Crashed today - possibly due to oil on road

navrig2

CptKernow wrote:

I am solely interested from a legal perspective as to whether I can recoup my damages. If I can I will.

If a car hadn't spilled diesel on the road I would not have crashed. I don't hold the driver morally responsible for this, but I imagine in a legal sense they would be considered ultimately responsible for the results of their actions.

To me this is completely different to falling off because you went out in the snow, hitting a bollard or lost control going down hill. There is no third party there or any incident involved a fixed object - i.e. no argument anyone else bears some responsibility.

Whilst I am quite over this incident, I'm sort of struggling with the lack of objectivity and ability to think in remotely abstract concepts displayed by some on here.

I suspect people are just bemused by your insistence that someone should pay for your misfortune rather than you just accepting $hit happens from time to time.

If every loss were covered by some sort of slush fund then we would be taxed even more heavily than we currently are.

Accept that in this case you take the loss on the nose and move on.

apreading

I think if you could find/prove who spilled the diesel then nobody would have a problem with you pursuing a claim against them, they are responsible.

What people seem to have a problem with, is the suggestion of pursuing a claim against the council - they cant possibly sort out things like this immediately/all the time and need to rely on road users looking out for hazards in the road and avoiding them. Most will go unreported and sort themselves out, unless they are serious then council will never know. I think it would be morally and legally unfair to blame the council and pursue them for compensation.

In the absence of knowing who spilled the diesel, I am not sure how you could pursue this?

navrig2

CptKernow wrote:

Brakeless wrote:

I've had broken bones and bikes due to other peoples bad bike handling, if I was you I'd probably have to sue them wouldn't I?

If they had insurance that would cover it I wouldn't think twice.

Or do you think you should stoically take it on the chin as that's what 'gentlemen' do...

Says it all IMHO.

drlodge

What is the value of your loss? I assume its quite small. £100? In the insurance industry these are regarded as attritional losses and I would suggest you see this as an inherent risk of cycling, accept the cost and move on.

Claims should be for more significant losses.

bigmat

drlodge wrote:

What is the value of your loss? I assume its quite small. £100? In the insurance industry these are regarded as attritional losses and I would suggest you see this as an inherent risk of cycling, accept the cost and move on.

Claims should be for more significant losses.

Depends on excess / impact on renewal premium.

dinyull

Navrig2 wrote:

CptKernow wrote:

Brakeless wrote:

I've had broken bones and bikes due to other peoples bad bike handling, if I was you I'd probably have to sue them wouldn't I?

If they had insurance that would cover it I wouldn't think twice.

Or do you think you should stoically take it on the chin as that's what 'gentlemen' do...

Says it all IMHO.

Huh?

dinyull

drlodge wrote:

What is the value of your loss? I assume its quite small. £100? In the insurance industry these are regarded as attritional losses and I would suggest you see this as an inherent risk of cycling, accept the cost and move on.

Claims should be for more significant losses.

He's already stated earlier it would cost him £300 to replace what he's damaged. Which is a weekly wage to some and would count as significant.

CptKernow

apreading wrote:

What people seem to have a problem with, is the suggestion of pursuing a claim against the council - they cant possibly sort out things like this immediately/all the time and need to rely on road users looking out for hazards in the road and avoiding them.

From what I know it comes from an insurance fund where drivers are not identified and not the council.

drlodge wrote:

What is the value of your loss? I assume its quite small. £100? In the insurance industry these are regarded as attritional losses and I would suggest you see this as an inherent risk of cycling, accept the cost and move on.

Claims should be for more significant losses.

To return to pre-accident condition over £500... To replace unusable stuff about half that.

Oh and I'm self-employed, only working about half capacity.

CptKernow

Navrig2 wrote:

CptKernow wrote:

Brakeless wrote:

I've had broken bones and bikes due to other peoples bad bike handling, if I was you I'd probably have to sue them wouldn't I?

If they had insurance that would cover it I wouldn't think twice.

Or do you think you should stoically take it on the chin as that's what 'gentlemen' do...

Says it all IMHO.

Says what exactly?

Are you saying if someone crashed into you on a bike and you had to take 6 weeks off work, pay for a new bike etc you wouldn't make a claim against someone's insurance policy that was set up for exactly this reason.

You must either be the CEO of an insurance company or a complete.....

noodleman

A few years ago a lad on a stolen bike exited a field across a main road in front of me. I was travelling down hill at 30+mph. No chance to avoid him, resulting in snapped forks, broken cheekbone in three places, wrecked clothes and shoes plus memory loss and 2 months off work. At first i was angry that i'd lost so much through no fault of my own. I started a claim against the child's home insurance but it was such a long and drawn out process with the distinct possibility of getting nothing back for my troubles i gave up.
Looking back, i probably could have got some compensation but life's too short. Shit happens and at the end of the day you fell off your bike and ripped some clothes. We've all done it and many of us have come off far worse and not thought about claiming. This is a total non starter.
If the oil was plastered across the entire road and had been there for days, causing accidents you'd probably have a case but this sort of thing is i bit minor to say the least. On my route home yesterday there was a shoe in the road. If i'd been a foot nearer the kerb i may of hit it and could have crashed. Not sure i'd try and find the owner of the shoe and make a claim against them if i fell off though.

StillGoing

noodleman wrote:

A few years ago a lad on a stolen bike exited a field across a main road in front of me. I was travelling down hill at 30+mph. No chance to avoid him, resulting in snapped forks, broken cheekbone in three places, wrecked clothes and shoes plus memory loss and 2 months off work. At first i was angry that i'd lost so much through no fault of my own. I started a claim against the child's home insurance but it was such a long and drawn out process with the distinct possibility of getting nothing back for my troubles i gave up.
Looking back, i probably could have got some compensation but life's too short. shoot happens and at the end of the day you fell off your bike and ripped some clothes. We've all done it and many of us have come off far worse and not thought about claiming. This is a total non starter.
If the oil was plastered across the entire road and had been there for days, causing accidents you'd probably have a case but this sort of thing is i bit minor to say the least. On my route home yesterday there was a shoe in the road. If i'd been a foot nearer the kerb i may of hit it and could have crashed. Not sure i'd try and find the owner of the shoe and make a claim against them if i fell off though.

How do you know how long the oil spill had been there?

OP; ignore the belligerent on here and contact the local authority. If they were aware of it and did nothing about it within good time (they have teams to respond these things or will ask the fire brigade or Police if passing to chuck a bucket of sand over it) they are liable providing it is a road maintained at public expense. You lose nothing by attempting to claim.

CptKernow

noodleman wrote:

We've all done it and many of us have come off far worse and not thought about claiming. This is a total non starter.
If the oil was plastered across the entire road and had been there for days, causing accidents you'd probably have a case but this sort of thing is i bit minor to say the least. On my route home yesterday there was a shoe in the road. If i'd been a foot nearer the kerb i may of hit it and could have crashed. Not sure i'd try and find the owner of the shoe and make a claim against them if i fell off though.

Agreed. I probably don't have a case. My initial post was simply asking if anyone had experience of this as I had stumbled across something on the internet.

What I didn't ask for (and this is not directed at you) and this insinuation that as a cyclist you have to take it on the chin and not explore other avenues, as that is what cyclists do.

dinyull

I love it that a few on here are saying life is too short to chase some money that you've lost through no fault of your own, whilst having 3 or 4 bikes listed in their sigs that cost more than most cars out on the road.

Hahaha

drlodge

Dinyull wrote:

I love it that a few on here are saying life is too short to chase some money that you've lost through no fault of your own, whilst having 3 or 4 bikes listed in their sigs that cost more than most cars out on the road.

Hahaha

Rule #25 // The bikes on top of your car should be worth more than the car.

Or at least be relatively more expensive. Basically, if you’re putting your Huffy on your Rolls, you’re in trouble, mister. Remember what Sean said.

bendertherobot

bendertherobot wrote:

This has been fruity. Sadly, the chances are remote to non existent. Following the case of Valentine in 2010 any claims involving "surface lying material" are virtually doomed. That means mud, oil, gravel, moss and lichen (see Rollinson v Dudley). It excludes snow and ice which were originally excluded by Goodes v East Sussex but re-included when Section 41 of the Highways Act was amended to make it explicit that the duty to maintain the fabric of the highway did extend to keeping it free of snow and ice (subject to reasonableness).

Since most seem to have missed this

veronese68

bendertherobot wrote:

Since most seem to have missed this

Factual with no hint of emotion or bias, no wonder people are ignoring it. Other things being ignored include that he said he would claim off the MIB*, not the council, or that he said the value of damage was around £300. Probably a lot more that I've forgotten or chosen to ignore as well.

* Insurance fund thing, not the men in black.

CptKernow

bendertherobot wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

This has been fruity. Sadly, the chances are remote to non existent. Following the case of Valentine in 2010 any claims involving "surface lying material" are virtually doomed. That means mud, oil, gravel, moss and lichen (see Rollinson v Dudley). It excludes snow and ice which were originally excluded by Goodes v East Sussex but re-included when Section 41 of the Highways Act was amended to make it explicit that the duty to maintain the fabric of the highway did extend to keeping it free of snow and ice (subject to reasonableness).

Since most seem to have missed this

But I think this would imply any case would suggest the council were at fault (which at this point I don't have any reason to believe). I don't think the route I was looking at would be trying to pin it on anyone - the opposite in fact. I.e. unknown parties - for which there is a fund.

I did appreciate your posting, but I am just arguing moot points for the sake of it now...

ColeMetcalfe

Claim 100%, Cycling clothes are not cheap also you may have damages to your bike. Personally id claim.

earthvspace4XTuUWcX

Instead of asking on here and getting grief why not simply ring the Motor Insurers Bureau and see is if you are able to make a claim or not. Phone number: 01908 830001

I'm sure many here would be interested in their response.

Dorset_Boy

It was a thin line of oil that could easily have been avoided.
Had it been a larger spill across the road that was unavoidable then the OP would have a lot more sympathy re a claim.

The OP also has to bear in mind that premium payers have to cough up for any claim - ie petty attempted claims stil cost and have a negative impact on everyone else's premiums. M

cycleclinic

My view is simple if you cannot afford to replace what is damaged in a off out of your own pocket your kit is too expensive. Ride what you can replace. Crashes happen. Went down on ice over winter and damaged shorts. Last september on the way to a clubmates funeral I went down on oil and damaged the bike and my kit (still made it though). Previous winter slid down the road on ice at least once. Previous september hit a pesky badger at speed and flew through the air. I have wrecked lots of kit but never wanted to claim. I ride what I can afford to replace.

Don;t claim if you do you are part of a problem which plauges society. You are responsible for ensuring you stay upright no one else. If you are going to fast to fast to access the road conditions then that is your fault and the risk you take. I take that risk every day and sometime I have a lie down.

Really why should someone else pay as you are asking all of us to pay for your lie down. A claim needs to be moral not just legal. To many things are legal but not moral. That is a big problem.

Sleeper Service

You could claim, but, as bender's post points out, you have virtually no chance of success.

Still your time and money, innit?

CptKernow

Dorset Boy wrote:

It was a thin line of oil that could easily have been avoided.

And what are you some kind of expert? You think I ride over oil spills for fun.

How exactly would a rider of apparently superior bike handling skills such as yourself have gone about avoiding this? No, really I'd love to know as I'm feeling a bit silly falling off when it could have easily been avoided...

Brakeless

CptKernow wrote:

Dorset Boy wrote:

It was a thin line of oil that could easily have been avoided.

And what are you some kind of expert? You think I ride over oil spills for fun.

How exactly would a rider of apparently superior bike handling skills such as yourself gone about avoiding this? No, really I'd love to know as I'm feeling a bit silly falling off when it could have easily been avoided...

You don't ride over them. You fall off on them!

1986sv

CptKernow wrote:

Dorset Boy wrote:

It was a thin line of oil that could easily have been avoided.

And what are you some kind of expert? You think I ride over oil spills for fun.

How exactly would a rider of apparently superior bike handling skills such as yourself gone about avoiding this? No, really I'd love to know as I'm feeling a bit silly falling off when it could have easily been avoided...

Gnarly bunny hop twist three sixty?

haydenm

thecycleclinic wrote:

My view is simple if you cannot afford to replace what is damaged in a off out of your own pocket your kit is too expensive

Not sure I agree with that, what is the replacement period? If I snapped my MTB this week it would be a good few months until I could afford (or be allowed) to drop thousands on another one. I could potentially replace my road bike in a crash but would I instantly have to put the same value again into a crash ISA just incase? I'm just not sure anymore...

bigmat

I get the whole "only race what you can afford to replace" thing, but its a bit of a stretch to say that you should be ready, willing and able to pay for any damage to you, your bike and your kit if you crash, regardless of whether it might have been someone else's fault.

Also not convinced by bender's legal arguments, that case law doesn't seem as wide as he is suggesting although I can't be bothered to read the whole judgment. Other informed posts upthread suggest that claims against the MIB are possible and I would be surprised if a local authority could never be held liable for failure to clear up a spillage.

CptKernow

1986sv wrote:

Gnarly bunny hop twist three sixty?

Yeah, funnily enough that's exactly what I did!

fenix

I think the idea is you land on the wheels though ? ;-)

bendertherobot

BigMat wrote:

I get the whole "only race what you can afford to replace" thing, but its a bit of a stretch to say that you should be ready, willing and able to pay for any damage to you, your bike and your kit if you crash, regardless of whether it might have been someone else's fault.

Also not convinced by bender's legal arguments, that case law doesn't seem as wide as he is suggesting although I can't be bothered to read the whole judgment. Other informed posts upthread suggest that claims against the MIB are possible and I would be surprised if a local authority could never be held liable for failure to clear up a spillage.

It's quite wide. It's been followed by a number of cases since but it's quite a narrow area. It was followed in Searby v Essex County Council in 2013, though that's only a first instance decision.

Thing is, there are a number of hurdles. The duty in section 41 is almost certainly non existent in the first place. And even if you could show that it is it would be defeated by the section 58 defence. Now, none of this stops you suing the person who caused the spill, try finding them, but cases against the LA are almost entirely doomed to fail. Have a go at the MIB method by all means, they're not easy. The ones that have succeeded have done so after two appeals and full accident reconstructions.