Cyclist leaves council in a hole

[Squashme]

On 6 Jan, 10:06, [email protected] (Ekul Namsob)
wrote:
> Martin Dann <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Ekul Namsob wrote:
> > > Martin Dann <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >> If I know where a pothole is in advance, I often ride through them
> > >> taking my weight off the seat. Usually I try to steer round them.
>
> > >> There is one on my commute that was filled in at the end of summer, that
> > >> I still steer round just out of habit.
>
> > > Out of interest, did you advise the council of the pothole?
>
> > No. It was a sunken manhole cover, but still bad.
>
> Fairy nuff, and still covered by the same rules.
>
> > I did advise the council (Bristol) of a hole at least 15cm deep in a
> > brick foot path near me last summer, and they repaired it in about one
> > month.
> > In the same month I advised South Gloucester Council of another sunken
> > manhole cover, that is quite dangerous for cyclists, and they have not
> > yet (as of early December) done anything about it.
>
> I notice that <http://fillthathole.org.uk/map> shows 207 hazards for
> Lancashire and 304 for Gloucestershire. However, it is also apparent
> that they're not removing all the completed repairs from the site as
> <http://www.ctc-maps.org.uk/obstructions/on_road/hazard/3244/details>
> was not only repaired within days of it being reported but the entire
> street was resurfaced.
>
> It's very strange to me that some councils would appear to prefer to be
> sued than to repair their roads.
>

Well, they must have done the sums. It saves their taxpayers money.
They put off the malign plaintiffs but also the justified ones by
vigorously defending, instead of admitting when it was a fair cop and
paying out. The solicitors may be the council's own perhaps, and so
already paid for. Repairing the roads is probably more expensive even
than solicitors. And the all-important "saving" of taxpayers' money
can be trumpeted.

 

[Squashme]

On 6 Jan, 01:10, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Squashmewrote:
> > On 5 Jan, 13:51, JNugent <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> >>Squashmewrote:
>
> >>>On 5 Jan, 00:50, JNugent <[email protected]>
> >>>wrote:
>
> >>>>Squashmewrote:
>
> >>>>>On 4 Jan, 17:24, [email protected] (Ekul Namsob)
> >>>>>wrote:
>
> >>>>>>Martin Dann <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>David Hansen wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>That is the title given by a local paper in London to a case wherea
> >>>>>>>>cyclist did not give up in a claim regarding a pothole.
>
> >>>>>>>><http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23430720-details/Cycli
> >>>>>>>>st%20leaves%20council%20in%20a%20hole/article.do?expand=true#StartComme­n
> >>>>>>>>ts>
>
> >>>>>>>>No-doubt the council's presumably expensive solicitors have been
> >>>>>>>>paid for their bad advice.
>
> >>>>>>>What is truly outrageous about this is that it is the local tax payer
> >>>>>>>who has to pay for the legal expenses etc.
> >>>>>>>Many private companies faced with a compensation claim of 90ukp would
> >>>>>>>realise it is cheaper just to pay the claim, rather than spend several
> >>>>>>>hundred pounds on solicitors.
>
> >>>>>>If, by fighting a few claims, a larger number of claims can be
> >>>>>>prevented, then the cost may well be of long term benefit to local tax
> >>>>>>payers.
>
> >>>>>So the justice or otherwise of these claims does not matter to you?
>
> >>>>If they are well-grounded, they will succeed.
>
> >>>>That's up to the courts.
>
> >>>Yes, that's fair. The well-funded and the poor are equal in their
> >>>eyes, aren't they? In your world.
>
> >>I said "well-grounded", not "well-funded".
>
> >>Do you not know the difference?
>
> > Can't you read?
>
> *I* can. I'm not sure about you.
>
> > A well-grounded case from a well-funded person is more likely to do
> > better than a well-grounded case from a poor person. Or do you believe
> > that all are equal in practice?
>
> And?
>
> I mentioned only well-grounded cases, Don Quixote.

Which should not have been fought by the council, except that it
wishes to deter all. Good, bad or indifferent.

 

[Squashme]

On 6 Jan, 02:10, Rob Morley <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <ca7d7830-78bd-4fd0-9fa8-5850fefff8c1
> @v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,Squashme
> [email protected] says...
>
> > It is wonderful to see so many cyclists in agreement with a motorist
> > on this question.
> > Where does it say that the cyclist was too fast or too close? He was
> > in town traffic, so he was likely to be close. The council solicitors
> > would have been on to that get-out clause, surely.
>
> By his own admission he he was too close to the bus, if he'd not been
> going so fast he could have stopped or avoided it.

If he was going too fast or too close he would have hit the bus. He
didn't. If he had been going too slow, he would likely have got a car
up his ****. If he had veered suddenly, he could have been swept into
eternity like this cyclist was:-

http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/....1327613.0.walking_free_after_cycle_death.php

As I said, if this was an argument, the council's sharks would have
used it.

Compared to motorists, cyclists don't get much useful money spent on
them. We can expect a safe road surface at least. We take up so little
of it, but it can be life or death for us.

 

[David Hansen]

On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 03:41:16 -0800 (PST) someone who may be Squashme
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>Well, they must have done the sums.

Possibly. However, I suspect not.

>The solicitors may be the council's own perhaps, and so
>already paid for.

Only if the article
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...n a hole/article.do?expand=true#StartComments
is wrong, because it says, "Mr Hillier was stunned when the council
appointed solicitors to deal with the claim".

>And the all-important "saving" of taxpayers' money can be trumpeted.

Indeed. They will get a little article in local newspapers, at the
expense of causing a great deal of hassle to people who have been
injured by their inactions.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

 

[Simon Brooke]

David Hansen wrote:

> Only if the article
>
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...n a hole/article.do?expand=true#StartComments
> is wrong, because it says, "Mr Hillier was stunned when the council
> appointed solicitors to deal with the claim".

I suspect that the article /is/ wrong when it says that. I could well
understand that Mr Hillier might well have been stunned when he fell off
his bike, but people rarely or never suffer head injury as a direct result
of solicitors being appointed to deal with a case.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; better than your average performing pineapple

 

[Simon Brooke]

Ekul Namsob wrote:

> Rob Morley <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Colin McKenzie
>> [email protected] says...
>
>> > I was also watching a traffic light. The pothole emerged from under
>> > the car in front as he moved off from stationary.
>>
>> You mean you approached the pothole too fast to avoid it.
>> >
>> > At no point was I so close as to be unable to stop in the distance I
>> > could see to be clear of vehicles or pedestrians.
>> >
>> It's not just other road users you have to be able to avoid, it's any
>> hazard that's in or near the road. If you hit a pothole or a brick or a
>> patch of oil and lose control you present a hazard to other road users.
>
> What is the fastest speed at which you ride?

Speaking for myself, the high forties of miles per hour. The speed at which
is is safe to ride varies with the conditions. On a clear, straight road
(especially where assisted by gradient) you can go faster than you can on a
street cluttered with cars, pedestrians and other detritus, so absolute
speed has nothing whatever to do with the case.

Of course, if you crash into a static hazard at forty-mumble miles per
hour - as I have done - you have no-one but yourself to blame. Just exactly
the same as if you crash into a static hazard at any other speed.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

[ This .sig subject to change without notice ]

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Squashme <[email protected]> wrote:

> If he had been going too slow, he would likely have got a car
> up his ****.

Do you actually believe that? I've travelled at some ludicrously slow
speeds on trunk roads (less than 5 mph up some particularly steep
hills). I've never been rear-ended by a car. In traffic, it's even less
likely to happen.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Squashme <[email protected]> wrote:


> > It's very strange to me that some councils would appear to prefer to be
> > sued than to repair their roads.
> >
>
> Well, they must have done the sums. It saves their taxpayers money.
> They put off the malign plaintiffs but also the justified ones by
> vigorously defending, instead of admitting when it was a fair cop and
> paying out.

Would the CTC give up just because a council chose to defend? Would an
insurance company? In the former case I would be astonished. In the
latter, surprised.

> The solicitors may be the council's own perhaps, and so
> already paid for. Repairing the roads is probably more expensive even
> than solicitors.

Again, I would be surprised. The potholes in my street were repaired, in
the first instance, by filling them with what looks like tar. I don't
think it took more than an hour's work by a couple of workers.

> And the all-important "saving" of taxpayers' money
> can be trumpeted.

Only if the voters are happy to accept neglected roads.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

 

[Colin McKenzie]

Simon Brooke wrote:
> What part of highway code rule 126 do you not understand?
>
> "126 Stopping Distances. Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well
> within the distance you can see to be clear..."

Depends on your definition of clear. Emergency stops for potholes are
not generally recommended.

Swerving round them is not always possible, so I think it's reasonable
to expect a generally well-maintained road to be free of potholes
which are bad enough to break your bike or throw you off at low speed.

As your speed rises, you have to worry more about the road surface,
but you can, because you have more clear space in front of you.

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

 

[Squashme]

On 6 Jan, 12:40, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
> Squashme wrote:
> > On 5 Jan, 19:08, Rob Morley <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> In article <a6e14fe7-2a12-4668-9f4d-e17ccf2eb2a5
> >> @v67g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,Squashme
> >> [email protected] says...
>
> >> > Simple, Simon, this was explained in the article. There was not time
> >> > to see it that day:-
> >> > "I knew the pothole was there but on this occasion - because of
> >> > surrounding traffic and a bus right in front of me concealing it - I
> >> > could not avoid it in time."
>
> >> So he was riding too close/too fast despite the fact he knew the surface
> >> was poor, and he still gets compensation?
>
> > It is wonderful to see so many cyclists in agreement with a motorist
> > on this question.
> > Where does it say that the cyclist was too fast or too close? He was
> > in town traffic, so he was likely to be close. The council solicitors
> > would have been on to that get-out clause, surely.
>
> What part of highway code rule 126 do you not understand?
>
> "126 Stopping Distances. Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well
> within the distance you can see to be clear..."
>

Potholes are implicit in that, are they? You shouldn't cycle expecting
to have to avoid a vehicle or a pedestrian that appears from under the
bus in front of you, should you?

 

[Squashme]

On 6 Jan, 12:48, [email protected] (Ekul Namsob)
wrote:
> Squashme <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > It's very strange to me that some councils would appear to prefer to be
> > > sued than to repair their roads.
>
> > Well, they must have done the sums. It saves their taxpayers money.
> > They put off the malign plaintiffs but also the justified ones by
> > vigorously defending, instead of admitting when it was a fair cop and
> > paying out.
>
> Would the CTC give up just because a council chose to defend? Would an
> insurance company? In the former case I would be astonished. In the
> latter, surprised.

They are well-funded. I'm thinking of ordinary people, who do the
mental sums, and say I'll just have to grin and bear it, because I
can't afford the time off work, the wasted spare time, and the general
sense of futility and impotence. And that is what the policy is
designed to do.

>
> > The solicitors may be the council's own perhaps, and so
> > already paid for. Repairing the roads is probably more expensive even
> > than solicitors.
>
> Again, I would be surprised. The potholes in my street were repaired, in
> the first instance, by filling them with what looks like tar. I don't
> think it took more than an hour's work by a couple of workers.

I was thinking of the cost of a proper maintenance programme, not
patching, which itself can be quite destabilising to ride over.

>
> > And the all-important "saving" of taxpayers' money
> > can be trumpeted.
>
> Only if the voters are happy to accept neglected roads.

Of course they are. It justifies their purchase of 4x4 behemoths, with
their savings from their low taxes.

 

[Squashme]

On 6 Jan, 12:48, [email protected] (Ekul Namsob)
wrote:
> Squashme <[email protected]> wrote:
> > If he had been going too slow, he would likely have got a car
> > up his ****.
>
> Do you actually believe that? I've travelled at some ludicrously slow
> speeds on trunk roads (less than 5 mph up some particularly steep
> hills). I've never been rear-ended by a car. In traffic, it's even less
> likely to happen.
>

Yes, I belive that it could and cycle accordingly. See what happened
to this guy. He slowed and avoided an obstacle:-

"Father of two Mr **** was cycling home after work during rush hour.
He pulled out into the road to avoid an illegally parked car. As he
did so, Mr Pennycook hit him from behind. The crash took place along a
one-way road in the City. Witnesses described hearing a deafening
crash', which left Mr **** crushed between the motorcycle and his own
mountain bike."

 

[Squashme]

On 6 Jan, 13:30, Colin McKenzie <[email protected]> wrote:
> Simon Brooke wrote:
> > What part of highway code rule 126 do you not understand?
>
> > "126 Stopping Distances. Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well
> > within the distance you can see to be clear..."
>
> Depends on your definition of clear. Emergency stops for potholes are
> not generally recommended.
>
> Swerving round them is not always possible, so I think it's reasonable
> to expect a generally well-maintained road to be free of potholes
> which are bad enough to break your bike or throw you off at low speed.

Some interesting background here:-

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1555602.ece

 

[[email protected]]

In message <[email protected]>
Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:

> Of course, if you crash into a static hazard at forty-mumble miles per
> hour - as I have done - you have no-one but yourself to blame. Just exactly
> the same as if you crash into a static hazard at any other speed.

At 4-5 mph climbing a sharp (for a 65yr old) hill, straight into the
sun, on a reflecting wet surface, today I came wheel-to-bumper with a
parked car.

I was so surprised by my appalling lack of attention that I stopped
six feet short.

Not having anyone else to blame, or any injury to detract from the
sense of my own stupidity, was rather daunting.

I must get a vizor - had a plastic clip-off one once, but it fell off
....


--
Charles
Brompton P6R-Plus; CarryFreedom -YL, in Motspur Park
LCC; CTC.

 

[JNugent]

Adam Lea wrote:
> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Squashme wrote:
>>
>>>On 5 Jan, 13:47, JNugent <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>David Hansen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 00:04:41 +0000 someone who may be Simon Brooke
>>>>><[email protected]> wrote this:-
>>>>
>>>>>>Don't be silly. If an idiot rides into a pothole and bends his wheel,
>>>>>>precisely who is to blame?
>>>>
>>>>>You appear to be assuming that this "idiot" was riding on a road
>>>>>where he had the luxury of long lines of sight and being able to
>>>>>manoeuvre enough to avoid any poor surface.
>>>>
>>>>Isn't he quoted as saying he knew the pothole was there?
>>>
>>>
>>>Use what intelligence you have:-
>>>
>>>"I knew the pothole was there but on this occasion - because of
>>>surrounding traffic and a bus right in front of me concealing it - I
>>>could not avoid it in time."
>>
>>He knew it was there, he knew he was approaching it and he still hit it?
>>
>>Could he not have stopped?
>
>
> And risk being shunted by the car behind who was not expecting him to stop?

....and which he did not mention, IIRC?

It begs all sorts of questions. If the vehicle in front had been
driven over a traffic island with a raised kerb (not unknown) would
the cyclist (or any following driver) from whom the island was
obscured by the leading vehicle be expected to do the same?

And why oy, if he knew the pothole was there, just take a line six
inches to either side?

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>, Colin McKenzie
[email protected] says...
> Simon Brooke wrote:
> > What part of highway code rule 126 do you not understand?
> >
> > "126 Stopping Distances. Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well
> > within the distance you can see to be clear..."
>
> Depends on your definition of clear. Emergency stops for potholes are
> not generally recommended.
>
> Swerving round them is not always possible, so I think it's reasonable
> to expect a generally well-maintained road to be free of potholes
> which are bad enough to break your bike or throw you off at low speed.
>
But the guy knew it was there.

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <80458444-4c11-4e40-9623-
[email protected]>, Squashme
[email protected] says...
>
> If he was going too fast or too close he would have hit the bus.

Only if the bus had stopped very suddenly.

> He
> didn't. If he had been going too slow, he would likely have got a car
> up his ****.

In which case he'd have been right to sue the car driver.

> If he had veered suddenly, he could have been swept into
> eternity like this cyclist was:-
>
> http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/....1327613.0.walking_free_after_cycle_death.php

That's what can happen if you're not aware of approaching traffic, or
make sudden manoeuvres without indicating your intention.
>
> As I said, if this was an argument, the council's sharks would have
> used it.

I was stating my opinion, which I maintain, not a legal argument for the
defence.
>
> Compared to motorists, cyclists don't get much useful money spent on
> them. We can expect a safe road surface at least. We take up so little
> of it, but it can be life or death for us.
>
I wonder how many cyclist KSIs are attributable to poor road surface.

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <0561976c-3a56-477b-9bf8-695edc7deee6
@l32g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Squashme
[email protected] says...
> On 6 Jan, 12:48, [email protected] (Ekul Namsob)
> wrote:
> > Squashme <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > If he had been going too slow, he would likely have got a car
> > > up his ****.
> >
> > Do you actually believe that? I've travelled at some ludicrously slow
> > speeds on trunk roads (less than 5 mph up some particularly steep
> > hills). I've never been rear-ended by a car. In traffic, it's even less
> > likely to happen.
> >
>
> Yes, I belive that it could and cycle accordingly. See what happened
> to this guy. He slowed and avoided an obstacle:-
>
He swerved suddenly into the path of an approaching vehicle.

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <1iaaggk.1kicrm1okafpdN%
[email protected]>, Ekul Namsob
[email protected] says...

> What is the fastest speed at which you ride?
>
Probably quite often too fast and too close, but I wouldn't sue the
council if I had a non-injury accident as a result of riding into a
pothole that I knew was there.

 

[Squashme]

On 6 Jan, 16:50, Rob Morley <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <0561976c-3a56-477b-9bf8-695edc7deee6
> @l32g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,Squashme
> [email protected] says...> On 6 Jan, 12:48, [email protected] (Ekul Namsob)
> > wrote:
> > >Squashme<[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > If he had been going too slow, he would likely have got a car
> > > > up his ****.
>
> > > Do you actually believe that? I've travelled at some ludicrously slow
> > > speeds on trunk roads (less than 5 mph up some particularly steep
> > > hills). I've never been rear-ended by a car. In traffic, it's even less
> > > likely to happen.
>
> > Yes, I belive that it could and cycle accordingly. See what happened
> > to this guy. He slowed and avoided an obstacle:-
>
> He swerved suddenly into the path of an approaching vehicle.

Yes, well, he's too dead to deny it. He could not have gone through
the illegally-parked car, so he had to go round it. I suppose that it
might appear to be a swerve to an aggressive, speeding and heedless
motorcyclist. But to quote Simon Brooke:-

"What part of highway code rule 126 do you not understand?

"126 Stopping Distances. Drive at a speed that will allow you to
stop well
within the distance you can see to be clear..." "