Ho hum ... (potholes)

[danfoto]

I was recently cycling along a quiet country road when, thanks to an inconsiderate car driver overtaking me, I was forced to ride over this "pothole" rather than try to swerve and avoid it.



I therefore reported it on the Highways Authority's website as "potentially lethal to cyclists". Today I have been favoured with a rather surprising response from the "Highways Steward", who tells me that

This location has been recently inspected and although some areas have been noted as appearing untidy, it is not at a level which it is causing a safety issue for users. As such we will not be carrying out any immediate repairs at this time.

I have just replied to him, saying "Thank you for your email. I ride a bicycle, and having been forced by an inconsiderate car driver to ride over the defective road surface which I photographed, I can assure you that it most definitely is a potential hazard for cyclists. Is the safety of cyclists not taken into consideration when you decide whether or not to repair a pothole?

I'll be back to report any response to that ...

[Oldjohnw]

I completely agree with what you say but a bit of me thinks if that is as bad as it gets you are indeed fortunate!

Poor old councils have a limited and diminishing budget for such things. I imagine that they therefore keep moving the criteria based on what they can afford rather than what is objectively dangerous. They will constantly have to somehow produce a rationale for their inattention.

[foxyrider]

the pothole that caused me to do an unexpected flight, damaged my bike and dislocated my shoulder is, despite being reported last September, still untouched and indeed i've heard nothing from the responsible authority.

Just because we can report these things doesn't mean anything will be done - unless there was a fatality - it'd be fixed in hours then

[thirdcrank]

This is a recurrent topic. For anybody injured and looking for compo, then the special defence available to the authority is relevant and I posted about it here:

viewtopic.php?p=1276533#p1276533

One important question is whether the defect had been reported. This means that reports may both lead to a repair and help anybody injured because of the defect. I don't know if fillthathole is still running. One big advantage of a publicly searchable system is that the authority cannot deny knowledge.

Spending cuts are a problem but it's not something that should be financed by people who suffer personal injury

[danfoto]

I am by no means surprised that they CBA to repair it until it either gets worse, causes injury or, heaven forbid, somebody dents the wheel rim of their Enormobile whilst hastening to the tip with their recycling in order to be seen to be helping to save the planet.

What I'm primarily interested in now is what sort of answer I'm going to get to my question.

[cycle tramp]

I was recently cycling along a quiet country road when, thanks to an inconsiderate car driver overtaking me, I was forced to ride over this "pothole" rather than try to swerve and avoid it.



I therefore reported it on the Highways Authority's website as "potentially lethal to cyclists". Today I have been favoured with a rather surprising response from the "Highways Steward", who tells me that

This location has been recently inspected and although some areas have been noted as appearing untidy, it is not at a level which it is causing a safety issue for users. As such we will not be carrying out any immediate repairs at this time.

I have just replied to him, saying "Thank you for your email. I ride a bicycle, and having been forced by an inconsiderate car driver to ride over the defective road surface which I photographed, I can assure you that it most definitely is a potential hazard for cyclists. Is the safety of cyclists not taken into consideration when you decide whether or not to repair a pothole?

I'll be back to report any response to that ...

Sorry to ask, but did you attach the photos in your report? Especially the one which showed the exposed edge of the road iron works - and in the reply was it clearly stated as to the characteristics of those road defects for which the local highways authority did consider to be causing a safety issue for road users?

[cycle tramp]

Additional... if you were feeling particularly vicious you could ask under the freedom of information for the date of the inspection and for a copy of the report which was made subsequently....

[danfoto]

Sorry to ask, but did you attach the photos in your report?

But of course

... if you were feeling particularly vicious ...

I'm not. I don't intend to get bent out of shape about this nor make it my life's work. I'm now just curious as to how he's going to reply.

[cycle tramp]

Additional (as well as) You may also want to keep an eye on this defect - given the amount of water between the tarmac layer and the exposed material underneath, I suspect that this pothole will grow during cold and icy conditions

[Psamathe]

Sorry to ask, but did you attach the photos in your report?

But of course :)

... if you were feeling particularly vicious ...

I'm not. I don't intend to get bent out of shape about this nor make it my life's work. I'm now just curious as to how he's going to reply.

FOI requests are really quick, easy and free. Last one I put in to Norfolk CC was just an e-mail to their FOI department (e-mail address on their web site) saying that Under FOI I request <information/documents requested>. I was e-mailed an acknowledgement and a couple of weeks later the requested information.

Ian

[gbnz]

I completely agree with what you say but a bit of me thinks if that is as bad as it gets you are indeed fortunate!

Poor old councils have a limited and diminishing budget for such things. I imagine that they therefore keep moving the criteria based on what they can afford rather than what is objectively dangerous. They will constantly have to somehow produce a rationale for their inattention.

+ 1. The quality of the road surface seems quite incredible and have to admit I wouldn't consider that to be a pot hole. In Northumberland, we are accustomed to a different type of road surface

[cycle tramp]

Sorry to ask, but did you attach the photos in your report?

But of course

... if you were feeling particularly vicious ...

I'm not. I don't intend to get bent out of shape about this nor make it my life's work. I'm now just curious as to how he's going to reply.

I suspect he will reply in the same manner as I used to, by citing those aspects of a road defeat which we believed made the road defect dangerous. Personally I believe that the exposed hard edge of the road iron works places it into that category. If the council does cite dimensions it may be worth taking photos if the pot hole next to a ruler

[Mick F]

That hole looks normal to me. Loadsa holes and tarmac defects here. Main roads as well as lanes.
It's not something I'd worry about at all.

Sorry.

[steve browne]

I agree with you Mick. It is the new normal. Disappointingly it is the same in Exeter and the surrounding twenty-five miles or so I cycle in. Many examples much bigger than the photos above. I can't remember the last time I freewheeled down a long hill without giving a thought to the possibility of the surface being dangerous.

[Psamathe]

The ones I really dislike are the "slot shaped" ones that run along your direction of travel (so your wheel gets stuck in them ...)
e.g.

Yesterday cycling on a single track road, round a sharp blind bend (hedges blocking any visibility round the bend) and suddenly appeared large oncoming SUV so I moved to left edge - but recently surface dressed without repairing potholes so into lose gravel and suddenly a well camouflaged pothole and ... my groin felt the consequences! (SUV was going sensible speed taking sensible road position, etc. - no issue with drivers part)

Ian