Off Topic Claiming for pothole damage?

Currently reading:
Off Topic Claiming for pothole damage?

Dark, single-track road, nowhere to go but into a ditch on both sides.
I have perfect eyesight, and have been driving/riding for 33years without hitting anything.
You can't drive safely if you're concentrating on the road directly in front of you all the time.
The Council is responsible for keeping the roads in a decent condition, imagine what state they'd be in if they weren't :eek:
 
...You can't drive safely if you're concentrating on the road directly in front of you all the time...
If you drive around with your face up against the screen, scanning the few feet in front of your bumper (and nowhere else), tell me where you drive, and I'll avoid the area totally.:rolleyes:

Headlights, as I'm sure you've noticed, are mounted approx 24" or so from the road, so they can't shine directly down into the small craters that litter our roads.
It's not easy to tell if that dark patch in the road (out of the hundreds you come across every mile or so) is a puddle, a repair patch, oil, damp patch, or as in this case a wheel and tyre-eating monster.
Yes, the wheel's scrap as well...:mad:
 
If there's no option but to go into a pot hole, then go slow enough not to damage a tyre.

Quite right too.

That would save councils any obligation to bother resurfacing roads at all.

In fact why bother with roads full stop? We could just drive cross country as long as we go slowly enough to avoid damaging our cars on bumps
 
So you're saying that everyone should drive expecting gaping holes in the road surface round each corner?

Yes.... that is how everyone should drive. Be aware of what's around you and drive according to the road conditions.

If you drive around with your face up against the screen, scanning the few feet in front of your bumper (and nowhere else), tell me where you drive, and I'll avoid the area totally.

I don't drive like that. I anticipate what's ahead of me and drive accordingly.

Headlights, as I'm sure you've noticed, are mounted approx 24" or so from the road, so they can't shine directly down into the small craters that litter our roads.

As above..... anticipate ahead and drive accordingly.


That would save councils any obligation to bother resurfacing roads at all.

If there wasn't so many people jumping on the compensation bandwagon trying to get someone else to pay for their mistakes, there'd be more money available for road repairs maybe.
 
Yes.... that is how everyone should drive. Be aware of what's around you and drive according to the road conditions.



I don't drive like that. I anticipate what's ahead of me and drive accordingly.



As above..... anticipate ahead and drive accordingly.




If there wasn't so many people jumping on the compensation bandwagon trying to get someone else to pay for their mistakes, there'd be more money available for road repairs maybe.

If the council meets its obligation of inspecting roads,repairing them to standard etc
they can defend every case thrown at them
so if they are paying out,what does that say?
 
Chicken/egg situation I guess, pay out the compensation or fix all the pot holes.

It's still the driver's responsibility to look where he's driving though.

right. however not every scenario allows you to see everything
not all potholes are easily distinguished,for example a small puddle can in reality be a 6" deep pothole
or road conditions/traffic can make dodging them unsafe/impossible
In Edinburgh it has come to light the council has made a concious decision not to repair/update many roads,due to the existing tram disruption(in Edinburgh it blows your financial argument out the water and onto a wide orbit)
http://www.scotsman.com/edinburgh-e...ists_claims_for_pothole_damage_soar_1_2034625
anyone who knows edinburgh will no doubt tell you the state of the roads. I bet the claims are a small amount vs the real damage toll.

how about chicken & egg.if nobody claims,why should the council spend money on repairs?
bear in mind I have been off work for 5 weeks now,after hitting a pothole I didn't see
nor did the cars that passed by as I stood at the side of the road afterwards
 
Test the water by trying one of the no win, no fee companies. I'm no fan but if they won't touch it then as a layman I wouldn't waste time on it.
Council are obligated to maintain roads but get round this by insisting that they have inspected this road recently and found no problem - challenge this and ask for documentary evidence to this effect, may get lucky.
 
right. however not every scenario allows you to see everything
not all potholes are easily distinguished,for example a small puddle can in reality be a 6" deep pothole
or road conditions/traffic can make dodging them unsafe/impossible

Fair comment.

I went down a deep hole in Brasov, Romania a few years ago. It was dark and the road was under 100cms of rain water. Couldn't see the road surface so was driving very slowly. The hole was a shear drop into a man hole where the road had been resurfaced several times without removing the old surface, so the man hole cover was about 100 cms below the road surface.

It was my fault for continuing to drive in unsuitable conditions. I didn't go running 'cap in hand' to the local municipality office for compensation. I know what they would have told me if I did anyway; "Du-te dracu" Loose translation = Go away.
 
Yes.... that is how everyone should drive. Be aware of what's around you and drive according to the road conditions...

...I don't drive like that. I anticipate what's ahead of me and drive accordingly...

If there wasn't so many people jumping on the compensation bandwagon trying to get someone else to pay for their mistakes, there'd be more money available for road repairs maybe.

Road 'conditions' generally, yes, such as Ice, Snow, Rain, etc, but how the hell can you do anything about that which you can't see, or not see until you're virtually on top of it?

And how the hell do you anticipate what you haven't seen?
It's ridiculous to expect to have to drive like that, you'd never go above 20mph anywhere just in case there was something coming up!

I anticipate things like horses/cyclists/pedestrians etc round every single bend on country roads, or anywhere that I can't see is clear within my stopping distance, but to have to crawl along every clear, straight stretch of road is just nonsense, you'd never get anywhere.

As for jumping on the compensation bandwagon :confused:
I've made one claim in the 48 years I've been out of nappies, and that was when I got severe food poisoning eating food supplied by my Employer.
I got a paltry sum in compensation, which didn't really compensate for the initial 8-week period I was ill for, let alone all the grief it gave me for the next 10+ years (n)
I didn't pursue compensation for the back injury I got at work in 2000 (and which still affects me now).

I'm against the 'compensation culture' as much as anyone, but when you're going to be several hundred pounds out-of-pocket because someone hasn't done their (very simple) job properly, or at all, then you can't just shrug your shoulders and accept it.

Let's imagine for a minute that I didn't do part of my job to the best of my ability, or I was basically negligent in some way, or neglected to follow the correct procedures, whatever.
Then, the Aircraft you're sitting in, quite rightly expecting to be transported comfortably and safely to your destination, is delayed (or cancelled totally).
You're off-loaded and have to take different flight, at an extra cost of a couple of hundred pounds, would you just shrug it off?

Those passengers that were on the Italian Cruise Liner, who've been traumatised or injured, they should have anticipated it surely?
After all, just like some roads have potholes, we all know that some Ships/Boats tip over or sink don't we?


It's exactly the same principle as I see it.
 
Back
Top