FAIRLY recently, Megan Archer wrote an article on the lack of progress in trying to claim damage caused to my 1923 Sunbeam motorcycle by a pothole.

Gloucestershire County Council roads department have again re-stated that I have not shown that the council wasere negligent and is are refusing my claim.

There are two points to make. If a hole is 330mm wide, as they say it was when inspected three weeks before, then for them to say it was ‘safe’ for traffic implies that bicycle and motorcycle riders are not traffic.

Since the width of a motorcycle front tyre is 70mm, it would easily drop into a 330mm wide hole at least four times, whereas a car tyre of 300mm width would probably still have part of its tyre on the rim of the hole.

The equivalent of a worrisome hole for a car would be about four times the tyre width – that is well over a metre! Even Gloucestershire could not get away with that.

If the council are not negligent, then maybe they should be accused of trying to kill, maim or damage motorcyclists and cyclists?I estimate that, so far, the solicitors have spent more than £2,000 in claiming that the council were not negligent and hence avoid paying for the £400 damage to my machine. Is this why my rates bill is high?

If you agree with me, then make May 7 your chance to show what you feel.

REG EYRE

Elkstone