Pothole that caused 75-year-old cyclist to crash not deemed a “critical safety defect” by council

Just think how many potholes EH council could have filled in properly if they had used their budget wisely and got the Leith Walk cycle lanes right first time instead of three or four goes and still to crack it.

Each Local Highways Authority (LHA) has considerable freedom when it comes to road maintenance. In my area the LHA outsources pothole management to a third party company. 

Every road in is inspected for defects on a regular schedule, Important roads get looked at twelve times a year, down to twice a year for minor roads and cycleways

Identified defects are given a rating on a five point scale depending on the IMPACT/SEVERITY that could result from an incident, this is then enterered into a matrix which takes into account the PROBABILITY of something happening. Thus a dangerous pothole on a main road could get a 12+ which warrants urgent action, but the same pothole on a country lane could get a rating of 1-4 which means "Put it on the do later list". This explains why the roads we use as cyclists are getting worse.

The Local Council Claims page seems quite  proud that they pay out on very few claims. - to paraphrase: "Potholes are a fact of life" - "We have robust procedures in place" - "You have to prove we were negligent" - "By not paying out we are saving taxpayers money"

What's not to like?

A risk comes from a combination of a hazard (pothole) and potential consequences (as said below, anything from road-rash to death). If the council is relying on the fortunate outcome of this particular event to declare that the risk is negligible, then woe betide them if someone else has a similar fall but this time is run over (and doubly so if a child is involved). (I realise this is a simplification, but....) how much can it really cost to send someone down there to chuck a bucket of tar in to fill the hole? Compared to the potential law suit (not that I'm suggesting someone should take a ride down there and have a similar fall from hitting the pot hole, of course) I'd suspect it would be a few quid well spent.

As also said below, the risk assessment is probably based on potential claims for damage to motor vehicles, against which the minor issue of a potential KSI stat is small beer (at least, until that law suit hits their desk).

BTW, for comparison, a number of years ago my wife wrote off two car wheel rims when she hit a pothole at the edge of the road. The council denied liability as they didn't know about the pothole, but it was repaired the next day!

Most Highway Authorities work to a 50mm depth criteria for a carriageway defect to be  classed as safety critical and hence require say a more urgent repair. This could be a 2hr or 3day response depending on location and circumstances which would be risk assessed by the Highway Inspector in accordance with their written Highway Management Plan. As a any cyclist knows, such a defect could have you off and the consequences range from road rash to death. Unfortunately,  the criteria are based on insurance/Court  outcomes and avaible budgets. Given the poor state of our highway network, we know only too well how a small surface defect can rapidly turn into a large pothole. I spent 43 years in Highway Maintenance and sadly have only seen the situation deteriorate. My only advice is to keep a good lookout when riding and report defects, all local authorities have an online reporting system and refer to the defect as"hazardous for cyclists". This makes it very difficult for them to then deny that they were aware of the issue. 

 Happy and safe riding all!

I've cycled along Paisley Crescent on occassion. I don't know which particular pothole this gentleman came a cropper on, but my recollection of the road is that it's not too bad. Certainly there are many, many roads in Edinburgh with more frequent and more substantial potholes than I can recall seeing on Paisley Crescent.

Any pothole is a danger to a cyclist and a pothole only gets worse so the council should be repairing it, but maybe they see that as an admission that it is an issue?

A picture of the offending hole would be helpful.

No risk to safety of motorised four wheeled vehicles!