Oil slick on road caused crash

DaveyB76

This morning while out on a spin, I passed a sign warning about an oil spill on the road. Sure enough, around 100m after the sign, I noticed an oil slick on the road and proceeded through it with caution. Another 100m or so down the road was a 90 degree bend and as I went around it at no more than 15km/h, the front wheel slid out and down I went. My shoulder and hip took most of the impact, but my brake lever and rear mech got a bit of a scraping too. It would appear that the gear cable got pinched between the mech and the road as a couple of strands of the cable are frayed.

Am I alone in thinking that if the council was notified of an oil spill and went to the trouble of erecting signs warning about it, the should have been a bit more proactive and actually treated the roads with some bioverse or even just put sand down to absorb it. I feel inclined to contact them and try to claim for a new brake lever and maybe even a rear mech. Has anyone any experience of an issue similar to this and what response did they get from the council?

iwillhtfu

Consider it a lesson and move on.

If you do go down the route you're thinking of by the time you get engineers reports/witness time off work etc you will be out of pocket and it will cost a lot more than a new lever and mech should the judgement go against you.

magicbastarder

DaveyB76 wrote: »

I noticed an oil slick on the road and proceeded through it with caution.

you made the decision to proceed on a visible oil spill; that does weaken your argument for compensation i'd say.

tunney

"the kettle's manual warned the water was boiling but when I poured it on my groin it burnt me, who can I sue?"

Not the sharpest knife in the kitchen eh?

fat bloke

Just an unfortunate fact of life for bikers and motorbikers I'm afraid. You'd never think diesel was as expensive as it is the way some lorries slosh it around the place..

10 Carrolls

Ah here, you rode through the oil on the road and then fell off and it's somebody else's fault?? Come on!

JK.BMC

Maybe practice your bike handling skills instead of looking for compo. We all fall- it's part of life methinks.

07Lapierre

Yes.....you are alone.

Trekker09

Am I right in saying that there was no sign for the 2nd oil spill? If so then, IMHO, yes, you have a legitimate grievance. I'd certainly contact the council to let them know, but good luck trying to get compensation!

Tell me how

Trekker09 wrote:

Am I right in saying that there was no sign for the 2nd oil spill? If so then, IMHO, yes, you have a legitimate grievance. I'd certainly contact the council to let them know, but good luck trying to get compensation!

What if the council knew nothing about the 2nd spill?

Just get on with your life. We complain about insurance costs rising and being told its to do with increasing claims and yet we then add to it by supporting this type of culture.

Macy0161

Trekker09 wrote: »

Am I right in saying that there was no sign for the 2nd oil spill? If so then, IMHO, yes, you have a legitimate grievance. I'd certainly contact the council to let them know, but good luck trying to get compensation!

Only if there was an "ends" sign surely? I'm not aware that such warning signs are distance limited?

On damp roads, a spill can spread several kilometers if it's a relatively busy road. I'd always be cautious, therefore, for a several kilometers after any oil spillage warning sign in car or on bike.

CruelCoin

DaveyB76 wrote: »

This morning while out on a spin, I passed a sign warning about an oil spill on the road. Sure enough, around 100m after the sign, I noticed an oil slick on the road and proceeded through it with caution. Another 100m or so down the road was a 90 degree bend and as I went around it at no more than 15km/h, the front wheel slid out and down I went. My shoulder and hip took most of the impact, but my brake lever and rear mech got a bit of a scraping too. It would appear that the gear cable got pinched between the mech and the road as a couple of strands of the cable are frayed.

Am I alone in thinking that if the council was notified of an oil spill and went to the trouble of erecting signs warning about it, the should have been a bit more proactive and actually treated the roads with some bioverse or even just put sand down to absorb it. I feel inclined to contact them and try to claim for a new brake lever and maybe even a rear mech. Has anyone any experience of an issue similar to this and what response did they get from the council?

You noticed the risk, and carried on regardless. You had the option to dismount but you chose to continue cycling.

Your fault OP, move on.

Thud

Did something similar a few years back, cycled inside some road cones beside a farm as there was a car coming towards me on a narrow rural road, turned out farmer had decided to tar the area inside the cones, it was raining so wet new tar looked much like wet old tar, ended up covered in tar, sore and learned not to ignore road cones

Chuchote

I would personally agree with the OP that the council should have sanded the area in addition to putting out a sign.

seamus

Chuchote wrote: »

I would personally agree with the OP that the council should have sanded the area in addition to putting out a sign.

Yeah, but that's the job of the sand guys, I'm just a sign guy. And the sand guys only work till 11am on Saturdays. They'll be back to sand it sometime during the week.

This is how councils operate. Wicklow Co. Co. in particular.

Alun

Macy0161 wrote: »

Only if there was an "ends" sign surely? I'm not aware that such warning signs are distance limited?

On damp roads, a spill can spread several kilometers if it's a relatively busy road. I'd always be cautious, therefore, for a several kilometers after any oil spillage warning sign in car or on bike.

"Oil" spills are often diesel spills due to overfilling of truck fuel tanks and/or forgetting to put the fuel cap back on. As such if you find one you'll usually find a good few more further on on the road, damp or not especially on bends when the fuel sloshes around.

benneca1

And we wonder why insurance is so high. I see the warning sign continue cycling and then try to sue. FGS get a bit of sense thus type of nonsense is why no one can organise anything in this country always someone trying to sue does my head in,

ted1

benneca1 wrote: »

And we wonder why insurance is so high. I see the warning sign continue cycling and then try to sue. FGS get a bit of sense thus type of nonsense is why no one can organise anything in this country always someone trying to sue does my head in,

In fairness the warning signs loose their effectiveness when they are in put in the road and never taking back up. They need to add the date that they are out up

DaveyB76

I feel I should clarify a few things from my original post, as it was written when I was still suffering from a bit of the red mist at my pride and joy being damaged, especially as this was the second time in recent months that such a thing happened. Prior to moving to this area around 8 months ago, I'd managed to cycle between 10,000 and 20,000km a year without mishap, my last previous fall was in 1999, but this was the second oil spill to take me down in recent months. The first one was going downhill on a rural road and there were no warning signs, so I chalked it up to experience and did my civic duty and notified the council on the Monday morning.

I accept that when I noticed the sign warning about the oil spillage yesterday, I decided to proceed with caution, partly because I didn't know how long the signs had been out (there are 'road flooded' warning signs on a road not too far from my house that have been there since I moved in and I have yet to see so much as a puddle on said road) and also because I mistakenly assumed that if the road was as slippy as it turned out to be, it would have been treated to make it safe again, especially after the recommendations made to the council last year by the coroner's court at the inquest into Dermot McGrath's tragic accident. To turn around and go an alternative route would have added around 20km to my distance, and unfortunately I didn't have the time to take such detour.

When I wrote in my original post that I noticed an oil slick, I should have made it clear that it wasn't very visible, but it was more the change in noise that the tyres were making on the road that made me realise that I was passing through the slick that the signs were warning of. It seemed to relatively localised as the noise returned to the regular hum after a couple of seconds. I was aware that I might have residue on my tyres, so I took the bend at what I thought was an appropriate speed, but obviously enough, it wasn't, as I was on the ground before I had a chance to react. Whether there was a second slick or not, I couldn't tell for sure.

Finally, when I said I was inclined to claim for a new brake lever, it was fuelled by anger at what I feel was essentially negligent behaviour to leave a road in a poor condition for us more vulnerable road users. Personally, I don't think that just putting up a warning sign is enough. If the road is unsafe, do something to remedy the situation and if that's not possible, then close it and put detour signs at the previous junction.

Lumen

benneca1 wrote: »

And we wonder why insurance is so high. I see the warning sign continue cycling and then try to sue. FGS get a bit of sense thus type of nonsense is why no one can organise anything in this country always someone trying to sue does my head in,

There's a massive difference between asking the council to pay for replacement mech(s) (cost: a couple of hundred at most) and going to court to claim many thousands for a phantom whiplash injury, for example.

(and don't get me started on that sack of scum that sued for a hurty ankle on the Wicklow Way)

Trekker09

benneca1 wrote: »

And we wonder why insurance is so high. I see the warning sign continue cycling and then try to sue. FGS get a bit of sense thus type of nonsense is why no one can organise anything in this country always someone trying to sue does my head in,

Are you serious? If they got to the stage of putting up signage then there had to have been a H&S risk assessment. If they failed to identify the risk and potential consequences to road users they are at fault. The OP certainly doesn't sound like one of the 'whiplash' brigade trying to cash in.

magicbastarder

Trekker09 wrote: »

If they got to the stage of putting up signage then there had to have been a H&S risk assessment.

i think you've used a grand term there for a very simple action.

Chuchote

Rather than leap to blame insurance scammers (which are nothing at all to do with county and city councils), what about looking at the state the councils have our roads in? I'm seeing potholes and slits and worn-away tarmac revealing slithery cobblestones and badly-made tar patches wearing away to make the original damage more dangerous.

Macy0161

Unless it was a council vehicle that caused the spill, they're not responsible for the oil on the road. They put out warning signs.

I'd guess they can get warning signs out quicker than they can get someone out with sand/ some other treatment too. I wouldn't dispute that demarcation rubbish alluded to earlier in the thread does go, but it would make sense to me to have signs out around the place with people who might not necessarily have access to sand - warning is the first task, treating the second task.

benneca1

You could Claim as much as you can then whinge about lack of public services and high insurance costs. Or how about this approach i cycled through an oil slick and fell maybe in future ill be more careful and heed the signs

07Lapierre

ted1 wrote: »

In fairness the warning signs loose their effectiveness when they are in put in the road and never taking back up. They need to add the date that they are out up

Maybe the answer is to not erect a warning sign at all?

JK.BMC

I hear a lot more of this type of thing in recent years - and I have to re-state my initial point which is that it is unfortunate, most likely painful, and downright annoying to hit the road at speed and to damage the bike, oil spill or not.

What I cannot get my head around - or accept - is this "entitlement" attitude that abounds in some quarters with regard to blaming somebody else for your own problems and seeking validation for same, either through financial compensation, or the denigration of somebody or other, or some institution (e.g. the council/politicians/public servants/UCI/Donald Trump blah blah blah etc etc etc.....)

Look: you fell off your bike. On an oily stretch of road. That had a warning on it. On a wet November day. You may be hurt, but I assume all else is fine, apart from some damage to your bike. This stuff happens every day. Its called bad luck. Be thankful it wasn't worse, that a car wasn't coming at the time. Lucky You.

Just get on with it.

Chuchote

JK.BMC wrote: »

What I cannot get my head around - or accept - is this "entitlement" attitude that abounds in some quarters with regard to blaming somebody else for your own problems and seeking validation for same, either through financial compensation, or the denigration of somebody or other, or some institution (e.g. the council/politicians/public servants/UCI/Donald Trump blah blah blah etc etc etc.....)

Yeah, snowflakes asking for the roads to be safe, man up!

ford2600

Chuchote wrote: »

Yeah, snowflakes asking for the roads to be safe, man up!

In fairness what do we expect a Local Authority (and our taxes) to do every time there is a minor oil spill?

The optimum solution is fire brigade and wash do road, with H&S requirements probably needs about 30 man hours and lots of expensive gear.

Sanding the road is a Mickey Mouse half solution.

OP was on notice and had two options which were perfectly safe, walk and divert but chose the riskier one.

Fian

It is not realistic to expect the Co co to maintain all the roads in perfect nick. This would be too big a task for any organisation. This is why you can't sue if you hit a pothole.

The council do not have a legal duty to remove oil slicks, much less to remove them instantly. If they did have such a legal duty can you imagine the amount of scam claims that would go in?

If they repair something negligently you do have a claim - but that is based on them doing something negligently not on them failing to do something they have no legal duty to do (such as sanding an oil slick.) Sometimes **** happens to people and they have nobody to compensate them. If you slip and fall in your own shower and break your spine nobody is liable to compensate you. It is just lousy luck.

Same thing applies where you slip on an oil slick on the public road, unless you could established who caused the slick.

OPs second post makes it clear he realises this.

Chuchote

Funny thing: during the Celtic Tiger years the roads were in more or less perfect nick - it had been the case that as soon as you crossed the border northwards, you'd notice how much better the roads were, but this completely changed.

It was only days into the crash that I saw my first potholes, and they marched in with the invading austerity in force, and have stayed ever since.

doozerie

Chuchote wrote: »

Funny thing: during the Celtic Tiger years the roads were in more or less perfect nick - it had been the case that as soon as you crossed the border northwards, you'd notice how much better the roads were, but this completely changed.

It was only days into the crash that I saw my first potholes, and they marched in with the invading austerity in force, and have stayed ever since.

Were the potholes massing on the borders, waiting for their opportunity to sneak in and ruin our lives while we were preoccupied with the economic mess? Maybe Nigel Farage is really a closet cyclist and Brexit really = "Broken Roads Exit" (which would make him an especially sneaky prat rather than an averagely sneaky prat).

magicbastarder

doozerie wrote: »

Were the potholes massing on the borders, waiting for their opportunity to sneak in and ruin our lives while we were preoccupied with the economic mess? Maybe Nigel Farage is really a closet cyclist and Brexit really = "Broken Roads Exit" (which would make him an especially sneaky prat rather than an averagely sneaky prat).

no, it was a cross border pothole smuggling operation. crooked politicians used to have the potholes smuggled into the north to get rid of them, but can't afford to any more.

doozerie

magicbastarder wrote: »

no, it was a cross border pothole smuggling operation. crooked politicians used to have the potholes smuggled into the north to get rid of them, but can't afford to any more.

Good point. It got a lot more expensive when the crafty Paddy's started cutting the potholes in half and instantly doubling the costs when their customers had to buy two potholes for every one previously.

doozerie

Re the original post, I'm surprised at the strength of some of the vitriolic responses. The OP came a cropper and felt aggrieved, it's human nature to look for some kind of fairness out of it all, of whatever form. I would agree that the council isn't responsible as such, but I don't think the OP deserves some of the strong criticism for just raising the question.

I've often wondered myself what responsibility a council does have, if any, when it comes to road conditions. My (very limited) understanding is that culpability on their part only applies where they have been made aware of a problem on a road, made an attempt to remedy it, but the "fix" left it in a dangerous state. I wouldn't want to be the one trying to figure out the black from the white from the grey in all of that.

What happens if the council doesn't grit any, or just some, roads on an icy morning for example? Or don't repair malfunctioning traffic lights? Or, more immediately interesting to me, don't do anything about sensor-operated traffic lights that don't react to bicycles? Etc. Purely academic questions, but the answers would interest me.

Chuchote

doozerie wrote: »

Were the potholes massing on the borders, waiting for their opportunity to sneak in and ruin our lives while we were preoccupied with the economic mess? Maybe Nigel Farage is really a closet cyclist and Brexit really = "Broken Roads Exit" (which would make him an especially sneaky prat rather than an averagely sneaky prat).

According to top-secret State documents the Real IRA insisted that we should have proper traditional Real Irish Roads, and raced the potholes over the Border in an unusual instance of a silent spectacular.