inside information

[lycra looney]

I have just read the F.A.Qs on the home page for fillthathole and have never read such rubbish !!!
Incorrect information given results in cyclists being armed to make a claim against a local authority wasting time and getting nowhere.
Firstly all i can tell you is that I work for a local authority and deal with claims so trust me when i say what i have read is rubbish.
As a keen cyclist many miles a year ridden mainly for charity.
1. A defect in the road is subject to the authorities intervention limit...
2. A defect reported as dangerous to a cyclist may NOT meet the intervention criteria for Cars, Lorries, Buses, etc.
3 A Defect reported will checked by an inspector measured and documented, and this will be kept as a record.
4 Once a Defect that meets the intervention criteria will be reported for repair. there is a very long drawn out system to report defects correctly and must be adhered to as it is a legal requirement.
5 The defect will be categorised for repair there are many factors when reporting IE: where it is, it's size, frequency of traffic,
once this has been established then the report is made out for a timescale of repair, this give the local authority a record of all defects recorded.

Secondly
Depending on where you Live in the Country the information given by the website is only lawful in England.
The Scottish road network is governed by the Road Scotland ACT. so don't try to make any claim before you have the correct information.

Thirdly
The wording in the text for Who is responsible for keeping the roads hazard free.
states that the authority have a duty to keep the public highways in good repair.
What they fail to inform us cyclists is we as a road user have aduty of care to ourselves when using the road networks. In other words we must ride/drive with due care and attention, this means looking out for potholes, ETC.

Finally
Just because the top coat of the road surface is missing this is called the wearing coat. If you look on the fillthathole website there is a picture of a cyclist with a putter standing next to a non actionable wearing coat defect, this may unsettle a cyclist but there is nothing that can be done to fix these wearing coat holes materials will not adhere to the surface.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but it is better to have the correct information when dealing with a claim than be dissapointed when you are rejected for making a claim against a non actionable defect.

[snibgo]

2. A defect reported as dangerous to a cyclist may NOT meet the intervention criteria for Cars, Lorries, Buses, etc.

For clarity: does this mean that a road defect that is dangerous to cyclists but not motorists doesn't need to be repaired? If so, what is the legal justification for this?

[gaz545]

2. A defect reported as dangerous to a cyclist may NOT meet the intervention criteria for Cars, Lorries, Buses, etc.

For clarity: does this mean that a road defect that is dangerous to cyclists but not motorists doesn't need to be repaired? If so, what is the legal justification for this?

was just going to point that out, but looks like you beat me to it!

[thirdcrank]

As I've posted on here before, it was widely reported in the media a couple of years ago that around here, the highwaymen were paying out more in compo to road users for damaage / injury caused by defective road surfaces than was being spent on repairing defects.

IMO, the detailed OP gives us some valuable insight into how that regrettable state of affairs might arise.

Report a hole in the road and somebody may look into it. Eventually.

[alicej]

As I've posted on here before, it was widely reported in the media a couple of years ago that around here, the highwaymen were paying out more in compo to road users for damaage / injury caused by defective road surfaces than was being spent on repairing defects.

Which I assume doesn't even take into account the associated costs to the local NHS, the benefit system, local employers etc from people being injured and off work. That's crazy. Are any up to date figures available anywhere?

[thirdcrank]

.... Are any up to date figures available anywhere?

I did a quick google cost of compensation for potholes Here are the first few results.

Pothole compensation costs Suffolk council £200,000

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-12578705

Potholes cost county £1m in compensation (Cumbria)

http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/potholes-cost-county-1m-in-compensation-1.813823?referrerPath=home

Last year, £47 million was paid out in pothole-related compensation claims

http://www.moneywise.co.uk/news-views/2 ... ole-damage
(Something about the loonies being in charge of the asylum seems relevant )

[snibgo]

With numbers like these, I'm not surprised the OP seems to want to discourage claims from cyclists.

“With the average repair cost for pothole damage amounting to £240 and some bills as high as £2,710, ...

But a cyclist is more likely to suffer personal injury than a motorist, and a personal injury claim could be far more expensive.

When I reported that a car hit a pothole, lost control and nearly hit me (while I was on crutches), the council fairly quickly fixed the road.

I don't like the so-called compensation culture, but if that's what it takes to get safe roads, so be it.

[snibgo]

Sorry to drag this topic up from the grave, but lycra looney has raised an important issue that I would like resolved, if s/he is still around.

The OP seems to be saying that local authorities do not need to mend a road defect that is dangerous/damaging for a cyclist (or a passing pedestrian, as I was in my post above) unless it is also dangerous/damaging for a motorist.

Is that true? If so, what is the legal justification?

[thirdcrank]

snibgo

Rather than try to unravel the OP, I think the easiest thing is to go to the source of the duty to maintain a highway. This is now in the Highways Act 1980 In fact, it would be easy if I could get the legislation to open but for some reason, whenever I try this afternoon, my computer goes slow.

In the meantime, here's a thread which includes a rather outraged response from a highwayman on protecting public money. (I always assume that some cyclist in the office wound him up by telling him what we plebs were saying and he nearly burst with indignation before coming on here to set us all right.)

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3833&p

[snibgo]

Thanks for the link, TC.

Highways Act 1980: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/contents

I can't find anything in sections 41 to 58 that says "only motorists matter". I was hoping the OP might say, "It's because of paragraph 123 in regulation XYZ, 1999" or whatever.

The cynic in me supposes the answer is really, "It's because highway authorities only care about motorists." I'd be delighted to be proved wrong.

[thirdcrank]

I think it's all about being reasonable, having a system, for inspection etc. An important point seems to be that if the HA was made aware of the defect (by something like fillthathole) then the fact that the normal inspection regime was, say, every six months is irrelevant. I'm only going from memory because there is something about the Highways Act that my compter cannot digest but duties imposed refer to the type of traffic, likely use etc.

Highway authorities are in a difficult position because the repairs budget is, AFAIK, not ringfenced so repairs are in direct competition with emergencies like child protection and there is always pressure on councillors to defer spending on road maintenance so that there is money for things seen as being more immediately pressing.

[John-D]

I used to work for a local authority and had frequent contact with the people who "deal with claims". It seemed to me that they were far more interested in reducing payouts than preventing incidents which might lead to claims. In one instance there was a claim by a member of the public and I was told it was a pity I had previosly advised that the particular activity was likely to lead to injury if not modified, as it made it difficult for them to defend the claim and it would be better if I didn't put such advice in writing!

The few "fill that hole" reports I have made have mainly been dealt with quite promptly or in one case an explanation has been given as to why it would not be appropriate.

I had always assumed that if anyone was injured as a result of a pothole which had already been reported it would be easier to evidence that the authority had not taken reasonable care.

[lycra looney]

The answer in short is Just because a defect exists if it does not meet the actionable criteria for what ever local authority you may be dealing with.
it will be monitored for repair when it reaches the criteria depth/size,
Cyclists are classed as a road user but a defect such as wearing coat is not a class 1 defect but this is a hazard to a cyclist. the only time a defect will become actionble for a cyclist is if it is within a designated cycle lane/track.
hope this is of some use to you all.

Remember in England it is the Highways Agency. Highways act
In Scotland it is Road Scotland act 1984

This is a good site to look for cycling law

http://www.bikeforall.net/content/cycli ... he_law.php

[meic]

I have just read the F.A.Qs on the home page for fillthathole and have never read such rubbish !!!
Incorrect information given results in cyclists being armed to make a claim against a local authority wasting time and getting nowhere.
Firstly all i can tell you is that I work for a local authority and deal with claims so trust me when i say what i have read is rubbish.
As a keen cyclist many miles a year ridden mainly for charity.
1. A defect in the road is subject to the authorities intervention limit...
2. A defect reported as dangerous to a cyclist may NOT meet the intervention criteria for Cars, Lorries, Buses, etc.
3 A Defect reported will checked by an inspector measured and documented, and this will be kept as a record.
4 Once a Defect that meets the intervention criteria will be reported for repair. there is a very long drawn out system to report defects correctly and must be adhered to as it is a legal requirement.
5 The defect will be categorised for repair there are many factors when reporting IE: where it is, it's size, frequency of traffic,
once this has been established then the report is made out for a timescale of repair, this give the local authority a record of all defects recorded.

Secondly
Depending on where you Live in the Country the information given by the website is only lawful in England.
The Scottish road network is governed by the Road Scotland ACT. so don't try to make any claim before you have the correct information.

Thirdly
The wording in the text for Who is responsible for keeping the roads hazard free.
states that the authority have a duty to keep the public highways in good repair.
What they fail to inform us cyclists is we as a road user have aduty of care to ourselves when using the road networks. In other words we must ride/drive with due care and attention, this means looking out for potholes, ETC.

Finally
Just because the top coat of the road surface is missing this is called the wearing coat. If you look on the fillthathole website there is a picture of a cyclist with a putter standing next to a non actionable wearing coat defect, this may unsettle a cyclist but there is nothing that can be done to fix these wearing coat holes materials will not adhere to the surface.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but it is better to have the correct information when dealing with a claim than be dissapointed when you are rejected for making a claim against a non actionable defect.

Isnt this the point where you speak to one of those people in the pedestrian zone who are asking "if you have had any accident or injury?" and them make the Council pay Legal Fees as well as the compensation.
The Council are only ONE SIDE of a civil dispute and I dont think that they can decide the FINAL outcome of any claim.

[irc]

The answer in short is Just because a defect exists if it does not meet the actionable criteria for what ever local authority you may be dealing with.
it will be monitored for repair when it reaches the criteria depth/size,
Cyclists are classed as a road user but a defect such as wearing coat is not a class 1 defect but this is a hazard to a cyclist. the only time a defect will become actionble for a cyclist is if it is within a designated cycle lane/track.
hope this is of some use to you all.

Are you a lawyer? I'm not but it seems to me that if a hazard to cyclists is reported (whether it is dangerous to cars or not) and the council or roads authority don't repair it it in a reasonable time period they would be liable in the event of a cyclist subsequently suffering injury.

Can you explain why the council is not in breach of it's duty of care?

I'm also not convinced that it matters whether the defect is in a cycle track or not as cyclists are entitled to use all of the road unless speciffically banned as per motorways and a few A roads and tunnels.

Have you any case law you can point to?