Personal Injury Claim after coming off bicycle on cobbles

now3d

Hello
I cycled over TfL maintained cobblestones on pedestrian crossing that the are at a junction, as I did I came off my bicycle because the cobblestones did not have any grip, and were wet.

I have some grazes and bruises, and a painful elbow one month on, and my back and knee still hurts. My bike was scratched and so was my clothing.

Could anyone recomend how to make a claim against TfL?

I don't have an insurance policy I can use to claim

Thank you, Rich

boliston

any sort of cobbles are lethal on a bike in the wet - there are quite a few in the road near me to make the town look "quaint" but i feel the bike slide if i go over them and its a micacle cyclists stay upright in the wet

Nasqueron

Any road can be slippery in wet or ice, get over it, not their fault it was raining, always take more care in rain due to extra braking time needed etc

If you wanted to claim compo you would have to show they were somehow negligent - having a wet surface in the rain is not their fault.

Stevie_Palimo

They'd fight this all the way so unless total proof can be shown that there was a fault in place with before and after pictures of a dodgy area that caused the accident you will have more chance of it raining 50 notes than getting any compo here.

k3lvc

now3d wrote: »

Could anyone recomend how to make a claim against TfL?

Either


a) Engage an Accident Investigator to survey the scene with one of his flashy 3d camera things taking particular note of the negligence of TFL in maintaining the specific surface that caused your 'accident' but everyone else managed to navigate safely


b) Go and stand in the middle of aforementioned road with a placard and 'protest'


c) Follow the best template you can find online and ask them to compensate you for the presumed negligence


All three are likely to have the same effect of telling you to go forth (albeit at different costs) and it's probably time for you to stand up (or lay in your sick bed) and take responsibility for your riding

now3d

Thank you for all your replies. I appreciate that I was the cylist. The point of contention would be if it is safe to put cobbles (with no grip) on a left hand turn. And then if trundling along at 7 mph on a that turn would be expected to be safe, or not.

The grounds for negligence (I checked London Cycling Campaign) are if granite cobbles are "non-skid material" in the Design Standards. Because I clearly came off, they didn't prevent me skidding.

TfL's London Cycling Design Standards have to say: https://tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/lcds-chapter3-streetsandspaces.pdf

Section 3.5.1: "Cyclists are susceptible to being destabilised by abrupt changes in road surface level or being made to deviate sharply from their course. This is particularly uncomfortable or painful for disabled cyclists. For those reasons, methods of traffic calming that are a problem for cyclists should be avoided. This includes:" ... "Destabilising ramp surfacing material, eg bumpy or slippery surface"

Section 3.5.2: "To provide the highest levels of service for cyclists, and to encourage motorists to make careful turning movements into and out of side roads, raised entry treatments may:" ... "Be constructed using asphalt ramps or other non-skid material"


The fix, is to change it to Aspalt ramp, as is conventional in Buckinghamshire and Berkshire.

Stevie_Palimo

It is still a prove it matter and I can tell you that being any Government department they will 1000% play hard ball with you here.

k3lvc

now3d wrote: »

Thank you for all your replies. I appreciate that I was the cylist. The point of contention would be if it is safe to put cobbles (with no grip) on a left hand turn. And then if trundling along at 7 mph on a that turn would be expected to be safe, or not.

The grounds for negligence (I checked London Cycling Campaign) are if granite cobbles are "non-skid material" in the Design Standards. Because I clearly came off, they didn't prevent me skidding.

TfL's London Cycling Design Standards have to say: https://tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/lcds-chapter3-streetsandspaces.pdf

Section 3.5.1: "Cyclists are susceptible to being destabilised by abrupt changes in road surface level or being made to deviate sharply from their course. This is particularly uncomfortable or painful for disabled cyclists. For those reasons, methods of traffic calming that are a problem for cyclists should be avoided. This includes:" ... "Destabilising ramp surfacing material, eg bumpy or slippery surface"

Section 3.5.2: "To provide the highest levels of service for cyclists, and to encourage motorists to make careful turning movements into and out of side roads, raised entry treatments may:" ... "Be constructed using asphalt ramps or other non-skid material"


The fix, is to change it to Aspalt ramp, as is conventional in Buckinghamshire and Berkshire.

So if you're an expert on this why come and ask ? Contact a specialist cycling lawyer and pass the blame and cost to everyone but yourself.


To put it into perspective I'd still slow my car to walking pace in a tight curve with wet cobbles and if I skidded it'd be my fault


Whilst I love to encourage the healthy aspects of cycling the fact that we have to resort to London Cycling Design Standards suggests a distinct lack of personal responsibility (across the community, not just yourself)

now3d

This is a standard theme/debate: Who is responsible for an accident, how much is personal responsiblity, and how much is the responsiblity of the road maintainer (who is legally obliged to maintain to an "adequate" standard) under Highways Act. its a debate that will run and run. The court generally make judgements, and case law is formed on what "adequate" is.

I'm a strong proponent of adequate consumer protection, and quality health and safety legislation. Therefore I don't feel councils should get away with deep potholes, collapsed drains, dangerous paving slabs, and slippery cobblestones.

lemontart

clue is non slip, all surfaces get slippy when wet!

k3lvc

now3d wrote: »

I'm a strong proponent of adequate consumer protection, and quality health and safety legislation. Therefore I don't feel councils should get away with deep potholes, collapsed drains, dangerous paving slabs, and slippery cobblestones.

The first 3 of these I can agree with - they (usually) become visible albeit unexpected hazards which there is a responsibility to repair.


The latter is usually a long term 'feature' of a street scene for either durability, aesthetics or for demarcation purposes and for which all street 'users' have a responsibility for awareness.


Good luck in your quest but in this case I personally think you're in the wrong