Accident due to poor design
- Thread starter TwickenhamCyclist
- Start date
-
- Tags
- accident
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
- Location
- Glasgow
That is really unexpected given the road layout, needs complained about for sure.
Get well soon!
Get well soon!
Profpointy
Legendary Member
'kinell that's just stupid !
OP
OP
TwickenhamCyclist
Guest
So much for "Cycling Solicitor" number 1:
Having reviewed the photographs I do not consider you have a greater than 51% prospect of successfully establishing negligence against the Local Authority in this matter. As a Claimant the onus would be on you to establish negligence on the part of the Local Authority.
The traffic calming measure can be seen on approach to the junction, including the raised lip into the junction. It would be very difficult to prove that cycling across the junction at a reasonable speed would cause the tyres to burst. It is also highly likely that such traffic calming measures have been tested before being put in place to ensure their safety for cyclists at a suitable speed for the road. The changes to the road layout on Hounslow Road have specifically been implemented to improve the safety of both pedestrians and cyclists according to the Local Authority’s proposal document.
Unfortunately, we would not be able to deal with this matter on your behalf under a no win no fee agreement. You are of course free to seek alternative legal advice.
Many thanks for your enquiry and we are sorry not to have been able to assist you in this matter.
Response from Council:
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Firstly please let me apologise for issue the Pevensey road has created for you.
As you would have been aware, we are currently carrying out road works on Hounslow Road, and this raised table has recently been constructed. The entire carriageway area is to be resurfaced at the end of the works, and this resurfacing will eliminate the difference in road level at the junction. It was not unexpected for there to be a minor difference in level, but a differenceas much as 40mm – as you have stated – could be seen as a hazard. One of my colleagues will be visiting the site today and will take a look at the junction. If the difference is deemed unsafe we will put in a temporary ramp bit of asphalt until the resurfacing is completed.
Having reviewed the photographs I do not consider you have a greater than 51% prospect of successfully establishing negligence against the Local Authority in this matter. As a Claimant the onus would be on you to establish negligence on the part of the Local Authority.
The traffic calming measure can be seen on approach to the junction, including the raised lip into the junction. It would be very difficult to prove that cycling across the junction at a reasonable speed would cause the tyres to burst. It is also highly likely that such traffic calming measures have been tested before being put in place to ensure their safety for cyclists at a suitable speed for the road. The changes to the road layout on Hounslow Road have specifically been implemented to improve the safety of both pedestrians and cyclists according to the Local Authority’s proposal document.
Unfortunately, we would not be able to deal with this matter on your behalf under a no win no fee agreement. You are of course free to seek alternative legal advice.
Many thanks for your enquiry and we are sorry not to have been able to assist you in this matter.
Response from Council:
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Firstly please let me apologise for issue the Pevensey road has created for you.
As you would have been aware, we are currently carrying out road works on Hounslow Road, and this raised table has recently been constructed. The entire carriageway area is to be resurfaced at the end of the works, and this resurfacing will eliminate the difference in road level at the junction. It was not unexpected for there to be a minor difference in level, but a differenceas much as 40mm – as you have stated – could be seen as a hazard. One of my colleagues will be visiting the site today and will take a look at the junction. If the difference is deemed unsafe we will put in a temporary ramp bit of asphalt until the resurfacing is completed.
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
Sounds like the council made pretty much all the admissions the high priced lawyer reckoned he couldn't prove himself.
Profpointy
Legendary Member
Fair play to the council.
Whilst I can see there'd be no mileage in the solicitor going to court for a couple of hundred quid, they could have had an easy earner by simply whacking a letter in and keeping half the take.
Whilst I can see there'd be no mileage in the solicitor going to court for a couple of hundred quid, they could have had an easy earner by simply whacking a letter in and keeping half the take.
jefmcg
Guru
+1 to both the above. If you are claiming less than £50, don't see any need to involve a lawyer. Nice, honest reply from the council, I think they will pay reasonable costs.
also
No one was ever planning to leave the carriageway like that, long term.
also
called it!
No one was ever planning to leave the carriageway like that, long term.
'Cycling Solicitor' no.1 describes this as a 'traffic calming measure'. If that is what it is claimed to be, then it is a 'road hump' as defined in s.90F of the Highways Act 1980. The Highways (Road Humps) Regulations (link below) sets out requirements for road humps at section 4:
"no road hump shall be constructed or maintained in a highway unless - ... (d) no vertical face of any material forming part of that road hump exceeds 6 millimetres measured vertically from top to bottom of that face.
From the photo you took, it's clear that the vertical face is more than 6mm high. This then shows negligence in installing traffic calming measures which do not conform to prescribed requirements. That gives grounds for an action in negligence.
I doubt this was introduced as traffic calming measure. It appears that this is simply poor workmanship and failure to properly check and supervise the work done to ensure that this met safety requirements. i.e. the work was done negligently.
You would also have grounds for an action for damages in public nuisance as well. (This hazard in the highway is a public nuisance and you suffered damage because of it. Highway Authority would have to show they have statutory power to put this kind of step in the road. They might possibly find that - in section 77 of the Highways Act 1980:
(1)Without prejudice to section 76 above, a highway authority may raise or lower or otherwise alter, as they think fit, the level of a highway maintainable at the public expense by them.
(2)A highway authority shall pay compensation to any person who sustains damage by reason of the execution by them of works under this section.
I recently tried to find if there had been any cases reported on s.77 claims, but couldn't find anything. I'm not sure if it is applicable - I think it may be more for where a highway is raised or lowered blocking views etc. (at least that is what can be gathered from Parliamentary debate about this). If properly interpreted, this wouldn't give a Highway Authority power to put in safety hazards in the road like this. (that interpretation would make a nonsense of other legislation - such as road humps regulations).
An action in negligence is clearer and probably simpler. But if they want to claim authority under s.77(1), you can claim damage under s.77(2).
The possible area of difficulty you may have is proving that you had the accident (were there witnesses?). You would have to show 'on balance of probabilities' that the accident happened and was caused by this defect.
Road Hump Regulations: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/1025/pdfs/uksi_19991025_en.pdf
BTW - I think you are better without 'Cycling Solicitor' No. 1. You have up to 3 years to make a claim. Ask around for recommendations for another solicitor.
"no road hump shall be constructed or maintained in a highway unless - ... (d) no vertical face of any material forming part of that road hump exceeds 6 millimetres measured vertically from top to bottom of that face.
From the photo you took, it's clear that the vertical face is more than 6mm high. This then shows negligence in installing traffic calming measures which do not conform to prescribed requirements. That gives grounds for an action in negligence.
I doubt this was introduced as traffic calming measure. It appears that this is simply poor workmanship and failure to properly check and supervise the work done to ensure that this met safety requirements. i.e. the work was done negligently.
You would also have grounds for an action for damages in public nuisance as well. (This hazard in the highway is a public nuisance and you suffered damage because of it. Highway Authority would have to show they have statutory power to put this kind of step in the road. They might possibly find that - in section 77 of the Highways Act 1980:
(1)Without prejudice to section 76 above, a highway authority may raise or lower or otherwise alter, as they think fit, the level of a highway maintainable at the public expense by them.
(2)A highway authority shall pay compensation to any person who sustains damage by reason of the execution by them of works under this section.
I recently tried to find if there had been any cases reported on s.77 claims, but couldn't find anything. I'm not sure if it is applicable - I think it may be more for where a highway is raised or lowered blocking views etc. (at least that is what can be gathered from Parliamentary debate about this). If properly interpreted, this wouldn't give a Highway Authority power to put in safety hazards in the road like this. (that interpretation would make a nonsense of other legislation - such as road humps regulations).
An action in negligence is clearer and probably simpler. But if they want to claim authority under s.77(1), you can claim damage under s.77(2).
The possible area of difficulty you may have is proving that you had the accident (were there witnesses?). You would have to show 'on balance of probabilities' that the accident happened and was caused by this defect.
Road Hump Regulations: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/1025/pdfs/uksi_19991025_en.pdf
BTW - I think you are better without 'Cycling Solicitor' No. 1. You have up to 3 years to make a claim. Ask around for recommendations for another solicitor.
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
What's the latest on this Twickers?
