ITTs, Group starts, liabilities?

[whitestone]

My point about relatives claiming stems from a mountaineering accident some years ago where a guide was sued by the wife of a client who died whilst climbing with the guide. Both client and spouse were friends of the guide and had known each other years. The widow was, to some extent, pressured into taking the legal action.

I'll put an official club hat on here. I'm on the committee of the Bob Graham Club, the BGR has many similarities to an ITT s it's an individual challenge though there's no group start (unless you count the Dark Peak attempts as such). One of the criteria for membership is that the contender is accompanied or witnessed at all the required summits - doesn't have to be the same witness throughout the attempt. Despite occasional but regular requests we don't accept solo or part solo rounds for club membership - the reasons are laid out here http://www.bobgrahamclub.org.uk/index.php?page=solo . That text was written by a lawyer who more prosaically stated that he had no wish to stand up in court and explain to the grieving family why the club had encouraged, even tacitly, their relative to head out into the fells alone.

Club hat off.

Some people seem to see personal responsibility and risk assessment as being almost socially irresponsible. "Don't you ever think about those who have to come and rescue you?" Etc. (doffs cap to Greg), it's as if they are trying to project their fears onto you. Ultimately it's my call. I can choose to cross the Fords of Avon or take the detour. I'm not a trainee soldier being screamed at by a bellicose Sergeant Major to do it. I've done some really necky things when climbing but it's always been my choice. Equally I've stepped away from things when it didn't feel right.

The bollox that gets me is the line that "having insurance prevents accidents"! Eh? So paying £X for a bit of paper is going to protect me from whatever will it? It might protect my bank account but it ain't going to protect me or my property from whatever might befall it.

[Cheeky Monkey]

Fell running has already had to deal with claims. It's also dealt with several deaths. As has climbing and most other mature mountain sports. I've had friends die both climbing and cycling. At no point would their direct family have any inclination to seek blame other than where it was - gravity. I find the assumption that "relatives" are the issue insulting to anyone I am related to. This issue isn't relatives, it's people. People will be dicks no matter their relation to anyone who becomes injured or killed.

FWIW, this whole issue is one of the main reason i infrequently ride with people I neither know, nor trust, not to turn a crash into a cash cow. I've walked away from group rides/runs in the past when people have asked who's insurance the days is being covered by. As with Ian, our fell running club deals with what we do in a similar manner to DPR. Only due to the numbers, and the variable levels of members taking on local terrain at... poor times of the year.

Take responsibility for yourself. Let others know that you're doing so. Or don't partake.

Elitist, sure, why not. Frankly, I don't care who is covering an event I've entered. If I'm partaking, I'm doing so of my own free will. I will assume the liability. If I'm thick, or unlucky, enough to get myself into trouble as someone has not done their job properly I'll chalk it up to life experience and adapt. Or be dead, and not care too much.

Now to launch my annual drunken chainsaw juggling ITT. Come one, come all, go home will less than you came with!

Blimey

[benp1]

Tricky one this. Lets face it, we're discussing an unlikely situation which would most likely be the minority of the minority, not the majority

But I agree with the point that Bob is making. Lets assume that someone is permanently disabled and can't work forever, but has huge healthcare costs and they can't afford to pay it... then what

Sometimes it's just an insurance company against an insurance company and the court/suing is just due process, but it might not always be

There was also a case of a mountain biker who sued the coach for crashing while being coached. Here it is - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10 ... ountain-b/

[ianfitz]

Invariably the problem isn't with participants but with their relatives.

That is very true Bob and a very good point, Certainly adds to the 'problems unknown'.

One thing seemingly often overlooked is that people are free to take out their own personal accident insurance - as they might if they were going skiing or whatever.

If an insured individual has an accident and makes a claim. Will the insure just pay out, or will they look to see if anyone else is to blame?

There is also the 'others' factor. I'm aware of a (public sector) large employer who's employee was injured in a non-fault car accident. This resulted in that person being off work for several months (being paid sick-pay) and requiring expensive, temporary cover due to the specialist nature of their work. The large employer pursued the driver at fault to recover these costs, these amounted to 10's thousands of pounds and were covered by their motor insurance. I'm conflicted about this, in some ways fair enough - why should the tax payer cover those extra expenses when it seems obvious the costs have arisen due to another persons actions (negligence in this case) but I could see a situation where the person thought to be at fault may not be so well insured or supported.

In fell race fatality examples, although there are processes, insurance, governing bodies etc. I know, from speaking with the RO involved, that the 'finding out if the organiser was negligent' part was extremely stressful, took 18 months and a lot of legal representation. Including coroners court, and that was with a family who 'got' the sport and were understanding and constructive in their criticism of the incident and processes linked to it.

[restlessshawn]

None of this is giving me a warm glow about running anything as a guerrilla event

Is it reasonable to expect the same requirement of an individual organising a free event for the benefit of those who wish to partake? Again, I expect there is no definitive answer, and this would have to be determined by the relevant courts, after a claim has been made.

I think this is the issue, however I don't want to end up being the test case!

[Bearbonesnorm]

'Tis a very interesting topic and it seems that the deeper we dig, the darker it gets. Sadly, it's probably just a matter of time until we know all the answers but until then, I only hope that those taking part are of a mind to accept risk and shoulder personal responsibility.

[Cheeky Monkey]

The bollox that gets me is the line that "having insurance prevents accidents"! Eh? So paying £X for a bit of paper is going to protect me from whatever will it? It might protect my bank account but it ain't going to protect me or my property from whatever might befall it.

I *think* the belief is that insurers caveat their cover and often insist on seeing evidence that an event / activity has been planned and assessed i.e. being insured drives good practice, which should avoid incidents.

It's a theory and, if applied correctly and well, probably works much of the time. Of course it's not always so.

A personal bugbear is when "Elf&Safety" is used by some as an excuse / fig-leaf for a decision that they are not prepared to honestly or frankly defend or substantiate. The use of the "H&S excuse" in this way is absolute shuffle. The essence of H&S, IMO and admittedly from a work (environmental / construction but also some small events and many years of volunteer trailbuilding) perspective, is that everyone goes home at the end of the day no less well and able than when they arrived.

I understand it gets a bit trickier when it's applied to activities that are more voluntary and leisure related, IMO because they involve factors of personal choice and volition. However, if you're going to organise something I think, in all fairness, you ought to do it well and that includes not "endangering" people where they have not knowingly accepted the risks (i.e. the concept of informed consent most often found in climbing). Trouble is, when you organise something you change or at least blur the lines between what is a persons' *choice* and what is required / created / an integral part of an event.

Disappear. Rabbit. Hole. etc

I'm not pointing at anyone in this or singling anything specific or BB / ITT related out for criticism, just knocking it about.

Hey ho

[Richpips]

I would have thought the liability on someone who pieced together an ITT would be a tough prosecution. EG There are loads of ITTs aka long distance routes, WHW C2C LeJog etc. People die doing those.

Group start though is a different matter.

A qualifying CV that would show a rider has the fitness, skills and experience to get round.

Does anyone (Stu) specify a minimum kit list?

[sean_iow]

... those taking part are of a mind to accept risk and shoulder personal responsibility.

Is this a clue to amount of carrying there will be on the BB200?

As for H&S, unfortunately it would appear that the general public are not bright enough to be able to look after themselves now? On site this morning I watched a guy put on ear defenders as he was about to use a breaker on some concrete but it didn't occur to the lad stood next to him that he might need some. Obviously the training is 'when using the breaker wear hearing protection' and he was only watching

[Cheeky Monkey]

On site this morning I watched a guy put on ear defenders as he was about to use a breaker on some concrete but it didn't occur to the lad stood next to him that he might need some. Obviously the training is 'when using the breaker wear hearing protection' and he was only watching

It is mental the risks people will put themselves in.

Follow HSE notifications and observe the depressing frequency of deaths and cripplings in the roofing sector because workers have fallen through things like fragile skylights. It's not like the work is rocket science and yet firms in the sector and even their [experienced] workers both fail to plan and take appropriate steps to make sure they all go home at the end of their shift.

It's depressing And off topic

[whitestone]

At least one fell race that I know of (Borrowdale) has changed the course due to the original way becoming too risky.

Alan Goldsmith states that if you don't feel the river crossing in Fisherfield is safe then you should backtrack and go round by the road. I notice that there is a small group of riders this year who have been recorded as doing the "Summer Route" which possibly refers to this. http://www.highlandtrail.net/riderecords2017.html

For the Cairngorms Loop Steve suggested similar action if you felt the river levels were too high and to head round by the outer loop only. In the event the Burn of Brown on the outer loop was impassible on the Saturday but levels had fallen by the time those doing the inner loop first got there on Sunday.

[Bearbonesnorm]

I understand it gets a bit trickier when it's applied to activities that are more voluntary and leisure related, IMO because they involve factors of personal choice and volition. However, if you're going to organise something I think, in all fairness, you ought to do it well and that includes not "endangering" people where they have not knowingly accepted the risks (i.e. the concept of informed consent most often found in climbing). Trouble is, when you organise something you change or at least blur the lines between what is a persons' *choice* and what is required / created / an integral part of an event.

That is a very fair point Tim and it's one that I sometimes struggle with when it comes to the BB200. What I consider perfectly acceptable / normal / whatever might be quite different to how other people view it ... maybe crossing a river would be a good example?

Crossing a river on the WRT is entirely down to the individual because they placed themselves in that physical position ... but it's different when something has a set route. Hopefully common sense comes into play and if someone feels that crossing would be unwise, they won't cross. But what about external / peer pressure? Could it sway someones judgement and make them take risks that they wouldn't usually.

Hopefully, the reputation of the BB200 (and other ITT) goes before it and helps prevent people from entering who for whatever reason probably shouldn't but pressing return on your keyboard is a very easy thing to do at 2pm on a sunny afternoon. Another option would be to 'vet' all applications and decline those who don't appear (a) up to the task (b) to have a proper understanding of the self-supported / ITT ethos. Trouble is, doing this may have prevented some people progressing to much greater things further down the line.

These are difficult questions and decisions have to be made along the way, especially if people want the world of ITT as we know it to continue. Personally, I'm happy and maybe even a touch proud to have stuck my head above the parapet.

[Cheeky Monkey]

Whilst disclaimers are a fruitless exercise I think if riders signing onto something that says, after a realistic description of the undertaking / event, that the person accepts they have the skills and experience to do so and are prepared to exercise appropriate judgement and caution in the reasonably predictable situations that might arise then that goes a long way to covering the organiser.

Something akin to the statements at bouldering walls where users acknowledge the limitations in mats to prevent injury - they help but despite their presence a bad landing will do damage. The wall is then just responsible for the matting to be secure and well maintained. However, there comes a point where matting is inadequate i.e. when getting to heights and falling off is more likely than not to cause an injury - so you couldn't let people solo on lead walls.

I think it would be a minefield to vet entrants whereas an active "read this and sign on" approach where you tell them the key elements of an event (endurance, distance, exposure, river crossings, fatigue etc) and place the onus on them to realistically assess themselves and whether they're up to it is fair and appropriate, if and where / when necessary. It comes back to the concept of informed consent, in an organised event context.

As another example, an organiser shouldn't create a route that sends people somewhere they really shouldn't be e.g. a knife edge ridge at altitude where a fully kitted bike would need carrying. But tussocks on a BW, it's a PROW and a bikepacker should know what the craic is, twist an ankle or dislocate a shoulder and it's all part of the reasonable risk.

Please bear in mind I'm no lawyer and am, again for the avoidance of doubt, just knocking it about

EDIT - don't take any of this as being against ITTs and BB events. I think it's brilliant that you and others do (organising and taking part) them. I've seen the smiles and enjoyed the post-event afterglow from the small scale events (chainless challenges) we've done and it is vaguely exciting for everyone involved!

[Bearbonesnorm]

don't take any of this as being against ITTs and BB events. I think it's brilliant that you and others do (organising and taking part) them. I've seen the smiles and enjoyed the post-event afterglow from the small scale events (chainless challenges) we've done and it is vaguely exciting for everyone involved!

Never thought that for a minute Tim.

[Cheeky Monkey]

You might not have .........

[Bearbonesnorm]

Does anyone (Stu) specify a minimum kit list?

BB200 has one ... I received a call one day from a grumpy employee of the National Park asking why the kit list didn't include (a) a headtorch (b) a foil blanket. I explained that a 2000 lumen bike light negated the headtorch and the foil blanket wasn't really required what with the sleeping / bivvy bag. Unsurprisingly, he was having none of it and completely failed to understand

[Wilkyboy]

In the audax world, organisers like me have to submit a routesheet — a written-out list of instructions — along with a complete risk assessment for the event — both the route, as well as the timings of the event. This covers difficult junctions, busy road crossings, night-riding, opportunities to stock up at 2am in the middle of Wales, etc.; on multi-day events it would also cover aspects of running the controls and taking care of volunteers. That RA is considered by Audax UK itself and questioned or approved as appropriate — organisers are in effect franchisees, but the insurance for the event is with Audax UK and us organisers and everyone on the event are covered by it. Audax isn't bikepacking, but they share a common self-sufficiency and long-distance theme. And the riders tend to be oddballs in both cases, just saying ...

When we set riders off, we make it clear that they are "on a private excursion on public roads" and that they are responsible for their own affairs. This is the standard AUK statement that I share with riders — http://www.camaudax.uk/disclaimer. AFAIK Audax UK hasn't lost any riders due to the difficulty of an event or any issues that the organiser could possibly have known about. We have lost riders to idiot motorists, as well as health issues with individuals — and then claims are made against those drivers and their insurers, as appropriate.

FWIW, the audax model could be quite effective if validation-by-GPS is used — riders could choose any route between the set control-locations, and those controls don't need to be manned. Audax events can also be mandatory route, which is closer to the BB ethos, I think (I haven't ridden one yet, only read about them), and again validated by GPS, so no manned controls. It's tricky to check everyone's GPS tracks afterwards, though.

What's not clear, to my mind, is whether a predominantly off-road event could be covered by Audax UK. There are gravel events — Don't Keep To The Roads and the upcoming This Is Not A Tour (TINAT) events — but they tackle straightforward unmetalled tracks rather than full-on hike-a-bike. Also, lowering the minimum speed below 10kph might also trigger alarms with the insurers, since road riding is considerably quicker than that, even in Wales — London-Edinburgh-London at 1400km was still 12kph minimum, so riders had to build a time buffer before stopping to sleep, which is quite easy on the road, but almost impossible on BB or WRT terrain. And on short events with lowered minimum speeds then no points are available, so negating the point about them being audaxes in the first place, I think.

Unfortunately, one of the things I've noticed is that a lot of riders seem unable or unwilling to familiarise themselves with exactly what they're about to undertake and they turn up at the start under-prepared. Riders who think a Garmin will last 12 hours and so don't bother to take the paper routesheet; no spare tubes; bikes that need major servicing; no lights on winter rides; no cold-weather gear; no waterproofs; etc. When you're going to be out all day, something might just catch you out. On London-Edinburgh-London in July there were a lot of novice riders from around the world who clearly weren't ready for the scale of the undertaking in either fitness or kit-prep and the DNF rate was a staggering 42% and will possibly be higher once the brevet cards have all been checked!

I think as individuals look for more thrills and so endurance events such as audax and bikepacking attract more riders, a greater number of those riders are going to come a cropper by thinking a mobile phone with SnapChat on it will get them out of anything — we know that's not the case and are prepared to take necessary precautions/kit/spares, but they are yet to learn that the hard way. I just hope their way isn't too hard, at which point it all goes legal and we all duck and run.

[ZeroDarkBivi]

Two observations.

1. A few years ago I broke my back whilst on a guided MTB holiday in Canada, resulting in some expensive spinal surgery and about 8 months of rehab to get fully fit again. It was a simple misunderstanding and I accepted responsibility for the consequences; the guide's subsequent response to the accident was exemplary. Riding bikes down hills is an inherently risky activity and (in my opinion) so long as the guide has not misled you about the level of 'difficulty/hazards' they have satisfied their duty of care. If you can't live with that, you should not be on the hill. My insurance company (through BMC) paid my substantial medical bills and did not attempt to reclaim anything from the guide company.

2. But life is not that simple, and others impacted by tragic events will want to ensure that their is no hint of liability on the part of the parties involved, especially if compensation may be a factor. My boss spent 12 months investigating a fatal accident, then a further year in-and-out of coroners court, giving evidence and being cross-examined by lawyers determined to establish negligence. This sobering experience has had a big impact on how we manage safety across another potentially hazardous activity. Trying to anticipate hazardous situations, ID and control threats, implement recovery barriers that minimise impact, and always asking "is there anything else that could be done to reduce the risk, and is the benefit of that activity worth the residual risk?"

As a society we tolerate numerous road deaths every year, because the perceived benefits of driving are so important to us. Not sure how a coroner would view the Risk Vs Benefit balance of hazardous leisure activities conducted purely for 'fun'.

[slarge]

Zdb, i have no idea of the technicalities of your broken back insurance recovery, but the outcome could have been different if the guiding company was UK based - there coul easily have been an examination of the evidence with the intent to recover costs.

I struggle with the whole subject. I hate the claim / compensation culture with a passion, however I have never been in a situation where I needed the financial support following an accident.

One thing about the events we do is that they are run on PROWs, which means they are open to anyone at any time, however the timing side is not covered by that, however we don't have placings and are not competing aginst each other (there is no winner or prize for being fastest).

Once we start the whole club / organisation subject then there are a whole host of new rules and regs that need to be adhered to as they are a formal structure that need people to be nominated as in charge, insurance and risk assessments etc. I think that's a step too far as it goes against the freedom for which we strive, but if it protects us in the event of a bad event it might be a good thing.

I think the future should be about looking at similar outdoor providers, and seeing how they are pursued or protected when their users have accidents, and judging when it is necessary to take action. There have been numerous examples - Swinley mtb centre fatality, Trail centre numerous injuries, some very serious, lots more I can't think of....

Crap, I think I've just talked myself into a risk assessment for the ride to work tomorrow.

[Dave Barter]

I haven't seen my lawyer since he set out to survey the BB200 2014 route

[Mariner]

What happens in Europe and the States?

[Bearbonesnorm]

I haven't seen my lawyer since he set out to survey the BB200 2014 route

[jameso]

What happens in Europe and the States?

Not sure, been trying to figure it out w/o bunging a few grand at lawyers : )

Been told that

France - authorities want to be involved and it's better if the organiser is French
Italy - no-one has much of a care in the world



But on a more serious note, TNR related, I think it's something that I hope to be able to answer rather than find out. As Stu says, sometimes you just need to poke your head up and hope that sense prevails, that goodwill goes around, as well as run through some scenarios and be sure you're not doing something daft. Common sense doesn't equate to legally covered though.

It's different if you're not running an event as a business or an entrant isn't paying for a service, also if you're not leading a ride/route. Not sure I can add anything of value to all this as the TNR case is more like the WRT in that it's not a race, no entry fees or start list and no fixed route (the TNR has a more predefined route than the WRT though), also that it covers two different sets of laws. That's either a minefield for me to negotiate, or to keep me protected to some extent - I honestly have no idea which way that goes, which is a concern. Not enough of a concern to pull the plug on the event but enough that it's one reason things are paused for now. The other reason is simply potential numbers, facebook posts of 'camp fires' being lit on top of cols, highly visible tents pitched next to roadsides and other reminders that not everyone has the same set of best practice guides (and mine are simply mine, perhaps not something that should be applied to others - that's another thread though). The Oregon Outback story is in mind, an extreme example but it does show that you can't assume a shared interest means shared ethics.

No intent to sidetrack this to the specifics of one ride though. More of a a good thread/good place to make the point that I have an interest in comparing notes or findings, recommendations of people with expertise, legal research costs even, with anyone else who has a stake in this. PM if preferred. Thanks.

[restlessshawn]

No 2018 TNR? Been looking at this...

How many miles do we think a gravel route would need to be for an ITT? Needs to be long enough to force most people to sleep / stop hopefully but I don't want to include much road as it's currently over 90% off road.

[jameso]

TNR - assume there will be, 3rd Sept start is the plan, but I've not got a sign-up open yet, not until I know whether I need to add anything for the sake of covering myself. Something this timely thread highlights really - there's no clear answer and it could be an expensive mistake to make (the rule #1 aspect will be covered in my own way, no lawyers needed unless a rider guilty of major infringement )

Going back to covering yourself, CTC/Cycling UK membership gives Public Liability cover so if it's you that's sued rather than 'the event' then you're insured. In the case of the BB200, WRT, HT550, TNR etc it's hard to seperate the individual and the event, they're 1-man bands with no funding behind them. So you can't really stop yourself from being sued, it seems lawyers can try that on to see what you respond with and your PL / 3rd party cover would cover you if you are found to be liable in some way. It won't prevent having to defend yourself ie spend time on it all, but don't orgainise anything if you're not prepared to defend it / yourself if needed. Same would go for getting a patent, presenting creative work, ect I guess.

In the TNR's case I'm not sure if there's any complexity I need to figure out relating to it being overseas - I can't get certain CTC/Cycling UK affiliated club event cover due to this but they may cover it by special application, probably not though unless I form a club and have enry forms etc. Not too into all that. Public Liability cover will cover me as an individual if I'm sued though and a loose, non-commercial event is hard to pin liability on and hard to sue from what I can gather over the last year or so.

Sue the TNR if you like, a copy of the 2017 accounts is below

Incoming - £0
Outgoing - £385
---------------------
Balance - £385
Net worth - F*** all