http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: cyclist wins court case against council en Tue, 19 May 2026 05:30:16 +0000 http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16226#post-215758 Tue, 05 Apr 2016 11:05:43 +0000 Darkerside 215758@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>My knowledge here comes from a lawyer's review of the Hobbit contract between Bilbo and the dwarves, but I think it comes down to how negligent the council is being. You can get out of some liability through warnings, but you can't excuse yourself from gross negligence in any way.</p> <p>So if the road led straight into a volcano, a sign saying "warning, toasty road ahead" still wouldn't exempt the council from liability. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16226#post-215757 Tue, 05 Apr 2016 10:55:55 +0000 acsimpson 215757@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>If circumstances conspire cause a cyclist to slide on an expansion joint then aren't the signs simply an admission that the council knew about them and should have made sure they were safe. Otherwise why wouldn't councils simply erect signs saying "drivers beware: potholes" on every road in the country. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16226#post-215752 Tue, 05 Apr 2016 09:26:15 +0000 Stephan Matthiesen 215752@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Noticing the "Cyclists beware expansion joints" sign, the German bicycle tourist turned their head to ask their mate "what's an expansion joiiiiiiiiiii"... </p> <p>I don't think we learned that word in school. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16226#post-215749 Tue, 05 Apr 2016 09:22:40 +0000 fimm 215749@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>We noted some signs on a bridge on the way to Abington about "Cyclists beware expansion joints" which I assume are something to do with this judgement. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16226#post-215622 Sat, 02 Apr 2016 11:14:02 +0000 gibbo 215622@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>Are they settling out of court or is it just slow justice?? </em></p> <p>I've no idea, but if they've been dragging it out, then I reckon the price has just gone up. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16226#post-215621 Sat, 02 Apr 2016 10:47:58 +0000 chdot 215621@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"Edinburgh Council must be very worried."</p> <p>Are they settling out of court or is it just slow justice?? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16226#post-215620 Sat, 02 Apr 2016 10:38:24 +0000 gibbo 215620@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Edinburgh Council must be very worried. It's not like they can claim they didn't know the tram tracks were dangerous. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16226#post-215564 Fri, 01 Apr 2016 14:15:46 +0000 slowcoach 215564@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>The Peeblesshire News report (that WC quotes from) has details of a counter argument that aren't in the judgement (my first link above). It wouldn't be the first time that a News reporter has <strike>made something up</strike> got some detail wrong. And the judgement doesn't contain all the facts. The width of the tyres is given (23mm) but the size of the gap/groove between the 2 metal strips isn't. So maybe the wheel could have got stuck in the gap. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16226#post-215552 Fri, 01 Apr 2016 13:03:44 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 215552@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"<em>The council's counter argument was that the cyclist should have paid more attention after swerving out to the middle of the road to avoid some lying grit and then getting his wheel caught in the groove</em>"</p> <p>So the council's defence was that there were two defects? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16226#post-215546 Fri, 01 Apr 2016 12:49:52 +0000 slowcoach 215546@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>A <a href="https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=43e70ea7-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7">court case </a>following a crash in 2013 involving a hazardous road surface, has found Scottish Borders Council were in 'breach of the common law duties they owed'. This involved having a metal strip in the <a href="https://goo.gl/maps/aS7GW5hcyTK2">road</a> surface, so may have implications for cases involving tramlines?<br /> There seems to be a conflict between witnesses saying that the metal strip was slippy and that the cyclist fell off after their bike was stopped suddenly.</p> <p>More details, including a photo of the road, in <a href="http://www.peeblesshirenews.com/news/14394767.Council_to_pay___100k_damages_for_faulty_road/">Peeblesshire News</a> </p>