Council being sued by three cyclists injured as they rode through ford

Team E Mong wrote:

Shock horror! Women aren’t just bad at driving. 

Someone let the dickhead out again.

duzza wrote:

I've ridden through that ford many times over the years and have yet to fall off, however, If you've never ridden through a ford you probably wouldn't realise how slippery they can be. During the summer there isn't usually much water in it so even if you didn't know the road, I doubt you would dismount and use the bridge. The main problem isn't the ford itself, but the speed you can be doing approaching it as it's in quite a dip. From the opposite direction to the photo the gradient is about 6% and the ford is well signposted. I always slow down and stand up before riding through it  but I would imagine that plenty of people speed through it to keep momentum for the climb out of the dip. The council should possibly put some more signs up but don't need to alter the road itself.

If you have been through there this year, can you confirm the bridge is now covered by the bush as this was one of the claims. As I posted earlier in the thread, from one side at 2012 which was the last street view, the Ford warning sign is pretty much covered and it doesn't take much imagination that the footbridge could be as well by now. (Although I doubt a bike could be wheeled across it anyway even if it wasn't). 

duzza wrote:

I've ridden through that ford many times over the years and have yet to fall off, however, If you've never ridden through a ford you probably wouldn't realise how slippery they can be. During the summer there isn't usually much water in it so even if you didn't know the road, I doubt you would dismount and use the bridge. The main problem isn't the ford itself, but the speed you can be doing approaching it as it's in quite a dip. From the opposite direction to the photo the gradient is about 6% and the ford is well signposted. I always slow down and stand up before riding through it  but I would imagine that plenty of people speed through it to keep momentum for the climb out of the dip. The council should possibly put some more signs up but don't need to alter the road itself.

Good insight thanks.

However, the council don't need to put up more signs, just maintain properly the ones already in place.

Ironically round where I live some of the road signs are damaged or knocked out of angle by the very hedge cutting that is supposed to make them more visible.

Bloody err… hedge cutters!

david rides wrote:

theres a cycle lane the council painted on a pavement near me. It has a line that goes straight into and around several large trees. If i ride into one of them at full pelt then say i didnt see them, and that the cycle lane is dangerous, would i win at sueing them? 

Depends. Was there a sign, possibly even attached to the tree itself, warning of the tree's presence, and moreover that it was likely to be made of wood? Remember, exercise caution when attempting to cycle through wood. Or water.

kevvjj wrote:

The council is negligent here. No argument. There should have been adequate and clearly visible signage warning cyclists of the dangerous surface under the water - even to the point of recommending that cyclists dismount. If it was at all dangerous for cars then I have no doubt it would have suitable signage.

Can't agree. The writing is in the river. If they can't read that then they should not be on the road. Enough of signs stating the bleeding obvious.

Sriracha wrote:

kevvjj wrote:

The council is negligent here. No argument. There should have been adequate and clearly visible signage warning cyclists of the dangerous surface under the water - even to the point of recommending that cyclists dismount. If it was at all dangerous for cars then I have no doubt it would have suitable signage.

Can't agree. The writing is in the river. If they can't read that then they should not be on the road. Enough of signs stating the bleeding obvious.

I agree Sriracha. If someone decides to cycle through a small river flowing across the road, they shouldn't be on the road. If I come across standing or moving water on the road in front of me, whether or not I know the road, I will always excercise caution, and common sense. 

There is a small lane on one of my training routes, just outside Scorton. There is a ford on this lane, which is very small, but I would never, ever consider cycling through it, I always go over the small bridge. Sorry ladies, take a little more care. 

Sriracha wrote:

kevvjj wrote:

The council is negligent here. No argument. There should have been adequate and clearly visible signage warning cyclists of the dangerous surface under the water - even to the point of recommending that cyclists dismount. If it was at all dangerous for cars then I have no doubt it would have suitable signage.

Can't agree. The writing is in the river. If they can't read that then they should not be on the road. Enough of signs stating the bleeding obvious.

What is so obvious about a couple of centimetres at most that the surface underneath would have zero traction, how can you know this simply by seeing some water? When you cycle on any road with some standing water after it's rained or water from a burst main, do you expect to wipe out due to no traction whatsoever, no you bloody well don't,!

You take care of course and ride slower but you should expect with such shallow water not to have to dismount and walk/find alternate route and most certainly not expect it to be an ice rink.

Sriracha wrote:

kevvjj wrote:

The council is negligent here. No argument. There should have been adequate and clearly visible signage warning cyclists of the dangerous surface under the water - even to the point of recommending that cyclists dismount. If it was at all dangerous for cars then I have no doubt it would have suitable signage.

Can't agree. The writing is in the river. If they can't read that then they should not be on the road. Enough of signs stating the bleeding obvious.

Can't agree. The council are fully aware that one of their roads is dangerous to a form of travel other than a car. They have a moral, ethical and LEGAL obligation to maintain it in a state that is safe for ALL users - this is why we pay Council Tax. Are you saying that cyclist injured by potholes should have seen the writing in the road? 

mattsccm wrote:

FFS . It's water. You never ever ride through it if you have any doubts and if you have you get off and look or walk.  If there is any justice the case will be thrown out and the council will be awarded costs. All road users should be responsible for their own driving. 

This is complete bollocks, riding through water on roads generally you may well be riding slower but you don't imagine even if there's standing water/puddles that the surface underneath is going to be like an ice rink with zero tyraction!

They DID NOT KNOW IT WAS A FORD, christ alight, so many people who can't sodding read, I would have ridden through a few centimtres of water without any thoughts to algae/slippery underneath, I'd be cautious but not expect to wipe out riding in a straight line!

Road users can be responsible but stuff that is totally unexpected cannot be accounted for and you should not be responsible for the outcomes, that's not how it works, otherwise why have the warning signs and an alternate route in the first instance if it isn't a hazard to the unwary user! OR simply make sure that the danger - that is known about by the responsible persons, that being the local authority, is removed or an alternate route offered, none of that occured so the local authority are at fault!

vonhelmet wrote:

Fucks sake people. The sign was obscured so they might not have known until it was too late.

Exactly.

"They all maintain that a sign warning of the ford was hidden by an overgrown hedge, which also concealed a footbridge for pedestrians."

vonhelmet wrote:

Fucks sake people. The sign was obscured so they might not have known until it was too late.

Known what? That there was a river flowing across their road? If they couldn't see a river I doubt they'd have seen a sign.

vonhelmet wrote:

Fucks sake people. The sign was obscured so they might not have known until it was too late.

OK - signage appears to be a problem, and fair enough.

 But it appears to be

• a pretty straight road, with clear sight lines ... and a pretty damned obvious beck at the bottom?  Bit of primary school geography"?
• with a pedestrian bridge  pretty clear at its side?

 For anybody with the slightest notion of reading the countryside they're riding through, it's not "rocket science", surely?

And as for wanting the council to keep a ford algae-clear?  Even "reconsider the layout" ... FFS.  Sorry - but seriously, I fervently do NOT want my countryside and all its features converted to some sort of homogenous, characterless, "(incompetent)-cyclist-friendly" environment.

If the signage is a problem ... fair enough, sort it.

But DON'T mess with anything else.  Just one voice.  I'd be happy to ride out that road, and take the challenges of navigating the ford ... with rather more care, calculation and consideration than these riders did.