I wonder how Autonomous Cars deal with Potholes!

[spen666]

I took my council to court for the £100 tyre I had to get from a pothole. I did infact incurr further cost when I found out the wheel was damaged (another £45).
I got a letter yesterday to say the councils solicitors found no evidence of the council failing to inspect and repair the hole I drove over, so I get nothing.

I am confused... if you took the council to court, then it is up to court to decide on liability not the council's solicitors

 

[PhilDawson8270]

I wonder how autonomous cars will deal with horses. The only way you can safely pass a horse is by slowing down and carefully watching how it's reacting.

If the horse isn't predictable and controllable. Surely it is unfit to be on a public road. After all, we don't find unpredictable, difficult to control dogs acceptable in public

 

[ufkacbln]

The world of autonomous cars is an ideal one, in the same way that cars in adverts never see another vehicle, never get stuck in a traffic jam, and never break down

In the world of the autonomous car there are no potholes

 

[PhilDawson8270]

[QUOTE 4750266, member: 9609"]
Also how will autonomous deal with wildlife ? [/QUOTE]

Hopefully better than the police who used a car to try and hit a stray dog.
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/police-deliberately-run-over-dog-10939767

 

[Oldfentiger]

[QUOTE 4750309, member: 9609"]
I'm just not sure if I have much sympathy for people who hit pot holes - drive more slowly and concentrate more.[/QUOTE]

A fair comment, but what about the pothole which destroyed my front nearside tyre a couple of years ago? It was a pothole masquerading as a puddle, only evident when I walked back to see what had caused the damage.

 

[User42542]

The data on those websites is not the same as the actual notifications by the public and inspections data that the relevant councils use.

My first step was to 1) enquire about the process, 2) Make a complaint 3) Prove the council negligent by using Freedom of Information act to request all notifications by the public on the stretch of road and all works and inspections that had taken place. It took a few days for it to come through. In hindsight I should have got the data in step 3 first before making the complaint. When I reviewed the data, which was very detailed and interesting, I realised they had inspected the road within the timeframe they needed to. I will know better next time!

This is Martin Lewis's doing, which wastes Council's already stretched funds!

Put your claim in, and request the appropriate disclosure at the necessary time, the council will always produce inspection & complaint records when asked, a FOI request is just a waste of resources.

 

[User42542]

You would think a typical pothole repair costs less than a solicitors letter. In fact, I'm certain they do.

The argument there is, how do the council know about every pothole on the road?

They may inspect that road monthly, and if a pothole becomes a problem well before the next inspection, they can only rely on people reporting them to the council.

You said yourself that you do, but i bet 90% of people dont.

 

[User42542]

I did mention to a work-collegue about this, after seeing it, that I might send the local Concil the bill for my new bike, with a covering letter, along of the lines of

-Poor road-surfaces/potholes > required fatter tyres to ride through them > thus reducing possible claims for personal injuries, if they cause me to fall off
- Present bike won't take fatter tyres > thus bought new bike
- Due to the holes getting worse, new bike also has disc-brakes > to allow wheels extra lee-way in case of buckles, (or to brake sharply to avoid them) after hitting your potholes
- Colour chosen for visibility > due to having to change lines > due to your potholes

Obviously worded correctly, but with those salient points
Should I try?

Nope - you have chosen to equip your bike to help mitigate any potential losses. There is nothing to say you would ever had hit a pothole, or been caused injury.

You would also need to pinpoint the exact location of a pothole (James v Preseli Pembrokeshire) as the general poor condition of a road is not sufficient to find the council negligent.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

[QUOTE 4751261, member: 9609"]I do word things badly - when I say I don't have much sympathy, I don't mean I have no sympathy in all cases. I acknowledge they are a problem and a great danger and in some cases they are unavoidable at a practicable level.

But I do feel that in many cases a more aware driver could have avoided them and I really do think that there are a lot of cars with super low profile tyres that are just not fit for purpose. If it was up to me I would limit any claim to £50 and not pay out on any tyre with a profile less than 3 inches. And no pay out for daft alloy rims. I don't want all my taxes (not that I pay any now) wasted on creating perfect road surfaces suitable to drive stupidly designed cars at stupid speeds on.

If all vehicles were limited to a max speed of 40 the roads would be in much better condition, much better for wildlife and much better foe ecological damage through pollution.[/QUOTE]

Surely creating roads that are suitable for cars with large profile tyres, at lower speeds, and removing some liability from councils to make sure roads are fit. Would surely harm cyclists too. After all, a road suitable for that, isn't one I'd want to be doing 20mph on a road bike on either.

 

[Richard A Thackeray]

[QUOTE 4751261, member: 9609"]But I do feel that in many cases a more aware driver could have avoided them and I really do think that there are a lot of cars with super low profile tyres that are just not fit for purpose. If it was up to me I would limit any claim to £50 and not pay out on any tyre with a profile less than 3 inches. And no pay out for daft alloy rims. I don't want all my taxes (not that I pay any now) wasted on creating perfect road surfaces suitable to drive stupidly designed cars at stupid speeds on.
.[/QUOTE]
All of my old (coil-sprung) Land Rovers were all on 235/85 x 16 tyres, barring the Discovery (which was on 235/75 x 16) so a heck of a sidewall aspect ratio, & survived all potholes
Conversely, our Jaguar XKR, when we had that was on 245/40(front) & 255/40 (rear) x 18, those were swallowed by certain holes
That said, we must have been lucky (& careful), as it survived 4 years, with no tyre/wheel damage

Nope - you have chosen to equip your bike to help mitigate any potential losses. There is nothing to say you would ever had hit a pothole, or been caused injury.

You would also need to pinpoint the exact location of a pothole (James v Preseli Pembrokeshire) as the general poor condition of a road is not sufficient to find the council negligent.

It was an idle thought, more of a 'pay less now, than later, if I do hit one of your potholes'

 

[classic33]

Nope - you have chosen to equip your bike to help mitigate any potential losses. There is nothing to say you would ever had hit a pothole, or been caused injury.

You would also need to pinpoint the exact location of a pothole (James v Preseli Pembrokeshire) as the general poor condition of a road is not sufficient to find the council negligent.

That second part might explain why some councils say they don't take reports from third part sites.

 

[classic33]

Google have had problems in the past when the holes have been marked using paint.