Are you a QOTWer? Do you want to start a thread that isn't a direct answer to the current QOTW? Then this place, gentle poster, is your friend.
(, Sun 1 Apr 2001, 1:00)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread
If the pothole that killed your wheel has been reported to the council prior to your hitting it then they will be liable for damage as it is their legal responsibility to repair it in good time. (although it often takes a threat of small claims court to get them to pay up)
If the hole is marked with a ring of yellow spray paint, thats normally an indicator that the council is aware of it (and therefore liable). If it is not marked it does not necessarily mean it has not been reported, you need to fight your way through the council phone system to get to the right department and check.
You will need a report from a garage to confirm the damage was caused by a pothole as well, most places will do this for free if they are also replacing the wheel for you.
They will do their best to make it as awkward and difficult as possible for you to claim if they are liable.
Good Luck
(, Mon 25 Jan 2010, 10:58, 3 replies, latest was 16 years ago)
Sounds like a lot of effort for probably no return and I can't remember exactly where the hole was although I could just point to the entire fosse between Leamington and Morton in the Marsh
(, Mon 25 Jan 2010, 11:01, Reply)
"in good time" leaves a lot of room for interpretation. There've been hundreds of potholes open up over the last fortnight due to the weather. No council on Earth could have repaired them all. So the test would be one of whether it's reasonable not to have; and on this matter, a comparison with other calls for the council's attention, and consideration of the budget available, would be relevant.
It's unlikely that you'd have any case at all.
(, Mon 25 Jan 2010, 11:06, Reply)
shouldn't have such shonky roads in the first place. Sweeden and Canada are cold all the time and their roads are excellent*
*made up fact I hope is true
(, Mon 25 Jan 2010, 11:09, Reply)
So it's worth spending the extra on the resistant road surfaces. It possibly wouldn't be cost-effective here; and councils don't have the cash (or the political incentive) to plan for the long term, when funding is worked out annually and all council seats are up for election every three years. Why would any council put up taxes for a year to pay for a more lasting road surface, when voters would immediately chuck 'em out for being (allegedly) spendthrift?
(, Mon 25 Jan 2010, 11:12, Reply)
Perhaps they're constructed differently since the materials appear to be the same?
The roads in Ukraine and Russia are also tarmac and have potholes the size of cars. In fact, they are essentially potholes laced together by tiny bits of tarmac.
(, Mon 25 Jan 2010, 11:30, Reply)
has some of the most decrepit roads I have ever seen - truly epic.
(, Mon 25 Jan 2010, 11:39, Reply)
And probably better - and more expensively - built to begin with, since they have a sensible approach to public spending over there.
(, Mon 25 Jan 2010, 11:58, Reply)
instead of being a pretentious twat?
(, Mon 25 Jan 2010, 12:04, Reply)
requires approximately 50% deeper foundation concrete and a thicker layer of asphalt that requires more frequent replacement which togther increase the cost of a road by about 20% per year to keep it within regulations. These factors combined make it uneconomical to keep any but the busiest and most inportant motorways "Cold Treated" in a country like this where snow and serious frost are a relatively uncommon phonenomena.
It's amazing the random stuff you learn when you're friends with a civil engineer. ;-)
(, Mon 25 Jan 2010, 17:06, Reply)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread