Legal case

ellieb

Hmmm.... Could be worth watching closely http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edi ... 216217.stm

NWLondoner

Well, if the accident is proved to be caused by the rider not having his hands on the handlebar and therefore NOT in control of his bike then he is liable.

meagain

Wonder if he has CTC insurance cover?

spen666

ellieb wrote:

Hmmm.... Could be worth watching closely http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edi ... 216217.stm

Why do you think this is worth watching?

It seems to be from that report that there is nothing either novel or unusual about the claim

synchronicity

Yeah, but there is the margin of safety, like with cars. If you're travelling too close to another cyclist you won't be able to react in time... it's YOU who are in control of your position on the road. Sounds like the other rider caused his own crash, and as always, it was magnified by the rest of the bunch who were sucking his wheel. If you don't like the risk, back off. :arrow:

This is one reason why I don't like to cycle in groups. :roll:

martinwitnam

It's interesting because should the injured party win this case it will set a prescedent for every club run across the country.
On my first ever club run, the leader had the misfortune of having a car door opened infront of him. I swerved to miss him but another club member then rode into my back wheel buckling it badly enough that I had to buy a new rim. Should I have taken her through small claims court to get the price of the rim back?
Or should I be sued by another club friend who, on a particularly long (for me) Sunday run, turned to check that I was doing okay only to hit a pot hole and fall into a verge of stinging nettles?
Where do we stop and think that we must take responsibility for our own actions, to a certain extent?
More interesting is the story on the BikeRadar homepage about the spanish motorist who is suing the family of the cyclist he killed while speeding!

pipsqueak

Any ideas what this blokes injuries are?

£370,000 is an awful lot of money and although not a full photo, he does appear to be walking, and in some form of health - no signs of dribble on his suit.

Perhaps he ought to take up tiddlywinks or draughts instead, but i suppose he may be disposed to sue an opponent for tunnel carpel syndrome or RSI.

Mike Willcox

Whenever I've ridden in a group I've adopted a policy of "at your own risk" or like the instrutions given to boxers before a fight by the referee "protect yourself at all times". It's impossible to legislate for all situations regarding culpability in a mass pile up.

E.g. in this case It could even be the local council for allowing a manhole cover to be in a dangerous condition perhaps of a level above the road surface causing the lead cyclist to lose control when he hit it.

How can one rider be held responsible for the group anyway. If he is in the front then unless he's got eyes in the back of his head he has no idea what's going on behind him. And if he is at the back he cannot control what's going on at the front.

Nah protect yourself at all times or ride on your own (like me- billy no mates).

SteveR_100Milers

Agree with that Mike, its at your own risk. What a ridiculous claim to even be brought before a court, and in any case, there is a precendent in motoring claims that if you hit someone from behind you are at fault whatever the circumstances on the basis of due care and attention and giving enough distance.

schlepcycling

This has worrying implications for club runs. Will I need to get each rider to sign my disclaimer before I feel it's safe to take my turn at the front in case they sue me. Although it could be a great excuse for not doing your turn 'sorry I can't come through my solicitor has advised against it'.

Also it's being reported that the Spanish driver has dropped his damages claimed against the cyclist he killed whilst speeding because a big group turned up to protest about it.

ellieb

That is the point isn't it. When you ride in a group you knowingly cycle close to the guy in front to pick up a tow. By normal road use standards your are riding too close to the person in front . In fact I suspect that someone could make a case for saying that you are riding illegally:But surely it makes sense to say that you are tacitly accepting risk when you are engaging in a group activity like this.

schlepcycling

As far as I know there's nothing illegal about riding close behind someone else, but as the person doing the drafting I would have to accept the consequences of my actions and not sue the person I was drafting if I had an accident.

Jeff Jones

If the claimant wins, it will only set a precedent in Scotland, not England and Wales. Different legal system.

We'll have more on this when the case is decided.

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/c ... ages-14298

spen666

Jeff Jones wrote:

If the claimant wins, it will only set a precedent in Scotland, not England and Wales. Different legal system.

We'll have more on this when the case is decided.

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/c ... ages-14298

There is no precedent to set. Itrs already established law that if you owe a duty of care to someone and they suffer loss as a result of a breach, then you are liable.

It is already established that road users owe a duty of care to other road users.

The fact that they were riding in the same group is nothing new.

It is not a precedent setting case. All that is at issue here is whether the defendant was negligent. There is no dispute that the defendant owed a duty of care to the others in the group.

You are all seemingly making this case out to be something it isn't

Jeff Jones

spen666 wrote:

There is no precedent to set. Itrs already established law that if you owe a duty of care to someone and they suffer loss as a result of a breach, then you are liable.

It is already established that road users owe a duty of care to other road users.

The fact that they were riding in the same group is nothing new.

It is not a precedent setting case. All that is at issue here is whether the defendant was negligent. There is no dispute that the defendant owed a duty of care to the others in the group.

You are all seemingly making this case out to be something it isn't

Valid point. It may not be setting a legal precedent, but it does at least open up the idea that cyclists can sue each other for accidents occurring in group rides or races. As far as I know, this is unheard of. Hence the use of the term 'precedent'.

geoff_ss

pipsqueak wrote:

Any ideas what this blokes injuries are?

£370,000 is an awful lot of money and although not a full photo, he does appear to be walking, and in some form of health - no signs of dribble on his suit.

Perhaps he ought to take up tiddlywinks or draughts instead, but i suppose he may be disposed to sue an opponent for tunnel carpel syndrome or RSI.

I suffered spinal shock after going over the handlebars when a cat ran into my front wheel. I was totally paralysed for several days and have suffered constant pain and limited movement for the 17 years since the accident. I can still ride and walk but the accident changed my life and I'd rather be as I was before than be awarded £370,000. Perhaps the victim is in a similar position.

I don't ride in groups much these days but I know my own club insists on all members having 3rd party insurance before riding in club runs, as does Audax UK. All members of a group need to be aware of each other and take care not to do anything that jeopardises the safety of the group. That includes riding no-hands or feeding. It also includes giving verbal warning before slowing down unexpectedly.

Geoff

ellieb

Well. He lost the case, thank goodness!!

Bronzie

ellieb wrote:

Well. He lost the case, thank goodness!!

An outbreak of common sense in the law courts...............whatever next!

The truth is that if you don't like the risk of riding inches off someone else's back wheel, then don't do it.

SteveR_100Milers

I'm waiting for someone to suggest that there should be "2 second" chevrons painted along every cycle lane.....

To spen666, how can this be related to duty of care? Assuming that riding a bike on a public road is subject to the same legislation, then surely the precedent is the Road Traffic Act which requires all road users to pay due care and attention to the vehicle in front: if you hit them it's your fault whatever the mitigating circumstances. The driver in front has no liability in the form of duty of care to ensure the driver behind doesnt hit him.
"Excuse me do you mind if I execute an emergency stop?" just wouldnt work would it? Duty of care is not the same as common courtesy.

spen666

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

I'm waiting for someone to suggest that there should be "2 second" chevrons painted along every cycle lane.....

To spen666, how can this be related to duty of care? Assuming that riding a bike on a public road is subject to the same legislation, then surely the precedent is the Road Traffic Act which requires all road users to pay due care and attention to the vehicle in front: if you hit them it's your fault whatever the mitigating circumstances. The driver in front has no liability in the form of duty of care to ensure the driver behind doesnt hit him.
"Excuse me do you mind if I execute an emergency stop?" just wouldnt work would it? Duty of care is not the same as common courtesy.

Steve, you appear to be confusing civil liability with criminal liability. The two are seperate.

The Road Traffic Acts by and large deal with criminal offences, not civil liability.

This case in the OP appears to be a civil matter not a criminal prosecution