Cyclist sues ministers over crash

[MajorMantra]

Don't think this has been posted already:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/8121447.stm

I'm curious as to what others' reactions are to this. I think a lot of cycling facilities are crap and sometimes quite dangerous but I can't help thinking that in this case the guy must bear at least some of the blame.

The article says he had "two good lights" (whatever that means) but IMO if you fail to see a hole ahead of you and you ride into it (or rather, you fail to see the curve in the path, and go off it) then your lights aren't good enough for the conditions, or you are going too fast.

Thoughts?

Matthew

 

[Theseus]

Yet another reason to stick to the roads.

 

[marinyork]

Hard to say. If, a big if, it isn't a well lit area I can see that happening in the pitch darkness of night after a sudden change of direction, even if they had a seriously powerful light, which knowing most cyclists, I doubt they did have. Some sunken drain covers are a complete and utter hazard, they are just very few and far between. On the whole most drain covers are to a very high standard.

To me sharp bend + poor lighting + shockingly bad drain cover = case for compensation. The devil is in the detail though. It's not the sort of route I'd cycle on at night I have to say. I'd avoid it completely or only do it if it involved some massive shortcut and I knew every square inch of it.

 

[MajorMantra]

I'm not sure precisely where the incident happened but most of Holyrood Park is very dark at night and it isn't really safe to cycle there unless you have lights designed to see by. I don't see why poor lighting of the path should justify a claim for compensation since one should adapt one's riding to suit the conditions.

I agree that sunken drain covers are an absolute menace but I took the article to mean that it wasn't actually on the path. On re-reading I'm not actually sure whether that was the case or not.

Matthew

 

[marinyork]

For me, draincovers are a different matter. Even if you had a Hope or something they are still hard to spot in total darkness. I know there's one on a main road that is sunken and hard to spot I've been past a few times. A cycle path is a designated path and so should follow a minimum standard. Us cyclists can be our own worst enemies at taking the piss out of such facilities. When it comes to the law and compensation our hatred of the things doesn't matter. If it is badly constructed, compensation is fair dos.

For the different aspects of it, the poor lighting, the sunken nature and the bend all add up to a reasonable claim to compensation. I obviously have no idea what this looks like and am taking it on trust from the description, you would trust a judge to take this into account and apply the same principles. The cyclist obviously has a responsibility and is either a pillock or a bit unlucky but there's negligence there. If it is a horrificly sunken draincover with those other aspects it is sadly a legitimate case for compensation.

 

[Davidc]

Pedestrians can sue over trips caused by sunken drains, I can see no reason why a cyclist shouldn't over a fall caused by one. In poor lighting they're difficult to see even with good bike lights.

He can buy a good bike with £5750!

 

[Arch]

The article says he had "two good lights" (whatever that means) but IMO if you fail to see a hole ahead of you and you ride into it (or rather, you fail to see the curve in the path, and go off it) then your lights aren't good enough for the conditions, or you are going too fast.

Bearing in mind that any decent road will have chevrons on a bend, and white lines at the edge of the carriageway, and that's for vehicles with two big lights on them, it must generally be expected that the difference between road surface and verge can be quite unclear - after all, we rely a lot on colour perception in daylight, and lose a lot of it at night.

 

[MajorMantra]

Bearing in mind that any decent road will have chevrons on a bend, and white lines at the edge of the carriageway, and that's for vehicles with two big lights on them, it must generally be expected that the difference between road surface and verge can be quite unclear - after all, we rely a lot on colour perception in daylight, and lose a lot of it at night.

Fair point, perhaps I'm being too harsh.

Matthew

 

[domd1979]

The comparison to draw is what would happen if a car hit a bloody great hole in the road and damaged their vehicle and/or it lead to an accident. You can be almost certain the highway authority would be deemed responsible and would have to pay out. It is the case that highway authorities pay out on lots of claims every year, which is why many are becoming a lot more responsive to filling in pot holes. Unfortunately maintenance of cycle facilities is treated as less important.

 

[Bigtwin]

I thought it was obligatory for manhole covers to be smooth, highly polished and placed on the apex of bends? Certainly are in Surrey.

 

[dellzeqq]

The success of 'fillthahhole' is that the county council knows that if someone hits a hole and comes off and they then go to the CTC to check whether or not it's been reported, then they, the county council, may well lose in court.

 

[MartinC]

Sounds like the judge has decided that the path was badly designed and contributed significantly to the accident. It was below the recommended width for a start. Factor in the sharp bend, change in surface, bad lighting and the sunken drain and you can see the judge's point.

I've been waiting for people to start sueing - some cycle paths are intrinsically dangerous (e.g. the path in the door zone you sometimes see). It's a good thing - local authorities should be held responsible for the 'facilities' they put in place. Hopefully they'll eventually have to decide whether to put in well designed paths or not bother at all.

 

[summerdays]

The success of 'fillthahhole' is that the county council knows that if someone hits a hole and comes off and they then go to the CTC to check whether or not it's been reported, then they, the county council, may well lose in court.

That's why I've been logging some of the potholes on there... just so any cyclist who came off his bike on one of them would have some information that the council did know about the existence of the pothole.