Pothole Claims - British Cyling, no dice

Did you check to see if a pothole had been reported at that location since the date of the inspection? They would still be liable if a pothole opened up subsequent to their scheduled visit but was brought to their attention via one of the reporting websites.

Near Garstang, at Winmarleigh, an 80-odd year old club cyclist was killed when his front wheel went down a deep narrow pothole. It was reported several times on here. The council had inspected the road after these potholes had been reported previously- clearly the reporter just went around for a drive in the country and no action was taken. He claimed in court that the pothole must have 'closed up' by the time he inspected it and later widened again, because it was deep before and after his inspection. You just have to lie confidently in court, and you can get away with anything where cyclist injuries and deaths are concerned!

I totally sympathise with your situation. I sustained a (relatively small) injury a couple of years ago and did not bother to claim when I read my local authority's rules. See Below,

They make up their own rules, then if you make a claim you have to prove in court that they were negligent. I would claim that their identification of dangerous potholes is car centric and a pothole that would not be a problem to a motor vehicle could be (and was) dangerous to a cyclist. Good Luck!

"To carry out our responsibilities under the Highways Act, we inspect roads and footpaths regularly following our Code of Practice for Highway Safety Inspections. We identity and record defects and repair any we identify as being dangerous. The Highways Act recognises though that it’s not possible to prevent all defects. This means that in law, the appearance of a defect doesn’t necessarily mean we have been negligent. We must use this law in our defence where appropriate. Any money we pay in compensation comes from public funds, and we have a duty to protect these funds."