Advice please - Do I claim against a council after an accident?

I spent the weekend doing a 3 day tour in the Peak District with a couple of friends. First two days were hard work, but great. However on our way to breakfast on the 3rd day (8am on easter Sunday) I came off my bike and that was the end of that.

It was in a public park, crossing a bridge in a park that we walked over the night before. As I hit the bridge I realised it was planks of wood, with some gaps between. I didn't have any chance to stop, before my front wheel dropped through a gap, right down to the fork and I went over the bars. Normally I've seen mesh or similar over this kind of bridge.

I wasn't able to ride on, so after getting myself together, we got a taxi to Stoke (nearest A+E). I got an x-ray on my shoulder, ribs and hand. Luckily it only looks like a broken bone in my hand, and bruising to my ribs and shoulder.

It will affect my work, and I'm majorly out of pocket for a taxi to A&E and a taxi home from Euston (luckily we still made our booked return train).

Question is, do I claim compensation, and if so, how do I go about it. I've double checked and there are no 'No Cycling' signs at the entrance I took (or the one I limped out of. In fact, there is a dropped curb in front of the gate. I'm surprised if I'm the only one to go down on this bridge and it just seems very avoidable and a very expensive and painful oversight.

ask @hippy

Go and see a PI Lawyer who can advise you. They suually do no win no fee so it should not cost you anything.

I know Sally, drop her a line:

https://www.leighday.co.uk/Our-experts/partners-at-ld/Sally-Moore

I've sued a council for failing to maintain their roads and almost killing me. For that I had to prove they were not maintaining the road properly which involved getting photos (Google map) evidence that the pothole had been there for over 6 months. Slater & Gordon might do it but no idea how it works for bridges or national parks or whatever.

You've already stated that you crossed over the bridge the night before so you had the opportunity to assess the bridge prior to crossing it. Also, although there aren't any "no cycling" signs, that doesn't automatically make the bridge or the rest of the park an appropriate cycling space. You even could have stopped before the bridge and considered it's condition before riding across it.

I'm not saying you're in the wrong but these are the sort of arguments that a local authorities legal department would be making in defence of themselves. Mesh being on other similar bridges you've seen isn't really condemning of them and dropped kerbs are lot more about disabled and mobility access to the park than it is about cycling access. If you do make a claim, you should definitely do it through a personal injury lawyer. However, from a personal perspective, you don't have a strong case.

IANAL

Make sure to check the local park bye-laws before going any further. The default in the UK is that bye-laws only permit cycling in parks on paths designated for cycling. From the model bye-laws:

No person shall without reasonable excuse ride a cycle in the ground except in any part of the ground where there is a right of way for cycles [or on a designated route for cycling].

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/79210/set2-pleasure-grounds.doc

These may vary in places--bye-laws only get updated every couple of decades or so--but it may be that the paths that connect to the bridge are not on a 'designated route for cycling'. I don't know what that would do to the status of your potential claim (IANAL, either), but it may be relevant.

They suually

They sue you all--why? :)

The avoidable, very expensive and painful oversight was down to your inability to ride to conditions and your unwillingness to get off the bike and push it.

Sorry you have been hurt and are out of pocket but this situation was avoidable.

Sorry you got hurt.

I think unless it's actually a marked/official/whatever cycle route then it's just too bad. I don't think they have a duty of care towards cyclists unless they've specifically said the bridge is good for cycling on. IANAL but morally that's where I stand.

I wonder what would happen if someone were to claim for an injury when cycling on a bridleway or 4WD track or some other off-road right-of-way.

Perhaps phone the park people up and let them know anyway. They might want to do something about it.

Heal up fast!

Where was the park?

Some this no happened to me on @youramericanlover Xmas lights ride.
My lawyer told me as he wasn't insured it wasn't worth claiming.

I'm not going to name it now, just in case I decided to take it further, which based on the above comments seems unlikely. Either way, in due course I will name it to make sure it's made safe/avoided.

Heal fast! Sad to hear that you're hurt.

A claim against a council usually involves you proving their neglect (for instance a pothole that they were aware of, but hadn't repaired within a specific allotted time). As has been said, your best bet is through a good solicitor. Good luck!

To be honest with you, you have next to no chance of getting a solicitor/lawyer to take this on unless it's clearly marked as a cycle route/right of way. Unfortunately for you, you may just have to chalk it down as one of lifes lessons.
Heal quick.

You rode your bike across something without paying attention to what it was you were riding over? As a result of these actions you fell off your bike, and now your considering claiming money off an underfunded local council, where will the money for the 'no riding' signs and bridge mesh come from if everyone sues the council for stacking it in a public park!
Makes my piss boil, you fell off your bike, get over it! Or was it that you don't want to loose face in front of your cycling buddies and so blamed someone else for your own mistake?

Whoa, back up a bit. What if it was a kid? Or an elderly person's support aid? The fact is the gap was wide enough to hurt a person. A simple risk assessment done by a competent person should have meant that the risk would have been reduced and as stated - chicken wire would have removed the risk.

A simple risk assessment done by a competent person should have meant that the risk would have been reduced...

Such as what might be expected of someone considering riding their bike across it?

You were able to walk across a bridge in the dark that had gaps wide enough for a bike wheel to fall through without noticing?!

Parallel not perpendicular to the direction of travel. Had a friend do a similar thing on a drain cover at some lights once but with much less dramatic consequences. OP heal up fast.

You might have been on private land between 2 council paths?

I'm thinking right to roam laws or something. Unsure what expectations are made of those allowing people to walk/cycle/horse ride across land but I'd think not much at all.

@cjr was it a type of cattle grid?

you have no claim. heal well dude

The due diligence is down to the council, don't forget they also have a duty of care to the park's maintenance crew.

I remember the old fashioned drainage covers which run parallel to the road. IIRC those were all replaced because of injuries and claims by cyclists...didn't ctc have some major input as well?

Yet, if you were to climb over someone's garden wall and hurt yourself on a jagged, unrepaired bit, whilst attempting to rob or rape, you probably could have a claim up....
Just saying..

You really wouldn't. I'm not sure where you've got that idea from but it's utter arse gravy that only the Daily Mail would think worth printing.