Cyclist sustains serious injuries after council fails to remove fallen tree from bike path

Especially if it was an unlit road. 

Not been there myself but it looks like you could have limited room to maneuver.
https://www.google.com/maps/@53.2156417,-0.5505582,17z/data=!3m1!1e3

How sympathetic, especially as I'm sure you don't know the full details of the accident. 
I hope the cyclist recovers quickly. 

nordog wrote:

I got a whack on my helmet yesturday on a local pathway but I'm on my way with a small hand saw to trim it back. I see trees down most weeks but so far I never crashed into one yet but then I have my eyes checked.

"The whole cycle path wasn’t blocked. When it was first inspected, we thought that there was an obvious deterrent to move around it."

A number of potential scenarios immediately occur: the cyclist was riding at night and the obstacle wasn't visible; the cyclist was moving around the obstacle but unexpected behaviour from a pedestrian, small child, dog et cetera forced them to swerve and hit the tree; the obstacle was on a corner so that approaching it the path appeared to be clear. I'm sure many other eventualities could be imagined that involve a good many more contributory factors than simply the cyclist not having had their eyes checked.

Something about being able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear?

Presumably the tree was stationary. What if it had been a child running towards the cyclist or an errant escooter rider or even another cyclist?

I'll hold my hands up to doing nobby things on occassion and crashing into vegetation but I'd never expect to claim compo for something like this.

Now if a tree known to be at risk of collapse had fallen on him, or the circumstances are far different to the picture painted by the news story, then I'd be a bit more sympathetic beyond wishing him a swift and full recovery from his accident.

Mungecrundle wrote:

Something about being able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear? Presumably the tree was stationary. What if it had been a child running towards the cyclist or an errant escooter rider or even another cyclist? I'll hold my hands up to doing nobby things on occassion and crashing into vegetation but I'd never expect to claim compo for something like this. Now if a tree known to be at risk of collapse had fallen on him, or the circumstances are far different to the picture painted by the news story, then I'd be a bit more sympathetic beyond wishing him a swift and full recovery from his accident.

I kinda agree, but the council does have a responsibility for clearing vegetation from paths, so the cyclist should be able to claim damages. A fallen tree shouldn't cause a cyclist to crash into it, but it does depend on the lighting and the design of the cycle path - it could have been just after a blind corner for instance, although your point about being able to stop is still relevant.

Plus I think most of us reading this are probably by default envisaging a whacking great trunk blocking the path. It could have been smaller leafy branches protruding on to it, which would be harder to see until you're almost on top of them.

I'm trying quite hard to avoid jumping to conclusions, but even blind corners should be navigated by bike or motor vehicle in a way that permits a safe stop.

And Lincolnshire does seem to have quite the history around bikes and trees.

You can be riding perfectly able to stop in the distance you can see clear and then something unforeseen happens, e.g., a dog runs out of the shrubbery and you have a choice between hitting it and swerving and swerving takes you into the tree. Absolutely, if the cyclist was riding along a clear path and it was simply inattention or lack of skill that made them hit the tree then they shouldn't get any compensation, but we don't know whether there were any other factors involved.

If the tree had just fallen down you'd have to put it under Act of God (I don't know if an insurance company would see it that way), the fact that council officers had already been to see it and decided that as it was only blocking half of the path it was okay to leave until their contractors had a free slot that would get them in trouble, I presume.

Rendel Harris wrote:

You can be riding perfectly able to stop in the distance you can see clear and then something unforeseen happens, e.g., a dog runs out of the shrubbery and you have a choice between hitting it and swerving and swerving takes you into the tree. Absolutely, if the cyclist was riding along a clear path and it was simply inattention or lack of skill that made them hit the tree then they shouldn't get any compensation, but we don't know whether there were any other factors involved.

If the tree had just fallen down you'd have to put it under Act of God (I don't know if an insurance company would see it that way), the fact that council officers had already been to see it and decided that as it was only blocking half of the path it was okay to leave until their contractors had a free slot that would get them in trouble, I presume.

IANAL but I don't think that the council can use cyclist inattentiveness as an excuse for not managing overgrown vegetation/fallen trees. As I understand it, if it causes you to fall off on a cycle path, then they are responsible for their lack of maintenance. It's very similar to having a loose paving stone that trips someone up - blaming the victim would not work as a defence.

hawkinspeter wrote:

IANAL but I don't think that the council can use cyclist inattentiveness as an excuse for not managing overgrown vegetation/fallen trees. As I understand it, if it causes you to fall off on a cycle path, then they are responsible for their lack of maintenance. It's very similar to having a loose paving stone that trips someone up - blaming the victim would not work as a defence.

Me neither but with potholes (as I know to my cost after a motorcycle crash that broke my wrist and did £800 damage to the bike) councils have a getout (or did in my case) if they can show that they had action scheduled in a reasonable timeframe, could they use that excuse here?

Had it been a road, the person inspecting would have coned and signposted it, and made its removal a priority.

Or shal we consider it only blocking part of a lane on a motorway...

Looking at the overhead and thge street view for the path at either end, I'm erring that it was night time. Doesn;t seem to be any path lighting and lots of trees overshadowing the path. Probably didn't have lights himself but are they required if only using "off-road" cycling?