Cyclist in "never-ending" pain after suffering life-changing injuries in pothole crash told he has no grounds for compensation as hole was 13mm too shallow

Also - like supermarket "price cuts" - have they put that figure up recently?  "Unfortunately according to current policy (revised last Thursday) anything less that a journey to the centre of the earth is not deemed to be an indication of inadequate maintenance".

What gives the lie to all this "marking one's own homework" is not so much the fact that an inch in Chelsea is judged the same as a foot in Heckmondwike.  It's that once a council makes a choice of "what is safe" that decision - whatever it is - is then apparently never subject to justification in court at all!

OnYerBike wrote:

A few sources indicate a depth of 40mm is the ballpark at which a pothole is typically deemed a risk to cyclists (e.g. [1] and [2]). If it can be demonstrated that Cumbria Council's policy failed to adequately assess the risks to cyclists and that, contrary to their policy, potholes of >40mm are a risk to cyclists, then I would have thought there is a case to be heard.

There's this pdf from the RAC which gives a summary of the criteria used by councils. It's from December 2018 so may be out of date.

There's something called Well-managed Highway Infrastructure Code of Practice, which contains guidelines for potholes. Including this:

Quote:

Although some general guidance can be given by authorities on the likely risk associated with particular defects, on-site judgement will always need to take account of particular circumstances. For example, the degree of risk from a pothole depends upon not merely its depth but also its surface area and location.

CUK's Fix that hole is good for quickly reporting potholes

https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaign/fill-hole

once a council knows about a pothole and doesn't fix it then - if someone subsequently has an accident - it's going to be much more difficult for the LA to deny all liability

Except it isn't more difficult for them, as the case of Harry Colledge demonstrates. They just visit the pothole for a nice trip out from the office, decide that it's not going to harm a motorised vehicle and ignore it for years. If the worst comes to the worst, the council turns up at the inquest and says that the pothole was hardly there at all at the time of inspection, and must have spontaneously closed up since the time of the photos being sent in, and then opened up again by the time of the 'accident'. Hey Presto! Job done.

wtjs wrote:

once a council knows about a pothole and doesn't fix it then - if someone subsequently has an accident - it's going to be much more difficult for the LA to deny all liability

Except it isn't more difficult for them, as the case of Harry Colledge demonstrates. They just visit the pothole for a nice trip out from the office, decide that it's not going to harm a motorised vehicle and ignore it for years. If the worst comes to the worst, the council turns up at the inquest and says that the pothole was hardly there at all at the time of inspection, and must have spontaneously closed up since the time of the photos being sent in, and then opened up again by the time of the 'accident'. Hey Presto! Job done.

Whenever I report a pothole I mention that it would be dangerous for cyclists in the text field, that seems to get a better response.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crrl92rr12ko
And the carists are more worried about scratching their alloys.

Boo-Hoo 😢

Yes- it's interesting that the 'pothole' which he claims caused the damage looks like nothing much at all. Most of Lancashire's roads are covered with defects as bad as, and worse than, that. It's almost as if 'damage to my motah' is taken more seriously than a KSI'd cyclist!

Typical BBC, couldn't see any mention of cyclists in that article.

Andski808 wrote:

This is a horrible outcome for the guy but, first, he's already been to a reputable law firm. Second, as the article points out, it's not just about the size of the hole, it's about whether the council knows about it in advance that's key. I remember once having a convo with a personal injury lawyer about this. So I suspect the advice he got is correct but there is nothing to stop him getting a second opinion from another firm - he has three years I think from the incident before the limitation period expires. 
 

Second, it means we as cyclists should be reporting potholes to the LA when we find them. Where I live in Haringey you can do it online and they're fixed pretty promptly. I don't doubt the position will be different elsewhere in the Uk but once a council knows about a pothole and doesn't fix it then - if someone subsequently has an accident - it's going to be much more difficult for the LA to deny all liability. 
 

it's a practical thing we can all be doing for the common good. 

Reporting is all well and good but if the Council have arbitrarily decided holes of 59mm depth are not dangerous and do not merit fixing it will not help.

However I fail to see how the council can defend the court case saying the hole was not deep enough to repair in accordance with their guidelines. How can they get away with saying "in our opinion holes of this size do not present a hazard, when a hole of this size has proved fatal? This is a failure of policy and the council are completely culpable. It even calls into question their inspection regime. It doesn't matter how often they are inspecting if the inspectors have been told by the decision makes not to even see holes of 50mm and below.

eburtthebike wrote:

The fact that each council can set its own standards for the depth of pothole that necessitates attention is in itself a scandal.  There needs to be a national standard based on the risk to the most vulnerable road user affected, in this case cyclists.

If a 47mm deep pothole can cause such life-changing injuries, it is clear that this council's assessment of risk is wrong and should be challenged.  A case for the Cyclists' Defence Fund perhaps?  Count me in for a few quid if they decide to take it on.

Of course the real villains are the odious tories, who cut council funding to the bone, meaning that they had to find savings, and although maintaining the roads in a safe condition is their duty, they could redefine what they considered safe, with some defining road defects as safe when they are anything but.

In Warwickshire there was a period where some 40, 50 and national speed limits were reduced by a category across the county, which curiously coincided with a cessation of road surface repairs.
Whilst I appreciated the reduction of the limits in general, this was clearly a hand-rinsing exercise as there were no efforts for enforcement, nor were the changes enough to actually protect vulnerable road users from high speed vehicles, and allowing the roads to get more mashed up made it actively more unsafe

In addition to the above quote below is from my LHA web page

"You have a right to make a claim for compensation if your property has been damaged as a result of a pothole or other defect on a road or footpath. But you will only be given compensation if we are found to have been negligent or in breach of our legal duty under the Highways Act to maintain the highway.

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."

Cycloid wrote:

.. the appearance of a defect doesn’t necessarily mean we have been negligent. ...

Arbitrarily deciding that 50mm deep holes are safe, when this is proven not to be the case is negligent in my view.

Yes your honour I knew there were some loose tiles on my roof which could prvent a hazard, but I decided anything under 1kg was not a risk, and as none of them crossed that threshold I didn't need to replace them. This is such a cavalier approach to safety it beggers belief.

Hard as it's a system issue here. Local authorities that somehow lack resources to ensure all works are properly made good (There's a whole other er... rabbit hole around how we organise and manage utilities doing works...). And also get to mark there own homework when challenged.

Interesting to see how that works elsewhere-although "organisation" probably isn't something we can import...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b4ya3V-s4I0&t=595

Other issue is that fixing potholes on roads - especially main ones used by buses, lorries etc. - is literally pouring money into holes in the ground.

This is another way in which taking space from motor traffic and allocating it to cycling can save money - the bit being cycled on should last far longer!

Cycloid wrote:

I have payed subs to Cycling UK and British Cycling - The silence is deafening.

Have you asked them to do anything?

Or maybe you just weren't listening?

https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaign/fill-hole

https://www.cyclinguk.org/press-release/britains-pothole-crisis-costs-li...

https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/campaigning/article/20240114-campaigni...

And that's paid btw.

Backladder wrote:

..., the plan shape of the pothole, the severity of the edges and its location on the road are all factors in how dangerous they are for cyclists. I would expect an expert witness could challenge that decision.

But you're missing the point. I'd wager that their risk assessment didn't even consider cyclists, that it was based entirely on the size of hole which would cause billable damage to a motor vehicle.

That is exactly the reason it can and should be challenged, the council has a responsibility to consider all road users and safety for cyclists should trump inconvenience for motorists. I hope Paul can find some way to challenge this decision.

Totally agree