Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Back to news
news
Community
Mother who repeatedly fell cycling her children to nursery was told cycle path didn’t need to be clearedShared use path, Burnham on Sea (StreetView)

Mother who repeatedly fell cycling her children to nursery was told cycle path didn’t need to be cleared

“I genuinely would have thought the council would want to encourage people to get cycling”
by Alex Bowden
Fri, Nov 20, 2020 16:30
35

A woman who twice fell off her bike on “slippy” cycle paths while riding her children to nursery was told that the paths in question didn’t need to be cleared when she reported the problem to Somerset County Council.

This Is The West Country reports how Amy Long regularly rides from Highbridge into Burnham-on-Sea to take her three-year-old to nursery, but twice slipped off inside a week due to fallen leaves and other debris.

“When we moved here in June we only had one car so I decided to get a bike and trailer so I could take my children to nursery and into town,” she said.

“In the last few weeks the cycle paths behind The King Alfred School and off Frank Foley Parkway have been covered in leaves and twigs and have become really slippery as a result.

“Last week I fell off my bike quite badly on two separate days because there were leaves all over the path and it was really slippy.

“Luckily myself and my children were not hurt, but it has made me go a lot slower on the path.”

Feeling that the paths were dangerous, Long reported the issue to the council.

“I emailed the council about getting the paths cleaned up and I didn’t get a reply for ages,” she said.

“I eventually got a reply from the country roads department and they said that the paths didn’t need to be cleared.

“The reply email I got wasn’t at all compassionate and basically it was just telling me it is fine.”

Long was unimpressed.

“I genuinely would have thought the council would want to encourage people to get cycling. And with students walking along there as well, it’s just common sense to keep it clear and safe. It needs to be cleared.”

A spokesperson for Somerset County Council said that the problem had been at least partially addressed since then.

“We have made a visit to the site and cleared the worst of the leaves this week,” they said.

“Due to the time of year and the busy schedule it’s not always possible to carry this out immediately, and if people do spot something that’s a problem in their area please do let either ourselves or the District Council know.”

Earlier this month, we reported how a cycle lane in Manchester was actually being used to deliberately collect fallen leaves.

We've also previously reported how a cyclist attempting to use a path in Essex was greeted with thousands of thorns, after the council trimmed back a hedge and failed to clear the debris.

Burnham-on-Sea
Cycle path
leaves
Alex Bowden

Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.

Add new comment

35 comments

Avatar
brooksby replied to Hamster | 4 years ago
1 like

Hamster wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

the council are responsible for keeping the path swept and usable. 

Budget is probably for one cleaning pass per year!

I'm pretty sure that North Somerset has a policy that each length of cycle path gets one sweep per year. I presume its policy rather than budget, but can't say for sure.

They leave it as late in the year as they can so as to collect most of the fallen leaves, but if the leaves haven't all fallen or if they miss some stretch which isn't easily accessible by council van well then those stay until next year...

Avatar
spen replied to hawkinspeter | 4 years ago
3 likes

hawkinspeter wrote:

On the one hand, you need to ride to the conditions, but on the other hand the council are responsible for keeping the path swept and usable. She'd probably be able to sue them for falling off on wet leaves if she had been injured.

 

She could sue but wouldn't succeed.  The council appear to have responded to her initial complaint / report and done some remediation on the path.  The council cannot however be held liable for an issue of which they had no knowledge.  If the council had adhered to their inspection, maintenance and cleansing policy they would have a defence that would defeat the claim unless it could be shown that the policy was inadequate.  A claim for the second fall would probably fall under should have known better and used common sense. 

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to spen | 4 years ago
2 likes

I know someone who sued their council for an overgrown bush that was partially blocking a shared-use lane and caused a crash. I think it depends very much on the specific details of the case and I doubt that "should have used common sense" is much of a defence for the council. However, I've never been involved in such a case, so I'm just guessing.

Avatar
jh2727 replied to hawkinspeter | 4 years ago
0 likes

hawkinspeter wrote:

I know someone who sued their council for an overgrown bush that was partially blocking a shared-use lane and caused a crash. I think it depends very much on the specific details of the case and I doubt that "should have used common sense" is much of a defence for the council. However, I've never been involved in such a case, so I'm just guessing.

A tarmac path under trees is always going to be prone to being covered by leaves - likewise one that is built adjacent to vegetation is liable to be overgrown. I don't think it would take much of a lawyer to argue that the council was negligent if they didn't have a suitable inspection and maintenance schedule.

Tarmac is not the correct material for building a path under/near trees, if it isn't going to be swept regularly.

Avatar
wycombewheeler replied to jh2727 | 4 years ago
0 likes

jh2727 wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

I know someone who sued their council for an overgrown bush that was partially blocking a shared-use lane and caused a crash. I think it depends very much on the specific details of the case and I doubt that "should have used common sense" is much of a defence for the council. However, I've never been involved in such a case, so I'm just guessing.

A tarmac path under trees is always going to be prone to being covered by leaves - likewise one that is built adjacent to vegetation is liable to be overgrown. I don't think it would take much of a lawyer to argue that the council was negligent if they didn't have a suitable inspection and maintenance schedule.

Tarmac is not the correct material for building a path under/near trees, if it isn't going to be swept regularly.

interesting take, more gravel type paths and cycle paths? Unfortunately the surface quality soon deteriorates, needing refurbishment somewhat more costly than sweeping up leave whereas tarmac will last for a long time when not subjected to millions of  motor vehicle movements.

Pages

Latest Comments