Ruddy farmers

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14649
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent

Re: Ruddy farmers

Post by gaz »

Civil action
Civil action may also be a possibility where the mud contributes to a personal injury, damage to property, or any loss or inconvenience. The presence of mud can constitute a public nuisance and loss or injury can result in a claim for negligence.

It is highly likely that a land owner will be liable despite a contractor making the deposits under the law of nuisance and/or negligence.

Source: NFU
High on a cocktail of flossy teacakes and marmalade
Flinders
Posts: 3023
Joined: 10 Mar 2009, 6:47pm

Re: Ruddy farmers

Post by Flinders »

Some farmers round here are fine. One puts carpet-like material in the gateways to absorb muck from the cattle's feet where they have to cross, and sweeps the road.
Others not so much.
I have one road marked '(ordurey*) lane' on my maps to remind me to avoid it - the mud/slurry goes a long way along the road, he doesn't just cross the cattle straight over, and it builds up to the point it pools all over the place. I warned a group of cyclists from out of my area about it as they approached it, even then one nearly came a cropper. Another on a main road in a dip has more than once taken the surface off the road.

* not exactly that word
Flinders
Posts: 3023
Joined: 10 Mar 2009, 6:47pm

Re: Ruddy farmers

Post by Flinders »

beardy wrote:As it was mud, it should be easy enough to find who left it there. It is worth contacting the CTC legal dept to see if they will put in a claim against the farmer. He in turn will probably get the NFU to resist it as they are likely his insurers.

It may be worth doing just to make farmers in general realise the road is not just an extension of their farmland.


The NFU insurers are known as very aggressive/defensive when it comes to litigation, you definitely need a tough solicitor with experience of them, I'd say.
Tom Richardson
Posts: 772
Joined: 25 Jun 2007, 1:45pm

Re: Ruddy farmers

Post by Tom Richardson »

CTC should be able to help if you're a member. It doesn't matter how aggressive NFU insurance is if the courts won't support them. CTC can advise.
User avatar
al_yrpal
Posts: 11537
Joined: 25 Jul 2007, 9:47pm
Location: Think Cheddar and Cider
Contact:

Re: Ruddy farmers

Post by al_yrpal »

With mud, gravel patches, thorns after hedgecutting and even more potholes on the roads the present trend towards more and more SUVs and 4x4s can be partially explained. Doesnt do much for cyclists!

I wish a speedy recovery to your Mrs.

Al
Reuse, recycle, thus do your bit to save the planet.... Get stuff at auctions, Dump, Charity Shops, Facebook Marketplace, Ebay, Car Boots. Choose an Old House, and a Banger ..... And cycle as often as you can......
Ben@Forest
Posts: 3647
Joined: 28 Jan 2013, 5:58pm

Re: Ruddy farmers

Post by Ben@Forest »

al_yrpal wrote:With mud, gravel patches, thorns after hedgecutting and even more potholes on the roads the present trend towards more and more SUVs and 4x4s can be partially explained.


When reading this sort of opinion I think about how country vets like the 'real' James Herriot got about in Austin 7s and the like in the 30s and 40s. In rural North Yorkshire I think about a third of roads were not yet tarmacked. Yet they got about in ordinary cars. Mud, thorns and potholes do not require a SUV, let alone a 4x4. It is only fashion which dictates such.
MikeF
Posts: 4339
Joined: 11 Nov 2012, 9:24am
Location: On the borders of the four South East Counties

Re: Ruddy farmers

Post by MikeF »

That sounds a nasty crash. The problem is bones break more easily and don't mend as quickly the older we get so I hope her fitness stands her in good stead and she makes a good recovery as quickly as possible.

Without wishing to start an argument/discussion on the age old argument, would you say the helmet helped in preventing more injury? I notice you say you are out to buy a new one, which seems to suggest it did.

There is often mud (and other débris) on country roads and it's not necessarily caused by farmers. I can't help thinking there's a commonality in this thread and rants about motorists and cyclists. Farmers were using roads before cyclists, and we all rely on farming activities in spite of there being no sign of it for city dwellers who are rather more "sanitized".
"It takes a genius to spot the obvious" - my old physics master.
I don't peddle bikes.
Psamathe
Posts: 17650
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Ruddy farmers

Post by Psamathe »

MikeF wrote:...
There is often mud (and other débris) on country roads and it's not necessarily caused by farmers..

Lot of leaves on the road around me and with the rain, they do form a slippers surface.

I wonder if there is liability on the owner of a tree shedding its leaves on the road.

Ian
Last edited by Psamathe on 28 Oct 2015, 8:25pm, edited 1 time in total.
Postboxer
Posts: 1929
Joined: 24 Jul 2013, 5:19pm

Re: Ruddy farmers

Post by Postboxer »

I once researched if you were liable if your tree fell over in a strong wind and crushed a car. There were very interesting photo's of a car this had happened to. It seems it's like the pothole situation, you just have to have proof that you have inspected the tree at some point and whether there was anything to suggest it might fall down. I would think most heavy farm machinery spends most of it's miles going up and down a field and won't do anywhere near as much on the road. Even then, some of it costs more than a house and is then only used for a month a year. I've often wondered whether contractors migrate north during the summer, as the harvest must also move north. Did they say on QI that spring moves north at around 6 miles a day?
Tangled Metal
Posts: 9505
Joined: 13 Feb 2015, 8:32pm

Re: Ruddy farmers

Post by Tangled Metal »

Farmers probably have some form of liability insurance so if the OP has a case it could end up a fight with the insurer's lawyers. Good luck on that.

Personal feeling is that it's the countryside, expect mud and **** on the roads and take care if you see it. A guy on one club run I did took a nasty.fall on a country pothole or was it a rock that must have been dragged into the road by a car driving close to the rocky edge. A nasty fall that he was a able to ride away from. Whilst we all felt sorry for his injuries it was noted that just seconds before he had been playing "silly buggers" as an old hand said. I doubt that applies in your wife's case but was there any factor that caused your wife to fall and not you as well? I take it the mud was across the road and you also rode over it, but without a spill.

I'm not saying your wife had any fault but I'm just thinking that it's an accident, unfortunate but it happened. Looking around for someone to blame and lash out won't help you both and quite frankly you could shell out a lot on legal fees to get nothing back. Is it worth it or is it live and learn then do anything that you both can do to get your wife back to health and fitness.

One other thing, the few times I've had an accident, I can only remember one case off the top of my head, I've picked myself up, patched myself up and carried on as soon as I could. I also looked at what happened and asked myself what could I have.done to prevent it happening. Often there's an honest answer that I've made a wrong decision or action in somewhere. That's the same process I apply to all mistakes in my life.

BTW how is your wife getting on? Is she starting to recover? As with any fellow cyclist who's had an off I hope she recovers well and quickly.
Last edited by Vorpal on 29 Oct 2015, 8:20am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: thinly disguised swearing
User avatar
jezer
Posts: 1581
Joined: 29 Sep 2007, 5:16pm
Location: North Wiltshire

Re: Ruddy farmers

Post by jezer »

She's pretty good today thanks, just a bit sore. And she's been to the gym.
Power to the pedals
Flinders
Posts: 3023
Joined: 10 Mar 2009, 6:47pm

Re: Ruddy farmers

Post by Flinders »

MikeF wrote:That sounds a nasty crash. The problem is bones break more easily and don't mend as quickly the older we get so I hope her fitness stands her in good stead and she makes a good recovery as quickly as possible.

Without wishing to start an argument/discussion on the age old argument, would you say the helmet helped in preventing more injury? I notice you say you are out to buy a new one, which seems to suggest it did.

There is often mud (and other débris) on country roads and it's not necessarily caused by farmers. I can't help thinking there's a commonality in this thread and rants about motorists and cyclists. Farmers were using roads before cyclists, and we all rely on farming activities in spite of there being no sign of it for city dwellers who are rather more "sanitized".


Round here the worst mud is from a farm which has a lot of polytunnels. The vehicles that take staff to work there take mud out onto the road. Everyone knows who it is, the parish council knows, people are always complaining, but the borough and the police refuse to do anything. The farming family concerned seem to be able to get away with anything they like, planning contraventions, you name it.
As I have said, other farmers here are not like that. They have just as big a problem with that lot as the rest of us do.
pete75
Posts: 16370
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: Ruddy farmers

Post by pete75 »

Ben@Forest wrote:
al_yrpal wrote:With mud, gravel patches, thorns after hedgecutting and even more potholes on the roads the present trend towards more and more SUVs and 4x4s can be partially explained.


When reading this sort of opinion I think about how country vets like the 'real' James Herriot got about in Austin 7s and the like in the 30s and 40s. In rural North Yorkshire I think about a third of roads were not yet tarmacked. Yet they got about in ordinary cars. Mud, thorns and potholes do not require a SUV, let alone a 4x4. It is only fashion which dictates such.


Those cars had high ground clearance, large diameter wheels, a separate chassis and were built for how the roads were at the time. Tyres too were different with deeper tread and patterns better able to clear mud. Most modern cars are designed for smooth tarmac.

Regarding NFU insurance they do fight claims quite vigorously. My son was knocked off his bike four years by an NFU insured forage merchant's lorry. The insurers were trying to deny liability even after the driver was found guilty of driving without due care and attention. They also paid for the solicitor who defended him at the trial.
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
User avatar
NUKe
Posts: 4161
Joined: 23 Apr 2007, 11:07pm
Location: Suffolk

Re: Ruddy farmers

Post by NUKe »

2CVs were brilliant for the un metaled roads, they were excellent in snow too
NUKe
_____________________________________
cotswolds
Posts: 287
Joined: 16 Jan 2010, 10:47am

Re: Ruddy farmers

Post by cotswolds »

pete75 wrote:
Ben@Forest wrote:
al_yrpal wrote:With mud, gravel patches, thorns after hedgecutting and even more potholes on the roads the present trend towards more and more SUVs and 4x4s can be partially explained.

When reading this sort of opinion I think about how country vets like the 'real' James Herriot got about in Austin 7s and the like in the 30s and 40s. In rural North Yorkshire I think about a third of roads were not yet tarmacked. Yet they got about in ordinary cars. Mud, thorns and potholes do not require a SUV, let alone a 4x4. It is only fashion which dictates such.

Those cars had high ground clearance, large diameter wheels, a separate chassis and were built for how the roads were at the time. Tyres too were different with deeper tread and patterns better able to clear mud. Most modern cars are designed for smooth tarmac.

A few years ago we rented a remote Swedish holiday cottage by a lake in the middle of a forest. Half a mile up a track to the nearest road, 8 miles to the nearest village, 20 miles to town but partly on a gravel road, 30 miles via tarmac. The family who owned the cottage lived all the year round in an adjacent grand house they'd built for themselves, and commuted to work through long tough winters. They were clearly prosperous - mum and daughter had several horses between them, son into quadbiking, dad into boats, all with associated trailers for moving them around.

A family like that in the UK would probably have had 2 SUVs. Their vehicles for this lifestyle? VW Passat, Renault Clio and Ford Transit. The even smarter looking house up the track had a Mercedes saloon and Chrysler retro cruiser. Plenty of other smart houses around, but we literally never saw an SUV, the only 4x4s were for forestry work.

I agree with Ben, very few people need SUVs they're just about fashion and status.
Post Reply