Unfair Competition Rules - Update (h*lm*t content)

[Colin]

For those that remember, I posted a couple of weeks ago about our local
charity cycle ride requiring h*lm*ts be worn to be eligible for entry to
the "free" prize draw. (They are not a requirement for taking part in
the ride itself - not that they could enforce that).

I wrote to the organising committee expressing my disappointment that I
was being barred from the competition and received an initial reply
stating they introduced the entry criteria to encourage people to wear
helmets because a rider had suffered a "serious head injury" on a
previous ride, and based on "advice from neurosurgeons and RoSPA
(http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/info/cycle_helmets.pdf)

I have drafted another letter to the committee, have placed it at
http://www.spiralpathways.co.uk/ride.htm, and invite your comments.

A couple of things that spring to mind are:

The head of the committee is my own GP, and I guess I need to very
diplomatic in my approach on this matter so as not to "queer the pitch"
with future visits I may need to make to him.

Also, one of the points I raise in the letter is that cycle helmets
should not be seen as a substitute for properly maintained and ridden
bicycles. As someone who is willing to help is generally given more
credence than a seeming complainer, I wondered what benefit might be
gained by offering my services checking bikes at the start of the ride.
I'm no bike doctor, but know all the basics of checks and adjustments
(indeed, have given these services teaching the local Scout Group
members). The question is, has anyone else had any experience of this?
My main worry (and it is a sad indictment that this should be the case)
is that someone might still have an accident and then take me to task or
even sue me for such well-intentioned efforts. Does anyone know if there
is insurance available that covers this, or is it just not worth my time
offering a "check & fettle" service for the riders at the event?

--
Colin

Coincidence is the alibi of the Gods

 

[Colin]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> Colin wrote:
>
> Just another thought.
> Is this event in Bike Week?
> If it is, you can easily set up a 'Free Bike Check' and be covered by
> the overall Bike Week insurance if you register on their site:
> http://www.bikeweek.org.uk/
>
> John B
>
Alas no, it's the middle of July.
--
Colin

Coincidence is the alibi of the Gods

 

[JohnB]

Colin wrote:
>
> For those that remember, I posted a couple of weeks ago about our local
> charity cycle ride requiring h*lm*ts be worn to be eligible for entry to
> the "free" prize draw. (They are not a requirement for taking part in
> the ride itself - not that they could enforce that).

<snip>

> A couple of things that spring to mind are:
>
> The head of the committee is my own GP, and I guess I need to very
> diplomatic in my approach on this matter so as not to "queer the pitch"
> with future visits I may need to make to him.

Beware ;-)

> Also, one of the points I raise in the letter is that cycle helmets
> should not be seen as a substitute for properly maintained and ridden
> bicycles.

Or for cycle training.

> As someone who is willing to help is generally given more
> credence than a seeming complainer, I wondered what benefit might be
> gained by offering my services checking bikes at the start of the ride.
> I'm no bike doctor, but know all the basics of checks and adjustments
> (indeed, have given these services teaching the local Scout Group
> members). The question is, has anyone else had any experience of this?
> My main worry (and it is a sad indictment that this should be the case)
> is that someone might still have an accident and then take me to task or
> even sue me for such well-intentioned efforts. Does anyone know if there
> is insurance available that covers this,

I would suggest you may be on dodgy ground.
While the risks are very low that there could be a problem, the
increasing concern over litigation hovers menacingly, particularly at
organised events.
I use the CTC Cycle Activity Insurance with the "provision of expert
advice" included, but AIUI, you need to be registered as an accredited
Activity Provider to obtain this.
It is also probably too expensive for a one off event.
However, it does enables me to give maintenance advice and to make repairs.

However, If I were working for my local authority I would not be allowed
under their policy to even touch a bike. Others here may remember me
quoting a child who arrived for cycle-training at a LA course with a
brake unattached. Under the LA policy I was not alowed to fix it (a five
second job to rehook a V-Brake cable). That may give you an idea of how
seriously (or paranoid) some organisations are.

It might be worth you giving the CTC's insurer's a bell if you are
serious in your intentions - Butterworth-Spengler on 0151 494 4400

> or is it just not worth my time
> offering a "check & fettle" service for the riders at the event?

Personally I'd borrow a hat and enjoy the ride if I were you.

John B

 

[JohnB]

Colin wrote:

> I wondered what benefit might be
> gained by offering my services checking bikes at the start of the ride.
> I'm no bike doctor, but know all the basics of checks and adjustments
> (indeed, have given these services teaching the local Scout Group
> members). The question is, has anyone else had any experience of this?
> My main worry (and it is a sad indictment that this should be the case)
> is that someone might still have an accident and then take me to task or
> even sue me for such well-intentioned efforts.

Just another thought.
Is this event in Bike Week?
If it is, you can easily set up a 'Free Bike Check' and be covered by
the overall Bike Week insurance if you register on their site:
http://www.bikeweek.org.uk/

John B

 

[bugbear]

Colin wrote:
> As someone who is willing to help is generally given more
> credence than a seeming complainer, I wondered what benefit might be
> gained by offering my services checking bikes at the start of the ride.
> I'm no bike doctor, but know all the basics of checks and adjustments
> (indeed, have given these services teaching the local Scout Group
> members).

Are you prepared for the venom that would
ensure if someone's bike wre (in your informed opinion)
too dangerous to ride (e.g. no brakes) and
not "adjustable" into safety.

You would then (in your role as checked) be
obliged to forbid them riding.

Not a happy place.

bugBear

 

[bugbear]

JohnB wrote:
>
> However, If I were working for my local authority I would not be allowed
> under their policy to even touch a bike. Others here may remember me
> quoting a child who arrived for cycle-training at a LA course with a
> brake unattached. Under the LA policy I was not alowed to fix it (a five
> second job to rehook a V-Brake cable). That may give you an idea of how
> seriously (or paranoid) some organisations are.

And thus to rules and guidelines intended to promote
safety do the EXACT <expletive deleted) opposite.

It's enough to make you into a Daily Mail reader.

BugBear

 

[JLB]

bugbear wrote:
> Colin wrote:
>
>> As someone who is willing to help is generally given more credence
>> than a seeming complainer, I wondered what benefit might be gained by
>> offering my services checking bikes at the start of the ride. I'm no
>> bike doctor, but know all the basics of checks and adjustments
>> (indeed, have given these services teaching the local Scout Group
>> members).
>
>
> Are you prepared for the venom that would
> ensure if someone's bike wre (in your informed opinion)
> too dangerous to ride (e.g. no brakes) and
> not "adjustable" into safety.
>
> You would then (in your role as checked) be
> obliged to forbid them riding.
>
> Not a happy place.


The real difficulty, I think, would be arguments about bikes that were
well short of properly set up, but not *immediately* dangerous; e.g.
instead of no brakes, just one brake. For as long as one brake is still
working, and the rider is careful, things should be all right. A rider
might be inclined to argue it's not likely the remaining brake will fail
on that particular ride. After all, it's probably true.

It would probably be helpful if the organisers had a stated policy of
not allowing bikes that are found not to meet legal safety standards.
The bike checking bod would then be relieved of having to debate the
chance of the remaining brake failing and could simply say two
independent systems are necessary; end of argument.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap