It follows from this that there is a duty on the authority to grit the road to keep it safe from snow and ice. But, that is not a strict duty and it is possible for the authority to take into account its financial resources. This principle was confirmed in Barry [1997] where the cost of providing facilities to a disabled man was a factor to be taken into account when deciding the ‘reasonableness’ of doing so. Following this logic, the financial investment required by a highway authority to keep sufficient reserves of grit could be a relevant factor when assessing liability under s41(1A). But, one suspects that this line of argument will only succeed in extreme circumstances. In practice, the authority must approach its decisions objectively and reasonably, and that would need detailed documentation of the planning processes taken into account over the years. In practice, if grit runs out after a short period of time the authority is almost certain to have been found to have failed to plan for a foreseeable risk of prolonged period of bad weather.