- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Royal Courts of Justice, London (picture bortescristian, Wikimedia Commons)Cyclist whose leg was shattered in pothole crash loses appeal
A cyclist whose right leg was shattered when she hit a pothole has lost her High Court case in which she was suing a council in Yorkshire for negligence.
Miranda Walsh was riding with her partner in Huddersfield in 2013 when she crashed as she approached the New Hey Road roundabout.
The Huddersfield Examiner reports that last year, Judge Neil Davey QC ruled that Kirklees Council was not to blame for her injuries.
Her lawyers had said that the pothole was “the size of a dinner plate,” measuring 6 by 8 inches and more than an inch and a half deep.
The judge, however, said that photographs of the pothole taken by a council engineer were “worse than useless” and there was no way of establishing the dimensions.
Ms Walsh had claimed that the council had been negligent in failing in its duty to keep the highway safe and that the pothole was “a real source of danger to road users.”
She appealed the decision, with her barrister, Ian Pennock, saying that the original decision was “simply wrong,” pointing out that one photo included a tape measure which showed the size of the pothole.
Mr Justice Dingemans ruled that while the photograph appeared at first sight to show the dimensions, looking more closely he agreed with Judge Davey that there was "not enough reliable evidence" to establish that it posed a real danger, and dismissed the appeal.
The decision has been reported at a time when Cycling UK is running its inaugural Pothole Watch Week.
As we reported on Sunday, the charity says that pothole-related claims against local authorities by cyclists result in awards and legal fees 25 those of claims brought by motorists, due to the greater risk of injury.
Commenting on this case, Duncan Dollimore, Head of Campaigns at Cycling UK, said: "It’s impossible to know exactly what evidence was available to the court simply from the press reports, but this case demonstrates the importance of taking photographs of any pothole or road defect which include reference to some form of scale, including the depth of the hole.
"The press report mentions a depth of 1.6 inches, but it's unclear whether that was a relevant factor.
"New government guidance issued in 2016 set a depth of 40mm as the level at which potholes should be investigated, but not automatically repaired.
"Sadly, we all know that the location of the pothole can be as important as its size, something which highways authorities and the courts don't always seem to realise, so it's also vital to take photographs showing the road approaching the pothole to put the location in context."
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- OnYerBike 12 min 22 sec ago
The Sora groupset seems very expensive for what it is. Even without going down the AliExpress route, you can get 11spd 105 for £360 (https://www...
- Bigfoz 14 min 18 sec ago
UAE Tour of Britain maybe?
- bikes 20 min 49 sec ago
Driving culture in a nutshell. Dangerous and with tiny/nonexistent penalties. ...
- hawkinspeter 26 min 5 sec ago
I like the way that it can collect water in the wrong places and so putting it through a car wash invalidates the warranty.
- mdavidford 29 min 15 sec ago
You're overlooking the 'lifting it out of the shed' factor, though.
- Cugel 1 hour 5 min ago
It won't. Never has and never will. Criminals act in two ways: impulsively, where emotion of the moment overcomes all other considerations; with...
- hawkinspeter 27 min 13 sec ago
I'd say that Mogg Street is more likely used by cyclists who opt for the bridge over the M32 rather than the underpasses as opposed to trying to...
- open_roads 1 hour 53 min ago
And we can be sure that Police Scotland would be similarly disinterested if larger versions were scattered across roads and motorways to sabotage...
- fixit 4 hours 59 min ago
No shit! really? you need a research to come to this conlusion?
Add new comment
12 comments
Please report all potholes though. I came off on a sunken manhole cover a few years ago. Luckily no serious injuries though I did land on my phone and smash that.
I complained to the council who complained to a utility company who fixed the road in a couple of days. Great, I thought, now what about my smashed phone, ripped shirt and bar tape?
The council dismissed the claim on the basis they had a record of road inspections taking place 2 weeks before and finding no defects. This was nonsense. I commute it most days and it had been getting worse for months but I'd remembered to cycle around it most days except for the one day I forgot.
They also said I should have been cycling nearer the curb. Oh how I laughed.
Not sure I'm understanding. *
"The judge, however, said that photographs of the pothole taken by a council engineer were “worse than useless” and there was no way of establishing the dimensions."
Hold on. The defendent (yup, that's the defendant, on a charge, in a court of law) took incompetent photographs of their incompetence? And because they took incompetent photographs of their incomeptence, the demonstrably incompetent defendant is "not to blame"? WTAF.
* that needs a sarcasm/cycnical smiley. Aye - I do understand. Exactly.
One the other hand, one I reported near Henley this time last year was fixed almost overnight.
Could it have had something to do with the comment I added in the report that a sponsored charity cycle ride with several hundred riders would be going up that road the following weekend?
So, if you want a pothole fixed, organise a charity bike ride along that road!
I am pestering Reading Council to repair the road surface on a roundabout on my way to work, due to an awkward series of potholes that you have to pick your way through.
First reported it about 3 years ago - last response from them was they are monitoring the situation but the potholes are still not big enough to trigger an intervention!
Remember kids, next time you smash yourself to bits hitting a pothole make sure you resist the urge to immediately pick your front teeth up and instead of calling an ambulance, wipe that blood away from your borken mobile and snap a selfie with that pesky pothole.
And kids, don't forget to take that tape measure!
"..this case demonstrates the importance of taking photographs of any pothole or road defect.."
Surely it demonstrates the effectiveness of literally covering up evidence as quickly as possible.
Exactly!
My 15 year old daughter hit a pothole 3 years ago and the resulting accident was bad enough for her to need to go to hospital by ambulance. The council claimed that the pothole was not significant enough according to the definition of when they need to repair it and so rejected our claim.
However, on the advice of the Police, I went back to scene 2 days later to take clear photographs including a tape measure to define size & depth. Because of this evidence the council subsequently admitted liability without going to court.
My daughter got compensation but has permanent scars from the accident. However what really pi$$es me off is that I use the same road every day on the way to work and the pothole is currently larger than it was at the time of her accident (+3yrs)!
This is a perennial issue the same potholes keep reappearing because they are patched and are not fixed properly. Surely the cost of repeated patches is more than the cost a single proper repair.
I complained about one like that - the pothole was now bigger than some parts of the purple spray that had been put on to mark the original hole for repair. I think it was repaired eventually.
You don't mention if you have reported it. If you haven't bear in mind that some council's don't accept reports through third party websites as a result of the poor standard of some reports, so try phoning the council direct
Her injuries are proof that the pothole is dangerous. How is this not self-evident?
Her injuries are evidence that she was involved in an incident not evidence of how or where the incident happened and not evidence of the depth of a pothole