# Injury after hitting pothole



## ushills (18 Apr 2012)

Suffered a fairly serious injury today following hitting a pothole and loosing the front wheel. 

Trip to A&E followed by neck and spine x-rays, then up to facial ward to have lip repaired. Two teeth gone and one suspect. 

What should I do next, contact solicitor and go for council or HA.


----------



## PK99 (18 Apr 2012)

ushills said:


> Suffered a fairly serious injury today following hitting a pothole and loosing the front wheel.
> 
> Trip to A&E followed by neck and spine x-rays, then up to facial ward to have lip repaired. Two teeth gone and one suspect.
> 
> What should I do next, contact solicitor and go for council or HA.


 
Contact solicitor asap. - russel jones and walker, the CTC linked firm, gave me very good service

Also, go back to the scene asap and photograph the pothole with something in shot to give it scale. Plus knock the doors of close-by houses and ask if they know how long the pothole has been there. Check the CTC pothole reporting site also.


----------



## ushills (18 Apr 2012)

Photo, warning


----------



## ColinJ (18 Apr 2012)

Bad luck ushills - I wish you luck in this situation, and a good recovery.

You may be interested in reading this report on a local cyclist's case!


----------



## ianrauk (18 Apr 2012)

PK99 said:


> Contact solicitor asap. - russel jones and walker, the CTC linked firm, gave me very good service
> 
> Also, go back to the scene asap and photograph the pothole with something in shot to give it scale. Plus knock the doors of close-by houses and ask if they know how long the pothole has been there. Check the CTC pothole reporting site also.


 

+1 for Russel Jones & Walker.
They are dealing with my case (SMIDSY) at the moment and seem to be very good.
If you are with CTC then the service is free. If you are not CTC then you can join and use the service retrospectively,


----------



## rusky (18 Apr 2012)

Ouch, I had a very similar accident when I was 17. Steerer snapped & I went over the bars. Lost 2 teeth, buggered lip, fractured hand etc. 

GWS.


----------



## Boris Bajic (18 Apr 2012)

Get Well Soon. 

It is unpleasant to have a crash like that.

I'm not sure why people are advising you to claim.

There will always be potholes. Some will be larger than others. 

Ghastly things happen.

I wouldn't be onto a solicitor if i were you, but I imagine the majority will think me wrong.

All the best with your recovery and don't let these things put you off cycling.


----------



## rusky (18 Apr 2012)

If the road wasn't in such a poor state or repair he wouldn't have posted. 

I take it you don't bother with buildings or contents insurance either since ghastly things happen.


----------



## screenman (18 Apr 2012)

Why did you ride into a pothole, what happened to make you fall off? Have you ridden that road before? was you not aware that there might have been potholes and adjusted your riding style accordingly, do you think the hole could possibly been avoided, where you wearing a helmet. This is just a few of the questions you may be asked to answer.

I wish you good speed with your recovery and hope that it has not put you off cycling.

Would I claim, no way I would have accepted it as an accident that I contributed towards. When every body starts paying considerable more tax and the weather stops changing we may then have silky smooth roads, up till that time accept the conditions and ride to suit.


----------



## Boris Bajic (18 Apr 2012)

rusky said:


> If the road wasn't in such a poor state or repair he wouldn't have posted.
> 
> I take it you don't bother with buildings or contents insurance either since ghastly things happen.


 
I hope the OP gets well soon and am sorry he had a crash.

I'm not sure how your home-insurance question fits in with my suggestion. Insofar as there is a link, it is tenuous. 

I have buildings and contents cover; I also have a framed portrait of Tito in my workshop and a tea cosy that I often wear on my head to amuse guests. 

I'm not sure how any of the above facts are connected with my stance on claiming from the local authority after hiting a pothole.

I wouldn't do it. Many would.


----------



## rusky (18 Apr 2012)

You stated that "ghastly things happen". So presumably if you were positioning a ladder, slipped & dropped it on your conservatory you wouldn't claim on your buildings insurance?

If the road was in a good state of repair the accident would not have happened. The LA/highways agency is responsible for the roads & there was a pothole that caused personal injury (& presumably damage to property)


----------



## growingvegetables (18 Apr 2012)

Ouch - get well soon. And +1 on using a solicitor.

And for Boris - you may well be in (the unusual) position of having a local authority which has adequately maintained the road surfaces for which it is responsible over the last couple of winters. I (and the OP) obviously don't.

They fail in their responsibilities? Their decision to cut corners, their decision to take risks with taxpayers' trust --- so they take the consequences.


----------



## screenman (18 Apr 2012)

If people stopped claiming for accidents that could have been avoided maybe we would have better roads.


----------



## rusky (18 Apr 2012)

If we had better roads maybe people would stop claiming for accidents.


----------



## Boris Bajic (18 Apr 2012)

rusky said:


> You stated that "ghastly things happen". So presumably if you were positioning a ladder, slipped & dropped it on your conservatory you wouldn't claim on your buildings insurance?
> 
> If the road was in a good state of repair the accident would not have happened. The LA/highways agency is responsible for the roads & there was a pothole that caused personal injury (& presumably damage to property)


 
Ummm.... Ghastly things do happen. I didn't make that up. It's not my fault or that of my insurer.

I don't have a conservatory. If I did and if I thought the damage worth making a claim on, I'd contact my insurer. 

In the past I have damaged bicycles, a car and a motorcycle on poor road surfaces. I put it down on each occasion to bad luck or inattention on my part.

I do not begin to understand how you make the presumption in your second sentence (above) on the basis of the content of your first. Presumably you do.... 

I don't agree with the idea of claiming from local authorities for pothole damage. Many do. I was just giving a view.


----------



## Banjo (18 Apr 2012)

Hope your injuries heal quickly Ushills. Personally I treat potholes a yet another thing to keep an eye out for. Cash strapped councils have to make hard decisions where to spend the council tax payers money. Not saying you are wrong in considering claiming , just saying there are two sides to this and give it some thought.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (18 Apr 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> I'm not sure why people are advising you to claim.
> There will always be potholes. Some will be larger than others.
> Ghastly things happen.


 
From a health and safety poster at work: "accidents are caused, they do not happen"
Ok, maybe this is a wee bit over simplified, accidents will happen even if you take precautions, but a pothole big enough to cause a cyclist to loose a front wheel should at least have a hazard cone on it, or something. Could this size of pothole not damage also a car?
Potholes are not an act of God (insurance term). Council tax, or whatever tax revenue allocate to road damage, is high enough to expect us to have ghastly road surface related things fixed asp.
Best wishes, Ushills, for a speedy recovery. Yes, claim their socks off if you can, why not try to get some of the money that you will need for the dentist and the bike.


----------



## rusky (18 Apr 2012)

Also bear in mind that the NHS will only offer you a denture for the missing teeth so if you want implants or a bridge you'll have to pay privately & it's likely to cost around £500 a tooth.


----------



## screenman (18 Apr 2012)

I have known people fall off bikes on nice flat smooth roads, how big was the pothole? a hole big enough to damage a wheel was big enough to see.

I have a good idea and it does not involve turnips, why not all those supporting a claim just send the guy a donation, because your tax bills are going to be increasing in line with the amount of claims you are encouraging.

I blame the USA for this stupid litigation society.


----------



## ColinJ (19 Apr 2012)

I am quite happy for Calderdale council to stop sending out full-colour brochures several times a year telling us what they are spending our money on, and I would like them to spend the money on fixing the roads instead!

As for claiming for damage caused by potholes ... This is _not_ the same as 'the ladder manufacturer didn't tell me that falling off ladders is dangerous'-type claims. It is a way of forcing councils to face up to their moral and legal obligations.

I got one extremely dangerous local pothole fixed by threatening to expose the council concerned if anybody was injured hitting it after I'd reported it. That hole was hidden by the camber and increasing slope of the road until the very last second and it was bang in the middle of the line that cyclists take on an extremely fast descent. It was about as bad as they come. The hole had been marked by the council but had remained unfilled for over a year and had got bigger and bigger in that time. They did nothing about it, despite being aware of its existence. My threats got it filled in 24 hours and I consider that a proper use of council taxpayers money - the council will not now risk spending £5,000,000 on a lifetime of carers for a quadriplegic ex-cyclist who hit that hole - it no longer exists.


----------



## jowwy (19 Apr 2012)

If you had hit that pothole on your car, which caused you to puncture the tyre and crash. Would you claim then or would you put it down to pathetic driving and lack of observation.

I would say it was the latter, some questions should be asked in relation to the accident at hand, but forget about the obvious helmet question as its irrelavent.


----------



## numbnuts (19 Apr 2012)

Get well soon


----------



## Paul J (19 Apr 2012)

Sounds nasty  I think most of us have hit a pothole at some time and injured ourselves to a greater or lesser extent. Would you expect to be paid if it was raining and you slipped on a drain lid blaming the council for installing it. Roads are supplied for us to use, how we use them is our responsibility.


----------



## RoyPSB (19 Apr 2012)

If I was looking at potentially thousands of pounds in repairs, dental bills etc. I would definitely be claiming. Most of us don't have that sort of disposable income/savings.


----------



## ushills (19 Apr 2012)

Thanks for all the replies positive and negative, to answer some questions I was wearing a helmet, I was watching out for potholes and wasn't zooming through the water and holes carelessly.

The one I hit was on a regular route and partially hidden due to a rain puddle, I passed the bulk of the puddle in the middle of the road about 2inches into the edge of the water and that was the problem having gone back today the hole is around 6-9 inches deep and you can just see the white paint where they are planning to repair it at some point. TBH I didn't expect a hole to be that close to the edge.

In this picture the pothole is the closest one, not the large flood, and I was in the middle of the road mindful of the road conditions well away from the edges and perceived hazards.






The next is a close-up of the hole and the white paint.


----------



## Alun (19 Apr 2012)

Paul J said:


> Sounds nasty  I think most of us have hit a pothole at some time and injured ourselves to a greater or lesser extent. Would you expect to be paid if it was raining and you slipped on a drain lid blaming the council for installing it. Roads are supplied for us to use, how we use them is our responsibility.


It's is the council's responsibility to repair potholes, as they are defects. A drain lid is a different matter,it is not a defect. If however the drain lid was missing, or raised/sunken it might be then be the council's responsibility.
If I remember the law on negligence correctly, is there a duty of care owed, has that duty been broken, has loss/injury been suffered?
Hope the OP recovers soon.


----------



## I like Skol (19 Apr 2012)

I'm sorry to the OP but seeing your pictures I still side with the no claim stance here. That doesn't look like an A road or even a B road, it looks like a minor country lane and puddles tend to collect in hollows and potholes.I don't think it is unreasonable to expect a road user to slow down to a speed suitable to the conditions. It seems you rode through standing water on a clearly uneven back road without considering the possibility of pot holes being concealed. In fact, I could almost take the view that you recklessly ASSUMED that the road surface you couldn't see was in good condition.

Sh*t happens, learn from your mistake and get on with your life?

EDITED for spelling


----------



## fossyant (19 Apr 2012)

I must add you'll be lucky if the council even consider it.


----------



## Alun (19 Apr 2012)

I had assumed that it was a more major road until I saw the photos, however 6/9 inches is a substantial hole which the council seem to have been aware if they marked it in white paint, but on the other hand if it's on a "regular route" perhaps the OP should have been aware of the road's condition and this might affect the result of any claim.


----------



## jowwy (19 Apr 2012)

ushills said:


> Thanks for all the replies positive and negative, to answer some questions I was wearing a helmet, I was watching out for potholes and wasn't zooming through the water and holes carelessly.
> 
> The one I hit was on a regular route and partially hidden due to a rain puddle, I passed the bulk of the puddle in the middle of the road about 2inches into the edge of the water and that was the problem having gone back today the hole is around 6-9 inches deep and you can just see the white paint where they are planning to repair it at some point. TBH I didn't expect a hole to be that close to the edge.
> 
> ...


 i'm sorry mate but looking at those pictures - i would side with the council - its a b road with puddles, that you rode straight through without due care and attention.

was there anyone else on the road? why didn't you go down the middle avoiding the puddle?


----------



## ushills (19 Apr 2012)

The standing water was not as bad as that yesterday, however, I did travel slowly though the first section (furthest away in the photo) and expecting potholes traveled slowly in the middle of the road towards the camera past the second (nearest the camera) I was traveling approx 10mph and must have just clipped the marked edge of pothole (bottom edge of second photo) that resulted in my wheel dropping into the hole turning the bars to 90 degrees and stopping the bike instantly.

I dread to think what may have happened had I been traveling quicker, however, while I may have expected some bumpyness which is common round here I think it is unacceptable for a hole that big to be left for anytime especially when the Local Council were clearly aware of it. As someone has already said without any warnings and at night someone or I could have been killed or more seriously injured especially if it is in the middle of the road and liable to being obscured by water.

I have spoken to the CTC who are getting a solicitor to call me back and to be honest if the damage to my teeth and face wasn't so extensive I may have chalked it up to experience. However, I am an experienced cyclist an took every effort to avoid an accident short of getting of and walking the entire road, however, roads are meant to be used by all and IMO should not be in such a state that they can cause injuries like I have suffered.

I do not race, I do not go fast and I don't take risks other than trying to enjoy a leisurely ride in our countryside and do not expect to suffer severe injuries and significant costs in dental repair due to shoddy road upkeep.


----------



## ushills (19 Apr 2012)

To give a bit more clarity please see the attached, as stated before yesterday the road was not so flooded and I would have walked through the first if it had been like that. The second nearest the camera is the one that got me and I took what I thought was an appropriate line.


----------



## ushills (19 Apr 2012)

jowwy said:


> ...why didn't you go down the middle avoiding the puddle?


 
Now posted photo showing location of pothole (red circle), I was in the middle and traveling towards the camera following the white line.


----------



## fatblokish (19 Apr 2012)

I think that you should claim. Whether the council accepts liability may ulitimately be irrelevant as that will become a matter for the court to decide.

You may find http://www.potholes.co.uk/claims/step_by_step_guide of use; there are other site with similar material. I would say your case will be hugely strenghtened if the council became aware of the existence of the defect, which clearly it has as evidenced by the presence of white paint, and then did not remedy it within either its own or nationally recommended timescales.

IIRC the council has a statutory defence if it can prove it has in place a suitable roads maintenance programme *and* adheres to the requirements of this programme, never mind whether it knew about the hole or not. In this regard the classification of the road is an irrelevance.


----------



## jowwy (19 Apr 2012)

ushills said:


> To give a bit more clarity please see the attached, as stated before yesterday the road was not so flooded and I would have walked through the first if it had been like that. The second nearest the camera is the one that got me and I took what I thought was an appropriate line.


So if the road was not so flooded how did you not see the pothole with a white circle around it???


----------



## Dragonwight (19 Apr 2012)

Like many others have said on here if the council were aware of the pothole then they are liable for the defect in which case I would sue them if they were not then they most likely are not liable. You need to know when they inspected the road last and check to see if any defects have been reported. In addition I would check Google Streetview if the hole has been there for eons it might show up on there. Its a long shot but it worked for my neighbour when I suggested it after he damaged his car.


----------



## Boris Bajic (19 Apr 2012)

There's a massive difference between *"It's your right"* and *"It's the right thing to do"*.

If the lanes in my county were kept entirely free of potholes, I'd think my Council Tax was being poorly spent.

I feel slightly queasy after reading the number of posts by people who think it's a good idea to go for a payment.

It may be something I ate, but I doubt it.


----------



## fatblokish (19 Apr 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> There's a massive difference between *"It's your right"* and *"It's the right thing to do"*.
> 
> If the lanes in my county were kept entirely free of potholes, I'd think my Council Tax was being poorly spent.
> 
> ...


 
In civil proceedings it is not called a payment; it is called compensation. With good reason.


----------



## jowwy (19 Apr 2012)

fatblokish said:


> In civil proceedings it is not called a payment; it is called compensation. With good reason.


why is it with good reason.....

having read this thread and posted questions, i'm still questioning what case the OP has here.....

he was cycling along his regular route, at a slowish 10mph speed, in the middle of the road, being aware of the wet conditions and looking for potholes........yet he still managed to hit a pothole that was in the middle of the road, with a white circle around it, and in his own words, *"THE ROAD WASN'T AS FLOODED AS IN THE PICTURES"*

specsavers anyone


----------



## Red Light (19 Apr 2012)

ushills said:


> Thanks for all the replies positive and negative, to answer some questions I was wearing a helmet



Yes but you were not wearing it on your chin were you?


----------



## ushills (19 Apr 2012)

To be honest if I'd fallen off going round a corner too fast or slipped on a surface due to speed I would not be inclined to claim. I used to fall off when road and closed circuit racing but that was mostly expected and went with the competition.

However, I was cycling appropriately for the conditions and being careful due to the conditions, the hole was obscured by surface water that obscured the white marking.

I am inclined to claim as I'm looking at around 1500-2000 in dental cost and TBH am unlikely to cycle on the road again due to the impact this has had on my family and children. My daughter has been in tears since and has not seen her dad like this before.

Had the pothole been filled or not been there I would still be intact and happy to enjoy my hobby in blissful ignorance of what could have happened


----------



## ushills (19 Apr 2012)

Red Light said:


> Yes but you were not wearing it on your chin were you?


True, but you should see the marking and bruising on my head even though I was wearing a helmet and my glasses undoubtedly saved my eyesight and the left lens is peppered with scratches.


----------



## rusky (19 Apr 2012)

jowwy said:


> So if the road was not so flooded how did you not see the pothole with a white circle around it???


Looking at the close up, it's not clear the hole is marked even in you know what you are looking at.


----------



## fatblokish (19 Apr 2012)

jowwy said:


> why is it with good reason.....
> 
> having read this thread and posted questions, i'm still questioning what case the OP has here.....
> 
> ...


 
....because it is paid to compensate the claimant for loss, injury, or harm suffered as a result of another's breach of duty.


If, as you seem to imply, the OP was in some way partially responsible for the fall he/she suffered, then no doubt this will be taken into account should the OP bring about a claim. This is called contributory negligence. Of equal importance, and perhaps more so, are the elements that you seem to overlook namely the Highway Authority's (let's assume it was the Council) own behaviour.

The council must know it has a B road under its responsibility and that this B road is less well used than others, therefore reporting of faults by the road users themselves may be less reliable than on more heavily trafficked roads. Did it increase its surveillance accordingly?
What is the previous history of road defects on this road and how can it demonstrate that it responded accordingly?
In the Councils experience do B roads suffer from standing water more than other roads, and if so how does it ensure that defects hidden by such water are found and remedied?
How long had the Council known about this defect? How long was the white paint around the pothole? Did the Council remedy the defect within the appropriate timescales? Does the Council have sufficient resources to maintain the highway in a suitable state of repair? etc

These are only some of the questions that will be asked of the Council.

Obviously we have heard only from the OP but it is important to understand that there will be two sides to this tale so why not let justice takes its course? If it is found that the OP was partially negligent then the damages will be reduced accordingly.

Incidentally, to the OP, should you decide to claim I suggest that you do not reveal any more evidence on this forum lest it be found and misinterpreted.


----------



## MrJamie (19 Apr 2012)

You could probably do with a photo showing the depth of the pothole if it really is 6-9 inches deep, im not sure if it makes a difference for compensation but imho theres a difference between the many shallow potholes we learn to expect destabalizing a fast roadie and a wheel grabbing crater in what youd expect to be the shallow edge of the puddle. I wonder if it would be safe for motorbikes racing down that stretch of road.


----------



## Boris Bajic (19 Apr 2012)

1814405 said:


> Do we not deserve decent roads?


 
I don't know whether we deserve them. They can certainly improve our perception of the quality of our life, which is not a bad thing. 

I do not consider potholed roads as shown in the OP's pics to be deeply substandard; nor am I above making the same gaffe as the OP.

About fifteen years ago I threw myself off an MTB at speed while sprinting (for my own safety?) past the westbound exit ramp of the highway between Sarajevo and Ilidza. Thieves had removed a drain cover and my front wheel stopped unexpectedly. It was quite terrifying - rush hour traffic, stair rods of rain, standing water and a driving population unused to bicycles. I didn't get hit (not sure how) but smashed the glass of a dress watch, lost the skin on various joints, lost my lamps and put an amusing gouge on my right cheek that's still visible when I tan. 

I knew very well that drain and inspection covers were being half-inched. Everyone knew it. I also knew that only a fool would ride that section of the highway. I took the risk as I had on many other days and it failed to pay off. Needless to say, I did not present myself at the municipal office with a claim. 

In the case described by the OP, I do not think there is a case. Many clearly think there is. I know a guy who once complaied in a creperie because the yolk of the egg in his galette was broken. He got a new one and moaned throughout the meal. It was his right. He deserved a complete yolk. I loved my meal and haven't eaten out with him since.


----------



## rusky (19 Apr 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> I don't know whether we deserve them. They can certainly improve our perception of the quality of our life, which is not a bad thing.
> 
> I do not consider potholed roads as shown in the OP's pics to be deeply substandard; nor am I above making the same gaffe as the OP.
> 
> ...


 
So you were riding in the gutter which (IIRC) is not considered part of the highway.


----------



## ushills (19 Apr 2012)

rusky said:


> So you were riding in the gutter which (IIRC) is not considered part of the highway.


 
Unlike the middle of the road where my pothole was concealed.


----------



## ushills (19 Apr 2012)

Not making any more comments on here due to forthcoming legal action.


----------



## fossyant (19 Apr 2012)

ushills said:


> Not making any more comments on here due to forthcoming legal action.


 
Best of luck !!


----------



## Dragonwight (19 Apr 2012)

ushills said:


> Not making any more comments on here due to forthcoming legal action.


 
Yer good luck and dont get fobbed off by their insurance company.


----------



## Boris Bajic (19 Apr 2012)

rusky said:


> So you were riding in the gutter which (IIRC) is not considered part of the highway.


 
 Technically, yes. But I'd just sprinted past the broken line on the right of the nearside lane, marking the exit sliproad of a fast dual carriageway.

In those days and in that part of the world many drivers considered the pavement the place to cycle. Being on the road at all was an act of faith.

There was standing water that made road position hard to judge and trucks were putting a lot of that water into my face, eyes and mouth.

I happily confess that I was not riding as the HC would advise me to, which up to a point was my point. I was taking a risk and I paid for it.

I could perhaps have invoked my rights as a road user and moved to my left.... I think I'd make a nice radiator ornament on the nose of a Scania, but I might have started to smell after a while.

As it is I was silly and paid a small price. Which I didn't try to claim back from anyone.


----------



## I like Skol (19 Apr 2012)

ushills said:


> Not making any more comments on here due to forthcoming legal action.


 
Bloody cyclists, give us cyclists a bad name!!!


----------



## theclaud (19 Apr 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> In the case described by the OP, I do not think there is a case. Many clearly think there is. I know a guy who once complaied in a creperie because the yolk of the egg in his galette was broken. He got a new one and moaned throughout the meal. It was his right. He deserved a complete yolk. I loved my meal and haven't eaten out with him since.


 
I'm sure this entirely irrelevant anecdote is of enormous interest to someone. Actually, I'm not sure of that at all - I'm just being nice. Anyway, when you've finished trivialising what was clearly a painful and traumatic incident that happened to somebody else, you might like to reflect on the fact that not everyone is inclined to read your parables as repositories of wisdom or examples of moral superiority. I'd say a bit more about how they _do_ come across, but like I said, I'm being nice...


----------



## jowwy (19 Apr 2012)

ushills said:


> Unlike the middle of the road where my pothole was concealed.


from the pic you posted i dont think the pothole was concealed IMO


----------



## Boris Bajic (19 Apr 2012)

theclaud said:


> I'm sure this entirely irrelevant anecdote is of enormous interest to someone. Actually, I'm not sure of that at all - I'm just being nice. Anyway, when you've finished trivialising what was clearly a painful and traumatic incident that happened to somebody else, you might like to reflect on the fact that not everyone is inclined to read your parables as repositories of wisdom or examples of moral superiority. I'd say a bit more about how they _do_ come across, but like I said, I'm being nice...


 
Ha ha ha. Yes. Quite right. Spot on.

I'd already offered my best wishes and my sympathy to the OP. It sounds a ghastly crash. However, I think claiming over this sort of thing inappropriate. Many don't.

No moral superiority from me. I can't afford it.

Happily (or not) I've got to the age where there is little left in life but the tired anecdote and the fading memory of past vigour. Your posts suggest to me that you have not. I whitter online because I'm too old to do much else. I imagine you are not.

It's just a guess, but I'd say late twenties or early thirties and dreaming of a huge career in something creative and literary that hasn't really left its provincial and underfunded launchpad, despite great enthusiasm and maybe even some talent.

There must be more amusing targets out there for your thoroughly nice comments. I love the attention, but you can do better.

If you want to be nice online, there are no bigger, softer or easier targets than me. It will do your reputation no good to keep indulging your passion for shooting fish in a barrel.


----------



## I like Skol (19 Apr 2012)

Let me tell you a story. Back in 1998 I bought my first brand new car at the age of 25. It was a silver VW Polo 16V, 100BHP in silver. A beautiful car that went well but also drove nicely. It had alloy wheels with sporty tyres (low profile but not stupidly skinny ones). About 2 months after buying it I clipped a pothole while negotiating a mini roundabout which put a tiny scratch in the alloy rim but more importantly, damaged the tyre wall reducing the tyre to scrap with only a couple of thousand miles on the clock. After a trip to the nearest tyre bay I discovered the tyre was a bit of an odd ball size and not particularly cheap as it wasn't a popular/common size so of course it was over £100.

Did I get on the phone to the local council to complain about how their shoddily maintained roads had damaged my car? Did I demand recompense, the head of the chief highways engineer on a spike and threaten legal action? No, I simply accepted that I had been a twonk who should have driven more slowly, taken more care and watched were I was bloody going. Some you have to chalk down to experience.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (19 Apr 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> I whitter online because I'm too old to do much else.



But you can still ride your bike?


----------



## theclaud (19 Apr 2012)

I like Skol said:


> Let me tell you a story.


Is it too late to say "no, thanks"?


----------



## theclaud (19 Apr 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> Ha ha ha. Yes. Quite right. Spot on.
> 
> *I'd already offered my best wishes and my sympathy to the OP*. It sounds a ghastly crash. However, I think claiming over this sort of thing inappropriate. Many don't.
> 
> ...


 
You needn't have bothered. Certain things - condolences, commiserations, apologies - should be unconditional and unqualified, or they aren't worth the paper they're printed on (if you'll excuse the confused metaphor). Likewise, if one is determined to be critical, obnoxious and deeply unsympathetic, then fair enough, but one shouldn't fanny about with niceties and dress it up with faux compliments. Or people might conclude that one is a bit of an arse.


----------



## I like Skol (19 Apr 2012)

theclaud said:


> Is it too late to say "no, thanks"?


 
Yes!


----------



## Crackle (19 Apr 2012)

theclaud said:


> You needn't have bothered. Certain things - condolences, commiserations, apologies - should be unconditional and unqualified, or they aren't worth the paper they're printed on (if you'll excuse the confused metaphor). Likewise, if one is determined to be critical, obnoxious and deeply unsympathetic, then fair enough, but one shouldn't fanny about with niceties and dress it up with faux compliments. Or people might conclude that one is a bit of an arse.


 
For a minute, I really believed the previous post about being nice.....just for a minute though.


----------



## theclaud (19 Apr 2012)

Crackle said:


> For a minute, I really believed the previous post about being nice.....just for a minute though.


 
I _am_ being nice. But it's a particular kind of nice.


----------



## srw (19 Apr 2012)

theclaud said:


> I _am_ being nice. But it's a particular kind of nice.


Nice like the distinction between precise and accurate?


----------



## Boris Bajic (19 Apr 2012)

theclaud said:


> You needn't have bothered. Certain things - condolences, commiserations, apologies - should be unconditional and unqualified, or they aren't worth the paper they're printed on (if you'll excuse the confused metaphor). Likewise, if one is determined to be critical, obnoxious and deeply unsympathetic, then fair enough, but one shouldn't fanny about with niceties and dress it up with faux compliments. Or people might conclude that one is a bit of an arse.


 
My commiserations and sympathy for the OP were unqualified. No niceties; no faux compliments. The discussion went on from there. It's a cycling forum.

I am (as you imply) a colossal and pompous arse and have been reminded regularly of this for many years by those who love me.

I'm not sure why you posted fairly mean-spirited invective on this forum against my anecdotal style of writing. I really am a soft target and there must be more challenging things for you to get your teeth into. And I really am too old to offer much more than anecdotes. 

My guesses about your approximate age and chosen path in life went unanswered. Is that because I was right? If I was right, is that what is making you cross? If I was and if it is, I wish you better luck in times to come.

I am happy with being an arse and have had decades to get used to it. 

If it turns out that you're one too (I have no idea whether you are) then just enjoy it and live with it. If you're not, all the better.


----------



## theclaud (19 Apr 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> My guesses about your approximate age and chosen path in life went unanswered. Is that because I was right? If I was right, is that what is making you cross?


 
I have rarely known you to be right about anything, and let's just say you're running true to form.


----------



## screenman (19 Apr 2012)

Hands on hearts guys,who has reported the 100+ pot holes they rode past this week. Hmmm! thought not.


----------



## Tim Hall (19 Apr 2012)

Not all of them, but this thread did prompt me to report a real biggie I saw yesterday. Looking on the Fillthathole website I think it's been reported before. Which is kind of interesting.


----------



## ColinJ (19 Apr 2012)

I'm pretty shocked by some of the _blame-the-victim_ posts in this thread!

No sensible person likes the _'I stubbed my toe on a crack in the pavement so I'm calling InjuryLawyers4U'_ attitude***, but saying that potholes are a hazard which we should put up with, and by implication that councils are free to ignore, is just plain wrong!

Damaged roads are going to have to be fixed_ one day_ or the entire road system will eventually fall apart. If councils ignore potholes now because they say they can't afford to fix them, then they not only will end up having to pay compensation to victims of accidents, but they will also have much bigger repair bills in the future.

If councils took some of the council tax and housing benefit claimants off the dole and paid them to fix those roads then they'd be receiving more council tax and be saving a lot of money that they currently pay out for broken teeth, broken necks and broken vehicles!

I didn't think it was possible for a council to make Calderdale council's inadequate road maintenance efforts look good, but the council in Coventry succeeded! The road surfaces there make Calderdale's look like billiard tables.

On one family visit I went out for a ride on my bike in Coventry, and yes - I could see that the roads were awful. I'd spotted that 5 inch deep pothole in front of me. I was skirting round the 3 inch pothole to the side of that. I was riding slowly and I had my wits about me.

But then a white van came hurtling round a bend halfway across my side of the road. I had nowhere to go but into the puddle at the side of the road which I had suspected might contain a pothole. It did. A f'kin' great big, front-wheel swallowing hole which stopped my bike dead! I nearly endoed, but used my right knee on the bars and my nuts on the stem as brakes. It hurt!

I was absolutely livid, both with WVM for driving like a complete pillock, and with the council's neglect of the roads. No - I _didn't_ take them to court ... what would I say - _"My balls hurt!"_ - but I tell you one thing - if I'd ripped my nuts off, then I'd have sued them for every penny I could get! If that meant _dave r_'s council tax going up slightly, then sorry dave - perhaps it would make the buggers look after the roads properly!

Nobody in their right mind would argue that it was okay for a council building to have a missing tread on a staircase, and that if somebody tripped and broke their neck, then tough - they should look where they were going, but that is the argument being used about potholes.



***I was in a friend's car once when he was involved in a low-speed multiple pile-up. He told me later that he had a stiff neck so he was going to claim for a whiplash injury. I wasn't impressed and told him so. I also refused to claim for my non-existent injury, though he wanted me to because it would have supported his claim that we'd been hit rather hard.


----------



## Red Light (19 Apr 2012)

I think your accident got caught on camera


----------



## ColinJ (19 Apr 2012)

He should have watched where he was going!!


----------



## screenman (20 Apr 2012)

How many extra staff would the councils need to hire to fill every pot hole that appeared, where would the money come from.


----------



## rusky (20 Apr 2012)

screenman said:


> How many extra staff would the councils need to hire to fill every pot hole that appeared, where would the money come from.


If road maintenance was done properly; none.


----------



## screenman (20 Apr 2012)

Have you been to Lincolnshire, we have teams working flat out and know way can the get on top of the job. It would take a lot more staff and cost a lot more money, the latter one we are short of.


----------



## Boris Bajic (20 Apr 2012)

ColinJ said:


> I'm pretty shocked by some of the _blame-the-victim_ posts in this thread!


 
I may be part of what you see as that. It's not a case of blaming the road user or victim (a word I wouldn't use in this context). It's a case of *not* blaming the local authority. I don't see why there has to be any blame here.

Your point (not quoted in full) is extremely well argued. Many, many people are of your mind on this. I disagree with you, as do a few others. That doesn't mean I blame the road user.

I don't point a finger of blame at the road user who suffers injury and whose vehicle needs expensive repairs. That is not a nice place to be, as I've found out to my own cost more than once. It is most unpleasant to lie bleeding and bruised next to scattered lamp and bike parts because a deep hole was obscured by water. 

I don't live in some freshly-tarmacced Utopia. I still have to look out for potholes. I pay an enormous amount of Council Tax and on the whole I think it is well spent. All organisations slip up here and there. I tend towards cutting them some slack. 

That doesn't mean I blame the victim. I may speak for others who appear to fall into that category.


----------



## screenman (20 Apr 2012)

I do not think there was a way without getting behind, we never had the manpower nor the money. Do not get me wrong I would love super smooth roads, however I am also a realist.


----------



## Dragonwight (20 Apr 2012)

Tim Hall said:


> Not all of them, but this thread did prompt me to report a real biggie I saw yesterday. Looking on the Fillthathole website I think it's been reported before. Which is kind of interesting.


 
I have used Fillthathole as well and my local council didnt fill in a single hole that I reported using it. When I used the council website direct the holes were all filled in within 5 working days which i was fairly impressed by although you can be sure looking at the standard of repair that they will reappear in 6 months.


----------



## I like Skol (20 Apr 2012)

I don’t want to be blamed of ‘blaming’ the OP but this thread is bugging me due to the inconsistencies it contains



ushills said:


> The one I hit was on a regular route and partially hidden........


So the OP regularly rode this route and the hole was only partially hidden!!! Does this mean that despite having prior knowledge of the roads condition and the hole being partially visible to a road user who took the care to travel at an appropriate speed and with due diligence, the OP still rode into it inflicting his injuries in the process?



screenman said:


> Hands on hearts guys,who has reported the 100+ pot holes they rode past this week. Hmmm! thought not.


I wondered about this point before you brought it up. If the OP uses the route regularly as stated, did it never occur to him that such a hole might be a danger to someone and should perhaps be reported?




ColinJ said:


> I'm pretty shocked by some of the _blame-the-victim_ posts in this thread!





ColinJ said:


> Nobody in their right mind would argue that it was okay for a council building to have a missing tread on a staircase, and that if somebody tripped and broke their neck, then tough - they should look where they were going, but that is the argument being used about potholes.


Colin, this is a spurious argument. Would you reasonably expect the stairs in a public building (or any other for that matter) to have a missing tread? Would it be reasonable to expect a minor country road with a known poor surface to have bad potholes at the end of winter and after rain and bad weather? The two cases do not merit comparison.

I don’t think anyone on this forum is blaming the OP and we all accept his injuries are horrific and unfortunate but, in all honesty, he has had an ‘accident’ or made a misjudgement (call it what you will) and I don’t think morally he has the right to try and lay the blame at the councils or highways agency door. 



ushills said:


> ......to be honest if the damage to my teeth and face wasn't so extensive I may have chalked it up to experience. However, I .......do not expect to suffer severe injuries and significant costs in dental repair due to shoddy road upkeep.


The severity of the injuries or the financial loss suffered is irrelevant! Either you believe it is someone else’s fault and you will pursue them regardless or you accept it was your own personal mistake and take it on the chin, which is it? The statement I quote here stinks of greed and the blame and claim culture, it suggests that maybe you have cocked up in a big way and now you are fishing around for someone else to pick up your bill! Even if you had ridden through the hole and emerged out of the other side unscathed do you not think that you still had a duty to inform the council and make sure the defect was being dealt with?


----------



## jowwy (20 Apr 2012)

the reason i stand by my comments are for this reason

i myself sustained injury when going over a bridge recently that was metal gridded and filled with chippings, over the winter the rain, ice and snow had removed the chippings and left the metal grid. on the morning i crashed it had been raining, the grid was wet and slippery and i lost the back end of the bike, hit the bridge pillar, smashed my gears, ripped my leggings, sustained large amounts of road rash down my legs............but i could see the metal grid and i could see that it was wet, so who is to blame???........the council for not laying more chippings over the bridge or me for riding over that bridge, not at an excessive speed and losing control...

from the pictures posted by the OP, he could see the puddles, he could see the potholes, but he still managed to hit one..............the route is his _*regular*_ route, i'm guessing he has seen that pothole on more than one occassion in the past, has he ever reported it, has he reported any of the potholes that he said he was avoiding...........

case closed


----------



## dellzeqq (20 Apr 2012)

screenman said:


> Why did you ride into a pothole, what happened to make you fall off? Have you ridden that road before? was you not aware that there might have been potholes and adjusted your riding style accordingly, do you think the hole could possibly been avoided, where you wearing a helmet. This is just a few of the questions you may be asked to answer.
> 
> I wish you good speed with your recovery and hope that it has not put you off cycling.
> 
> Would I claim, no way I would have accepted it as an accident that I contributed towards. When every body starts paying considerable more tax and the weather stops changing we may then have silky smooth roads, up till that time accept the conditions and ride to suit.


this is the first of many such posts that entirely miss the point of the thread. The OP asked a question. The answer came in the next post.


PK99 said:


> Contact solicitor asap. - russel jones and walker, the CTC linked firm, gave me very good service
> 
> Also, go back to the scene asap and photograph the pothole with something in shot to give it scale. Plus knock the doors of close-by houses and ask if they know how long the pothole has been there. Check the CTC pothole reporting site also.


 
The rest is fluff.


----------



## totallyfixed (20 Apr 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> The rest is fluff.


Outrageous statement,......................fluff drives CC.


----------



## dellzeqq (20 Apr 2012)

to be fair, other people agreed with PK99. But, yes, while the fluff can be fun, it's all a bit beside the point


----------



## ColinJ (20 Apr 2012)

As for the argument about the cost of doing repairs ... I have seen the same holes bodge-repaired many times over and the repairs only last a few weeks. The council then adopts the same penny-pinching attitude next time and does shabby repairs again. Each time, the cost of a single repair is less than doing it right, so it looks as though the council is being frugal, but it is a false economy - 10 half price repairs cost 5 times as much as one full-price one!

The hazardous pothole that I reported _was_ repaired properly - probably because I made such a fuss about it. The man who repaired it emailed me a photograph of the repair to confirm that it had been done and to make sure it was the one that I had complained about. That repair is still going strong over 10 years later because it was done properly and that is despite it being in a vulnerable position on a busy A-road.

Councils are _not_ saving tax payers' money long-term by neglecting roads, they are actually only showing very short-term savings. The only way not looking after roads would save money is if they were never repaired again!


----------



## screenman (20 Apr 2012)

How long would it take to fill them all?

ColinJ I live in Lincolnshire believe me I know where you are coming from when talking about bodging, unfortunatley there are very few guys doing thousands of miles of roads.


----------



## Boris Bajic (20 Apr 2012)

screenman said:


> *How long would it take to fill them all?*
> 
> quote]
> 
> ...


----------



## Alun (20 Apr 2012)

ColinJ said:


> As for the argument about the cost of doing repairs ... I have seen the same holes bodge-repaired many times over and the repairs only last a few weeks. The council then adopts the same penny-pinching attitude next time and does shabby repairs again. Each time, the cost of a single repair is less than doing it right, so it looks as though the council is being frugal, but it is a false economy - 10 half price repairs cost 5 times as much as one full-price one!
> 
> The hazardous pothole that I reported _was_ repaired properly - probably because I made such a fuss about it. The man who repaired it emailed me a photograph of the repair to confirm that it had been done and to make sure it was the one that I had complained about. That repair is still going strong over 10 years later because it was done properly and that is despite it being in a vulnerable position on a busy A-road.
> 
> Councils are _not_ saving tax payers' money long-term by neglecting roads, they are actually only showing very short-term savings. The only way not looking after roads would save money is if they were never repaired again!


 
What was the road surface like outside the Dalesman Cafe on the SITD? I initially thought that the surface had been removed ready for replacement, but it wasn't smooth enough for that.

My LA has plenty of tarmac for speedbumps, which sometimes they have to remove again because they've placed them on the apex of a bend.

Didn't the Beatles write a song about potholes, in Blackburn, Lancashire if I'm not mistaken?


----------



## ColinJ (20 Apr 2012)

screenman said:


> How long would it take to fill them all?
> 
> ColinJ I live in Lincolnshire believe me I know where you are coming from when talking about bodging, unfortunatley there are very few guys doing thousands of miles of roads.


Perhaps if the government decided to give the new money that they have recently been conjuring up, to councils to spend on infrastructure improvements, instead of to banks to award to their own staff as bonuses, many thousands of unemployed labourers could be taken off benefits, become taxpayers again, set about sorting this mess out and we could get to ride around on First World roads rather than what are rapidly becoming Third World dirt tracks!


----------



## ColinJ (20 Apr 2012)

Alun said:


> What was the road surface like outside the Dalesman Cafe on the SITD? I initially thought that the surface had been removed ready for replacement, but it wasn't smooth enough for that.


Yes - that was a classic example, wasn't it - we couldn't believe how bad that stretch of road was! I don't know if potsy took any pictures of it? I would have done if I'd had my camera with me. 



Alun said:


> Didn't the Beatles write a song about potholes, in Blackburn, Lancashire if I'm not mistaken?


It was part of _A Day In The Life _from the_ Sgt. Peppers _album (3 min 25 sec into the recording below).


----------



## ColinJ (20 Apr 2012)

1815756 said:


> Careful there, someone will be along to suggest that unemployed school leavers could do it in return for benefits.


Or we could just think of a hip new name for the concept - _'jobs'_ perhaps!


----------



## Gary E (20 Apr 2012)

ColinJ said:


> Or we could just think of a hip new name for the concept - _'jobs'_ perhaps!


*** Favourite post of the day ***


----------



## I like Skol (20 Apr 2012)

Alun said:


> What was the road surface like outside the Dalesman Cafe on the SITD? I initially thought that the surface had been removed ready for replacement, but it wasn't smooth enough for that.


 


ColinJ said:


> Yes - that was a classic example, wasn't it - we couldn't believe how bad that stretch of road was! I don't know if potsy took any pictures of it? I would have done if I'd had my camera with me.


 
Yes but you spotted it due to diligent cycling so rode accordingly, therefore no one got hurt, nothing got damaged and you all continued to enjoy your days cycling?

The argument about whether local authorities are repairing and maintaining our rodes in a prudent and efficient manner is a seperate discusion. I think the point that we are trying to establish here is that we all have a responsibility to act sensibly and safely. Life will never be totaly free from risk (and many will argue that it shouldn't be and would be a dull if it were) but I don't think there is a single member of this forum that doesn't know roads have potholes and expect to encounter them at some point!


----------



## screenman (20 Apr 2012)

In the mean time we ride carefully and expect the unexpected.


----------



## lukesdad (20 Apr 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> this is the first of many such posts that entirely miss the point of the thread. The OP asked a question. The answer came in the next post.
> 
> The rest is fluff.


 
No, you ve missed the point if he'd been watching where he was going the question wouldn't have to be asked would it ?


----------



## Alun (20 Apr 2012)

screenman said:


> In the mean time we ride carefully and expect the unexpected.


It's a nice line, but you can't expect the unexpected, because it wouldn't be unexpected if you did. I don't expect the roads to be as good as in say Majorca, but some are much worse now than I can remember them for many years. I can't help thinking that council's must almost pay out as much in compensation as it would cost to keep the roads in a decent state in the first place.


----------



## lukesdad (20 Apr 2012)

rusky said:


> Also bear in mind that the NHS will only offer you a denture for the missing teeth so if you want implants or a bridge you'll have to pay privately & it's likely to cost around £500 a tooth.


 
Can I sue the forestry commision for the lost tooth while mtbing in brechfa then ? Seems a logical progression and where does it all stop ?


----------



## lukesdad (20 Apr 2012)

I had an expectation it was rideable, being a cycle route.


----------



## Alun (20 Apr 2012)

lukesdad said:


> Can I sue the forestry commision for the lost tooth while mtbing in brechfa then ? Seems a logical progression and where does it all stop ?


If you can prove they were negligent, I suppose you could!
Was it a result of a fall, or tackling a challenging pie crust in the cafe


----------



## Red Light (21 Apr 2012)

ColinJ said:


> Yes - that was a classic example, wasn't it - we couldn't believe how bad that stretch of road was! I don't know if potsy took any pictures of it?


 
Is this it?


----------



## Poacher (21 Apr 2012)

That looks like under Mam Tor; definitely rideable.


Paging Danny Macaskill.......................paging Danny Macaskill....................


----------



## Red Light (21 Apr 2012)

It seems to me that most of the potholes and poor surfaces are the result of previous roadworks particularly by the utility companies. Given that they have to have permission to dig up the road, it shouldn't be beyond the wit of councils to find out who was responsible for that bit of reinstatement and get them back to fix it at the utilities expense or to do it themselves and bill them. And the utilities/contractors might actually get round to doing a proper job of it rather than a poor effort that fails within a year if it costs them to keep coming back. The Councils could then use their limited resources to repair the potholes that are just normal wear and tear.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17376556
It apparently costs £48 to repair a pothole.


----------



## Red Light (21 Apr 2012)

Poacher said:


> That looks like under Mam Tor; definitely rideable.
> 
> 
> Paging Danny Macaskill.......................paging Danny Macaskill....................


 
Definitely, ridden it many times myself including in snow which was fun. Danny Macaskill not needed - even I can manage it and keep my front teeth.


----------



## screenman (21 Apr 2012)

Can a proper as you say job be done in a reasonable time scale? Lincolnshire by the way has 5,592 miles of road most of which are not as smooth as silk.

Q3. “Is the county council responsible for damage to vehicles or personal injury as a result of
potholes? Can I sue the council?”
No, not usually. We are only potentially liable to pay for damage to vehicles or personal injury if we have
been negligent. We are not expected to keep roads free of potholes at all times. Unfortunately, when
conditions are severe, potholes will be more common. Road users must therefore be on the look out and
take greater care after severe weather.

It is often thought that only bad weather damages road, in certain parts of the country like ours drought also causes major expensive problems.


----------



## lukesdad (21 Apr 2012)

Alun said:


> If you can prove they were negligent, I suppose you could!
> Was it a result of a fall, or tackling a challenging pie crust in the cafe


 
Case of negligence by both parties in this case a detour sign was not visible but as my duty to myself is my own personal safety, I considered myself to be at greater fault.


----------



## fatblokish (21 Apr 2012)

screenman said:


> Can a proper as you say job be done in a reasonable time scale? Lincolnshire by the way has 5,592 miles of road most of which are not as smooth as silk.
> 
> Q3. “Is the county council responsible for damage to vehicles or personal injury as a result of
> potholes? Can I sue the council?”
> ...


 
I'd hardly expect the answer to be "yes please!"
Anyone can sue anyone else whenever they wish to. The probability of success, however, is variable. And to those that say a claim is unlikely to succeed, what evidence can they present to demonstrate that, in the OP's case, the council has not been negligent?


----------



## Red Light (21 Apr 2012)

screenman said:


> Can a proper as you say job be done in a reasonable time scale? Lincolnshire by the way has 5,592 miles of road most of which are not as smooth as silk.
> 
> Q3. “Is the county council responsible for damage to vehicles or personal injury as a result of
> potholes? Can I sue the council?”
> ...


 
They must be negligent a lot then.


----------



## fatblokish (21 Apr 2012)

Slightly off topic, but I'd rather councils spent on filling potholes instead of this type of foolishness.


----------



## ushills (22 Apr 2012)

While I'm not going to comment on the actual incident I will comment on the effect this has had on myself and my family. 

It is now 4 days on and I'm in agony, the neck injury is worrying despite no fractures and I can hardly move or get around. I also have significant bruises on my head despite wearing a helmet and persistent head-aches. 

I'm still drinking through a straw and eating soup and soft food. 

My daughter finally broke down on Friday and couldn't look or talk to me as she was too upset. 

Last night was horrendous as I started getting flashbacks to the day and shaking everytime I thought about hitting the deck. 

I seriously do not think I can ever get out on a bike again. My personal confidence has taken a severe knock and I doubt that the two women in my life would want me to either, my daughter phoned my wife when it happen and asked if I was dead. She worries everytime she leaves me asking is dad going to die (she's 10). 


While I knew there are risks in cycling I generally would have expected it to be due to reckless cycling, which is why I'm cautious and don't race or a SMIDSY which is why I position myself well and hasn't ever even got close in my 40 years due to anticipation and driver expectation. 

The medical care I received was excellent and I'm appreciative of the work done at both Stafford A&E and Stoke-on-Trent Maxio-facial wards, however, emergency dental care in the UK is surprising. I'm still to see a dentist for an assessment as the swelling is a problem and it is not dealt with in A&E, despite them telling me I'd broken two teeth at the root. Seeing dentist for an assessment on Tuesday next week.


----------



## rusky (22 Apr 2012)

IIRC I had to wait for at least a week until something could be done with my teeth. Swelling, stitches etc.

If there's nothing they can do to save the teeth, there's no point in hurrying to remove the roots.

Once the roots are removed, you'll probably have to wait for a few months for the gum to fill the void left by the roots before you get anything permanent.


----------

