Road racing and sportives.

Team4Luke

Rodrego Hernandez wrote:

Club runs don't have cover but 3rd party insurance is generally insisted upon by clubs.

no and yes, clubs and their officals (if club is affiliated to BC or CTC) are covered against claims against them and yes indeed many clubs do insist on members holding cover, mine does.

Team4Luke

BigMat wrote:

Rodrego Hernandez wrote:

You can't use your BC insurance to claim against another BC member in a race.

Sportives / Fun rides should have event insurance but this will only cover the organisers. If someone crashed me in one of those events, I would expect them to pay for the damage.

Club runs don't have cover but 3rd party insurance is generally insisted upon by clubs.

At the end of the day, if you ride like a moron, you will likely have an accident and there will be consequences. Either just yourself will be injured or someone else will and you will be liable.

Isn't BC insurance 3rd party liability insurance? e.g. if you cause damage to a third party and they claim against you, the insurance will indemnify you against that claim (subject to policy terms). When you mention using insurance "to claim", are you referring to the legal support that comes with BC? This is basically just a referral to a friendly solicitor as far as I can see and isn't really that much of a benefit at all. Obviously the same lawyer wouldn't both pursue and defend the same claim.

I've been taken out in a race, completely the other guy's fault and caused a fair amount of damage - just put it down to experience.

yes correct, BC Gold also includes personal injury cover (loss of a limb etc) and overnight hospital payments too, also affiliated club official/officers are covered for liability too.

Team4Luke

Tom Butcher wrote:

I don't think many clubs insist members have 3rd party cover to join rides - well if they do we are the exception. I think clubs may also have some kind of 3rd party cover for things like club runs too if they are affiliated to BC - I get the letter from them but I didn't read all the small print - obviously this is cover for the club in case someone decides they are to blame for a rider on the club run causing an accident - not individual members.

would be interesting to see that stats on percentage of clubs who do insist, mine does. Yes certain rides and activities organised by a CLub or its Officers have the benefit of organisers cover through BC affiliation.

Team4Luke

jibberjim wrote:

Tom Butcher wrote:

I don't think many clubs insist members have 3rd party cover to join rides - well if they do we are the exception. I think clubs may also have some kind of 3rd party cover for things like club runs too if they are affiliated to BC

Only officials of the club, so not the rest of the membership.

There are a number of clubs I know of - Dulwich Paragon being the biggest I'm sure - which require membership of BC for all members which means they will have 3rd party cover.

spot on, we insist on BC cover.

Team4Luke

paul2718 wrote:

regardless of an RR, Sportive, if your hit by another you should rightly be able to claim for your damages to equipment and yourself.

I think you will find that, in an RR, you'd need to be able to prove negligence. Between participants in a Sportive normal road rules presumably apply. But it might get interesting if it came to court.

Paul

yes but wasn't going to get into that discussion.
likely be decided in court

bigmat

I think people are misunderstanding the concept of liability insurance. It covers the holder, in case somebody claims against them. If you don't have it, people can still claim against you but you'll have to pay yourself.

As for road races, I'm not aware of any rule that would prevent one person claiming against another. I'd imagine though that it would be difficult to prove such a claim. By participating you would be taken to have accepted the risk of a racing incident and so to succeed with a claim you would have to establish that the conduct of the "guilty" party went beyond what could reasonably be expected in a race e.g. a deliberate attemptto ride into you, maybe a grey area if it was just really reckless but not deliberate. Not sure if there have been any examples of this. I'm guessing that if your conduct in a race was so bad that somebody was able to claim against you, then your liability cover might have some exclusions, but I would need to look at the small print!

Tom Butcher

Team4Luke wrote:

Tom Butcher wrote:

I don't think many clubs insist members have 3rd party cover to join rides - well if they do we are the exception. I think clubs may also have some kind of 3rd party cover for things like club runs too if they are affiliated to BC - I get the letter from them but I didn't read all the small print - obviously this is cover for the club in case someone decides they are to blame for a rider on the club run causing an accident - not individual members.

would be interesting to see that stats on percentage of clubs who do insist, mine does. Yes certain rides and activities organised by a CLub or its Officers have the benefit of organisers cover through BC affiliation.

Yes they are insured against a claim being made against them as club officials. In other words if our club run runs into a car when I'm sat at home and I am the "clubrun secretary", if such a thing exists, I am insured against a claim based on the fact I am responsible for club runs. If I run into a car while on a clubrun the fact we are affiliated doesn't give me any cover at all afaik.

The vast majority of cyclists have no third party cover and I don't think it's irresponsible of them not to do so. Why would a club insist that members have third party cover - is it because they think all cyclists should have it as a point of principle or so that if they cause an accident with another member of the club that member can make a claim knowing the other is insured against it ? If it's the latter then I think anyone who rides in a group would find it hard to make a claim against another rider in that group - if you choose to ride in close proximity you take your chances.

Pross

Team4Luke wrote:

The point I am making is that a sportive is a mass participant organised event and whilst the organisers are coverered then so should all the riders, I'm not in the blame game at all, but I would want damages to my bike paid for in the first instance and then for me if I am duly hurt or unable work. Should any other cyclist injure me then normal civil case would be made just as you would now on any ride. Further other none insured riders could cause an accident to another rider or to private property, parked car etc, that subsequently a claim against you would be made when the liability is with the person who caused such, they could just ride off on their merry way shouting I'm not covered tough, sue the organiser ! Where would we all be if we all decided not to be insured - why bother being a GOLD member of BC then. Organisers liability cover I would not want to rely on, would be difficult to prove they would be directly liable for accidents by riders, but not impossible, hitting a car and riding off, possibly.
Be responsible, Be Insured.

A rider is still liable whether or not they have insurance. They couldn't 'go on their merry way shouting I'm not covered tough, sue the organiser' it is their responsibility. The only thing an insurance policy does is pay the insured person's liability on their behalf. If a rider causes you or a third party damage or harm and they are not insured they can still be taken to court and sued for the amount but just have to find the money themselves. The point of insurance is piece of mind for the insured person not for anyone else. As for the point of Gold membership - to be honest I can never work that out, I have silver and it gives me everything I need including 3rd party insurance. Gold only really offers personal injury insurance but you have to be very seriously injured to get a payout and the sort of injuries that are covered are all ready covered on my life / critical illness cover.

maryka

And still, BC will not sue itself -- therefore if you tried to sue a rider for negligence and you were both covered under BC's membership and liability insurance, you would have to hire your own solicitor to sue that rider. Just to be clear. Riders suing each other after crashes in road races and sportives is NOT the purpose of 3rd party liability insurance for BC members.

gattocattivo

Pross wrote:

The point of insurance is piece of mind for the insured person not for anyone else.

A big piece or a little piece?

DavidJB

If riders started suing each other after road race crashes it would be terrible for the race scene.

jibberjim

DavidJB wrote:

If riders started suing each other after road race crashes it would be terrible for the race scene.

Riders have done...

http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/20 ... brent.html

Pross

gattocattivo wrote:

Pross wrote:

The point of insurance is piece of mind for the insured person not for anyone else.

A big piece or a little piece?

:oops: I'll be mixing up there and their next!

giropaul

Trying to sue your fellow cyclists isn't just "not the done thing" - it isn't likely to be succesful

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/c ... ist-14473/

Tom Dean

jibberjim wrote:

DavidJB wrote:

If riders started suing each other after road race crashes it would be terrible for the race scene.

Riders have done...

http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/20 ... brent.html

The guy who sued was not part of the race.

DavidJB

Tom Dean wrote:

jibberjim wrote:

DavidJB wrote:

If riders started suing each other after road race crashes it would be terrible for the race scene.

Riders have done...

http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/20 ... brent.html

The guy who sued was not part of the race.

Yeah he was a normal cyclist who got smashed up

giropaul

Incredibly, cycling has existed in the Uk and beyond for many years, with riders riding club runs and races without any worry about being sued. People fell off, sometimes people did something silly, and other people fell off. Sometimes there were words, sometimes slightly more - but all was soon forgiven. Some riders had a reputation for being dodgy - often with a nick-name to go with it like "dangerous Dave" or whatever, and people gave them some space.

Somehow we've now got, I'm guessing, newer riders who want to be able to sue everyone. They fall off, someone must be made to pay. Their bottom bracket - unloved since it was fitted and ridden through the winter's worst, fails, someone must be made to pay. Someone didn't warn them about a pot-hole in a route, someone must be made to pay.

If we carry on like this, no-one will promote races, no-one will be prepared to organise a club run, and manufacturers will stop making race-dedicated kit available to the public.

Cycling is a sport, it has risks. If you don't accept this, then maybe take up Badminton (but wear goggles in case you get hit in the eye - and you could always sue the person who accidentally hit you with the racquet!).

What's next - rugby without tackles, non-contact boxing?

Tom Dean

but for all the talk, no-one seems to be successfully suing anyone. Nothing to worry about.

Pross

giropaul wrote:

Incredibly, cycling has existed in the Uk and beyond for many years, with riders riding club runs and races without any worry about being sued. People fell off, sometimes people did something silly, and other people fell off. Sometimes there were words, sometimes slightly more - but all was soon forgiven. Some riders had a reputation for being dodgy - often with a nick-name to go with it like "dangerous Dave" or whatever, and people gave them some space.

Somehow we've now got, I'm guessing, newer riders who want to be able to sue everyone. They fall off, someone must be made to pay. Their bottom bracket - unloved since it was fitted and ridden through the winter's worst, fails, someone must be made to pay. Someone didn't warn them about a pot-hole in a route, someone must be made to pay.

If we carry on like this, no-one will promote races, no-one will be prepared to organise a club run, and manufacturers will stop making race-dedicated kit available to the public.

Cycling is a sport, it has risks. If you don't accept this, then maybe take up Badminton (but wear goggles in case you get hit in the eye - and you could always sue the person who accidentally hit you with the racquet!).

What's next - rugby without tackles, non-contact boxing?

Exactly, I blame all the 'where there's blame there's a claim' type adverts. My daughter is into horse riding, when I first took her off to lessons they had a sign up along the lines of 'horse riding is a risky sport you can and probably will fall off and hurt yourself at some point, if you are the sort of person who has to find blame and sue then you are not welcome'. I agreed with the sentiment whole heartedly but it shouldn't even be necessary to put something like that up. I've yet to see a cycling accident where someone appeared to deliberately cause harm - if people ever do successfully start suing each other for crashes then the cost of BC membership will soar to cover the insurance.

bigmat

Pross wrote:

giropaul wrote:

Incredibly, cycling has existed in the Uk and beyond for many years, with riders riding club runs and races without any worry about being sued. People fell off, sometimes people did something silly, and other people fell off. Sometimes there were words, sometimes slightly more - but all was soon forgiven. Some riders had a reputation for being dodgy - often with a nick-name to go with it like "dangerous Dave" or whatever, and people gave them some space.

Somehow we've now got, I'm guessing, newer riders who want to be able to sue everyone. They fall off, someone must be made to pay. Their bottom bracket - unloved since it was fitted and ridden through the winter's worst, fails, someone must be made to pay. Someone didn't warn them about a pot-hole in a route, someone must be made to pay.

If we carry on like this, no-one will promote races, no-one will be prepared to organise a club run, and manufacturers will stop making race-dedicated kit available to the public.

Cycling is a sport, it has risks. If you don't accept this, then maybe take up Badminton (but wear goggles in case you get hit in the eye - and you could always sue the person who accidentally hit you with the racquet!).

What's next - rugby without tackles, non-contact boxing?

Exactly, I blame all the 'where there's blame there's a claim' type adverts. My daughter is into horse riding, when I first took her off to lessons they had a sign up along the lines of 'horse riding is a risky sport you can and probably will fall off and hurt yourself at some point, if you are the sort of person who has to find blame and sue then you are not welcome'. I agreed with the sentiment whole heartedly but it shouldn't even be necessary to put something like that up. I've yet to see a cycling accident where someone appeared to deliberately cause harm - if people ever do successfully start suing each other for crashes then the cost of BC membership will soar to cover the insurance.

If your daughter fell off and it was their fault - say they put her on a horse that was unsuitable, or she didn't have the right protective equipment - would you still be saying that she shouldn't claim? I know personal injury claims have been abused, but at heart its only right that people should be responsible for their actions. In cycling, I think in most cases you wouldn't have a claim - you've assumed the risk participating in a sport where there's clearly a possibility of crashing. There will come a point though, say if somebody deliberately cuts you up and takes you out, where in my opinion you'd be perfectly entitled to claim.

Pross

Wearing the right protective equipment would have been her (my) responsibility. Putting her on an unsuitable horse would be negligence. The sign was more intended to stop the repeat of a previous event where a child just fell off a horse and someone tried to sue them. When riding in a group of cyclists determining negligence in the event of a crash would be very difficult (e.g. if someone gets out of the saddle without warning and you touch their back wheel and both crash whose 'fault' is that?) but as I've said before (and I think you have possibly said yourself) not being insured doesn't stop you being liable it just means someone settles up the costs for you.

bigmat

Pross wrote:

Wearing the right protective equipment would have been her (my) responsibility. Putting her on an unsuitable horse would be negligence. The sign was more intended to stop the repeat of a previous event where a child just fell off a horse and someone tried to sue them. When riding in a group of cyclists determining negligence in the event of a crash would be very difficult (e.g. if someone gets out of the saddle without warning and you touch their back wheel and both crash whose 'fault' is that?) but as I've said before (and I think you have possibly said yourself) not being insured doesn't stop you being liable it just means someone settles up the costs for you.

I think you kind of get my point though? If the horse people weren't negligent, the people suing them wouldn't succeed. Pretty simple.

Same principle in a race, only it would be very hard to prove that another rider was negligent, rather than it just being an accident, which i think we agree on and which I think has to be right.

Pross

True, but the whole process of being sued can be stressful for the person concerned even if they are ultimately found to have not been at fault. It just saddens me when I see people posting along the lines of wanting other riders to be insured in case they 'need' to claim off them.

Tom Dean

Pross wrote:

When riding in a group of cyclists determining negligence in the event of a crash would be very difficult (e.g. if someone gets out of the saddle without warning and you touch their back wheel and both crash whose 'fault' is that?)

I would imagine that riding close enough for that to happen would be considered negligent. i.e. in legal terms it is your own fault.

maryka

Tom Dean wrote:

Pross wrote:

When riding in a group of cyclists determining negligence in the event of a crash would be very difficult (e.g. if someone gets out of the saddle without warning and you touch their back wheel and both crash whose 'fault' is that?)

I would imagine that riding close enough for that to happen would be considered negligent. i.e. in legal terms it is your own fault.

Yes which is why BC doesn't cover riders in group situations against each other. Riding in close quarters with other riders -- club runs, races, etc. -- is considered too risky for an insurer to cover. Cyclists (like the ones who jump on my wheel all the time uninvited) should realise this, but no...

giropaul

I'm left hoping that some of the contributors on here never decide to race a Belgian kermis! Pushing, shoving, bouncing on and off pavements, cobbles, holes and canals to fall into.

And what more - it's great (but maybe not for those here of a more litigious nature!)