The article doesn't say who is bringing the prosecution. Is it the CPS or is it a private action by a compensation chasing lawyer?
Organisers of a British Downhill Series Mountain Biking event at Llangollen in which a spectator died after being struck by an out of control cycle are being prosecuted under Health and Safety laws.
Prosecution rather than being sued, IANAL but my understanding is CPS prosecute, others sue.
True, could just be poor journalism though.
I'm not sure I'd take the wording as fact, it wasn't even a BDS race was it?
A prosecution (except in some vary rare circumstances, which would have been worthy of comment) is always brought by the Crown. This is not a civil case about compensation (which may or may not happen).Rockhopper - Member
The article doesn't say who is bringing the prosecution. Is it the CPS or is it a private action by a compensation chasing lawyer?
You don't need to tape everything. Simply identify the good places for spectators to be "green zones" (and sign / map / encourage that) and the bad areas for them to be "red zones" (and likewise). 90% of the course might be a "yellow zone" and left minimum tape / with limited signage. There should be a dynamic risk assessment going on during the event (BC current procedures) so if you find a large number of people congregating in a yellow zone and find that worse than planned - you can rezone it. Likewise if you find the nasty bike throwing crashes are happening somewhere unexpected you can rezone it. The marshall briefing should encourage the marshalls to report in these things from the field. The quality of marshall training and briefing has to be proportionate to the size of area they will cover, the expected number of people and the remoteness of the terrain.kimbers - Member
The kind of taping & spectator management being talked about (& potentially required as an upshot of this case) is feasible at a DH race, at a 5- 10 stage Enduro race potentially over a big area, is going to place a huge burden on the organisers
From the UCI
Page 23 - "Security Zones" tape separation from the course edge to spectator zones
[img] 
[/img]
Example above
As Northy says though, what to do when people just ignore you? red flag the race?. I'm not disagreeing with you, it's a legitimate concern.
Yes.
When you ignore your risk assessment because it is inconvenient, people get hurt or die.
If you had a rider went down and blocked the course or wasn't in a safe location, you would hold the rest until the course was clear. Why wouldn't you do the same thing if it is a spectator?
HSE bring prosecutions directly themselves. It's them. Not ambulance chasing lawyers.
Although if it turns out that the organisers, marshall(s), British Cycling or whoever, was negligent and that caused or contributed to the death, I have no problem whatsoever with a subsequent civil claim for damages being brought.
I think those bemoaning the potential for curtailed events, or higher costs reflecting higher insurance costs and / or better marshalling need to remember that a family lost a loved one in pretty awful circumstances here.
Grim for all concerned. 🙁
edlong - MemberI think those bemoaning the potential for curtailed events, or higher costs reflecting higher insurance costs and / or better marshalling need to remember that a family lost a loved one in pretty awful circumstances here.
I don't think anyone's forgetting that. But it was a freak accident- life isn't without risk, and there's lots of risks that could be reduced to zero that we don't, because the impact would be too great. Risk should be mitigated where it can be but there's always a break-even point.
(I suspect the average spectator takes more risks getting on site than they do at trackside tbh)
I don't think anyone's forgetting that. But it was a freak accident-
That is what we will find out. What none of us here know is if that was actually deemed a safe place, or should have been or was part of an assessment or if the assessment met the guidelines. A prosecution suggests something more than a freak accident. This is the day job for the HSE, I'll leave the judgement to the court but would be interested to read the conclusions of the HSE and anyone involved in any events should probably read them.
If there is prosecution then those whose job it is to determine this or not have at least a suspicion that something else could have reasonably been done. The case will determine whether or not that is actually the case.But it was a freak accident
I obviously don't know the details, but the fact is that in other somewhat comparable sports (rallying, motocross etc) some measures are taken to reduce this risk that don't seem to have been taken here means that in the light of what happened, it's probably entirely reasonable to ask those questions.
If anything good was to come out of it in terms of the empowerment, training, clarification of responsibility or briefing of marshals then, having seen the same kind of evolution in motorsport, I certainly wouldn't think it will have been a bad thing (the case, not the accident which is terrible for all involved).
It's not health and safety gone mad, and it may even be as straightforward as some guidelines on the flyer on where to stand and where not to stand.
A few thoughts (bearing in mind this a case currently ongoing):
HSE is generally responsible for the Heath and Safety [u]at Work[/u] Act.
IANAL, but is a downhill race a work situation and if not, what is the applicable legislation? I assume the actual charge sheet will say, but I haven't found anything online.
The general principle of UK H&S is that risk must reduced so far as reasonably practicable. If if was, and something goes wrong, that's when it becomes a freak accident. If somebody didn't follow good practice, and doing so would avoided the harm, that's when there may be an offence.
The liability of an untrained marshal is likely to be low. In the Lyme Bay kayak tragedy, the unqualified instructors in charge of the teenagers who died weren't prosecuted; it was the Manager/Owner who put them in that position who was convicted.
The marshall briefing should encourage the marshalls to report in these things from the field.
Yet to see an ENDURO with enough marshal coverage to allow that to be effective
The freak accident thing is interesting, it's definitely not the first time a bike has flown into the crowd. The only freak bit is where the death is involved
HSE is generally responsible for the Heath and Safety at Work Act.
IANAL, but was this a work situation and if not, what is the applicable legislation? I assume the actual charge sheet will say, but I haven't found anything online.
It's an organised event, it will come under a lot of H&S legislation
Starting here
P131 - same as the UCI one above
and much more, there are rules on closures, marking etc. just because people are not getting paid (many will be from medics to marshalls and timers) does not make it exempt.
It should certainly never make people exempt from following process and best practice.
HSE is generally responsible for the Heath and Safety at Work Act.
IANAL, but is a downhill race a work situation and if not, what is the applicable legislation?
If the event was being run as a commercial enterprise (which I assume is the case if it was paid for) then it is a work situation - the organisers and paid staff were at work. Not sure why this is even a question tbh..
But it was a freak accident- life isn't without risk, and there's lots of risks that could be reduced to zero that we don't, because the impact would be too great.
Is being hit by a crashing cyclist at a downhill event really a freak accident or a foreseeable event?
its obvious some riders will crash therefore its certainly possible that the crashing rider hits the crowd if you let them get too close - see also rally events and I assume MX races for this.
I dont even think its unforeseen never mind a "freak accident"- I assume freak here means highly unusual circumstances a crash at a Downhill race cannot be classed as that surely. Its practically inevitable.
Perhaps the bike hitting someone is "freak" but again i think its foreseeable all be it quite unlikely. however its also easy to mitigate against
Whilst i accept we cannot reduce all danger to nil its really about reducing either the high chance of occurring events or the likely to lead to death eventsRisk should be mitigated where it can be but there's always a break-even point.
I have not enough details here to decide on this case whether this was done
Legislation and internal regulations of the sport are completely different things.It's an organised event, it will come under a lot of H&S legislation.
Starting here
I didn't for a moment suggest that it should. In fact I said that if they don't follow good practice there may be an offence.It should certainly never make people exempt from following process and best practice.
Fair enough, if it is commercial; I've never been to a downhill race and my experience is of running canoe/kayak races, which are all volunteer.If the event was being run as a commercial enterprise (which I assume is the case if it was paid for) then it is a work situation - the organisers and paid staff were at work
If you had a rider went down and blocked the course or wasn't in a safe location, you would hold the rest until the course was clear. Why wouldn't you do the same thing if it is a spectator?
That's not what I was implying at all.
If there are people standing at the outer edge of a fast, flat out corner, and you as an 8 stone marshall with a high viz vest on ask them to move, and they refuse, would you red flag it?. You'll be doing a lot of flagging.
Not to mention the amount of photographers lying down at potentially dodgy corners to get their shots, the amount of them in crazy places at Ard rock incredible.
And in response to edlong, I don't think anyone commenting on this doesn't understand the tragedy and horrible loss of this situation.
If there are people standing at the outer edge of a fast, flat out corner, and you as an 8 stone marshall with a high viz vest on ask them to move, and they refuse, would you red flag it?. You'll be doing a lot of flagging.
Should be covered in a briefing but sign it first. Then flag it, then call the boss. There should be process and procedure.
If there are people standing at the outer edge of a fast, flat out corner, and you as an 8 stone marshall with a high viz vest on ask them to move, and they refuse, would you red flag it?. You'll be doing a lot of flagging.
Maybe the first time you would. I reckon once the new "ground rules" are established and spectators realise that the event will be stopped until they move, the problem will solve itself. It's just about resetting people's expectations.
If the event is stopped due to the odd recalcitrant nobhead that won't move, I suspect the 8 stone marshall will be supported by all the other spectators nearby and that nobhead will move, or be moved.
But it was a freak accident
Good to know that judge and jury are here on STW and who cares about the evidence.
HSE accept that freak accidents happen. They don't always prosecute after they investigate. Risk management doesn't remove risk, it just manages it (duh).
That there is a prosecution suggests that HSE believe it was not a freak accident and that it would have been preventable if reasonable risk mitigation was in place.
This is generally what happens at rallyes now. And the more experienced marshals are good at getting the better spectators involved and on their side to ensure that it doesn't happen at all. When Billy Bellend rocks up and stands on the outside of the dangerous wet bend, they don't stay there long when 20 other people start moaning at them.If the event is stopped due to the odd recalcitrant nobhead that won't move, I suspect the 8 stone marshall will be supported by all the other spectators nearby and that nobhead will move, or be moved.
There are more well intentioned, well behaved people in the world that some people sometimes think (myself included), take the time to explain to them nicely and cheerfully that it's in everyone's best interest, and things really needn't be all that difficult.
That pic up there^^ with the 1.5m wide "safety area". What happens when a bike flies clean across that, and hits and kills a spectator. On current evidence, we can expect that to occur by around the year 2050.
This is the problem, a total lack of personal responsibility.
Why, would anyone volunteer to be a marshal if this guys gets prosecuted? The risk to reward ratio is then highly skewed and the sport as we know it will disappear.
H&S is vital where risk probabilities and consequence combine to a significant outcome. That's the bit everyone misses. You do a risk assessment, multiply the chance of the event happening by the severity of the results should it happen.
What H&S seem to do now, based on ridiculous knee jerk reaction, is attempt to prevent ANYONE EVER dying or being injured, which is not only impossible, but counter-productive.
So, lets balance risk with reward. Lets take into account the hundreds of thousands of people who have had a great deal of fun from MTB events over the last 40 years, and not throw the whole thing away because of one extremely unlucky inccident.
(btw, the HSE SHOULD investigate, report and suggest, or even mandate, changes to the way an event is run IN FUTURE when those changes are demonstrably capable of bringing a MEANINGFUL REDUCTION IN RISK. However, imo, simply prosecuting someone for being human achieves precisely nothing other than potentially killing the very sport itself)
If there are people standing at the outer edge of a fast, flat out corner, and you as an 8 stone marshall with a high viz vest on ask them to move, and they refuse, would you red flag it?. You'll be doing a lot of flagging.Should be covered in a briefing but sign it first. Then flag it, then call the boss. There should be process and procedure.
should be raised in risk assessment, and signed by race organisers when setting the course up. covered in marshal briefing with specific mention to anything deemed higher risk. red flagged for any and all refusals to move or ignore signage.
grumpysculler - MemberGood to know that judge and jury are here on STW and who cares about the evidence.
Oh come on, what is the likelihood of a person at trackside being struck by a bike and killed? You need to be in the wrong place at the wrong time just to get hit never mind seriously injured. It's reasonably likely that a crash could lead to injury but the sheer scarcity of incidents demonstrates how freakish a tragic outcome like this is- this isn't rallying, there's not a ton of car going at 100mph with thick crowds of people lining the course.
Why, would anyone volunteer to be a marshal if this guys gets prosecuted? The risk to reward ratio is then highly skewed and the sport as we know it will disappear.
This is a big worry for me. It is already hard enough to get people to marshal at the best of times.
Also I've done 24 hour races (maybe not DH races admittedly) where marshals have been kids.
I notices hels hasn't bothered to come back and justify her comments on page 1.
Oh come on, what is the likelihood of a person at trackside being struck by a bike and killed? You need to be in the wrong place at the wrong time just to get hit never mind seriously injured.
I get what your saying, that's what you think, the HSE have some thoughts too. Probably time to let them get on with the case and allow the guys to defend themselves then comment when the facts are all known. Otherwise we are all just repeating the same things over and over again.
Her second post is 9 posts after the first one?I notices hels hasn't bothered to come back and justify her comments on page 1.
The other person is Mike Marsden, the race organiser, and person behind Borderline Events.When news came that there had been a death at a DH event, absolutely nobody in the field of DH racing was surprised whose event it was.
She never replied to this, just some irrelevant CV, self promotion guff.
Would trained marshalls hired at great expense have avoided this tragic accident? No.
It is possible* that a marshall given a decent briefing (without additional expense) and empowered to act might have avoided this tragic event.
*obviously do not know the detail of the specific incident
A lot comes down to marshall and rider briefings
I'd echo this, it's been a while since I did a DH race, but marshalls seemed often to be "volunteers" siblings or WAGs dragged along by a participant, given a flag/hi-viz/whistle and left to it, I'm sure this wasn't universal but I saw enough of it.
Full briefings for all involved, and I would go further: BC as the governing body have a duty to provide better training to organisers, I did a BC course some time back for organising kids cycling and events (through my kids school) the content was interesting and it did include the basics of risk assessment, but I'm not sure the trainers were all that sold on risk assessments, it was just something they had to cover...
We did include "course assessment" and while hazards to riders were bought up, I'm not sure if we discussed spectator risks or appropriate placement/protective measures...
I think it will have to (probably already does now) form part of the commissar/lead marshall walkdown, irrespective of this cases findings.
And going further, once marshalls and riders are briefed what about communicating safety information directly to spectators? Put Information boards up, flyers and website/email communications even? telling them where to stand (or not) and to obey marshall's instructions... Everything should be considered...
The case has now been transfered to the Crown Court,late Septemebr, as its a very complicated case say both defence and prosecution.
I think my initial posting stands on it's own merit, I am not sure why it is being suggested that I need to justify it to anybody. My remarks were made without prejudice to any of the parties involved, and I am definitely not going to go into any specifics, given that it is an ongoing court action.
I will leave the internet lawyering to others !
Ah right, so you post casting aspersions about Mike, then fail to back them up? Speaks volumes about you.
Mandatory full face helmets for spectators?
I think my initial posting stands on it's own merit, I am not sure why it is being suggested that I need to justify it to anybody.
Well you've basically insinuated that they were a bunch of cowboys regarding H&S and it was well known within DH, however, you've provided no evidence to back that comment up. Looks like libel to me.
Also if you genuinely thought that someone was going to die at there events why didn't you raise it with BC, under whose jurisdiction the event was run?
I am not sure why it is being suggested that I need to justify it to anybody.
Because it is an unsubstantiated accusation on a public internet forum that the persons concerned are incompetent/negligent, i.e. libellous.
I think my initial posting stands on it's own merit
Only if it's sole merit is libel.
My remarks were made without prejudice to any of the parties involved
I don't think you know what the word 'prejudice' means. Your original post was a good example of it.
I am definitely not going to go into any specifics, given that it is an ongoing court action.
Why not, given that the specifics you referred to did not involve and evidently pre-dated that race?
The problem with your post is that it makes a serious allegation on a public internet forum that persons are incompetent/negligent, without providing any evidence to substantiate it. That sort of vague insinuation is damaging to them and extremely difficult, if not impossible, to defend against. It's libellous.
I will leave the internet lawyering to others !
She's bang on about that bit though!
the only way it could be considered any other way slowster is if she meant nobody was surprised because there was no other downhill events on that particular weekend.
and before opening mouth "therefore but the grace of god go i". Many event organisers in many events cycling and not cycling have found them selves defending these positions in court - some through no fault of their own.
Next time it could be you or I
I've only ever marshalled once before, when I was injured and couldn’t ride a local race. This was for the now defunct Enduro1 events. I can’t remember the briefing itself, but assume from that it was lacking in almost everything. I was not even aware I was responsible for the h&s of competitors, and saw it as a day out, setting off my mates, chatting to riders and getting free entry into another round. Had I known at the time that there was a possibility I could be sued if anyone was injured, I most certainly would not have marshalled.
I’ve raced several events organised by Mike, DH and Enduro. They have always been a good standard and I’ve never noticed marshalling being lacking, not that I likely would have noticed. I think the individual above making comments without justifying them is just unfair to Mike and the team, especially with the position they have found themselves in
My view on this is that it’s a freak accident, and whilst I understand the family would like compensation due to the death, I personally think this is another example of a new ‘suing’ culture, driven largely by the US. If I was put in a similar situation, I’m not sure what my reaction would be, and whether I would look to be compensated.
Wow how to kill support for the series.
@bds
and whilst I understand the family would like compensation due to the death, I personally think this is another example of a new ‘suing’ culture, driven largely by the US.
You clearly don't understand - this isn't anyone suing anybody for compensation, this is a criminal prosecution for alleged H&S offences.
You clearly don't understand - this isn't anyone suing anybody for compensation, this is a criminal prosecution for alleged H&S offences.
clearly I don't......having skim read I didn't realise.
