Posted By Laurie While out for a run on my BMW a few days ago I came round a bend, at an entirely reasonable speed of course, as befits a safety officer, only find a sudden ransition from a nice dry road to a very wet one as a farmer was allowing his irrigation jet to cover the road. I stayed upright, or thereabouts, but it is interesting to speculate on the consequences if I had not. I would probably have succeeded in a civil claim, but was the farmer committing a health and safety offence by failing to ensure the health and safety of those not in his/her employ? Interesting point! Laurie

Posted By fats van den raad I have come across the same scenario on several occasions, and yes, it does increase the pulse rate slightly. Another one I have come across on several occasions is mud on the road at the entrance to plouged fields, obviously where the tractors had gone in and out. I take it this would fall under the same legal framework??

Posted By Edward H Whilst in a theoretical legal sense HASAWA s3 might appear to cover the risks to the road users; it is unlikely to be used in practice. HSC's enforcement policy with regard to applying s3 basically says that if there is other more specific legislation that applies [even if it is ineffective]then HSE will not use the general provisions of s3. In this case the Highways Act applies, enforced by the highway authority [usually County/Unitary Council], so HSE probably wouldn't touch it with the proverbial barge-pole. Highways Act s161 deals specifically with mud on the road.

Posted By Laurie Take your point, Ken, but I think you're being a bit harsh. You forgot the bit about "having due regard to conditions prevailing, or which may reasonably to have been expected to be prevailing, at the time" This was a dry, sunny, summer afternoon and a wet road could not reasonably have been expected. I could certainly have stopped for cows, horses, sheep etc, or even, which may have been reasonably expected in this neck of the woods at this time of year, a combine harvester taking up all of the road and two thirds of the verge(I've managed with only three accidents and no fines/penalties since '57!), but water, particularly on a surface that had been rain free for some time, was something else, and would have actually prevented me from stopping safely! Laurie

Posted By Paul Adams The link to the press release re - inforces my understanding. Motorcyclists can nearly always make a successful claim so long as 1. They can trace the culprit (usually not the case with spilt Diesel - the most common cause) and 2. They were not exceeding the speed limit, which is the statutory safe speed for that road, although obviously this varies with conditions. Totally agree with the case in point. Not reasonable to forsee wet road in the conditions described. Farmers, like building site managers, appear generally to be totally oblivious of the impact some of their activities have. Mind you, you really should get rid of the BM. Paul (1984 GL1200 Rider)

Posted By Laurie Nah! nothing to do with stabilisers. Just the inherent skill and expertise that all BM riders have!! Mind you, I think the low CofG (both mine and the bike's!) may have helped! Laurie

Posted By Ken Taylor Did you see this one, Laurie? Mud on road led to fatal accident Foundation Developments Ltd (FDL), of Clarendon Road, Wallington, Surrey, and Exterior International Plc, of Appold Street, London EC2A, have pleaded guilty to breaching S.3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act etc 1974 in the circumstances surrounding the death of Mark Lewis, 21, who sustained his injuries in a road traffic accident during February 1999. FDL had been hired by the principal contractor Exterior to remove a large volume of material from the Lakeshore development at Bedfont Lakes, Middlesex, but trucks used to remove the material were leaving deposits of clay on the road. The road cleaner FDL used was unable to clean the mud away, and Mr Lewis was driving along Bedfont Road when his car skidded on the mud from the site and crashed into an oncoming delivery van. At Isleworth Crown Court, London FDL and Exterior International Plc, of Appold Street, London EC2A, were each fined £20,000 and both ordered to pay £30,000 costs.