Crash on bridleway.. sue the council .. any one here likely to do that

I am often dissappointed to see threads here from riders moaning when councils surface or level worn out bridleways yet we had another today ‘no win no fee’ joker fell off, riding over a ‘pot hole’ broke collar bone and his solicitors are doing us for failing to maintain … inspect etc… this, like the last one, was on a section of a bridleway that is er .. a rough bridleway. .and as part of the Merida Ruthin course and sees over 1000 riders every year passing over this ‘pothole’ without one injury.. said pothole is a mere dimple compared so a number of more severe elevation changes else where on the bridleway likely to be ridden harder and faster.. which if levelled would no doubt gain much condemnation from those who enjoy them.

So next time you want to post a thread bemoaning on about the forestry ripping down northshore on the basis of your belief no one claims for injuries.. ask Coed Llandegla who are currently wasting time dealing with solicitors on behalf of a plank who fell over pulling a wheely in the car park… these jerks are out there.. this rider or more so solicitor clearly has yet to learn that the highways act places no obligation on the council to maintain bridleways to be suitable for cycling and so unless the failing is likely to be a danger to walkers or horse riders we have no obligation. Since neither of the other two have either fallen or chosen to sue us, as ever the only view I can find is some mountain bikers are complete and utterly total W**nkers and are shafting the rest.

Of course if you feel he was right then maybe you won’t be minding if we stone and roll all these bridleways to look like forest roads… We’ll start on Snowdon eh…

And what comes up on Ads by Google for this topic….

Injured?
How much could you claim? Find out in 30 seconds.
http://www.AccidentAdviceHelpline.net

Perhaps we should blame Google!

And breathe…

Agree with you max, its pretty ridiculous suing because you hit a bump in the track.

This sort of opportunistic behaviour makes me so angry. I think some parts of the governent are waking up to the fact as well, so perhaps something may be done to control it…
…but don’t hold your breath.

*sigh* sometimes it seems that these people just need a good sound beating. of course that would incure a whole heap of paperwork…

*surely* this will end with the injured guy being told to chuff off?! i hope to god he’s made to pay for wasting council time…

if he’s succesful, then i’m scared.

it will probably take 100 – 200 quids worth of work taking photos and crap before he is told to chuff off… the hole stays like it is and 200 quid of tax payers money evaporates. .if he wins first 10 k comes out of the budget to repair these things which is 10% of the annual budget after which the insurance picks up the rest..

basically the council, like most, has stuffed the 3rd party claims on the tarmac paths so with a well oiled machine these solicitors are loosing revenue and appear to have picked up on extreme sports as a means to extract more money to maintain the apartment in Gstaad, such claims would be unheard of even 3 years ago.

pk, I think the appropriate reply is, or was…
P~ss in ther shoes

I know it was meant in jest but:

We’ll start on Snowdon eh…

Ironically, the SNP worked out the spacing of the newisg stepped section on the Llanberis path to make it as ‘unenjoyable as possible’ for mountain bikers descending at speed. In fact, it’s actually a lot better if you go at them at speed, it’s now much worse if ridden slowly.

If BWs have to be maintained to be safe for horses, I’d love to see a rider get one up and down the Ranger’s path…..

highways act places no obligation on the council to maintain bridleways to be suitable for cycling and so unless the failing is likely to be a danger to walkers or horse riders we have no obligation.

I hear this quite a lot, and have no reason to beleive it is not true, but I wonder if anyone can direct me to the actual source of this statement? I could find it eventually but I’m sure someon will have access to tit faster than I could find it

thanks

This does sound a pretty silly. 😐

Agree. I will volunteer 4 hours of my week to dedicate myself to kicking idiots in the cock.

anymore details- link? on the Llandegla and Bridleway cases? Llandegla is a rough/aggregate carpark.

Slightly O/T but I find funny about Llandegla is folk leaving bling bikes outside the cafe against the wall whilst you have rough folk wandering around

“I will volunteer 4 hours of my week to dedicate myself to kicking idiots in the cock. “

Are you that flexible? 😉

I’m with pk_ripper on this.

And colnagokid.

Suggest you fimnd the authority for the no obligaiton to repair and write to the lawyer together with the words “volenti” and “prove it was this so-called pothole”.

Damn Clubber and his faster typing skills 😉

From talking to some of the people who manage local council land where mountain biking takes place, the problem isn’t just the muppets who can’t be responsible for themselves – it’s the readiness of their insurers to pay out settlements rather than fight claims. From a strictly commercial point of view this might make sense (a couple of grand to make the complainer shut up and go away vs. ten grand’s worth of legal fees is a no-brainer really). The problem is that word gets out and you start being seen as a soft touch by the ambulance chasers.

clubber/IHN. I’m built like a tripod so it isnt that hard 😉

O/T- whats happening with the Pinder case?

she’s in celebrity big brother mate.

It’s no-win-no-fee so the claimant has nothing to lose by trying it. The solicitor should know better than to take on lost causes because when the claimant loses, his work and legal costs are for nothing.

So the solicitor must believe a win is likely. However, if enough cases of this sort are lost, then wise solicitors learn not to take them on under no-win-no-fee.

A pothole on a bridleway is not a hazard because it is a visible and expected feature of using bridleways. North-shore and jumps at a trail centre are expected features of trail centres.

IMO

I’m well short of a few quid at the moment. Can you give me an OS reference for this pothole?

A pothole to you is a gnarly freeride drop to me 8)

It’s no-win-no-fee so the claimant has nothing to lose by trying it. The solicitor should know better than to take on lost causes because when the claimant loses, his work and legal costs are for nothing.

So the solicitor must believe a win is likely. However, if enough cases of this sort are lost, then wise solicitors learn not to take them on under no-win-no-fee.

Believe me, nearly these solicitors will perform very careful checks before deciding whether to go ahead with a claim, and as soon the chances of success drop below 50/50 they will pull the plug as quickly as they can. If more landowners put up a fight then the number of claims would dwindle very quickly.

Well put Mr Agreeable. Fight back and make it not worth their effort. Or get a no-win-no-fee defence.

That could end up in a perpetual solicitors black hole and restart the economy 🙂

i fell off and broke my collar bone last year.

who do i call (freephone only pls)

http://www.northern-scot.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/6700/Moray_man_sues_after_horror_jump.html

Time to be very afraid and pissed off. The case above seems to be going the way of the claimant. I hear the FC have put aside 3M for the expected pay out. I also hear that they will not be supporting MTB after this as it is too high risk and potentially expensive. This guy went on a trail that was under construction, marked as such, did a jump that was beyond his and his bikes capabilities, without checking first and without protective gear. Mountain biking is about to go back a long way ladies and gentlemen. I’m crossing everything hoping for a last minute bout of common sense.

i have sympathy for his situation.
however nobody should ever be riding out of control. he evidently didnt know the track/trail/path and so should imagine a 400ft cliff drop round every corner. his fault. no payout from the landowner. perhaps he should have had personal accident insurance?

Devs, I’d agree that that’s an example of someone doing something which could potentially set the sport back massively. However I don’t think any of us know what we would do in the same situation. If I was put in a position where I needed full time care for the rest of my (probably reduced) lifespan and I believed it was someone else’s fault, I doubt I’d take the stiff upper lip approach.

It also sounds like that particular case has some way to go before it’s decided. As I was saying on the Fox and Pinder thread, it ain’t over ’til it’s over so there’s not much point in second-guessing the outcome yet.

If he does win it will open the floodgates and mtb will probably have to go underground in most places. Don’t get me wrong, I would probably do the same thing in his position. I imagine that most people would. And lets face it, if it wasn’t him it would be someone else. It’s just a sad reflection on society when you can blame someone else for your actions.

Devs, I’m not sure about that. It’s a pretty unusual situation as he’s claiming there weren’t signs or any warning to indicate the trail was under construction. Even in the worst case scenario it’s a Scottish case and won’t apply to the rest of the UK. Also, if he wins I would imagine he’s looking at a sizeable reduction to his payout because of contributory negligence (i.e. not seeing a whopping great jump).

The annoying thing is that there were signs etc. Without wanting to say too much until the case is finished, the only people riding that trail, or even in the vicinity of that trail at the time were those that knew that it was being built but couldn’t wait for it to be finished. All these things aside, the point I was trying to make is that, all these landowner liability cases are going to mean that it will be too risky to allow people to mountain bike on your property. Madness.

In Scotland you cannot stop folk riding on your land.

nbt –
highways act places no obligation on the council to maintain bridleways to be suitable for cycling and so unless the failing is likely to be a danger to walkers or horse riders we have no obligation.

I hear this quite a lot, and have no reason to beleive it is not true, but I wonder if anyone can direct me to the actual source of this statement? I could find it eventually but I’m sure someon will have access to tit faster than I could find it

thanks

HERE

Section 30, 1968 Highways Act

(3)The rights conferred by this section shall not affect the obligations of the highway authority, or of any other person, as respects the maintenance of the bridleway, and this section shall not create any obligation to do anything to facilitate the use of the bridleway by cyclists.

There would still of course be an argument that something was inherently dangerous, such as a blind bend with sharpened metal stakes on it…

http://www.northern-scot.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/6700/Moray_man_sues_after_horror_jump.html

No offence to the lad but if your riding a new trail with jumps for the first time arent you supposed to take it easy? Check it our first? If your plough into it surely you have to be of a certain technical competence. I’m not so first time down a trail I’ll always take it easy. No other fellow riders will pay my bills whilst Im convalescing so its called using your common sense. In your 30’s you should know better. Sounds harsh but its **** true.

What next? The trail was too rocky, a rider falls off. The court inspects said-trail (non-riders) and says ‘whooooaaa’ I couldnt ride that? I know they would bring in experts from the industry etc to give evidence but the way it’ll go would be completely smooth, sanitised trail centres.. no offence to Whinlatter but watching a vid- it looks almost footpath like? Anyone been there yet?

Surely in the absence of any official signs / trail map etc. you assume that the trail isn’t built to any sort of standard. You ride at your own risk and inspect until told otherwise. It’s not like the jump would have leapt out in front of him so he couldn’t avoid it.

Aracer, you would think that’s the case but apparently it’s not. Hence unofficial track building causes landowners big headaches and can lead to them getting the bulldozers in.

Devs, I was just trying to point out that the current law is there for a reason (so you can sue landowners who are genuinely negligent) and also that this particular case might not have the dire outcome you’re predicting. At least, I hope it doesn’t. 😉

For what it’s worth, the Forestry in our area were in a similar situation a few years back, with some big outstanding claims against them that ran into millions. However they successfully defended these and have become a lot more relaxed about liability and mountain biking as a result.

Thanks for that Zulu-Eleven, appreciated

I very much doubt the scottish guy will win his case – seems without merit to me.

nbt and Zulu Eleven…It is the Countryside Act 1968 which removed the exclusion of cycles from bridleways thereby removing the offence., the kick backs given to horse riders were no racing and the requirement for cyclists to give way and for council and landowners no responsibility for making the ways suitable for cycles ( in 1968 it was more or less the rough stuff fellowship and elements or ctc on drop handled touring bikes that were going to be the users)

I have much respect for nbt but am surprised he was unaware of this reference .. do you not have a copy of the blue book ??

No offence to the lad but if your riding a new trail with jumps for the first time arent you supposed to take it easy? Check it our first?

Yep.
Gotta be shite for him, for sure, but he has to accept responsibility for his actions. If I was the FC I’d sue him for £3m for lack of common sense if he wins.

I’m aware in terms of the legality, but no I don’t have any books of law andf whatnot – this is only a hobby for me remember, not my job 🙂