Case against the council?
Discussion
OK, I need some help.
I was innocently cycling back from a society event to my college. A distance of 0.2 miles.
Then I encounter this:
Looks like a resurfaced section of road, doesn't it? Not so:
This jolt meant my feet slipped of the pedals. This resulted in my right foot hitting the road, which led to my falling ungraciously off my bicycle. Thank God there wasn't a car coming up alongside.
So, there recently were signs in the area about "Highway investigation works" or something along those lines. I think it's pretty clear that those aren't potholes, but are artificial. There are more along that stretch:
So, do I have a claim against the council? The crash has resulted in damage to my gearing (probably £150, £100 excluding labour), damage to clothing, damage to me (although no blood), and the loss of my college room keys that cost £60 to replace.
What's the law?
I was innocently cycling back from a society event to my college. A distance of 0.2 miles.
Then I encounter this:
Looks like a resurfaced section of road, doesn't it? Not so:
This jolt meant my feet slipped of the pedals. This resulted in my right foot hitting the road, which led to my falling ungraciously off my bicycle. Thank God there wasn't a car coming up alongside.
So, there recently were signs in the area about "Highway investigation works" or something along those lines. I think it's pretty clear that those aren't potholes, but are artificial. There are more along that stretch:
So, do I have a claim against the council? The crash has resulted in damage to my gearing (probably £150, £100 excluding labour), damage to clothing, damage to me (although no blood), and the loss of my college room keys that cost £60 to replace.
What's the law?
Driver101 said:
How deep do they measure?
Maybe the photo is deceptive, but they don't look deep enough to throw you off a bike.
It'll have to wait to morning for a precise measurement, but it's probably around 1 cm. I had a bit of speed built up, but it wasn't the jolt itself, but rather that my foot found the tarmac that was the final blow.Maybe the photo is deceptive, but they don't look deep enough to throw you off a bike.
EDIT:
I think I'm going to have a few bruises down my right hand side as a result of this. I really don't give two f
s, but if I went to the council offices with a quotation for the property damage, and casually mentioned that I had some bruising due to the accident, do you think that they would be accommodating? I really can't be ad with any court stuff if I don't have to be, but several hundred pounds worth of damage is a huge hit.Edited by Solocle on Monday 6th November 01:29
Edited by Solocle on Monday 6th November 01:30
From your description this was an accident, of which the most obvious cause was your inability as a cyclist to deal with ordinary and not inherently dangerous road features. To claim under the Highways Act 1980 you would have to show that the highway was in a condition that was dangerous for the ordinary traffic that passes over it, that the dangerous condition was caused by failure to maintain or repair, and that Injury resulted from that failure.
A one centimetre change in surface height is not the sort of thing that would ordinarily present a hazard to a careful cyclist, and there is case law in which greater changes in height have been held not to be dangerous There is no other apparent breach of any duty to take reasonable care owed to you by the Council.
Life is sometimes about taking responsibility for your own mistakes. Ride more carefully.
A one centimetre change in surface height is not the sort of thing that would ordinarily present a hazard to a careful cyclist, and there is case law in which greater changes in height have been held not to be dangerous There is no other apparent breach of any duty to take reasonable care owed to you by the Council.
Life is sometimes about taking responsibility for your own mistakes. Ride more carefully.
If you don't want to go fully clipless I suggest a pair of these?
https://www.tweekscycles.com/Product.do?method=vie...
Although contrary to BV even a 1 cm lip as shown can cause pinch flats and hence a crash, it's not so much the depth but the lack of slope.
I think the council will take BV's route though and say "no". However, what have you got to lose? Go for it and let us know the outcome.
https://www.tweekscycles.com/Product.do?method=vie...
Although contrary to BV even a 1 cm lip as shown can cause pinch flats and hence a crash, it's not so much the depth but the lack of slope.
I think the council will take BV's route though and say "no". However, what have you got to lose? Go for it and let us know the outcome.
Edited by sherbertdip on Monday 6th November 07:26
Riding fast, in the dark, probably after having a drink, fails to react well to an everyday minor hazard, falls off, blames council. I am a supporter of students in general and think they get a bad press on PH, but this is all sounding a bit Spunkbridge College. I hope the OP isn't at Wadham.
If a similar feature extended across the entire road there would be warning signs.
They haven't bothered because it's just the cycle lane/gutter that is affected.
I think your (BV) assessment of the incident is probably about right, though.
As for case law, I don't know any of that, I was just posting what I think is reasonable to expect and what I think is a hazard. I would argue that that is not a road feature that a cyclist should reasonably be expected to be able to negotiate. I think a reasonable cyclist would try to avoid it all together, because of the risk of a puncture.
They haven't bothered because it's just the cycle lane/gutter that is affected.
I think your (BV) assessment of the incident is probably about right, though.
As for case law, I don't know any of that, I was just posting what I think is reasonable to expect and what I think is a hazard. I would argue that that is not a road feature that a cyclist should reasonably be expected to be able to negotiate. I think a reasonable cyclist would try to avoid it all together, because of the risk of a puncture.
Did you need to call recovery to get out of that massive crator?
Seriously, man up and move on, a 1cm change and you fell, only yourself to blame, do yourself a favour and stop watching daytime tv - statistics prove your less likely to be a money grabbing dick if you dont watch the jezza commercials
Seriously, man up and move on, a 1cm change and you fell, only yourself to blame, do yourself a favour and stop watching daytime tv - statistics prove your less likely to be a money grabbing dick if you dont watch the jezza commercials
sherbertdip said:
If you don't want to go fully clipless I suggest a pair of these?
https://www.tweekscycles.com/Product.do?method=vie...
Although contrary to BV even a 1 cm lip as shown can cause pinch flats and hence a crash, it's not so much the depth but the lack of slope.
I think the council will take BV's route though and say "no". However, what have you got to lose? Go for it and let us know the outcome.
I'm interested by the statement " even a 1 cm lip as shown can cause pinch flats". Does that imply that the profile/side wall (ie distance between the road surface and the rim) would have to be less than 1cm (or just a little more)?https://www.tweekscycles.com/Product.do?method=vie...
Although contrary to BV even a 1 cm lip as shown can cause pinch flats and hence a crash, it's not so much the depth but the lack of slope.
I think the council will take BV's route though and say "no". However, what have you got to lose? Go for it and let us know the outcome.
Edited by sherbertdip on Monday 6th November 07:26
I've often looked at the tiny narrow thin tyres on some race type bikes and wondered if they are suitable for road use. if I 1 cm lip is too much for them, I would personally say that means they are suitable for road use?
When I was an undergraduate I armed myself against the bumpy roads of the early 80s by buying a right old boneshaker from the porter of my college. It cost a tenner. It had a basket over the handlebars for correct 50s posing. I didn't get done for riding it while pissed, but one of my housemates did. I left it in a shed behind that rented house near the Cowley Road. When I went past that house recently I noticed that the same old bins still hadn't been put out and the same old manky curtains still hadn't been opened. I wonder if my bike is still there? It was impervious to dips and lips. A pedal did fall off once, and for some reason my house mates were miffed at me for trying to fix it by hitting it with a hammer on the kitchen table after I had drunk 13 pints in the King's Arms with my mate's girlfriend Rachel, who had drunk 14 pints (she was rowing early the next day so she needed the extra one). I have never again reached double figures in pints.
Solocle said:
Surely the case law BV refers to is the council not repairing potholes? I’d have thought digging up the road then not putting it back is a different culpability bracket. I thought the first photo showed how difficult it was to see the nature of the hazard.
No, the legal principles contained in the statute and exemplified in the case law relate to highway maintenance in general. Solocle said:
It'll have to wait to morning for a precise measurement, but it's probably around 1 cm. I had a bit of speed built up, but it wasn't the jolt itself, but rather that my foot found the tarmac that was the final blow.
So only 1cm - you had speed built up, and it wasn't the jolt itself that caused the issue, but your foot on the tarmac - i.e. you have just right royally shot yourself in said foot and admitted full liability for causing your own accident! 
At what point do you take responsibility for your own actions / when do you expect others to stop wrapping you in cotton wool?
Who builds an expectation that roads are perfect and anything else is not acceptable and should lead to the council being sued - really?!
A 1 cm difference is no more than having some loose grit / a pebble in the road - how do you manage if there is some litter in the road / leaves blown in by the wind, or heaven forbid - some bit of material which has fallen off another bike etc.?! It is your responsibility to ride according to the conditions, to have sufficient light to see far enough ahead, and to ride such that you can stop within the distance you can see etc.
man up - and take responsibility for the fact that you fell off your bike - why should you sue the council and cost everyone else money in their having to deal with your frivolous case?! Put it down to experience.
And how does your losing a key have anything to do with the council - if it fell out of your pocket - go and pick it up, or is that a bit beneath you?!
Edited by akirk on Monday 6th November 09:11
Some accusations levelled at Generation Snowflake are unfair, but not others. I mocked my nephew and his friends when they all became unwell and had to take to their beds when they heard that Marine Le Pen was speaking at the Union. I observed that in my day we would have gone along and countered her hateful arguments with better ones of our own, but they all felt triggered, had their safe spaces invaded and so on, and they didn't even hear her speak.
I blame my own generation (late Baby Boomers) for producing a generation of dhead kidults.
I blame my own generation (late Baby Boomers) for producing a generation of d
head kidults.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff