Cyclist leaves council in a hole

[Squashme]

On 6 Jan, 16:50, Rob Morley <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.

You are confusing knowing it was there, as in right in front of him,
with knowing it was there, as in along that stretch of road. Do you
really think that he had it triangulated in some way, so that he could
be on exactly the right line to avoid it despite it being covered by a
bus until the last moment?

And if it was there on a busy road for sufficient time for him to
learn exactly where it was, then it was there long enough for the
council to have at least plopped some tarmac into it.

 

[Squashme]

On 6 Jan, 16:50, Rob Morley <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.

So he must have been travelling at a similar speed to the bus and at a
reasonable distance.

>
> > 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.

Ummm, or his widow could, perhaps.

>
> > If he had veered suddenly, he could have been swept into
> > eternity like this cyclist was:-
>
> >http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/wandsworthnews/display.var.13...
>
> That's what can happen if you're not aware of approaching traffic, or
> make sudden manoeuvres without indicating your intention.
>
The biggest sudden manouevrer was the motorcyclist, who had no
possible grounds for assuming that the cyclist would have followed any
other line than that which he took, and, by the damage the
motorcyclist caused, he was obviously speeding. Still as an important
CEO, doubtless he had the best legal guns.
>
> > 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.

Me too.

 

[Roger Merriman]

Squashme <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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?

frankly if your riding a bike with narrow (and most road bikes do)
tires, yes.

on my mountain bike, no they simply aren't a issue, on my other bikes
yes they can be.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

 

[Squashme]

On 6 Jan, 18:36, [email protected] (Roger Merriman) wrote:
> Squashme <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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?
>
> frankly if your riding a bike with narrow (and most road bikes do)
> tires, yes.
>
> on my mountain bike, no they simply aren't a issue, on my other bikes
> yes they can be.
>

You expect a vehicle or pedestrian from under the bus?

 

[Roger Merriman]

Squashme <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 6 Jan, 18:36, [email protected] (Roger Merriman) wrote:
> > Squashme <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > 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?
> >
> > frankly if your riding a bike with narrow (and most road bikes do)
> > tires, yes.
> >
> > on my mountain bike, no they simply aren't a issue, on my other bikes
> > yes they can be.
> >
>
> You expect a vehicle or pedestrian from under the bus?

I don't expect roads to be debris or pothole free. large vehicles such
as buses can easly drive over debris and potholes with no ill effect.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Rob Morley <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.

If I had already given the council a week or more to deal with the issue
then my response might well be different from yours. It depends on a
number of things, however, including damage to my property.

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:

> 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."

That has nothing to do with cycling too slowly and everything to do with
changing velocity suddenly and without warning. I cycle so that I do not
need to swerve. I often cycle very slowly too.

Cheers,
Luke


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

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Rob Morley <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Colin McKenzie
> [email protected] says...

> > Swerving round [potholes] 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.

Did he know the exact location?

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:

> 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.

I am an ordinary person. I have insurance. Many other ordinary people
have done the sums and have some form of insurance because they cannot
afford /not/ to have insurance.

> > > 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.

Well, it turns out from
<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1555602.ece> that the
average cost of filling a pothole is £56. Do you have any figures for
the cost of a proper maintenance programme? The Asphalt Industry
Alliance apparently considers that it would be 10x cheaper than the cost
of reactive maintenance, so that will be about £5.60 then.

> > > 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.

Do you have any real evidence for that?

> It justifies their purchase of 4x4 behemoths, with their savings from
> their low taxes.

Most voters don't have 4x4 behemoths, nor do they aspire to own them.

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

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <1iab9ga.1nkwuyp1w4q91rN%
[email protected]>, Ekul Namsob
[email protected] says...
> Rob Morley <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>, Colin McKenzie
> > [email protected] says...
>
> > > Swerving round [potholes] 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.
>
> Did he know the exact location?
>
I have no idea, but if I was aware of a large pothole somewhere on a
stretch of road, and it was obscured by traffic, then I'd take more care
or blame myself if I didn't.

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <746c354c-806e-4150-ba0f-
[email protected]>, Squashme
[email protected] says...

> "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..." "
>
The unfortunate cyclist would have been well advised to stop within the
distance he could see to be clear.

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <4642be84-2f0f-4a8d-ae05-e052f14d7065
@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>, Squashme
[email protected] says...

> You are confusing knowing it was there, as in right in front of him,
> with knowing it was there, as in along that stretch of road. Do you
> really think that he had it triangulated in some way, so that he could
> be on exactly the right line to avoid it despite it being covered by a
> bus until the last moment?

If I was bothered enough by a pothole to report it to the council I'd
probably have a pretty good idea where it was in relation to landmarks.
>
> And if it was there on a busy road for sufficient time for him to
> learn exactly where it was, then it was there long enough for the
> council to have at least plopped some tarmac into it.
>
So that makes it sensible for him to assume it's been fixed, and ride as
if it doesn't exist?

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <4bc0a531-06c0-4c44-a3a7-00863415af36
@k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Squashme
[email protected] says...
> On 6 Jan, 16:50, Rob Morley <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> So he must have been travelling at a similar speed to the bus

How do you come to that conclusion?

> and at a reasonable distance.

If it had been a reasonable distance he'd have been able to react in
time.
>
> >
> > > 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.
>
> Ummm, or his widow could, perhaps.

Every day many cyclists are approached from behind by many more cars,
and very few are KSI.
>
> >
> > > If he had veered suddenly, he could have been swept into
> > > eternity like this cyclist was:-
> >
> > >http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/wandsworthnews/display.var.13...
> >
> > That's what can happen if you're not aware of approaching traffic, or
> > make sudden manoeuvres without indicating your intention.
> >
> The biggest sudden manouevrer was the motorcyclist, who had no
> possible grounds for assuming that the cyclist would have followed any
> other line than that which he took,

Unless it looked like the cyclist was pulling in, or waiting for the
motorcycle to pass.

> and, by the damage the
> motorcyclist caused, he was obviously speeding. Still as an important
> CEO, doubtless he had the best legal guns.

I've been hit from behind by a (possibly speeding) notorcycle that I
didn't see, it threw me off and crushed the back of my bike. I think it
extremely unlikely that I and my bike would have become entangled in the
motorcycle and carried by it; the only likely way for that to happen is
if the motorcycle hit the bicycle at an angle, which implies that the
cyclist really did pull out right in front of the motorcycle, probably
as a result of waiting too late to negotiate the obstruction.

 

[Coyoteboy]

"David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Bus lanes in Edinburgh are particularly bad, demonstrating that
> intensive bus services can only be operated in the long term if
> roads are expensively reconstructed to allow for the effects they
> impose on normally constructed roads.
>

When designing new roads the lifespan design calcs no longer calculate for
car traffic - road construction is such that the only calculable wear is
created by HGVs, medium sized vans and above and buses etc.

 

[Ian Jackson]

In article <[email protected]>,
Martin Dann <[email protected]> wrote:
>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.

In December 2006 I was run into from behind by a Stagecoach bus
driver. The collision was very low speed (due to if I may say my own
near-perfect handling of his dangerous driving) and the repair bill
for my bike came to L10.20 for a new mudguard.

Stagecoach ignored my letter, with receipt attached. In the end I had
to sue and they ended up paying me a total of L70.20, plus by the
looks of the paperwork I got from their lawyers several hundred pounds
of legal bills on their side.

--
Ian Jackson personal email: <[email protected]>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

 

[Mark]

On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 12:21:31 GMT,
[email protected] (Ekul Namsob) wrote:

>Squashme <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 4 Jan, 17:03, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > David Hansen wrote:
>
>> > > Who benefits from such a stance is debatable. No doubt lawyers
>> > > benefit, but I doubt if anyone else does.
>> >
>> > Council tax payers do - a group which includes me.
>> >
>>
>> Who pays council tax (and other taxes) towards road upkeep?
>> Cyclists and motorists.
>>
>> Who suffers more from poor road surfaces?
>> Cyclists, not motorists.
>
>There are very few roads in this world where the road surface would be a
>factor in encouraging me to use a car rather than a bicycle.

Maybe not you but I'm sure many are discouraged. The Council here
seems to have the policy of only repairing pot holes when they get bad
enough to to be dangerous to cars and lorries and often not even then.

I have to ride on the wrong side of the road in one place on the way
to work due to a huge pothole that has been there for over 6 months.

The Council blames last year's floods but the truth is that the roads
were already in an appaling state before then.

M.

 

[Mark]

On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 00:39:45 -0000, Rob Morley <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In article <1iab9ga.1nkwuyp1w4q91rN%
>[email protected]>, Ekul Namsob
>[email protected] says...
>> Rob Morley <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <[email protected]>, Colin McKenzie
>> > [email protected] says...
>>
>> > > Swerving round [potholes] 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.
>>
>> Did he know the exact location?
>>
>I have no idea, but if I was aware of a large pothole somewhere on a
>stretch of road, and it was obscured by traffic, then I'd take more care
>or blame myself if I didn't.

I don't believe it's always possible to memorize the exact location of
every pothole one may encounter. I can't even remember how many
potholes I pass on the way to/from work. At night they are even
harder to spot, especially when full of rain.

M.

 

[Mark]

On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 20:29:04 GMT,
[email protected] (Ekul Namsob) wrote:

>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?
>
>As I understand it, he had previously advised the council of the defect.
>The council had failed in its duty to repair the hole. When I have
>advised my local council of defects, they have repaired them within 48
>hours.

Lucky you.

M.

 

[Mark]

On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:25:48 GMT, 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.
>
>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.

About 5 years to repair a hole in Gloucester is about average IME.

M.

 

[[email protected]]

On Jan 6, 6:50 pm, Squashme <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 6 Jan, 18:36, [email protected] (Roger Merriman) wrote:
>
>
>
> > Squashme <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > 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?
>
> > frankly if your riding a bike with narrow (and most road bikes do)
> > tires, yes.
>
> > on my mountain bike, no they simply aren't a issue, on my other bikes
> > yes they can be.
>
> You expect a vehicle or pedestrian from under the bus?

you think that potholes are the same class of object as a vehicle or
pedestrian?

best wishes
james