Went down today due to massive rut in road
Comments
-
A good point that this unfortunate accident has raised is that of low sun. A clubmate of mine was run down by a bloke who claimed he couldnt see him due to the low winter sun. This was on a fast but quiet dual carriageway.
The risks of low sun are double - if you can't see where you're going - will motorists coming up behind you be able to see you ? If possible - change your route. I know I'm far more aware of this since the fatality. Be careful out there.0 -
If I could find a way to sue the person who put speed bumps in this:
I reckon I'd be a popular person.
I'd take ruts and pot holes any day over speed bumps. I have been studding the regs and reckon there may be an angle on the ones at the top of the hill.
this is the olympic route on the box hill zig-zag for those who know it. The tarmac is perfect apart from annoying speed humps.0 -
The speed bumps on a road near me are those funny little rectangular ones - just narrower than the axles of a car - so you can line it up right and blast over them at any speed you like. It only calms the road of numpty drivers who hit them head on. Dangerous and a waste of money.0
-
Thanks for the constructive comments from those who would like to spread advice on how to deal with situations like this.
To the forum trolls who seem to think that riding 600mm out from the side of the road is in the gutter, or who must slam on the brakes whenever light levels change due to hedges etc, please crawl back under your rock and leave this to those who seek to promote cycling.
As an aside, if you are a member of Unison, they offer free legal assistance in cases such as this if don't happen to be a BC or CTC member. I'm sure most other unions will do the same.
Sorry to hear about the fatality mentioned above. Very well aware of dangers of low sun and cars coming up behind which is why I have lights on at all times at this time of year. Also always wear decent reflective bright colours such as my ex Endura Flyte jacket (red) that was destroyed in this incident.
I don't ride at certain times if the day in certain directions as I know it is hard enough to see cars at points on my commute in winter when heading East. Only lasts a few weeks, but never enjoyable for the short stretches affected.0 -
Am I right in thinking that the massive rut is the one shown in DIY's post?0
-
diy wrote:
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.
That doesn't look like a pothole, it looks more like a patch that has been planed out ready for filling with tarmac. If this is the case you should have a good against the council for negligence.0 -
Yes. Don't know how diy managed to upload the picture from fillthathole, but that is it. Bike was placed there for scale and it is taken with my bike facing the direction I was travelling in.
Have other pictures including ones taken in direction of travel that show how it was not particularly evident from my point of view.
Unfortunately, by riding a 'safe' distance from the edge, I ended up exactly in line with the jagged edge my wheels are beside. Gouges in sides of the rims show where the wheels made contact with the broken Tarmac and despite my efforts to save it both me and the bike ended up in the middle of the road.
Full set of pictures have been sent to CTC legal advice.0 -
Oh right. Certainly looks like a plained piece of road. Hopefully you feel better soon.0
-
IanLD wrote:Thanks for the constructive comments from those who would like to spread advice on how to deal with situations like this.
To the forum trolls who seem to think that riding 600mm out from the side of the road is in the gutter, or who must slam on the brakes whenever light levels change due to hedges etc, please crawl back under your rock and leave this to those who seek to promote cycling.
I don't think it's fair to say that the posters on here that don't necessarily agree with you are trolls! I think, being cyclists, most people very much sympathise with anyone who has a fall, especially if it was avoidable like in this case. Thankfully I haven't had one in a while, but the pain of seeing all your nice gear shredded to pieces not to mention the ongoing physical pain is all too fresh in my mind! I honestly do hope you're back on the road soon and good luck trying to replace your stuff, but don't be too disappointed if the CTC lawyers say it's not a strong enough case. If anything, these 'troll' posts will give you an idea of the likely response of the local authority, so you can get your rebutalls drafted and ready!0 -
Well, that's all the sympathy down the pan! So anyone who has the temerity to point out the bleedin' obvious, is a troll. What a load of crap. Bad drivers driving into the sun, no different to cyclists - if you can't see the road surface in front of you, how do you expect to avoid anything. I guess it's all your years of cycling that have elevated you above the rest of us mere mortals?0
-
What Phil Fouracre said.
Things are not always someone elses fault. Unfortunate that you came off, but if you were riding too quickly to judge the road condition ahead then that is your bad judgement.
When I'm training at night, I reckon out in the sticks I often ride more quickly than the visibility allows. If I come off I accept it is my fault and would not go seeking financial recompsense elsewhere.
Man up and take it on the chin.0 -
I hit a pretty deep crater in the edge of the road which was covered over with water a month or so ago in the dark and i got a flat tyre, buckled rim and it moved my bars downward in the stem
I was getting out of the way for a car a bit too much into the edge but its just one of those things that can happen and i wont make the same mistake twice :roll:
Roads will never be perfect and if visibility is poor.. slow down0 -
Surely the alternative was getting run over ?0
-
IanLD wrote:Unfortunately, by riding a 'safe' distance from the edge, I ended up exactly in line with the jagged edge my wheels are beside.
If there was a man in the road with a large spear pointing towards you whom you would have hit had you been a 'safe distance from the edge' would you have been speared or would you have ridden around the obstruction ? Just because you're a safe distance from what you perceive to be the edge of the road, doesn't mean that anything you come in your path is automatically someone elses fault. If I am safe distance from the edge of the road and there's a parked car, I cycle around it.
Personally, I would have looked at the photo and said that the edge of the road is to the left of where your wheels are in the photo and you should have stayed on the road, rather than blindly riding into the rather obvious section of road that isn't fit for cycling on. Having looked on Google Street View, it looks like the side of the road has been like that for a very long time, so stick to claiming you have never ridden on it before.
Good luck with your claim.0 -
I thought this http://ukcyclerules.com/2011/10/10/poth ... cling-law/
was fairly well written.0 -
Don't want to get involved in the should you have seen it row, but I would like to comment on the general road edge issue.
A number of the roads that I regularly ride on now have big chunks missing from what was the previous edge of the road. In same cases it is almost getting to the point that you can't get an oncoming car and a bike on the same stretch of road when for the rest of the road it is possible to have two cars passing. In places this means that there is a drop of over 6" from the road surface. Combine this with no street lighting, no white lines along the edge of the road, mud on the road (many of these roads see a lot of farm traffic), drivers that don't seem to want to dip headlights if "it is only a bike" and you can have some pretty messy results. A couple of club mates of mine had a nasty off a couple of weeks ago on one of these roads when they had to move over very close to the road edge to avoid the large spiky farm implement being pulled by a tractor.
Is this a common issue over the country?0 -
A depressingly familiar story0
-
Have never ridden that stretch before. Always took a different route.
Who said anything about sympathy? Was hoping this would open up some constructive advice for everyone, but as can happen on a forum, others seem to try and drive it in a different direction.
I wonder how many of them take the time to stop and report potholes when out using something like the CTC app fill that hole. I use it on iPhone but think it is available on android too. Has been quite effective in getting holes and ruts filled in. Funny thing is that I saw them. Must surprise some of the people above.
Hadn't heard of fixmystreet so hopefully that's a couple of tools people can use and are more aware of if they've read this thread.
Don't think I'm going to sleep well tonight as I'm obviously about to be attacked by men with spears and debris...0 -
Ive used fix my street when out running - someone had nicked a pavement drain cover. The council were very speedy sorting it so well worth doing.
I've only reported one pothole to the council - it was on a busy fast dual carriage way and nearly had me off. If I reported every pothole on the bike I'd never get anywhere !0 -
celbianchi wrote:What Phil Fouracre said.
Things are not always someone elses fault. Unfortunate that you came off, but if you were riding too quickly to judge the road condition ahead then that is your bad judgement.
When I'm training at night, I reckon out in the sticks I often ride more quickly than the visibility allows. If I come off I accept it is my fault and would not go seeking financial recompsense elsewhere.
Man up and take it on the chin.
I bet you would go seeking recompense if you seriously damaged a £2k+ bike + clothing + personal injury if there was a serious enough road defect and a reasonable chance for you to be compensated. If not then with all due respect, more fool you.... (in reply to the bolded bit). Your riding is only one factor. It does not absolve a local authority in every case of liability. There's a few guys telling the OP to man up and accept it, which I think is a bit harsh in the circumstances he has explained.
Consider this; If you come off because the only factor is you're going too fast than you can see - ie, lost balance on bend, meandered off to the side of the road and over-corrected/panicked to get back then fair enough. Hope your insurance covers it. The main factor there is excess speed.
Now add a road defect into the equation. Does that really stop local authority liability? I don't think so... but each case is unique and it can end in the claimant losing, as I said each case is unique and has to be investigated as such.
Also consider this; would some of you reply differently had he said he sneezed and when his eyes opened he was in the rut, or he did a shoulder check behind and when he looked back he was too close to the rut to take avoiding action? Okay he said he was riding at 18mph into the sun, but....
Seriously guys, 18mph can be done on auto-pilot in a moderate gear unless you have a massive head wind, you don't even know you're doing that speed sometimes (especially if you don't have a computer), and riding into the sun at that speed is not dangerous imo. You need to have an adequate, safe, view of everything. And guess what, people sometimes don't see things and the sun has nothing to do with it! Again how does that absolve local authority liability where there is a serious enough road defect?
How many of you have looked around when riding, checking your mirror, over-shoulder looking, trying to make eye contact with that guy in a car that may be about to pull out in front of you only to turn your attention to that spot of road in front of you to see a big pot-hole and think "shooot! This might hurt!" and you brace yourself as you go over it because its too late to take avoiding action? I bet nearly everyone reading has had that experience. If the defect unsaddles the rider, seriously damages the bike and riders clothing do you just shrug and and walk away? Because hey, its your own stupid fault for not seeing that road defect? No, you complain to the council (and hope the defect has already been reported which will strengthen your case) and try your luck with a compensation claim because you have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Telling the OP to effectively walk away because he was riding at 18mph into the sun and didn't see the pothole is daft (road glare can explain that one away). Boggle!
I wish the OP good luck, hope he claims and hope he gets a result. I don't get the mentality of some people....0 -
Thanks Critch
0 -
Critch wrote:Telling the OP to effectively walk away because he was riding at 18mph into the sun and didn't see the pothole is daft (road glare can explain that one away). Boggle!
So presumably you;re okay with a driver going at 30mph into the sun, unable to see and then running over a cyclist because he couldn't see the road ahead ?
Somehow I doubt you see the logical fallacy in your statement.IanLD wrote:Don't think I'm going to sleep well tonight as I'm obviously about to be attacked by men with spears and debris...
No, you'll stub your toe and blame the table for jumping out in front of you.0 -
The thing about forums is that it's full of different opinions - which is a good thing. The council will try to tell you that you were going too fast - and probably other things not mentioned here.
If everyone agreed with the OP then he'd be getting a shock when his claim was put in.0 -
tiredofwhiners wrote:Critch wrote:Telling the OP to effectively walk away because he was riding at 18mph into the sun and didn't see the pothole is daft (road glare can explain that one away). Boggle!
So presumably you;re okay with a driver going at 30mph into the sun, unable to see and then running over a cyclist because he couldn't see the road ahead ?
Somehow I doubt you see the logical fallacy in your statement.
That is the epitome of 'apples and oranges'. Take your own advice. The relevance is so far removed from the topic its not worth the effort in a detailed reply and will serve to treat your response with the contempt it deserves.
"Somehow I doubt you see the logical fallacy in your statement" is a phrase so often used (in a similar fashion) its become rather cliche and I'm sure people just use it because it sounds like a good thing to use as a counter. /Laughs.0 -
Some good points raised there Critch. I've done similar myself, a few years ago the LA had ploughed up part of a road I was on for some work they were doing, it was at the foot of a sharpish descent, there were no signs out to warn that the road was uneven or work was underway and it had a stretch of around 40m where it was all grooved in the direction of travel. Similar to the OP I got my wheels in one such rut and came off. Minor repairs to the bike (<£50) and shorts, legwarmers and jacket ripped.
I reported the matter to the council, received an apology and they immediatley put warning signs up and completed the work quickly.
Maybe I am a soft touch but I am one of those people who accept that sometimes accidents happen - If I had not been barreling down the descent I probably could have come to a safe stop on the uneven patch.
I'm not suggesting the OP is "on the make" but the way the UK is descending into a "where there's blame there's a claim" culture really gets on my goat.
Also - it is fair and expected that people have differing views of an incident. Calling people out as trolls who oppose your point of view (as the OP did) is a childish response.0 -
Critch wrote:tiredofwhiners wrote:Critch wrote:Telling the OP to effectively walk away because he was riding at 18mph into the sun and didn't see the pothole is daft (road glare can explain that one away). Boggle!
So presumably you;re okay with a driver going at 30mph into the sun, unable to see and then running over a cyclist because he couldn't see the road ahead ?
Somehow I doubt you see the logical fallacy in your statement.
That is the epitome of 'apples and oranges'. Take your own advice. The relevance is so far removed from the topic its not worth the effort in a detailed reply and will serve to treat your response with the contempt it deserves.
"Somehow I doubt you see the logical fallacy in your statement" is a phrase so often used (in a similar fashion) its become rather cliche and I'm sure people just use it because it sounds like a good thing to use as a counter. /Laughs.
No, thats just complete rubbish. The OP was cycling without being able to see far enough ahead for the speed they were going, hits what they describe as a pothole, which others would describe as 'went off the edge of the road surface' and seeks to blame the council for their own obvious failing.
Again, if a driver goes too fast, cannot see, and hits something, and that thing was a cyclist, you'd be one of the first claiming they were going too fast and should have slowed down enough to see what they were doing.
I am sorry if you cannot understand that.0 -
My local paper had an article on a driver who was suing the council for a new alloy wheel.
They had redesigned the local main street and they'd moved the ends of the pavement out to block off the end of the parking bays and give pedestrians a bit more pavement to cross the road from.
I couldnt see why it was a story other than a motorist suing the council when clearly he'd not been looking where he was driving. If you''re driving properly you don't crash head on into pavements - no matter if its a new development or not. I hope his case got thrown out.0 -
There seems to be a misunderstanding about the concept of negligence. A person can be mostly responsible for an accident or to have contributed to the negligence in such a way that they can be held mostly liable for the damages. That does not mean any other negligent party can avoid compensating the injured. It is a fact in English law that a highway authority can expect to pay compensation for a road defect if it meets the criteria where they have breached their statutory requirement to maintain the road. This fact is not changed by the injured parties negligence.
For those who are still confused I'd have a read of Thomas v Warwickshire CC 2011
.the court held that a cyclist who was riding in a group of about 19 cyclists, going into a bend at more than 20mph, was at fault because he positioned himself within 5 or 6 inches of the wheel of the person in front. As a result he couldn’t see what was coming up ahead, or take avoidance action if there were potholes; so the court reduced his damages by 60% for contributory negligence.
Here we have a situation where a rider cashed because he was ridding too fast and far too close to see and avoid the damaged road. The HA had still breached its statutory duty and they were still required to pay a portion of his damages.0 -
That's interesting Diy.
There is no mention in the OP's post about whether any road work signs were present. Would that effect any claim?
In fairness I'd have to suggest that regardless of any legislation that if you can't see where you are going (as indicated by OP) you should be travelling slower or be willing to accept the consequences. To blindly carry on is naive at best. From the picture it would have been just as easy for the OP to have crashed into a pedestrian and at 18mph I imagine it would have caused considerable injury, would they be in a position to defend any claim against them?0
