Updated: Devon man to sue council after pothole causes four serious cycling crashes

Well, I think that since roads have basically been built everywhere by now... whether actually required or not, it's about time to remove some of them.

Especially in cities, we don't need the ability to drive straight up to our front door, a simple cycle path wide strip (which would last forever without heavy traffic) and green space would help everyone.

And provide kids somewhere safe to play at that!

Half the roads where I live are just used as rat runs anyway, to save 10 seconds by driving 40mph on a alley-width road, putting everyone on it in danger.

There is one person talking crap here and it isn't him, do you want a hint Mr HGV "driver"? ; )

*waits for witty "yeah it's you comment"* unless you aren't that witty.

@ Jova54

If I may, I'll respond to some of what you've said.

"they (potholes) are full of crap and water as many are the chances of avoiding them are severely reduced"

Resist the temptation to take a chance. If there's a murky puddle of water ahead, assume it's deep and just ride round it.

"To suggest that cyclists should stop claiming compensation for damage occasioned by potholes when drivers still can and do shows you in your true colours."

Er, I didn't say that just cyclists should stop claiming. Everyone should stop claiming, including drivers.

"You say you are a cyclist, you're not; you are an HGV driver who sometimes rides a bike."

That's a bit tribal isn't it? I thought we were all trying to move away from being labelled as cyclists, drivers, or indeed lorry drivers. Surely we're people who get just around in various ways? FWIW, I've done around 200,000 miles on a bike, including road, time trial, track, cross, hill climb, touring, off road, club runs, Audax, mass participation charity rides, have been an event organiser, and I'm a community cycling advocate. I also choose not to have a car, so despite my age I actually still cycle quite a lot, certainly at least once or twice a day and my longest daily ride recently has been 150 miles. I may be slower these days than you fast boys, but I'm still getting the miles in. Claiming I'm not a cyclist because I drive an hgv for a living is an accusation I've not come across before. I showed your comment to the guys at work and they found it "interesting"

"If the councils spent the money they waste on fighting compensation claims on fixing the potholes that cause them then they would be meeting their 'Duty of Care' towards the public that they bang-on about so much."

The reason councils fight cases is to reduce the overall number of claims. Indeed, it is their "duty of care" to do so, since each claim reduces funding elsewhere for essential services like schools, libraries and care for the elderly. If organisations didn't fight then the floodgates would open, so it's a sensible fiscal position to take over the long term, particularly because it suppresses the number of false claims submitted.

Jova, since you bring up the "hgv" thing, let me tell you something about what I see from the cab. I see huge numbers of cylists and motorists driving so close to other vehicles that each pothole they hit comes as a total surprise. I also see cyclists and drivers travelling to fast to be able to avoid potholes. I also see cyclists and drivers regularly place themselves alongside each other, such that their opportunity to avoid potholes is very much reduced. And finally, and I don't mean to criticise cyclists per se, but I see large numbers of riders riding so close together that they cannot possibly see the road in front of them, relying solely on time honoured hand signals from riders in front to keep them from running into potholes, a procedure that may be ok in a race where the route has been freshly tarmacced, but is ultimately doomed to failure on our crumbling roads here in the UK.

I'm a realist; I know that telling cyclists (and drivers) to slow down, be more circumspect, and spread out a little so they have time to see potholes coming towards them, is not going to be popular on a forum like this, but my view is shared not just by safety campaigners such as myself, but by virtually everyone in a position able to affect policy.

Slow down, give yourself more space and, if you do find your chances of avoiding potholes (as you say) "severely reduced", then slow down some more.

I was under the impression that users have to take the highway as they find it. There was a high court judgement a few years ago that decided as much. It was intended to stifle the growing incidence of litigation.

Can't remember the name but it was a case of someone who drove off the road at a corner that used to have 'slow' written on the road, but it hadn't been replaced.

This whole compensation thing really pees me off. Very few people realise that this whole compensation culture is having a seriously detrimental affect on our ability to compete in a global market place, an ability on which we so utterly depend.

If it's clinical negligence then fair enough, but potholes? Come on guys. The clues are there. The country's on the verge of bankruptcy, we know the roads are in a poor state, we know that in town the potholes tend to be where vehicles brake and accelerate, where heavy vehicles turn, and where contractors dig up roads. We know that darkness reduces visibility, we know that sitting on someone's wheel may prevent us from seeing the road ahead, we know that speed increases our stopping times, and we know that looking at our Garmins or checking our reflections in plate glass windows may not be such a good idea if we come a cropper.

Ok, that's a bit of a moan, but I have a lot of sympathy with councils who are being starved of central government cash; who are doing their best to keep essential services going, and are being sued by cyclists who would almost certainly have avoided potholes if only they accepted the reality of the dire financial situation this country is in, and just rode more with a little more circumspection.

Unless the tarmac suddenly gives way beneath your wheel, riding into a pothole is simply a result of one or more errors of judgement given the state of the road ahead.

I say get a solicitor who knows what they are doing one that doesn't cave in at the first denial of liability and so is prepared to issue proceedings if the council don't cough up a satisfactory amount in compensation and a solicitor who will turn up to court on the morning of the trial with you, to go ahead with the case. You will find that the fricking council will settle rather than fight your claim as that hole in the pic is mahoosively monstrous and they KNEW about as well which beggars belief that they did NOT FIX IT asap! I hope you get thousands as not only is it negligence but gross negligence and incompetence verging on dereliction of their duty to keep the roads in a safe condition for ALL road users. 4cm may be fine for cars, etc but a 4cm hole will bring down a bicycle and seriously injure a cyclist as you and others have discovered. When you have won and got compensation, name and shame the negligent numptees at the council.

As I hit the same pothole I can tell you for sure it was over 40mm (I had to take pictures with rulers). Seems this doesn't mean a lot in reality though.
Just sucks that multiple people get seriously hurt in exactly the same place and even though we all logged it - it was still there 5/6 months on probably catching more people out. If they'd let me fill it myself I would have. (With my one working hand )

alexholt3 posted "Liability suggests that it was the CC's fault. Granted they are negligent; but it's not entirely their fault."

What do you base your claim of negligence on? In neither this story or the one on the link is there any suggestion of the depth of the hole! The linked story has a picture of Mr Bingham standing near a new looking patch in the road but there is no indication that this is the actual location of the accident. If it is, however, the fact that ht ecouncil has now fixed the hole could go against them in court.

As mrmo found the common itervention level for a pot hole is a depth of 40mm. As long as the CC's inspection and repair regime conformed to that then they will not be held liable or negligent. Inspection of the highway is always and will always be aimed at maintaining the surface in a condition considered "safe" or the majority of users. Cyclists are a minority of users and no council could possibly hope to implement a 10mm or 20mm intervention level or ever hope to have roads free of holes.

Most councils will denie liabilty as they know most people will not take the case any further. In cases such as this the cost of lawyers fees would be much greater than the damges awarded. Councils have a duty to protect the public purse, they simply cannot pay out on every claim

It's a vicious cycle ('scuse the pun).

Cyclist fails to see the pothole.
Injury lawyers swing into action.
Bike shop gets excited.
Claim is paid.
Injury lawyers get paid even more.
Less money in the kitty for road repairs.
Even more potholes.
More accidents happen.

But there is a better way.

Accept the need for more caution at the moment.
Expect the unexpected.
Slow down, look ahead, consider it your civic duty to report holes you see.
If you ride fast, on an expensive bike, consider taking out personal insurance for the common good.
Each local authority claim saved allows another 300 potholes to be filled, on average.
Less injuries means hospitals can treat more sick people.
Accident claim lawyers end up doing something more useful instead.
Councils have more money to do good things.

I'd be interested to know how many councillors commute by bike or motorcycle and if they agree that our roads are in a poor condition?

Annoyingly that is the exact same pothole that knocked me off my bike. Headfirst into a lamp-post at speed. If wasn't wearing my helmet I really wouldn't be here to complain.
I smashed my wrist up pretty good and will be luck to get 50% use of it back.
They've known about that hole for a LONG time (registered for well over a year), but don't consider it dangerous. An increasing number of us would beg to differ...

"Devon County Council has refused to accept liability for the crash."

Liability suggests that it was the CC's fault. Granted they are negligent; but it's not entirely their fault. Of course those involved should be given some sort of compensation for the poor road conditions that we pay for, however I don't feel that the council should be put to blame. I recently destroyed my bike and rear wheel in a collision with a pot hole - but it was my own fault; I didn't ride around it.

I suspect some councils are fighting these cases because of the amount of cash they've had squeezed out of them by ambulance chasing lawyers every time some pedestrian tripped on a paving slab.

I wish the Fill That Hole app wasn't just for iPhones...!

Good luck to him. I've had an ongoing case against my council for nearly a year now from a pothole incident, was knocked out and broke collar bone. Luckily bike was ok, but clothing was ruined. Just got a letter the other day from solicitor saying they are denying responsibility as the pothole was within acceptable limits. Surely acceptable limits are no potholes at all.