60 Cyclists To Sue Edinburgh Council

Retrogamer

Johno100 wrote: »

Have to be a hell of a pothole.

Apologies for the link to the trash news, but driver injuries from potholes can & do happen. I imagine most moneysavers will pursue the council for recompense if there's the possibility rather than incur the costs them self.

suicidebob

Altarf wrote: »

I don't think that you are taking the potential risk to the cyclist seriously, as illustrated by the 50 cyclists injured in the court case.

If a cyclist is able to cycle over a tram track, it is possible for a wheel to get stuck, no matter how careful they are. After all, some cyclists might be young and inexperienced, so please think of the children.

As it would be impractical to introduce any sort of 'are you skilful enough to ride along roads with tram tracks' test, then the only foolproof solution is to prohibit all cyclists from any street that has tram tracks.

Your refusal to apply logic or common-sense was boring the first time. It really betrays your lack of imagination to use the same line in every single post.

suicidebob

Johno100 wrote: »

No, I'd claim on my motor insurance, suck it up and be more careful in future.

There is f'all chance of my council paying out anyway.



http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/drivers-seeking-damages-over-potholes-5458515

Because drivers love nothing more than to claim on their insurance.

Johno100

suicidebob wrote: »

Because drivers love nothing more than to claim on their insurance.

Well as we are required to have it, unlike another group of road users who will remain nameless, we might as well use it.

Retrogamer

Johno100 wrote: »

Well as we are required to have it, unlike another group of road users who will remain nameless, we might as well use it.

Yeah, joggers without insurance shouldn't be on the roads.
Imagine one ran into my car and dented it. How could i claim off them?

Johno100

Retrogamer wrote: »

Yeah, joggers without insurance shouldn't be on the roads.
Imagine one ran into my car and dented it. How could i claim off them?

You must live in a strange place, potholes capable of maiming 'cagers' and kamikaze joggers.:D

Retrogamer

Johno100 wrote: »

You must live in a strange place, potholes capable of maiming 'cagers' and kamikaze joggers.:D

This was the link i meant to quote earlier

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1349570/Arctic-freeze-created-6ft-pothole-flipped-familys-Land-Rover.html

custardy

Good to see Johnboy still stalking around the cycling board, looking after everyone's well being.....

Johno100

custardy wrote: »

Good to see Johnboy still stalking around the cycling board, looking after everyone's well being.....

Didn't think it would be long before you turned up, our resident expert on Edinburgh potholes.

Altarf

Retrogamer wrote: »

You mentioned dedicated cycle paths previously which often have broken glass, wet & slippy leaves etc all over them, and are unsalted in the winter. They aren't comparable apart from ones which form part of the road layout.

This fully demonstrates why cyclists need to be prohibited from these roads, due to their lack of risk assessment.

A few damp leaves = avoid cycle path
Miles of slippery steel and the risk of trapping cycle wheel = fine

Retrogamer wrote: »

All they need to do is modify the layout in such a way that doesn't encourage cyclists to cycle on a dangerous road surface.

Since you have demonstrated in previous posts that you actively ignore anything the council does to persuade you to use a particular piece of highway, clearly this would not be the solution.

Retrogamer wrote: »

How about if you broke some bones due to a severe pothole. damaged your car and you couldn't claim for your personal injuries through your own policy, however you have a compelling case the council were liable and will cover all the costs?

Because that's more relate-able to the scenario the cyclists who came off are in.

So as you demonstrate, these roads are far too dangerous for cyclists to use, so they must be prohibited from using them for their own safety. To do anything else would be irresponsible.

suicidebob wrote: »

Your refusal to apply logic or common-sense was boring the first time. It really betrays your lack of imagination to use the same line in every single post.

Because the answer is the same each time. If you are incapable of understanding the basic principles, perhaps that is why you find the discussion boring.