COMMUNICATIONS giant BT has been fined for a West Cumbria road work safety breach which caused a “high risk of very serious harm” for motorists and pedestrians.

The finger of blame for failings identified on July 7 last year was pointed at a “rogue foreman” working for a sub-contractor as British Telecommunications Plc was brought to book.

Carlisle Magistrates’ Court heard that a Cumbria County Council highways worker visited a site on the A594 close to Maryport at around 9pm.

Underground cable-laying work was taking place ahead of a project to improve broadband connectivity. Those undertaking the work had a duty to follow Highway Code-style rules when digging up roads.

But there were no signs warning approaching motorists of the work, no two-way traffic lights while parked work vans were causing a pavement blockage.

Passers-by would have to step into the road, and there was the potential — at the highest level — for vehicles approaching from opposite directions to collide. The site was on a main road bend.

“It was basically unsafe as far as drivers and pedestrians were concerned,” said Jonathan Farnworth, prosecuting. “It is deliberate or at the very least reckless. There is a high risk of very serious harm, is my submission.”

On behalf of BT, Richard Bottomley admitted an offence of failing to comply with safety measures. The company, he told the court, had failed to comply with the rules “and is very sorry to be here”.

The work on that day lasted only hours, and had been contracted and then sub-contracted out. Failed compliance, the company felt, was due to a “rogue foreman” for the sub-contractor who had since been dismissed.

Of the workers, Mr Bottomley said: “They weren’t wearing high-visibility (clothing). The reason given is because the weather was very hot. Of course that is no excuse. It perhaps gives the court a flavour of the measure of the man.”

BT had been previously fined for work safety breaches both on a road between Penrith and Pooley Bridge, and also on the A6 at Clifton.

But in Mr Bottomley’s submission it was a “three in two million occurrence” given the number of schemes which had been carried out correctly in the past.

Workers had received training and been reminded of the importance of complying with rules.

District Judge John Temperley imposed a £5,000 fine. The company must also pay a £2,000 surcharge and £538.08 costs.

“I think there is certainly negligence on the part of BT,” concluded the district judge.

However, he also took into account the short lived nature of the work on July 7 and the company’s good record overall.