[Closed] Does "Barry Knows Best?"

I've never ridden the gnarrfest that is the surrey hills but, assuming it's a steepish shortish incline then (as lyrikal suggests) I'd be wanting to stay well off the brakes on the way down, lest my front wheel get caught up on some clumpy piece of ground

and I also imagine, "Will no doubt depend on corroborative evidence from other parties on the course"

No, I was referring to the instructors insurance situation

Are there even any hills in Surrey?

do you even uplift, bro ?

Ok bit harsh but an injury by his own hand taking part in a dangerous sport by his own choice and he's trying to blame and ruin someone else and cash in big time. I despise ambulance chasing and suing culture, it's just as low as you can go to me.

Surely this case is about establishing whether the Mtb coach has any culpability, and hence will his insurance be liable. My BC coaching qualification means I have cover provided I teach a BC approved session and do not deliver outside of my qualification. And I can produce my plan, risk assessment and post session assessment and accident report. That applies for their mountain bike coaching qualification too. Satisfy those conditions and I'm covered. I'm not an mtb coach btw, road and TT.

No winners here, I fear.

If you think my opinion is harsh don't look at the comments on social media or you'll get very upset

Ok bit harsh but an injury by his own hand taking part in a dangerous sport by his own choice and he's trying to blame and ruin someone else and cash in big time. I despise ambulance chasing and suing culture, it's just as low as you can go to me.

This really is the bottom line. Yes a man is paralysed and deserves everyone's support and sympathy. But he fell of his bike and hurt himself. It's very common for people who suffer life changing injuries to try and find blame in others. The only reason for this is for money. If I was in a wheelchair and thought an insurance company would payout perhaps I might do the same 🙁

The solicitor's in a wheelchair which is a terrible outcome. That being said he is clearly chancing his arm for a payday from the Instructors insurance company.

Victim must be legit as he's "educated and eloquent"

[quote=bigjim ]Ok bit harsh but an injury by his own hand taking part in a dangerous sport by his own choice and he's trying to blame and ruin someone else and cash in big time.

I don't suppose his intentions have anything to do with ruining somebody else. If the instructor wasn't negligent then clearly the court won't award any money. If the instructor was negligent then I don't see why he shouldn't get some compensation which will help make his life more normal (we don't do punitive damages here).

Sure it might be a "dangerous" sport, but injuries like that are incredibly rare. Would you suggest that a driver paralysed in a car crash shouldn't get compensation from another driver if they were negligent? Because driving is clearly a dangerous activity which people take part in by their own choice. It's not reasonable to expect to come out of a training day with injuries like that because your instructor has done something wrong if that is indeed what happened. How on earth do you know the instructor wasn't to blame?

As for comments being worse on social media - I'm sure they are, which is why I avoid such places. That isn't an excuse to try and drag here down to their level.

I certainly don't have insurance which would pay out if I had an accident like that, is it a common thing to have?

I do. I suspect both my health insurance and my critical illness/injury cover (both of which would be hit hard if I ended up in a wheelchair) would be interested in recovering from the instructor's insurer if they could.

😐

Bigjim get a grip. How is it trying to ruin anyone? Insurance is held for a reason. Stop looking at job titles and reading alot more into a media report with limited information.

That being said he is clearly chancing his arm for a payday from the Instructors insurance company.

Not a bit.

This looks like two insurance companies banging heads. No reason for all the personal spite and ignorant judging above.

This looks like two insurance companies banging heads.

If that is the case perhaps the insurance companies should make sure it stays out of the media, particularly with reporting as in the link in the op which allows for personal judgements to be made.

We have a free press. How on earth can the insurance companies keep it out of the media?

The only person able to keep it out of the press would be the judge and they'd need some very good reasons to do that.

If that is the case perhaps the insurance companies should make sure it stays out of the media,

If agreement can't be reached and it goes to court, as in this case, a media blackout ceases to be an option.

Let's all wait for the judgement - there are some pretty awful comments further up this thread.

tuskaloosa - Member 
I can't help think this is the incident that happened well I guess 4 years ago where the rumour was that some guy had come off Barry's on the bomb hole and broke his neck... ever since then the bombshell was 'softened' out a bit.

Yes, that's the one. Unless there's been another. Was there on that day. Got up to Barry's and paramedics were waiting at the start for the crew from the air ambulance that was trying to land. Rumour was going round that the guy couldn't feel his legs. Hadn't heard anything about it since then until this in the news.

Tragic case. Having come close to a similar injury by landing on my head I have a lot of sympathy and interest in spinal injuries. That said in my case the only blame was myself. However I wasn't under instruction. I'd still struggle with suing the instructor though.

matt_outandabout - Member 
Such cases are not uncommon for many such incidents. It can sometimes be down to insurers having a 'you must try to sue before we pay' clause I am told.

You make a very good point. If for example you have your own injury insurance for MTB accidents, it makes sense that the insurer will insist on suing someone/anyone first before making a pay out at their own cost. That's just the way of insurance.

This is the gully/bombhole from what I can make of it from the article. Not my video but shows it quite well. Watch from about 27 seconds in.

Looks quite innocuous from that video! "accidents happen" sums it up I think!

particularly with reporting as in the link in the op which allows for personal judgements to be made.

There is always the option of not making such judgements, it's not compulsory, nor the fault of the insurance companies, judge or journalist, all of whom are just doing their jobs.

this seems a bit like trying to sue a bike company for selling you a bike capable of riding offroad on, which then made you fall off and hurt yourself, even though you made the decision to buy and ride the bike yourself............if you get what I mean. 😕

accidents happen" sums it up I think!

How on earth do you know? Where you there, or in court?

@ton, it could be like suing a bike company which sold you a bike which failed causing you to crash, but we don't really know.

How on earth do you know? Where you there, or in court?

[quote=acidtest ]This is the gully/bombhole from what I can make of it from the article. Not my video but shows it quite well. Watch from about 27 seconds in.

I've seen hillier snooker tables 😕

cyclelife - Member 
Looks quite innocuous from that video! "accidents happen" sums it up I think!

It was smoothed out a lot since the accident.

It used to be a sharp drop. Still rollable, but not something you'd expect beginners to try.

Anyway the report says he hit a rut or something and the wheel stopped and OTB, which suggests this may have even been just a freak accident. We've all had moments like that I'm sure.

If that is the case perhaps the insurance companies should make sure it stays out of the media,

If agreement can't be reached and it goes to court, as in this case, a media blackout ceases to be an option.

Let's all wait for the judgement - there are some pretty awful comments further up this thread.

Some court documents will have been public since the claim was started.

My grandparents had to sue their nephew (my dad's cousin) after a car crash they were in when he was driving. The treatment they needed to get a full-ish recovery required private care (well, not required, if they were happy to wait a year for the initial appointment) and their insurer was happy to cover it; providing the insurer could sue the driver's insurers for the costs.

There was a big family hoo-ha about my grandparents suing their family until it was pointed out by many cooler heads that it was an insurer suing another insurer in their names. The insurers settled before it got to court and everyone went away as friends but it was a fundamental misunderstanding at the start and genuinely threatened to split the entire family apart.

Back to the OP's post; the roll in as it was on BKB years ago was a bit daunting for new riders (I recall one forum member's wife ended up in tears when she saw it) and I have to admit to walking it the first couple of times but I've seen experienced riders crash on it by taking a poor line through it so it's hardly a definite indication of poor coaching. That said, it's also impossible to say from what's in the article whether or not the instructor was negligent.

If we can move on from being judgemental and allocating blame based on a limited newspaper report - and I'm not allocating blame at all - I wonder if his profession will count against him, as he's expected to be able to make his own decisions.

I've seen hillier snooker tables

Maybe it looks steeper when you are 'hurtling', to use the inflamatory language of the article.

I wonder if his profession will count against him, as he's expected to be able to make his own decisions.

Only in his field of expertise. I doubt he'll be asked to second guess his medical team because he does a bit of light conveyancing during the week.

The bit in question and in acids video has been smoothed after the accident. It used to have a few rocks on the lip and was a bit steeper. Fine as long as you just let go and rode it but the kind of thing that would catch less confident riders*.It a classic spot were someone would tell a less confident person to let go of the brakes, relax, correct body position and GFI. You were most likely to come to mischief if you were nervous, braking and trying to slip (can't think of a better word) down it.

* I remember coming across it for the first time as a newbie 😉

How on earth do you know? Where you there, or in court?

Chill out - it's all speculation, like most threads on this site. Just saying that looking at the video, the terrain is not exactly challenging especially for someone who claims to have ridden MTB's

Although experienced in cycling and mountain biking, he was a novice to "rough terrain" and "descents".

Chill out - it's all speculation, like most threads on this site. Just saying that looking at the video, the terrain is not exactly challenging especially for someone who claims to have ridden MTB's

As has been pointed out, the 2016 version is pretty innocuous (quite possibly as a result of this and other crashes). The 2012 version was certainly a "feature" that you had to really slow down for and earlier than that, if you dropped it too quickly you'd land on the upslope so you had to roll into it carefully. Nothing challenging once you've done it but for learners not ideal. The thing is, the whole trail OTHER than this bit was good for novices (still probably is looking at it, not ridden it for 5 years) as it has things that would be challenging but not dangerous and they could build speed with confidence.

Is this the real reason why so many skills instructors use video now?

[quote=cyclelife ]Chill out - it's all speculation, like most threads on this site.

There's some pretty unpleasant and unnecessary speculation on this thread - your comment was pretty innocuous, but I'm really not sure what the point is.

Although experienced in cycling and mountain biking, he was a novice to "rough terrain" and "descents".

This statement is contradictory and not particularly astute for someone of his level of intellect.

Not necessarily - it's just that we have a somewhat skewed idea of what "mountain biking" is on here compared to what most people see it as who claim to do it.

Is this one of those times where he has talked up his experience at the training session. (Yeah, I've been riding years).
And is now talking it back down when reality has bitten. (I've had a bike in the garage for years, I ride tow paths.)

I've seen it before.

we have a somewhat skewed idea of what "mountain biking" is on here compared to what most people see it as who claim to do it.

"Experienced" and "Novice" are totally contradictory in any statement, how intelligent was the rest of this guys statement of the facts?

[quote=cyclelife ]"Experienced" and "Novice" are totally contradictory in any statement

I'm an experienced unicyclist, but a novice at riding backwards.

Bearing in mind this chap is a barrister, and he's employing another barrister to make his case there's just a chance they know more about making statements in a legal case than most people on here.

This. You'd be amazed at the number of folk who think they need a mountain bike to cycle along the canal in Inverness.

Absolutely. I have colleagues with mountain bikes who bought them to ride the piste cyclables that are all over the country. They're tarmacced(?) and are generally in a condition that most people would be happy with on roads in the UK. When you try to explain that they'd be better off even with a hybrid they look at you like you're mad. Road bikes are for roads, mountain bikes are for paths in the forest, paved or not apparently.

PS. It's not a trial, it's a civil case.

Civil cases have trials as well. The trial is the bit at the end of the procedure when a judge actually does the deciding and happens in a proper courtroom with fancy clothes and everything. The case is the whole process leading up to that including exchanging of statements and documents etc.

As others have mentioned, it is unlikely that this claim would have been initiated by the injured party (his profession is incidental), it will have been one or if like myself, a group claim by his personal insurers - in my case I have medical, professional, life (with critical care), travel and mortgage insurance policies which all provide elements of cover for life changing injuries, even if they are incurred during leisure time.
Like all financial institutions they will look to make sure someone else pays and if they believe the liability lies with someone else with the means to pay the bill, they will take action to get them to do so. In turn, the instructors liability insurance provider will robustly protect their profit margin. The chances are this will have been sat in negotiation for a number of years with no movement which is why it has ended up in adjudication (in this case all the way into court) because both sides have compelling arguments (if it was clear cut it would have settled years ago)

If it is a case of insurer prompting the legal action, we should be encouraged that they have not targeted the landowner.

It's up to the judge to decide whether the skills instructor was negligent, but if he didn't do anything irresponsible then I'd expect the decision to be that it was a freak accident and there's no case to answer.

The thing is, the rider knew what was coming as he'd ridden it before. It's his brain that tells him whether to do it or not and the instructor didn't force him to do it.

I feel bad for both of them and this must have really played on the instructors mind. It's really unfortunate and mtbing isn't exactly 'safe'.

If insurance wasn't involved then I think it would be a case of MTFU you stacked it. However if he'd been told to ride the drop blind with something like "there's a drop 100 yards down the trail just go fast and it'll be ok" then that would clearly not be acceptable and reason to blame the instructor. That wasn't the case from what I read.