Video: Cyclist criticises council for not fixing huge crack in road which caused him to crash (video contains swearing and an enormous marked crack in the road)

DrJDog wrote:

For two years I've complained to Brent Council repeatedly about the same 75 yard stretch of road that has about 50 dangerous potholes, cracks or sinkholes. No, I'm not exaggerating. OK, maybe about the sinkholes. They occasionally get someone out to fill in one or two of them, leaving about 48 dangerous cracks and potholes. One of them was so big I saw a car drop a wheel in one and struggle to get out when the lights changed.

 

They just don't have the money.

Except that at least in legal theory, lack of resouces is not a defence to failing to repair.

Don't take any of this as gospel, but the council can, obliquely, refer to resources when talking about what a "reasonable" inspection protocol is. That would be things like how often to check different types of roads (A, B, side road, etc... ), and how they conduct those examinations - I think in some cases, it's literally one bloke driving while another sticks his head out of the window.

The council is not omniscient, and you can't argue they should have known about and fixed an issue simply because it is glaringly obvious - in terms of detecting it's whether their inspection routine is reasonable, was that actually followed, was the defect actually reported, could it have developed over a short period of time in bad weather etc...  

However, my vague understanding is reasonableness in terms of resources doesn't apply when a defect has been identified and the question is about repairs. It's either dangerous or it's not, and while their assessment might be given a bit of leeway by a judge, I don't think they can argue they simply didn't have funds to repair.

Rock and a hard place for them. Similar to the assumptions/strict responsibilities placed on local authorities when it comes to care - the law tells them what they have to do, but makes no allowance for the fact they may not have enough money to do it. 

Judges of course do have to follow the law, but they're human and will recognise the lack of resources issue; even if they don't say they're taking it into account, it's not usually that difficult to make a particular decision if they want to, and often difficult or expensive to try and appeal that. 

Mungecrundle wrote:

Disclaimer: What follows is most definitely uninformed opinion.

1. If there were a legal principle that any damage caused by a roadway defect was the fault of the vehicle operator for not seeing it, then no-one would ever have been able to succesfully recover compensation from the responsible local authority. Neither would warning signs and barriers be necessary around road works. As this is clearly not the case, there must be a point at which the authority becomes liable.

2. The technical argument of any case would seem to revolve around the classification of the road defect. The council agree that it exists and that they were aware of it, but classified it as being of low risk. If that stands then your case collapses. However you could argue that it did pose a significant risk, that you have proven beyond reasonable doubt that it was dangerous by crashing (with video footage) and that it was therefore incorrectly classified.

3. It is easy to convince yourself as a layman that you have a watertight case. Madcarew is doing you a favour by playing Devils advocate. This is more than likely the type of argument that will be advanced by the authority's legal department. After all they do not want to have to compensate you.

My suggestion would be to run it past a personal claims lawyer. If they are happy to take it on a no win no fee basis then you can be reasonably sure that they think you have a decent chance of success.

This is pretty much word-for-word what I was going say - especially point 1, with regards to individuals claiming here that a cyclist hitting a dangerous road defect at night is de facto their fault. The fact that councils paid out £3m in pothole-damage-compensation in 17/18 is some precedent...

https://www.confused.com/on-the-road/safety/uk-potholes-reach-new-depths

madcarew wrote:

 

This cyclist was going too fast for the conditions. In this case, probably the lighting conditions. Would he have been able to see the crack in the daylight? Clearly, he would, as he has taken detailed photos of it. This was the cyclists fault, period. He was not able to stop in the clear road he could see ahead.

I have to say I was suprised at how poor the bicycle lighting of the road was when I looked at the video. If I was riding in the dark I would have my lights set up to clearly identify road problems far enough ahead to be able to avoid any problems. It might not have been a crack, it could have been a small animal or a rock or similar knocked onto the road by a pedestrian.

So, I tend to think there was some fault on both the council and the rider. I think the council's fault is not because there was a crack in the road but the fact that it was long in the direction of travel. If it was across the road instead it wouldnt be an issue.

Having said that I'm truly sorry he was badly hurt in the accident.

tonyw wrote:

madcarew wrote:

 

This cyclist was going too fast for the conditions. In this case, probably the lighting conditions. Would he have been able to see the crack in the daylight? Clearly, he would, as he has taken detailed photos of it. This was the cyclists fault, period. He was not able to stop in the clear road he could see ahead.

 

I have to say I was suprised at how poor the bicycle lighting of the road was when I looked at the video. If I was riding in the dark I would have my lights set up to clearly identify road problems far enough ahead to be able to avoid any problems. It might not have been a crack, it could have been a small animal or a rock or similar knocked onto the road by a pedestrian.

 

So, I tend to think there was some fault on both the council and the rider. I think the council's fault is not because there was a crack in the road but the fact that it was long in the direction of travel. If it was across the road instead it wouldnt be an issue.

 

Having said that I'm truly sorry he was badly hurt in the accident.

 

As I stated in another comment - I actually had two lights running - a Moon Nebula (240 lumens) on Blink Mode, and a BikeMate front light (800 lumens) on full beam - both of which are very bright - and both of which my cheap camera does not pick up well in the video.

Added to which I have a Garmin Vara 2 running at the back at all times, as well as a rear Moon Nebula...while my helmet has rear stop and indicator lights built into it, as well as the usual reflective jacket and reflective strips on legs and reflective gloves ....So, for the purposes of riding at night, I am usually pretty much lite up like a Christmas tree... 

And thank you for your concern, I am almost fully recovered now, although it appears I may have a small amount of permanent tendon damage, I am hopeful this will heal.      

madcarew wrote:

Here's my take on this, and it probably won't be popular.

Although the council has a responsbility to care for the roads and keep them in a useable condition, it is every road user's responsibility to 

(i) travel in a  manner that is suitable for the conditions

(ii) travel at a speed where they can stop in the clear road they can see ahead.

Imagine, if you would for one second, what the take on these pages would have been if a motorcyclist was riding along, hit an undulation / deep puddle / obstruction / ice then lost control and wiped out a cyclist. If nothing else BTBS would have been spilling vituperative bile about travelling too fast for the conditions, not anticipating, not paying attention etc etc

This cyclist was going too fast for the conditions. In this case, probably the lighting conditions. Would he have been able to see the crack in the daylight? Clearly, he would, as he has taken detailed photos of it. This was the cyclists fault, period. He was not able to stop in the clear road he could see ahead.

The council does have a responsibility to look after the roads to a certain standard, and they have demonstrated that they have taken steps to meet that standard. Whether or not you like the standard is of no consequence at all. Maybe they should remedy this crack, but that is neither here nor there. The cyclist was travelling in such a manner that they weren't able to stop in the face of a dangerous  (to them) obstacle.

BTBS has in the past famously claimed that people in dark clothing don't need to be lit up because he can see them whilst travelling with the missus under streetlights, or by the two candlepower beams of his A40 (or hansom cab)because he always travels at an appropriate speed and anticipates hazards. Clearly he would not have crashed on this obstacle, and clearly would expect the at fault party to put their hand up and own their responsibility.

If you want the full onset of the nanny state, if you want cyclists only on cycle paths, if you want compulsory body armour and compulsory helmets, if you want restrictive licensing and insurance conditions, if you want a world where no-one has to take responsiblity for their personal safety but that which is mandated on them; go ahead, sue the council, engage your solicitors. After all it's we, the council tax and insurance premium payers, who will pay for it.

Or you could stick up for  a world where we take responsiblity for our own actions; appreciate, accept, and manage our own risk, and enjoy some measure of freedom.

The cyclist was going too fast for the conditions and bears full responsibility for their injuries and damage.

Full disclosure. I ride, I crash, I don't work for a council, and I believe we should recognise that we don't live in a safe, entirely predictable world, and we're better off for it.

 

 

FYI - I actually had two lights running - a Moon Nebula (240 lumens) on Blink Mode, and a BikeMate front light (800 lumens) on full beam....both of which my cheap camera does not pick up well in the video. 

Added to which I have a Garmin Vara 2 running at the back at all times, as well as a rear Moon Nebula...while my helmet has rear stop and indicator lights built into it, as well as the usual reflective jacket and reflective strips on legs and reflective gloves ....So, for the purposes of riding at night, I am usually pretty much lite up like a Christmas tree... 

The road at night is black, as is the crack and potholes running along it - surface conditions were damp - so no chance of seeing it at all to stop in time, especially when you have parked cars by the side of the road...and as for speed, I was not at full speed, as I was slow going down due to the dampness (which both my Strava and Garmin data show) - however, whether I was slow or fast does not really matter, as either way a wheel (road bike, mountain or motorbile) would still get caught in it...

As for the photographs in the daylight - I did not take them, that was my wife..

I have been cycling on roads since 1978/9, having passed my cycling proficiency to do so, as well as various Police funded cycling road courses back in the 1980s (and yes, I also drive) - so am well aware of road conditions and how they can affect vehicles, hence my speed being relatively slow, and am old enough to have taken responsibility for my own actions when I have had accidents caused by my own fault..unlike this time...

If the crack had not been there, the accident would not have happened, if it had been repaired the accident would have not happened - the council have a duty of care and a responsibity to those who use their roads to ensure that they are safe, well repaired and fit for purpose - whatever the  conditions - that is what they are paid to do...        

Legin67 wrote:

madcarew wrote:

Here's my take on this, and it probably won't be popular.

Although the council has a responsbility to care for the roads and keep them in a useable condition, it is every road user's responsibility to 

(i) travel in a  manner that is suitable for the conditions

(ii) travel at a speed where they can stop in the clear road they can see ahead.

Imagine, if you would for one second, what the take on these pages would have been if a motorcyclist was riding along, hit an undulation / deep puddle / obstruction / ice then lost control and wiped out a cyclist. If nothing else BTBS would have been spilling vituperative bile about travelling too fast for the conditions, not anticipating, not paying attention etc etc

This cyclist was going too fast for the conditions. In this case, probably the lighting conditions. Would he have been able to see the crack in the daylight? Clearly, he would, as he has taken detailed photos of it. This was the cyclists fault, period. He was not able to stop in the clear road he could see ahead.

The council does have a responsibility to look after the roads to a certain standard, and they have demonstrated that they have taken steps to meet that standard. Whether or not you like the standard is of no consequence at all. Maybe they should remedy this crack, but that is neither here nor there. The cyclist was travelling in such a manner that they weren't able to stop in the face of a dangerous  (to them) obstacle.

BTBS has in the past famously claimed that people in dark clothing don't need to be lit up because he can see them whilst travelling with the missus under streetlights, or by the two candlepower beams of his A40 (or hansom cab)because he always travels at an appropriate speed and anticipates hazards. Clearly he would not have crashed on this obstacle, and clearly would expect the at fault party to put their hand up and own their responsibility.

If you want the full onset of the nanny state, if you want cyclists only on cycle paths, if you want compulsory body armour and compulsory helmets, if you want restrictive licensing and insurance conditions, if you want a world where no-one has to take responsiblity for their personal safety but that which is mandated on them; go ahead, sue the council, engage your solicitors. After all it's we, the council tax and insurance premium payers, who will pay for it.

Or you could stick up for  a world where we take responsiblity for our own actions; appreciate, accept, and manage our own risk, and enjoy some measure of freedom.

The cyclist was going too fast for the conditions and bears full responsibility for their injuries and damage.

Full disclosure. I ride, I crash, I don't work for a council, and I believe we should recognise that we don't live in a safe, entirely predictable world, and we're better off for it.

 

 

 

FYI - I actually had two lights running - a Moon Nebula (240 lumens) on Blink Mode, and a BikeMate front light (800 lumens) on full beam....both of which my cheap camera does not pick up well in the video. 

Added to which I have a Garmin Vara 2 running at the back at all times, as well as a rear Moon Nebula...while my helmet has rear stop and indicator lights built into it, as well as the usual reflective jacket and reflective strips on legs and reflective gloves ....So, for the purposes of riding at night, I am usually pretty much lite up like a Christmas tree... 

The road at night is black, as is the crack and potholes running along it - surface conditions were damp - so no chance of seeing it at all, especially when you have parked cars by the side of the road...and as for speed, I was not at full speed, as I was slow going down due to the dampness (which both my Strava and Garmin data show) - however, whether I was slow or fast does not really matter, as either way a wheel (road bike, mountain or motorbile) would still get caught in it...

As for the photographs in the daylight - I did not take them, that was my wife..

I have been cycling on roads since 1978/9, having passed my cycling proficiency to do so, as well as various Police funded cycling road courses back in the 1980s (and yes, I also drive) - so am well aware of road conditions and how they can affect vehicles.

 

You may have been lit up like an xmas tree, but perhaps the road wasn't. That is irrelevant. The point remains that you were travelling at such a speed, or in such a manner that you were unable to see or avoid a significant hazard.

I didn't dwell on how many lights you had or how many lumens, only that you were unable to react appropriately to what they lit up. 

The point is taken about your wife taking the photos, but that doesn't change the fact that they are plainly visible. 

You may not have been travelling at full speed, but again, that is irrelevant. If you had been travelling at 5 kph would you have been able to see and avoid the crack and reduce the injury and damage?

I have ridden bikes for 40+ years. I've crashed a few times, written a few bikes off, been in hospital a couple of times. And every time owned up when it has been my fault. 

You were unable to stop in the clear road you could see ahead, or were not paying full attention to the road and conditions. The accident is your fault.

I don't deny the council should perhaps fix the crack (which I made clear) but that is irrelevant to your accident. The crack clearly presents a hazard to cyclists, but so do kerbs, and islands, and pedestrians, and parked cars, and sticks, and rocks; all of which may be difficult to spot in the dark. It is your responsibility to travel in such a way that you are able to manage the risk; and if your level of management results in an outcome you don't like; Get up, dust off, adjust your management if you like, and get going again. Just don't blame someone else.

I hope you heal well, and quickly and continue to cycle. 

madcarew wrote:

Legin67 wrote:

madcarew wrote:

Here's my take on this, and it probably won't be popular.

Although the council has a responsbility to care for the roads and keep them in a useable condition, it is every road user's responsibility to 

(i) travel in a  manner that is suitable for the conditions

(ii) travel at a speed where they can stop in the clear road they can see ahead.

Imagine, if you would for one second, what the take on these pages would have been if a motorcyclist was riding along, hit an undulation / deep puddle / obstruction / ice then lost control and wiped out a cyclist. If nothing else BTBS would have been spilling vituperative bile about travelling too fast for the conditions, not anticipating, not paying attention etc etc

This cyclist was going too fast for the conditions. In this case, probably the lighting conditions. Would he have been able to see the crack in the daylight? Clearly, he would, as he has taken detailed photos of it. This was the cyclists fault, period. He was not able to stop in the clear road he could see ahead.

The council does have a responsibility to look after the roads to a certain standard, and they have demonstrated that they have taken steps to meet that standard. Whether or not you like the standard is of no consequence at all. Maybe they should remedy this crack, but that is neither here nor there. The cyclist was travelling in such a manner that they weren't able to stop in the face of a dangerous  (to them) obstacle.

BTBS has in the past famously claimed that people in dark clothing don't need to be lit up because he can see them whilst travelling with the missus under streetlights, or by the two candlepower beams of his A40 (or hansom cab)because he always travels at an appropriate speed and anticipates hazards. Clearly he would not have crashed on this obstacle, and clearly would expect the at fault party to put their hand up and own their responsibility.

If you want the full onset of the nanny state, if you want cyclists only on cycle paths, if you want compulsory body armour and compulsory helmets, if you want restrictive licensing and insurance conditions, if you want a world where no-one has to take responsiblity for their personal safety but that which is mandated on them; go ahead, sue the council, engage your solicitors. After all it's we, the council tax and insurance premium payers, who will pay for it.

Or you could stick up for  a world where we take responsiblity for our own actions; appreciate, accept, and manage our own risk, and enjoy some measure of freedom.

The cyclist was going too fast for the conditions and bears full responsibility for their injuries and damage.

Full disclosure. I ride, I crash, I don't work for a council, and I believe we should recognise that we don't live in a safe, entirely predictable world, and we're better off for it.

 

 

 

FYI - I actually had two lights running - a Moon Nebula (240 lumens) on Blink Mode, and a BikeMate front light (800 lumens) on full beam....both of which my cheap camera does not pick up well in the video. 

Added to which I have a Garmin Vara 2 running at the back at all times, as well as a rear Moon Nebula...while my helmet has rear stop and indicator lights built into it, as well as the usual reflective jacket and reflective strips on legs and reflective gloves ....So, for the purposes of riding at night, I am usually pretty much lite up like a Christmas tree... 

The road at night is black, as is the crack and potholes running along it - surface conditions were damp - so no chance of seeing it at all, especially when you have parked cars by the side of the road...and as for speed, I was not at full speed, as I was slow going down due to the dampness (which both my Strava and Garmin data show) - however, whether I was slow or fast does not really matter, as either way a wheel (road bike, mountain or motorbile) would still get caught in it...

As for the photographs in the daylight - I did not take them, that was my wife..

I have been cycling on roads since 1978/9, having passed my cycling proficiency to do so, as well as various Police funded cycling road courses back in the 1980s (and yes, I also drive) - so am well aware of road conditions and how they can affect vehicles.

 

You may have been lit up like an xmas tree, but perhaps the road wasn't. That is irrelevant. The point remains that you were travelling at such a speed, or in such a manner that you were unable to see or avoid a significant hazard.

I didn't dwell on how many lights you had or how many lumens, only that you were unable to react appropriately to what they lit up. 

The point is taken about your wife taking the photos, but that doesn't change the fact that they are plainly visible. 

If you had been travelling at 5 kph would you have been able to see and avoid the crack?

I have ridden bikes for 40+ years. I've crashed a few times, written a few bikes off, been in hospital a couple of times. And every time owned up when it has been my fault. 

You were unable to stop in the clear road you could see ahead, or were not paying full attention to the road and conditions. The accident is your fault.

I don't deny the council should perhaps fix the crack (which I made clear) but that is irrelevant to your accident. The crack clearly presents a hazard to cyclist, but so do kerbs, and islands, and pedestrians, and parked cars, and sticks, and rocks; all of which may be difficult to spot in the dark. It is your responsibility to travel in such a way that you are able to manage the risk; and if your level of management results in an outcome you don't like; Get up, dust off adjust your management if you like, and get going again. Just don't blame someone else.

I hope you heal well, and quickly and continue to cycle. 

No, not really irrelevent - as it appears you were trying to twist it to make out it was my fault for not having enough lights to see by..   

In answer to your questions - I was not 'traveling at such a speed...' - in point of fact I was fairly slow, the video actually looks faster than it was - otherwise the injuries would have been much worst - I can always pull my Strava data that shows the actual speed..

Would you be saying the same thing to other people that have come off in broad daylight on the same type of hazards, badly injuring themselves or in some cases actually getting killed...There are plenty of examples sadly...far too many.

The pothole and crack maybe plainly visible on a clear day, on a video and pictures taken in the morning - but at night black cracks on black tarmac road, which is what most of that road is - then no chance of seeing them sadly...even on a rainy day they will disappear...Are you local? Do you know the road?

Well, I have been cycling in total for 45 years plus - I have also crashed once or twice in that time - and yes, I am able to recognise when its my own fault, thank you.

In this case, again, if the crack had not been there, then I would not have had the accident - irrespective of speed and conditions - and no, if you was traveling at 5kph (3.1 mph) on that road at night, you would still struggle to see the crack (black bitumen road with black crack on it). At 5kph its hard enough in the day  (irrespective of the vehicle) to see that crack - but you are more then welcome to come on down and try it out for yourself - please feel free, happy to give you the postcode. 

Thank you, I am almost healed - although I may have some permanent tendon damage to my left arm, with a small loss of 2% of the arm bending - but my doctor, and myself, are hopeful that this will actually recover over time...   

As I can see that you have your own very set opinions here, there is little point in carrying on with this conversation - however, may I just say that I truly hope that this never happens to yourself, friends or family, and that you never have anybody seriously hurt or killed through a pothole crash - its something that in todays world simply should just not happen.        

Legin67 wrote:

.... its something that in todays world simply should just not happen.  

Can't say I have found ECC that responsive to highways damage unless it is the A12 (as linked earlier). Whoever does the temporary repairs does not do too well either.

Blackthorne wrote:

I am sorry for your unfortunate accident, but from the footage it looks as if you had insufficient headlight illumination to see oncoming obstacles? If one were to compare this to cars vs potholes, it is akin to a car not having turned on its headlights and driving in the dark.

Or the camera is not very good for night footage.
Meanwhile with cars

https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/16067110.Emergency_repairs_to_pothol...

Blackthorne wrote:

I am sorry for your unfortunate accident, but from the footage it looks as if you had insufficient headlight illumination to see oncoming obstacles? If one were to compare this to cars vs potholes, it is akin to a car not having turned on its headlights and driving in the dark.

Thank you, yes it was pretty nasty - however, as I stated in another comment - I actually had two lights running - a Moon Nebula (240 lumens) on Blink Mode, and a BikeMate front light (800 lumens) on full beam - both of which are very bright - and both of which my cheap camera does not pick up well in the video.

Added to which I have a Garmin Vara 2 running at the back at all times, as well as a rear Moon Nebula...while my helmet has rear stop and indicator lights built into it, as well as the usual reflective jacket and reflective strips on legs and reflective gloves ....So, for the purposes of riding at night, I am usually pretty much lite up like a Christmas tree... 

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

the law is pretty clear, if the road is out of repair to the ordinary person then it's out of repair. And also the highway has to be safe for ALL road users, the council can call it whatever catergory they like, this is clearly out of repair and not safe for road users on two wheels.

It was encumbent upon them to make good the repairs as the responsible persons to do so (their county highways dept specifically) or to cordon off the section of road and make road users aware of the hazard.

A decent solicitor should be able to make this an easy win in court if the council play hardball and don't cough up.

Bunch of wankers.

EDIT So according to the definition of a CAT2 in the code of practise "Category 2 defects are those which, following risk assessment during an inspection, are not deemed an immediate or imminent hazard or risk of short term structural deterioration" These will be graded High, medium and low.

This is clearly bullshit, it clearly presented an immediate hazard to people on cycles owing to the defect itself AND the position in the highway, this was bloody obvious!

Thank you - and I agree - I was very lucky that it wasn’t worst...I shudder to think if it had been a child on a bike that hit the crack which I did, I don’t think they would have survived..

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

the law is pretty clear, if the road is out of repair to the ordinary person then it's out of repair. And also the highway has to be safe for ALL road users, the council can call it whatever catergory they like, this is clearly out of repair and not safe for road users on two wheels.

It was encumbent upon them to make good the repairs as the responsible persons to do so (their county highways dept specifically) or to cordon off the section of road and make road users aware of the

Reported a pothole to my local council last week,must have been at least nearly a foot wide and over several inches deep,only saw it at the last second to avoid it in broad daylight,its on an unlit main countryside A road, national speed limit, at night you wouldn't just buckle a bike wheel if you hit it, it would rip a car wheel off its axle...minimum of 10 working days to repair it they quoted.

stonojnr wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

the law is pretty clear, if the road is out of repair to the ordinary person then it's out of repair. And also the highway has to be safe for ALL road users, the council can call it whatever catergory they like, this is clearly out of repair and not safe for road users on two wheels.

It was encumbent upon them to make good the repairs as the responsible persons to do so (their county highways dept specifically) or to cordon off the section of road and make road users aware of the

Reported a pothole to my local council last week,must have been at least nearly a foot wide and over several inches deep,only saw it at the last second to avoid it in broad daylight,its on an unlit main countryside A road, national speed limit, at night you wouldn't just buckle a bike wheel if you hit it, it would rip a car wheel off its axle...minimum of 10 working days to repair it they quoted.

Their schedule is just their made up version/how they want to interpret matters, it doesn't follow law and the 'best practice' is yet more bullshit made up to validate local authority and Highways England's negligence/reticence in repairing the 'way' or bridge.

Start off at Section 36 of the Highways Act 1980but Section 56 is the main bit about repairs.  https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66

jh27 wrote:

The council considered it safe.  It clearly isn't. The council will make their decision on the basis of cost - is it cheaper to fix it or cheaper to leave it and risk litigation.  They chose the former - there's only one way you can convince them that it was the wrong decision.

 

If they weren't aware of it, it is difficult to show that they were liable.  They have admitted that they were aware of it, the fact that they deemed it safe, when clearly it wasn't, does not reduce their liability.  Difficult to judge the width, but it looks like that crack could trap a narrow road bike tire and throw a cyclist off their bike.

They were aware of it,  but they listed it as a category 2 pothole...not deemed needing a repair..and yes, certainly did try my rear tire - blowing it out and throwing me off my bike..have added one of the photos that wife took next day, while I was in the hospital...

Sriracha wrote:

Car drivers claim damages to wheels and tyres caused by potholes. Surely you can at the very least claim for the damage to your bike? Pedestrians claim for trips over broken pavement slabs. Surely you are able to claim for personal injury? Your council sound like a right shower, and your solicitor does not seem much drier. Hope you get sorted.

Thank you - I am pushing my solicitor on this one.