[Closed] Does "Barry Knows Best?"

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]

yet with the full facts at hand the court found 80:20

Very true, at least that was the only persons opinion that really mattered, the judge.
But as often happens there is no "absolute" proof one way or the other and it comes down the the courts judgment. Another day in a different court perhaps things might have gone differently.

[quote=deadkenny ]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.

Because the instructor put him in a position where taking that line was an option for a novice. I gave up trying to work out exactly what line he took, because ultimately it doesn't really matter - it appears he was put on ground that was steeper than he was comfortable with without having been given sufficient skills training first to cope with that. The fact he was clearly hesitant is grounds to support his claim.

We come back here to what was discussed extensively earlier in the thread - that he'd ridden a bike a lot, but was a complete novice at technical stuff like this.

I'd be kind of surprised if a different court came up with a substantially different ruling - given the evidence presented in that report it's the logical ruling. I think most of those disputing it still don't understand exactly on what basis the ruling was made.

Because the instructor put him in a position where taking that line was an option for a novice. I gave up trying to work out exactly what line he took, because ultimately it doesn't really matter - it appears he was put on ground that was steeper than he was comfortable with without having been given sufficient skills training first to cope with that. The fact he was clearly hesitant is grounds to support his claim.

I'm still not convinced by the claim that he hadn't been given sufficient skills - he didn't execute those skills, but that's not obviously the same thing. For example, just watched the first half of the 4 nations final. The Kiwi players don't lack skills, but have hardly executed well, because of the pressure exerted on them.

Have you read the court report, ian?

Ianbradbury got a link to the full ruling please

Ianbradbury got a link to the full ruling please

It was only 2 pages back Hora!

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2016/2798.html

A few issues so far and I'm only a few paragraphs in. Ones on 'braking'.

How do you stop your customers, new to technically challenging terrain from grabbing the brakes incorrectly in a stressful situation? The instructor thought best to teach emergency braking later on in the 15mile course.

The other is:
"Although the booking form which the claimant completed has not been retained"

This part appalls me, this along with the blogs etc. Why delete them? Erase the evidence that might cumulatively go against the defendant?

From the link it also seems(?) that he decided to go on BKB literally after the start/first climb. How the hell did he assess riders potentially from riding up asphalt?

Shall we go on?

How the hell did he assess riders potentially from riding up asphalt?

They say they crossed Radnor Road.. that'd mean they went up at least some part of the forest fire road on the left hand side as you climb. Chances are they'd also have taken the double-track up some of the way. This is borne out as the statement also says "he also instructed them how to negotiate channels crossing the track".

The instructor thought best to teach emergency braking later on in the 15mile course.

Maybe he didn't want novices trying their new-found braking technique on a downward slope where their inexperience would have them over the bars. Not saying that's the case but who knows. you don't. I don't.

It's a little odd that the claimant who is a lawyer didn't bother to read the safety checklist he was given but signed it anyway but also doesn't remember lots of things relating to safety that the defendant says he said. He doesn't say it wasn't said, just that he doesn't remember. Admittedly I would say his recollection of the day is probably focused around his injury but it doesn't read well.

All that said though, it doesn't sound anywhere near as comprehensive a beginner session as I recall from my coaching with jedi who had us ride around/over sticks in his car park for a bit to get an idea of any problems with our riding and progressed slowly from "basic" cornering on flat stuff before moving us onto the hard work of the day; the drops and jumps. I guess that's the difference between a trail session and a session in a private bike park.

Ed O taught us in a very public and very gnarr trail Centre and we all came back in one piece?

The Lawyer told the instructor he was a novice. The evidence of this was lost by the Franchise. On its own you could say 'maybe fishy' however along with the other deleting going on. There's a pattern of cover up.

Someone has life changing injury.

Shall we carry on reading the link and commenting?

The crap 'riders' threw at him without the facts is wrong. Plain wrong.

I've not read every post (very few of them actually), neither have I read the full report; but why didn't the guy just say no, this isn't for me?

Nobody has won this one. Sad.

^^ because you weren't "unlucky" unlike the claimant in this case!

I'm sure plenty of people fall off their bike on skills courses (i've done it, and i apologized to the coach when i did so, but then i only ripped open my elbow, rather than paralysed myself) and for 99.9999% of the time, the end result is not as serious in this case.

That's why unfortunately, it is difficult to make a "reasoned" decision.

Take the issues of "learning skills". You would expect an instructor to explain what you have to do, physically and mentally. You'd expect the instructor to demonstrate how to do it. You'd probably even get to watch other people on the course trying out that skill. But at some point, sooner or later, you're going to have to physically try that skill yourself, and there is a non-zero possibility that during that attempt (or any subsequent ones) you could fall off and injure yourself. The more severe the feature of technique you're trying to ride, the higher the risk of injury, but risk is both not linear, and critically, hindsight provides necessary evidence too late to be useful in the assessment of that risk.

This is why, IMO, unless there is an OBVIOUS case of un-arguable negligence (for example the instructor failing to check your bike, and the wheel coming out because the novice hadn't known how tight to do there QR) then it's at best 50:50, because the instructee has the final choice on if they are going to try any given skill, feature or technique.

In this case, faced with a guy in a wheel chair, and despite significant evidence that the methodology and progress of the coach/course was fairly typical (2 out of 3 people on the course had no problem with riding the feature, all on the course attempted to ride it without duress) the court found in a significantly higher favour of the claimant.

There's always the chance the claimant and defendant were happy to just leave it to insurance. I think I would. As defendant I'd have the insurance and would realise such an injury and the ongoing life cost would be fair enough to claim against my liability insurance knowing the only impact would be potentially a small premium increase (but bearing in mind these insurances are there to pay out exactly for these reasons to this kind of sum of money). As claimant I'd want to try to get costs covered somehow. Maybe I'd have my own personal injury insurance anyway but then they might insist I try to claim off the other guy first.

Normally these would be insurance companies fighting it out, gets settled and no publicity. Like if you are in a car crash and your fault or not, just let insurance deal with it. It's just this had been dragged to court and then picked up by bike media.

Settlement here, 50:50 would mean less pay out for the claimant. The judge may be going for the best result for the claimant given the injuries, while knowing it's not that big a deal for the defendant as he had insurance to cover it (or wouldn't have been not much to him, but being publicised, his reputation may be damaged).

The Lawyer told the instructor he was a novice. The evidence of this was lost by the Franchise. On its own you could say 'maybe fishy' however along with the other deleting going on. There's a pattern of cover up.

How is there a coverup? You don't half talk some bollocks sometimes. You witter on about evidence for the claimant and how we weren't there etc then try to make a jump from "there's no document" to "he intentionally destroyed it to get rid of evidence". I haven't seen anything in the court report to suggest that the defendant said that he disagreed with the claimant being a novice but I bothered to read the whole thing.

There's always the chance the claimant and defendant were happy to just leave it to insurance.

I'd be surprised if the defendant wasn't inclined to defend himself robustly. It would be hard enough coming to terms with one of your clients being paralysed. The way I'd deal with this is to convince myself I'd done everything reasonable to prevent an accident.
Accepting that your responsible for a person ending up in a wheelchair for any right thinking person would be a very heavy load to bare 🙁 . Even though the court found him largely liable I'd be very suprised if the defendant felt the same.

True. Like in a car accident though, neither side claims responsibility and ideally shouldn't blame either. Just keep quiet, lay down the facts as you see it, and leave it to the insurance and/or courts. That one may rule against you isn't a big deal. Just your insurance is the one that pays up.

The summing up said he was still coaching but I can't see any sign of him anywhere. I'm guessing he's possibly changed career.

[quote=maxtorque ](2 out of 3 people on the course had no problem with riding the feature, all on the course attempted to ride it without duress)

I presume if you know that you have read the ruling, in which case you should also be aware of the difference in the ability levels of the participants, and hence why that is irrelevant.

Reading the case notes and taking on board what the experienced tutors on here have said, on top of the way I and my group were instructed, I'm absolutely convinced the defendants methodology in tutoring was totally wrong.

hora - Member

This part appalls me, this along with the blogs etc. Why delete them? Erase the evidence that might cumulatively go against the defendant?

Pretty surprising that he's not retained the form- though, there could be reasons for that if it was paper, easy to see how it gets innocently misplaced amidst a serious injury. (pull out paperwork to check medical history notes...) (I couldn't tell if it was a paper or online form but ime paper is the norm)

But it's easy to understand why he'd pull the blogs, with all the publicity. Really nothing suspicious there.

Reading the case notes and taking on board what the experienced tutors on here have said, on top of the way I and my group were instructed, I'm absolutely convinced the defendants methodology in tutoring was totally wrong.

If the tuition was indeed seriously flawed, then a much bigger/wider issue than the court's likely award in this particular case, is the question of whether inadequate and unsafe instruction is similarly being provided by other instructors. That raises important questions about the quality of training, assessing and monitoring of instructors by their accreditation bodies, and about whether the guidance/standards published by those bodies on the content and format of a typical beginner's/intermediate/advanced skills course is sufficiently clear and thorough.

It would be some consolation for the claimant and the instructor in this case, if it did result in the industry raising its standards, reducing the risk of a similar accident.

Agreed

^ Quite. Any instructor who doesn't read this report in detail and assess his or her own practices againt it would be foolish.

've not read every post (very few of them actually), neither have I read the full report; but why didn't the guy just say no, this isn't for me?

Quite. Any instructor who doesn't read this report in detail and assess his or her own practices againt it would be foolish.

I am more concerned about the accreditation/training bodies. If there is a widespread (systemic) problem, then that is likely to mean that the organisations are at fault, rather than the individual instructors they train and accredit. In that respect I have great sympathy for the instructor in this case: he was always going to be the obvious target of any legal action, but I cannot help thinking that his accreditation body should very possibly take a large percentage of the blame and moral responsibility if it is not giving its own instructors adequate training and guidance.

The MIAS technical reference material provided by the defence does not appear to be from guidance telling instructors how to instruct, and instead seems to be telling the pupil/mountain biker what they should do, which makes me suspect that MIAS may not have the sort of guidance/standards for its instructors that I would expect:

The MIAS guidance pointed out that in relation to descents,

"….Some rough terrain may actually be easier and safer to do at a higher speed, as it will provide the much-needed momentum. Whereas otherwise, at slow speed, your bike may come to an unexpected halt as it gets stuck on the terrain."

In relation to maximum deceleration it is pointed out that the most effective measure is to apply the front brake, albeit with the arms braced. It points out that this is a skill which requires to be learnt, otherwise,

"This can cause the classic 'over-the-bars' crash….."

Moreover, in relation to descents the "Technical Tips" provides,

"Get your bike into a low gear, 3rd, 4th or 5th gear depending on your speed. Ride at a very slow speed. Approach the descent in a straight line. As you go down the descent, position yourself to the rear of the cycle in order to maintain a gravity line. Keep your pedals on the horizontal. Feather your brakes to suit descent. Keep looking ahead. If the rear wheel of the cycle tries to overtake the front wheel, disengage brakes, straighten up and re-apply. A slope of no more than 30 degrees should be tackled."

Also this, slowster, I often say to people at the end of a rollocking, if nobody tells you that you are doing something wrong, how will you ever know how to correct it or improve, and it's now your choice if you want to carry on as before or take on board what I'm telling you...