Cyclist killed by a pothole

[Steady rider]

Cyclist killed by a pothole - 2013 - Christian Brown,

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... thole.html
Our deepest sympathy to his relatives and friends.

It seems this may not have been discussed previously. I would like to see high speed pictures of when cyclists hit potholes, close up of the wheels mainly, and it could help in specifying when a hole needs to be repaired. Has any member access to high speed photo equipment or can advise where the CTC may gain access? Is a time frame of one or two milli second possible?

[MartinC]

This sounds like the very thing that an effective national cycling organisation should be doing, supervised by their Technical Officer. Shame we have neither.

[al_yrpal]

I am still in pain after nearly a year from the fall I suffered caused by a pothole. The CTCs solicitors were unwilling to take on the case because they are just a 'no win no fee' outfit and the outcome was in their view uncertain. I shall be pursuing my claim for the pain disablement and dozens of medical appointments and an op myself. I am disappointed in this so called legal protection. Be warned.

Al

[Steady rider]

If you have details of the hole that caused your fall that may be worth considering, shape, size, depth etc. The Cyclist Defend Fund comes to mind where some support could be expected.

I would like to see a university project to investigate potholes and how they can affect cyclists. Accelerations levels due to the impact effect and high speed photography.

In the case of the cyclist who died I am wondering if compensation was paid to his family.

[TonyR]

This sounds like the very thing that an effective national cycling organisation should be doing, supervised by their Technical Officer. Shame we have neither.

We still have a very capable Campaigns and Policy Director in Roger Geffen and this is much more up his street

[irc]

In this case it seems a loose front wheel was a secondary cause.

http://www.marketrasenmail.co.uk/news/l ... -1-5547436

Not impressed by the council inspection regime which failed to action a repair when it was spotted a month before the crash and missed the hole in the "inspection" the day before the crash.

The inquest heard how the pothole, which measured about two feet across, had been spotted during Lincolnshire County Council’s monthly road check on January 7. But it was missed during a check on February 11, the day before Mr Brown’s accident.

Road safety accident investigation manager at Lincolnshire Road Safety Partnership Alan Ball confirmed the inspection took place the day before.

Mr Ball also said the pothole had been spotted during the January check but it was not dangerous enough to warrant an immediate repair.

[Valbrona]

This sounds like the very thing that an effective national cycling organisation should be doing, supervised by their Technical Officer. Shame we have neither.

Spot-on fella.

And organising protest meetings outside the offices of Council's Highways Dept's is not the type of thing the CTC do, is it?

[[XAP]Bob]

Spotted then missed?

Surely an inspection regime should include the ticking off of all previously spotted holes?

[Steady rider]

http://www.marketrasenmail.co.uk/news/l ... -1-5547436

It looks like the pothole was spotted early January – A road – depending on the weather and traffic it could have become much worst by February. The Council missed the hole on their inspection the day before the accident, I would speculate that it may have been full of water but have no details. An issue with the wheel also arose. A 2 foot pothole could be quite deep. ‘Huge’ pothole is mentioned. The rate of wear or increase for a pothole on a A road in winter could be expected to be fairly rapid. So the repair process would have to be seasonal related.

Questions arise, how bad does a hole have to be before repairing, would this be the same time period for A roads v other roads, how wide, how deep, did the first inspection measure the hole, is the inspection process consistent. At what point can legal action be taken against a council to ensure a reasonable level of safety. What is a reasonable level of safety? - unlikely to cause an accident perhaps or cause damage to a vehicle.

[MartinC]

In this case it seems a loose front wheel was a secondary cause.

http://www.marketrasenmail.co.uk/news/l ... ...........

Hmmm. As reported the expert witness doesn't know the difference between a spoke and a fork The report also says "but he did not examine any signs of forced removal from the spokes following the accident" but previously he said "no sign of the wheel being ripped away from the spoke which was holding it in place - suggesting it was loose enough to come out". I'd guess that the reporting is less reliable than the expert witness but it makes it hard to understand what the expert witness is postulating.

The proposition seems to be that the rider put the wheel in, past the lawyers lips, and then didn't adjust and close the QR - which is very prejudicial to any case against the LA or the manufacturer. Had the QR simply been not adjusted properly and come undone it would not have come past the lawyers lips without leaving witness marks. I think extremely unlikely that a rider could have ridden any distance with a QR totally undone. A failure of the QR spindle sounds more likely - has it been confirmed that this didn't happen?

On the face of it the expert advice to the coroner is lacking. Surely the role of CTC should include having the capacity to review incidents like this to see what the implications are for cyclists both in terms of equipment, operation and also ensuring sound expert knowledge is available for them in court? We need a Technical Officer. This sort of capability is a benefit to all cyclists and totally in line with the Charity status of CTC.

[TonyR]

Hmmm. As reported the expert witness doesn't know the difference between a spoke and a fork The report also says "but he did not examine any signs of forced removal from the spokes following the accident" but previously he said "no sign of the wheel being ripped away from the spoke which was holding it in place - suggesting it was loose enough to come out". I'd guess that the reporting is less reliable than the expert witness but it makes it hard to understand what the expert witness is postulating.

For "spokes" read "forks" and it all makes sense.

The proposition seems to be that the rider put the wheel in, past the lawyers lips, and then didn't adjust and close the QR - which is very prejudicial to any case against the LA or the manufacturer. Had the QR simply been not adjusted properly and come undone it would not have come past the lawyers lips without leaving witness marks. I think extremely unlikely that a rider could have ridden any distance with a QR totally undone. A failure of the QR spindle sounds more likely - has it been confirmed that this didn't happen?

Its quite easy to ride a road bike with the QR not done up -less so off-road where the wheels leave the ground quite frequently. Feels a bit wobbly on the front but unless you try a bunny hop or similar the wheel will usually stay in. But I have also seen wheels ejected from a road bike in a crash in which the QR was definitely done up so its not necessarily a sign of a failure of the QR or rider.

On the face of it the expert advice to the coroner is lacking. Surely the role of CTC should include having the capacity to review incidents like this to see what the implications are for cyclists both in terms of equipment, operation and also ensuring sound expert knowledge is available for them in court? We need a Technical Officer. This sort of capability is a benefit to all cyclists and totally in line with the Charity status of CTC.

Did the Technical Officer play any role in the issue of disc brakes and QRs a few years ago? Did they routinely review accidents and incidents like this when there was one is post? I don't know the answer but if they did I am not aware of it and there is nothing on the website I could find. I don't think they even ran a service to alert members to product recalls on bike and components. So why would an extremely rare accident be a reason to reinstate one to do what they never did before? And there are plenty of proper experts around that the Courts could call on without them being employed by the CTC. Perhaps what it needs though is a register of CTC approved experts that the Courts could use to ensure they get a proper expert who can tell a spoke from a fork.

[Steady rider]

The reporting detracts from the central issue of how best to deal with potholes. The authorities, if they delay, will always say it didn't need repairing at the time, but where is the evidence about the hole to confirm this view, that could be examined by a court. One engineer may think that hole can wait and another think that needs repairing now. To assess a hole, the size and depth would be two prime considerations. If a golf ball was used to assess the hole, if the ball was below surface level this would indicate a depth of more than 40 mm. Probably a few test prices, 30/40/50 mm ball sizes plus length gauges, 100/200/300/400. If more than 40 by 200 then repairs should be done within 24 hours and warning signs and marked on the road. If more than 30 by 100 repaired within 7 days for A roads and 14 days for other roads. This would provide a national standard, assuming one does not already exist?

The issues about the bike are worth another area of research. Testing various bikes to see how they cope with deep potholes. Even a 80 to 100 mm hole provides a fair impact.

[iviehoff]

The reporting detracts from the central issue of how best to deal with potholes. The authorities, if they delay, will always say it didn't need repairing at the time, but where is the evidence about the hole to confirm this view, that could be examined by a court. One engineer may think that hole can wait and another think that needs repairing now.

There ought to be an objective criterion of what needs fixing now. In a case in Hertfordshire, a cyclist was able to use a dated google streetview image, which by good fortune was taken on such a date that it could be use to demonstrate that the pothole was in a condition that at such a date, that according to the council's road inspection policy, it should have been identified and fixed by the date of the incident. It was rather lucky the streetview image was so dated, and indicates the difficulty of demonstrating what the condition of a pothole was in relation to these inspection policies.

But at the same time it reminds us that we do need to be aware that nasty potholes can arise and councils can leave them there unseen for 3 months or whatever is a suitable inspection cycle for a road of that class. Some quite humongous pothole opened on a road I use daily yesterday, more or less the same cross-section as the bottom half of a bicycle wheel.

[Steady rider]

Just looking around, this came up, CTC were involved.

There is an overarching requirement to make safe any defect, but as a minimum
requirement, potholes greater than or equal to; 150 mm in diameter; the thickness of surface course;
or 40 mm depth, must be repaired within 24 hours.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... review.pdf

But the Council may do an inspection once in 6 month. This is inadequate and monthly inspections are needed.

[Flinders]

The reporting detracts from the central issue of how best to deal with potholes. The authorities, if they delay, will always say it didn't need repairing at the time, but where is the evidence about the hole to confirm this view, that could be examined by a court. One engineer may think that hole can wait and another think that needs repairing now. To assess a hole, the size and depth would be two prime considerations. If a golf ball was used to assess the hole, if the ball was below surface level this would indicate a depth of more than 40 mm. Probably a few test prices, 30/40/50 mm ball sizes plus length gauges, 100/200/300/400. If more than 40 by 200 then repairs should be done within 24 hours and warning signs and marked on the road. If more than 30 by 100 repaired within 7 days for A roads and 14 days for other roads. This would provide a national standard, assuming one does not already exist?

The issues about the bike are worth another area of research. Testing various bikes to see how they cope with deep potholes. Even a 80 to 100 mm hole provides a fair impact.

When noted the first time, the very least they could have done is gone round it with paint to highlight it.