Crash cyclist concedes group risk



On Jan 31, 1:26 pm, John Kane <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jan 31, 7:53 am, "PK" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Paul Boyd" <usenet.is.worse@plusnet> wrote in message
>
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> > > Sook MaCrunchie said the following on 30/01/2008 19:02:
> > >>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7218206.stm
>
> > > What a stupid prat!  If he knew he was taking a risk by riding closely in
> > > a group, then why the *********** does he think he can sue anyone?
>
> > Taking part in a risky activity does not absolve others taking part from
> > their legal duty of care.
>
> > pk
>
> In Canada, all else being equal, it is the responsibility of the
> following driver (cyclist too?) to proceed in such as way as to be
> able to stop safely.
>
> I don't see any suggestion of negligence of the part of the other
> rider.
>
> John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

But this case was a group ride and not two riders in traffic. The
difference being the lead rider does have a responsibility to his
following riders, maybe not a financialy valuable responsibility, but
definitely a moral one, I don't like riding in group rides if there
are noobs in the group as the chances of something going wrong are
huge, but then again I wouldn't sue if something accidental did occur.

This case sounds like an accident and I would also be extremly ******
if the guy I was following did something stupid to cause me to crash,
but my recourse would be limited to some verbal abuse for the guy.
 
mtb Dad wrote:

.... [cars]...

> But say the guy in front hits a parked car
> and then you hit him. Are you to blame or the first driver?

He is to blame for hitting the parked car and you are to blame for
hitting him.


--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

"This seems like a case where we need to shoot the messenger."
(Charlie Kaufman on Cypherpunks list)
 
On Jan 31, 10:21 pm, Sir Jeremy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 31 Jan, 01:45, Andy Morris <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Sook MaCrunchie wrote:
> > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7218206.stm
>
> > That could stuff informal group rides for the rest of us.
>
> > ******.
>
> > --
> > Andy Morris
>
> If you get yourself insured then there shouldn't be a problem.

But you have to check your insurance.My 3rd party BC insurance will
not cover me for claims from another BC member in a cycling activity.

If you ride in a pack you assume that risk of riding too close to the
person in front. They may have an accident, or crash for whatever
reason. That is out of your control, but by riding so close behind
you deliberately place yourself in harms way should such an incident
occur. And such incidents would be reasonably expected.

I ride with a group at night. 20+ mph in a double paceline. I know the
riders I can trust and those I can't. I leave sufficent space to allow
for minor errors but a major crash would see us all pile up. We accept
that risk as part of the ride, but, as was discussed at the club last
night, you can't make somebody else responsible for the way you ride.
If you ride too close, you accept the risk of riding too close.

...d
 
In article <[email protected]>, Ben C
[email protected] says...
> On 2008-01-31, Mark T <pleasegivegenerously@warmail*turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com.invalid> wrote:
> > Ben C writtificated
> >
> >> http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/crash-damages-rider-admits-group-
> >> risk-14311
> >>
> >> Apparently the rider in front was sprinting off the front (so probably
> >> actually holding onto the bars quite tightly) and hit a manhole cover.
> >
> > Oh well, it's looking like you're right about the ****** thing then -
> > there's not much that's silly about sprinting off the front of a group.
> >
> > You'd have thought early retirement on medical grounds from the prison
> > service would have been a cause for quiet celebration rather than suing
> > someone.
>
> I make him a ****** regardless. The other guy obviously didn't kick him
> into the hedge on purpose or try to decapitate him with piano wire. It
> was an accident and you don't sue your friends who happened to be around
> at the time when you have an accident.
>
I can't help thinking he'd have been better off dumping the bike and
sliding rather than trying to ride up the hedge.
 
In article <8ab33ad8-f672-4b40-9d8f-f0ace06a3de9
@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, mtb Dad
[email protected] says...
> But say the guy in front hits a parked car
> and then you hit him. Are you to blame or the first driver?
>
It's definitely your fault for hitting him.
 
"David Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:39c72577-1152-415e-b6fd-b30d5868ca37@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> If you get yourself insured then there shouldn't be a problem.
>
> But you have to check your insurance.My 3rd party BC insurance will
> not cover me for claims from another BC member in a cycling activity.
>
> If you ride in a pack you assume that risk of riding too close to the
> person in front. They may have an accident, or crash for whatever
> reason. That is out of your control, but by riding so close behind
> you deliberately place yourself in harms way should such an incident
> occur. And such incidents would be reasonably expected.
>
> I ride with a group at night. 20+ mph in a double paceline. I know the
> riders I can trust and those I can't. I leave sufficent space to allow
> for minor errors but a major crash would see us all pile up. We accept
> that risk as part of the ride, but, as was discussed at the club last
> night, you can't make somebody else responsible for the way you ride.
> If you ride too close, you accept the risk of riding too close.
>
> ..d


you might like to think that way, but if someone is recklessly negligent in
the way they ride, the law may well take a different view.


pk
 
PK wrote:
> "David Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:39c72577-1152-415e-b6fd-b30d5868ca37@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> If you get yourself insured then there shouldn't be a problem.
>>
>> But you have to check your insurance.My 3rd party BC insurance will
>> not cover me for claims from another BC member in a cycling activity.
>>
>> If you ride in a pack you assume that risk of riding too close to the
>> person in front. They may have an accident, or crash for whatever
>> reason. That is out of your control, but by riding so close behind
>> you deliberately place yourself in harms way should such an incident
>> occur. And such incidents would be reasonably expected.
>>
>> I ride with a group at night. 20+ mph in a double paceline. I know the
>> riders I can trust and those I can't. I leave sufficent space to allow
>> for minor errors but a major crash would see us all pile up. We accept
>> that risk as part of the ride, but, as was discussed at the club last
>> night, you can't make somebody else responsible for the way you ride.
>> If you ride too close, you accept the risk of riding too close.
>>
>> ..d
>
>
> you might like to think that way, but if someone is recklessly negligent
> in the way they ride, the law may well take a different view.

If they are "recklessly negligent" then I wouldn't ride with them again.
If I do ride with them again I'm accepting the risk.
If they are "recklessly negligent" once and only once and it causes the
accident as descibed then it comes under the risk that I accepted to
start with.
 
marc writtificated

>> you might like to think that way, but if someone is recklessly
>> negligent in the way they ride, the law may well take a different
>> view.
>
> If they are "recklessly negligent" then I wouldn't ride with them
> again. If I do ride with them again I'm accepting the risk.
> If they are "recklessly negligent" once and only once and it causes
> the accident as descibed then it comes under the risk that I accepted
> to start with.

The problem that informal group rides may have is that not everyone thinks
like you. Now imagine that YOU'RE the one judged to have done something
silly. The other person can be mostly to blame, but a fraction of hundreds
of thousands is still a lot.
 
On Feb 1, 7:42 pm, marc <[email protected]> wrote:
> PK wrote:
> > "David Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:39c72577-1152-415e-b6fd-b30d5868ca37@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> If you get yourself insured then there shouldn't be a problem.
>
> >> But you have to check your insurance.My 3rd party BC insurance will
> >> not cover me for claims from another BC member in a cycling activity.
>
> >> If you ride in a pack you assume that risk of riding too close to the
> >> person in front. They may have an accident, or crash for whatever
> >> reason. That is out of your control, but by riding so close behind
> >> you deliberately place yourself in harms way should such an incident
> >> occur. And such incidents would be reasonably expected.
>
> >> I ride with a group at night. 20+ mph in a double paceline. I know the
> >> riders I can trust and those I can't. I leave sufficent space to allow
> >> for minor errors but a major crash would see us all pile up. We accept
> >> that risk as part of the ride, but, as was discussed at the club last
> >> night, you can't make somebody else responsible for the way you ride.
> >> If you ride too close, you accept the risk of riding too close.
>
> >> ..d
>
> > you might like to think that way, but if someone is recklessly negligent
> > in the way they ride, the law may well take a different view.
>
> If they are "recklessly negligent" then I wouldn't ride with them again.
> If I do ride with them again I'm accepting the risk.
> If they are "recklessly negligent" once and only once and it causes the
> accident as descibed then it comes under the risk that I accepted to
> start with.

It's easy to say that if you haven't been the victim of some seriously
stupid and/or negligent behaviour. Although it is not at all clear
that the subject of the news piece has a valid grievance.

James
 
On Jan 31, 3:04 pm, Marz <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jan 31, 1:26 pm, John Kane <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 31, 7:53 am, "PK" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > "Paul Boyd" <usenet.is.worse@plusnet> wrote in message
>
> > >news:[email protected]...
>
> > > > Sook MaCrunchie said the following on 30/01/2008 19:02:
> > > >>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7218206.stm
>
> > > > What a stupid prat! If he knew he was taking a risk by riding closely in
> > > > a group, then why the *********** does he think he can sue anyone?
>
> > > Taking part in a risky activity does not absolve others taking part from
> > > their legal duty of care.
>
> > > pk
>
> > In Canada, all else being equal, it is the responsibility of the
> > following driver (cyclist too?) to proceed in such as way as to be
> > able to stop safely.
>
> > I don't see any suggestion of negligence of the part of the other
> > rider.
>
> > John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
>
> But this case was a group ride and not two riders in traffic. The
> difference being the lead rider does have a responsibility to his
> following riders, maybe not a financialy valuable responsibility, but
> definitely a moral one, I don't like riding in group rides if there
> are noobs in the group as the chances of something going wrong are
> huge, but then again I wouldn't sue if something accidental did occur.
>
> This case sounds like an accident and I would also be extremly ******
> if the guy I was following did something stupid to cause me to crash,
> but my recourse would be limited to some verbal abuse for the guy.

Very true but my impression of Ontario law would be that this does not
remove the responibility from the following vehicle at least on an
open road. But IAMAL
John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
 
Lord Turkey Cough said the following on 01/02/2008 23:12:

> He has a much chance of winning as Peter Kay has of winning the London
> Marathon.

Unfortunately, with the bizarre legal system we have in England he
probably does have a chance of winning. The cyclist that is, not Peter
Kay :)

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/
 
> Unfortunately, with the bizarre legal system we have in England he
> probably does have a chance of winning.   The cyclist that is, not Peter
> Kay :)


I agree that he might win but should not.
However, if there were insurance policies covering riders it might be
that a lwayer has seen a way to extract money from them, rather than
from the rider in person. I would hope that was the plan. I note that
the previuos post said other riders are not covered and that seems
odd to me since they would be the most likely to get hurt.

TerryJ
 
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 04:44:18 -0800 (PST), TerryJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> the previuos post said other riders are not covered and that seems
> odd to me since they would be the most likely to get hurt.

Surely that is entirely expected, since they would be the most likely
to get hurt. Insurance companies don't generally want to insure you
against things that are likely to happen.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
 
On 4 Feb, 13:30, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 04:44:18 -0800 (PST), TerryJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > the previuos post said other riders are not covered and that seems
> > odd to me since they would be the most likely to get hurt.
>
> Surely that is entirely expected, since they would be the most likely
> to get hurt. Insurance companies don't generally want to insure you
> against things that are likely to happen.

Well, yes , but you do usually pay to insure yourself against the
things that are likely before considering the rest, if you read the
policy.
If the standard insurance misses out the most likely claim hazard
there is something wrong even though it might be thought unlikely to
succeed. Indeed if it is unlikely to succeed it should be fairly cheap
to cover.

I am reminded of a peanuts cartoon in which charlie brown is warned
not to nurse the little bird who had a fever because ''he could sue
you'' to which charlie replied''Oh, he would never do that''.

Does our CTC insurance cover against things like this?

TerryJ

TerryJ
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Arrest after cyclist death crash
Replies
0
Views
345
UK and Europe
Roger Merriman
R
P
Spanish driver sues dead crash cyclist for damage to his car
Replies
25
Views
734
UK and Europe
POHB
P
Y
Crash Suit for Cyclist
Replies
0
Views
313
UK and Europe
yourbuddy
Y
Z
Re: Cyclist died after crash with walker
Replies
0
Views
576
UK and Europe
Zog The Undeniable
Z
J
Re: Cyclist died after crash with walker
Replies
1
Views
602
UK and Europe
David Hansen
D
Top Bottom Back