Forum menu
I met a bloke recently who rides yoghurt pots in about 1:30 😉 he's encouraged me to ride it faster. Is he liable if I screw it up now??
(p.s. This is not a serious post tbc)
lol just don't brake you'll go faster!
Could always do what Hora does, and walk down it? 😉
@teamhurtmore I signed up for a jumps and drops skills course yesterday, think I might get insurance now! It's on the 27th of November near Bristol.
http://www.pedalprogression.com/events/event/bespoke-full-day-session-8/
I can't break at the moment acid - no pads left. Realised last night over on Gibbet Hill. made me ride a lot faster!!!
Went to LBS earlier and embarrassed myself further by explaining that front shifter was a bit dodgy. Turns out it was broken in recent crash. 😳 fair to say that I am a total numpty when it comes to anything mildly technical with a bike!!!
Do we all have some sort of personal accident insurance we could claim against for a similar injury (assuming no one else at fault)?
Bigjim get a grip. How is it trying to ruin anyone?
I'm honoured to receive the attention from the stw morals big hitters. The guy says he's been thinking about it for years and now he's having to stand up in court to defend himself against these accusations against him and his business because someone else fell off their push bike and got unlucky and wants lots of money because of it. I doubt he's going to get a reasonable insurance quote again as well as having his reputation trawled through the mud. I hope he's able to keep on as an instructor, though why anyone would want to when you risk this nonsense I'm not sure.
medical, professional, life (with critical care), travel and mortgage insurance policies which all provide elements of cover for life changing injuries,
Life insurance policies (and Personal Accident) cannot recover amounts paid under the rule of subrogation. It's possible that other elements of his losses have been paid under indemnity contracts and the insurers are trying to recover the monies, but I suspect it's his outlay he's trying to recover (based on gut feel and the awful reporting).
It's not arbitration either - this is a court hearing and arbitration is ADR.
BTW for any people offering services out there, your standard 1-2 million policies are probably not enough these days. Even 10m possibly won't cover it. Many councils are at 25-30m limits on employers' liability now to give you a idea of how much claims are expected to be at the top end (see Agnes Collier for an extreme idea).
I've seen hillier snooker tables
65m of drop - not huge but it's definitely a hill. You're Northern, aren't you?
Anyway - wondering about the implications of the fact that the instructor has not made the trails, and is not therefore responsible for them.
If you are an outdoor centre and you make a shoddy high ropes course that fails, that's your fault. If you are a climbing instructor and a big piece of rock falls off - that's really not, is it?
So this is somewhere in between I think.
He did the run more than once, this would mean to me he could judge what was appropriate himself.
He is after all well educated.
If it was a blind run and he felt pressured into it, and it was not appropriate for his skill base that's another matter.
Jedi didn't tell me to do anything...he just used some freaky mind trick.
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.
This... Anyone who ever sees anything they know about reported knows Journalists [i]always [/i]get it wrong, and yet we believe them about other stuff. Why?
Yes - I have broken my pelvis in a Bomb hole in Friston, and my son broke his wrist on BKB - and we wouldn't have dreamed of sueing any one. Even if it had been under instruction. But we can still walk.
In the end this ain't personal or punitive, it is the way our insurance and legal system works to try and help people with genuine and expensive disabilities. IANAL but sometimes it is too easy to make Lawyer jokes.
Am I right that this has taken 4 years to get to this point i.e. to court?
[i]The beginners skills course, costing £79, was designed to help riders tackle more "technically demanding terrain in a safe and controlled manner".
the QC told the court: "A mountain bike rider who is on a course for beginners and is a novice should not be catastrophically injured in the first 75 minutes of an introductory training course.
"A novice rider on a first training course should expect the instructor to pick the terrain, to pick the course, to pick the method of training so the risk is minimised, so this accident should not have occurred.
"The accident occurred because of defective instruction and defective teaching."[/i]
To me, what's shite is the QC using bullshit to try to win the case instead of straight facts. The rider wanted to tackle "technically demanding terrain" and you can't do that without riding some. And it's not like a cycling instructor can take you down riding backwards like a ski instructor would.
As has previously been mentioned - no winners here.
I like to think that I wouldn't sue an instructor if something like this happened to me - but to be honest, I can see how my life view might change if I were confined to a wheelchair. I don't know for sure, of course.
The fact that he could be obliged to do this by his insurance company is also worth considering.
The other smaller elephant in the room is the nature of the built trail that the accident happened on - on second thoughts, probably best to leave that line of thought in the box...............
I reckon the injured lads insurers and lawyers would have worked out who to sue, the landowner or the instructor. My guess is the instructor is an easier target as he may have less resources to manage the case against him and was urging the injured lad to give it a go. The landowner might have far greater resources to defend this. Its one of those horrible things where the pawns are people and the outcome is an insurance payout behind closed doors.
Anyone have any pics or video of the bomb hole pre-softening?
Was this it?
18 and or 39 seconds...
...42 seconds?
Edited as original still is wrong I think
Obviously we're just getting it through the lens of the press but the way the case is being pursued seems to be outright dishonest- the experienced novice, the "ride technically demanding terrain" course that shouldn't have included technically demanding terrain"... etc. It's like a STW thread.
Looking at the videos it looks like pretty flat single track, if you fall off on that then you can only really blame yourself, im sure most of us have had stupid accidents where we've done the wrong thing, I certainly have, be it carrying too much speed into a corner or not concentrating and take a stupid line.. im not sure how an instructor can prevent a pupil doing something daft.
[quote=molgrips ]So this is somewhere in between I think.
Of course - which is why it's in court because it's not clear one way or the other. If it was as clear cut that the instructor wasn't negligent as some seem to think then it wouldn't have got this far.
[quote=Northwind ]the experienced novice, the "ride technically demanding terrain" course that shouldn't have included technically demanding terrain"
I thought I'd covered the experienced / novice thing up there. Clearly Sir Brad was an experienced cyclist but novice cyclo cross rider in 2002
Clearly a novice at riding technically demanding terrain needs something to push them, but you don't send them straight down a black run - I suspect any confusion there is due to poor reporting.
The instructor from what I understand might be insured through a cycling organization.
The drop has completely flattened out out the last 12 years.
The guy had already fallen off the bike once on that part of the trail and he still took the same line.
aracer - MemberI thought I'd covered the experienced / novice thing up there. Clearly Sir Brad was an experienced cyclist but novice cyclo cross rider in 2002
Not the same at all, the claim is that he was an "experienced mountain biker" and also "a novice rider". They're simple contradictions.
I also covered that one earlier - experienced mountain biker might mean on gravel fireroads and probably does to most people, the novice claim is in relation to "rough terrain" and "descents".
I thought I'd covered the experienced / novice thing up there. Clearly Sir Brad was an experienced cyclist but novice cyclo cross rider in 2002
Shall we all bow to your expertise in this manner or are you going to accept some of us maybe correct? If not, you might as well have this thread to yourself.
Let's hope there's some reporting of the case as it progresses, to save us this pointless bickering.
I also covered that one earlier - experienced mountain biker might mean on gravel fireroads and probably does to most people, the novice claim is in relation to "rough terrain" and "descents".
No! That would be "experienced" in riding on fire roads and tracks. Experienced mountainbiker would mean something along the lines of having ridden regularly in all types of MTB terrain and is skilled in the necessary techniques.
According to this forum maybe, but we already covered that one too...
Buckster - You're right on the second one. It's flattened out by the camera but it's a steep-ish rooty roll in. Nothing to trouble someone experienced, nerve wracking for a newbie.
2 minutes! come on mods!
Any time you keep saying "I covered this earlier" but people don't agree, I think you should consider that maybe you've not covered it in a way other people think is right. So just saying "I covered it" again doesn't really achieve much unless you give it some thought.
So frinstance,
aracer - MemberI also covered that one earlier - experienced mountain biker might mean on gravel fireroads and probably does to most people, the novice claim is in relation to "rough terrain" and "descents".
This is a massive leap of faith, especially as the solicitor says ""A mountain bike rider who is on a course for beginners and is a novice"- nothing specific to "rough terrain" or "descents". Essentially you've decided what it must mean, without anything to support it.
Think you're wasting your time Northwind 🙂
Let's hope there's some reporting of the case as it progresses, to save us this pointless bickering.
On the contrary. Sad story, crap misleading article, no winners and debate that runs the risk of descending to a poor level. Let's hope the story dies quickly and that the injured parties get their just results.
Another thing to think about when riding BKB now!!
There's no debate "aracer" is right - we're wrong!
I went on a basic skillz course last year, I've been MTBing since 1993.
Just thought Id chip in, I have no real opinion at the moment.
Quite an interesting case though, for an insurancer like myself.
[quote=Northwind ]Any time you keep saying "I covered this earlier" but people don't agree, I think you should consider that maybe you've not covered it in a way other people think is right.
When I've replied in that way it's been to comments which seem to have ignored previous explanations rather than explaining why they're wrong. We did already do that in the world outside STW an experienced mountain biker doesn't mean quite the same as we mean here, and given I got several people agreeing with me then it seems it was explained well enough. I'm not seeing people disagree with explanations given earlier, simply repeating of previous comments which have been answered.
This is a massive leap of faith, especially as the solicitor says ""A mountain bike rider who is on a course for beginners and is a novice"- nothing specific to "rough terrain" or "descents". Essentially you've decided what it must mean, without anything to support it.
It says in the article 'Although experienced in cycling and mountain biking, he was a novice to "rough terrain" and "descents".', which is where I was getting that from - not my words, and that supports my explanation quite well.
Wrong side of bed this morning, cyclelife?
No, just fed up of reading self opinionated posts.
Looking at the videos it looks like pretty flat single track
It's not a steep trail as such but it's downhill enough to pick up a big head of speed, falling on which is much more dangerous than going OTB at 3mph on a steep nadgery bit.
Feel free to provide a coherent argument why I'm wrong, cyclelife.
I'm starting from the assumption that a top barrister does have a coherent argument when he's appearing in court.
My thoughts/opinions are posted above for all to see, they mostly disagree with yours. The way you present your opinions as being THE only correct ones is what's winding a few of us up.
None of us know what happened that day and we don't have many facts at all other than some guy on a course crashed.
It will be interesting to read the judgement about where responsibility lies. And any worth while debate will only happen after it has been issued.
wow chill pills all round
The way you present your opinions as being correct is what's winding a few of us up.
Do people present their opinions as being incorrect normally?
Thanks THM edited post.
Well they're my opinions, but if you're going to repeat previous claims and basically ignore my comments rather than explain why they're wrong, then you can't be that surprised at me simply repeating my replies or referring you to earlier ones. I am at least trying to justify my opinions...
Do people present their opinions as being incorrect normally?
It's not specified but is assumed in chewk's case, I believe.
I think it's best we wait to see the facts. Saying he's in the wrong because of his own job or he must be an ambulance chaser is bloody weird. I hope you don't serve on court jury's.
Dunno if its been covered - I've only skimmed the thread but negligence has a very specific meaning in law and in cases like this negligence must be shown for there to be a payout. ( lawyers please correct my laymans blunders)
In this case it all rests on the instructors competence - and did he have the level of skills, knowledge and experience we would expect an instructor to have? and also were his instructions reasonable for a person professing to have that skill?
Its an odd thing. He would be held and rightly so to a higher standard than someone who was taking less experienced pals out as he is claiming to be an expert. However so long as the instructors actions would seem reasonable ( not necessarily perfect) for someone claiming to be a mountainbike instructor the there is no negligence.