Multiple cycle path crashes and Surrey Council

[Brian47]

Hello all. I fell off my bike on a council-maintained cycle path on 19th March 2013. I've spent the last 6 months trying to get them engaged in making the cycle path safe, but they are not interested. There have been 4 fallers at that spot in the past year (According to a witness who helped me - he works in the building opposite the slippery path). But because I am the only one to complain officially, the Council says it is a single instance, and doesn't warrant further investigation. I am £320 out of pocket (Ruined cycle clothing and damage to my bike). I am facing an operation on my left shoulder, and as I am self-employed I will not be earning whilst I recuperate. And the path remains a danger for my fellow cyclists. I am so frustrated that the Council won't talk to me and make this area safe. Does any member have ideas to push this on? Is there a Legal expert on the forum who can suggest a way forward? I have attached a picture of the path, after I skidded and fell off (Whilst riding at an easy pace, and in a straight line) Many thanks - Brian.

[Phil Fouracre]

Hi, probably going to regret asking, but, path doesn't look 'dangerous' to me. Can't see what the problem is from the pic, or, am I missing something?

[gordy]

I think, I'm afraid, that a council can only be held liable if they've been notified of the defect BEFORE the incident.

[Mark1978]

Indeed we aren't mind readers. What's wrong with the path?

[661-Pete]

This appears to be the place, and I can see what the problem is. Cyclists are asked to filter from the carriageway onto the cycle path, crossing a line of kerb stones at a very acute angle. If those kerb stones are in the slightest bit raised above the tarmac .... well go figure.

I wouldn't go on a cycle path laid out like that, not ever. Safer to go to the roundabout and turn left (if that was your intended route).

[Brian47]

It was the build-up of silt that caused the skid/fall. The two darker areas at the bottom of the picture is the skid area/ markings my bike left as I fell off. The Council says they inspect it every 6 months. There have been 4 fallers at the same spot - all witnessed by the guys that work in the Car place opposite.

[gaz]

Sorry to hear of your off.

There's a long thread here about Mick F's potholing exploits: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=15264

Much of it is relevant, particularly the fact that Surrey Council appear to be taking a "Section 58" defence; i.e. regular inspections, no fault present when they last looked. Only proper legal advice is going to determine how watertight that defence may prove to be.

In terms of improving the area you can report to them that the path needs cleaning and keep reporting it wach time it builds up. As others have said faults are harder for a Council to defend against if there is an accident after the fault has been reported.

If you can't work out how to report it direct to the Council use fillthathole.org.uk

[661-Pete]

It does look like you have a definite case then. That looks like the sludge left behind by melting snow, but IIRC it hadn't snowed in the south east since January, and your accident was in march. Ought to have been cleared up.

[Phil Fouracre]

Still not sure I see it, looks perfectly ok to me. If it is 'sludge', so what, don't ride in it. Don't want to appear unsympathetic, but, bit like manholes/ potholes, could be useful to look where you are going, same applies to raised pavements, why assume they are level?

[iviehoff]

It does look like you have a definite case then. That looks like the sludge left behind by melting snow, but IIRC it hadn't snowed in the south east since January, and your accident was in march. Ought to have been cleared up.

A council recently sought the S58 defence mentioning that it inspected roads once a year. How frequently do roads have to be inspected to take advantage of this?

Last autumn I fell off my bike on a cycle path because there was a big pile of dry leaves on it, from one side to the other, and I tried to cycle through them. I call that "my own stupidity".

[MartinC]

I guess I can see what the problem is. You need to turn on to the path at a fairly obtuse angle to avoid losing your front wheel on the roadside kerb. You then need to immediate turn sharply right to avoid the pavement kerb. If the surface is slippery at this point then your front whell will turn but the bike will continue straight on into the kerb. Basically you can choose which kerb you want to fall of at.

It's an inherently unsafe design and whoever put it there should be sued.

The irony of reading this thread alongside the 42m Cycling Funding one is priceless.

[Richard Mann]

This appears to be the place, and I can see what the problem is. Cyclists are asked to filter from the carriageway onto the cycle path, crossing a line of kerb stones at a very acute angle. If those kerb stones are in the slightest bit raised above the tarmac .... well go figure.

The engineers hate having an ill-defined boundary between road and footway, but since it's probably the old road under there, there's nothing to protect. Simply put a perpendicular flush kerb across the start of the actual track, dig out all the unnecessary flush kerbs, mark the double yellows along the kerb, and put a dotted edge-of-carriageway line where the flush kerb is currently.

[FatBat]

Usual disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, but I do have some professional experience in highway design

I would ask the Council to state which design guidelines were followed when the path was built, and ask them to state any places where the actual implementation does not meet the guidelines. Then ask them to state who decided that the resulting was design was safe and how this decision was reached.

This is all standard practise for roads - if a design does not meet the stated standards, the designer has to produce a "departure from standards" report stating why they have not following the design standards and what impact, if any, this will have on the resulting infrastructure.

Then ask to see the Road Safety Audit (ask for Stage 3, as this should have been done after the scheme was opened and should highlight the problem with the acute crossing of a non-flush surface that others have mentioned).

It would also be worth asking what the safe design speed of the path is (and of the transition from carriageway to cycle-path). Ask how this was calculated and how this is communicated to users.

Then, when you get contradictory or obstructive answers from your council, take your case to the Local Government Ombudsman and a solicitor.

[thirdcrank]

I think it's the case that they often don't pay attention to reports of the "this is an accident waiting to happen" type, even if some accidents have already happened.

There was a death in Leeds a couple of years ago when a lorry was picked up by the wind at the foot of a tower block (witnesses were quoted as saying that the lorry was floating through the air) and it landed on top of somebody. It's now emerged from an FoI request that somebody who was then the head of Yorkshire Forward and is now the head of the council warned them it was likely to happen.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-24333393

[gaz]

A council recently sought the S58 defence mentioning that it inspected roads once a year. How frequently do roads have to be inspected to take advantage of this?

AFAIK there is no legal definition with regard to frequency. The Council will doubtless prioritise some roads for more frequent inspection than others.

Most legal advisors will consider each case on its own merits, as will the courts if it gets that far.