Went down today due to massive rut in road

IanLD

Went down for the first time in about 26 years due to my wheel hitting the side of a massive rut in the road.

Couldn't see it because of the low sun until I was in it (doing about 18 at the time) and jagged edges caught the front wheel. Tried to save it, but ended up high siding and me and the bike deposited in the middle of the road.

Bar ends ripped off, saddle twisted, wheels slightly buckled (discs so not too much of a problem), bars may be bent, cadence sensor no longer working, jacket ripped, base layer ripped, grazed knees, grazed elbows, sore leg and now got a massive headache and sore neck.

Phoned CTC legal advice who will call back tomorrow, but unsure as to why I have a sore neck. It was damaged in a crash on the M6 11 years ago when a van ploughed in to the back of my car. Has anyone had an injury similar to whiplash due to a bike crash? If pain it still there in the morning, I'll go to see GP, but don't want to seem as if I am trying to dress up a claim.

Main concern is getting cost of clothing and damaged bits of bike paid by council. Happened in Scotland if that makes any difference. Got a local who has said he is willing to confirm road was already in bad condition and has been poorly repaired. Lots of photos too including the gory ones I got my son to take!

chrisaonabike

Good luck with the legals. I've now twice been past an absolute fuckoff pothole, just about here iirc, missedit by a few inches each time, and guaranteed I'd be off if I hit it.

elderone

When i got knocked off 2 months ago from behind,along with other injuries I got whiplash which is according to my gp,is neck muscle trauma.It is associated with car accidents mainly but is the same injury.It is quite possible you going down did hurt your neck muscles.Mine lasted about 6 weeks or so.

IanLD

Head and neck feeling a bit better this morning, but will see what CTC legal people say if they want me to go to GP.

That would possibly leave me with my gravel rash and bruising as injuries. Do these count if a claim is upheld as well as bike and clothing?

diy

Care to post pics of the road?

You'll need to show it had been reported to them and that they could and should have repaired it but did not. You may also need to show why you could not avoid it. (Scottish law may be different).

You wont get much for minor injuries that will heal quickly.

logitech208

Whilst I feel for you having a crash, are your really considering trying to claim against your council because you hit a pot hole. Good luck with that.

cougie

If the sun was low - was it wise to do 18mph ? I guess that's what they'll be saying.

Hope you recover quickly.

Critch

Why shouldn't he considering claiming? And you can do 18mph without even realising it unless you've got a bitch of a headwind. I'm sensing a wee bit of bah humbug!

The Law - section 58 of the Highways Act 1980
The Council as the Highway Authority manages public roads and footways and strives to ensure that they are in good order. There is a statutory duty on the Authority to keep roads maintained under the Highways Act 1980.

The Highways Act 1980 acknowledges that it is not possible to keep the road network entirely free from defects, and that it is unreasonable to expect local authorities to know about all defects and to repair them the moment they appear. Similarly, not all defects are serious enough to represent a danger to to road users.

In recognition of this, local authorities have a legally recognised defence to compensation claims under section 58 of the Highways Act 1980. To be able to rely on the defence, the County Council must have a clear policy setting out its road maintenance regime, and must comply with its own policy and standards.

The maintenance regime includes: -

regular safety inspections of the highway
a system to identify and prioritise defects and hazards
response times to undertake repairs.

The bolded bit is key here. What the claimant has to do is establish when that road was last inspected by the local authority. They have to disclose that info. If its an unreasonable time between inspections then this strengthens the case for damages.

This is why we should all report nasty potholes to our local authorities when we see them, not just when we crash because of them. Its a case of looking out for each other. I report every nasty pothole I come across - they are usually right where we need to cycle and don't really affect car drivers that much so the duty really does fall on cyclists shoulders. Obviously I don't report every single one or I'd be on the phone forever, but the dangerous ones really do need calling in.

Having reported a nasty pothole if someone is then seriously injured and the local authority failed to act in a reasonable time to carry our repairs then they are liable. Simplez.

Scottish Law may be different of course as this Act only covers England and Wales, but there should be similar legislation with our northern friends. Granted this may make my contribution a bit moot, but Ive put it out there anyhow as its pretty dang valid.

rolf_f

I bent two rims on one pothole. Didn't bother claiming because they were quick to fill it when I reported it. The only thing that bothers me about it is the crap job they do of filling it - it was refilled no less than 3 times last year and it's definitely been a dodgy spot since at least 2008.

I presume the OP has reported the hole so that no one else goes down because of it.

Gravel rash and bruising as a basis for a compo claim?

tiredofwhiners

I have been through the whole claim issue twice in the last 7 years or so.

Leicestershire paid out as long as I waived any right to personal damages etc - they paid for the bike repair.

Solihull Council told me politely to take a hike - they sent the survey schedule and details of when they surveyed the area. They pointed out that they had a policy and complied with the relevant standards, which if I recall correctly, was that they only repair holes greater than 2 inches in depth. They handed the whole thing of the Zurich Insurance. They did nowever fill the offending hole immediately.

navrig

diy wrote:

Care to post pics of the road?

You'll need to show it had been reported to them and that they could and should have repaired it but did not. You may also need to show why you could not avoid it. (Scottish law may be different).

You wont get much for minor injuries that will heal quickly.

I think that is the case. Worth a check on fixmystreet.com to see if it has previously been reported using that medium. Otherwise it could be difficult to force a claim. Good luck and GWS.

gsvbagpuss

Rolf F wrote:

The only thing that bothers me about it is the crap job they do of filling it - it was refilled no less than 3 times last year and it's definitely been a dodgy spot since at least 2008.

Round my way I'm sure the council fill all potholes with porridge - looks great when it goes on but heaven forbid any rain falls on it

peat

simply filling a pothole is a waste of time. It is better cut the section out, properly dry and prepare the surface and then patch it. But, then if the patch isn't sealed perfectly at the edges, a pothole will form there.

They have a job on their hands to keep the roads immaculate considering the volume of traffic/inclement weather we have here.

diy

Again - no idea about Scottish law, but in English law Wilkinson 2011 is probably precedent. It establishes both:
- contributory negligence to the tune of 50% for failure to avoid the hole.
- and the regime that must be adopted to check the state of roads and liability for deviation.

it is not straightforward and may not even apply to scotty law. relevant cases are:
Griffiths –v- Liverpool Corporation
“(2) In an action against a highway authority in respect of damage resulting from their failure to maintain a highway maintainable at the public expense, it shall be a defence.. to prove that the authority had taken such care.. particular have regard to the following matters, that is to say – (a) the character of the highway and the traffic which was reasonably to be expected to use it; (b) the standard of maintenance appropriate for a highway of that character and used by such traffic; (c) the state of repair in which a reasonable person would have expected to find the highway; (d) whether the highway authority knew, or could reasonably have been expected to know, that the condition of the part of the highway to which the action relates was likely to cause danger to users of the highway; (e) where the highway authority could not reasonably have been expected to repair that part of the highway before the cause of action arose, what warning notices of its condition had been displayed. ”

Haydon v Kent CC - not sure why this is relevant, but its been cited in the above
Wilkinson -v- The City of York Council

binsted

Navrig wrote:

diy wrote:

I think that is the case. Worth a check on fixmystreet.com to see if it has previously been reported using that medium. Otherwise it could be difficult to force a claim. Good luck and GWS.

You learn something on here everyday. I did not know about this site or the rules relating to surveying and repairing potholes but it seems a responsibility all cyclists should embody.

After avoiding a deep pothole for about a year I have reported it, be interesting to see if this works and it gets repaired.

IanLD

Thanks for the comments - some perhaps a bit more helpful than others

Hole was reported immediately after I crashed using the CTC app 'fill that hole' on my iphone. It is number 73619 if you want to see the exact location.

Not 100% sure how to upload photos here. Could someone advise me on the process and as I have started a claim using the CTC legal advice team, would I be prejudicing it if I post them here?

Have been advised to go to see my GP for confirmation of injuries and to ascertain that nothing I'm not aware of has happened.

Started adding up the damage to clothing and bike and I'm already over £290 :shock:

Anyone else used the CTC legal service for a similar incident and if so, how did it go?

diy

IanLD wrote:

Not 100% sure how to upload photos here. Could someone advise me on the process and as I have started a claim using the CTC legal advice team, would I be prejudicing it if I post them here?

You need to think mainly about why you could not avoid it and if the maintenance is in accordance with their policy for b-roads. But best not to discuss here. You'll get a view soon enough on your prospects and nothing you post here will change that unless you say something to increase any claim of contributory negligence.

Raffles

I had utmost sympathy for the OP until he brought up the good ole sore neck :roll:

Proper whiplash doesnt come into play until 2 or 3 days has passed and the courts know this only too well. I hope you get your bike sorted.

IanLD

Raffles wrote:

I had utmost sympathy for the OP until he brought up the good ole sore neck :roll:

Proper whiplash doesnt come into play until 2 or 3 days has passed and the courts know this only too well. I hope you get your bike sorted.

I know all about 'proper' whiplash having been rear ended on the M6 12 years ago. Let me tell you, the pain lasted for months and I still have problems if I lift anything heavy.

Seeing GP tomorrow for CTC legal purposes, but don't imagine they will have much to say other than confirm cuts, grazes and bruises. Will see if they have any comments on back or neck - will be nearly three days, so time ideal if any problems are evident.

Glad that the really sore head I had on Sunday night has gone, but getting a sore head thinking about how much damage done to bike and clothing...

Cleat Eastwood

That looks like its been dug out mechanically going by the slope at the top of the pic - was there a grid nearby - when they do roadworks on grids by us the cone the place off.

Having said that teh roads round here have deteriorated massively with recent cold snap....and that was only a couple of days long.

IanLD

Think it is a poorly executed repair that has failed. The local I spoke to (knocked on his door to see if I could get a road name) said that it has been in very poor condition for a considerable period of time. I would guess that it was cut out at the time of the previous repair as I don't recall it being the full length of the road.

In a way it would be easier to deal with just the local authority rather than them and a utility company both pointing the finger at each other.

diy

its only the local authority that has any statutory obligation to you. The LA will go after the utility company if they think they are liable.

cycleclinic

Councils do not have enough money to maintina the road netwrk as it is so suing them make that worse. The jobs are not done properly as they simply can;t afford to do it properly. Many of the road go bad after a bit of cold weather simply due to the road surafce is no longer sealed after years of insufficwent funds to do maintanence.

While I feel sorry that you had this accident you should n't claim as riding fast into low sun inncreases the risk of anaccident as you have found out. If you can't stop in the distance you see clear ahead you are going to fast. I regularly ride faster than I should but if I come a cropper I have my self and my self alone to blame (unless soemone runs me over them maybe it there fault). It is never the roads fault. If the road is bad don't ride it.

IanLD

Sorry cycleclinic, but I can't agree with you. I have over 35 years of serious riding under my wheels although my competition days were a long time ago. I have never come off before due to the road and do not consider my speed to have been fast.

I do not accept that a council can allow a road to deteriorate in to a condition that makes it dangerous to users and fail to see why I should also accept that they have no liability for the damage to my bike and clothing. I will be pursuing a claim as they have a legal responsibility to maintain the roads in a safe condition.

I would point out that I am a local authority employee myself, so am well aware of how we are being affected by government cuts, but there has been spending ringfenced in Scotland specifically for road maintenance.

Delict in Scots Law (similar to tort in English Law) means the council have to make reparation for their breach of a duty of care. This is the line I shall be pursuing.

I would point out that I do consider myself fortunate not to have had injuries similar to those of several experienced cycling friends over the past year or two and am quite grateful that I was able to ride the 16 miles home after coming off. Not the most comfortable miles ever due to the bike being a bit out of shape and me gradually stiffening up from the impacts...

MichaelW

When taking photos of crash sites you need close ups, med shots and wide shots showing the context of the problem. Take several, overlapping in all directions to make a panorama.
Take it looking towards the crash site as you approach and from the other direction. Pixels are free so take lots. Practice taking some at an imaginary crash site because after a for-real crash, your brain stops functioning. If the brain malfunction is temporary, you will need the photos later.

diy

Councils have money for road maintenance. They also actively choose to repair based on their legal risks, so net result is that they would spend a lot less on roads if people didn't sue them for breach of statutory duty.

Just because the OP may have some contributory negligence does not mean that there is no statutory duty of care which may have been breached.

tiredofwhiners

IanLD wrote:

I do not accept that a council can allow a road to deteriorate in to a condition that makes it dangerous to users

and the definition of that condition and their legal obligations are set out earlier posts. I have suffered in that regard but the law is clear and your 'interpretation' is the same as mine but sadly, its not what the law says the council is obliged to do.

IanLD wrote:

and fail to see why I should also accept that they have no liability for the damage to my bike and clothing. I will be pursuing a claim as they have a legal responsibility to maintain the roads in a safe condition.

and again, the definition of what is safe is effectively set out in their obligations and they will almost certainly have met them, even if you disagree. Duty of care only applies as far as their legal obligations - it does not extend them so you'll get nowhere. Its like saying that the government has a duty of care to keep us all safe so its their fault if we have a car crash, because they didn't steer the car safely for us.

You may as well come down off the high horse as you'll get nowhere as the legislation is clear, albeit unsatisfactory to every single road user, but it is satisfactory for the majority of users (cars) and the cost to the local taxpayer is a sensible one. That said, it looks to me like the side of the road has collapsed so it begs the question as to why the OP whose to go off the very wide road surface onto the hard shoulder

Phil Fouracre

Sounds painful - every sympathy. Call me cynical, but, wasn't it a case of not looking where you were going? what if it had been vehicle debris on the side of the road, what then? who would you be suing? if light wasn't good, ride accordingly - strange that you knew exactly how fast you were going, but, were unaware of a bloody great hole in front of you

buckmulligan

I had a mate who came acropper on a very similar looking rut in the New Forest several years ago. There was a large (3-4 inches) drop off between the tarmac road and a dirt layby. We were riding alongside it and I think he got target fixation, couldn't stop looking at it and before you know it his wheels were slipping down the rut and he hit the deck. In this case it was obviously his own inability to ride in a straight line, but it was a fairly fast B-road and I dread to think what might have happened had a car been trying to overtake us at the time, because he ended up sprawled over a good portion of the road.

Without wanting to sound unduly harsh to the OP, I don't see how you can hit something like that without some sort of contributory negligence on your part. It's towards the edge of the road and fairly narrow given the direction of travel, so should be fairly easy to avoid if you had seen it in good time. I'm not saying the LA are completely blameless (I have no idea of their legal obligations etc etc) but IMO you're participating in an activity with a certain degree of risk and you've got to accept that things like this might happen.

buckmulligan

And another (completely unrelated) point that boils my blood on a very regular occasion, is the utility companies digging massive trenches across roads in my town to lay cables/pipes/whatever the hell it is and then do a god-awful job of filling them in. They all sink to a good two or 3 inches below the level of the road and every time my bike slams down into one of these I die a little bit on the inside. These are completely unavoidable and plague the roads around my town, they're 10-times worse than the odd pothole that you can avoid!

Rant over.

bernithebiker

BuckMulligan wrote:

And another (completely unrelated) point that boils my blood on a very regular occasion, is the utility companies digging massive trenches across roads in my town to lay cables/pipes/whatever the hell it is and then do a god-awful job of filling them in. They all sink to a good two or 3 inches below the level of the road and every time my bike slams down into one of these I die a little bit on the inside. These are completely unavoidable and plague the roads around my town, they're 10-times worse than the odd pothole that you can avoid!

Rant over.

If it's any consolation, they're doing the same thing in France. Roads that were sweet as a nut before have been ripped up to have horizontal ruts across them (fibre optics) spaced 1 per house, so every 10m or so. No way to avoid them, I tend to bunny hop! Tragic!