Statistics for insurance claims against ride leaders

[pedals2slowly]

I am a long standing committee member, ride leader and rider with two member groups and an affiliated club.
With all three groups I try to encourage more members to lead rides. We use CUK to train our ride leaders, at least 24 at the last count.
One of the excuses that members give is fear of being sued by riders in the event of an incident, even though the CUK insurance covers such an eventuality.

Can anyone provide statistics showing how many claims have been made against ride leaders in the UK by other riders and the % where negligence was proven and compensation paid?

Does anyone know of ANY instances where claims have been made against leaders? What where the circumstances? Please provide link to evidence.
(I am aware of the Leon MacLean, Asif Ahmed mountain bike case)

I'd like to quote hard facts rather than simply say 'I haven't heard of it ever happening'

[Carlton green]

I was a bit surprised that it’s actually possible to sue a ride leader but, being cynical, I’m sure that the insurance and legal industries are very pleased about it - possibly another social ill imported from the States. My own distain for the situation apart I’d have thought that Cycling UK would be the people to ask directly for the figures.

More broadly the ability to sue is something that Cycling UK should be campaigning or at least lobbying to have thrown out of Court. Riders attend rides of their own free will and can act independently of the leader if they choose to, ride leaders are not paid and riders do not pay to ride with a club (though membership fees might apply). IMHO the person responsible for my safety on a Club Ride is me, I expect to ‘look out’ for my self with regard to all hazards and to view the ride leader as a guide for me to co-operatively interact with and follow with caution.

A long time ago I used to ride with a Club and did lead a few rides. My recollection is that it’s hard work planning the ride and hard work leading the ride in terms of organising the riders and ensuring no map reading slip-ups. Thorough preparation before the event helps and so does experience, the best way to limit the possibility of being sued is to perform the task faultlessly and for that good training (formal or self directed) really helps. Perhaps potential runs leaders would be encouraged by acting as assistant runs leaders first, to see what’s involved and how the task can be managed to the competency needed?

[backnotes]

There were some CTC guidance notes on this area. I can't find my copy, but there is one linked from here:
https://trurocycling.files.wordpress.co ... viders.pdf

I have no idea if this is current or has been updated. The bit that stood out for me was section 5.2 discussing the expectations a court might have of an unpaid volunteer ride leader. The view is that the expected level is not so different from the expectations about a professional paid "activity provider".

As above, this 2006 info / discussion may now be out of date / superseded. The good news is that there was no / very little cycling club case law to report at the timer, suggesting that there have been few if any claims against ride leaders. This doesn't help answer the original question, of course, as it is another "I haven't heard of it ever happening" statement!

[slowster]

One of the excuses that members give is fear of being sued by riders in the event of an incident, even though the CUK insurance covers such an eventuality.

1. Telling someone that insurance will cover them if they are sued is unlikely to be adequte reassurance on its own because it still leaves a lot of unknowns about what happens if someone is sued. People might be concerned about the disruption to their lives, the time it would take (providing statements, going to court etc.), the experience of being questioned in court by barristers (which will not be pleasant), the possibility of publicity and their name being in the local press etc.

2. Quoting the likely extremely low statistical occurrence of incidents where a claim is notified, and the probably far lower number that actually end up in court, is unlikely to be enough on its own to reassure people, because they will still be concerned about what would happen if that very rare event did occur.

3. I would have thought that CUK should be providing reassurance on this point as part of the ride leader training. For example, getting the insurance underwriter and/or Leigh Day to attend and give a talk on the subject with a Q&A session at the end.

4. I am not familiar with the CUK training, but I would have thought the scope for a ride leader to be held legally liable by a court for an accident involving a rider in the group or another road user would be fairly limited, and it ought to be possible to cover the appropriate preventative precautions and procedures quite comprehensively during the training.

[mjr]

There were some CTC guidance notes on this area. I can't find my copy, but there is one linked from here:
https://trurocycling.files.wordpress.co ... viders.pdf

I have no idea if this is current or has been updated. [...] As above, this 2006 info / discussion may now be out of date / superseded.

The URL is dated 2018 which at least suggests that Truro Cycling could not find any later information published then. Its original home is http://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/ ... ders_2.pdf so as usual ask CUK for any updates at https://www.cyclinguk.org/contact

The bit that stood out for me was section 5.2 discussing the expectations a court might have of an unpaid volunteer ride leader. The view is that the expected level is not so different from the expectations about a professional paid "activity provider".

That is true, but to me the key phrase was "as there is little case law in our sector we have to look at
parallel activities and take advice from legal advisors and insurers." So I think it's worth remembering that all of those involved in preparing that Advice Sheet have vested interests: insurers in selling insurance, legal advisors in selling legal advice to CUK and CUK in selling insurance to ride organisers.

I feel it's a bit dodgy that making "participants [...] not be comfortable claiming" is just stated as a claim-risk-reduction tactic - do others think that's OK?

Personally, I think there are two ways to proceed, basically heading for one extreme or another:

1. Buy the insurance and follow CUK's rules to the letter as far as you are able and then hope that CUK will back you to the hilt if push comes to shove.

2. Have rides but don't lead rides. Not just a fig-leaf "this is not a led ride" statement and then trying to bully people into riding as a tight paceline, but actively seeking to ensure that the ride does not look, act or feel like a led ride.

I feel option 2 includes making clear at the start of the ride, especially to newcomers, that:
· all are welcome but this is just a group riding from the same start point to the same destination, so you are responsible for yourself and should ride as you should when alone, trusting no-one and looking out for hazards,
· you can overtake the navigator if you want but please stop at the next junction if you're unsure which way we're going and you want to stay with us - we will not chase you down (and probably cannot!),
· we are friendly and will try to help and abandon no-one (with someone with levers, patches and pump riding as sweeper) but you are responsible for yourself (so if you have lost sight of the group ahead, wait for the sweeper who is either a second navigator or at least can contact the navigator to find out where the group went),
· a quick reminder of the local common hand signals for left/right/slowing/stopping/road-defect,
· a quick reminder (rural only) that there may be shouts of "car back" (not the locally-confused "car up/down") but not on busy roads please and (cities only) of bell signals for OK (1), alert (2) and stop (continuous),
· and finally suggest a route to the next stop (coffee? lunch?) and check that everyone is OK with it (best to start discussing this before the welcome if possible, so people don't feel bullied into agreeing).

The drawbacks of method 2 include that you need navigators who know the area pretty well and can reroute on the day if the group wants, that you don't draft as much, that the main way of dealing with bad riding is telling them to give you space and trying not to ride near them (you can't flick someone out of the paceline if there is no paceline) and that, at times, it's a bit like watching a herd of cats making its way up the road (which I know pains some people), but the benefits include not needing leaders who can commit 2 months ahead to turn up or arrange cover (isn't that discriminatory against people with chronic illnesses?), not filling out at least 4 forms per ride and 1 per non-CUK member and not having to ride single-file on as many narrow roads.

I have only ever seen one CUK Member Group come close to looking like it follows CUK's ride leader handbook and even there I doubt some things. I've definitely seen Affiliate Groups (including one advertising £Xm CUK ride organiser insurance as a benefit of riding with them even as a non-member ) not obviously doing anything from the handbook (such as ride leaders without even their own spare tube, no sign-ins for non-members and giving bad riding advice during the ride), so I suspect CUK will attempt to disown them if there's ever a tough claim. If that happens, I almost hope that CUK's current negligent approach to selling this insurance would land them in the firing line too, either due to not policing groups advertising themselves as insured by CUK, or due to misselling their insurance if they have not made leaders of affiliate groups aware of the requirements. Only almost, because it would still be painful to see CUK funding burned defending that case.

I don't really see much benefit in being in the grey area between the two options of insured-led-and-documented and free-form-and-clearly-so. Does anyone here lead rides that don't follow a handbook in full and, if so, why?

[mattheus]

You can't have a navigator (or two!) and then claim it's not a led ride. Well, you can try of course ...

[mjr]

You can't have a navigator (or two!) and then claim it's not a led ride. Well, you can try of course ...

How is it led? The navigators do not lead anyone. They merely follow a route as understood from the group at the start point. They do no calling of "clear" or "single out" or similar, no stopping across the mouth of roundabout entrances, no snaking or marshalling at junctions. They may not be on the front most of the time. They are just someone who has a map or good road memory who can act as a reference for those who don't, especially on rides where we aren't on well-signed routes. Sometimes a navigator turns and the bulk of the group shouts out, or sometimes just goes a different way, leaving them returning to the junction to, err, how shall we say?, update the understanding of the route! This also is fine IMO.

I feel someone issuing GPX files on a facebook event they organised for people to download that the group then expects everyone to obey, as some CUK affiliates do, would be much more in the grey area of leading a ride. On the few occasions I send a GPX to anyone (more often for long rides), I make clear it's a suggestion and they have been changed often.

[mattheus]

I respectfully but strongly disagree.

[pedals2slowly]

Ah, social media, talk about going off at tangents!
I've remembered why I don't view this forum that often
I have already enquired of CUK but am not optimistic of a useful reply such is my experience of their member or affiliate group support.

[mjr]

I respectfully but strongly disagree.

Would you explain your reasons (as required by the forum rules), please?

[whoof]

Whilst the internet is full of people arguing over which end of a boiled to is best to start at it is also a good resource for seeing if you can find if something has happened. Other than the case you have mentioned I cannot find anything. I have found a man in the UK who is suing a Pole Dancer after her shoe came off whilst she was twirling around and it hit him and a man in the UK sued by a monkey over the rights to a photograph.
Like the Loch Ness monster proving something isn't there is very difficult.

[mjr]

Ah, social media, talk about going off at tangents!

OK, the answers to your "can anyone" and "does anyone" direct questions seems to be "no", but it's difficult to be sure.

I've remembered why I don't view this forum that often

Is it because lately you ask questions that few can answer directly and then complain about any more general replies?

I have already enquired of CUK but am not optimistic of a useful reply such is my experience of their member or affiliate group support.

That would have been useful to know in the opening post and might have avoided some disliked replies.

[mattheus]

I have already enquired of CUK but am not optimistic of a useful reply such is my experience of their member or affiliate group support.

That would have been useful to know in the opening post and might have avoided some disliked replies.

Very true!

[mattheus]

I respectfully but strongly disagree.

Would you explain your reasons (as required by the forum rules), please?

Citation please.

(I'm sure you're right, but the rules are not displayed anywhere that I can see them.
And I'm avoiding giving reasons to avoid a deeper argument about subjective matters, dear chap - not out of rudeness )

[mjr]

I respectfully but strongly disagree.

Would you explain your reasons (as required by the forum rules), please?

Citation please.

(I'm sure you're right, but the rules are not displayed anywhere that I can see them.
And I'm avoiding giving reasons to avoid a deeper argument about subjective matters, dear chap - not out of rudeness )

This isn't to say you cannot put forward your point of view and have a frank exchange with other posters, but that we expect you to do so in a polite, civil, friendly and reasoned way.

(emphasis mine)

Feel free to post it to one of the many other discussions about the ride leader insurance such as viewtopic.php?f=17&t=117557 if you prefer and leave a link here.