Cycle-path defect claim

Biker_Di

I regularly cycle on a local cycle path to/from work. On one occasion I rode over unseen raised tarmac (due to tree root/shrubbery pushing tarmac upwards) and Jarred my back. The result leaving me in extreme pain and off work for 3+ weeks, requiring physio as recommended by GP.

After approaching the local council to report the fault and that a repair was required, I submitted a claim to cover the cost of the physio treatment. The council have responded notifying me they are not liable as ...... “ the location did not meet the intervention levels (20mm) for footway defects so no action was taken to repair it. I am aware from previous legal cases of this nature that a difference in level of less than 25 mm is not considered by the Courts as so serious as to give rise to liability on the part of the County Council”.

Ok, so why did they mark/highlight the area and return the following day and fill the affected area with tarmac (I have photographed the area before and after) Surely this accepting liability?? Which I find interesting as other sections of the cyclepath have much more severe areas of concern.

Where do I stand on this? Any advice gratefully received.

unforeseen

I would assume that the reason they have dealt with it is because of the cause.

If it is being caused by a root the it will only get worse. Deal with it now by cutting back the root and resurfacing deals with the problem fo a few years more

Nasqueron

They have fixed a fault that they have been alerted to but one that was not sufficiently bad that they are liable. I find it remarkable (given I ride a road bike and a CX both without suspension) that a 2cm bump has caused such issues that you had to have 3 weeks off work. Why did you not use the NHS for physio?

Barny1979

Yeah, it is not at an intervention stage, but now it has been raised to them, they have decided to take some mitigating action.

parking_question_chap

I do a bit of cycling. If the tarmac has been raised by a root, how can it not be visible?

And if it isnt that raised that much, I fail to see how your claim can be successful..

Nasqueron

parking_question_chap wrote: »

I do a bit of cycling. If the tarmac has been raised by a root, how can it not be visible?

And if it isnt that raised that much, I fail to see how your claim can be successful..

Could have been at night to be fair, even with a combined 1800 lumen output of my front one I do miss the odd bump. The state of the so called cycle lanes in Birmingham (aka a footpath with a white line painted down the middle) are often so bad you'd get a whole row of 2cm drops to run over, hence my surprise that someone would need 3 weeks off work for back problems for these sort of bumps

tonyf33

you admitted that you regularly cycle on this path and yet had not noticed in any way shape or form deformations by roots, not once? Yet you say the path is worse elsewhere, so you must have seen that by definition the path was not in great condition but you said nothing to the local authority to remedy matters? And you still rode it regualrly anyway in that condition and then are suprised/unaware of a lesser problem than elsewhere you have already identified (and done nowt about)
Either you were going too fast for the conditions, you're riding on rock hard high pressure tyres with no give and you're sitting deadweight on your saddle on said rock hard tyres or all of them, which is it?

Because a 20mm raised section from a root would not jar your back if you are riding correctly on a cycle path that you already knew had deformations in places that were much worse than the one you allege injured your back

Oh and if at night, go at a speed you can stop well within the distance you can see to be clear ... just because you are on a bike does not absolve you of riding with care and attention.
The person already knows the route and the deformations, expecting ANY stretch of road to be free from imerfections would be ludicrous, so at night/low visibility you take even greater precaution. Cycling at night means using a light you can properly see by AND riding with greater care which means slower even IF you have an 1800 lumen light because that still cannot replace riding in natural daylight.

Sorry but the council are right to reject your claim and you would be wasting your money taking this this further.

unforeseen

OP hasn't logged on to the site since his initial post

Nasqueron

tonyf33 wrote: »

you admitted that you regularly cycle on this path and yet had not noticed in any way shape or form deformations by roots, not once? Yet you say the path is worse elsewhere, so you must have seen that by definition the path was not in great condition but you said nothing to the local authority to remedy matters? And you still rode it regualrly anyway in that condition and then are suprised/unaware of a lesser problem than elsewhere you have already identified (and done nowt about)
Either you were going too fast for the conditions, you're riding on rock hard high pressure tyres with no give and you're sitting deadweight on your saddle on said rock hard tyres or all of them, which is it?

Because a 20mm raised section from a root would not jar your back if you are riding correctly on a cycle path that you already knew had deformations in places that were much worse than the one you allege injured your back

Oh and if at night, go at a speed you can stop well within the distance you can see to be clear ... just because you are on a bike does not absolve you of riding with care and attention.
The person already knows the route and the deformations, expecting ANY stretch of road to be free from imerfections would be ludicrous, so at night/low visibility you take even greater precaution. Cycling at night means using a light you can properly see by AND riding with greater care which means slower even IF you have an 1800 lumen light because that still cannot replace riding in natural daylight.

Sorry but the council are right to reject your claim and you would be wasting your money taking this this further.

In addition I think you are confusing my posts with the OP.


I ride at the same speed in day and night on 100+ psi 25c tyres without much issue with bumps, 1800 lumen is enough to pick out big holes that I need to avoid and small bumps like the OP had are not a problem to ride over

Herbalus

1800 lumens is ridiculous....probably bordering on dangerous depending on the angle as that can seriously dazzle other road users.

I'm sure you know what you're doing, but just in case you were wondering what those car horns were all about..

Of course you could be switching to 1800 lumens on unlit streets, but even at 18mph on pitch dark country lanes I'm happy with 400 lumens on the bars and 150 lumens on a head torch. (Not sure if that counts as 550 or if the scale is not cumulative?)

Nasqueron

Herbalus wrote: »

1800 lumens is ridiculous....probably bordering on dangerous depending on the angle as that can seriously dazzle other road users.

I'm sure you know what you're doing, but just in case you were wondering what those car horns were all about..

Of course you could be switching to 1800 lumens on unlit streets, but even at 18mph on pitch dark country lanes I'm happy with 400 lumens on the bars and 150 lumens on a head torch. (Not sure if that counts as 550 or if the scale is not cumulative?)

1200 (main ) / 600 (backup) in a well made, properly designed, legal, CE approved, light aimed sensibly, is fine. No-one honks at me. It's not one of those cheap Chinese specials designed for mountain biking without a taper that shines 5000 lumen into oncoming traffic. In 5 years of bike commuting I can remember once an oncoming car flashed me as I think the beam was pointing too high up.



Lumen is a bad measure of light for this purpose but it's what everyone uses. Lumen is total light output of the light. Lux is a far better measure (intensity of light in a 1m2 area).


If you can see potholes and hazards both near and far on a 400 lumen main light then you must have very good eyes or your roads are very good, my older lights had that sort of output and the beam was so small and light so weak it was more being seen than anything else.