Home » The Water Cooler – Hitting a Fire Hydrant with Your Vehicle

The Water Cooler – Hitting a Fire Hydrant with Your Vehicle

by CLAYCORD.com
Published: Last Updated on 18 comments

The “Water Cooler” is a feature on Claycord.com where we ask you a question or provide a topic, and you talk about it.

The “Water Cooler” will be up Monday-Friday at noon.

Advertisement

So many people hit fire hydrants in Claycord with their vehicle, and thousands upon thousands of gallons of water is wasted. Do you think those responsible for hitting the hydrants should be charged for all the wasted water?

Talk about it….

18 comments

Roz June 15, 2022 - 12:08 PM

Yes! If a driver is focused, this shouldn’t happen, right?….just saying.
But if it was a medical emergency (heart attack, etc.) that caused it then No.

Randy June 15, 2022 - 12:09 PM

If it is their fault – yes, but if a vehicle is pushed by another into it, then no – the offending vehicle’s driver should pay for it (and the repair of the hydrant).

Dawg June 15, 2022 - 12:26 PM

From what I understand, in most Bay Area cities, the dept of public works and the water dept will bill the responsible party for the cost of repairing or replacing a hydrant. Anything else damaged in a traffic accident, such as streetlights, road signs, trees, and ornamental decorations, will also be billed.
That’s what insurance is for.

Martinezmike June 15, 2022 - 12:59 PM

No. First there should first be a government study on what makes them so attractive to automobiles. Next large concrete bullards could be installed around them, then new ones could be built underground.

Tsa June 15, 2022 - 1:27 PM

Only if we get to charge California’s ignorant politicians for wasting 95% of our taxpayer dollars.

Original G June 15, 2022 - 1:44 PM

Bill should be divided. If hydrant is repeatedly hit then engineers and those in city who approved plans should be held responsible.

Like that would ever happen . . . . . .

Janus June 15, 2022 - 2:48 PM

How is an inanimate object at fault?

Is the arborist at fault because a tree is repeated hit in a parking lot or as with any fixed non-moving object it is the driver’s responsibility to watch where they are going at all times?

Original G June 15, 2022 - 6:55 PM

If ya gotta fix something more than three times, somebody screwed up.
Have electrical engineer summer intern starting tomorrow and that’ll be one of first things I tell him.

You always think worst case what could go wrong with a plan.

example,
Recent accident Clayton Rd and Baily Rd, hydrant in center median was taken out for the third time. When road was widened years ago hydrant should have been relocated out of the median to south side of roadway. As is now hydrant is less than 2.5 feet from traffic going 40+mph.

But why should person approving plans have to worry, it’s not like they’ll ever be held accountable. City on other hand could end up paying out via lawsuit if a good attorney proves hydrant location ended up contributing to a death.

Janus June 15, 2022 - 10:27 PM

21651(a) California Vehicle Code states that it is an infraction to drive over a divided highway separated by means of intermittent barriers or by means of a dividing section of not less than two feet in width, either unpaved or delineated by curbs, double-parallel lines, or other markings on the roadway.

So when an idiot hits a fixed object like say a light pole, traffic signal pole, traffic control box, traffic control sign, tree or any of the other fixed object placed in the center medium separated by curb we hold the traffic engineer responsible or is it just for fire hydrants?

To Do List June 15, 2022 - 2:07 PM

At what rate? Does EBMUD even charge a city for hydrant water since it is a public utility, or would they soak the driver for residential prices as if they were watering their lawn?

Chris June 15, 2022 - 2:23 PM

If the police determine it is the fault of the driver, I would hope the city would bill the responsible driver. I’m guessing about 10% of those billed end up paying for their accident. Would love to see the stats on this.

Tim June 15, 2022 - 2:24 PM

Agree with Dawg. Insurance should pay for damage.

Cowellian June 15, 2022 - 4:21 PM

Just like any other crash, the responsible person’s insurance should pay, but only up to the limits of the policy. People with minimal liability coverage could be on the hook for a lot of money.

Dr Jellyfinger June 16, 2022 - 5:48 PM

Hopefully they have liquid assets.

concord native June 15, 2022 - 4:13 PM

Why are they So Close to the Street ? Easy access by Fire Truck ? If its your Fault, you should Pay !

Old Timer June 15, 2022 - 5:08 PM

Absolutely pay attention and it wouldn’t happen.Or whoever is responsible for the accident.

Curly Howard June 15, 2022 - 6:57 PM

“It’s a Geezer!”

GARY CASE June 16, 2022 - 2:02 PM

Definitely yes !

Comments are closed.

Newsletter

Subscribe to our newsletter!

Latest News

© Copyright 2022 Claycord News & Talk