Installed prematurely - a novel excuse

On April 8th I sent the following complaint

ComplaintsSubject: Road Traffic Safety

On March 8th 2009 I was crossing at 2.30pm Crutched Friars in the City, about 20 metres from where the junction with Lloyd’s Avenue is. Looking left to ensure there was no traffic coming, it being a one way road for vehicles I was almost run over by a bicycle coming from the right. My first reaction and that of the person with me was that the cyclist was in the wrong, but on observing the traffic layout there is an arrow and an island clearly allowing this direction of travel for cyclists. Having worked in the area for 10 years it was the first time that I had paid any attention to this because it never seemed relevant to any crossing decision I would make.

This is a very confusing arrangement for pedestrians, because it is so unusual and there is no reason to assume traffic is going to come from the right. In the event of a serious accident this could result in a corporate manslaughter charge against your planning department. There are far more pedestrians than cyclists in the City. I think you need to re-think this and any other streets with cyclists only access one way.

On April 15th I got this reply ( my italics)

I am sorry to hear of the incident on 8th March 2009. However, the cycling measures in Crutched Friars were installed prematurely by the contractor. Works at this location were stopped so that the issues can be discussed further. 'New' signs are still covered over.
Any cyclist using the street in the opposite direction to the traffic order and signs is currently liable for prosecution.
The Planning & Transportation Committee has resolved to review the introduction of the measures in Crutched Friars when it considers the results of the public consultation exercise on 7 similar schemes throughout the City. A thorough assessment of the proposed schemes has been undertaken using national guidance issued by the Department for Transport. Safety to all members of the public forms an integral part of that assessment. All these proposals will be re-assessed in the light of public and press reaction received and your concerns will be included in the report to the Planning & Transportation Committee.

Accidents and Options

Imagine you are the owner of a company and you have an important guest on your premises. Naturally you supervise all the arrangements to ensure that everything is managed well and any risks to your guest are controlled with great care.

However, despite all your best efforts and those of your staff a terrible accident befalls the guest. You then discover that one of your staff was not fit for duty and his errors and your decisions have contributed to the accident.

Do you

1.accept that the fault lies with the decisions made by you and the culture of the company which you have set up and recognise that the guest's family may believe you culpably negligent and the authorites think that there is a corporate manslaughter case to answer with a very clear guiding mind( you) identified?

or
2. claim it was someone else's fault and cover up any traces of the unsuitability of your staff for having care of the guest?

If you chose 1. you run the risk of being prosecuted and sent to gaol , paying out huge damages and possibly losing your licence to run the business if it is one where the general public are involved.

If you chose 2. you should vigorously pursue other parties as being the cause of the accident and you may, even though your claims might be conclusively proved to be false, get away with deflecting the criticism of your organisation and your decisions

The authorities should make sure that 2 is not an option, at present it seems it is.