Potholes

On 07/05/2006 14:10, Martyn Bolt said,

Quoted message said:

I heard last week that a case for damages had been thrown out as a
legal precedent had been set that roads don't have to be smooth.

I was staying near Lincoln last week, and there was an infamous pothole
under a railway bridge that had been there for at least a few years.
This was the sort of pothole that cavers could get lost in, never mind a
bike wheel. Anyway, they've finally sort of repaired it...

....and then installed a sign warning of the pothole!

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Martyn Bolt said:

I heard last week that a case for damages had been thrown out as a
legal precedent had been set that roads don't have to be smooth.

Someone also posted on here that if the person who suffered the damage
sends a claim to the council, they will often pay and will fix the hole
to ensure nobody else is affected (and asks for more money).

Quoted message said:

A highways inspection by 2 guys drivinga vehicle with wide tyres and
suspension at 20 mph can't be a scientific way of assessing the roads
in the 21st century.

The '21st century' way uses cameras, lasers and a computer in the
vehicle. Certainly picks up potholes (cracks and holes which contrast
with the surface). Not sure how good they are picking up sunken areas
which have not cracked.

This still depends on the council investing in such technology, and the
road being surveyed regularly.

peter

in message <[email hidden]>, Martyn Bolt

(') said:

I heard last week that a case for damages had been thrown out as a
legal precedent had been set that roads don't have to be smooth.

On Saturday i was on a charity ride where a rider came off , in
Manchester, due to a hole 2ft X 1.5 ft X 3 ins.

We live in a country in which a million children live in poverty; in
which old people cannot be cared for in their own homes; in which the
illnesses associated with social deprivation and poverty cost thousands
of early deaths every year. And you want to spend /more/ money on roads?

Potholes are good. Potholes slow down drivers who would otherwise drive
excessively fast. Potholes ensure that the road users around you are
paying attention. Potholes means there's more money in the public purse
to pay for things that really matter.

What is it with this country that people refuse to accept responsibility
for their own actions? There's a pothole in the road. So steer around
it, or bunny hop over it, or slow down to a speed at which you can
negotiate it safely. Or damage your bike and pay to have it fixed, in
recognition of your own stupidity.

We need roads which are /passable/. We don't need roads which
are /perfect/. The difference between passable and perfect is a big hill
of money.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; When all else fails, read the distractions.

Simon Brooke said:

We live in a country in which a million children live in poverty;

By a definition of "poverty" that would put our queen in "poverty"
if the rest of the world just happened to be even richer.

Though people in southeast england may be heading for real poverty
in the not-too-distant future. The mere fact of earning high incomes
won't protect their water supplies. Which just goes to show the
futility of measuring how well off people are in terms of income,
after it's reached a certain point (and anyone who gets the dole
or better in this country is *far* above that point).

in

Quoted message said:

which old people cannot be cared for in their own homes;

My late neighbour had twice-daily care from social services for several
years before she died. That's a lot of taxpayers money gone to
enriching her son, who wasn't poor (by any definition) even before
inheriting.

Quoted message said:

in which the
illnesses associated with social deprivation and poverty cost thousands
of early deaths every year.

As in, people who are subjected persistently to pollution such
as traffic fumes or ghetto-blasters? Or are you talking about
what might politely be described as self-inflicted illnesses?

Quoted message said:

We need roads which are /passable/. We don't need roads which
are /perfect/. The difference between passable and perfect is a big hill
of money.

By international standards - even within the developed world -
our roads are wide and well-surfaced. And unlike most countries,
almost all our roads are free at the point of use. No wonder
they're overcrowded.

--
not me guv

Martyn Bolt said:

I heard last week that a case for damages had been thrown out as a
legal precedent had been set that roads don't have to be smooth.

On Saturday i was on a charity ride where a rider came off , in
Manchester, due to a hole 2ft X 1.5 ft X 3 ins.

If the law has accepted the precedent i believe it is time for our
national bodies to challenge that.

A highways inspection by 2 guys drivinga vehicle with wide tyres and
suspension at 20 mph can't be a scientific way of assessing the roads
in the 21st century.

Find out which case law set the precedant. Unlike the US, the UK has
to give just reason for allowing a precendant to be set within the
summing up of the case, which obviously means that other similar cases
are required to preside by the precedant set, but they are not entirely
set in stone as they can be over-ruled by a decent judge, providing the
reasoning is there in order to undertake such an action.

--
Lesley

Simon

It must be great to live in Utopia.

One can take responsibility for their actions, BUt in the 2 cases i
mention other factors came into play which you don't enquire about.

In the first, the rider was dropping a 1:10 hill aware of teh potholes
and taking a defensive line.

A car coming uphill overtook a horse rider, bring him into conflict
with the cyclist. The cyclist toook action and hit one of many
potholes.

In the incident on Saturday the pothole was in a shadow, right on the
line used by cyclists, the first of the group saw, shouted and
swerved, the second row couldn't avoid and hit it.

Potholes don't slow cars down, as they have wide wheels and
suspension. But they certainly do bring cyclists down.

Perhaps if Govt spent our money wiser their would be money for our
roads

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Martyn Bolt

(') said:

I heard last week that a case for damages had been thrown out as a
legal precedent had been set that roads don't have to be smooth.

On Saturday i was on a charity ride where a rider came off , in
Manchester, due to a hole 2ft X 1.5 ft X 3 ins.

We live in a country in which a million children live in poverty; in
which old people cannot be cared for in their own homes; in which the
illnesses associated with social deprivation and poverty cost thousands
of early deaths every year. And you want to spend /more/ money on roads?

Potholes are good. Potholes slow down drivers who would otherwise drive
excessively fast. Potholes ensure that the road users around you are
paying attention. Potholes means there's more money in the public purse
to pay for things that really matter.

What is it with this country that people refuse to accept responsibility
for their own actions? There's a pothole in the road. So steer around
it, or bunny hop over it, or slow down to a speed at which you can
negotiate it safely. Or damage your bike and pay to have it fixed, in
recognition of your own stupidity.

We need roads which are /passable/. We don't need roads which
are /perfect/. The difference between passable and perfect is a big hill
of money.

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Martyn Bolt

(') said:

I heard last week that a case for damages had been thrown out as a
legal precedent had been set that roads don't have to be smooth.

On Saturday i was on a charity ride where a rider came off , in
Manchester, due to a hole 2ft X 1.5 ft X 3 ins.

We live in a country in which a million children live in poverty; in
which old people cannot be cared for in their own homes; in which the
illnesses associated with social deprivation and poverty cost thousands
of early deaths every year. And you want to spend /more/ money on roads?

Potholes are good. Potholes slow down drivers who would otherwise drive
excessively fast.

A typical pothole will hardly be noticed by most motorists, but could kill a
cyclist quite easily if they make them crash and end up under the wheels of
a vehicle.

Adrian Boliston said:

Quoted message said:

Potholes are good. Potholes slow down drivers who would otherwise drive
excessively fast.

A typical pothole will hardly be noticed by most motorists, but could kill a
cyclist quite easily if they make them crash and end up under the wheels of
a vehicle.

And there was me thinking that drivers of vehicles should be driving
them in a manner such that if they're following or overtaking a cyclist
who falls off, they can stop before they run them over. Silly me, what
was I thinking? You don't need to give cyclists room to fall off
because if they do and you run them over, it's the potholes' fault (c.f.
I was following another car and they braked sharply because the traffic
lights went to red in front of them; I ran into the back of their car
but it was the traffic lights' fault, officer, for chosing that moment
to go to red.)

R.

"Richard" <[email hidden]>
wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Adrian Boliston said:

Quoted message said:

Potholes are good. Potholes slow down drivers who would otherwise drive
excessively fast.

A typical pothole will hardly be noticed by most motorists, but could
kill a cyclist quite easily if they make them crash and end up under the
wheels of a vehicle.

And there was me thinking that drivers of vehicles should be driving them
in a manner such that if they're following or overtaking a cyclist who
falls off, they can stop before they run them over. Silly me, what was I
thinking? You don't need to give cyclists room to fall off because if
they do and you run them over, it's the potholes' fault....

I was actually think about the risk of being flung into the path of an
*oncoming* vehicle

Simon Brooke said:

We live in a country in which a million children live in poverty; in
which old people cannot be cared for in their own homes; in which the
illnesses associated with social deprivation and poverty cost
thousands of early deaths every year. And you want to spend /more/
money on roads?

Just more money on repairing the *worst* damage will do for a start.
Let's use some of the cycling farcility budget!

Quoted message said:

Potholes are good. Potholes slow down drivers who would otherwise
drive excessively fast. Potholes ensure that the road users around
you are paying attention.

Nonsense, it doesn't slow them down on a main road, for instance.

Quoted message said:

Potholes means there's more money in the
public purse to pay for things that really matter.

What is it with this country that people refuse to accept
responsibility for their own actions? There's a pothole in the road.
So steer around it, or bunny hop over it, or slow down to a speed at
which you can negotiate it safely.

That's all very well for the ones you spot. You'd have to cycle very
slowly indeed all the time everywhere to make absolutely sure you never
missed one.

Quoted message said:

Or damage your bike and pay to
have it fixed, in recognition of your own stupidity.

We need roads which are /passable/. We don't need roads which
are /perfect/. The difference between passable and perfect is a big
hill of money.

And there's a massive difference between perfect and roads with damage bad
enough to cause serious injury (which incidentally will add to the public
cost). Some of the holes I see look bad enough to cause death! It should
be a priority to fill the worst ones in. I don't call a cyclist "stupid"
for occasionally failing to spot a hole on an otherwise good road. They
are like traps. It's different if you going down some track where you're
/expecting/ the surface to be poor. Even if you do call the victims
stupid, they (we!) deserve better.

~PB

Adrian Boliston said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A typical pothole will hardly be noticed by most motorists, but could
kill a cyclist quite easily if they make them crash and end up under the
wheels of a vehicle.

And there was me thinking that drivers of vehicles should be driving them
in a manner such that if they're following or overtaking a cyclist who
falls off, they can stop before they run them over. Silly me, what was I
thinking? You don't need to give cyclists room to fall off because if
they do and you run them over, it's the potholes' fault....

I was actually think about the risk of being flung into the path of an
*oncoming* vehicle

And how many cyclists are killed in this manner?

R.

quote='Richard'Adrian Boliston said:

Quoted message said:

Potholes are good. Potholes slow down drivers who would otherwise drive
excessively fast.

A typical pothole will hardly be noticed by most motorists, but could kill a
cyclist quite easily if they make them crash and end up under the wheels of
a vehicle.

And there was me thinking that drivers of vehicles should be driving
them in a manner such that if they're following or overtaking a cyclist
who falls off, they can stop before they run them over. Silly me, what
was I thinking? You don't need to give cyclists room to fall off
because if they do and you run them over, it's the potholes' fault (c.f.
I was following another car and they braked sharply because the traffic
lights went to red in front of them; I ran into the back of their car
but it was the traffic lights' fault, officer, for chosing that moment
to go to red.)

R.[/QUOTE]
All car drivers are that considerate?

Richard said:

And there was me thinking that drivers of vehicles should be driving
them in a manner such that if they're following or overtaking a cyclist
who falls off, they can stop before they run them over. Silly me, what
was I thinking? You don't need to give cyclists room to fall off
because if they do and you run them over, it's the potholes' fault (c.f.
I was following another car and they braked sharply because the traffic
lights went to red in front of them; I ran into the back of their car
but it was the traffic lights' fault, officer, for chosing that moment
to go to red.)

R.

Or the car drivers who are so desperate to overtake a speeding cyclist
that they overtake without reading the road ahead and then promptly have
to stop because of a parked stationary vehicle and oncoming traffic.

Of course the cyclist didn't have a problem until the car overtook and
then immediately stopped at which point ....

Naturally if the cyclist hits the car it will be his fault ...

A

Alan said:

Or the car drivers who are so desperate to overtake a speeding cyclist
that they overtake without reading the road ahead and then promptly have
to stop because of a parked stationary vehicle and oncoming traffic.

Or the ones (like the one in the old red mini with dozy roll-cage
obscuring the rear window) who follow behind a cyclist in a traffic
queue where the cyclist is in the primary position travelling at the
same speed as the queue ('cos teh queue is behind a road-sweeper
trundling sedately), but then suddenly decide to overtake because
there's a gap in the oncoming traffic. Not 'till getting alongside
does he notice that there's nowhere to go next. Then he notices the
end of the oncoming gap, so he pulls into the queue, attempting to
occupy the same physical space as the afore-mentioned cyclist.

After physically barging me off the line I was riding he screamed
abuse out his window about me hitting his car.

When he eventually got past and roared off ahead, he was stopped by
the next traffic lights being red, so he got out and started screaming
abuse at me again. Then he leapt in and roared off again, though the
lights had turned back to red at this point, which he noticed after
entering the junction, so he only got a little roar before doing an
emergency stop.

Quoted message said:

Naturally if the cyclist hits the car it will be his fault ...

It was indeed all my fault, apparently.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|