Bad Bike crash

c50

hi guys. hope somebody here can guid me on the right track.

yesterday i was out training, cycling and came around a sweeping left hand corner. laid out in front of me was a mountain of gravel and a couple of potholes. avoided potholes which led me straight into the gravel and plonk on the ground. have gravel/road rash in 3 places and deep gashes on my knee. hand is skinned and un usable. elbow has a 7/8 inch tear. the adrenaline kept me ok for a few hours but when i went home i started roaring in agony when i had to wipe it with a cloth and getting into a dettol bath.

anyway my pont is that the gravel on the road was a disgrace, beyond most bad road sections, this was atrocious.

ive got pictures of the wounds and today drove out to the scene to get pictures of gravel on pothole. with the intention of going to the doctor to get it sussed out and with the possibility of stitches on the horizon im just wondering where do i go next? can i claim compensation for this? as ye can probably guess from lack of knowledge im not one for blaming somebody for everything but i do believe the council (cork co. council) to be fully and utterly at fault for this seeming as i had a moderate speed, full awareness and handling of the bicycle at its full extent. the bike is not badly damaged (havent inspected properly but seems fine).

any help would be great. regards


josh

Camrat

No, you should have been cycling with due care and attention, if you had of been you would have been able to stop in time.

endacl

Camrat wrote: »

No, you should have been cycling with due care and attention, if you had of been you would have been able to stop in time.

Nothing the OP stated suggests that.

c50

Camrat wrote: »

No, you should have been cycling with due care and attention, if you had of been you would have been able to stop in time.

did you hear me say it was on a sweeping left? i came around the corner and it went from fine roads to 3inches and potholes. i find it quite insulting youre making me out to be a bit of a fool. ive knocked out my 2 front teeth before, have had plenty of falls and so on and never even considered seeking compensation

GoodisonPark

I'd prioritise getting the injuries treated first.
Keep a record of everything.
Plenty of time to go after compensation after that if you feel you have a case.
Good luck.

Cody Pomeray

c50 wrote: »

with the intention of going to the doctor to get it sussed out and with the possibility of stitches on the horizon im just wondering where do i go next? can i claim compensation for this?

We cannot give legal advice, but the answer to anyone who has experienced a personal injury is 'to the Doctor'.

I wouldn't say this just out of concern for someone's medical well being. It's a legal issue. Medical records are more relevant than photographic evidence of an injury. To be honest, the fact that any hypothetical person would wait before going to a Doctor suggests a lack of immediacy or gravity to the injuries sustained, and may be an early setback to any possible case.

valleyoftheunos

No legal advice allowed here but have your injuries treated by a doctor straight away and if after that you wish to seek compensation go see a solicitor.

c50

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

We cannot give legal advice, but the answer to anyone who has experienced a personal injury is 'to the Doctor'.

I wouldn't say this just out of concern for someone's medical well being. It's a legal issue. Medical records are more relevant than photographic evidence of an injury. To be honest, the fact that any hypothetical person would wait before going to a Doctor suggests a lack of immediacy or gravity to the injuries sustained, and may be an early setback to any possible case.

to be honest im still in shock, didnt go see a doctor yet but planned on going tomorrow. fair enough if no legal advice allowed but can anybody steer me towards where i would be going? I presume you cant go through small claims court for these kind of issues?

Cody Pomeray

c50 wrote: »

to be honest im still in shock, didnt go see a doctor yet but planned on going tomorrow. fair enough if no legal advice allowed but can anybody steer me towards where i would be going? I presume you cant go through small claims court for these kind of issues?

No this isn't a case eligible for the small claims court, it would have to go through the regular civil process. I'd suggest you speak to a solicitor.

I really can't stress enough the importance, from a legal, and hypothetical, perspective, of attending the Doctor asap. Waiting until the third day before attending at a Doctor is a red flag in a personal injury claim.

Camrat

c50 wrote: »

did you hear me say it was on a sweeping left? i came around the corner and it went from fine roads to 3inches and potholes. i find it quite insulting youre making me out to be a bit of a fool. ive knocked out my 2 front teeth before, have had plenty of falls and so on and never even considered seeking compensation

Yes i heard you. a sweeping left indicates you were traveling at speed otherwise it would be just a left turn or bend. When you first seen the potholes is the real issue. If you had been paying attention ("unless its the tightest most obscure corner in the country") you should have seen the potholes and gravel and acted accordingly,Like braked when you saw the

laid out in front of me was a mountain of gravel and a couple of potholes.

I couldn't give two ****s if you sue or not makes no ****in difference to me what so ****in ever.

How am i making you out to be a fool, Don't be silly. :rolleyes:

Moderator: user banned for this post.

c50

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

No this isn't a case eligible for the small claims court, it would have to go through the regular civil process. I'd suggest you speak to a solicitor.

I really can't stress enough the importance, from a legal, and hypothetical, perspective, of attending the Doctor asap. Waiting until the third day before attending at a Doctor is a red flag in a personal injury claim.

thanks for the help. think you seem to know your stuff. will be tomorrow anyway but will go in the morning. about all i can do at this point but of course i can see where youre coming from. cheers

c50

Camrat wrote: »

Yes i heard you. a sweeping left indicates you were traveling at speed otherwise it would be just a left turn or bend. When you first seen the potholes is the real issue. If you had been paying attention ("unless its the tightest most obscure corner in the country") you should have seen the potholes and gravel and acted accordingly,Like braked when you saw the I couldn't give two ****s if you sue or not makes no ****in difference to me what so ****in ever.

How am i making you out to be a fool, Don't be silly. :rolleyes:

ive got pictures from 5- 10 metres back and no sign of potholes or gravel whatsoever.

i can tell if youre serious or joking but either way seems pretty childish when im seeking actual advice instead of people just saying no you can, ah its the council, let them be, every knows that theyre idiots already

chops018

This doesn't seem like a personal injury case that will see thousands.. Your medical bills and any physio (which it doesn't sound like you will need) should be covered alright.

Go see a solicitor as has already been suggested. If he thinks your in for some $$$$ he will snap your case up immediately.

NUTLEY BOY

Not legal advice - just a view on points of principle.
There is a virtually "strict liability" for creating dangers in the highway.
To bolster the quality of the evidence this should be reported to the Gardai - preferably before the pile is moved.

c50

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

Not legal advice - just a view on points of principle.
There is a virtually "strict liability" for creating dangers in the highway.
To bolster the quality of the evidence this should be reported to the Gardai - preferably before the pile is moved.

many thanks for all the suggestions. its good to get opinions. im not looking to real in the dough, i just want money for medical expense and i suppose for the pain endured and how much its set me back over the past few days. much appreciated

LowKeyReturn

You can probably submit a claim through the council, there is another thread here recently on the subject of road works. If you can find the persons responsible for the gravel etc you might be able to use the PIAB process, have a google. None of this should be considered as legal, or indeed, good advice.

While I'm posting some pontificating - if you are out on your bike riding so fast that you can't avoid obstacles in the road then might I suggest relocating to somewhere more suitable. I'm sorry to have a go but there have been two posts this week alone where people have collided with stationary objects - one needs to be aware that just because you're doing the right thing in the right place there is still an obligation to watch out for people and things around you.

c50

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

You can probably submit a claim through the council, there is another thread here recently on the subject of road works. If you can find the persons responsible for the gravel etc you might be able to use the PIAB process, have a google. None of this should be considered as legal, or indeed, good advice.

While I'm posting some pontificating - if you are out on your bike riding so fast that you can't avoid obstacles in the road then might I suggest relocating to somewhere more suitable. I'm sorry to have a go but there have been two posts this week alone where people have collided with stationary objects - one needs to be aware that just because you're doing the right thing in the right place there is still an obligation to watch out for people and things around you.

i wouldnt consider 30/35kmh excessive speed. if it were just a pothole youd ram it or jump it but potholes+gravel+no vision with corner i couldve been going 10kmh and providing i still cycled through it i wouldve fell. some will say oh well avoid it but the road is about 40km from home and isnt very familiar to me- wouldve cycled it 5 or 6 times. also just to add, some would say get off or turn around, but should you really have to do this on a public road? i dont think so. of course i would have done so if it werent too late but just something to think about. thanks for advice though

c50

hoping this link works...if it makes any difference. well it probably wont but heck.

just to note before people say its not that bad. the photo makes it look, very, very kind. theres about an 8 inch dip between high gravel point and the lowest road point next to it. the corner pictured is the one i cam around banking left and gravel took me down from what i can remember just a little right of potholes from my direction.

Del2005

c50 wrote: »

i wouldnt consider 30/35kmh excessive speed. if it were just a pothole youd ram it or jump it but potholes+gravel+no vision with corner i couldve been going 10kmh and providing i still cycled through it i wouldve fell. some will say oh well avoid it but the road is about 40km from home and isnt very familiar to me- wouldve cycled it 5 or 6 times. also just to add, some would say get off or turn around, but should you really have to do this on a public road? i dont think so. of course i would have done so if it werent too late but just something to think about. thanks for advice though

Do you have a picture from where you came? For the corner below 30km/h is too fast. The basic rule for road users is that you need to be able to stop safely on your side of the road in the distance you see to be clear, you couldn't stop in time to avoid hitting the gravel. What if instead of a bit of gravel on the road a vehicle, animal or person was there?

If you want to know how fast to take a corner you look for the vanishing point of the turn. If it's moving towards you you're going to fast, if it's moving away you're too slow, if it's stationary then you're at the correct speed.

c50 wrote: »

c50

Del2005 wrote: »

Do you have a picture from where you came? For the corner below 30km/h is too fast. The basic rule for road users is that you need to be able to stop safely on your side of the road in the distance you see to be clear, you couldn't stop in time to avoid hitting the gravel. What if instead of a bit of gravel on the road a vehicle, animal or person was there?

If you want to know how fast to take a corner you look for the vanishing point of the turn. If it's moving towards you you're going to fast, if it's moving away you're too slow, if it's stationary then you're at the correct speed.

no im fine thanks very much. if there was a person there i wouldve came to a complete halt dont you worry. then again if there was somebody faceplanting in the middle of the road theyre probably asking for it. im not sure it was 30kmh im appromating. could have been 20/25. but please, please dont tell me what is or not too fast. how would you know? you werent there and pictures tell so much lies. it looks like a slight bit of gravel there the same way the corner looks about a 70 degree bend. neither are true. i already it was a sweeping left and not a turn. please dont be so bigotted about it. honestly, ive been cycling for years i dont need to be told how to corner and this isnt a stigma thing or getting on a high chair but look what i'll do in future is find out where you live and put an old age pensioner with plenty of time around every corner. we can have a game, see how many you DONT hit

c50

Del2005 wrote: »

Do you have a picture from where you came? For the corner below 30km/h is too fast. The basic rule for road users is that you need to be able to stop safely on your side of the road in the distance you see to be clear, you couldn't stop in time to avoid hitting the gravel. What if instead of a bit of gravel on the road a vehicle, animal or person was there?

If you want to know how fast to take a corner you look for the vanishing point of the turn. If it's moving towards you you're going to fast, if it's moving away you're too slow, if it's stationary then you're at the correct speed.

also i was in fact on a push bike, not a motorbike just for clarification youve obviously jumped in mid- thread and took it you knew the full story from what i can see

LowKeyReturn

You seem to need to be told what is too fast. It's too fast if you can't stop in time. You've admitted yourself it was blind corner. Some people are beyond help. I have no idea where that is but in general terms it's not beyond the realms of possibility that there would be someone out walking that you could have slammed into and seriously hurt.

Please stick to the push bike and out of a car.

Del2005

c50 wrote: »

no im fine thanks very much. if there was a person there i wouldve came to a complete halt dont you worry. then again if there was somebody faceplanting in the middle of the road theyre probably asking for it. im not sure it was 30kmh im appromating. could have been 20/25. but please, please dont tell me what is or not too fast. how would you know? you werent there and pictures tell so much lies. it looks like a slight bit of gravel there the same way the corner looks about a 70 degree bend. neither are true. i already it was a sweeping left and not a turn. please dont be so bigotted about it. honestly, ive been cycling for years i dont need to be told how to corner and this isnt a stigma thing or getting on a high chair but look what i'll do in future is find out where you live and put an old age pensioner with plenty of time around every corner. we can have a game, see how many you DONT hit

If you could have stopped in time to avoid hitting a person in the middle of the road why didn't you stop to avoid hitting the gravel? Both are hazards you need to react to and the fact that you didn't react to the gravel was either due to excess speed or lack of observation.

c50 wrote: »

also i was in fact on a push bike, not a motorbike just for clarification youve obviously jumped in mid- thread and took it you knew the full story from what i can see

Cornering on two wheels is the same no matter what propulsion method is used. I was merely using a motorcycle link to show you how to corner.

Why aren't you posting a picture showing the corner from the direction you came?

Carawaystick

Del2005 wrote: »

If you could have stopped in time to avoid hitting a person in the middle of the road why didn't you stop to avoid hitting the gravel? Both are hazards you need to react to and the fact that you didn't react to the gravel was either due to excess speed or lack of observation.

Maybe because a person walking would be about 70cm or more in height, and a bad road surface would be lower, maybe even lower then the existing road surface. Given the the ditch is about 80-90cm high in the bend, then there is no comparison with being able to stop if there was an person or vehicle in the way, to the road surface being terrible.

Del2005 wrote: »

Cornering on two wheels is the same no matter what propulsion method is used. I was merely using a motorcycle link to show you how to corner.

Cornering on two wheels in a car is completely different to cornering on a bike.
The angular momentum vector is waay less important in something with the mass of a car, compared to a bike.

kennM

See all sides of the discussion here... hopefully can help. (Not a solicitor btw).

a) Liability - I'd say you could have an uphill battle to prove negligence. The council could easily argue contributory negligence in the fact you were unable to stop between the time you saw the road surface and when you hit it... i.e. losing control.

I'm not sure what the typical approach a council would take but I'd suspect they may fight it.... pure speculation here.

b) Injuries compensation - Legally all injuries compensation claims must go through the injuries board. Essentially you submit a claim. At this point the claim is sent to the respondent (council in this case) and they have up to 90 days to accept/reject liability. If they reject liability then you are authorised to pursue through the courts. If they accept then PIAB typically take circa 7 months to propose a settlement figure... blah, blah.... lots more to this tangent that I won't go into. Not needed.

c) Injuries treatment - The fact you haven't gone to the doctors/A&E in a number of days would raise a flag from a claim perspective. i.e. you can't have been that injured if you didn't need medical attention (Playing the thought process of council/injuries board here).

We often just try to "man up" and get on with it when we really souldn't. As I was told in hospital before, "you don't get any extra badges for enduring more pain then you have to".


My own thoughts is that I doubt it would be a straightforward case, could be an uphill battle but its not without its merits. I would suspect it could be a risk to be honest.

Hope this helps.

Del2005

Carawaystick wrote: »

Maybe because a person walking would be about 70cm or more in height, and a bad road surface would be lower, maybe even lower then the existing road surface. Given the the ditch is about 80-90cm high in the bend, then there is no comparison with being able to stop if there was an person or vehicle in the way, to the road surface being terrible.

If you can't see the road is clear you need to slow down, the OP didn't slow down enough to be able to stop safely on their own side of the road in the distance they could see.

Carawaystick wrote: »

Cornering on two wheels in a car is completely different to cornering on a bike.
The angular momentum vector is waay less important in something with the mass of a car, compared to a bike.

You'd be going way to fast to get around that corner on 2 wheels in a car.

valleyoftheunos

Del2005 wrote: »

If you can't see the road is clear you need to slow down, the OP didn't slow down enough to be able to stop safely on their own side of the road in the distance they could see.

On many corners this would require you to stop and inch round. the requirement is that the OP took reasonable care.

the question here is did the obstruction amount to a hazard and if so was reasonable care taken to warn of that hazard.

Del2005

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

On many corners this would require you to stop and inch round. the requirement is that the OP took reasonable care.

What's wrong with slowing down when you can't see the way ahead is safe? I'm all for making progress on good roads but if you can't see safely around a corner you need to slow down enough to be able to stop.

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

the question here is did the obstruction amount to a hazard and if so was reasonable care taken to warn of that hazard.

Of course it's a hazard, there's huge potholes and the road is covered in gravel, are roads are full of hazards and not all are permanent. The warning is that you should always be able to stop in the distance you can see.

valleyoftheunos

Del2005 wrote: »

What's wrong with slowing down when you can't see the way ahead is safe? I'm all for making progress on good roads but if you can't see safely around a corner you need to slow down enough to be able to stop.



Of course it's a hazard, there's huge potholes and the road is covered in gravel, are roads are full of hazards and not all are permanent. The warning is that you should always be able to stop in the distance you can see.

Where someone has deliberately placed hazard such as pile of gravel in the road they are under a duty of care to provide such warnings as are reasonably necessary to allow someone travelling on the road to safely avoid the danger. if they haven't done that they are negligent and someone suffering injury as a result of their negligence would be entitled to compensation. its called the neighbour principle.

Del2005

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

Where someone has deliberately placed hazard such as pile of gravel in the road they are under a duty of care to provide such warnings as are reasonably necessary to allow someone travelling on the road to safely avoid the danger. if they haven't done that they are negligent and someone suffering injury as a result of their negligence would be entitled to compensation. its called the neighbour principle.

No one put the gravel on the road it's from the pot holes.

pheno

If you are seriously considering looking for compensation because of gravel on a road, then you must be mad. Like come on, if you fell of your bike if the ground was wet would you blame the council? If it was a blind corner, you must slow down to a safe speed no matter what you are driving. 30km on two wheels around a blind corner is pretty quick.

IMHO, let it go and man up.

valleyoftheunos

As ever people are so keen to blame the injured person.

I was speaking hypothetically as per forum charter but the op stated in the first post that he avoided the pot holes and hit a "mountain" of gravel, that's not from the potholes.

If the council or whoever were negligent (and incidentally they are under a duty to keep the road in A Safe condition) and someone is injured because of that negligence then they are entitled to be compensated.

The Bishop Basher

It's likely from what OP is saying that the council bear some responsibility here however all vehicles are required to travel at speed that allows them react to changing road conditions, obstacles etc.

If you were driving a car round a bend and went into the back of someone you would be at fault. No point saying they shouldn't have been there. You were travelling too fast to react in time. Being on a bike is no different. You got away with a few scrapes so be thankful, suck it up, learn a valuable lesson and move on.

c50

pheno wrote: »

If you are seriously considering looking for compensation because of gravel on a road, then you must be mad. Like come on, if you fell of your bike if the ground was wet would you blame the council? If it was a blind corner, you must slow down to a safe speed no matter what you are driving. 30km on two wheels around a blind corner is pretty quick.

IMHO, let it go and man up.

Your such a hard man saying man up. Where does the line start and man up end? You cam swerve a pothole or a person you can't swerve a road filled of gravel. I probably could have come to a direct and no doubt would have there were signs as there should've been. The thing is when you see gravel its not really something that makes you slam the brakes like a person or animal would. Roll through it is the thought:-) for anyone trying to make this into a tough man thread go to the bodybuilding section:-) I don't mind opposition and other thoughts but telling me to man up and making me look like a tramp seeking compensation is just stupid

pheno

c50 wrote: »

making me look like a tramp seeking compensation is just stupid

Take a deep breath and think. You are blaming the council because YOU fell of your push bike because there was some gravel on the road. You are seriously thinking of bringing the council to court because there was gravel on the road?
That's bizarre.

Tell me this...

What if a truck went by that area carrying gravel maybe 10 mins before you arrived there and accidentally spilled some?

Is that the councils fault? I am not saying man up to insult you, its a metaphor for "it is ridiculous to even think about blaming the council."

My God. I am still amazed by this thread.

LowKeyReturn

To be fair to the OP, to whom I believe I may have been rather harsh, he's not looking for a pay day simply his out of pocket covered, which given there are faults on both sides seems reasonable. Lets not forget the council is responsible for the upkeep of the roads.

As for something just spilling gravel I was initially thinking MIBI but wasn't there as case that closed that off as an option in this sort of case?

c50

pheno wrote: »

Take a deep breath and think. You are blaming the council because YOU fell of your push bike because there was some gravel on the road. You are seriously thinking of bringing the council to court because there was gravel on the road?
That's bizarre.

Tell me this...

What if a truck went by that area carrying gravel maybe 10 mins before you arrived there and accidentally spilled some?

Is that the councils fault? I am not saying man up to insult you, its a metaphor for "it is ridiculous to even think about blaming the council."

My God. I am still amazed by this thread.

:-) no:-) instead why don't you answer me this. If I told you that mentioning it to maybe 3 peoole afterwards that had previously cyclea the road over the last month or two, ALL three then said oh I remember that corner, was lucky not to come off. I'm sorry sir but you're a typical warrior of the keys. You're of no help to me, I'm not suddenly just going to think, oh yes, that eightinch gravel and severly potholed road was my fault, ah I won't try claim off the council they should keep my road tax for better use like paying off the banks. Because my frame of mind won't instantaneously move to this frame of thought and all you're doing is letting of keyboard steam, would you kindly just go away and leave this thread to people who's mind isn't shut closed either side like a tunnel?

Cody Pomeray

c50 wrote: »

What a pretty scene for an accident.

I can see your point OP. Gravel on a road like that acts like marbles underneath a wheel of a bicycle. It was certainly foolish of the council to have left it there without signage. On the other hand, the unpredictability of unsteady ground conditions on the rural highway is a fact of life that, perhaps, should be known to cyclists, and indeed lamented by all.

c50

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

What a pretty scene for an accident.

I can see your point OP. Gravel on a road like that acts like marbles underneath a wheel of a bicycle. It was certainly foolish of the council to have left it there without signage. On the other hand, the unpredictability of unsteady ground conditions on the rural highway is a fact of life that, perhaps, should be known to cyclists, and indeed lamented by all.

Well aware hopping on a bike caution has to be taken but I think my main problem with this is for 40kms nothing in way of gravel or potholes were around until I go around thia bend to go from a fair road surface to this. Also like I say its one thing if it were a recent thing but talking to people afterwards it seems the road had been left to deteriorate here over months. This is one of 2 primary roads in this area.