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...
Except that isn't what happens - I know this because the last time I saw Jedi I had the intention of getting gaps sorted as my technique was fairly decent and it was simply a question of the right mindset. He could see that I had the physical skills to ride the smaller (6', 8', 9') gaps but the decision was left to me and my headspace was not in the right place, so we moved onto other skills.
I've only ridden Barry's a few times some years back, when I was a relatively novice rider. I recall finding some of the steep rolls difficult and intimidating, though I'm sure I wouldn't blink an eye at them now. I suspect this instructor was in the wrong because he was trying to teach basic techniques on a complex bit of trail.
You have to break things down to the basics - learn steeps, learn handling rough surfaces, learn handling slippery roots, etc etc separately. Once each skill is properly instilled then start putting multiple skills together. I've done a bit of informal coaching of beginners and they quickly become overwhelmed, panic and whatever technique they had goes out of the window. The skill as a coach is to be able to read how they are reacting to the challenges.
This is where a dedicated progressive coaching area like Jedi's at Hertshore is invaluable - you reduce the random factor as low as possible and are able to focus on techniques individually. Natural feeling trails aren't like that - although the main feature may be a steep roll-in, it could be preceded by a difficult entry, followed by a difficult exit or have other challenging details within it. Occasionally people get hurt at Herts but in my eyes Jedi has gone above and beyond to minimise the risks whilst coaching what many consider an extreme sport.
The problem i have is that the end result, the paralysis of the guy being instructed, is pretty much entirely unconnected with the actual crash that caused it.
Unfortunately chance, or luck, or what ever you want to call it, plays a big part. I.E. it's possible to fall off a bike an paralyse yourself just about anywhere and on any feature. I've seen people go OTB just riding across a flat car park for example.
Had the instructor sent the guy off a massive double, or huge drop Ramapage stylee, then yes, imo, he would be negligent, but otherwise, we HAVE to accept that people are going to fall off their bike when under tuition, and as a result, in a very small number of cases, that could result in serious injury. That element of "common sense" is now, according to this court ruling, uncommon.
The only other option is that the instructor must ENSURE their pupils can NEVER fall off their bike, under any circumstances, which being impossible, prevents them from instructing.
Personal responsibility has taken another dive. Namely, if you ride your bike you need to be responsible for yourself. You need to be aware you could suffer life changing injuries at any time. If you are not able to be responsible, then you should simply stop riding your bike. The fault here lies firmly at the riders feet imo.
I suspect the only reason it got to court is that the guide's insurance company made a stupidly low offer and the victim knew he stoop a good chance of a more realistic payout by going to court.
I have a sports and "accidents de la vie" cover for the three of us. If I had an accident whilst riding with a guide I would expect my insurance company to attack the guide to recover some of the payout from his insurance. If the payment seemed inadequate then I'd go to court.
It's just the way the world goes around and berating either the guide or the victim is pointless. It happened and there's a system to deal with the consequences (that seems to work).
Everyone is missing the point and second guessing here*.
The court, having heard the evidence, which will have included expert witnesses, decided that the instructor had failed in his duty of care, and awarded damages, which his insurers will pay. It's what PL insurance is for.
* Hypocrisy alert - I suspect that the insurers felt that the circumstances were such that it was worth the additional costs of running the case to court to see if he might be found not liable. If you are looking at the wrong end of £3-4 million, a few hundred thousand is probably worth running it to court, given the contentious nature of the circumstances.
If you are being instructed you put your trust into the instructor otherwise how do you learn?
Some people are struggling with the concept of what the instructors insurance was for.
He had an accident whilst under the instruction of a professional and had paid for his services.the insurance isn't there for fluffy dusters.
It's nothing personal it's business/insurance. The customer didn't go after the instructors home and all his belongings. Alot of the bike spouted misses the point of being insured and paying for someones services.
The fact that it was examined thoroughly in court and found 80:20 speaks some volumes. The insurance company wouldn't have gone to court lightly armed. They'd have had the best to hope they'd win and mitigate or avoid payout.
If you ever deal with an insurance company you'd know how they riggle.
The problem i have is that the end result, the paralysis of the guy being instructed, is pretty much entirely unconnected with the actual crash that caused it.
Unfortunately chance, or luck, or what ever you want to call it, plays a big part. I.E. it's possible to fall off a bike an paralyse yourself just about anywhere and on any feature. I've seen people go OTB just riding across a flat car park for example.......The only other option is that the instructor must ENSURE their pupils can NEVER fall off their bike, under any circumstances, which being impossible, prevents them from instructing.
Yes, this outcome was unlucky. But the judge's ruling does not mean that anyone paralysed when being coached is entitled to such a payout. As I stated above, I am doubtful that the instructor correctly gauged the client's skill level and overly challenged him with too complex and demanding a section of trail.
"The problem i have is that the end result, the paralysis of the guy being instructed, is pretty much entirely unconnected with the actual crash that caused it."
Again are you party to the full judgement?
Is the guy still coaching? I believe one story said he was. I'd actually be interested to see how he coaches although this might have changed in 4 years even without a looming court case.
[quote=maxtorque ]The problem i have is that the end result, the paralysis of the guy being instructed, is pretty much entirely unconnected with the actual crash that caused it.
Maybe I'm completely misunderstanding the situation, but there appears to be quite a big correlation.
Unfortunately chance, or luck, or what ever you want to call it, plays a big part.
We did this one earlier - yes there is luck involved, arguably the instructor was lucky not to have a similar incident before.
Had the instructor sent the guy off a massive double, or huge drop Ramapage stylee, then yes, imo, he would be negligent
So just how big a jump would it need to be for negligence? 1m, 3m, 10m?
I don't think you understand this case at all - it says nothing about whether riders have are responsible for themselves as you seem to think, it's simply about whether the instructor followed all the proper steps before sending the rider into a risky situation - and the court ruled that he didn't.
I note that the rider was found 20% responsible if that makes you any happier.
[quote=MoreCashThanDash ]* Hypocrisy alert - I suspect that the insurers felt that the circumstances were such that it was worth the additional costs of running the case to court to see if he might be found not liable. If you are looking at the wrong end of £3-4 million, a few hundred thousand is probably worth running it to court, given the contentious nature of the circumstances.
That's an interesting point - for all those getting worked up over this, I wonder how many cases there are which haven't made it to court (I had a personal injury claim due to a mountain biking accident which was settled before making it that far - nothing to do with instruction, though I'm going into no more detail - so sue me <irony alert>).
I wonder how many cases there are which haven't made it to court
Quite a few I'd imagine. And I suspect a few have been to court but received no publicity because the injury and costs were relatively minor, or because the instructor was not found liable.
[s]Ambulance chasers[/s] My learned friends are very careful about the kind of cases they want to publicise. It has a close correlation with their ability to earn fees from the process.
It appears to me that the instructor took the rider at his word. That is the negligent piece. Very session with new riders needs an assessment of competence. As cha****ng mentioned. It is standard procedure. If I coach anyone off-road and I'm not a BC off road approved coach yet, I take riders around the green route at Swinley. Even the ride from the car park can tell the experienced coach enough.
Just a tragic case all round. There are no winners here.
I shall probably be involved in an even more tragic case next year 🙁
"It appears to me that the instructor took the rider at his word."
Where are you getting the information from?
That is one of the less controversial claims on this thread, hora. It's not necessarily 100% true, but given the result of the case and the purported reason for the judgement there is at least a whiff of truth to it.
I suspect it might not quite be that clearcut, but clearly the court found that he didn't sufficiently assess the rider's ability.
I sincerely hope that the offending grassy clump now has a large warning sign.
Whole thing got flattened out years ago, just after the accident.
Isn't assessing the riders capability a continuous process? Therefore, any time the coach was watching the rider prior to the accident, he was (or could have been) assessing his abilities.
Aracer I'd like to see the wording rather than a whiff or adding in/padding out an easily created story of good (instructor and big insurance company) .v. Disabled vulnerable lad.
(See what I did there? ...I too can add angles into a scant story).
The report does state that when they arrived at BKB the instructor deemed that they were ready for it. Which I does imply continuous assessment. If it m hones I think mr Maclean has got a raw deal. There is no evidence from his other pupils presented, which would be important to establish progression during the session. I also wonder whether he had the necessary risk assessment form, post session assessment form, and other documentation I collect before, during and after a session on rider past skills and experience.
I am genuinely struggling to see where the negligent act was here. Documentation and risk assessment is one area, rider assessment and briefing another, rate of progression another. But the evidence presented suggests he had been assessed and briefed, any past declared experience and riding on the day should cover that. Which to me leaves rate of progression; was the activity being asked suitable? The court decided not, largely I think based on the outcome of accident, which could have occurred on any ground with a sudden stop. Just unfortunate all round.
It's an interesting point if no other persons on the course were called to give evidence?
Certainly would leave room for an appeal i suspect (and yet more costs / more lawyers getting richer.....)
TiRed:
Imply
Suggest
I think
Again not very concrete words and how do you know this for certainty from limited media reporting?
Obviously my points have suppositions, since I wasn't at the hearing. But I know what coaching entails and the hoops one needs to jump through to be covered.
Reading this
[url= http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2016/2798.html ]Court Summary[/url]
does throw a different light on it.
Anyone have any images of the drop that's actually being discussed?
That does make for interesting reading
It makes for interesting yet VERY disturbing reading... I could be more against this judgment after reading that... it's just... wrong.
Onzadog - Member
Anyone have any images of the drop that's actually being discussed?
It used to be more rooty/rocky and a sharp drop/roll, but got flattened out and most pictures now you see of it will be quite smooth. It was never that difficult but enough for us to warn about it to new riders in our group. As it is now there's no need to warn.
I thought it was still the sharper drop when the accident happened, but then looking at Hurtwood Trail's picture of some maintenance in Dec 2011 it looks flattened there. Though can't see the start of the roll further left. The accident happened in March 2012.
[url= http://hurtwoodtrails.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/p1020075.jp g" target="_blank">http://hurtwoodtrails.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/p1020075.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
http://hurtwoodtrails.co.uk/179/trail-maintenance-day-11th-december/
As a note, there's really only one line down and no instructor would be encouraging a more technical line as there isn't one. This would simply be off the brakes and roll. Don't need weight back far, but not way over the front obviously.
Thanks for posting - it is interesting. I went on a course on same terrain in order to overcome a different but similar block (too embarrassed to say which one, but only marginally trickier than the drop on BKB at the time.) Like the claimant, I too stopped at the top and had a wobble. The instructor encouraged me to use more speed, remember the technique and just GFI. So perhaps he was just as bad an instructor (?) or was just lucky - like me.
Sad case.
Onza, the drop has been made easier since this incident. It was a short, rollable drop with a couple of rocks at the top. Essentially, a mental challenge and one that once ridden once becomes natural. I am not sure how an instructor is at fault if claimant decided to avoid the actual trail though?
No winners there.
Reading that court summary, I'm puzzled. Maybe my memory of the thing at the time is hazy but I've only really known people take one route down it. Maybe I just never noticed there was another option.
[I]41. Daniel Browne had been asked to research the internet for any observations which may have been posted concerning the mountain bike trails in the vicinity of Holmbury Hill, and in particular BKB. He had been able to locate a forum which appeared to be discussing the slope where the accident occurred, which included comments, by fellow mountain bike riders, that it may be unsuitable for novice riders.[/I]
I wonder which forum? ! I would assume that "evidence"(?) would have to have been taken prior to any of the discussion since the case was announced.
[I]Mr MacKay said that just as ski trails are graded in terms of the skills required to complete them, so too are mountain bike trails, and that in 2012 BKB was apparently designated as a green trail. He said that, although there is no one official designator of such grading, Trailforks, which is a recognised body, currently rates BKB as being a blue trail[/I]
Trailforks? ! I know it has gradings on there but it's voluntary information. I've submitted gradings for trails on there. It's just accepted by some moderator in the US who has no idea what the trail is. "A recognised body"? - It's a spin off Strava-like site off Pinkbike!
IIRC some people had created a slightly different line on the RHS, but no, the main line was pretty hard not to follow. By the sound of the ruling, the claimant ended up going off into the crap on the LHS of your photo.
Trailforks generally has local moderators for mountain biking honeypots. They contact the local trail association (or equivalent) and ask them to double-check any submissions from members of the public. It's not perfect but it's better than many similar sites.
Have to admit that the ruminations on a forum and something like Trailforks being used as some sort of fact finding evidence for want of a better word is disturbing.
After reading that I can't help think that both the claimant and defendant had poor misjudgment.
Furthermore the format of that skills course is a bit disconcerting " It was due to last for a period of 6 hours, commencing at 10am and finishing at 4pm" - I've done a few skills courses and frankly after about 2 hrs I'm mentally exhausted. Taking beginners out for a 6 hr skills course and starting with that old down slope on BKB seems ill advised.
Shame and tragic really that it all ended the way it did. Hope there are lessons learnt from this incident.
The testimony of Kerry Turnock shows who's at fault in my view.
Sounds like it was ignored. Very disturbing, though admittedly I haven't read it all.
In deadkenny's pic - the forked tree in the middle used to be on part of the track didn't it? I seem to recall crashing into that tree when I first went down BKB. It was a lot less groomed back then.
is it the drop 15 secs in ?
Yes
Klunk - Yeah, that's the one.
Actually I can see the left line now. I've just never considered that as an option. Been riding it since 2009.
[i]Yeah, that's the one.[/i]
Not the one I was thinking of then. That's down near the road.
Poor bloke, having read the court summary it seems a little more clear.
I guess that sort of situation is what insurance is for and hopefully something like that doesn't happen in the future.
Just cos I'm nosey were the "tamings" of BKB carried out as a result of the accident?
Having read that summary, I must admit to being puzzled how the judge arrived at his conclusion.
In summary, I consider that, having failed to carry out an adequate assessment of the claimantnt's individual skill level at the commencement of the course, he thereafter progressed the tuition which he provided to the group, without sufficient regard to the claimant's capabilities; in that he failed to make sufficient assessments of the claimant's ability to undertake the skills he was being taught, failed to teach the skills required to negotiate the slope where the accident took place in safety, and thereafter permitted the claimant to attempt to negotiate the descent of the slope down the main route, and, on his second descent, encouraged him to do so at a speed which was likely to enhance the risk of serious harm being caused to him.
Which is pretty much what I had surmised above. Progression rate was deemed negligent in the absence of a formal assessment.
Nice summary at the end too:
I am aware that since then the defendant has continued to provide mountain bike instruction and training, and have no reason to believe that he has done so in anything but a satisfactory manner.
the judge seems to have a right hard on for Mr Mackay, having dismissed everyone elses opinion.
also to compare it to
is wrong, two sports, completely different, with different rules and learning curve..Foskett J. in Anderson v Lyotier
I can't find anything significant to disagree with in that judgement.
The scrutiny of professionals following a terrible incident like this does tend to pick out any weaknesses and amplify them. It's a good opportunity for those guiding and teaching relatively inexperienced riders to check over their own practice and sharpen it up as required.
I hope that the compensation will help the bloke live as full a life as possible.
Strikes me that if one of the trainees is able to recognise that the injured chap wasn't really up to it then the instructor should as well.
I hope the forensic engineer did slightly more than indicated for his shilling.
The fellow course mates evidence was pretty damning. The instructor attempted to get the claimant to negotiate that drop with only an hours riding, most of which was fire road and riding over some sticks. Knowing the area it was the first actual feature they would have come across. For a beginner course thats pretty surprising and very concerning so I can understand why the decision went the way it did.
We really need to remember that we have experience riding bikes. To us BKB is a piece of piss but that drop would have been alarming to any novice.
A sorry tale indeed. The instructor had honest intentions and likely just wanted to help, it's not as if he was trying to hurt anyone. From what I've read he appears to be a nice guy so its unfortunate this has happened to him, but only one of them is in a wheel chair.
Mr Ahmed has got his compensation which must not be in anyway comparable to losing the loss of his legs.
But at least it serves a wake up call to instructors to do their jobs properly.
[quote=tuskaloosa ]After reading that I can't help think that both the claimant and defendant had poor misjudgment.
That seems a reasonable conclusion. Such a conclusion also makes the judgement quite reasonable - the poor judgement of the claimant is irrelevant to whether the defendant was negligent (though was allocated 20% blame).
I don't think there is anything in that judgement which is going to kill off the industry either - or even the defendant's business. Based on the description given there I'd happily take a skills course with him despite agreeing that he was to blame!
The problem i have is that you can't use the actual end result of this unusual, and isolated case to drive normal tuition. It seems clear that the claimant basically wobbled down the slope the first time, having braked at the top, lost his balance and basically been out of control by the sound of it.
At that point two out comes where possible:
1) The actual outcome. Instructor suggests "a little more speed and confidence" which the claimant agrees with, re-runs and then crashes resulting in the claimants injury.
or
2) The instructor terminates the tuition of the claimant after the first pass, and moves onto a less severe terrain. No injury results, but if this was the case every time someone had a bit of a wobble on a bike during tuition, well, you'd never learn anything.
So the problem i have with 2) is that if one followed the "i didn't make it the first time, so lets give up now" strategy we'd never be any good at anything! And then we have the fact that the Claimant, having known he made a right mess of the first run, went back for the repeat try at his own valediction.
I can't see how this was anything more than 50:50, but tbh, given the innate risks of MTBing, i'd say it was the claimants responsibility to ensure his own safety.....
I think most people which know the area and how that roll in was at the time, will agree that the judgement seems fair.
There is a tendency for courts faced with a person in a wheelchair/life charging injuries to be sympathetic. Judges are human and providing the case allows for a favourable outcome to the plaintiff they tend to drift that way.
I agree with maxtourque, I can't see the the instructor doing much more than he did. The guy has a bit if a wobble on the first try, you make some suggestions ( all of which were correct IMHO ). The defendant tries again, because thats how everyone has ever learned, he falls with hugely unlucky and tragic results. It seems to me that the judge has leaped at the defendant's expert witnesses evidence. Why because it allowed him to arrive at a justifiably favourably verdict for the plaintiff. Without being in the position of having to make a judgment I'd probably gone the other way, but I can understand why the judge arrived at the conclusion he did.
Except you're missing the point. He should [i]never[/i] have been riding that so soon into a skills course for a beginner. He could have not done it but he had paid the instructor to make a judgement that it was suitable. He was also apportioned some of the blame which reflects the fact he could have not done it. But it always comes back to the fact the skills course was woefully inadequate that day.
That's ignoring that the instructor, upon witnessing the first crash advised him to do it again with more speed! He shouldn't have been doing it to start with.
Also remember they are making a decision on negligence here rather than just who is to blame.
And while I agree to an extent that if you dont ride it then you'll never learn, it should be a controlled environment, at a suitable level of difficulty for the skills of the pupil.
Any video's you may have seen do not do that roll in justice as to what it was like.
Just out of interest I looked at an old GoPro I took in May 11 and there is no line to the left of the split tree and the 'chicken' line is so far over to the right I have never noticed it until now. So I assume the left one had just formed in the year up to the accident.
Sorry joefm we'll have to agree to disagree. The defendant's expert said it was fine, as he would. But in the end I come from a background that doesn't require anyone to hold my hand. I make my own decisions good or bad. I find it difficult to understand why anyone would need instruction on how to ride a bicycle on a bit of dirt. I also realise others have completely different views to myself about just about everything.
It's why I come on here, to find out about other view's and try and understand them. I must admit that I often think this forum is largely populated by strange thinking aliens as some of the opinions are so removed from mine. 😀
[quote=maxtorque ]2) The instructor terminates the tuition of the claimant after the first pass, and moves onto a less severe terrain. No injury results, but if this was the case every time someone had a bit of a wobble on a bike during tuition, well, you'd never learn anything.
The judgement appears to be saying that not only is that the correct course of action, but that the tuition should have been on less severe terrain in the first place. The considered opinion of the experts on tuition is that at the level of a total beginners course (which is what this was) you should be learning skills on less severe terrain first, and that it's perfectly reasonable to learn those skills on such terrain. Which doesn't affect what happens on more advanced courses at all - even if this judgement formed any sort of legal precedent, it has been framed very tightly in the wording only to apply to beginners' courses. Clearly there is a point where you have to go for it on harder stuff, but it's hard to disagree with the ruling that this wasn't the time.
As I said before, I'd happily go on a course with this chap, as it doesn't appear that his failings at teaching total beginners would have any relevance at higher levels (though I'm sure he also does things a bit differently now). I have to wonder, there being no such thing as bad publicity, whether he'll actually benefit from this in the long term!
I appreciated you will disagree. I started at the age of 8 and have never been taught anything either - courses werent around back then! I'm also quite happy with my abilities and have always tried to progress even though I was faster years ago - I suck at enduro...! I broke my back once as well and never blamed anyone.
But I'm not in a wheel chair.
Some people feel they need to go on courses rather than learn things by trial and error. They may not have the friends or knowledge of routes to take and at his age i would say it was sensible. And if they book on a course then it should be appropriately run with a proper duty of care.
Agree with taxi25! I mean making stuff up to support your view, is frankly, odd.
[i]upon witnessing the first crash [/i]...
I think most people which know the area and how that roll in was at the time, will agree that the judgement seems fair.
-1
the more I read - especially the summing up - the less fair it seems to me
DezB - Member
Agree with taxi25! I mean making stuff up to support your view, is frankly, odd.
upon witnessing the first crash ...
Apologies, I misread it. He almost fell it seems. Doesn't change my opinion that they were doing that far too early.
Sorry mate, but it's not the first time that's been said in this thread!
When I compare the instructor's own account pasted below of the events of the day and the programme, with chiefgrooveguru's description earlier on this thread of a skills course (C&P at the bottom), there seems to be a huge gulf in quality, standards and professionalism between the courses.
The instructor's account describes a lot of him just telling the riders what they should do, whereas I would expect instruction to be followed by repeated drills, closely watched by the instructor. The instructor's observation of the riders also sounds poor, e.g. "He would look back towards the group from time to time" and "The defendant said that as he was ascending Holmbury Hill he would look back at the group to observe them" (for that matter, why even mention your observation of riders going up a [I presume] non-technical climb?).
The whole structure of the course sounds flawed, essentially forcing a skills training day to fit a (not apparently very suitable) 15 mile course. I imagine it would be possible with very careful selection to choose a course that would suit a progressive skills training day, but it does not sound like this was it, e.g. "he conceded that he hadn't taught the group to perform emergency braking, as this was something which he intended to teach them at a later stage of the course."
Exactly as chiefgrooveguru describes, I would have expected much of a skills course to be spent at least initially in a small area with lots of examples of the various terrain features with varying levels of difficulty to practice skills on, which the instructor could select from to match his/her assessment of rider performance and progression, allowing riders to practice lots of drills under close observation. Then maybe finish the day by riding a not too demanding course where it would be possible to put those new skills into use.
Some of those saying that the instructor should not have been held liable by the court, seem to be judging the instructor by the sort of advice/tuition/encouragement that might be given by a more experienced rider to another in a group of friends out for a ride. This is a very different situation: when someone takes money to provide professional tuition and advertises themself as a qualified professional instructor, they have to work to much higher standards. In a group of friends, riders will be able to make their own judgement about taking advice from another rider. With an instructor, whom you may have never previously met, you are trusting them to be competent and relying on their judgement - which should be much better than yours - of what you should attempt.
He said that at the beginning of each course, he would check the bikes which the participants had brought with them, and there is no reason to believe that he didn't do this on the course which the claimant had attended in March 2012. Moreover, he specifically highlighted the advice contained in the written check list, that if any of the participants had any doubts about riding their bikes on the course, that they should walk. He said that before they set off, he would explain to the course participants that they were going to cover about 15 miles during the day, and that he would demonstrate the various skills which they were to learn at various points along the way. He said that the claimant's accident occurred after the group had been riding for over an hour, and by then he had demonstrated and discussed the basic principles of gear choice, body positions for ascending and descending, keeping the pedals level, controlled braking and the need for the rider to keep his chin up in order to focus on the trail ahead of him. He denied having instructed the claimant to focus his sight about 2 metres in front of his bike, as this would be insufficiently far ahead in order to enable him to avoid obstacles along the trail. However, he conceded that he hadn't taught the group to perform emergency braking, as this was something which he intended to teach them at a later stage of the course.The defendant said that as he was ascending Holmbury Hill he would look back at the group to observe them, and he also instructed them how to negotiate channels crossing the track. At the top of the hill they all stopped, and he told them that they should normally be in the middle gear, and about the need to brake smoothly to avoid locking the wheels. He told them that they shouldn't be afraid of using the front brakes, and that they should adopt a position with their weight towards the back of their bikes. He told them that this would also assist them when lifting the handle bars in order to negotiate obstacles on the tracks, which was a precursor to the "bunny hop" technique. He told them that there would be protruding tree roots on the track down from the summit of the hill, and that they should approach them with caution, positioning their feet evenly on the pedals.
The defendant stated that after a reasonably flat section, the track then starts to descend, parts of it quite steeply; although in the main, it was reasonably wide due to it being a fire road, there were parts which were single track. He said that prior to commencing on this section, he would reiterate the instruction which he had provided about body positioning, braking and the field of vision. He would look back towards the group from time to time, and at the bottom at Radnor Road, he asked them how they were coping and nobody indicated that they were having any problems.
The defendant said that after Radnor Road, they crossed over, and commenced the descent, down BKB towards the slope where the accident occurred. When they arrived at the top of the slope they dismounted, and he indicated that there were two routes down. He said that the route on the right was slightly less steep, but that he had demonstrated how to descend down the main slope, at a slow and controlled speed, using his brakes, and with his weight towards the rear of his bike. He agreed that whilst they were at the top of the slope, other mountain bike riders arrived and rode down the main slope at greater speed. His instruction to the group had been that they shouldn't slam their brakes on and thereby risk locking the bike's wheels.
chiefgrooveguru - Member
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...Except that isn't what happens - I know this because the last time I saw Jedi I had the intention of getting gaps sorted as my technique was fairly decent and it was simply a question of the right mindset. He could see that I had the physical skills to ride the smaller (6', 8', 9') gaps but the decision was left to me and my headspace was not in the right place, so we moved onto other skills.
I've only ridden Barry's a few times some years back, when I was a relatively novice rider. I recall finding some of the steep rolls difficult and intimidating, though I'm sure I wouldn't blink an eye at them now. I suspect this instructor was in the wrong because he was trying to teach basic techniques on a complex bit of trail.
You have to break things down to the basics - learn steeps, learn handling rough surfaces, learn handling slippery roots, etc etc separately. Once each skill is properly instilled then start putting multiple skills together. I've done a bit of informal coaching of beginners and they quickly become overwhelmed, panic and whatever technique they had goes out of the window. The skill as a coach is to be able to read how they are reacting to the challenges.
This is where a dedicated progressive coaching area like Jedi's at Hertshore is invaluable - you reduce the random factor as low as possible and are able to focus on techniques individually. Natural feeling trails aren't like that - although the main feature may be a steep roll-in, it could be preceded by a difficult entry, followed by a difficult exit or have other challenging details within it. Occasionally people get hurt at Herts but in my eyes Jedi has gone above and beyond to minimise the risks whilst coaching what many consider an extreme sport.
15miles for a beginners course seems long.
As for that bombhole, yes it could catch people out. Teach people emergency braking? Surely before you set off you ascertain basic skills even if it's quick?
The bombhole was fairly shallow even by 2011 as can be seen in this old vid of mine (24secs). In fact I appear to drop off it rather than roll in. Unless he rode the steeper line on the left that existed for a while and would be appear to include clumps of grass.
The suggestion certainly seems to be that he was off line to the left.
. He told them that there would be protruding tree roots on the track down from the summit of the hill, and that they should approach them with caution, positioning their feet evenly on the pedals.
Feet level on the pedals over roots?
Basics say heels down to unweight the front and stop an OTB when a weighted front wheel hits an obstacle.. Body positioning does the rest, too far forward, arms locked out and a death grip while on the brakes, I'd say with that kind of instruction an accident was inevitable.
Just bad luck the poor burger landed as he did
upon witnessing the first crash advised him to do it again with more speed! He shouldn't have been doing it to start with.
Quite easy to misinterpret that until you realize the claiment was riding sub-walking speed.
But after reading the report am leaning more toward feeling the outcome was reasonable than before.
Feet level on the pedals over roots?
Pedals level rather than one-up/one-down. That's good advice.
Most people at a real basic level find this hard and will repeatedly put all their weight on one foot and therefore ride with that foot down.
Trying to teach a "heels-down" position at this stage is trying to teach people to run before they can walk and is just going to confuse them.
While I'd agree pedal dipping in cornering is a very advanced technique, I'd argue body position, attack position and when to alter weight with heel position and why is of the utmost importance to riders venturing on tough terrain for the first time, or the first time under instruction
Which are all things which can be taught on less steep terrain - in fact better taught on less steep terrain.
It really isn't that steep. It's just it was a very short but sharp roll.
I'm no instructor, but maybe not the first thing you'd tackle but even for beginners I'd expect them to cope with BKB with a beginner MTB lesson and maybe not even the final goal of the lesson. Though BKB is probably not ideal for an MTB lesson anyway due to being busy. Around there, up on the fireroads of Holmbury for basics, some of the flatter trails for cornering. Plenty for root technique. Telegraph is ideal in some parts for cornering and then some simple drops along it. Yog Pots also for cornering though blind corners may make it difficult if stopping to session and people are coming through.
Does sharp not equal steep? In any case the evidence of it being too steep is right in front of you.
Where's the evidence it was "too steep"? The fact that someone fell off, while taking the wrong line, hardly constitutes evidence that the trail was too steep - I've seen people fall off on slopes so gentle you would probably be pedalling on them.
A kerb could be considered too steep if you go by the assessments shown in the court summary. 90% slope. Way too steep! 😉
The only place ive ever gone otb is bunnyhopping the kerb in the car park at lee quarry while packing up to go home 😀
Have you lot bothered to read the court report?
While I'd agree pedal dipping in cornering is a very advanced technique, I'd argue body position, attack position and when to alter weight with heel position and why is of the utmost importance to riders venturing on tough terrain for the first time, or the first time under instruction
We're talking about REALLY low level riders who are wobbling about all over the place, with one leg straight and all their weight on it. If you can get them riding with pedals level and knees/elbows bent, you're doing well.
I know that seems ridiculous to most of us, but 10 years of guiding/coaching has taught me that people can be incredibly attached to incredibly poor body positions / technique and you can't throw all the aspects of good technique at them at once. You have to start with the absolute basics - which means pedals level. Even arms/legs bent can wait if need be.
Leave all the other stuff for the next lesson.
Aracer lots of people condemned the injured bloke without any facts.
Facebook was worse, hoping he gets run over etc.
It really isn't that steep. It's just it was a very short but sharp roll.
Does sharp not equal steep? In any case the evidence of it being too steep is right in front of you.
It does. It was a steep roll in as I've said before. Anyone who was a novice on riding steep terrain who rode it would view it as a major obstacle. Once I'd ridden it a couple of times it was just another feature and I barely noticed the roll in. There's another steep/sharp roll over on Redlands (it's harder than the bombhole is/was) that I rode unsighted the first time (dark sunglasses, dark forest) and never had an issue with after that but that friends struggled with until the first time they'd ridden it cleanly and in some cases this was half a dozen visits. The roll in on BKB is about the same; once ridden it's trivial but the first time as a novice it's quite stressful.
atlaz - Member
There's another steep/sharp roll over on Redlands (it's harder than the bombhole is/was) that I rode unsighted the first time (dark sunglasses, dark forest) and never had an issue with after that but that friends struggled with until the first time they'd ridden it cleanly and in some cases this was half a dozen visits
Wouldn't have bee me would it? 😀
Probably. Some stuff I still chicken out of, yet can be no different to stuff I have no problem with elsewhere.
Can't remember which on Redlands other than a bombhole that I still struggle with as it's rooty and sharp kick back up the other side. Fair bit bigger than BKB drop/roll was though. Or there was a drop onto fireroad somewhere I used to struggle with. Often had issues with drops onto fireroads (might have been an OTB on one early on that did that 😀 ). No worries these days.
Anyway, for a comparison, I'd say BKB roll/drop was similar to the Warewolf drop at Cannock.
That said it appears the guy took the left line instead, and it wasn't the drop/roll that had him OTB but was hitting a "grassy mound"
Is that what the full court report said?
Seems in dispute.
Claimant:
[I]The claimant said that following the demonstration, it was their turn to ride down the slope, during which the defendant stayed at the bottom of the slope. The claimant was the first to attempt to ride down the slope, and he commenced near to the top of the slope, and [b]went slowly down the main slope[/b], past a V shaped tree to his left. He said that towards the bottom of the slope he began to fall over, but was able to put one of his feet onto the ground in order to save himself from falling over. The claimant said that the defendant had told him that, although his ride down the slope was OK, when he did it again, he should start from further back in order to give himself more speed when riding down the slope. However, the defendant didn't tell him that he had descended down the wrong part of the slope on this occasion.Once the other two had completed their descents down the slope, the three of them walked back to the top of the slope, in order to ride down again, whilst the defendant remained at the bottom of the slope. As a result of the advice which he had been given by the defendant, the claimant said that he walked back up the track in order to be able to gain more speed prior to riding down the slope. He said that he walked back past the first turn before the slope, and was therefore unable to see the top of the slope from where he commenced his second ride down it. He said that he pedalled along the track towards the top of the slope, and [b]neither recalled braking, nor turning left[/b], prior to descending over the crest of the slope. He said that he didn't brake as he went down the slope and the next thing he was aware of was his front wheel jamming in what appeared to be a grassy mound, going over the top of the bike's handle bars and landing on the ground at the bottom of the slope. It was clear to everyone, including the claimant, that he had suffered a serious injury. The claimant realised that this was likely to be a spinal injury and ensured that he wasn't moved until the paramedics arrived. He was then placed on a stretcher, air lifted out, and taken to King's College Hospital. It was only whilst they were awaiting the arrival of the paramedics, that the claimant recalled the defendant telling him that he had ridden down the wrong part of the slope. [/I]
Defendant:
[I]The defendant said that Kerry Turnock and Aiden Nixon rode down the main slope first of all, and they did so exactly as he had demonstrated to them. However, when the claimant approached the top of the slope, he suddenly turned sharply left and [b]rode down part of the slope situated towards the left of the main route[/b]. He said that the route had debris on it and ends abruptly, so it is not a route one would choose to traverse. However, the claimant managed to ride down the slope, albeit his feet appeared to slip off the pedals at the bottom of the slope, and he fell over. He said that the claimant was able to get up and appeared to be uninjured. When he asked him if he was alright, the claimant replied that he was fine. He then told the claimant that he had ridden the wrong way down the slope, and that he should start the approach to the top of the slope from a further distance from it, in order that he could go faster down the slope and thus achieve more stability.The defendant said that he didn't know why the claimant hadn't ridden down the main route. He didn't know if the claimant was nervous about it, because unlike children in a classroom situation where you can see their eyes, the claimant was wearing shaded cycling glasses.
The defendant said that when the claimant descended the slope for the second time, [b]he once again turned left just before the top of the slope and rode down the part of the slope to the left of the main track[/b]. He agreed that the claimant was riding faster on this occasion, but didn't consider that the claimant was riding at an excessive speed, such that he believed that the claimant must have used his brakes during the descent. Unfortunately, on this occasion, when the claimant reached the bottom of the slope, his bike came to a sudden halt, and he was thrown over the top of the handlebars and landed on the ground. [/I]
Other 1:
[I]After this first traverse of the slope, the defendant had asked them if they wanted to ride down the slope again, and they all agreed to do so. On this occasion it was the claimant who attempted to ride down the slope first. She said that she couldn't recall whether he rode faster on this occasion. However, when he got to the crest of the main slope he did the same thing as before, namely he slowed down, lost his nerve, and wobbled. On this occasion, [b]instead of going down the main route, he rode down the slope to the left of the main route[/b], and she saw his back wheel flip up and he was thrown off his bike. [/I]
Other 2:
[I]Aiden Nixon was unable to recall who rode down the slope first, but recalled that when the claimant rode down the slope he looked unsteady, and [b]he believed that he went down the right hand slope, which he described as the "chicken line."[/b] He recalled that the fall in which the claimant was badly injured took place on his third ride down the slope, albeit he cannot recall which part of the slope he rode down on this occasion, and recalled that on the previous occasion the claimant had ridden down the main route and again looked unsteady and lacking in confidence. [/I]
"Right" chicken line may have been from his perspective from the bottom of the slope, so left option at the top.
Both the others seem to suggest he rode the main line first but then the left option after that.
So three witnesses said he took the left line, he claims not. Defendant says he advised against that line.
He did something he was not advised to do. Though apparently it was the easier line, but ended up hitting a rut/mound in the ground after the roll down and went OTB. I really can't see how that's the instructors fault. Partial blame maybe for not spotting what he was doing and stopping him going down that line, but then it was the easier line.
Deadkenny yet with the full facts at hand the court found 80:20
Wouldn't have bee me would it? 🙂Probably. Some stuff I still chicken out of, yet can be no different to stuff I have no problem with elsewhere.
Can't remember which on Redlands other than a bombhole that I still struggle with as it's rooty and sharp kick back up the other side.
Nah not you but I do recall that taking a few efforts to get down. It's the bit on mangrove before the tree jump which is either a roll or a drop depending how you take it. Where whats-his-name folded his bike in half.
atlaz - Member
Where whats-his-name folded his bike in half.
Ah yes, Helter 😀
[url= https://c7.staticflickr.com/5/4098/4806265950_b3e4f3090b.jp g" target="_blank">https://c7.staticflickr.com/5/4098/4806265950_b3e4f3090b.jp g"/> [/img][/url]