Suzuki V-Strom (VStrom) Owners Club DL250, DL650, DL1000 & DL1050
Other Stuff => The Blue Oyster bar => Topic started by: Zdman on July 03, 2018, 13:44:12
-
Hello all, I had a spill on Sunday, the cause, a section of granite chipping 20mm deep, left in the centre of the road after tar spraying at the side of the road, the accident happened going around a bend question is the bike has been damged plus my new suit, how to claim against the council, anyone had any experience of this, any help would be appreciated regards Zdman
-
Sorry to hear you had a spill.
As a council tax payer I would rather people didn't sue the council.
I have every sympathy with you on this issue. Half the single track lanes in Dorset are two strips of tarmac with loose gravel down the middle.
-
It's puzzling...... if farmers/builders leave a road in a dangerous state, by leaving mud on the road they're legally obliged to clean it up straightaway (and quite rightly so!). However, if a local authority similarly leaves a road in a dangerous state, for example by spreading ball bearings (sorry, chippings) all over the surface, or by planing off the top surface leaving horrible wobbly tramlines, then that's all fine, and no action needs to be taken.
### ### ###
-
You can try .... But I doubt it ... you'll have to try and prove it was them. It could have been a tipper truck with a lump stuck between his tyres.
It is like a pothole scenario the hole would have to be reported to the council first ... then they have so many days to repair before any damage that can be claimed....... That is my understanding
-
There are usually plenty of loose gravel warning signs when resurfacing work is carried out.
-
Give a motorbike solicitors such as White Dalton a ring and get their advice. They will have come across this stuff before to give you an accurate picture of where you stand. Personally I don't think you will get very far but that is just my opinion.
-
I suspect the advice might be that the highway code says be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear, and that one might expect corners to have gravel on them or other hazards and riders and drivers should drive accordingly etc.
-
I am bloody seething over this very issue.
I came off on gravel, the council admitted they put it there and there were no signs to warn road users. The council have said that it was not part of the road and they are not liable!!!! OMG!! :icon_exclaim: So I can dump gravel on a road can I?
I went to two solicitors, one was SMIDSY the biker ones, and they both said it was not worth persuing :icon_exclaim:
What I wrote back to the councl solicitor;
Subject: RE:Accident on Grindle road, Grindle
Dear Hanis,
Ref: 003721/002220/GB/01/HR
Entirely without prejudice please allow me to reply to your letter dated 20th October. (Hanis Rehman refusal to pay attached).
Para 1. You state enquiries into this matter are now complete. I can assure you this matter is definitely not complete.
Para 2. You state that a reasonable system of street inspection was adhered to and that your client had not been in breach of their duty to maintain the highway pursuant to section 58 of the “Highways Act”.
Highways act 58:
58 a.” the character of the highway, and the traffic which was reasonably to be expected to use it” The particular road is a B road being used by large heavy goods vehicles. Route dictated by the council/highways after a company “Renew” moved into an adjacent farm and has been told to move, now under appeal.
58 b. “the standard of maintenance appropriate for a highway of that character and used by such traffic” The standard of repair of the carriageway is inappropriate for the use by that kind of traffic and has not been maintained. See pic 5
58 c.” the state of repair in which a reasonable person would have expected to find the highway” A reasonable person would not expect to have to drive on the wrong side of the road to get around a 90degree bend to negotiate the potholes in the road. See pic 2.
58 d. “whether the highway authority knew, or could reasonably have been expected to know, that the condition of the part of the highway to which the action relates was likely to cause danger to users of the highway” The pot holes have been a continuous worry to the Parish Council of Ryton & Grindle who have repeatedly written to the council about them for many months. See Pic 3
58 e. “where the highway authority could not reasonably have been expected to repair that part of the highway before the cause of action arose, what warning notices of its condition had been displayed” The road had been repaired and sprayed with gravel in August, by a truck with chutes on the front of it, as witnessed by my independent witnesses of the accident. No warning signs are or have been in place to warn of the gravel.
Para 3. You state your client inspects the road every 3 months and you say they repaired pot holes at the accident site. The pot holes were four inches deep and in the middle of the carriageway. This is after only two months from inspection? This seems incredible! The repair on the inside of the corner is covered with gravel which has spread across the road.
Para 4. You state that the pot holes and gravel had emerged from the Apley Estate property adjacent to the road.
A survey was carried out on the road at the accident site on 22nd Oct 2015. Entering the bend at the accident site the road width is 4m. This 4m width was marked around the corner in white as displayed in pic 1 attached. As can be seen clearly the now repaired pot holes are in the middle of the Ryton bound side of the road. (Many more pictures and measurements available)
As can be seen the pot holes are not on Apley estate, the gravel on the road (sample taken) is not the same as the Apley Estate lane, but is the same as the repairs to pot holes in the road at the accident site and all the way from Grindle to Kemberton. (Photographed and physical samples taken) see pic 4
You state that your client has no duty to repair these defects, but they have done on 19th Oct, extremely well done and thank you.
Para 5. You state your client is not liable. In view of the evidence above I consider your client to be liable.
Para 6. You state that this letter is not the answer I am looking for. I was not looking for an answer as to who is responsible. I am making a claim against your client as the responsible party and have the evidence to prove this, backed up by independent witnesses. The life of this claim is as long as it takes for your client or liable party to admit liability and compensate me for my loss.
I operate as a self-employed Limited Company and have a day rate of £300/day and charge £10 per letter/email. I am sure you appreciate that my claim is increasing as time goes on.
Yours Faithfully,
Giles Greenwood
Bike Solicitor No 2;
Dear Giles,
Thank you for the emails and the copy correspondence. I have now reviewed the same I must advise you that I agree with your former solicitors advice this is a difficult and the 50/50 chance of success is, in my opinion, is the right assessment of the case. As such I am unable to accept instructions and take this matter on a CFA.
I am required to remind you of the Limitation Act 1980. This states that in personal injury claims Court Proceedings must be issued within 3 years of the accident date, you must ensure that County Court proceedings are issued before the third anniversary of the accident, to prevent the claim becoming time barred. After this time your claim will become “statute barred” meaning you will be highly unlikely to seek compensation from the Defendant.If you do not issue proceedings within this time period, then the claim will become time barred and you will not be able to proceed at any later date
I wish you well in the future.
Best wishes.
Victoria Mark LLB
Solicitor | Director
Lofthouse Mark Solicitors Limited
01947 881141
07740447868
So beware! Fall off and it's your fault you'll get nowhere! :dl_soapbox:
-
It would seem that, despite the enormous amounts of our money that is taken by central and local government nominally for roads, local authorities are under no +enforceable) obligation to provide "roadworthy" roads. They act with complete impunity: as long as they have a "policy" regarding inspection and repair of roads, there's nothing to force them to actually inspect, and more importantly, repair to a proper standard, any of their roads....... and if anyone questions their behaviour, they will immediately pass the buck, either denying that particular piece of highway is their responsibility, or claiming that its upkeep is down to a nearby business/landowner/farmer.....
-
Quote removed
You can claim successfully claim from the council.
In 2011 I claimed against Blackburn Council who were resurfacing the A 675 Belmont Road,Darwen area of Lancashire. I slowed down,my car to about 20 mph, because of the loose stone surface, but a wagon travelling the other way at about 50 mph, threw up a large piece of stone chipping ( nearly 1" in size) into my windscreen. This caused a large crack which quickly spread across the screen, which required replacement. It was a Ford Heated front windscreen ( cost £627). I claimed on my insurance windscreen cover, and had to pay £125 excess.
I sent a detailed letter by recorded delivery, to the Council containing evidence to prove my case, and also informed them that should I not receive compensation ( my £125 excess ) withing a specified date, three weeks hence, I would not hesitate to take the case to the county court, small claims dept.I was quite prepared to do this, as I had previous successful experience of the small claims court.
They paid me the £125 within the three weeks.
However they will not just pay up easily, you need to show them that you are serious,and have evidence to prove your case.
This is what I did.
I reported the damage to a council employee at the scene,just after the incident.
I requested his name ( he refused) but I noted his description and the reg no of his council signwritten vehicle,to show I had reported the damage at the time of the incident to the council( their employee). I informed the council of this in my letter.
I took photos of the road at 25 yd intervals from 100yds prior to the incident and 100 yds after the incident.These photos showed the resurfacing work being carried out, plus most importantly, the absence of any reduced speed limit signs,or warnings of loose road surface.The normal speed limit of 50mph could be seen in the photos,which was far too high, with loose stones on the surface. you normally get signs saying something like " slow down loose surface 20 mph max"
I took samples of several stone chippings ( for evidence should I need to go to small claims court) from the road which measured close to 1" in size.
I also pointed out that if the stone had travelled a bit more to the right it would have hit me in the head or face, through my open window, and would have caused serious injury.
I incorporated all this in a detailed letter.
It might seem a lot of messing about, but I was very annoyed about the damage caused to my car which I had only recently bought, a Ford Fiesta ST.
I was very satisfied with the outcome, and it only cost me a couple of pounds for a recorded delivery letter.
-
I have the very pleasant job :-x of compiling carriageway maintenance information for inclusion in insurance claims against our local council (for whom I work).
9.9 times out of ten, if the responsible authority can prove that they have exercised their duty of care in the maintenance of the carriage and footways, their insurance companies will not pay out. The council do not generally make the decision to pay or not - the councils insurance company does based on the information provided by the local authority.
In this instance, if the correct signage for the hazard was inappropriatly placed or even absent, then they, the council, have a case to answer.
If all is as it should be, then you will have a battle on your hands to get compensation for any loss or damage.
A young lad up here came off of his 125 last year as he turned into the road on which he lives which had been surfaced dressed. The signage was present but not approriatly placed, as decided by the councils roads technician for the area concerned. The insurance company paid out, so the little bloke can win if the big bloke was in the wrong.
Best of luck :thumb:
Steve T
:icon_razz:
-
How can such a dangerous technique as "surface dressing"... I.e.spreading chippings with a minimal amount of "tar" to bind, and allowing passing traffic to compact the surface ... possibly be regarded as a safe and proper method of repair? It's very cheap, and I suppose counts as having done something, but signs or no signs, it's dangerous to all road users, and even if no bikers or cyclists come off, many cars are scarred or suffer chipped glass (even at low speeds).
-
I worked for 12 years as a roads inspector in the local council (back when we had money to fix them...) and I'm sorry to say that, just because some dirt was on the road and you fell off, the council can't always be liable for accidents. The burden of proof lies with you to prove that they neglected their duty in some way: that they could not prove that the road was inspected or that they did not carry out repairs identified during that inspection. Our inspection records went computerised over 20 years ago (replacing little cards in cabinets) and it was easy to evidence a date verified inspection record.
Whilst I sympathise with your own accident, I had many more spurious chancers after a quick buck come across my desk than legitimate injured parties. Some examples: chap who got pissed & fell out of a taxi took us all the way to court because he found a rocking slab along the street: got nothing bar a bill for his lawyer and ours. Another ripped the sump out of his Austin 1800 on something and then went on a hunt for something to blame - found a sure thing in his eyes in an old cobbled street with a significant crown to the profile and sent in a claim for I think about £800 for a new engine (car worth £50 maybe). Unfortunately, the road had zero evidence of the oil slick, and the road was a dead end behind factories and had been closed to traffic for years.
In this day of the entitled generation who feel that someone else has to be to blame for everything, councils do have to go with the presumption that everything is an ambulance chaser after a quick buck, which means the real ones go begging too.
One thing that my years hunting potholes has given me though, is the ability to spot them and other road defects long before the rest of the driving public seem to - in your photo I see a rural minor road with an access off it that looks well used (commercial) and would fully expect such a scenario. This does not look like the immediate result of the surface dressing process and is detritus from the side road traffic - try claiming against them for depositing the gravel and not signing appropriately.
-
Surface dressing, done in the right place, done correctly, and the signage adhered to, is an effective way of restoring the surface skid resistance and extends the life of a road by many years. The minimal tar binder is only there to keep a layer of the chips in place long enough for them to start to bury themselves into the surface. If you use as much as Joe Public thinks you should, then a couple of years down the line (if you're lucky) the whole road is a bitumen swimming pool. The main reasons we found for failure of the dressing was it being put across high LGV usage junctions (poor planning - it all just gets ripped off by the fixed axles) and people not allowing it to bed in and driving far too hard & fast. The speed signage is there for a reason.
Because the banks & their city friends stole all the public money, and the scraps given to the councils go on school overspends & keeping people alive, there is nothing left for roads: they can treat a couple of miles like this, or a few hundred yards of full re-surfacing. You need to accept that this is a necessary evil in the current busted world we're left with.
-
Mr Nick and Steve T, I was on the gravel road with no signage!
Big man in wrong 1 - little man in right 0. What's that about?
I still have time to take council head and highways head to small claims,
-
Your money: your call. If you feel you can prove negligence beyond reasonable doubt then put up the cash & go for it, but it's your word against an established legal position and record system.
Expect those defending your claim to ask: was it unreasonable to expect some gravel at the side of a rural road with a commercial access? Were you riding completely within the constraints of what you could see? Do you have independent witnesses to the actual alleged crash? Can you prove that there were no warning signs? Were you approaching the blind sharp bend on the wrong side of the road, or were you exiting said corner too fast? And probably many more beside.
-
Putting aside the "claims" and legality side of this, is it actually safe to treat roads in this way? Surely leaving loose gravel/chippings is never a good idea - if this questionable technique continues to be used, then surely at least a run over with a roller should embed the loose stuff rather than leaving it to trip up the unwary. Or clogging the drains/gullies as seems to happen around here.
I appreciate the cost implications for cash-strapped local authorities, having been a public servant myself and having nhs and LA staff in my family ......but I feel that councils have thus far been lucky that their high-powered insurance crooks brokers have been able to frighten off potential claimants. Or do they no longer have a proper duty of care towards the public? (I would hope that this duty extends a long way beyond some signage!)
-
Some contractors do run over the dressing with rubber tyred rollers, but the benefits are slight and it's a 'be seen to do it' for the public rather than anything useful from an engineering perspective: if they used steel, then the chips would be crushed & the process pointless.
It is not ideal, but they are damned if they do & damned if they don't - this way the claims for failing to maintain at all are defended.
-
I appreciate the cost implications for cash-strapped local authorities
I think this is the main issue here . Local councils are being squeezed by the government for every penny so they have to come up with barmy rules in order to fine people to bring in the cash and the roads are the last on their list to maintain.
From what I've see in London all the unnecessary 4 wheel drives that people own are becoming useful now because the roads are shite with potholes and loose gravel everywhere.
I'm just even more vigilant when riding through London.
-
I don't think it's just this country that do it.
Despite finding that the majority of roads are in decent repair in France we found quite a few in the Alps that weren't. Obviously more difficult in that area due to the adverse weather conditions over the winter period. However they were busy 'relaying' them in several areas we passed through and they used the same method of tar & loose chippings. I got caught out a couple of times due to very poor signage (just a matter of a yard or two before the repair even after/on a bend) and nearly lost it. I then tried to observe the opposite side of the road before bends to see if the chippings had been left (dropped) by oncoming traffic. Not much fun when there might be a few hundred foot drop if you went over the edge. Most times there was very little to stop you either.
Doesn't help the OP and not making excuses, I'm with most of the posters above, just pointing out it's a common (or appears to be) way of road surface repair.
-
Sounds like you found the little - known magical French village of Gravillons, Mick. It pops up wherever I drive in France
-
BURDEN OF PROOF: There are different standards in different circumstances. For example, in criminal cases, the burden of proving the defendant's guilt is on the prosecution, and they must establish that fact beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil cases, the plaintiff has the burden of proving his case by a preponderance of the evidence.
Since this would be a civil case, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff (the person raising the complaint), and would be considered to be "on the balance of probability" (civil) rather than "beyond reasonable doubt" (criminal).
Effectively you would need to prove, by way of significant evidence, that the council were negligent and that your actions in no way contributed to the accident, because the 'other side' will try to cast doubt over this.
It may be morally unjust, but the burden of proof in this instance would be a steep hill for you to climb.
-
Please do not quote the post directly above.
It is in fact such a big hill to climb that it is easier to roll over and be kicked in the nuts too. It just isn't fair and there is no way around it.
-
I wonder how the OP got on...?
-
Am I alone here or can't you just recognise gravel/potholes etc. and avoid them?
Use your eyes and slow down.
Can of worms syndrome....insurance claims and suing someone unless it wasn't really and honestly your fault.
Sorry. :shrug:
-
Unfortunately, Joe R, it's often a case of trying to spot the intact road surface amongst the gravel and potholes. Ideally yes, one would spot and avoid the hazards, but sometimes that's just not possible. The roads in much of the UK are that bad!
For too long, government, local and national, has got away with underspending on the road infrastructure, and it's now got to the stage where serious damage, and danger, are visited upon road users Through the use of "high powered" lawyers and insurers the culprits have thus far "got away with it", but it's surely high time that the problem was recognised and remedied.
-
Am I alone here or can't you just recognise gravel/potholes etc. and avoid them?
Use your eyes and slow down.
Can of worms syndrome....insurance claims and suing someone unless it wasn't really and honestly your fault.
Sorry. :shrug:
:icon_exclaim: I actually quite resent that comment. I have been riding for 35 years and this is the first off. The gravel was there and I had seen it, I was only doing about 10mph and have witnessess to say that I was hardly moving, but I came off on gravel put down by the council that they agree they had put there. Their defence is that because the gravel is not part of the fabric of the road, they are not responsible! That is my argument, sorry I'm not perfect like some on here.
-
OK, a bit blunt but some questions first:
Did you lose the front or back wheel, which brake(s) did you use, did you turn at the same time or did you just fall off because you lost balance.......? I'm not a judge but it might help to identify the cause of your off.
I've been taught that riding on different surfaces is my call as to speed and action I take. Recognising the surface conditions is the ultimate trigger of necessary action for riding through it. There are numerous roads over here annually redressed with tar/chippings in patches or totally and I wouldn't under-estimate the danger on two wheels
A past friend of mine volunteered one day that he'd put his car in a ditch but it wasn't his fault, it was the wet leaves on the road. :icon_no:
Just yesterday I way riding down a gravelly road with some friends and one of them said she didn't know how to deal with it, just braked. I asked which brake and she said just the front. :icon_no:
To answer the finish of your reply I can assure you I'm long from being anywhere near perfect. I attended a 'Prévention Moto' morning organised by my Insurance company over here Wednesday last week (11th July) and rode a number of slow bike control excercises and I have to report I was well below par for completing tight circles, figure of eight and slalom (no chippings in sight). I'm not happy with that and am now minded to test myself more on the same little challenges.
I hope that explains my earlier post more and puts it in perspective but also a bigger question asking ourselves about our actions before assuming someone else was to blame.
Honestly no intention to annoy you or anyone else was intended.
Joe Rocket. :)
-
A local minor road has been coated and the excess grit has been dragged onto the A road roundabout. No signs on the A road as it is not the road that was treated. It's been done about two weeks and although I have traveled it by car it is still too thick in places for a bike. The road surface is just as bumpy. It's about time they stopped this dangerous practice.
-
Good post Mr Rocket
I must admit, I’ve never fallen off and thought it wasn’t my fault.
Each time I’ve looked back & thought I should have done more to prevent it, even when other factors have contributed.
Hell, even on the two occasions when cars have turned across my path at the last moment, I thought ‘sh!t I should have been more aware, should have spotted that, should have placed myself in a better position’, both physically and mentally.
Having said that, I did get the repairs paid for on those occasions, so I can see both sides.
In your case sadly, I think you’re on a road to nowhere. :dl_smiley_banghead:
Keeps your eyes peeled folks, ???? they’re out to get you.
-
I think a lot of people have forgotten rule 213 of the Highway Code. I'll let those who aren't aware go away and look it up and reflect on their position concerning cause/fault. It appears we used to have problems with slippery manhole covers too..........! :shock:
Interestingly only Simon W has mentioned the Highway Code through this thread before this post.
:shrug:
-
Thanks Joe Rocket for your Reply #27 on: July 19. I was just feathering off the front brake as I turned in I think, so that would have initiated the incident. The thread was however about the codition of the road and the council not taking liability for making it dangerous without warning. If I spread gravel on I road making the road dangerous I'd get done.
Highway code rule 213 is about drivers giving motorcycles room to manoeuvre not about bikers looking out for themselves on the road. Rule 154 is more appropriate for this thread.
-
This is all very interesting.
I seem to remember a Solicitor in Ride magazine writing on this type of subject a while ago, and it came down to whether the council could reasonably be expected to be aware of the hazard and take appropriate action. If I recall the examples given were a pothole on an A road should be identified and fixed within a month or so (as the Council could reasonable be expected to inspect a major A road once a month), whereas mud from a farmer's field on a B-road, where it couldn't be reasonably expected for the Council to be aware of this and remove, albeit I think the advise was if you had an accident in those circumstances you could probably claim from the farmer via small claims court.
Going back to this incident, there's nothing to stop you going to the small claims court to pursue the Council for costs. It appears the Solicitors are saying you have 50:50 chance of success, so they wouldn't take it on as there is a risk you might not win, and be liable for their fees. Judges are reasonable people and will look at all the evidence available and make a decision based on the information available.
(You also have to remember that sometimes initiating court proceedings may make the Council reconsider the case depending on how much you are claiming as it may not be worth defending, but you also need to be prepared to go to Court to make your case)