Liability Disclaimers

Simon L6 · Post by **Simon L6** » 1 Feb 2009, 7:48pm

Can I ask if any of you have seen any liability disclaimers signed by non-CTC members on club runs?

Wildduck · Post by **Wildduck** » 1 Feb 2009, 8:38pm

Seen none on the South Hants' runs....

Post by Si » 2 Feb 2009, 8:26am

Nope. Never heard of them....are they from HO? Do they allow non-members to ride with a MG more than five times, or are they just to stop actions against the club on the non-members intro ride?

Karen Sutton · Post by **Karen Sutton** » 2 Feb 2009, 2:20pm

These forms were modified during the recent changes to Group Resources, which I was involved with.

This was done to make them smaller and simpler in order to encourage ride leaders to carry them and ask non members to complete them. It is suggested that they should be carried by ride leaders along with incident report forms and perhaps a couple of membership leaflets (to persuade non members to join). getting this form filled in by a new rider whether they are a member or not is useful in that it means you then have contact details for next of kin.

It appears that some MG organisers and ride leaders are uncomfortable with telling people they must join CTC if they want to ride with a member group, so asking them to sign a form makes it clear that they are expected to join. The new forms actually state that non members must join CTC after 5 rides. The form can be found here:

http://www.ctc.org.uk/resources/Go_Biki ... ay2007.doc

thirdcrank · Post by **thirdcrank** » 2 Feb 2009, 2:29pm

'I also accept that the CTC cannot be held responsible for any personal injury, accident, loss, damage or public liability during the event.'

I understood that to be an unfair disclaimer but I'm sure a lawyer will have been consulted.

meic · Post by **meic** » 2 Feb 2009, 2:43pm

I am no lawyer but from what I hear, disclaimers are generally a waste of paper, which will have little use if things go to court.

dan_b · Post by **dan_b** » 2 Feb 2009, 2:47pm

I don't think I've ever gone on a bike ride carrying a pen ...

thirdcrank · Post by **thirdcrank** » 2 Feb 2009, 3:37pm

As I understand it, there are certain circumstances where you can disclaim responsibility, and if you don't it is assumed you accept it. Perhaps the most common is a car park. If you provide a car park, it is assumed you will look after the cars on it unless you put a sign up saying that cars are parked at their owner's risk.

On the other hand, you cannot simply disclaim your own responsibilities. The most obvious reason for that is that if it were possible everybody would be disclaiming responsibility for everything.

My understanding of the CTC clubrun thing is that you can say to people "come with us and as you are not a member we are not extending our membership benefits to you - you can enjoy our fellowship and that's as far as it goes" but you cannot say "come with us and we deny any responsibility for our behaviour towards you."

Jack · Post by **Jack** » 5 Feb 2009, 10:27am

I agree, disclaimers have no validity with regard to deaths and personal injury resulting from negligence. This comes under the Unfair Contract Terms Act. They can work with regard to damage/loss but they still have to be reasonable and that would be for the courts to decide.

meic · Post by **meic** » 5 Feb 2009, 11:32am

When entering an Audax, you are obliged to sign a form where you claim that you are a competent cyclist and know what you are doing, more or less.

In the absence of such a decleration we could be accepting responsibility for looking after them and protecting them from the general perils of the road.

In addition to liabilities for taking them across army ranges whilst firing or some other act of negligence beyond normal road use.

saddlesore · Post by **saddlesore** » 5 Feb 2009, 6:31pm

There are indeed many arguments for and against liability disclaimers, but the the original topic asked if anyone had ever seen one on a CTC group ride (not an 'event'). The folks from the mansion on the hill say we should all be using them, but it seems they're being ignored. If no group enforces them, they should be withdrawn.
The issue is perhaps not about asking newcomers to join CTC after 5 rides, which I've rarely found a problem, rather that the initial welcome is to suggest that they're about to do something rather dangerous - riding a bike.

Karen Sutton · Post by **Karen Sutton** » 5 Feb 2009, 8:51pm

Perhaps we should just ask for their name and emergency contact details. (In case they have an accident and we need to contact next of kin). I know not everyone carries ID, and if they are totally new to the group and nobody knows anything about them it's wise to request information. If none of the groups are using them it seems pointless having them. That is, unless someone can tell us why we should get them signed.

Edwards · Post by **Edwards** » 6 Feb 2009, 3:41pm

I do not know this for certain, but my first thought was.
They could be a condition of the CTC Public Liability Insurance. Put in by the insurance company.
If in the event of a non CTC member making a claim for what ever reason the company might not then defend the claim and refuse to defend the ride leader.
If it is the above would you as ride leader want to try to get them to help (even if they are wrong). Or would it be better to know you are covered.

saddlesore · Post by **saddlesore** » 6 Feb 2009, 5:35pm

They could be a condition of the CTC Public Liability Insurance. Put in by the insurance company.

This is what worries me. If so, it should be made specifically clear to MG's so that we may then have some chance of persuading leaders to take action. Alternatively, if hardly anyone will abide by the condition, it should perhaps be re-negotiated.

manybikes · Post by **manybikes** » 6 Feb 2009, 8:50pm

This all dates back, at least, to 2003 when the organisation was looking at Codes of Practice, Risk Assessment, Rider Leadership etc. The point of restricting non members to a maximum of 5 rides without joining is that, if carried out indefinitely, they would be getting the benefits of membership in the form of insurance without paying for it. So the paid-up members would be subsidising the non member. It was considered at that time that 5 rides was enough for a prospective member to decide if they wanted to join the CTC or not

The insurance company know roughly the number of persons within the organisation they are to cover and set the premium accordingly and obviously have a vested interest in keeping the numbers within certain bounds. Put simply if too many were allowed to ride without paying a contribution towards the insurance element then the insurance would be impossible to obtain. At the time this was instigated a large voluntary organisation allegedly had their PLI withdrawn virtually overnight due to claimed breeches, causing the organisation immense problems.

I and others in my DA have used them in the past and I believe still do. Part of our DA rules is that the leader should carry both these and the accident report forms.