Forum menu
[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. 😡
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.