A cyclist has been told he has no grounds for compensation despite suffering a horrendous list of life-changing injuries in a crash caused by a pothole that was 13mm too shallow to require council attention.
Paul Humphries has taken his case to the local press, the Cumberland & Westmorland Herald raising awareness of how the cyclist feels he has been left “high and dry” in “constant pain”, as well as “depressed and angry” by his unsuccessful search to seek compensation for the horrific injuries he suffered on 28 May 2020 when he hit a 47mm-deep pothole on Commonholme Road between Cilburn and Morland.
The 65-year-old was resuscitated by a police officer and had a second cardiac arrest while in the air ambulance to a hospital in Preston. Originally in an induced coma, Humphries later got sepsis and had his right leg amputated below the knee. Other injuries included a broken spine in two places, a severed spinal cord, a puncture to both lungs, and 12 broken ribs.
His solicitors from Irwin Mitchell have since advised he is unlikely to be able to claim compensation as the 47mm-deep hole was 13mm too shallow, Cumbria County Council Highway Condition and Safety Inspection Procedure of 2019 allowing for a 60mm depth, meaning it is likely a court will deem the hole “was not deep enough to require intervention”.
> Pothole that caused 75-year-old cyclist to crash not deemed a “critical safety defect” by council
The council also inspected the route more frequently than the one annual inspection it was required to undertake.
Mr Humphries told the Cumberland & Westmorland Herald: “I couldn’t believe it when my lawyer told me I couldn’t win my case. Mainly it’s because the pothole is not deep enough by 13mm, but if it had happened in 2019 it would be.
“I’ve basically been left high and dry. I try not to think about it, as it just makes me depressed and angry. I am in constant pain. The painkilling medication is not good for me but the nerve pain is never-ending. I call this an incident not an accident, as it shouldn’t have happened. This is nothing to do with health and safety and all about saving money. A 40mm pothole can do a lot of damage to a car, never mind a bike, so to say that the 47mm one I hit wasn’t deep enough beggars belief. What annoys me is that no one seems to know about this 60mm guideline.”
road.cc has contacted the council.
A 2019 Freedom of Information request found that one cyclist is killed or seriously injured a week by a pothole, numerous of those cases and those that have happened since being reported on this website.
In January, we reported that a cyclist from Worcestershire is set to sue the council for life-changing injuries, including a broken collarbone, ribs and pelvis, all sustained after he crashed upon hitting a pothole in Staffordshire which still had not been fixed — fifteen months on from his accident.
A year earlier, in Scotland, a council’s insurers eventually agreed to settle with an 80-year-old cyclist who was left with fractures to his face and spine, and needed to wear a back brace for three months after hitting a pothole in Carnwath.
We also reported the case of a cyclist who received a five-figure settlement from Essex County Council after suffering multiple fractures and other injuries in a crash caused by a pothole.
In 2022, a coroner submitted a report raising concerns about Surrey County Council’s lack of action in repairing dangerous potholes, one of which caused a fatal cycling crash in June 2020.
Elsewhere in the country, in Lancashire, the wife of a “much loved” member of the cycling community in the north west of England, who died after his front wheel became lodged in a nine-inch-deep crack in the road surface, throwing him from his bike, has called on both the government and local authorities to do more to repair potholes on the UK’s “woefully inadequate” roads.
An inquest into the death of “much-loved” cyclist Harry Colledge in January also found that Lancashire County Council was sent numerous photographs of the crack in the road – which had been visible on Google Maps since 2009 – in the months before the 84-year-old’s death and, despite plants growing in it, failed to find the pothole on two occasions.
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
27 thoughts on “Cyclist in “never-ending” pain after suffering life-changing injuries in pothole crash told he has no grounds for compensation as hole was 13mm too shallow”
Completely lost for words
Completely lost for words here
If depth is the only criteria
If depth is the only criteria for wether a pothole gets attention then whoever made that decision is incompetent, the plan shape of the pothole, the severity of the edges and its location on the road are all factors in how dangerous they are for cyclists. I would expect an expert witness could challenge that decision.
Backladder wrote:
But you’re missing the point. I’d wager that their risk assessment didn’t even consider cyclists, that it was based entirely on the size of hole which would cause billable damage to a motor vehicle.
That is exactly the reason it
That is exactly the reason it can and should be challenged, the council has a responsibility to consider all road users and safety for cyclists should trump inconvenience for motorists. I hope Paul can find some way to challenge this decision.
Totally agree
Totally agree
I’m unconvinced there isn’t
I’m unconvinced there isn’t more to this story. It sounds like the local council can make their own risk assessment of how deep a pothole needs to be. I would have thought a motivated solicitor could find some evidence that their depth limit is excessive compared to others in the country.
I wonder if he’s using a no-win no-fee crowd?
Looks like the standard is
Looks like the standard is completely based on automotive needs, not all road users…. 🙁
Local Highways Authorities
Local Highways Authorities set their own criteria for assessing potholes, carrying out inspections and fixing them. These are based on the risk to motor vehicles. If they comply with their own standards they claim “Due Diligence”, No Problem.
A pothole which causes a minor problem for a motor vehicle can cause serious injury or death to a cyclist. It’s time for the cycling community to stand up against the motorcentric establishment.
I have payed subs to Cycling UK and British Cycling – The silence is deafening.
In addition to the above
In addition to the above quote below is from my LHA web page
“You have a right to make a claim for compensation if your property has been damaged as a result of a pothole or other defect on a road or footpath. But you will only be given compensation if we are found to have been negligent or in breach of our legal duty under the Highways Act to maintain the highway.
This means that in law, the appearance of a defect doesn’t necessarily mean we have been negligent. We must use this law in our defence where appropriate. Any money we pay in compensation comes from public funds, and we have a duty to protect these funds.”
Cycloid wrote:
Arbitrarily deciding that 50mm deep holes are safe, when this is proven not to be the case is negligent in my view.
Yes your honour I knew there were some loose tiles on my roof which could prvent a hazard, but I decided anything under 1kg was not a risk, and as none of them crossed that threshold I didn’t need to replace them. This is such a cavalier approach to safety it beggers belief.
are looking at a system issue
Hard as it’s a system issue here. Local authorities that somehow lack resources to ensure all works are properly made good (There’s a whole other er… rabbit hole around how we organise and manage utilities doing works…). And also get to mark there own homework when challenged.
Interesting to see how that works elsewhere-although “organisation” probably isn’t something we can import…
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b4ya3V-s4I0&t=595
Other issue is that fixing potholes on roads – especially main ones used by buses, lorries etc. – is literally pouring money into holes in the ground.
This is another way in which taking space from motor traffic and allocating it to cycling can save money – the bit being cycled on should last far longer!
Cycloid wrote:
Have you asked them to do anything?
Or maybe you just weren’t listening?
https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaign/fill-hole
https://www.cyclinguk.org/press-release/britains-pothole-crisis-costs-lives-says-cycling-uk
https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/campaigning/article/20240114-campaigning-British-Cycling-joins-new-partnership-to-tackle-Britain-s-pothole-crisis-0
And that’s paid btw.
Sounds like rubbish lawyers.
Sounds like rubbish lawyers. Case law will be based on motor vehicle claims and in turn that is setting maintenance criteria, as Mike suggests.
And while we are at it, the designers of Orcas clearly put little thought into how cyclists and pedestrians would interact with their product, so creating a hazard for the cyclists that the dividers are supposed to protect.
Given the state of roads even compared with 5 years ago, this needs properly challenging.
The fact that each council
The fact that each council can set its own standards for the depth of pothole that necessitates attention is in itself a scandal. There needs to be a national standard based on the risk to the most vulnerable road user affected, in this case cyclists.
If a 47mm deep pothole can cause such life-changing injuries, it is clear that this council’s assessment of risk is wrong and should be challenged. A case for the Cyclists’ Defence Fund perhaps? Count me in for a few quid if they decide to take it on.
Of course the real villains are the odious tories, who cut council funding to the bone, meaning that they had to find savings, and although maintaining the roads in a safe condition is their duty, they could redefine what they considered safe, with some defining road defects as safe when they are anything but.
eburtthebike wrote:
In Warwickshire there was a period where some 40, 50 and national speed limits were reduced by a category across the county, which curiously coincided with a cessation of road surface repairs.
Whilst I appreciated the reduction of the limits in general, this was clearly a hand-rinsing exercise as there were no efforts for enforcement, nor were the changes enough to actually protect vulnerable road users from high speed vehicles, and allowing the roads to get more mashed up made it actively more unsafe
Sorry to hear that.
Sorry to hear that.
I’d say he needs a decent lawyer, since the definition should be based on the Duty of Care interpreted objectively – not as set at will by the Council itself especially when that definition has recently changed. That’s my view.
Here’s a case from Scotland:
https://roadtrafficaccidentlaw.co.uk/case-study/road-racing-legend-injured-in-pothole-incident/
This is a horrible outcome
This is a horrible outcome for the guy but, first, he’s already been to a reputable law firm. Second, as the article points out, it’s not just about the size of the hole, it’s about whether the council knows about it in advance that’s key. I remember once having a convo with a personal injury lawyer about this. So I suspect the advice he got is correct but there is nothing to stop him getting a second opinion from another firm – he has three years I think from the incident before the limitation period expires.
Second, it means we as cyclists should be reporting potholes to the LA when we find them. Where I live in Haringey you can do it online and they’re fixed pretty promptly. I don’t doubt the position will be different elsewhere in the Uk but once a council knows about a pothole and doesn’t fix it then – if someone subsequently has an accident – it’s going to be much more difficult for the LA to deny all liability.
it’s a practical thing we can all be doing for the common good.
CUK’s Fix that hole is good
CUK’s Fix that hole is good for quickly reporting potholes
https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaign/fill-hole
once a council knows about a
once a council knows about a pothole and doesn’t fix it then – if someone subsequently has an accident – it’s going to be much more difficult for the LA to deny all liability
Except it isn’t more difficult for them, as the case of Harry Colledge demonstrates. They just visit the pothole for a nice trip out from the office, decide that it’s not going to harm a motorised vehicle and ignore it for years. If the worst comes to the worst, the council turns up at the inquest and says that the pothole was hardly there at all at the time of inspection, and must have spontaneously closed up since the time of the photos being sent in, and then opened up again by the time of the ‘accident’. Hey Presto! Job done.
wtjs wrote:
Whenever I report a pothole I mention that it would be dangerous for cyclists in the text field, that seems to get a better response.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crrl92rr12ko
And the carists are more worried about scratching their alloys.
Boo-Hoo ?
Yes- it’s interesting that
Yes- it’s interesting that the ‘pothole’ which he claims caused the damage looks like nothing much at all. Most of Lancashire’s roads are covered with defects as bad as, and worse than, that. It’s almost as if ‘damage to my motah’ is taken more seriously than a KSI’d cyclist!
Typical BBC, couldn’t see any
Typical BBC, couldn’t see any mention of cyclists in that article.
Andski808 wrote:
Reporting is all well and good but if the Council have arbitrarily decided holes of 59mm depth are not dangerous and do not merit fixing it will not help.
However I fail to see how the council can defend the court case saying the hole was not deep enough to repair in accordance with their guidelines. How can they get away with saying “in our opinion holes of this size do not present a hazard, when a hole of this size has proved fatal? This is a failure of policy and the council are completely culpable. It even calls into question their inspection regime. It doesn’t matter how often they are inspecting if the inspectors have been told by the decision makes not to even see holes of 50mm and below.
On the one hand, I
On the one hand, I acknowledge that councils’ obligations to maintain highways isn’t absolute – they are not expected to eliminate all danger or ensure roads are buttery smooth at all times.
On the other hand, it does seem like a bit of a cop out from both the Council and Mr Humphries’ solicitors just to say that because the pothole was not deep enough according to the council’s policy, then the council has met its obligations. That assumes the policy is fit for purpose and meets the council’s legal obligations, and I would think there is scope to challenge that. Where did this 60mm number come from? What evidence was used to support it? Did any of that evidence include cyclists? How many cyclists use that road? What depth do other councils use when determining risk? Are factors other than depth considered when assessing risk? (If so inclined, Mr Humphries or indeed anyone could try and get some answers to those questions using FOI requests.)
A few sources indicate a depth of 40mm is the ballpark at which a pothole is typically deemed a risk to cyclists (e.g. [1] and [2]). If it can be demonstrated that Cumbria Council’s policy failed to adequately assess the risks to cyclists and that, contrary to their policy, potholes of >40mm are a risk to cyclists, then I would have thought there is a case to be heard.
Also – like supermarket
Also – like supermarket “price cuts” – have they put that figure up recently? “Unfortunately according to current policy (revised last Thursday) anything less that a journey to the centre of the earth is not deemed to be an indication of inadequate maintenance”.
What gives the lie to all this “marking one’s own homework” is not so much the fact that an inch in Chelsea is judged the same as a foot in Heckmondwike. It’s that once a council makes a choice of “what is safe” that decision – whatever it is – is then apparently never subject to justification in court at all!
OnYerBike wrote:
There’s this pdf from the RAC which gives a summary of the criteria used by councils. It’s from December 2018 so may be out of date.
There’s something called Well-managed Highway Infrastructure Code of Practice, which contains guidelines for potholes. Including this: