstances, the poles will stop a vehicle and minimise the force on the vehicle’s occupants. The pole remains attached to the base structure and absorbs impact energy progressively, entrapping the impacting vehicle as the pole deforms. *
        • stringbean402 on 15/01/2016 - 20:48

          @eug:

          Indeed… it would seem to make sense to have the deforming pole in this location. Maybe they use the slip base poles on freeway edges because they generally fall away from the direction of impact?

          I am personally still amazed by how light they are. 2-3 guys could a carry a big freeway one without too much drama.

        • kryptoz on 15/01/2016 - 23:58

          @eug:
          the principle is similar to crush zones in a car — impact will destroy it but protect occupants in the majority of cases, the pole will fall down, absorbing the impact, which is then partially transferred to any object it subsequently hits (which could be another car). There have been rare cases where the pole has fallen back onto the car that hit it, but it is reportedly less dangerous than if that car had a frontal collision with a rigid, timber pole.

  • TheOneWhoKnocks on 15/01/2016 - 17:37
    +14

    R.I.P. light pole. Your brightness was beloved by everyone. May you radiate light in another life. Gone but never forgotten.

  • [Deactivated] on 15/01/2016 - 17:42
    +2

    Did you continue to press the throttle when you hit the pole? @.@

    Nothing to contest here. Don't know why there are the occasional post with "am I liable?". This is direct cause and consequence. Hit pole. Pole fell. Much sad.

    • momov3 on 15/01/2016 - 17:50

      Much 'said' or do you mean 'much sad' for pole or the culprit?

      • [Deactivated] on 15/01/2016 - 18:00
        +1

        Much sad for pole and culprit

      • BartholemewH on 16/01/2016 - 17:41

        Alleged culprit (lol).

  • [Deactivated] on 15/01/2016 - 18:00

    Much sad for pole and culprit

  • Peace Maker on 15/01/2016 - 18:21

    We all make mistakes. It doesn't make you a bad person. You've been shown a valuable lesson, I sincerely hope you learn something from the experience. As someone above said, it could have been a person.

  • outlander on 15/01/2016 - 18:38
    -1

    I don't see why you'd be charged for a new pole? It looks like its held down with bolts. Stand it up again, and do up the bolts and she'll be right

    • airzone on 15/01/2016 - 20:01

      Mounting bracket might be broken… Anyway it's an insurance job since it'll be $x0,000's worth of money.

  • Aust on 15/01/2016 - 20:16
    +7

    Good thing you have insurance…. You do don't you?

  • OzzyOzbourne on 15/01/2016 - 20:21

    Looks like you'll have to pay for the armco barrier to where the pole (lamp post) that you hit fell.
    Probably best not to tailgate in future. At least you didn't kill someone this time.

  • 2Poor4Ozb on 15/01/2016 - 20:34
    +1

    OP should paid for the safety side fence as well he made a dent on it

    • Serapis on 16/01/2016 - 01:17

      Yeah surprised he only had to cover the pole, would've expected:

      • Costs of fixing / replacement pole
      • Costs of fixing the barrier
      • Demerits and Fine for police being called out (likely negligent driving, ie. too fast or too close)
  • peterw1 on 15/01/2016 - 23:27

    How did you know that the pole was traveling approx 10 km/h?

  • Azn310 on 15/01/2016 - 23:30
    +1

    I thought this only happen in GTA

  • FirstNameLastName on 15/01/2016 - 23:43
    +1

    I think I would be correct in assuming the OP doesn't have 3rd party property insurance.

    I don't have a lot of empathy for uninsured drivers, having been rammed by one on Christmas day.

    I wish it were mandatory.

    • Multiverse on 16/01/2016 - 00:03
      +1

      I got rammed on Christmas day after roast dinner. She enjoyed it even though she was third party fire and theft.

    • kryptoz on 16/01/2016 - 00:12
      +1

      mandatory — insurance or ramming ? I recommend using protection, even on Christmas.

  • MITM on 15/01/2016 - 23:45

    Will you have to pay for Police attendance too ?

    • kryptoz on 16/01/2016 - 00:09

      Only where the said officers had to deploy stop sticks in the course of their attendance — in which case OP has to pay for damage to vehicles stopped by police during the traffic safety operation, along with the usual police wages and emergency vehicle running costs, alcohol and drug testing kits, traffic management during cleanup, skidmark removal, road verge revegetation and native wildlife relocation, paint and decoration, and their state or territory police annual recreation fund, along with afore-mentioned repair and/or replacement of road authority property.

  • lead_org on 16/01/2016 - 00:25
    +1

    the bolts that holds the pole to the ground is designed to shear off.

    Also, you should have kept a safe distance to the car ahead, if you can't stop properly at even 10 km/h….

  • geoffellis on 16/01/2016 - 03:58

    That pole does not really look damaged to me. It slipped off it's base. Don't see why they can't just lift it back into place and re-secure it. It'll cost some money, but not thousands… unless of course the upper part that we can't see very well, is damaged?

    But ya - If you didn't have time to stop you were driving too close to the person in front of you, or you weren't paying attention. Either way the accident is on you. Leave more room. It's also difficult to imagine "swerving" @ 10kph and not being able to stop in time to hit a pole? Something doesn't add up to me…

  • derek324 on 16/01/2016 - 08:01
    +2

    The OP decided not to post a photo of damage to his car, thus it is rather difficult to take seriously his "10km/h" claim.

    • WilhelmBargo on 18/01/2016 - 15:59
      -3

      No decision was made there, I'm posting this on behalf of a friend and these are the only photos I supplied so please kindly end yourself.

  • mung12 on 16/01/2016 - 11:51

    Pay it off. Keep the pole, resell the metal as scrap :) Or you can use it as a backyard lamp.
    What about the rail? looks damaged too

  • Mysterious Laptop on 16/01/2016 - 12:38
    +1

    Anyone know an approximate cost for this pole? Would insurance or something cover it?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join