No. The article quotes one of the homeowners as saying that the emergency workers told her that hitting her parked car was what saved the life of one of the rogue drivers. Then she (the homeowner) went on to claim that a boulder would have saved him as well.
I have no firsthand familiarity with this situation but I kind of doubt that claim. I can see how hitting a parked car instead of the corner of a house could save your life (crumple zones, transfer of momentum by moving the parked car, etc.). I’m less convinced that hitting a huge boulder instead of the corner of a house could save your life.
It looks to me as though the homeowners are trying to protect their own property from crashing cars driven by reckless drivers (in which goal I heartily sympathize with them) by erecting a large and impregnable obstacle in front of their cars and buildings without any particular concern for the consequences of crashing cars hitting such an obstacle (about which I am somewhat less sympathetic).
That’s for damn sure. This situation is a road-safety clusterfuck that should never have been allowed to happen in the first place.
I would have to politely disagree with alot of this…
As long as there is no city ordinance prohibiting boulder type decor, its properly set back, and it does not have features designed only to injure drivers (like giant steel spikes facing the roadway to impale drivers who hit the barrier). You are gonna be fine.
Remove “boulder” and replace with “concrete block fence” as long as the fence is to code, calling it a booby trab is gonna be a long hard sell. I would think a simple defense would be, I have built half a dozen wooden fences that keep getting destroyed by errant drivers, I just made a fence that will survive a hit.
Judging from the photo accompanying the story and this somewhat better photo, it’s the “properly set back” part that would be a problem.
The house and garage in question are very close to the road, and there really doesn’t seem to be any place you could put a huge boulder except right at the edge of the property where it would be unduly hazardous.
Of course there are plenty of houses that have legal “lawn boulders” on the property, but they’re usually in spacious front yards where the boulder can be a good distance away from the road.
Mind you, IANAL, but it makes sense to me that in this case a defensive “lawn boulder” could be considered a dangerous hazard, even if the homeowners’ only motivation in installing it is to protect their property.
I remember a house in Davis, CA, that was situated at then end of a double S-bend in a road. They were constantly being hit by cars that didn’t quite pull out of the last curve. They put up a concrete planter, something like three feet tall and three feet wide, that ran the length of the house.
The concrete wasn’t very thick, so the planter acted as an attenuator, stopping cars before they hit the house, but also stopping them less abruptly than hitting the house would. That seems to be a happy medium to me, although the last I heard, they were petitioning the City to get a tall street median installed because the cars that were hitting them were crossing the oncoming traffic lane to do it.
Well, tree plantings have to comply with setback requirements too, of course.
Moreover, if the homeowners are trying to get this problem solved within the next 20 years, I’m not sure planting trees is the best way to go.
No, the homeowners, AFAICT, would only bear liability if they erected obstacles dangerously close to the road. They’re not at all responsible for drivers crashing into their house and their garage or for coming onto their property in the first place.
I completely agree with you that the town needs to fix its vehicle traffic management here, though.
upon looking at the house on street view…the garage is prolly no more than 10’ from the edge of the roadway and is probably right on the easement line. At most you might be able to drop a row of concrete pylons around the house but there is zero room for anything of any bulk…trees would be a no go, no much room for even a fence.
Upon looking at it street view, what in the name of Jesus on a fucking pogo stick were the planners thinking when they decided to build that bridge right there?
Yikes. I was going to suggest a moat if a boulder is somehow wrong, but that’s clearly not an option either. Big bushes are out as well given the blind curve. There really isn’t anything they can do that won’t be an eyesore. Maybe a big, honkin speed bump for southbound traffic as they approach the bridge?
And I’d be curious for a better definition of a booby trap. My impression is that a booby trap is a dangerous condition that is obscured and/or difficult to avoid under reasonable conditions–not a big blob of granite sitting out in the open that you don’t run into if you’re using some common sense.
The article in Kimstu’s link states that the driver was northbound on Bushkill Drive; that house is in a large bend in the road but I’d say that “northbound” traffic is locally headed east at this guys place. His house is essentially on the apex of the corner, extremely close to the road.
It sounds like this guy just cut the corner too much and hit a parked car? As I read the article, the bridge across the street had nothing to do with it; the moving vehicle was never on that road.
What if I park my car in my driveway? Would I be liable if a driver jumped the curb and hit my car? Why should it be any different if I put a boulder there?
