I have some sympathy for the guy. I am in my fifties and rode BKB (and Surrey) for the first time last month
I have introduced quite a few roadies to MTBing over the years and I always take a few minutes teaching them to get their saddles down and get their arses onto the back wheel when descending.. Avoiding an OTB is never best learnt from personal experience
A few years back a guy I would regard as an expert rider both fast and technically proficient fell in that exact same place on barrys breaking his collar bone IIRC. It was just one of those things. Anyone can fall anywhere and in my view Barrys is as simple as trail as it's possible to ride barring towpaths. It's fun the faster you go but it is without a doubt within the capabilities of anyone who can ride a bicycle. What happened to this chap is truly tragic and absolutely shit luck but life happens and I can't see it being the instructors fault unless this guy was at "using stabilisers" level..
[i]if I go to the climbing wall for example I sign a disclaimer accepting that climbing is a dangerous sport, so if I injure myself from falling off and there is nothing wrong with the wall I can't sue them for my injuries.
However if one of their top ropes failed such a disclaimer would have no value, because that's not an expected risk.[/i]
Not sure of the comparison between this and a skills course where the participant wants to ride challenging and technical tracks. As I said earlier, you can't learn this without doing it.
[i]Barrys is as simple as trail as it's possible to ride barring towpaths[/i]
You'd really say that? I've only ridden it years ago, before it was changed, but there are tons of trails, even in the Surrey Hills that are simpler than BKB, yet not as simple as towpaths. Can't believe it's changed that much.
Totally agree with it being shit luck though.
buckster - Member
Was this it?18 and or 39 seconds...
...42 seconds?
Edited as original still is wrong I think
10 years ago I remember seeing a very good rider go OTB on that gully at 18 secs above. He was fine and we had a laugh about it. But that - along with loads of other offs over the years - highlight how easy it is to get it wrong, even on the insignificant stuff.
Modern BKB on a Boris Bike 😉
http://www.pinkbike.com/video/419489/
(BKB from about 3mins)
I notice the infamous roll/drop in question is edited out.
[quote=DezB ]Not sure of the comparison between this and a skills course where the participant wants to ride challenging and technical tracks.
I wasn't - I was simply using it to illustrate the point of having a disclaimer as it's a bit simpler.
Have mixed views on this having been a claims manager back in the 90s just as ambulance chasing began to take off here on the mainland.
I'm struggling to see from the reports we have seen that the instructor was negligent. Someone fluffs a line once, you tell them what to do, they do it again - fixating on the wrong thing probably - then you step in. Only it was already too late in this case.
It's years since I worked in that field, but I'm assuming the defence of "volenti" still applies? You do something with risk you accept the risks.
Tragic for the claimant, obviously. Could have real repercussions for the outdoor activity industry if the standard of care required is raised too high if the claimant wins - from the facts that I have seen, anyway.
Big implications for those who instruct youngsters as well. I've got friends who run the county Scout cycling group, one of whom is about to set up his own business doing training and kids cycling holiday clubs.
Been out of the loop for a while. Any updates on this?
That might upset the outdoor industry...
If you're a mtb instructor expect a huge hike in your premiums 😯 . I would have thought £3,000,000+ is more than insurer's have ever taken in premiums since mtb instruction started.
ooft!
Given his reasons/ruling I would think more 50/50 or 60/40 - not sure how much of this proportioning actually translates into damages though.
More concerning given the high profile of BKB & this kind of ruling in the sport. What is there to stop people now from riding S.Hills and the like and suing the LO? Does it get even more complicated for official trails in areas like this thinking more S Lightning in Leith?
So the court finds negligence on two counts
1) that the instructor did not find out the trainees level of skill beforehand. seem negligent to me. I would expect and instructor to do so both by asking and by assessing folk over simple obstacles first
2) that he encouraged him to ride it a second time at speed. More dubious this one. going faster is often safer and not braking on the downslope of a bombhole is the right thing to do usually. this one is more arguable.
Nothing in this judgement changes anything. YOu have a right to expect your instructor is competent and the court found this one wasn't
tuskaloosa - very different with the landowner. Does a duty of care exist - perhaps yes but the whole legal relationships are very different and much harder to make a case. ONly if the landowner knew there was something dangerous on the land and did nothing about it and the danger was unavoidable by landusers.
some [i]reasonable[/i] definitions and explanation of negligence for anyone interested.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/negligence
Sad accident and story with no winners. Still find the whole story incongruous frankly.
Total farce. Poor instructor. Don't have the words for the money grabber.
Just a point on disclaimers - you can't be asked to sign away your legal rights to recover losses due to someone else's negligence.
break a nail or get a harness wedgie from a small fall at a climbing wall - difficult to complain if you've signed to say you understand it can be dangerous.
If you fall, the rope breaks and you get badly injured because they set up the top rope with hairy string instead of climbing rope, they've been negligent, they're liable for your injuries, and you should get a recovery from them, disclaimer or not.
Same thing with "at owners risk" in car parks - open town centre car park, someone keys your car, your problem. The "at owners' risk" sign falls and scrapes your paint because someone's used blu-tac instead of screws - they'll be paying.
Another point is your held to different standards depending on the level of skill you claim to have. For example as a nurse if I render first aid to someone I am expected to be more skilled than a person with no training. An A&E consultant would be held to a higher level. So I could do something when rendering first aid and if I make a blunder I could be sued but a layperson making the same blunder would not.
In this case the instructor is held to a higher standard than a layperson would be.
Could be the end of mtb instruction ? If they can't get liability insurance at a reasonable cost the sector will be die.
Its a horrible thought / scenario, Jamba...
and a complete nonsense. This case changes nothing at all
Will the insurance just pay out now or are they likely to take it to appeal?
TJ, we don't know it's a nonsense yet. I don't know any rich instructors. They might choose to find another way to make a living. Most I know do it for the fun/lifestyle aspect but a worry of something like that over your head could easily suck the fun out of it.
Is the guy still coaching? I'd take a session with him out of curiosity if he is.
I've been coached by good and bad but neither made me feel particularly at risk.
Crap judgement in my view 'steep' 'novice' - important words used that mean nothing in the facts of the case.
How can you not know something is beyond your limits when you've already bloody ridden it!
Angry. Doesn't effect me in the slightest, but it's made me angry!
Perhaps golf is a better pastime for some people. I do feel for the guy, paralysis is no joke but to then royally screw someone over for your own obvious mistake is awful. The bottom line is that Barrys is now and has never been anything but a fully green super easy child friendly run. This was an accident pure and simple.
Perhaps we should regress to the state when mountain bikers taught themselves or learned from friends, put a £ on it and this shit happens. Can I expect to get sued for showing a tourist a new run in the hills if they cock up and stack it?
Could be the end of mtb instruction ?
No. It isn't.
Plenty of cases of damage being awarded in similar cases, in the outdoor industry and others.
This *is* the point of insurance for such things.
Can I expect to get sued for showing a tourist a new run in the hills if they cock up and stack it?
A *very* different situation from being a paid professional - trained, competent and considering the needs and risks of students with a clear contract.
This changes nothing.
(I say that as an outdoor instructor close to a few incidents, up to and watching my boss go through a fatal accident enquiry in the outdoors.)
£3M for falling off a bike. Brilliant. What a joke.
Bloke sounds like a total prat to me.
As said before, it might not necessarily be him that is bringing the case. Might be his employer, or his insurance company for example. You can't condemn him for what you don't know.
The road.cc article states that the instructor was qualified, but does not mention what qualification.
Cycling UK/the CTC appear to be one of the main (only?) bodies issuing MTB instructor qualifications, and MTB instuctors with that qualification can get liability insurance from Cycling UK.
Could be the end of mtb instruction ? If they can't get liability insurance at a reasonable cost the sector will be die.
If the instructor in this case had cover from the Cycling UK insurance scheme, [u]and[/u] if that scheme has most/all of the market (which is very possible with a niche type scheme like that), then this accident and court award could certainly have a major effect on the price of cover. The insurer will obviously have the reserves to pay the award, but the case would make it review the scheme carefully to consider whether it will be profitable in the future. It's very unlikely that the insurer would stop underwriting the scheme and that Cycling UK could not find a replacement insurer to underwrite it, but the premiums paid by instructors (passed onto customers in the course costs) could rise significantly.
A few thoughts:
- is there a recognised code of practice for MTB tuition? The article indicates the instructor was negligent in properly assessing the skill level of the rider. Procedures and guidance for assessing skill levels and how to train skills are something I would expect to see in a code of practice.
- what auditing and re-testing do Cycling UK and any other providers do of instructors? It's not enough to issue a qualification: an accrediting body needs to take active steps to monitor the performance of those who hold its qualification and use it to attract customers. According to the scanned image I've seen of the Certificate issued by Cycling UK/CTC to one instructor, the Certificate does not have an expiry date or indicate for how long the qualification is valid. The trend now is for any work related type skills qualification to have a limited duration, at the end of which refresher training/re-testing is required.
The things above are part of a maturing field/'industry'. Mountain biking is a relatively new sport compared with other outdoor sports like climbing and kayaking etc., so probably still has some way to go before the overall standards of training and instruction are as good/mature.
I wonder if I should've sued the bike shop that loaned me a demo bike with semi=slick summer tyres in the rain, when I crashed and broke my neck due to the tyres having no grip on wet roots.
Er, no, cos I'm not a ****.
I wonder if I should've sued the bike shop that loaned me a demo bike with semi=slick summer tyres in the rain, when I crashed and broke my neck due to the tyres having no grip on wet roots.
Er, no, cos I'm not paralysed from the neck down and they were not there instructing me to ride it over said terrain
FTFY
again as I said.
I have a life insurance and critical illness cover policy. If I contract a life limiting condition my insurer pays out to cover my mortgage, loss of earnings, house conversion costs and so on.
If I had to claim on that due to someone else's negligent action, is it unreasonable my insurer would look to his insurer to cover the payout instead?
It is not necessarily the rider that has brought this case.
£3M for falling off a bike. Brilliant. What a joke.Bloke sounds like a total prat to me.
That and the other similar remarks suggesting that the man should not have sued the instructor are simply stupid ignorant comments.
The fact that his claim has been successful, albeit with 20% contributory negligence, indicates that the court agreed the instructor was negligent and substantially responsible for the accident.
Some people will happily acquire their skills entirely on their own by practicing jumps etc., and accept that any accident or injury is down to themselves, but others will want to have training from a paid expert instructor because it should be a safer and quicker way to learn and improve skills.
If you take money from people to train them in a potentially dangerous sport, then you have a responsibility to provide instruction to certain minimum safety standards. That is why people pay for such training: they lack both the skills and also judgement/knowledge of what they can safely attempt to do, so they rely on the instructor's superior knowledge.
Liability insurance is relatively cheap, and provides a valuable function to society for this sort of situation where someone suffers life changing injuries. It is also a useful driver to improve standards in workplaces (and this was a work related accident): businesses and industries that have poor safety records and rubbish claims experience, rapidly find that they have to implement systems and procedures to improve their performance, either at the specific insistance of their insurers, or because they are facing rising premiums and know they must improve their claims experience to prevent excessive insurance price rises.
Suggesting that the rider in this case should just suck it up is crass. Hopefully, this case will instead be something that helps to drive improvement in safety standards and the quality of tuition in the UK MTB skills instruction sector.
[i]FTFY[/i]
I know I know. In my defence I did mention that the whole thing had made me angry.
Bloke sounds like a total prat to me.
The bloke's in a wheelchair.
again as I said.I have a life insurance and critical illness cover policy. If I contract a life limiting condition my insurer pays out to cover my mortgage, loss of earnings, house conversion costs and so on.
If I had to claim on that due to someone else's negligent action, is it unreasonable my insurer would look to his insurer to cover the payout instead?
...and as I said back on p3, a life insurer cannot claim back from a negligent third party in this way - see subrogation for more info.
It might be a recovery by some sort of other insurance - medical or maybe even a household insurer - but I just doubt it in this case.
My guess is that as a lawyer he would have the expertise/friends to bring the case and would have been well aware that the instructor had insurance hence the £4m claim.
The bomb hole at the start of BKB certainly has been steep enough in the past with a "round out" at the bottom that if you hit it at and speed (or yanked on the front brake?) and went otb it could end badly.
Horrible the lot of it. Cant get angry with the paralysed bloke though.
2) that he encouraged him to ride it a second time at speed. More dubious this one. going faster is often safer and not braking on the downslope of a bombhole is the right thing to do usually. this one is more arguable.
This seems a strange decision, I agree wholeheartedly. It would be simplicity itself for the defence to have a stream of the most qualified and experienced in the sport to make this case beyond reason.
This is totally true, this is why people go to instructors, to learn things like this. I suggest they appeal this as this part of the ruling is just wrong.
Have to say a few of the comments on here remind me of the reaction to the Article 50 judgement from people who don't understand what's going on and thought the courts were "trying to overturn the result" etc. I think it's important if you feel strongly about it to read the court report and make an effort to understand the basis on which the instructor was found to be liable and why that doesn't mean that people won't be able to instruct other people in activities carrying inherent risks in the future. It's not helpful to rage against the system, the court or indeed the claimant just because you don't agree with the end result.
Is there a link to the court report?
My question is whether they're making a judgement on something they actually understand or not.
There ses to be a lot of decisions made that affect mountain biking made by people who have no understanding of it.
I could get some liability insurance tomorrow and go out and charge people £80 a pop to teach them to ride. I would have no idea what I'm doing. This isn't a war on riding, it's a highly specific judgement on one person's lack of care for a beginner who was relying on (and paying for) his expertise. It will hopefully help make MTB courses safer in the future and that's a good thing for everybody involved in the industry.
I could get some liability insurance tomorrow and go out and charge people £80 a pop to teach them to ride. I would have no idea what I'm doing.
Could you? I would have thought the cover was conditional on having the right qualifications...
instructor but had “a tendency to be over-optimistic” about the ability of some of those he taught, and that he had not sought to assess the skill levels of members of the group beforehand.
I wonder what came out that enabled "tendency" to be used?
So according to the court, a more "skilled" instructor would prevent someone falling off their bike.
er, i think you'll find Gravity will have something to say about that........
I think you will find that a skilled teacher can actually teach you to ride things rather than just let you crash repeatedly due to gravity
We crash because we have a skill confidence interface- in this case one encouraged/80% caused by a "overzealous" instructor - not because gravity exists.
I could get some liability insurance tomorrow and go out and charge people £80 a pop to teach them to ride.
Unless you have a qualification or can otherwise evidence your competence, I doubt this very much.
As well as the potential for premiums across the market, I suspect that what instructors / coaches might see is more demands from insurers to demonstrate competence (either via a piece of paper, or other evidence), safe systems of work (e.g. robust assessment of student abilities) etc. None of which is a bad thing (apart from the premiums bit).
Where you might see a change in activity levels is the less "instructed" scenarios where someone is leading a ride, but not instructing or coaching - I'm thinking of things like shop rides where the business's insurer might well already stipulate that their public liability doesn't cover, and the shop is relying on a "at your own risk" disclaimer - the thought of a £3M liability might change the attitude to risk and some may well conclude that it's not worth it.
I've always thought that such activities look like quite a risk - as others have said disclaimers won't absolve culpability for negligence and if a business publicises a ride as "official" there could be a strong case for there being a duty of care towards participants which, if I was an LBS owner, I wouldn't want to be tested in the high court.
It may end reasonable priced instruction. Insurance is almost always available if you pay the set premium. It may be that the premiums are so high or the level of excess so high that none of us want to pay the price of instruction to cover this. Signing forms saying you accept its a dangerous sport etc I do not think are relevant to negligence. Its a sad case on both sides. I hope the instructor's insurance covers all the loss.
Onzadog - MemberIs there a link to the court report?
My question is whether they're making a judgement on something they actually understand or not
I assume they'll have called 'expert witnesses' (IANAL maybe not right phrase') to provide context/explanation etc. I know a guy that was called to provide independant assesmsent and explanation for a case he had nothing to do with in a different minority sport accident that went to court.
Is there a link to the court report?
My question is whether they're making a judgement on something they actually understand or not
This is unclear, not enough details on evidence presented and witnesses called.
So not really possible to say if it's a fair judgement or not.
What evidence was there to support the implication that the instructor was careless?
Could well get overturned on appeal if it's not robust.
[i]I think you will find that a skilled teacher can actually teach you to ride things [/i]
I thought he hit "a clumpy, grassy piece of ground". Taught? To ride that?
Yeah, drop-offs, jumps, wood bridges... but bits of grass, just shows it was a freak accident.
Cha****ng - that he did not find out beforehand the level of skill of the trainees was one, the other ( more dubious IMO) that he encouraged the trainee to ride a section he had crashed on but faster this time
[i]to ride a section he had crashed on[/i]
Did he crash the first time? I thought he just went the wrong way.
that he did not find out beforehand the level of skill of the trainees was one
And this is the only bit in the report that's a definite black mark.
No problem with the ruling myself if the instructor was negligent - I'm sure it happens - but I'd like to see the full evidence that was put to the court.
that he did not find out beforehand the level of skill of the trainees was one
I posted something on the original road.cc article about this - the rider described himself as "an experienced cyclist, but a novice on rough terrain and descents".
Experience is an extremely subjective thing to assess. I'm an "experienced" MTBer in as much as I used to race XC at a reaosnably high level, done numerous 24hr events etc but if you put me on some narrow North Shore 6ft up in the trees, I'd cry.
Years ago we had a rider turn up to our club MTB ride having told us by email that she was an "experienced cyclist"; it very quickly became apparent that she was incapable of riding on anything other than flat gravel tracks and on closer questioning, she admitted that she had only ever ridden bikes at the gym - but she thought that 3x a week on a static bike meant she was "experienced".
Problem is that on the forms that you fill in pre-coaching, you have to state your level of experience and most people (especially men) usually overestimate it which may give the instructor a false impression of ability.
The coaching course I did, they got people riding round a small fixed loop including a short descent, short climb, couple of corners etc while the Chief Instructor and his Assistants watched us and made notes, then made the assessment of the tuition that we needed in conjunction with the info we'd filled in on our forms.
(no idea if that happened in this case, was more arguing the "experience" side of things. Inexperienced people are often too inexperienced to actually know that they're crap!
From the original article - "a mountain biker of 12 years' experience"
+"A novice rider"
+"He had been riding a mountain bike for several years"
But, some really relevant* mentions of: "Mr Ahmed "educated and articulate" and "not a thrill seeker". Before the accident he went to the gym three or four times a week and played cricket on a Sunday."
*sarcasm
You can't find out a riders skill level beforehand. You can ask, but you can't tell what they're capable of until you've seen them on a bike.
The coaching course I did, they got people riding round a small fixed loop including a short descent, short climb, couple of corners etc while the Chief Instructor and his Assistants watched us and made notes, then made the assessment of the tuition that we needed in conjunction with the info we'd filled in on our forms.
thats the key bit - do this or an equivalent you will be fine.
Also, if this instructor was at fault due to slap-dash instructing, a gung-ho nature etc, why has he only had one person injured on his lessons?
Also, if this instructor was at fault due to slap-dash instructing, a gung-ho nature etc, why has he only had one person injured on his lessons?
Luck?
[i]Luck?[/i]
Exactly! (the bad kind)
What are you on about?I think you will find that a skilled teacher can actually teach you to ride thingsI thought he hit "a clumpy, grassy piece of ground". Taught? To ride that?
Yeah, drop-offs, jumps, wood bridges... but bits of grass, just shows it was a freak accident.
Perhaps the help he needed was to pick the correct line and avoid the clumpy grass thing.
Teaching is either effective or ineffective but clearly it works if they are competent and the student listens. Heck I bet I could teach you to do critical thinking and construct a cogent argument with enough time.
why has he only had one person injured on his lessons?
Is this true or just a guess? Genuine question
Some pretty nasty stuff being said on Facebook. We don't know the full case representations only a few one lines put out by journalists. Unless we know how can we really form an opinion? Or do we always fill voids with opinions?
Unless we know how can we really form an opinion? Or do we always fill voids with opinions?
This is STW, we don't need those pesky facts to get in the way of an opinion!
[i]Is this true or just a guess? Genuine question[/i]
Well, you know - as part of a case about an negligent cycling coach, it [i]might[/i] have been mentioned if there were any others...
[i]This is STW, we don't need those pesky facts to get in the way of an opinion![/i]
Rather like this court case then!
I guess all instructors will be recording all of their sessions from now on...just in case they need to prove something was said, or not said, instructed etc
I think it is irrelevant trying to find blame here. Ultimately, someone has to pay for the guy's care and needs and it's easier for organisations/insurance companies to do this than individuals.
I feel bad for the guy who got hurt.
But the world just got a bit more red tape and risk averse and a little bit more nannied as a result.
You can bet your boots courses are gonna get more expensive as trainers will have to insure themselves up to the hilt .Feels like another bit of american style blame culture to me
I do some work taking a portable pump track and features like see saws, skinnies and jumps too schools and event and our insurance goes up markedly every year. It went up quite a lot when local authorities started insisting on ten million for public liability cover. Also there's not much choice out there. Increased insurance costs may be what stops us. If I was to start guiding or tuition the insurance costs would make me think twice, unless I knew my BC membership had me covered but I'd be reluctant to trust that alone.
Just a thought... Its a potential risk of MTBing(cycling), maybe we as riders should take out private medical insurance on an annual type policy. We all do it when we're off to the Alps for a week, so why not have it for your uplift days/trail center days/local trail gnar days/commuting. How many self employed STWers have lost income due to MTB related injury? maybe it'd cover that too.
[quote=hora ]Some pretty nasty stuff being said on Facebook. We don't know the full case representations only a few one lines put out by journalists. Unless we know how can we really form an opinion? Or do we always fill voids with opinions?
Congratulations thread on making hora look the most sensible person here.
Some really quite silly comments on here - I particularly love the ones questioning whether the judges/jury understand mountain biking. I have news for you - judges and lawyers can't be experts on everything, which is why they have expert witnesses. I suspect the insurance company faced with a multi-million payout might have found themselves an expert witness, but maybe they couldn't be bothered?
I'm fairly experienced (not skilled) so I'm probably a prime candidate for skills training.
With an instructor you have to listen, trust and believe otherwise how do you learn? Put yourself into their hands.
If I take tuition should I hold back abit?
On my first ever driving lesson my instructor had me driving on a 50mph dual carriageway (A580/A6 in Salford) on a wet winters evening. I turned to him and said 'don't take this the wrong way but do you know what you are doing'? The instructor laughed and said I was a natural talent behind the wheel'. What if I then panicked with cars suddenly passing me and crashed at 50 on the sweeponv/dropping lanes?
A really tricky situation and hard for the instructor and aweful for the customer.
Let's not forget it's the insurers who pay out. Not the instructor. He walks out of court and carries on with life no matter how wronged he may feel.
The customer gets slagged off and name called.
Going back to cycling tuition - what if the instructor feels I can do doubles and should. Should I? (There's one instructor who has a nack of getting non doubles riders to do them isn't there).
What if you came up short and hurt yourself ? Your fault or shared percentage liability?
Ponder that last line.
ithout knowing the full court case its hard to make an assement, however this decision does feel odd
Hypothetical situation..
I book a session with Jedi as I want to learn how to jump better. I tell him I'm not confident on Doubles, and its an area I want to work on.
Jedi starts me off slow, building up on small tables before encouraging me to take on a gap. I'm a bit reluctant but he tells me I'm ready. I then proceed to smash myself to bits a I get it all wrong...
Could I then turn round and blame Jedi as he encouraged me to have a go. Of course not...it ws my decision to have a go, and I am accutely aware that mountainbiking has its risks.
If instructors are faced with getting sued everytime they try to tech someone to get better (and lets face it most times when you learn something new you are out your comfort zone, otherwise you wouldn't need coaching in the first place) then I can quickly see them thinking its not really worth the effort.
The case in question involves a guy who clearly wanted to get better on his bike, improving will always involve risks. I'm surprised he wasn't asked to sign some kind of waiver before hand..
In the above example Jedi doesn't really encourage you to do things, you just eeem to do them! He doesn't push you to do stuff, he just makes you feel ready and capable!
Anyway...
Someone above mentioned this instructor has only had one injury? How do we know this? He's only had one serious claim that's made the press, surely. That's the only thing we can say.
A few recent Facebook comments:
I hope he gets run over by a bus
And
He deserves to be paralysed if he's that type of person.
Wtf.
On my first ever driving lesson my instructor had me driving on a 50mph dual carriageway (A580/A6 in Salford) on a wet winters evening. I turned to him and said 'don't take this the wrong way but do you know what you are doing'? The instructor laughed and said I was a natural talent behind the wheel'.
This is pure gold, love it 😀
Funny isn't it 😉 When I passed he lent me one of his mini coopers and I bought another from him a month later.
Pretty disgusted by the "MTB" community being represented on the Facebook thread. 😡