CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 16years old!
Well done to ALL posters
It soon became useful and entertaining. There are regular posters, people who add useful info occasionally and plenty more who drop by to watch. That's fine. If you want to add news/comments it's easy to register and become a member.
RULES No personal insults. No swearing.
A court case 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 road surface, so may have implications for cases involving tramlines?
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.
More details, including a photo of the road, in Peeblesshire News
"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"
So the council's defence was that there were two defects?
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 made something up 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.
Edinburgh Council must be very worried. It's not like they can claim they didn't know the tram tracks were dangerous.
"Edinburgh Council must be very worried."
Are they settling out of court or is it just slow justice??
Are they settling out of court or is it just slow justice??
I've no idea, but if they've been dragging it out, then I reckon the price has just gone up.
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.
Noticing the "Cyclists beware expansion joints" sign, the German bicycle tourist turned their head to ask their mate "what's an expansion joiiiiiiiiiii"...
I don't think we learned that word in school.
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.
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.
So if the road led straight into a volcano, a sign saying "warning, toasty road ahead" still wouldn't exempt the council from liability.
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts