[crote]

The problem is that they are legally doing nothing wrong. Everything is done according to the rules, so they can't be held accountable for not following them. After all, they are taking all reasonable precautions, what more could be expected of them?

The fact that the situation on the ground isn't safe in practice is irrelevant to the law. Legally the hedge is doing everything, so the blame falls on the driver. At best a "tragic accident" will result in a "recommendation" to whatever board is responsible for the rules to review them.

[bombcar]

All that applies for criminal cases, but if a civil lawsuit is started and evidence is presented to the jury that the parties being sued had been warned repeatedly that it would eventually occur, it can be quite spicy.

Which is why if you want to be a bastard, you send it to the owners, the city, and both their insurance agencies.

[ahmeneeroe-v2]

This is stupid. Unless you happen to be the one that crashes it won't be a factor at all.

[thaumasiotes]

Well, it could be; you can watch out for accidents at that intersection and offer to support a case arising from one.

If your goal is to get the intersection fixed, this is a reasonable thing to do.

[ahmeneeroe-v2]

you think it's reasonable to have 24/7 surveillance and then case support to get a hedged trimmed?

[bombcar]

Discovery’s a bitch which is why they settle.

[mrandish]

@Bombcar is correct. Once they've been legally notified of the potential issue, they have increased exposure to civil liability. Their lawyers and insurance company will strongly encourage them to just fix it (assuming it's not a huge cost to trim back the stupid hedge). A registered letter can create enough impetus to overcome organizational inertia. I've seen it happen.

[purple_turtle]

In my experience (European country) even email with magic words "clear risk to health and life" can jumpstart the process.