Pothole crash death - a Total And Utter Disgrace

[fastpedaller]

They can only fix potholes that they know exist. Their defence is that they inspect the road regularly and the pothole wasn't there last time they looked.

This is why it is important to report potholes via fillthathole. That way there is a public record - ideally with a photograph - that the council has been told about it.

I agree it's important to report by whatever means - Northampton Council (when I last tried) didn't have a facility to report directly - presumably because they received so many reports about their atrocious roads! The thing that really makes my blood boil is that the first defence the authorities use is "we didn't know it was there" yet they say their inspections are done and the law agrees with them - but how can that be when potholes escape their notice? One can only summise the inspections aren't frequent enough. Their seemingly arbitrary 40mm (or similar) depth is required before a pothole is dangerous is also questionable - To a bike rider (on a vehicle without suspension) this is often nearly twice the tyre profile! If you told car drivers (vehicles with suspension) that they would have to contend with 200mm potholes they would be horrified. Double standards from the Councils (as always) with their 'officials' used to travelling by limo

[flat tyre]

We seem to have been brainwashed into accepting that there's no money available for decent road maintenance, also no money available for schools, NHS, justice system, police and indeed every other part of the national infrastructure.

[Pete Owens]

The reason to report via fillthathole rather than directly to the council is that there is then a public record of the report. When it comes to an inquest or claim for damages the council cannot claim that they did not know about the fault or that it appeared since it was last inspected.

If at the inquest the council came up with the usual claim that they inspected the road on the 28th June and found it to be in good condition, then the victims lawyer could consult fillthathole and see whether the pothole had been reported. If a dangerous fault was reported after the date of the inspection then the council could be challenged as to why they failed to follow it up. If it was reported before the inspection then the inspector could be found negligent for failing to notice it. And if the council claims that they did follow up the report, but had decided not to fix it because of a policy on depth or whatever then that policy could be considered negligent.

If on the other hand a report has been sent directly to the council and someone subsequently comes a cropper, they will have no way of knowing about that report. The councils claim that it wasn't there last time they looked can't be challenged.

[Pete Owens]

We seem to have been brainwashed into accepting that there's no money available for decent road maintenance, also no money available for schools, NHS, justice system, police and indeed every other part of the national infrastructure.

It is just a matter of persuading folk to vote for political parties that advocate raising taxation.

[Psamathe]

They can only fix potholes that they know exist. Their defence is that they inspect the road regularly and the pothole wasn't there last time they looked.

This is why it is important to report potholes via fillthathole. That way there is a public record - ideally with a photograph - that the council has been told about it.

I used to report loads of potholes through the CTC app but Norfolk Highways seemed to ignore the reports. At least I assume they were ignored as they took took many months to get fixed. Sometimes I'd report them multiple times (months apart) and sometimes I'd end-up adding notes like "report ignored so many times, maybe time to get my Councillor involved".

I agree they need to be reported but Highways need to act on those reports. These days my thoughts as I reports stuff is that it is more of a liability/claim impact (i.e. once reported after a few months Highways have some liability). I don't expect to see them repaired.

In the past I have also reported the significant piles of loose chippings that gather at junctions on surface dressed roads that have not been or inadequately swept. Highways do nothing about it.

Is their any audit or monitoring process on the repair times? Is it something the CTC/CUK should be doing i.e. submitting FOI requests every few months for some stats (stats beyond average but measures that give some indication as to how many repairs are taking too long), etc. I appreciate CTC/CUK have limited resource but condition of our roads for cyclist safety is something that would come moderately high on their list (though would probably not get them the publicity often regarded as important). Having 3rd parties monitoring, publishing shortcomings, etc. might apply some pressure.

Ian

[fastpedaller]

The reason to report via fillthathole rather than directly to the council is that there is then a public record of the report. When it comes to an inquest or claim for damages the council cannot claim that they did not know about the fault or that it appeared since it was last inspected.

If at the inquest the council came up with the usual claim that they inspected the road on the 28th June and found it to be in good condition, then the victims lawyer could consult fillthathole and see whether the pothole had been reported. If a dangerous fault was reported after the date of the inspection then the council could be challenged as to why they failed to follow it up. If it was reported before the inspection then the inspector could be found negligent for failing to notice it. And if the council claims that they did follow up the report, but had decided not to fix it because of a policy on depth or whatever then that policy could be considered negligent.

If on the other hand a report has been sent directly to the council and someone subsequently comes a cropper, they will have no way of knowing about that report. The councils claim that it wasn't there last time they looked can't be challenged.

I agree that notification via a 3rd party (fillthathole) can be an advantage, but what if the Council say they didn't receive the notification from fillthathole? I've notified via fillthathole on at least one occassion and the Council have done nothing for months - I then sent a report direct to the council and received an automated reply of my report. I guess the only way is to send to both the Concil and fillthathole at the same time? The visibility of the evidence in a 3rd party site may indeed help a victim towards some justice, although my own experience is that the Council have the courts on their side.

[fastpedaller]

I used to report loads of potholes through the CTC app but Norfolk Highways seemed to ignore the reports. At least I assume they were ignored as they took took many months to get fixed. Sometimes I'd report them multiple times (months apart) and sometimes I'd end-up adding notes like "report ignored so many times, maybe time to get my Councillor involved".

I agree they need to be reported but Highways need to act on those reports. These days my thoughts as I reports stuff is that it is more of a liability/claim impact (i.e. once reported after a few months Highways have some liability). I don't expect to see them repaired.

In the past I have also reported the significant piles of loose chippings that gather at junctions on surface dressed roads that have not been or inadequately swept. Highways do nothing about it.



Ian

I've just seen your note (I am also in Norfolk) and have found the same. I have similarly sent repeat notes with similar "why are you ignoring this" comments. I even challenged Mr Murphy (of NCC) to ride a bike over the surface dressed road I encountered near Edgefield, but of course he declined. I notice a proliferation of "max speed 10mph" signs where small patches of surface dressing have been recently made..... trying to absolves themselves of any liability? knowing no motorists will drive that slowly?

[Icsunonove]

I did PBP last month. My first time cycling in France. Over 1,000 miles covered. What an eye opener.... You know, riding along not having to worry about the next pothole. Can even ride in a straight line! Back here on a club run I'm spending most my time pointing out the next road defect to the riders behind. We can do better than this.

[Farrina]

I expect part of the reasoning is that roads are used by motorised vehicles with pneumatic tyres and suspension so larger defects are acceptable. Cyclists are usually an afterthought.

Cyclists are ALWAYS an afterthought (if at all) ... the same way (IMHO) cycling “facilities” are designed by people who never ride bicycles

[awavey]

Very sad! I may sound heartless, but, how about looking where you’re going?

How about dappled light from trees, pot holes filled with water in wet weather, other incidents /physical obstructions that take away your view from the road.

We can't all be head down watching the tarmac immediately in front of us as you seemingly think .
.

totally this, there was one I nearly hit on a road this summer, and it was dinner plate sized at least 2 inches deep absolutely lethal & right on the natural cycling line for this road and by that I mean in the nearside wheel track of a vehicle not in the gutter, and I didnt see it till the last moment, because it was very strong early summer sun light, blue sky, at my 11o clock position, and the hole was in the shadow of the tree trunk (that had caused it via root damage) so you couldnt see it till you hit the shade of the tree canopy which lowered the glare enough, I was fortunate it was an uphill section so I wasnt going that quickly, and also there was nothing following me so I could veer around it but that was too close, I reported it, as I saw about 4-5 other cyclists had over that weekend...the council took 10 days to repair it, I can only believe because they assessed it for the danger it posed to vehicles not cyclists, it was an unlit country road NSL, youd have had no chance in the dark to see it.