You are reading a single comment by @deleted and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
Cheers Oliver. I'm not a very 'claimy' person but when teeth are involved it gets very expensive. Is it worth calling LCC and taking some advice?
deleted-
It's certainly always worth getting information, but I have no idea if you have a claim--certainly not against the design, bad though it is. The only thing I can think of is that perhaps the car parking bay markings are so worn that they are not visible at night even with good illumination (and given the poor street lighting, as you say)--it looks as if it's quite an old scheme, twenty years or more. I don't know if it's possible to show that well enough to anchor a claim, though.
Oliver Schick
Shit luck, awful to hear of your friend's injury. That's not a pedestrian crossing for which any marking requirements exist (the 'look right' is strictly optional). It's merely a kerb build-out to facilitate crossing (one of the variety of things sometimes referred to as 'courtesy crossing' with a central 'refuge'). It's a poor design that I'd never advocate. As far as I can see from the picture, all the required markings are there--for the car parking bays either side of it. Technically, you shouldn't have been riding in the parking bays but in the adjacent traffic lane. It was probably your misfortune that no cars were parked there, so it wasn't obvious enough that there were those bays. I've heard before of this sort of design catching people out--basically, for cycling you want even kerblines and any transitions should be gradual, which this design isn't.