So that's what hitting oil feels like

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

lech

New Member
It was bloody sore for a few weeks, what was worse was the groin strain from trying to unclip as I went down. And the road rash. And the colours-of-the-rainbow bruising.

But I don't complain.
 

stevevw

Guru
Location
Herts
redjedi said:
I'm fine thanks Aperitif.

My finger's still painfull and my thigh is nicely bruised.

The only problem with getting a new bike is choosing the colour of it. Do I go red to match my bleeding finger or yellow and purple to match my thigh? :biggrin:

Get a nice chrome one like mine http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=35054
and you will be able to use it as a mirror to look at all your bruises.

Get well soon.

Steve
 

downfader

extimus uero philosophus
Location
'ampsheeeer
Its worse when you take one to the knackers aint it:
snn2902ww280_477824a.jpg
 
My huge brain. I suggest you use yours and Google. You'll get it on the first page.

A Local Authority has a duty to maintain their roads. It starts there. I'll let you do the rest, you're too old to spoon-feed.

So you just made it up then.


If the source of the contamination can be traced, then the driver of the vehicle which dropped it can be charged with driving a defective vehicle rendering him responsible for causing it - a bit like farmer's getting done for dragging mud onto the road and causing an accident (duty of care). The liability lies with them, and not the local authority if the local authority has not been informed of this problem and given adequate time to sort it out.

If an accident happens between the time of the contamination being caused and the Local authority being informed, then the MIB are petitioned to take up the case if the culprit cannot be traced.

If the MIB have made a payout, it is because the council have not been found to be liable


You really are very full of your own importance MrP. Nothing changes :tongue:

Try actually researching these claims before making them

http://www.postonline.co.uk/public/showPage.html?page=post_breakingnews_story&tempPageName=356288
 
No, not made up.

First google result, seeing as you're too incompetent to manage it yourself-

http://www.hodgehalsall.co.uk/node/40

Section 41 of the Highways Act 1980 places a duty on the local Highway Authority to maintain the highway in a condition that is safe for users. The "highway" for these purposes includes roads, cycle tracks, footpaths, public paths, bridleways and verges for which the highway authority is responsible. The duty to "maintain" includes repairs.

In order to succeed with a claim a person injured in a trip on the highway needs to show that the Highway Authority has not complied with its duty to maintain the highway in a safe condition. This has three elements :-

• the highway was in a dangerous condition to those using it;
• that the dangerous condition arose as a result of a failure by the Highway Authority to maintain the highway;
• if a failure to maintain the highway can be established then the Highway Authority are prima facie liable.

However, Section 58 of the Highways Act provides the Highway Authority with a defence against such a claim if it can show that it has taken all reasonable care to maintain the highway in a condition that is safe for users.


The Local Authority has a duty to maintain the roads, and this includes reasonable checks. To absolve themselves of any responsibility they have to prove that they have an appropriate maintenance plan, including checks, and that they did not know about the fault despite these acceptable checks being in place.

If you spent even the tiniest bit of time considering your view, then you'd see how ridiculous it is. You want to review your 'good authority'. You really are lazy.

Read my initial thread again, linfy. It's all correct.

Your link says nothing to dispute the legal position.

Some more which you could also have found-

http://injuryguide.co.uk/highways-act-1980.html

This is only applicable if they are aware of it.

If a HGV drops diesel, and 2 minutes later someone has an accident on it, the Local authority will dispute liability on it if the lorry cannot be traced or they have a reasonable time to resolve it

This is not to say they don't pay out, but a diesel spill isn't a part of the structure of the road like a pothole.
 
I know. That's what I said.

Local Authorities cannot rely on "but nobody told us" as a defence.

They must have appropriate inspection measures in place, and be able to prove that these were happening and adequate.

So we do agree on this then ??

If an oil slick is laid down and is still there a day later, the council is liable for failing to check the road and make good on a regular basis.

If it causes an accident 5 minutes after it was created, then they aren't, and the MIB become liable in absence of the cause being identified.
 
Top Bottom