I'm hoping for some help please with regards to tyres which have been damaged. The tyres are on a motorbike though, not a car.
My partner started a new job on the 21st July this year and was taking various different journeys to work to find the quickest route. He uses both his car and motorbike when travelling dependant on the time of day as he works shifts.
On Thursday 25th July, he took at route he hadnt taken before along a dual carriageway, and he approached a junction. Shortly after this, there was a 100yard sign advising of roadworks. As this is a dual carriageway, there was no-where for him to turn off or leave the road at this point. He was then forced to ride through a line of cones taking him from lane one to lane two and resulted in him riding through freshly laid tarmac and loose chippings.
The bike became quite unstable as it picked up allsorts of stuff from the road which stuck to the tyres, but he made it slowly to work, allbeit late.
The bike stayed in the car park for the next 6 hours during which time the tar dried and stuck to the tyres. Unfortunately it had rained during the evening and the roads were still wet when he rode home. The tyres became extremely slippery and very dangerous with the loss of traction and he had to stop mid journey and get my bike recovered home.
We've done our best to scrub the tyres and get most of the tarmac and other debris off, but his confidence in the tyres has gone and continuous loss of traction could prove unsafe.
We wrote to the authority carrying out the works to advise we were going to claim for the cost of new tyres (the originals only having been bought 2 months prior and proof of this can be supplied) and they have replied via their contractor advising that in their opinion adequate advance warning signs, road work signs and cones were in position and regular checks made.
They also advise that "any road use that fails to heed road work warning signs and continue to travel above the regulatory speed limits through such road works could experience this sort of damage".
They advise that signage had been in place for one wee prior to the works and they are in no doubt we were aware of this.
We do not live in this borough and my partner does not travel this way to his new job regularly. The implication that he was speeding is untrue, as anyone who knows my partner knows he does not break speed limits (something i know is sometimes not believed where bikes are concerned).
Is there any advice anyone can give as to whether it is worth pursuing this case as it did cost £180 for a set of tyres and for this reason alone, i think its reasonable to ask for the damage to be repaired by the authority, but am keen to listen to opinions of others.
Thanks all.
Edited by Pugugly on 31/08/2008 at 20:06
|
Short answer to a long post, which I have read but don't totally understand. I can't visualise how he was 'forced' to drive thru a line of cones. What happened to any other vehicles that were going on that route around the same time? Have they all got wrecked tyres too and, if so, what are they doing about it?
Edited by Armitage Shanks {p} on 31/08/2008 at 18:44
|
He passed the junction and shortly afterwards came across the one and only sign indicated road works in 100 yards. During this time, and given the fact it was a dual cariageway, he had no option other than to carry on, not being able to turn off. The cones were then laid down in such a manner as to force vehicles into one lane of traffic, this being lane two. The tarmac was still wet and he had to ride over this. Motorcycle tryes run warmer than cars, thats the nature of them sticking to the road, so its doubtful a car tyre will have picked up as much road material as a result of the tar, but i suspect it was possible. Being on four wheels though instead of two, it wouldnt affect the handling as noticeably in a car.
My argument is that they did not give sufficient warning, as if they had warned prior to the junction, he would have turned off and not gone through the roadworks.
I have no idea what other people are doing about their vehicles.
|
I would be surprised if a dual carriageway was reduced to a single lane with only 100 yards' warning so either the contractor is at your fault for lack of adequate signage or your husband might not have noticed other signage as he was travelling down a road for the first time. I assume he didn't return the same day and take shots of the approach and whatever signage was there. If so then I think you might struggle to make a claim.
|
|
|
|
|
I can't see how there'd be a valid claim. It sounds like inexperience on a motorbike to me, a few miles of riding would have thrown off all the gravel, and probably worn off all the tar. It sounds as though the rider has lost confidence, regardless of the condition of the tyres. I've ridden through lots of horrible wet tar/loose chippings road works and it's the pile of loose chippings that gather in the centre of the road and close to the gutter that's the real worry on a bike.
|
Get something called "Tardis" and spray it all over the tyres and anywhere else there is tar. Then use a pressure washer (maybe at Petrol Station) to blast it all off.
Its only cosmetic and cause no long lasting damage.
|
|
Has he got any legal advice cover on his recovery scheme ? Unless you have photos of the resulting "damage" and of the signage you may be facing a struggle.
Edited by Pugugly on 31/08/2008 at 19:53
|
Thanks for the reply NSAR, but I think I should clarify that it wasn't the first time he travelled down this road, far from it. He just hadn?t ridden down the road the week prior to the road works, so their argument about the signage being out for a week prior is neither here nor there if you don?t actually use the road on a regular basis. Unfortunately, no he didn?t return to take pics, which is a shame.
Thanks also to doug_r1 ? I appreciate your opinion, but it certainly isn?t a confidence or experience issue. The bike in question is one of four two-wheeled vehicles he uses regularly and has had no problem on any of them since the event or on the bike in question prior to the event. He has ridden bikes for 25 years, regularly takes part in track days and is also a police trained response rider, so I?m sorry, but lack of experience or loss of confidence is not the issue here.
I am, however, getting the impression that the general consensus is we haven?t really got a case, which was what I really wanted clarification on.
Thanks all for your views.
|
Thanks for the reply NSAR but I think I should clarify that it wasn't the first time he travelled down this road far from it.
But "On Thursday 25th July, he took at route he hadnt taken before along a dual carriageway, and he approached a junction. "
I am confused.com?
|
I'm confused too.
I don't understand how he was forced into the roadworks - he could have stopped within 100 yards I'm sure, if that was his only option, and used the acceleration of the motorbike to accelerate back into traffic from the end of the lane. That would have meant no damage. Even if he couldn't have stopped, that brings the question of why he was travelling at a speed at which he was unable to stop within the space he could see was clear.
In addition if the tar, etc. can be cleaned off then your loss is very much lower than £180.
I suspect that even if the signage is inadequate, your claim, even if you can meet the evidential hurdle set out by PU, would be very substantially reduced by contributory negligence.
If the Highways Agency/roadworks company/council will not enter into further correspondence with you then I'm afraid I'd have to give this up as a bad job unless you can get further, free, professional advice through insurance - but even if they don't agree with you, I'd advise you to take the advice given.
Edited by DavidHM on 31/08/2008 at 21:00
|
I read the situation not that he couldn't stop, but that he had no option but to carry on through the roadworks. Hopefully the use of this anti-tar spray stuff may obviate the need to pursue this.
|
J1mbo ? It was the first time he had chosen this ROUTE since starting his new job. I was trying emphasise the fact that he wasn?t a regular user of this highway, not implying he had never used it before ever.
"I don't understand how he was forced into the roadworks - he could have stopped within 100 yards I'm sure, if that was his only option, and used the acceleration of the motorbike to accelerate back into traffic from the end of the lane"
Sorry DavidHM, but i don't really understand this paragraph at all?!? As Nsar has since said, i havent at any time said he was travelling at a speed whereby he was UNABLE to stop, the fact was he was unable to leave the road he was travelling on as he was on a dual carriageway and had passed the last junction PRIOR to the signage. He didn?t see any signage until after he had gone through the junction onto a dual carriageway where there was no point further option to turn off the road, therefore forcing him to continue on the route and ending up going through the roadworks.
Maybe i haven?t explained it thoroughly enough, i was just interested in whether people felt the same as we do, that as Nsar said in a previous post, the contractor is at fault for not having adequate signage out at a point where he would have been able to turn around or take an alternative route.
I think i'll draw a line under this conversation. Thanks anyway to those who replied.
|
They resurfaced our lane earlier this year. Lots of sticky tar everywhere, and chippings inadequately rolled into it. Driving along it was like going through a grit blaster, and the tyres got absolutely plastered with tar and chippings. But the first burst of speed on an ordinary road spun all the debris off.
A bit like mud really - that's life, not worth worrying over.
|
|
|
I'm hoping for some help please with regards to tyres which have been damaged. The tyres are on a motorbike though not a car. freshly laid tarmac and loose chippings. (...) t picked up allsorts of stuff from the road which stuck to the tyres
If the road you mention, which was open to general use, had something on it put there by the maintenance crew, that would normally not be there, and caused any sort of damage, I would think you'd be able to do something about it.
The only time I've seen this sort of effect was on a very hot road in a past Summer - cars had thick layers of tar and chippings stuck to their tyres, and ground along sounding like carts. Tar and stones were spattered all over them. Council workers were actually spreading rock salt on the surface to sop some of the melted tar up!
|
The key is this
"We've done our best to scrub the tyres and get most of the tarmac and other debris off, but his confidence in the tyres has gone and continuous loss of traction could prove unsafe."
This is meaningless. An independent inspection or a written report by someone who has authority on tyres is required to ascertain the safety and serviceability of the tyres before any insurance company will pay out. In truth the sum involved is probably under the excess limit for any liability insurance the contractor has, so you may be able to get away with a note on headed paper from a supplier of bike tyres. A drinking voucher may be required to facilitate such.
probably tho 100 miles hard riding will fix the tyres.
|
|
I understood the story first time. Sounds like a misformulated bitumen that hadn't hardened before traffic was allowed onto it. For any claim, you will need evidence, and it sounds a bit late for that. As others have advised, try removing it with mild solvent foam cleaner. How much are the tyres worth?
|
From your description, it does appear that the poor quality temporary road surface has damaged the tyres.
The authority has already attempted to confuse things by implying that your partner was breaking the speed limit. I suspect that if the road was a sticky dangerous mess, then it would be a sticky dangerous mess regardless of the speed of the vehicle.
You have rightly pointed out that you partner is an experienced motorcyclist, and that that the signs were poor.
Generally, authorities do not give in easily. If you want your money back, then at the very least you will need to issue a summons. This can be done via your local county court or via the www.moneyclaim.gov.uk website. You might want to contact a solicitor, but for this value claim, you can probably do it yourself.
For the claim, you'll need receipts for the damaged tyres, plus any other expenses like recovery costs, taxis while the bike was off the road and so on.
When you present your case, you'll need as much evidence as you can get, for example, photographs of the damaged tyres, plus photographs of the poor road work signs and road surface.
I know when I was pursuing a claim against a trader for a similar value, the cost of a summons was £30. Often, the threat of a summons will result in the other side taking the pragmatic decision to pay reasonable expenses.
|
|
|
|
