It’s not about being amicable. It’s already been pointed out that it will be some faceless corporate decision to come after you. Or it could be someone self-employed and has lost their income stream due to injury, forcing their hand to do what they can to get through (or their insurer coming to recoup losses, see the first point)
There's a phrase I use, meant jokingly when someone is about to do something that might have "consequences"...
"What would the coroner say?"
Having club insurance doesn’t make you immune to prosecution for making dangerous decisions and endangering others – you’ll still potentially go to jail. A BC membership card is not the same as a ‘get of jail card’.
Correct, if you commit a criminal offence expect to be prosecuted regardless of your affiliation, although a well-run ride, from a well-run club that's affiliated to BC is both less likely to break the law and perhaps less likely to be prosecuted if things go wrong than a shambles of a club with no clear leadership or supervision structure in place and where many of the people on the rides had no clear membership, possibly under 16s turn up despite the BC club affiliation saying not suitable for them etc. The prosecutor will seek out the controlling mind if something really has gone to shit, if they aren't sure if it was a club activity they'll pursue you personally too, if you can show you were just the minion then its less likely they'll worry about you when there's a club "president" sitting in the cafe who should have been overseeing what you were doing.
However, prosecution is far less likely than a compensation claim.
On the rare occasions where I have been stood next to an ambulance (not many in 40 odd years of cycling), no one has sued anyone or even mentioned it. NB Not that will always be the case, but so far all very amicable.
Yes, but as well as "times changing in that 40 yrs" how often was the injured party a total stranger to the ride leader? You admitted in your OP that you "get others who turn up occasionally" and "We had two random young people on the ride on Saturday, no one knew who they were"... they are the ones who might be most likely to sue! Also harder to say "it was just mates riding together" if you've no idea who they are. It's also likely that this sort of rider are the ones most likely to cause a group accident - what steps are you taking to make sure people understand the risks/dynamics/communication of riding in a bunch? That seems like the sort of thing I'd expect a reasonable ride leader to be assessing with unknown people so everyone gets the safest ride.
Is there a legal definition of what constitutes a club ride? If not, it’s pretty irrelevant I would think. Personally I think it’s just a bunch of adults arranging a ride amongnst themselves, but someone else in the group might say it’s a club run….
The court will decide if it was a "club activity" or "an independent activity that happened to include a lot of club members" if it ever comes to that. Sometimes its very clear - e.g. some official club publication (website, facebook page, newsletter, email) or minutes lists the events the club is running or in this case its on a notice board in the cafe calling it "Cafe Club Run". Other times it may be less clear, generally you should want it to be official as at least part of the liability will be shifted to someone else. The "unofficial club run" gave a number of club committees in a number of different sports palpitations during covid - if there was a breach of covid rules was the club liable. I saw some stuff that was at least dubious - like details of an unofficial event being sent on the members mailing list "because although this is not an official club event we thought you might be interested in it until the club is able to operate normally again". If you are not a member don't be surprised if either BC's insurers or the cafe owner (or his insurers) are suddenly saying, no this was not a club sanctioned event - its all on Footflaps own shoulders.
I think taking out individual BC membership would be a good idea (much as I hate giving money to BC).
I'd go further and say a sit down with the owner of the cafe and a serious chat about the club he's (not) running and how to make it better (= more customers with lower personal risk for him) would be in order and then getting it to actually meet the standard where BC will back you rather than say "no way was this shit show happening under one of our clubs". Alternatively, if nobody is actually using the club for its race license benefits is there UK Cycling (CTC) group affiliation option? IF the cafe owner isn't willing to embrace that I'd give serious consideration to stopping organising the rides or creating my own "group" (I notice CTC don't call them clubs) where there is some degree of policy that can be applied and you can be sure what risks are or aren't covered by whichever insurer/umbrella body you work with.
I came to mtb from road, but apart from a few attempts at sunday club runs*, never did the club thing. it was solo or with a couple of mates.
So I may be naive in asking, what exactly are we wanting footflaps to do?
- advertise the distance and elevation of the route? done
- check roads are not inherently a bad choice e.g. no stupid A road blasts? seemingly done with his meticulous route planning, and I'm guessing mostly roads he has ridden before at some point
- check the roads earlier that morning for any downed trees, potholes, ice? I'm guessing not done
- ride at the front for the entire loop? physically impossible for him and most club cyclists unless they have found a group much much weaker than they are.
"expaining to a judge" or indeed the average non-cyclist why travelling at 30mph or even faster going downhill while 6 inches from a stranger's wheel, wearing next to no protective gear, possibly while at a point of near exhaustion and staring at your own stem is "fun" and "totally normal and what we and others have been doing for decades" could be a challenge, regardless of BC membership status
Riding in a group on the road has always been an odd one - you are clearly ignoring the highway code in that you are not maintaining visibility and stopping distance. We choose to do this voluntarily for the benefits.
Does this somehow put the onus of responsibility for the group to the person at the front? the person picking the route? the "ride leader" who allowed everyone to participate in the ride?
Roadie forums are awash with the etiquette or otherwise of getting or giving a tow from a stranger, or solo'ers jumping onto a passing group ride.
*one poorly attended wet wintry day, I was on my cheapish genesis cyclocross/road/tourer type thing with early cable disc brakes. Descending at the front of the group, I reached the bottom of a hill, and came to what I thought was a gentle and controlled stop at a roundabout. The rim brake+carbon rimmed person behind me had other thoughts and with a terrified yelp proceeded onto the luckily empty roundabout.
Should I have been banned from the ride? or from being at the front? should he? should we have conducted a roll down brake test before setting off?
So I may be naive in asking, what exactly are we wanting footflaps to do?
Make sure that he has some sort of liability cover in case someone sues him if there's an accident on a ride he appears to be responsible for.
Everyone seems to be focusing on crashes within the group, who are less likely to make a claim accepting its a risk of the sport. Don't forget members of the public might be involved, and have a different attitude.
Make sure that he has some sort of liability cover in case someone sues him if there’s an accident on a ride he appears to be responsible for.
Everyone seems to be focusing on crashes within the group, who are less likely to make a claim accepting its a risk of the sport. Don’t forget members of the public might be involved, and have a different attitude.
Ok, so I guess what I'm asking with this:
Does this somehow put the onus of responsibility for the group to the person at the front? the person picking the route? the “ride leader” who allowed everyone to participate in the ride?
Is at what point and and in what way does the legal responsibilty for a rider-car or rider-pedestrian crash; flip to the person organising the ride, rather than the person in control of the bicycle in question?
Is at what point and and in what way does the legal responsibilty for a rider-car or rider-pedestrian crash; flip to the person organising the ride, rather than the person in control of the bicycle in question?
There's no easy answer but if a ride is being organised (there's an arranged start time and location, a published route and so on which it sounds like there is) then there's an onus on the Ride Leader to ensure that the route is to everyone's capabilities, people are briefed on protocols - what to do if you're dropped, basic etiquette and so on - group sizes and intended average speeds.
There's then some personal responsibility on every rider within the group to look out for themselves and for each other. There's no harm in dropping riders if the ride is advertised as such but if it's advertised as an inclusive social spin, then it's out of order to leave people by the wayside.
The problem in this instance is that the RL is posting a route and allowing anyone to turn up (he's admitted that on some of the rides he doesn't even know who some of the people are) and therefore the onus is very much on the RL if there's an incident because it would be very easy for a rider to claim they turned up expecting a ride they could cope with but actually got something where they were hanging on for grim death and in trying to keep up, chase back on etc, they hit a third party.
It could be argued either way but the more informal the arrangements are, the less the club is protected and the easier it is to point to flaws in club management that allowed such a group ride to happen.
Is at what point and and in what way does the legal responsibilty for a rider-car or rider-pedestrian crash; flip to the person organising the ride, rather than the person in control of the bicycle in question?
When they have been found to have been negligent in some way.
Realistically it's highly unlikely to occur. It only has to happen once for you to be left bankrupt and homeless.
When they have been found to have been negligent in some way.
but the scenario needs to be considered before that - OK they aren't (yet) responsible, but at the point that the driver, or the injured party, or as said previously their faceless insurance company's representative decides they *might* be liable.....the crap starts then.
Starting to consider your responsibilities at the point you are actually sued is already way too late. Not having properly considered 'What should I have done differently / better?' won't get you let off.
Back at the very start, Footflaps was asking advice about young un's turning up for the 'club' rides he'd organised, and was regarded as, the nominal leader. If it was me, I'd be wanting to know if these youths were old enough (18+) to be on the ride without a parent or designated adult. If they couldn't show proof, I'd be telling them to hoof it. However, I'd personally find it a bit awkward to stipulate ride rules, even if I'd organised the ride, when I wasn't actually a paid up club member, as is the case with Footflaps.
I still think the simplest remedy, if he's happy with the way the club's run at the moment, is for Footy to pay his membership. Once done, he's got a legitimate voice in the club, and if there's no current rules about under 18s joining the death or glory fast run, then he can make them.
then there’s an onus on the Ride Leader to ensure that the route is to everyone’s capabilities
a bit chicken and egg though - is the route published before people say they are coming, or is there a "who is free sunday morning" and then the leader must pick a suitable route?
giving out the gpx ahead of time is a double edged sword. get dropped or just get separated at a junction and you can catch up or regroup at the coffee stop. but it does fix the ride. if a weaker rider turns up unannounced, or the weather turns, its harder to take a diversion.
as I said, I no longer road ride, but I'm in two MTB groups. One is a proper club, the other a Whatsapp group.
Generally only at risk of hurting themselves and damaging their own bike when off road, but talk of capabilities and ride leaders does have me slightly worried.
ayjaydoubleyou:
He doesn't just pick one route - he actually designs multiple for different abilities. So if someone unknown says they want to go the fast group I'd expect the ride leader to ask some questions and possibly signpost them to one of the other groups (indeed you might even have a rule that nobody joins the fast group without successfully completing the mid group first).
Probably the main thing you think of as the leader is the route - and just because you've planned a good route doesn't mean if something happens other people won't disagree it was well planned. Certainly, if I was going to get sued for an accident on a fast descent, I'd want the likes of BC backing my corner to say "yes that IS quite normal in these circumstances etc". The alternative is BC actually become the expert witness for the other side - explaining what a well-organised club run looks like (structured club governance with ride leaders members of the club, written risk assessments, training for ride leaders etc).
What other responsibilities does a ride leader potentially have? Examples might be:
1. Deciding if the weather on the day is OK, or should be cancelled.
2. Intervening if someone turns up with a bike that's clearly dangerous (in winter our local club wouldn't let you join them with no mudguards).
3. Briefing riders on the day, e.g. "When you get to the big hill - be careful at the bend at the bottom as the farmer crosses cattle there"
4. Realising that someone in the group is suffering from a medical problem rather than just being slow, and stepping in to help/get help. (diabetics and asthmatics ride the tour - no reason they can't ride a club run!)
5. Considering if everyone understand how to ride properly in a group; that might be talking to people at the start, arranging "mentoring" newer people for the first part of a ride etc but also assessing it dynamically - does the discipline drop when people are tired? was the standard OK when it was dry but now its raining?
6. Learning from issues on previous runs - "AW surprised everyone with his braking on these new-fangled brakes we should warn everyone that disk brakes actually work!" or "that mud on that descent was really bad - we should avoid that route or warn everyone to really slow down and spread out for it" or "the hand signal from some of these new guys are shit - we need to do better training/briefing"
And if you've planned the other routes but aren't on them how are those points getting dealt with by whoever is managing those groups on the day. How are problems from one group getting shared with the course planner or people leading other groups etc?
In a non-cycling world I sit on the committee of another sports club. We spend a lot more time trying to learn from our (thankfully rare) mistakes and screw ups than we do trying to preempt things that have never gone wrong before in 20 years of doing it. Most people and the courts accept that unforeseen things happen - it's failing to address them so they don't happen again which will cause you problems.
And if you are leading MTB rides those same sort of issues apply - whilst you might not be likely to get a pile up, you could run into a group of walkers, someones dog etc. and if we are talking actual mountain biking then obviously there's risks of exposure/the whole group being out in the weather for hours waiting for help etc. The details are different but the concepts are the same. Similarly, it should be fairly obvious if it is just a small group of mates who meet informally at different times with no clear leader and everyone has a similar degree of skill/experience or someone is coordinating and planning a whatsapp group in a structured way which is effectively a club with some leaders who have extra duty of care to the less experienced people.