Claiming compensation from Highways — Drain Cover (gully grate) damage

[Dogtrousers]

Forgive me if I'm teaching grandmother to suck eggs. You have probably considered all this, but anyway ...

Your argument might well come down to a question of technical standards. While you might be right that a bike friendly grid with central split would have prevented your incident, that may not mean they were negligent in using the one without that feature. In your position I'd research the technical standards for grids and guidelines for their use. If you can find subsection 67 para 22 that says "only use grates conforming to bike-safe standard xyz next to dropped kerbs in residential areas" then you are golden. But if you can't find this, then be prepared for them to cite para 34bis that says "new installations post 2006 should use standard xyz, existing installations using wheel-swallower standard ABC are permitted to remain". So get googling.

 

[cool_hand]

I suspect it might depend on which Highways.

Some years back I made a claim against my local Highways for cycling shoes ruined due to road works (long story) but they were unquestionably in the wrong. They didn't dispute that they were in the wrong, just said "no". So eventually I said we were going to court (small claims track) to which they replied they'd be sending lawyers to agrue the case - which is daft as even if they won they'd have lost money 'cos small claims track didn't award costs.

Highways then started to blame the contractor. It wasn't contractors fault as they had complied with Highways contract - it was Highways contract that allowed the fault to happen.

In the end the contractor just sent me a cheque saying they wanted the whole thing to "go away" (clearly Highways had been putting pressure on them.

My recollection is that Highways had a general principle to refuse and defend every claim on the basis that most people claiming wouldn't persist and very few would bother to go to court and most give-up so they'd lose a few in court but get away with the vast majority.

But the above might be just my local area Highways and might have since changed as my experience was maybe 8 years ago.

It was Hampshire Highways.

I think you're probably right, that they (Highways) decline claims/don't accept liability as a matter of policy.

 

[cool_hand]

I'm really sorry to hear of your misfortune, But I honesty can't see the council giving into this one. Perhaps take your claim to the small claim courts or to a solicitor to see what they may say. Good luck.

I've actually created this thread to try and gather more information around the implementation of gully grates and to see if there any directives published that specifically take into consideration cyclists/safety. The grates are clearly a hazard if they don't contain a split.

 

[briantrumpet]

I've actually created this thread to try and gather more information around the implementation of gully grates and to see if there any directives published that specifically take into consideration cyclists/safety. The grates are clearly a hazard if they don't contain a split.

@Pross over in 'the other place' might know. I'll ask.

 

[cool_hand]

I've found this:

https://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/tses/attachments/a869ed8e-4470-4286-aef4-7d11af24a597

It mentions:

5.9 Gully design shall not affect the safety of cyclists and other road users and will not impact upon traffic flow.

However, the document is maked as being WITHDRAWN

 

[Ming the Merciless]

That is not a web link but local on your PC, plus you’ve given your name away.

 

[Psamathe]

... that may not mean they were negligent in using the one without that feature. In your position I'd research the technical standards for grids and guidelines for their use. If you can find subsection 67 para 22 that says "only use grates conforming to bike-safe standard xyz next to dropped kerbs in residential areas" then you are golden.

Also the standards applicable at the time the grate/drain was installed. Standards can change over time but does a change require retrospective upgrades to all already installed infrastructure? It could get very expensive for Highways to retrospectively upgrade infrastructure after a standards/recommendation change (or it could be a major discouragement to adopting improved standards if such change incurred a massive retrospective upgrade cost).

 

[Dogtrousers]

Also the standards applicable at the time the grate/drain was installed. Standards can change over time but does a change require retrospective upgrades to all already installed infrastructure? It could get very expensive for Highways to retrospectively upgrade infrastructure after a standards/recommendation change (or it could be a major discouragement to adopting improved standards if such change incurred a massive retrospective upgrade cost).

Indeed, that's why I cited the (totally imaginary) 34bis, which grandfathers in non-compliant grids.

 

[cool_hand]

That is not a web link but local on your PC, plus you’ve given your name away.

Sorry. Fixed.
https://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/tses/attachments/a869ed8e-4470-4286-aef4-7d11af24a597

 

[Dogtrousers]

Here's the latest (non withdrawn) version

https://www.standardsforhighways.co...55d-1290-43d9-bded-2ea6a58ba334?standard=DMRB

Being devil's avocado, this bit may actually argue against your case:

3.4Grating slots shall be orientated so as not to pose a hazard to cyclists riding over them in the direction of travel.
NOTEBS EN 124:1994 [Ref 3.N]allows grating slots parallel to the kerb which can present a serious hazard to cyclists.

 

[cool_hand]

Define direction of travel.

The link doesn't work for me.

 

[Pross]

Does anyone have any insight into claiming compensation from Highways for damage to ones bike?

Earlier in the year whilst cycling in the same road where I live my front wheel fell into the grate of a large drain cover AKA a gully grate, it jammed in the grate and then a combination of gravity and my weight destroyed the rim beyond repair. Before you say take more care this was an accident that would not of happened if the cover had a safety split in it. Most covers have a split or splits in the grate to prevent bicycle wheels being damaged. I made a claim with Hampshire Highways as I felt the grate used was a inherently dangerous and not suitable for a residential road but they responded saying that they inspected the cover and as it was not defective there was no negligence – my claim was declined. The damaged front wheel is a Mavic Aksium Rim brake. I can't be the first cyclist to have their wheels damaged by a gully grate. I'm wondering if there are directives regarding the type of grate that should be used in a residential road?

As a highway engineer and road safety auditor (private sector, not Council and with no connection to HCC although I've done a few jobs on their patch):

Do you have a photo of the grating used on the gully? I'm not sure what you mean by a 'safety split'. There are all sorts of options (split, hinged etc.) but they also need to be installed in the correct orientation to stop this sort of thing, basically if they are diagonal slots they should be angled in the opposite direction to a bike would be travelling and the slots should run parallel to the kerb. If it was on a cycleway then I would usually specify a grid type grating but it sounds like that isn't the case here. Hampshire's current typical details state that the grating should be captive hinged with a hinge of the side closest to the oncoming traffic but they may have historic gullies of a different type. Gullies should comply with BS EN 124 but there isn't really anything that prescriptive covering the issue raised here, I believe that standard even allows the slots on gratings to be be parallel to the kerb which is obviously not good for cyclists. National Highways have a design document CD 534 that gives some guidance on gully tops but it's pretty sparse and only applies to trunk roads / motorways although these documents are also used by local highway authorities to inform their own standards. In short, unless the angle of the slots was wrong or the gully was raised / sunked below the road I'm not sure you have much of a case I'm afraid.

 

[Pross]

Define direction of travel.

The link doesn't work for me.

If the slots are diagonal they should be angled like this if you are travelling in the direction of the arrow. That way your wheel would have to turn over 90 degrees to get caught.

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

right - so SWMBO is off for "tea" with her mate

so the question is whetehr or not I can drop her off and still get out for a ride before dark

although as a precaution I have replaced the batteries in my rear light and recharged the other rear light

 

[briantrumpet]

Define direction of travel.

The link doesn't work for me.

Along the road, I assume.