Cyclist sueing an event

domc21

I did this last year and thought it was a nice little event. I did the extreme route and thought it was great.

I was a little sad to read this.

http://www.harrogateadvertiser.co.uk/news/new-route-for-the-21st-great-milk-stout-ride-1-5866343

Accidents can happen anywhere, I can't see how an organiser can be responsible if someone is going fast and comes off.

StefanP

Suing a charity event, is just really low.

It doesn't help, however, that the article refers to "race organisers" who later say "that the event is not intended to be a race."

Grill

What a c***

gozzy

So can we assume they decided to take part in an event and then blame the organisers for their own decision not to apply their brakes. I'm quite interested to hear how this case pans out.

Is there some sort of sub category of Darwin Award that would be applicable here?

petemadoc

I don't have any words for this one....

...

...well, what Grill said

peat

Scum. Sub human scum.

ct8282

It does sound lame, however it does not detail any particulars about the accident other than it was a high speed fall so don't be so quick to judge.

Wirral_paul

ct8282 wrote:

It does sound lame, however it does not detail any particulars about the accident other than it was a high speed fall so don't be so quick to judge.

Sorry but I think yes we can judge without knowing particulars - you ride a sportive on open roads and you are completely responsible for your own safety and you ride the route to the road conditions. While the organisers can try and reduce the dangers by not going through "dangerous" junctions - that doesnt take away from the fact that every rider should still be responsible for making sure you ride in a safe manner. If you crash - then its your own fault or maybe the fault of another rider / driver etc - not the organisers. Far too many these days think it is a race and ride like complete idiots - the standard of some of the riding if done in a race would see them banned.

I hope the cyclist is on here and really proud of himself for sueing a charity organiser for his own inability to ride the roads safely - and hope he loses the case.

BobScarle

Gozzy wrote:

Is there some sort of sub category of Darwin Award that would be applicable here?

You need to look for the Stella awards.

I think this is a big problem in all walks of life at the moment. A person has an accident and instead of picking themselves up and saying what a plonker they are, they look for somebody else to blame, and therefore sue. To sue the organisers of a charity bike ride does seem a bit low in my opinion.

GiantMike

Wirral_Paul wrote:

ct8282 wrote:

It does sound lame, however it does not detail any particulars about the accident other than it was a high speed fall so don't be so quick to judge.

Sorry but I think yes we can judge without knowing particulars - you ride a sportive on open roads and you are completely responsible for your own safety and you ride the route to the road conditions.

We are not free to judge without knowing the details. Having read a very sketchy report in a local rag...

Local Rag wrote:

One of the riders on the extreme route suffered a high-speed fall during the ride last year.

...I feel no better placed to offer an opinion than if I'd heard the story down the pub. WTF is wrong in this country when people feel free to judge others based on limited or biased evidence?

Wait till the end of the case and listen to the facts. He may be wrong, he may be right, but somebody with ALL THE FACTS will be making that decision, not a pitchfork mob of justice.

markhewitt1978

We can't judge as there are no details. We are just assuming why the cyclist is suing them, we don't know. For all we know he could have been run over by one of the event organisers in their car! (Not saying that happened just an example)

Grill

You're right, maybe the organiser straight leg-dropped him off his bike mid descent... :roll:

There's no way I'm putting away my pitchfork, I just had it polished.

markos1963

I'm neither judging or supporting the rider who is suing the event. We just don't know the FULL circumstances. Don't forget an event organiser should conduct a risk assessment of all aspects of the course and set it up accordingly or make sufficient warnings to entrants. He won't be suing the charity either, the insurers of the event will be paying out if they are liable so the charity won't be hit(I'm assuming they weren't stupid enough to run the event without third party public liability) The claimant might be in a situation where they have to sue as they might be in a difficult financial situation due to loss of work. He might just be a chancer who has joined the claim culture. We just don't know enough.

rolf_f

I think this is a very badly worded article. On the one hand it says that the 'extreme' (20 mile!) route has been suspended - on the other it says they've shortened the route by half a mile to finish at Harefield Hall.

What this implies is that the idiot (I mean litigant) came off the hill that is actually the main street of Pateley Bridge - which is steep, narrow and full of interesting shops with people randomly crossing from one side of the road to the other to look at them. It's not a place where anyone would sensibly be travelling at high speed......

Probably it is sensible to avoid masses of cyclists coming down there so I suspect this is really just a sensible precaution for a ride that is obviously undertaken by people of limited cycling proficiency. THat obviously doesn't justify the actions of this particular cyclist.

slowbike

I must admit - I'm finding it hard to think of a situation where the event organisation would be liable for a participants accident that would warrant an attempt to sue them.
I could understand the event organisers or structure causing an accident - but that would be a straight insurance claim (say the start gate collapsed and hit a rider & bike). But once underway, how could an organiser be responsible for a riders accident - short of a collision with an event car/van/bike ... ?
As far as I'm aware, the organisers put out signs for directions and even indicate caution areas - perhaps the rider didn't see or there wasn't a caution sign in what he felt would be an appropriate place - but even then, he should be riding to what he can see.
Perhaps the organisers had a fence erected and didn't sign it adequately - and the rider ran into it?
Other than that - just what is there?!

Not enough to go on is there.

Mikey23

Yes, does sound an ignorant thing to do but no actual facts to go on so no point in rushing to an ill informed judgement

I was riding with a guy who I'd never met before and we were getting on really well when he did something stupid which caused me to come off at 18mph. Six weeks off work with broken shoulder, ribs and punctured lung. No riding and huge burden on NHS. Would I sue him? If I had to pay for the treatment and suffered huge loss of earnings I would probably have no choice even though I would feel like a rat. Fortunately not an issue and I don't know his name anyway...

markhewitt1978

Perhaps there was a dodgy sausage roll at the feed stop

GiantMike

Mikey23 wrote:

I was riding with a guy who I'd never met before and we were getting on really well when he did something stupid which caused me to come off at 18mph.

I think I'd hunt him down and kill him.

gozzy

BobScarle wrote:

Gozzy wrote:

Is there some sort of sub category of Darwin Award that would be applicable here?

You need to look for the Stella awards.

Ah, of course. I'd forgotten about her. Monumental stupidity.

the playing mantis

whether the organises were at fault or not, this sickens me, the whole blame culture for anything and everything is one of the less desirable trends that has come across the pond. i find this blame culture dispicable and the insurance industry/risk assesemtn and lawyers have a lot to answer for. people need to take some personal responsibility again.

clickrumble

I went in a charity bike ride last month, great fun it was too, but the organisers had included a disclaimer on their website, something that I don't see on the website for the one referenced in this post. Maybe that's what the lawyers have latched on to?

Mikey23

Not a legal eagle but I don't think a disclaimer removes liability

davidtalbot

And no doubt there is and ambulance chasing lawyer behind all this! As others say find it hard to imagine how, given presumably pretty everyone else got through that bit of the course OK it is anyone but the riders fault they crashed their bike!

racingcondor

Mikey23 wrote:

Not a legal eagle but I don't think a disclaimer removes liability

I'm pretty sure you're right.

There are good examples of events taking responsibililty for dangerous bits of the route. Seem to remember both Hell of Ashdown and the Fred Whitton have WARNING! type messages written in the route instructions for the dangerous corners, hairy descents etc and good on them.

That said I don't think any event that does a 10 and 20 mile option (and looking at the photo's) compares to them and it seems likely that this is someone seeking compensation for their own mistake. Lets hope there were numerous witnesses and the right result comes from the case.

e17blade

Mikey23 wrote:

Not a legal eagle but I don't think a disclaimer removes liability

Legally you cannot avoid liability for death or personal injury - by getting people to sign a dsiclaimer or otherwise.

Signing a disclaimer would only mean that you were 'aware' of some risk, but that doesn't mean that the person/organisation getting you to sign something has rid themselves of liability.

Mikey23

Ah, thanks...

Slo Mo Jones

Wirral_Paul wrote:

ct8282 wrote:

It does sound lame, however it does not detail any particulars about the accident other than it was a high speed fall so don't be so quick to judge.

Sorry but I think yes we can judge without knowing particulars

Brilliant.

sloppyschleckonds

Slo Mo Jones wrote:

Wirral_Paul wrote:

ct8282 wrote:

It does sound lame, however it does not detail any particulars about the accident other than it was a high speed fall so don't be so quick to judge.

Sorry but I think yes we can judge without knowing particulars

Brilliant.

I'd say moronic.

bigmat

racingcondor wrote:

Mikey23 wrote:

Not a legal eagle but I don't think a disclaimer removes liability

I'm pretty sure you're right.

There are good examples of events taking responsibililty for dangerous bits of the route. Seem to remember both Hell of Ashdown and the Fred Whitton have WARNING! type messages written in the route instructions for the dangerous corners, hairy descents etc and good on them.

That said I don't think any event that does a 10 and 20 mile option (and looking at the photo's) compares to them and it seems likely that this is someone seeking compensation for their own mistake. Lets hope there were numerous witnesses and the right result comes from the case.

HotA and Fred Whitton both sail close to the wind in my opinion. HotA has been run in appalling conditions in previous years (I know, that's kind of the point!) and my recollection is that the organisers declined to divert the course away from stretches of road that were on black ice. Several people went down and they were lucky there were no serious injuries otherwise they may have faced claims (I'm assuming there were no claims anyway). The descents on the Fred are dangerous in the dry - in the wet I would imagine they are potentially lethal. Organisers owe a duty of care to participants to ensure that the routes are reasonably safe and that any obvious hazards are highlighted. If this guy's accident was a result of an unwarned dangerous stretch of road then maybe he has a claim - all depends on the facts.

domc21

Having done the extreme route at the event. I thought it was well sign posted and marshals at every junction. It was really enjoyable and it will be a shame to lose the extreme route which I think will mean lose a load of riders....

slowbike

BigMat wrote:

racingcondor wrote:

Mikey23 wrote:

Not a legal eagle but I don't think a disclaimer removes liability

I'm pretty sure you're right.

There are good examples of events taking responsibililty for dangerous bits of the route. Seem to remember both Hell of Ashdown and the Fred Whitton have WARNING! type messages written in the route instructions for the dangerous corners, hairy descents etc and good on them.

That said I don't think any event that does a 10 and 20 mile option (and looking at the photo's) compares to them and it seems likely that this is someone seeking compensation for their own mistake. Lets hope there were numerous witnesses and the right result comes from the case.

HotA and Fred Whitton both sail close to the wind in my opinion. HotA has been run in appalling conditions in previous years (I know, that's kind of the point!) and my recollection is that the organisers declined to divert the course away from stretches of road that were on black ice. Several people went down and they were lucky there were no serious injuries otherwise they may have faced claims (I'm assuming there were no claims anyway). The descents on the Fred are dangerous in the dry - in the wet I would imagine they are potentially lethal. Organisers owe a duty of care to participants to ensure that the routes are reasonably safe and that any obvious hazards are highlighted. If this guy's accident was a result of an unwarned dangerous stretch of road then maybe he has a claim - all depends on the facts.

But - it's not a race ... nothing stopping the riders from getting off and walking down a particularly dangerous part.
Spring 2012 saw riders walking across bridges rather than ride through the swollen fords in a New Forest event (riding through the fords was possible) - event organisers did warn the riders about it to start with though.
Before the course was diverted I rode through one puddle that was about 2' deep...