fastpedaller wrote:Mr Evil wrote:After the snow earlier this year, many potholes of that size appeared around here in just a few days.
If you're aware of that, then the Councils should be - and inspect the roads (I don't believe they inspect them in Norfolk).
mjr wrote:
Norfolk claims to, but you might be horrified by the low frequency of it.
what hope for cyclists!
rjb wrote:Some time ago maybe 10 years I made an unsuccessful claim against Somerset county council for damage caused to wheels from an unseen pothole. The pothole was on a wet road and was all but invisible as it was filled with water up to road level. The local citizens advice took the case on for me but had to give in. The council records showed that it was ok at the last inspection and nothing had been reported to them since. The inspection frequency was every 12 months
This was on a minor road designated by the council as a cycle route.
fastpedaller wrote: ... The fact that a bad hole was there is proof that their inspection process isn't frequent enough - but logic also seems to escape them.
fastpedaller wrote:mjr wrote:
Norfolk claims to, but you might be horrified by the low frequency of it.
I suspect on some of the roads it's once every 5 years - but if you try to claim off them they say they've checked it yesterday!
I don't think they know the concept of truth.
(Norfolk Transport Asset Management Plan Appendix D (i) section Roads 4d.) And that's only safety inspections. Surface condition inspections simply aren't done at all for some U and V roads (what's a V road? I think it's a non-tarmac U road...)58 Special defence in action against a highway authority for damages for non-repair of highway.
(1) 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 is a defence (without prejudice to any other defence or the application of the law relating to contributory negligence) to prove that the authority had taken such care as in all the circumstances was reasonably required to secure that the part of the highway to which the action relates was not dangerous for traffic.
(2) For the purposes of a defence under subsection (1) above, the court shall in particular have regard to the following matters:—
(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;
but for the purposes of such a defence it is not relevant to prove that the highway authority had arranged for a competent person to carry out or supervise the maintenance of the part of the highway to which the action relates unless it is also proved that the authority had given him proper instructions with regard to the maintenance of the highway and that he had carried out the instructions.
(3) This section binds the Crown.
mjr wrote:Cugel wrote:Since such repairs are provided via a contractual commercial relationship, often by some useless gang of lowest-cost greatest-profit cowboys, why don't councils pursue the cowboys for their (our) money back? If anything else was sold that was so unfit for purpose, we would be down at the trading standards and courts toot-sweet, is it not so? And how long would any other provider of a priced product/service survive if their goods & services were so chronically bad?
Councils don't have the officers to gather the proof or enough money to tie up making it likely they'd win against the much bigger contractors and utilities undertakers. They can't go to their trading standards department for this... which has itself suffered severe cuts in recent years.
Some providers of rubbish carry on for years and years. All it needs is a market for lemons stacked in the seller's favour.
thirdcrank wrote:This is the bit of the HA which provides the special defence. s58(2)(d) has been interpreted to mean that a suitable inspection regime provides the defence unless the defect had been reported.
mjr wrote:thirdcrank wrote:This is the bit of the HA which provides the special defence. s58(2)(d) has been interpreted to mean that a suitable inspection regime provides the defence unless the defect had been reported.
What's regarded as suitable though? Has once every 5 years been accepted by the courts as reasonable/suitable for some cycle routes?
(Although that applies to some, most cycleways in Norfolk are inspected at least 6-monthly but even that seems a bit dodgy/negligent IMO.)
Anyway, let this be a lesson: report as much as you reasonably can. Ideally, you'll save someone a nasty injury, but at worst you should help them recover the costs.
fastpedaller wrote:I think I may well contact my MP to ask whether he can put the question "What plan is in place to rectify the situation regarding road maintenance - the following is a quote from EDP (Eastern Daily Press) from 2008:-
East Anglia's roads are in a worse state than they were 10 years ago, according to AA members questioned in a new survey.
And If a similar survey is put in place today, I'm confident the situation is even worse (defect reported data must be available)"
Mr Evil wrote:mjr wrote:...Surely that didn't appear in 3 days?..
After the snow earlier this year, many potholes of that size appeared around here in just a few days. The quickest ones were on roads with fields above them, where meltwater ran over the roads continuously for days afterwards. A swirling torrent of water can hollow out a large hole almost overnight.
) I would start by having a "paved driveway/garden" tax on a square-meter basis (anything over the footprint of one very small car/a decent bike-shed would incur a charge as would parking on a road or pavement), rebates for garden and street trees, an agricultural policy that penalised removal of trees/hedges and rewarded planting trees/hedges to help hold back water and preserve soil, and tax road vehicles by the level of damage they cause. That way, when the highways authorities do repair the road, there's a fighting chance of it remaining in decent nick.