Cyclist sueing an event

2»

Comments

  • Coach H
    Coach H Posts: 1,092
    Bear in mind that this will get nowhere close to a courtroom (if it did all our arguments, based on the small amount of information given, would probably stand)

    For the insurers involved claims are about the balance of MONEY and nothing to do with right and wrong.
    If it were your business and you had the chance to settle for significantly less cost than it would cost in legal fees to take to court what woudl you do (for example; your chouce is pay £5k for no liability settlement or go to court with £50k legal costs regardless of win or lose). With a settlement, LEGALLY the claimant has not won and the insurers have minimised their costs, MORALLY the claimant has won as they are up £5k (-costs)
    Coach H. (Dont ask me for training advice - 'It's not about the bike')
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    But - this idea of blaming anyone else but yourself for an accident and suing them for it is costing us ALL money. The insurance companies are not bottomless pits - they have operational expenses and profits to pay for.

    Ok - one isolated incident at a few Ks isn't going to change anything, but get a number like this and premiums will be increased to cover the anticipated cost.

    If the claimant receives a settlement on a spurious claim then morally we've all lost.
  • lostboysaint
    lostboysaint Posts: 4,250
    Slowbike wrote:
    But - this idea of blaming anyone else but yourself for an accident and suing them for it is costing us ALL money. The insurance companies are not bottomless pits - they have operational expenses and profits to pay for.

    Ok - one isolated incident at a few Ks isn't going to change anything, but get a number like this and premiums will be increased to cover the anticipated cost.

    If the claimant receives a settlement on a spurious claim then morally we've all lost.

    That!
    Trail fun - Transition Bandit
    Road - Wilier Izoard Centaur/Cube Agree C62 Disc
    Allround - Cotic Solaris
  • racingcondor
    racingcondor Posts: 1,434
    edited August 2013
    BigMat wrote:
    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.

    Difficult one isn't it. There's always going to be an event which is the most dangerous though and I think both os these have made sensible adjustments.

    I seem to remember that the Fred Whitton is run a month later than it used to be to avoid ice on the high passes but I'm with you, although I love HoTA for the cold I don't think I'd enjoy the Fred (too long and isolated to bail easily if you dress poorly).

    HoTA. Yeah, I've done it in horrible conditions but (I enjoyed them and) it's very well marshalled. The ride is easy enough for racer types like you (and to a lesser extent me) that it wouldn't be much more than a training ride with tea breaks if you did it at this time of year. It only works because it's an oversized reliability ride (which is presumably what it originally was for Catford).

    I guess we'll agree to disagree here Matt.
  • racingcondor
    racingcondor Posts: 1,434
    Double.
  • DavidJB
    DavidJB Posts: 2,019
    Cycling's a dangerous activity...deal with it or take up jigsaws...but watch out for cardboard cuts.
  • bockers
    bockers Posts: 146
    This thread reminds me of that fantastic Guardian TV advert of the 80's. It involved a aggressively dressed skinhead seemingly attacking a pensioner.... until the full view is exposed.

    Who knows why the organiser is being sued? And also just because an event collects money for a charity does not absolve it of any responsibility to ensure the event is safe.

    Once the full facts are known only then can the insults be thrown.
  • bigmat
    bigmat Posts: 5,134
    BigMat wrote:
    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.

    Difficult one isn't it. There's always going to be an event which is the most dangerous though and I think both os these have made sensible adjustments.

    I seem to remember that the Fred Whitton is run a month later than it used to be to avoid ice on the high passes but I'm with you, although I love HoTA for the cold I don't think I'd enjoy the Fred (too long and isolated to bail easily if you dress poorly).

    HoTA. Yeah, I've done it in horrible conditions but (I enjoyed them and) it's very well marshalled. The ride is easy enough for racer types like you (and to a lesser extent me) that it wouldn't be much more than a training ride with tea breaks if you did it at this time of year. It only works because it's an oversized reliability ride (which is presumably what it originally was for Catford).

    I guess we'll agree to disagree here Matt.

    Not sure we disagree really. I was using those two as examples of where a route can be dangerous and where organisers could reasonably be considered responsible if they didn't take adequate precautions to make sure participants were aware of the risks (and those risks were minimised as much as possible).

    I love both events and didn't intend to have a dig at the organisers.
  • plowmar
    plowmar Posts: 1,032
    DavidJB said
    Cycling's a dangerous activity...deal with it or take up jigsaws...but watch out for cardboard cuts.

    But I'm still having problems with my eight piece wooden one - jigsaw that is.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 40,217
    As others have said the full facts are required to judge but if it turned out the cyclist simply fell off due to their own incompetence I hope the judge decides to hammer the claimant for costs. I'd actually like to see a criminal charge of wasting court time for instances where people pursue completely spurious compensation claims. Again, not saying that is the case here but it does happen and I think the risk of consequences for people taking a 'what's there to lose' approach to civil courts would soon reduce dodgy attempts at claims.
  • ct8282
    ct8282 Posts: 414
    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.

    Give you the Darwin Award I think for the most douche bag forum statement.