Home Forums Bike Forum Does "Barry Knows Best?"

Viewing 40 posts - 241 through 280 (of 345 total)
  • Does "Barry Knows Best?"
  • chiefgrooveguru
    Full 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.

    maxtorque
    Full Member

    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.

    Edukator
    Free Member

    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).

    MoreCashThanDash
    Full Member

    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.

    hora
    Free Member

    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.

    chiefgrooveguru
    Full Member

    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.

    hora
    Free Member

    “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?

    Onzadog
    Free Member

    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.

    aracer
    Free Member

    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.

    aracer
    Free Member

    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>).

    MoreCashThanDash
    Full Member

    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.

    Ambulance chasers 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.

    TiRed
    Full Member

    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 chapaking 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 🙁

    hora
    Free Member

    “It appears to me that the instructor took the rider at his word.”

    Where are you getting the information from?

    aracer
    Free Member

    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.

    gee
    Free Member

    I sincerely hope that the offending grassy clump now has a large warning sign.

    deadkenny
    Free Member

    Whole thing got flattened out years ago, just after the accident.

    Onzadog
    Free Member

    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.

    hora
    Free Member

    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).

    TiRed
    Full Member

    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.

    maxtorque
    Full Member

    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…..)

    hora
    Free Member

    TiRed:
    Imply
    Suggest
    I think
    Again not very concrete words and how do you know this for certainty from limited media reporting?

    TiRed
    Full Member

    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.

    Onzadog
    Free Member

    Reading this
    Court Summary
    does throw a different light on it.

    Anyone have any images of the drop that’s actually being discussed?

    legend
    Free Member

    That does make for interesting reading

    weeksy
    Full Member

    It makes for interesting yet VERY disturbing reading… I could be more against this judgment after reading that… it’s just… wrong.

    deadkenny
    Free Member

    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/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.

    teamhurtmore
    Free Member

    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.

    deadkenny
    Free Member

    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.

    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 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.

    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

    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!

    teamhurtmore
    Free Member

    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.

    MrAgreeable
    Full Member

    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.

    tuskaloosa
    Free Member

    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.

    DezB
    Free Member

    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.

    Klunk
    Free Member

    is it the drop 15 secs in ?

    teamhurtmore
    Free Member

    Yes

    deadkenny
    Free Member

    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.

    DezB
    Free Member

    Yeah, that’s the one.

    Not the one I was thinking of then. That’s down near the road.

    JackHammer
    Full Member

    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?

    ianbradbury
    Full Member

    Having read that summary, I must admit to being puzzled how the judge arrived at his conclusion.

    TiRed
    Full Member

    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.

    Sui
    Free Member

    the judge seems to have a right hard on for Mr Mackay, having dismissed everyone elses opinion.

    also to compare it to

    Foskett J. in Anderson v Lyotier

    is wrong, two sports, completely different, with different rules and learning curve..

Viewing 40 posts - 241 through 280 (of 345 total)

The topic ‘Does "Barry Knows Best?"’ is closed to new replies.