Mandatory full face helmets for spectators?

I think my initial posting stands on it’s own merit, I am not sure why it is being suggested that I need to justify it to anybody.

Well you’ve basically insinuated that they were a bunch of cowboys regarding H&S and it was well known within DH, however, you’ve provided no evidence to back that comment up. Looks like libel to me.

Also if you genuinely thought that someone was going to die at there events why didn’t you raise it with BC, under whose jurisdiction the event was run?

I am not sure why it is being suggested that I need to justify it to anybody.

Because it is an unsubstantiated accusation on a public internet forum that the persons concerned are incompetent/negligent, i.e. libellous.

I think my initial posting stands on it’s own merit

Only if it’s sole merit is libel.

My remarks were made without prejudice to any of the parties involved

I don’t think you know what the word ‘prejudice’ means. Your original post was a good example of it.

I am definitely not going to go into any specifics, given that it is an ongoing court action.

Why not, given that the specifics you referred to did not involve and evidently pre-dated that race?

The problem with your post is that it makes a serious allegation on a public internet forum that persons are incompetent/negligent, without providing any evidence to substantiate it. That sort of vague insinuation is damaging to them and extremely difficult, if not impossible, to defend against. It’s libellous.

I will leave the internet lawyering to others !

She’s bang on about that bit though!

the only way it could be considered any other way slowster is if she meant nobody was surprised because there was no other downhill events on that particular weekend.

and before opening mouth “therefore but the grace of god go i”. Many event organisers in many events cycling and not cycling have found them selves defending these positions in court – some through no fault of their own.

Next time it could be you or I

BDS just tweeted this!

http://www.britishdownhillseries.co.uk/spectator-guidelines/

I’ve only ever marshalled once before, when I was injured and couldn’t ride a local race. This was for the now defunct Enduro1 events. I can’t remember the briefing itself, but assume from that it was lacking in almost everything. I was not even aware I was responsible for the h&s of competitors, and saw it as a day out, setting off my mates, chatting to riders and getting free entry into another round. Had I known at the time that there was a possibility I could be sued if anyone was injured, I most certainly would not have marshalled.

I’ve raced several events organised by Mike, DH and Enduro. They have always been a good standard and I’ve never noticed marshalling being lacking, not that I likely would have noticed. I think the individual above making comments without justifying them is just unfair to Mike and the team, especially with the position they have found themselves in

My view on this is that it’s a freak accident, and whilst I understand the family would like compensation due to the death, I personally think this is another example of a new ‘suing’ culture, driven largely by the US. If I was put in a similar situation, I’m not sure what my reaction would be, and whether I would look to be compensated.

Wow how to kill support for the series.
@bds

and whilst I understand the family would like compensation due to the death, I personally think this is another example of a new ‘suing’ culture, driven largely by the US.

You clearly don’t understand – this isn’t anyone suing anybody for compensation, this is a criminal prosecution for alleged H&S offences.

You clearly don’t understand – this isn’t anyone suing anybody for compensation, this is a criminal prosecution for alleged H&S offences.

clearly I don’t……having skim read I didn’t realise.

Children and infants should ALWAYS be accompanied by an adequate amount of adults at all times

an adequate amount of adults being a multiple of 1?

+1 to edlong

Also, even if it was a civil / damages case, it’s not necessarily the victim or family that decides to sue.

Hypothetical situation, a self-employed and insured tradesman is hit by a bike at an event and sustains an injury that means he can’t work for a period of time. No work, no pay, so he claims off his personal injury insurance. Then his insurer looks at the events and conclude that although their client is beyond any blame above being a spectator at an organised event, the organisers failed to enact a suitable safety regime thus contributing to their client’s injury and the claim.

Is it now unreasonable for them to require their client (read the small print) to assist them to mitigate their losses?

Random people on the internet won’t be deciding the outcome of this one – the courts will.

To succeed with a libel action, one has to prove that what was said wasn’t true, not what some person on the internet had (interestingly) inferred from a simple statement that I wasn’t surprised.

If anybody is guilty of libel here it is slowster !

To succeed with a libel action, one has to prove that what was said wasn’t true, not what some person on the internet had (interestingly) inferred from a simple statement that I wasn’t surprised.

Can you at least accept that it was an (intentionally?) vague statement that would damage the defence of the individuals involved if it was seen by the jury?

It sounds as though you have a lot of experience and connections within the sport. TBH your original statement reads as though you have a grudge against the people involved. If you know something that would interest the forums – post it up.

I don’t know any of the people involved. My conflict of interest is that a) (Without knowing the full details) I don’t really believe that even exceptional marshalling could prevent this sort of unfortunate freak accident and b) I want bike races to go ahead without prohibitive red tape. Even if the people involved are total arses, I can’t see how their prosecution could possibly help grassroots mountain biking.

If anybody is guilty of

a dick move.

🙄

To succeed with a libel action, one has to prove that what was said wasn’t true

Not so. The burden of proof in a libel case is on the defendent to show that what they said was true (or that it was ‘fair comment’ or one of the other accepted defences to libel).

not what some person on the internet had (interestingly) inferred from a simple statement that I wasn’t surprised.

More than one person has inferred it, and the insinuation was pretty clear. What other credible interpretation could be made of the ‘simple statement’ that you were not surprised?

Point of law – that’s not the case in the UK, the claimant only has to prove that the statement was made and that it was defamatory, the burden of proof of the truth of the statement falls on the defendant. So be careful of saying or writing things you can’t prove true.

IANAL, but I’m sure my understanding of UK law is correct on this.

kimbers – Member

BDS just tweeted this!

http://www.britishdownhillseries.co.uk/spectator-guidelines/

It’s like I’m a visionary or something… 8)

Point of law – that’s not the case in the UK, the claimant only has to prove that the statement was made and that it was defamatory, the burden of proof of the truth of the statement falls on the defendant.

True. Successful libel defences include “I can prove it was true” and “it was my honestly held opinion”.

However you’d struggle with the latter if it was deemed to lowered the claimant’s reputation in the eyes of their peers.

So I can say “Boris Johnson is a spineless weasel who deliberately lied to the public” and nobody apart from weasels could sue me for libel.

But if I said the same about Jeremy Corbyn, he might have a case – as even his critics would admit that his personal integrity is one of his biggest selling points.

Anyway, the case has been referred to crown court and there’s a plea and directions hearing at the end of the month. Seems pointless and bad form to comment before the evidence is aired.

Blimey, would put me off volunteering to be a marshall, which is bad !

I’ve marshalled the 3 Peaks where people come of PyG on to the road, and some riders would not listen (minority) and some car divers would not slow down (minority) but to think I could be sent to prison for trying to help out makes you think about being able to help out.

Why not have a common sense law ?

Point of law – that’s not the case in the UK, the claimant only has to prove that the statement was made and that it was defamatory, the burden of proof of the truth of the statement falls on the defendant.

Indeed, this is why papers now report on celebs/MPs being tired and emotional rather than drunk, as unless they performed a sobriety test and confirmed alcohol present in someone’s system, they have no way of proving they were drunk – and a case or cases of libel based on this were successfully brought.

Even when races are well run and going smoothly, there can be very difficult situations that are too complex for a simple answer to resolve. Here’s an example from a closely related sport that illustrates this difficulty quite well in my view.
Two well-known ultra running events in the Highlands use the same section of the West Highland Way. At a remote crossing point of the busy A82 trunk road, the two races take alternative approaches to marshalling that crossing. Both races place warning signs on the roadside well before and at the crossing, to hopefully reduce the approach speed of traffic. Both place warning signs in the path of the runners, to encourage them to check before crossing.
One race places a team of 4 marshals at that crossing in hi-viz vests, to make a significant visible presence for drivers and to help hold runners when it’s not safe to allow them over.
The other race places no-one there to marshal, the reasoning being that clear hi-viz road signs aimed at both competitors and separately to the road users is sufficient to ensure that the runners act as adults, slow down, check and cross safely. The view of that second race is that putting marshals at the crossing actually increases the chances of a runner crossing without looking carefully enough, perhaps thinking that traffic has been held for them…
Which one is right? No-one has been squashed there yet, after many years of racing.

I suspect that there are some very particular reasons why the marshall is being prosecuted, and would expect that we will learn what they were from the reporting of the trial.

Generally the HSE will not prosecute ordinary employees (and the marshall is in a similar position) as opposed to directors and senior managers, because it is the employer that is in control of the workplace and of the employees, and it is the employer that has the primary duty to provide a safe place of work, safe work equipment, suitable training etc. etc.

Consequently, most work related injuries and fatalities which are caused by some faulty act or omission of an employee, can usually be traced back to a failure of the employer. For example, if an employee removes a safety guard from a machine, it is usually because it makes the work somehow easier and quicker (especially relevant if the employee is on piece work rates), and the employer has a duty not only to provide safe equipment (fitted with guards) but also to ensure that it continues to be used in a safe manner (so proper training and also regular checks to ensure that it’s in good order, including that guards are not missing).

If an employee is injured because of a missing guard, even one that the employee himself/herself removed, the HSE will be more likely to prosecute the employer, because they failed to actively manage safety in the workplace. Put crudely, the employer cannot just provide suitably guarded machines and then ‘hide’ in his office and assume that everything is OK on the workshop floor: the employer has to actively manage safety all the time. So if one employee repeatedly removes the guard, then the employer would need to address that with disciplinary action, and ultimately even dismissal. Remember that the employee in this scenario is not only a danger to themselves, they are also a danger to other employees who might operate their machine.

There is also a lot of civil case law on the subject of when employers are vicariously liable for the actions of their employees. In one case an employer was held liable when an employee’s prank caused an injury to another employee. The reason why the employer was held liable, was because the employee responsible had a history of similar dangerous pranks in the workplace, which the employer had failed to address and put a stop to, i.e. the employer should have disciplined the prankster and if necessary dismissed him to protect the rest of the workforce.

Marshalls are different to ordinary employees in that they obviously have a specific safety function. For a marshall to be prosecuted, that suggests that they were somehow very derelict in performing their duties. In other words they were given instructions to do XYZ, and completely ignored them. The only other possibility I can think of is that the marshall refused to answer the HSE’s questions during its investigation (hindering it’s investigation and potentially making it much more difficult to prosecute the organiser), and so the HSE decided to prosecute the marshall to deter others in similar situations from refusing to cooperate and/or to force the marshall to give evidence in court in his defence which would expose the failings of the organiser.

For those who think this prosecution is inherently a bad thing for the sport, regardless of the circumstances of the case and its merits, I would say that active enforcement of the legislation by the HSE should be welcomed, since it helps to encourage everyone to maintain and raise safety standards. If I were a race organiser, I would much rather have established guidelines and recognised good practice that I could follow (knowing that following them means that I have done my best to ensure everyone’s safety and well as protecting myself and others against prosecution if something went wrong), rather than starting with a blank sheet of paper and trying to figure out from scratch what I should be doing to run a safe event.

For those who think this prosecution is inherently a bad thing for the sport, regardless of the circumstances of the case and its merits, I would say that active enforcement of the legislation by the HSE should be welcomed, since it helps to encourage everyone to maintain and raise safety standards.

You do know that this is a sport that encourages people to throw themselves down hills at ever-increasing speeds / danger levels? It’d be safer to call the whole thing off (which looks increasingly likely).

Everything we do in life should be approached with a risk:benefit calculation. The risk of someone else dying at an event like this is so small – I bet MTB races worldwide could run for a century without another similar case. By the time another case happens, we’ll have all forgotten the case law brought by this case.

Northwind – Oh come on, what is the likelihood of a person at trackside being struck by a bike and killed? You need to be in the wrong place at the wrong time just to get hit never mind seriously injured. It’s reasonably likely that a crash could lead to injury but the sheer scarcity of incidents demonstrates how freakish a tragic outcome like this is- this isn’t rallying, there’s not a ton of car going at 100mph with thick crowds of people lining the course.

A DH bike at 20+ mph would still cause a serious risk of injury. It may be much less likely to kill someone but injuries aren’t acceptable either. Are the scarcity of injuries because it was bad luck, or because other events were better managed – that is essentially the prosecution job…

oldtalent – Wow how to kill support for the series.
@bds

Why which of their points do you object to (other than a vague statement about accompanying children, which I suspect is intentionally so)? Or were you disappointed you couldn’t bring your chainsaw?

Superficial – vague statement that would damage the defence of the individuals involved if it was seen by the jury?

in fairness having read this whole thread should make it impossible for a person to serve on the jury.

FunkyDunc – Blimey, would put me off volunteering to be a marshall, which is bad !

Is the Marshal an “ordinary” marshal, or was he actually the “chief marshal” that day? The relative responsibility and likelihood of prosecution is somewhat different.

I’ve marshalled the 3 Peaks where people come of PyG on to the road, and some riders would not listen (minority) and some car divers would not slow down (minority) but to think I could be sent to prison for trying to help out makes you think about being able to help out.

Are they actually imprisonable offences that the marshall have been charged with? [Even if they are it doesn’t follow that prison for any of the defendants is likely IF convicted]

Why not have a common sense law ?

What makes you think they are not effectively being prosecuted for failing to have the common sense to manage the risks effectively.

You do know that this is a sport that encourages people to throw themselves down hills at ever-increasing speeds / danger levels? It’d be safer to call the whole thing off (which looks increasingly likely).

It’s not though is it. As said previously I’ve seen changes in taping since the incident. I’ve seen changes in procedure for track access.

Everything we do in life should be approached with a risk:benefit calculation. The risk of someone else dying at an event like this is so small

Prefer risk:consequence
On top of that some small things could remove that risk completely, perhaps we could do those and forget most of the faux arguments about elf and safety here.

I think my issue is that it’s reactive. It’s a kneejerk response to a tragic event. You can cause a fuss over this and legislate more but in the grand scheme of probabilities there are several other incidents that will occur before another runaway bike causes a fatal head injury.

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSVqLHghLpw[/video]

I think my issue is that it’s reactive.

Inevitably all prosecutions are reactive, although ideally the prosecution would be for having breached the relevant safety legislation without there actually having been a fatality. However, they are also pro-active: without legal minimum standards of safety, and the real threat of prosecutions for failure to comply, the standards of safety in events would inevitably fall. Some organisers would do things properly anyway, but there would be others who would exploit the situation and cut corners to save costs or make more money (by making the courses more dangerous and ‘exciting’ to attract bigger audiences, reducing marshall cover and training, inadequate first aid provision etc. etc.).

It’s a kneejerk response to a tragic event.

No it isn’t. The event occurred in 2014 and only now is it going to court. The HSE will have investigated this case thoroughly and only decided to prosecute based on the usual criteria: better than a 50% likelihood of conviction and in the public interest.

You can cause a fuss over this and legislate more but in the grand scheme of probabilities there are several other incidents that will occur before another runaway bike causes a fatal head injury.

Don’t confuse the very specific circumstances of this accident, with the specifity of the safety precautions. The HSE would not prosecute because of a freak occurence. They are almost certainly prosecuting because there were widespread and fundamental failings in the whole management of safety of the event. It might not have possible to predict exactly how that spectator was killed, but it was probably reasonably foreseeable that an accident would be much more likely to occur as a result of the failings.

I think my issue is that it’s reactive. It’s a kneejerk response to a tragic event. You can cause a fuss over this and legislate more but in the grand scheme of probabilities there are several other incidents that will occur before another runaway bike causes a fatal head injury.

How is the prosecution kneejerk and reactive? Somebody has died in a tragic accident and the CPS (assumption) have decided that someone has a case to answer under existing legislation for the death.

What is kneejerk are reactions like yours, crying for the future of grassroots racing and slamming this prosecution as unwarrented, given a) it’s unlikely you know all the facts relevent to the incident, b) the case has not yet been heard, so nobody knows if any laws were broken or inadequate meaning c) no legislation or laws have yet been changed or even challenged!

What does prosecuting an individual in this case achieve?

I’m going to suggest all it achieves is to ruin another persons life, and potentially, should that prosecution lead to a, very likely imo, lack of volunteer marshals for events, to prevent a lot of people from getting a lot of enjoyment out of a sport they love.

Sure, the HSE needs to act to make recommendations, and if necessary to suitable legislate to ensure those regs are upheld in FUTURE, but i see little or no gain in prosecuting an individual under these circumstances…….

Maxtorque – What does prosecuting an individual in this case achieve?

I’m going to suggest all it achieves is to ruin another persons life, and potentially, should that prosecution lead to a, very likely imo, lack of volunteer marshals for events, to prevent a lot of people from getting a lot of enjoyment out of a sport they love.

Sure, the HSE needs to act to make recommendations, and if necessary to suitable legislate to ensure those regs are upheld in FUTURE, but i see little or no gain in prosecuting an individual under these circumstances…….

well if HSE believe the responsibilities and duties were already clear and someone wilfully ignored them, then it’s not the regs that are the problem but rather the enforcement… whilst organisations hate being prosecuted, usually there are one or two individuals at fault and knowing that you might be prosecuted helps future organisers focus!

Update

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-east-wales-41444649

The “out of control” line again 🙄

If the HSE were that concerned no one should be allowed within 10ft of the track and be behind a fence, which is probably what will happen if they’re found guilty

This case along with the Charlie Alliston one will be the death knell of cycyling

This case along with the Charlie Alliston one will be the death knell of cycyling

I think not.

The “out of control” line again

Given that the rider had fallen off and the bike carried on moving and hit a spectator I’d agree with the description as “out of control”.

Lol, how do you control a bike without a rider. Hopefully they have good barristers and not aload of wet the beds who bimble round singletrack/swinley every weekend comparing Strava times

It really wont be, what it might do is help organisers and BC put steps in place to protect spectators and riders from injury and potential liability.
It’s already happened at races I’ve seen and a strong policy of not being on the outside of high speed corners is appropriate.

mehr – Member
Lol, how do you control a bike without a rider.

You don’t hence as pointed out the bike is then “Out of Control” what you do is control the environment so that the out of control bike is not in the wrong place.

Don’t confuse the very specific circumstances of this accident, with the specifity of the safety precautions. The HSE would not prosecute because of a freak occurence. They are almost certainly prosecuting because there were widespread and fundamental failings in the whole management of safety of the event. It might not have possible to predict exactly how that spectator was killed, but it was probably reasonably foreseeable that an accident would be much more likely to occur as a result of the failings.

The defendants will need cheque books and/or toothbrushes on verdict day. HSE don’t go to court unless they are certain of a conviction and the law is framed such that you need to show that you complied with the approved code of practice/other guidance or bettered it.

The “out of control” line again

Are you suggesting that the bike was under control when it hit the spectator?

The bbc story doesn’t really give any new information, other than their pleas.

The defendants will need cheque books and/or toothbrushes on verdict day. HSE don’t go to court unless they are certain of a conviction and the law is framed such that you need to show that you complied with the approved code of practice/other guidance or bettered it.

Did wonder about this, im assuming they would’ve had legal advice that pleading not guilty means they have a good chance of being found innocent ?