Who is at fault here?

[FAswad]

So here goes the scenario:

Several riders are returning from their weekend club ride and are riding together in a bunch. One cyclist signals turning and another cyclist, riding second wheel in the group, looks back to wave him an extended farewell. In the meanwhile, the cyclist at the head of the bunch signals stopping at a congested round-about, slowing to an almost complete stop. the cyclist waving his mate fails to heed the signal, and the loud warnings of others behind him, and collides with the cyclist at the head of the bunch writing-off his expensive carbon fiber frame.

Who is at fault here? If you were the cyclist with the wrecked frame, what would you be thinking? What would you expect of the rider who rammed you from behind?

[mikesbytes]

The law is the same for cyclists as it is for motorists. What happens if your car get hit in the rear?

[FAswad]

I guess I framed this situation as hypothetical. The problem now is that the rider whose bike was wrecked did not file a police report and only tried to talk the person into refunding him all or part of the frame replacement value.

[Simon Llewellyn]

The risk is always there whenever you ride in a bunch. If you can't afford to replace it, you probably shouldn't be riding it. Most crashes are difficult to point the blame & generally you won't get any money out of anyone...

As for the hypothetical, the answer to who is to blame is between the two riding. It is not as simple as cars if there is no third party insurance & if you expect your club mates to pay for every incident you have, you may not have a very friendly club for too much longer...

[mikesbytes]

My answer was the legal one. Most riders wouldn't pursue others for personal damage, leagally they can. When we are out on training rides, we are vechiles like any other vechile on public roads and are subject to the same road laws except where specfically specified for a bicycle.

In a race, I would assume that there is no recourse.

Also reminds me why I don't ride a CF frame $$$$.

[weiyun]

Irrespective of being fiction or non-fiction, the point to highlight here seemed to be one of vigilance and responsibility. Riding in a bunch has risks and no one should take their eyes off what's happening in front. And being too close to stop or being distracted by social chats are no excuse unless the bike in front was acting irresponsibly.

So from my perspective, if the lead rider took the necessary steps for a safe stop (which seemed to be the case in the story), then it was the following rider's fault for not staying focused. The fact that riders in 3rd wheel and further behind were able to warn of the impending stop are further strong evidence that the fault was fully with the second rider.

And for a contrary view. A club that permits carefree and irresponsible riders into their bunch is a club that won't keep its bunch for long. At the end of the day, many riders within a club are cycling for health benefits and have additional responsibilities to their family and work.

And the corollary of all these is, don't draft off that $10,000 CF bike!

[Simon Llewellyn]

Gees this issue is problematic for a number of different reasons, especially if people really would follow through on sueing for the value of a bike. I don't really want to ride with people who might sue me over an accident...

I think the thing that really worries me is new riders. They often don't have great bunch skills and are prone to crashing & to boot they may be a lawyer. & if this topic is coming up in conversation they may get the idea that it is alright to sue over a crash as if they were in a car.

The only solution I can think of is an exclusive bunch open by invitation only & do what other bunches do on a Sunday morning if anyone hooks on tell them where to go. I have been totally opposed to the idea of a fast and slow bunch in the past because I don't believe in the exclusive thing. But I don't want to have to pay for someone else's bike either, especially if they are a once a week rider who has a bike that is worth ten times what they need...

[weiyun]

Not sure about that. The last two crashes I've seen on our Sunday training rides weren't exactly newbie induced. The first was that lady who flew across the two lanes. The second was the one James was unfortunately involved in. Neither were inexperienced riders by all accounts. Further, your comment post accident that you were chatting away with James just prior to that crash has always stuck in my mind. I think that a bunch crash can happen to anyone when there's a loss of concentration or when one becomes over confident of one's ability.

I don't think that fast and slow bunch has anything to do with safety. I understand that the safety policy is to leave the noob rider at the rear of each bunch until they are more experienced. So isn't this fast and slow bunch arrangement more a case of giving everyone an opportunity to train at an appropriate level? Unless a strong rider is deliberately doing a L2 ride, otherwise sticking at a slow pace is not going to provide any training benefits.

BTW, I haven't put out a view as to who should pay for the wreck. That has a different context to this present safety and responsibility issue.

[mikesbytes]

You can get 3rd party insurance, I think Geoff knows about it.

[Simon Llewellyn]

I understand that the safety policy is to leave the noob rider at the rear of each bunch until they are more experienced.

On the track the bulk of the crashes occur in B grade or Div 2 because that is the grade where people often have the speed to keep up but not the experience to handle the banked velodrome.

I haven't been in a crash on the road for years. But on the velodrome it is just about always new riders who crash or riders who don't know the routine. I can see what your saying about safety and that we were talking when that last crash happened but it was a double puncture, there wasn't much that could have been done & what was able to be done I did because I missed it. I remember doing a lot of swerving & there was a lot of crap on the road. But people do talk when they are riding, it is a social sport.

But if cycling does get to legalistic like this hypothetical, it will become a major issue. & just so I haven't changed the topic, the initial was about who is at fault not should they have been paying attention...

[mikesbytes]

There are riders who prefer to train by themselves or only with a couple of other riders.

[Simon Llewellyn]

You can get 3rd party insurance, I think Geoff knows about it.

Why pay third party though? In the bike world over the last century people have looked after their own equipment unless there is a gross level of negligence in a crash. Everybody knows the risk. So don't train on $10 000 if you don't have the money for repairs. You can set up a training bike for a couple hundred.

[weiyun]

But if cycling does get to legalistic like this hypothetical, it will become a major issue. & just so I haven't changed the topic, the initial was about who is at fault not should they have been paying attention...

The society is getting more litigious and cycling won't be unaffected. We will all have to manage these risks as a fact of life. You never know, one day you may be forced to sue someone out of necessity.

As for who's at fault, then I'd say the person who hasn't been paying attention was at fault. I don't think there's any argument here, right?

[weiyun]

Why pay third party though? In the bike world over the last century people have looked after their own equipment unless there is a gross level of negligence in a crash. Everybody knows the risk. So don't train on $10 000 if you don't have the money for repairs. You can set up a training bike for a couple hundred.

We are living in the 21st century. Equipment changed, training technique changed, road rules changed, legal system changed and if some scientists are to be believed, even weather changed. So the past is no excuse for not looking after the present.

The issue is no different whether one is on a $10k bike or $1k bike. The fact of the matter was that the second wheel rider took his eyes off the road and was negligent in the said scenario.

[mikesbytes]

Why pay third party though? In the bike world over the last century people have looked after their own equipment unless there is a gross level of negligence in a crash. Everybody knows the risk. So don't train on $10 000 if you don't have the money for repairs. You can set up a training bike for a couple hundred.

What if you run into the side of a Merc?

[geoff m]

Why pay third party though? In the bike world over the last century people have looked after their own equipment unless there is a gross level of negligence in a crash. Everybody knows the risk. So don't train on $10 000 if you don't have the money for repairs. You can set up a training bike for a couple hundred.

I think Simon sums it up pretty well. People who cycle, and do so with our club accept the risks associated with cycling, and that there are likely to be incidents which occur which may not be their fault but impact on themselves or their property (ie. bikes). Frequencies of this are common, and thank goodness, in most cases relatively minor, but in some cases can be significant.[/
Despite the best human intentions of riders of the club to take commonsnese and basic safetly procedures, riders need to be aware of the real riks.

Having said that, I must remind all that '3rd Party' Insurance is much, much, much, much, more than replacement of a bike, even up to $10,000. These costs can be covered by all of us, even though this may cause some hardship....

But injury to third parties (ie humans and not bikes) in some circumstances could become complex, and expensive for right or for wrong. Each of us may be able to afford up to $10,000 but can any of us afford $150,000, or $500,000 or $2,000,000?

This is why each of us seriously needs 3rd party coverage, for this reason alone.

Members of the club, whether racing members, or 'Ride It' members have coverage of insurance through Cycling Australia.

Here is a copy of the policy:

http://www.cycling.org.au/Content/Navig ... urance.htm

I ask all members and prospective members to become familar with this policy. I do not offer myself as an expert on interpretation, or as an agent, so encourage any further enquiries directly to the insurer.

This can provide reasonable peace of mind for those who ride on official club rides.

There are many of us who ride outside of the club. Have you considered similar issues of insurances as well.

What about the time you could run over an investment banker who wanders on the wrong side of a shared pedestrian/cycle path, without warning? As a rider you are fully liable for giving way to such a pedestrian. Can you afford a $3,500,000 law suit due to loss of income if they choose to sue?

So I would encourage each of you to consider membership with organisations such as Bicycle NSW which offer similar third party liability as part of their general membership, and can cover other cycling participation outside of the club.

http://www.bicyclensw.org.au/Membership.asp

(I should disclose that I am on the Board of BNSW)

Lastly, I believe those of us who have home and contents insurance might be surprised as well to the extent we are covered for third party law suits outside of the home.

Again, I go back to what Simon said:

In the bike world over the last century people have looked after their own equipment unless there is a gross level of negligence in a crash. Everybody knows the risk. So don't train on $10 000 if you don't have the money for repairs. You can set up a training bike for a couple hundred

[weiyun]

So looks like most of us are already covered for 3rd party damages (I have both Cycling Australia as well as BNSW membership), both equipment and medical costs. Maybe the issue is mute for the hypothetical scenario. Yet again, the irony sometimes is that one has to sue to minimize the financial hardship for both parties ie. Get the insurance company to pay for it all.

The other thing maybe some of the single and younger guys don't realise, is that as a head of a family, you don't want to put your family and life's savings at risk. Without an adequate insurance coverage, a law suit against you may easily bankrupt you, stripping all your assets. As much as you won't sue others, but you can't guarantee that others won't sue you. There's no knowing what might happen when a lawyer is consulted.

As for the point of riders riding with us are accepting the risk. Well, I don't recall there's any signed document to that effect. Further, accepting risks does not waiver irresponsible behaviours. I think that's more of a gentleman's agreement than anything that can stand up in a court of law.

[geoff m]

Good point Weiyun about individuals taking responsibility for themselves.

All individuals who have dependents, or who themselves may depend on their own income to pay off a mortgage, etc, should consider personal insurance around injury, disability, death and income protection.

You will note that the Cycling Australia linked insurance offers some medical and income protection, but the amounts are very nominal, and few of us could survive on this.

[jimmy]

As I was reading the post, I was looking at it from a different point of view, what causes accidents in the bunch.

I came up with three situations

1) Someone isn't paying attention
2) Someone does something unexpected
3) Unforeseen circumstances

Now, I know that the third one seems pretty broad, but I think that we should look pretty hard at the first two.

In the example given, to me the fault is with the person who turned around to wave, they weren't paying attention. There is the obvious side, that they weren't looking the right way, but further, as it was approaching a roundabout, then they should have been aware that the bunch may have had to stop.

You need to be aware of the road ahead, not just what is happening to the rider directly in front of you. I was talking to someone on Sunday, and I was telling them where to look. Generally you watch the top of the nix/bottom of the jersey of the rider in front, but as I said, I sort of look through them diagonally in the bunch, that way you can see about 3-4 riders ahead and get a feel for what is happening. I know that you are watching a line of cyclists that you aren't in, but at a red light, both sides stop anyway.

It also helps if you know the road well enough to be able to know where it is safer to take your attention from the rider in front, this doesn't make it an excuse if an accident occurs. As an example, when riding up The Kingsway, there are a lot of traffic lights, parked cars etc. So keep you eyes forward and be aware of what is happening in the bunch. After we pass Heathcote on the Princess Highway heading to Waterfall, we end up in a shoulder, and no traffic lights. So you can afford to be less vigilant, but you still need to be aware of the bunch as there are debris on the road, we are passing other cyclists, and there are slight hills to contend with.

As for the second cause, this is something that we always point out to new riders. Ride Predictably. This means holding a consistent speed, not wobbling all over the road and indicating your turns etc. You need to remember that a slight braking at the front of the bunch, turns in to some very hard braking at the back of the bunch. Try and give sufficient warning for obstacles coming up, and if you are in the middle of the bunch, pass calls forward and back.

The last cause, is difficult for you as a rider to control. We have all had accidents where they seem to be just that. I can remember once, riding on the front of a bunch on the right, and taking a right hand corner, next thing I knew, I was sliding across the road with the rider beside me having been taken out as well. The bunch behind scattered. The road was wet, the corner was slightly rippled, but I had already taken that into consideration. Those behind me said that I wasn't leaning that far over either. In the end we saw some oil/fuel on the road, it wasn't visible till after the wreck. So here, yes the accident was my fault, I obviously took the corner too fast, but at the time I thought that I was already going slow enough for the conditions.

The last case we often put down to bad luck, sometimes, *censored* Happens. If you puncture in the bunch and lose control, there isn't a lot you can do. Yes more riding can help, but you can't specifically train for every scenario.

When riding in a bunch, accidents are a fact of life, you are going to hit the deck at some point. Most of us have already done it. At the end of the day, we can do things to ensure that we reduce the risk not only to ourselves, but to the other riders around us. As a Club, we need to be prepared to tell other Club Members off if they are being stupid in the bunch. Once I was riding at the back of a group and they went through a slight pothole, those at the back yelled at those in front for failing to point it out. I don't think that we should be vigilantes about it, but if people are riding dangerously, then we should let them know.

Thoughts please.

James

[weiyun]

I agree. People shouldn't take those comments personally but to take it as a reminder and a part of healthy bunch communication. It's understandable that when you are working hard pulling, a pot hole or other irregularities may come up faster than you can react. But maybe that's also time to back off a bit to give yourself and everyone a bit more of a safety margin.

Ok, where's Fouad who planted this topic?

[timyone]

man it all does sound a bit serious, but yeah its the second riders fault.
I dont know what to say about paying for it etc, really makes these group rides alot more serious.

[Grant Bond]

I agree with a lot of what has been said above.

Insurance is important.
Looking after your mates is also important.

Looking after your mates means (inter alia) riding-
predictably
fluidly
with focus

It means not creating situations that will put yourself in danger by keeping withing the limits of your bike handling skills.

I have put together a draft "bunch riding" brochure which i will email out today, your comments as a group would be appreciated.

[jimmy]

For those who didn't get Grants email, I have uploaded it to the site

http://www.dhbc.org.au/files/safety_flyer.pdf

It is only a draft, so there is still work to be done.

James

[lindsay]

I spend quite a few years sailing and at the zenith of my time sailed 12 foot skiffs. Now some people have likened sailing to standing under a cold shower ripping up $50 notes... Dingy sailing isn't quite that bad but there's an element of that there. Boats run into each other, sails get ripped, people get injured. If you've ever heard that lovely ripping sound as your brand new kite gets tangled up on some other boat and down you all go rip, rip rip, smash, smash etc... And the same things exist in all sports that require equipment, motorbike racing is another one, you or someone else overcooks it and down you go. You can't expect the people your sharing the activity with to be perfect and their mistake this week might only be half as bad as the mistake you make next week.

My only advice is what Mick Mazza says - "Don't train on your good bike". That's it... Ignore this it at your own risk. If you can spend $10000 on a bike, then spend $9500 instead and get a training bike for $500. That's what people have done in our sport from day one.

If you bang up your $500 bike my junk box is at your service to get you back on the road... I'm a bit light on when it comes to those Zipps however.

[Grant Bond]

Thanks for the upload Jimmy James.

A few points for everybody-:

Insurance
Thinking about this a little more i wonder if there is an argument that it is socially irresponsible to ride without insurance that protects both yourself and those around you, the way i look at it bikes can be fixed , bodies are a bit harder to repair so the argument shouldnt really be about whos going to pay for the broken bike but about whos going to pay for broken bodies, thats what we really need to insure against. We do this by insuring against the financal loss but allso by ensuring that we are skilled enough not to endanger those around us.

Bikes
In relation to bikes I have to agree with Lindsay and Simon...if you cant afford to replace it dont ride it! Your bike is a tool, designed to give you pleasure enjoyment and fitness. Is a $500 tool going to give you any less pleasure than a $5000 tool, probably not...Is a $5000 tool going to help you win more races than a $500 dollar tool definitely not!!! He is no hero of mine but Lance was right when he said

its not about the bike

. What will give you these things is lots of training, the passion in your heart and the strength of your legs...money cant buy that...and that is the beauty of our sport!!!

A wider disease?
I feel that a lot of riders are sucked in to the consumerist bullshit shoved down our throats by the bike industry.... an industry built around things that are replacable rather than repairable...around throwing it out because it has 9 speeds instead of 10.... built around whats good for business not whats healthy or good for people.

When cycling was a sport for the millions and not the millionaires nobody would have thought to go after another rider for the cost of damage to their machine...it was probably because everybody had the arse out of their pants in the 30s to 50s but they way i understand it back then there was an unwritten code of honour amongst ordinary working people that stopped them from pointing their fingers when somebody else made a mistake...more a thought of "there but for the grace of god go i". Today something unfortunate happens and we try to work out who to blame!!!
If you are unwilling to adopt the first of these attitudes and your bike is so precious to you that you are going to be upset if it gets scatched then hang it on the wall and take up another sport...

If you think the blame game is ok and are going to send in the blokes with the wigs relation to damage to your blinged up machine if something goes wrong in the bunch then please let me know, i might be a little more selective about who i choose to ride with!!!

Cheers

[mikesbytes]

Hi Grant, I don't think that anyone here is going to peruse someone else over a cost of the bike, the question was hypothetical and the discussion covered what you can legally do and what you would actually do.

The medical side of things is important, those costs can be very high, so you need some sort of insurance for that, whether it be yourself or another.

The third question is what happens if the other party is not a cyclist, for example a motorcar. Can't seeing the motorist wanting to pay for their own damage.

[weiyun]

As I posted earlier, this issue has nothing to do with being able to afford the replacement cost or not able to afford the replacement cost of a bike. Even less about consumerism in society. Being discriminant to life forms left or right can both be forms of discrimination. The key issue being discussed up to this point is one of riding responsibly and be responsible for one's action. If someone is riding recklessly and causes an accident, then he or she should be responsible for the event in some ways ie. Rider at second wheel.

If one has to take a stand on the issue of who to pays for the bike. Well, these are the possible scenario,

1) Second rider stick the finger up and said tough luck, first rider pay for something that he did not cause. Outcome: Likely strained relationship into the future.

2) Second rider acknowledges responsible and splits the repair/replacement cost. Outcome: Under the gentleman's agreement, relationship maintained.

3) Second rider felt being responsible and takes ownership and pays for the full replacement/repair cost. Outcome: An honorable deed and relationship maintained.

4) Neither rider willing to pay out of their own pocket, so first rider places a claim on the second rider's insurance. Outcome: Procedural issue. Insurance served its purpose. relationship maintained.

5) Neither rider willing to pay and the insurance denies the claim, so first rider sues the second rider to try to enforce extraction of funds from the insurance company. Outcome: Strained relationship if the action was taken personally. If successful, then financial losses are again covered by the insurance company. Relationship may be rebuilt.

Here's a question. If they first rider was at second wheel and acted irresponsibly and crashed into the previous second wheel guy's $100 bike. What would people say? I would bet there'll some who take the view that, gees, he can afford a $10k bike and is so stingy to fork out $100... There's an ethos issue here.

So going back to the case, as Mike pointed out, insurance may provide the exit strategy for both parties when an agreement can't be reached, hence the importance.

[Grant Bond]

mikesbytes

I fully understand that it a hypothetical situation, i do have the ability to read...because the scenario is hypothetical it doesnt tend to mean that the opinions expressed are any less real.

I agree that we need to protect ourselves by insuring against these risks.

I suppose i am just saying that i would be extremely disappionted if such a situation was to happen within our club and that i would be uncomfotable riding with somebody who didnt share my view of the world in relation to the cost issue when somebody has just made an error.

My position is informed out of respect for the graciousness of those around a few years ago when i caused a pretty big fall in the bunch, they picked me up, patched me up , dusted me off, called their parents to drive me home, helped me fix my bike on the cheap (and i am eternally grateful to Lindsay for that) and never said another word about it. I know a few of the guys like Ron and Sheena were pretty bruised and behind closed doors they probably cursed my lack of skills but they encouraged me to improve rather than blaming me.

That attitude is what i want to see carried forward...we can insure against the financial loss but we cant insure against the hurt and shame and loss of confidence that it causes to people when we point the finger at them and cause them to feel even worse than they did already.

Ultimately people know when they are in the wrong and nobody deliberately tries to hurt anybody...stuff happens, so lets focus our energies on how to help stuff happen less often and with less severity, and minimise the loss for our members.

One useful idea that some country cycling clubs use to manage this risk for riders is for riders to pay a race levy of say $1 evey time they race.
This is put into a pool held by the club to help replace gear up to a certain dollar value should it be damaged in an accident.

Might be worth considering.

[weiyun]

I suppose i am just saying that i would be extremely disappionted if such a situation was to happen within our club and that i would be uncomfotable riding with somebody who didnt share my view of the world in relation to the cost issue when somebody has just made an error.

My position is informed out of respect for the graciousness of those around a few years ago when i caused a pretty big fall in the bunch, they picked me up, patched me up , dusted me off, called their parents to drive me home, helped me fix my bike on the cheap (and i am eternally grateful to Lindsay for that) and never said another word about it. I know a few of the guys like Ron and Sheena were pretty bruised and behind closed doors they probably cursed my lack of skills but they encouraged me to improve rather than blaming me.

That attitude is what i want to see carried forward...we can insure against the financial loss but we cant insure against the hurt and shame and loss of confidence that it causes to people when we point the finger at them and cause them to feel even worse than they did already.

Ultimately people know when they are in the wrong and nobody deliberately tries to hurt anybody...stuff happens, so lets focus our energies on how to help stuff happen less often and with less severity, and minimise the loss for our members.

I agree that this effective role play is important so that we are all aware of how others feel and all the potential risks out there, so that we can be better protected. I also agree the culture is a healthy one, but I bet it's not something that can be sustained for long unless the club is closed off and places some exclusivity to the ride membership. Like so many clubs and public events out there, the changes in society would force you to change, to better protect yourself with layers and layers of liability covers. All it take is one hard hitting law suit and we have seen plenty of those around. And finally, just how do you assess a new member for their likely future action under stress? How do you know the guy riding a beater won't get stroppy and would not sue the guy behind for damages (seen plenty of that around)? Again, material has nothing to do with how a person would act. Until there's an ethos detector invented, you'll always be riding with people who may potentially sue you.

[mikesbytes]

One useful idea that some country cycling clubs use to manage this risk for riders is for riders to pay a race levy of say $1 evey time they race.
This is put into a pool held by the club to help replace gear up to a certain dollar value should it be damaged in an accident.

I would of thought that when you are racing, that there is zero liability, as is in motor racing.

One strong feature of our club is that we help each other out, with both smaller and bigger things, whether that be Lindsay truing my wheel after my velodrome accident or the loan of a bike or the donation of parts/bike or whatever.

[Simon Llewellyn]

I would bet there'll some who take the view that, gees, he can afford a $10k bike and is so stingy to fork out $100... There's an ethos issue here.

I ride a $100 bike to waterfall every week & I have a bomb of a track bike that I train on at the track at the moment as well which as Brad says is 40years old and wasn't even a good bike in its day. At home I have two very primed up racing machines. People don't look at me think, "gee's that is a piece of crap Simon is riding, why doesn't he just reach into his pocket & buy something better?" They stand there looking at me going "Gees that that old piece of crap goes quick" & puts a bit of fear into them as they don't really know how quick I can go with proper equipment...& I would like to add finished second in A grade on Friday night on my old bomb so it doesn't ride half bad either..


But If I was a once a week rider and didn't race I would probably ride a better bike to train on too...But I guess that is part on my concern, some of us have different intentions on a Sunday morning. I can understand that it is an exercise program and social ride for most. So you wouldn't want to take any major risks with families and mortgages. But if that is the case limit your risks, don't do turns at 60kms/hr and definitely don't sprint in the mad mile. & remember I am training & I assume the roadies who race are too, so we will do a bit extra to increase the intensity, but are used to traveling at high speeds. We ride behind the motor bike on the velodrome at between 60-70kms/hr twice a week & race at those speeds in bunches which are pretty hairy quite regularly.

[weiyun]

Simon, as much as you are right about yourself, you can't say that all roadies are just like you or need to be like you. There will always be diversity in any group. And at the end of the day, regular road rules apply to all open road training rides, there's no way around it. If someone wants to sue you based on road rules, I doubt you'll be able to circumvent it.

The topic is getting twisted at the moment. I think we need to take one step back and look again at the original scenario again. The facts are,

1) The bunch was approaching a road intersection.
2) Second wheel took his eyes off the road to wave off his friend.
3) First wheel gave all appropriate warning.
4) Third wheel and beyond have all been able to heed the signal.

So it's clear there was an error made by the second wheel and was responsible for the accident. Note, this is just the fact. White washing facts won't help prevent a recurrence.

The only unstated info of this hypothetical was, what was the attitude of the second wheel post event? Was he apologetic or was he a matter of fact and tried to deflect his responsibility for the episode? I think a lot of outcome would depend on this critical response. Even with understanding, not paying for the damages caused by a rider is really just a privilege granted by others rather than a right. As in Grant's case, a verbal recognition of one's failing was conducive to a more sympathetic response from others. Whereas a defensive attitude may lead to a totally different set of outcome. Finally, people tend to be lenient on noobs but aren't so forgiving to old hands who forget their responsibilities and get carefree. That's just human nature.

[mikesbytes]

Simon, the problem is that your liability is not limited to the $100 bike. Take last Sunday, Chris the tall thin grey haired RBCC rider was clipped by that car and then he lent on it to save himself from falling off, all the drivers fault. But suppose the driver said it was Chris's fault and wanted a couple of $K out of him for the repairs, Chris could of been taken to court and if there weren't any witness's or worst still, the witness's were mates of the driver, then Chris could be out of pocket quite badly.

[weiyun]

Here is a continuation of the hypothetical in order to add more strain...

What if the second wheel (one at fault) felt bad and offered to fully replace the trashed bike? Would you, as first wheel, thank him and tell him not to worry about it?

This is starting to feel like the game Scruples.

[mikesbytes]

Here is a continuation of the hypothetical in order to add more strain...

What if the second wheel (one at fault) felt bad and offered to fully replace the trashed bike? Would you, as first wheel, thank him and tell him not to worry about it?

This is starting to feel like the game Scruples.

If I ran into Simon's trainer, not only would it of not broken, but it would be hard to tell which scratches are the new ones.

[weiyun]

If I ran into Simon's trainer, not only would it of not broken, but it would be hard to tell which scratches are the new ones.

Due to a lack of compliance in Simon's trainer (way too stiff and tough), it wrecks your bike and fractures 6 of your ribs. Would you sue the maker of that frame? As we all know, there are similar legal precedence.

[mikesbytes]

Due to a lack of compliance in Simon's trainer (way too stiff and tough), it wrecks your bike and fractures 6 of your ribs. Would you sue the maker of that frame? As we all know, there are similar legal precedence.

The other problem with this argument is that Simon rides too fast to be hit in the rear.

[timyone]

far out man, id be stuffed if i was in a situation with a bike worth that much :S i hope i dont go near any bikes that cost that much :S i might stick to my riding by my self to cambeltown

[FAswad]

Holy crap. What have I started.

Disclaimers: I personally am of the view that when I ride in a bunch I have inherently assumed responsibility for any damaged caused as a result of an accident to my equipment. I will also take every precaution not to endanger the safety of those in the bunch with me. Whilst, I would hate to be sued for damages to other's equipment, I can't but think some prolifically litigous person might one day do it to me. I guess insurance is a good precaution in the event of this happening. One thing I can assure you is that, as my fellow club members, I love you all and will never sue you over my broken felt frame (god forbid). I actually ride it particularly because I can afford to replace it. So worry not.

And having just completed my excruciating 25minX2 intervals at LT, I/ll take a dig at Simon and say (you know I'm only joking) do not tell me not take pulls at 60km/h . But seriously I'll do it responsibly.

As for the scenario that has caused all this grief here, I know I posed it as hypothetical, but it is an actually incident. What happened next is as follows:
the person whose bike was destroyed tried to talk the other rider into covering at least part of the cost of replacing his frame.
The other rider reportedly denied any responsibility claiming the rider in front should not have stopped
There was a heated discussion and other riders reportedly corroborated the version of the rider with the broken frame in terms of responsibililty.
When it became apparent that the second-wheel had no intention to contribute, the rider with the broken frame went ahead and replaced his frame. This rider also decided that he would limit his rides with that club and possibly his racing as in his mind the risks are not worth it. Its his call I guess.

Hope all the grief was worth it. Keeps your minds sharp.

[mikesbytes]

You kept us entertained tonight Fred.

[weiyun]

Holy crap. What have I started.

Yep, you are the evil one!

Yet again, there's nothing better than a hypothetical on a moral issue for some in-depth discussion and introspection. Thanks.

Yes, I figured it was a real case too and the outcome was kind of expected. Isn't that the standard reason why people leave club bunches and train on their own?

I have reposted your scenario on another major roadie forum and will follow it to see how other roadies view this issue. One interesting view is as follows,

if the guy riding behind was a c*nt, and well known for it, then he has to pony up for a new frame. if the guy riding behind was a nice friendly all-around good bloke, then it was just an accident, and the front rider wears the cost: it was part of the game...

[Simon Llewellyn]

It is an interesting discussion, something I would never have though of. But always good to know & it is always good to get an idea of what other people think on such a topic because you never know what might happen in the future...

[T-Bone]

Time for my input. I basically agree with the view that you shouldn't ride what you can't afford to replace, and if you do, you do it at your own risk. It would be nice if people would be able to contribute to equipment replacement, but depending on their financial circumstances they may not be able to. At least in the mentioned situation i would prefer if the rider at least admitted they made a mistake, and apologised, even if they didn't want to contribute to replacement. Otherwise, i would probably decide to consider refusing to ride with that person.

As for the high speed riding , etc. I believe people should be aware of the risks they take whenever they ride, not just at high speeds.

In my crash, i can only really blame the road conditions. The rider in front may have grabbed the brakes when he punctured, but it's hard to know for sure. If my frame was damaged in the crash, i wouldn't have anyone to go to seeking money to assist replacement, and even if i did, my frame only cost $1600 or so, and so will my next one, and when i get some nice deep carbon wheels, i won't be seen training on them (maybe once for testing purposes). Even if i couldn't afford to replace my frame immediately, i have my old Daccordi (currently fixed) that i could rebuild as my road machine. I guess the key to all my gibberish is that riding a $5000 carbon frame would be nice, and i wouldn't mind having one myself, but personally i couldn't justify spending that amount on just a frame. Maybe in the future i'll have enough money to justify it, though i'd probably go custom, maybe a custom Lynskey titanium frame with twisted tubing.....

[weiyun]

...At least in the mentioned situation i would prefer if the rider at least admitted they made a mistake, and apologised, even if they didn't want to contribute to replacement. Otherwise, i would probably decide to consider refusing to ride with that person.

I agree. I think this really is the crux of the matter and the critical decider on how the situation could be resolved. The fact that second wheel denied all blames was just asking for the worst possible outcome. It doesn't sound like the two involved were friends in the first place, so much for being a fellow club member.

[weiyun]

Here's another view from a Brit,

If the guy behind was well known for inattentivenes, he should pay for it. If he's ussualy reliable, the wrecked bikes owner might want to let him off at their own discretion. Though inevitably its a factor, being a nice guy or not shouldn't be a factor. If its a nice but inattentive rider, he'll learn quicker to pay attention if he's bank balance takes a hit!

And here a short response as to who's fault it was,

Bush

Maybe we can add Howard in there too...

[geoff m]

4) Neither rider willing to pay out of their own pocket, so first rider places a claim on the second rider's insurance. Outcome: Procedural issue. Insurance served its purpose. relationship maintained.

5) Neither rider willing to pay and the insurance denies the claim, so first rider sues the second rider to try to enforce extraction of funds from the insurance company. Outcome: Strained relationship if the action was taken personally. If successful, then financial losses are again covered by the insurance company. Relationship may be rebuilt.

Weiyun, there are some complexities with dealing with insurance.

Firstly, there is a $1,000 excess which someone has to wear.

Secondly, the insurer insists that under no circumstances does the respondent admit liability. If the respondent does, the insurance policy may be cancelled.

[weiyun]

Good point. But note also that the excess is only applicable for your own claim. When someone tries to claim off your insurance, they expect full payment and excess does not apply.

True that admission of liability may invalidate your insurance policy. But I don't think a private verbal sorry is an admission of liability (except Howard seemed to think that way). It happens all the time in MVAs. Or I guess it's a case of "The insurance company made me do it".

[geoff m]

[quote="Grant Bond"]
My position is informed out of respect for the graciousness of those around a few years ago when i caused a pretty big fall in the bunch, they picked me up, patched me up , dusted me off, called their parents to drive me home, helped me fix my bike on the cheap (and i am eternally grateful to Lindsay for that) and never said another word about it. I know a few of the guys like Ron and Sheena were pretty bruised and behind closed doors they probably cursed my lack of skills but they encouraged me to improve rather than blaming me.

[quote]

I remember this. I was riding alongside you as a new rider and you were negligent when you clipped the wheel in front. You lost control, started to spin to the right, and then swung back in left as you came crashing down, fully sprawled out. I thought I had cleared you, but you just had to stretch out your hand on the ground a few inches further, so I had no choice but to run over your hand. As I slowed down, Ron negligently (according to road rules) hit the back of me and took both of us out.

I was fine, but I think there was damage to Ron's bike.

You also didn't wear gloves that day, and left the skin of your palm over the road, after I ran over it.

The point here is that we took you under our wing, you stayed on, and provide a return of about 20 times our original kindness, in investment into supporting and building the club.

The other point is that you were negligent, and so was Ron. And for regular riders, at some stage, and probably on quite a few ocassions, we will all cause accidents which will impact others, despite best practice safety. Hence, anyone who rides with a bunch, does so at their own risk, and should anticipate accidents which may be caused by others as well as themselves.

[weiyun]

Disclaimers: I personally am of the view that when I ride in a bunch I have inherently assumed responsibility for any damaged caused as a result of an accident to my equipment...

On account of what Geoff has just highlighted wrt insurance policy agreement, your statement above may invalidate your coverage.

[geoff m]

Good point. But note also that the excess is only applicable for your own claim. When someone tries to claim off your insurance, they expect full payment and excess does not apply.

I've checked the policy as per below. The respondent would directly be out of pocket for $1,000 for any claim successfully made against them:

What is the excess on the Public and Products Liability and Professional Liability policies?
There is a $1,000 excess for each and every occurrence for Public and Products Liability Property Damage and Professional Liability claims.

[weiyun]

The point here is that we took you under our wing, you stayed on, and provide a return of about 20 times our original kindness, in investment into supporting and building the club.

I think the point here is that there's a difference b/n what's legally permissible and what's culturally acceptable.

Grant's situation clearly is a case whereby the injured parties waived their rights under the law, hence a culture. The culture can be promoted and encouraged but it should not be taken as an automatic right by those who cause accident/s. And to Grant's credit, he was recognizant of this and repaid the kindness through other means.

Back to our original scenario. I suspect there would be a different perception if the 2nd wheel was,
a) Typically a responsible rider.
b) Typically a risk taker.

[weiyun]

I've checked the policy as per below. The respondent would directly be out of pocket for $1,000 for any claim successfully made against them:

So the claimant receives the full amount while the respondent gets spanked for $1000 for naughtily taking his eyes off the road. Better than coughing up $3000-5000+ for a new CF frame. Win-win situation I'd say and one that actually made good and fair use of the insurance coverage that's there. Further, if one wants to stay with this bunch cultural directive, then maybe the 1st wheel rider can cover the $1000 excess for the second rider. Does any of the traditionalists have a problem with this solution?

Yes, I can understand the historical background as to how the culture developed, one that evolved from a time (in Simon's words, over the last century) when there was no insurance coverage for cyclists. A blame and claim process would not only bankrupt riders, it may also get too complex when there are multiple riders involved. However, time have changed and we are all forced to pay an insurance premium through our BNSW and/or Cycling Australia membership. So why not get smart and make use of it when appropriate? Or is the ancient unwritten code to be preserved at all cost? IIRC, when I first rode with the club, the insurance coverage that comes with our Cycling Australia membership was used as a promotion item for joining, and even now, the club officially recommends it. So is there a justification for not using something that's there?

Maybe Geoff can assist here. I understand that Cycling Australia's member insurance specifically covers club training rides, hence the incentive to take up membership. Is there a clause within the policy that excludes coverage of 3rd party damages within the bunch? Is a fellow bunch rider a member of the "public" as defined within the policy? I further note that the definition of sanctioned events are as follows,

What are sanctioned activities?
Sanctioned activities are those activities that are approved by Cycling Australia, BMX Australia, Mountain Bike Australia or their affiliated State Associations or Clubs. Sanctioned activities include events that are organised by these groups. Training sessions are designated to be sanctioned if they are recorded in a book, prior to the training session commencing.

Do we actually have such a book? What about those rides organized on this forum eg. RNP, extended RNP? Are these also considered to be sanctioned rides and recorded electronically? Or do we need a club official to formally sanction it? And at an individual level,

What constitutes organised training?
Organised training is training that is approved by either Cycling Australia, BMX Australia or Mountain Bike Australia or an affiliated State Association, your club or a coach. You must keep a record, prior to the training session commencing, of any individual training that you are undertaking in case an accident occurs.

It would appear that we as individuals also need to keep a record ahead of the ride. I wonder if BNSW's member insurance has similar conditions?

[weiyun]

Here are more responses,

If you're in a paceline or tight group ride, you pay attention. You do not look backwards and wave, no matter how hot the departing person is.

you are all at fault
for remaining as a group
riding like a bunch of dips

should have figured it out many rides earlier
and gone yer separate ways

Everything is George W. Bush's fault.
The answer is 42.

[timyone]

:S if the guy was only not accepting blame for legal reasons i guess thats understandable to some extent :S but yeah if any one knows who this guy is, point him out to me, i dont think id want to be riding with him :S

[weiyun]

:S if the guy was only not accepting blame for legal reasons i guess thats understandable to some extent :S but yeah if any one knows who this guy is, point him out to me, i dont think id want to be riding with him :S

Tim, better clarify which guy you don't want to ride with. There's opinions in this thread faulting both (rider at first wheel and rider at second wheel). Some think it's bad form to ask another rider for equipment damages caused by that rider. While others think it's bad form for refusing to be responsible for one's action and pay/co-pay those damages.

[kevinllewellyn]

I have never ridden in a bunch and have no thoughts on how to ride in a bunch or who is at fault.

The only thing I have to add is about insurance.

When a rider claims on insurance, they are suing the other rider personally and not the insurance company. The insurance company will fight the claim on their behalf. This may involve going to court and calling witnesses from the bunch The insurance company will endeavour not to have to reimburse the claim.

If the claim is paid the insurance company may raise the premiums for all other riders to cover the cost of the previous years' claims.

The relationship between other club members needs to be considered before making a claim.

Kevin Llewellyn

[weiyun]

The relationship between other club members needs to be considered before making a claim.

True. That's why I pointed out in the earlier scenario that one can't take this action personally, though some people may. In any case, most insurance claims are pretty straight forward with a statement or two at the most. Very very few gets dragged through the courts. Given the potential $3000+ cost saving for the guy at first wheel who did absolutely nothing wrong (even if he pays for second guy's excess), I'd say it's a bit of a no brainer. As seen in many MVAs, the fact that everyone's insured actually minimizes inter-personal friction.

I think that people need to recognize the fact that an insurance claim against you isn't an attack on you. It's a simple due process that's provided by what we all paid for in insurance premium. Further, excess and general peer pressure would limit the amount of frivolous claims (a situation that's quite different to those MV claims). In the hypothetical, it's clear that the position of the first rider was well supported by many other riders in the club. The ungracious behaviour of the second rider would more than likely to generate greater disharmony than the first rider. At the end of the day for club riders on Cycling Australia membership, both parties are represented by the same insurance broker (Willis).

[timyone]

ive asked around at the track, and it seems to be unanymous that each person pays for their own bike :S
Dont ride it in the bunch if you cant afford to lose it :S

[weiyun]

ive asked around at the track, and it seems to be unanymous that each person pays for their own bike :S
Dont ride it in the bunch if you cant afford to lose it :S

That may be a culture, but it won't stand up if it's challenged in the courts. Because at the end of the day, road rules apply when you ride on open road. Track is a totally different environment as its not bound by road rules and personal opinions of that kind have little weight when challenged in the courts.

BTW, don't take this as the way I would exercise my rights while I get the feeling that some of the participants in this discussion are getting a little personal. I am here just playing devil's advocate, arguing based purely on logic. I think that as much as one wants to keep the existing culture, it's a culture that'll get challenged by changes in society. Given the number of new cyclists joining the sport, that culture will get disrupted at some point (simple probability issue). A quick survey on another major cycling forum backs up this view. So I think it's more reason to make sure you are well insured as you can't guarantee who'll put a claim against you. I would further stress that, absolute value of the equipment and ability to replace are not determinants on how someone would respond under these situations. Arguing cheap bike vs expensive bike as the criteria is a very simplistic view based purely on materialistic angle. Not everyone live by that sole criteria.

One final point. If the view is strong on these "Dont ride it in the bunch if you can't afford to lose it", "You pay your own damaged equipment irrespective of the cause" and "I won't ride with anyone who might blame me" concepts. Then I think the club needs to consider warning all new potential participants of it. Grant's ride instruction brochure could be a starting point. Leaving it post accident could be too late. And if the club really want to set up some objective criteria for excluding someone from joining the bunch, then I'd say it's going to be based on whether they've paid up their ride insurance premium or not.

[jimmy]

I think that it ultimately comes down to Insurance, we each need to ensure that we have sufficient insurance.

If you don't want to insure you own bike, then that is fine, but if something like this does occur, and they hit you up for the cost, what would you prefer? The full replacement cost? Or just the excess.

Further, you need to look at the potential medical cost as well. Suppose that the accident doesn't just cause damage to the bike, and someone has to spend time of work (or god forbid is killed). You need to remember that what you would do is different to what your family would do.

Look at what happened at Eastern Creek, that was in racing, and the family went after anyone they could, up to and including the Raceway themselves.

Lets assume for a second that the rider who was hit was unable to work for a while, whether it is a month or 12 months, the point is they couldn't work. Now, what if they work for themselves (so they have no sick leave), and they are supporting a Wife and 2 children? At that point, I would be very worried if I didn't have insurance.

If the rider is a Cycling Australia Member, then if it is a sanctioned Club ride I think that they get something, but I am not sure how much, if it isn't enough would they come chasing you?

James

[weiyun]

Given what I quoted off CA's site on sanctioned club ride and training rides, I think we'll all need to review our own documentation. As asked before, are these RNP and extended RNP rides covered by CA's insurance? Are they sanctioned club rides? I am presently only comforted by the fact that I also have BNSW's coverage for rides that are potentially excluded from CA's policy.

Looking around some of the other club sites and ride groups, a number of them have a policy of needing new riders to sign a liability waiver before they are allowed to join the bunch. I further note that Renegade uses BNSW's ride waiver form. Though better than nothing, but I would bet even that may be challengeable by a shrewd legal eagle.

http://www.renegadecycles.com.au/media/ ... Waiver.pdf

[Grant Bond]

I hope that nothing i have said has been interpreted as a personal attack. Admittedly i might have gone in a bit hard the other day....playing on the side of "il diavalo" myself there too.

I suppose what i am getting at is that we need to get to a common understanding of our legal and moral position in relation to this so that we can all make decisions about who we ride with informed by understanding the expectations of those around us. (hmm taking the "yous" out does make a difference doesnt it!)

Rest assured that the clubs commitee are developing a policy on this and im told that we will publish a formal policy position along with the updated brochure over the DEC-JAN period so people are clear about the cultural and legal expecations of riding in our bunch.

[weiyun]

Common understanding can not be one that gets forced on another through strong arm tactics (with me or against me), especially subjective ones. Acceptance can only be achieved through objective reasoning and consultation.

I hope the policy being considered is one that takes into account of developments in our society. In particular, one shouldn't look at insurance negatively, but as one that not only protect oneself, but one that offers protection to others and society ie. The purpose of compulsory third party insurance in the case of MVs. Further, there needs to be a strong policy to deter carefree and risk taking behaviours within a bunch and methods to police and execute ie. Appropriately protect all who participate.

[geoff m]

Recent developments in society over the nineties saw decline in clubs, fewer people willing to take on organising roles, and soaring insurance costs.

These were big issues in the media last decade. It became apparent that these trends were acting against the overall collective interests of participants.

As a result, the NSW Government enacted the Civil Liability Amendment (Personal Responsibility) Act 2002 No 92 to reverse these trends.

This was to ensure that the onus of responsibility was on participants where it was obvious that participation subjected them to inherent and dangerous recreational activities and sports.

In short, if people are going to choose to conduct in risky activities, they take full responsibility for obvious, and inherent risks. Of course there are protections against gross and wilful misconduct.

Now is a good time to publish an interim club policy on participation. The executive are working on further reviewing our risk management practices, and will discuss and publish this upon further refinement.

In the iterim, everyone should refresh themselves with awareness of general risks of cycling and the risks you take and acknowledge and accept if you choose to participate in club actitivies. These can be viewed:

http://www.dhbc.org.au/forum/viewtopic.php?t=312

[geoff m]

As asked before, are these RNP and extended RNP rides covered by CA's insurance? Are they sanctioned club rides?

Thanks, good question Weiyun. Any regular rides published by the executive are club sanctioned rides. These include Saturday Slowies, Sunday Waterfall and the 1st and 3rd Sunday of the month RNP rides, as well as other published rides from time to time, and participation in CA sanctioned events on behalf of the club.

[weiyun]

Thanks Geoff for getting some background info.

I guess that 3rd party liability insurance is part of this directive. And the exact interpretation of "gross and wilful misconduct"? As in the hypothetical case, can someone who failed to obey basic traffic rules be considered to be in gross misconduct of their responsibility? I would read that the protection only relates to true accidents of unforeseen events but not when someone is negligent from basic road rules. The differentiation being,

Scenario 1 (true accident): First wheel had to make an emergency stop due to some unforeseen traffic event which led to a rear end from second wheel.

Scenario 2 (questionable status): First wheel slowing and stopping for a street intersection, one that's clearly visible from a distance by all within the bunch, with issuing of appropriate warnings to the bunch, and second wheel still crashes into first wheel.

[weiyun]

Thanks, good question Weiyun. Any regular rides published by the executive are club sanctioned rides. These include Saturday Slowies, Sunday Waterfall and the 1st and 3rd Sunday of the month RNP rides, as well as other published rides from time to time, and participation in CA sanctioned events on behalf of the club.

So those extended RNP rides organized privately on this forum are not sanctioned, correct? If so, then the onus is on the particular participants to document it in their training diary ahead of time as a training ride. Maybe a confirmation in the forum thread could be considered to be sufficient?

After looking at the insurance policies of CA and BNSW memberships in the last day or two, I have to say that BNSW's policy is so much broader and is highly desirable if you are serious about insurance coverage for all your cycling activities.

[weiyun]

Here's another view off the net that has relevance to those liability waivers floating around. It's an argument that'll likely turn those waivers into waste paper in the courts. The angle taken would be that racing is not permitted on public roads unless there's special permissions given, and bunch and training rides are no races. Shorten that draft distance at your own risk in effect.

For me it would depend on circumstances. Putting myself in the crashee's
position, in a race I'd just have to grin and bear it. It's a risk I'd take
when racing. When racing, normal road rules don't apply (on a closed
course).

If it was just a ride, however, then, in effect, it's a bunch of vehicles
riding on the road, so they should be subject to the same rights and
responsibilities of any other road user. That means people riding behind
must leave sufficient stopping distance. If the bunch chooses to ignore the
rule then people in the bunch should be subject to the same range of
responsibilities as any other vehicle. That means the crasher should be
liable for damages.

It's exactly the same principle as a bunch riding through a red light;
ignore the rules and there are consequences. Just because people in the
bunch are 'training' does not confer the right to ride contrary to the
rules.

I hope no one will get offended by my continuing discussion on this subject. I think it's a grey area and is one that's waiting to explode if not managed early and effectively. Given the growth of our club with regular new riders joining in, I think it's wise to have a thorough discussion on this subject and come to a well reasoned position and management plan.

[lindsay]

So those extended RNP rides organized privately on this forum are not sanctioned, correct? If so, then the onus is on the particular participants to document it in their training diary ahead of time as a training ride.

This is a good point. We should make sure the club sanctions all our training rides. Perhaps if riders can feed through to me in advance what they are doing we can take the correct steps to make sure they are covered. If it's weekend rides you could drop an email on Friday to me & I'll do the necessary steps.

[geoff m]

All good points.

I think we now have a lot of information and actions agreed going foward. We have a policy published in place and are looking to provide further improvements, if necessary.

Please give the Club Executive some space to work through these issues thanks.

[weiyun]

This is a good point. We should make sure the club sanctions all our training rides. Perhaps if riders can feed through to me in advance what they are doing we can take the correct steps to make sure they are covered. If it's weekend rides you could drop an email on Friday to me & I'll do the necessary steps.

Thanks Lindsay. Didn't want to add unnecessary work load to your busy schedule. But I think it's important for people to know about it, especially for those solely covered by CA's policy.

[weiyun]

Another comment,

Such waivers are totally overridden where someone has owed a duty of care (to avoid running into the back of another vehicle) and has failed in that duty (been negligent - collided and caused damage). You cannot write away your rights to be protected from negligent behaviour.

Such waivers are intended to cover the "Oh, I didn't know cycling was so hard! I've pulled a hammie, I'll sue the cycling club"

[weiyun]

Another one,

In Australia the law in effect says that one cannot sign away ones
common law rights, hence over here at least waivers have little bearing.

An exception exists herh for certain 'dangerous activities' like
competitive motor racing... I'm not sure bike riding would qualify, but
bike racing might.

[Damian]

This is what happens when this thinking is taken to the next level.

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topst ... 3726661.jp

[weiyun]

Fact is, people think differently and interpret events differently. So one can't afford not to have some kind of liability cover. Leaving it up to goodwill may work sometimes, but there's an inherent risk. £370,000 is more than enough to bankrupt a lot of people and cause sufficient hurt in others.