.

[Punkawallah]

Confiscate the rider’s bike and give it to the victim to dispose of.

 

[ktmbiker58]

would the affiliation for BC not include some 3rd party insurance on club rides??

The affiliation with BC provides 3rd party cover for the club not the individual riders, frankly, organising laps of Regents Park on a Saturday morning is going to put riders, pedestrians, dogs, kids and hotdog vendors at risk - possibility of a negligence claim against the club?

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

Actually I need to correct myself, although the rider was a member of the club with the affliation, the actual ride he was on was organised by Club Peloton - that link is to their upcoming Regents Park event. They're website does not state whether they hold any insurance for the people on their events. So I think the Clubs Affliation is not likely to be something that would provide him cover on this ride, that might be what the victim means when she complains about a lack of insurance.

In any case I still think rides organised by professional groups like this (to be clear, I'm not talking about a bunch of friends/webmates organising a ride) that they should have a legal resposibility to either check that their participants have their own cover, or provide their own at a cost to the rider.

It is a good point that the organisers would have a problem with their own insurance for ti to cover all participants

I mean - most people would ride responsibly and avoid hitting other people
they might moan and complain about them but not risk injury
(it might damage their bike after all!!!)

but there is always "that person" who HAS to go faster and HAS to pass everyone else
and any getting in his way is in the wrong

we all have seen someone like that

and the insruance would not want to cover that person

 

[mjr]

The affiliation with BC provides 3rd party cover for the club not the individual riders, frankly, organising laps of Regents Park on a Saturday morning is going to put riders, pedestrians, dogs, kids and hotdog vendors at risk - possibility of a negligence claim against the club?

That would depend on what steps the club took to manage the risks. Could anyone here who knows the BC club handbook offer an opinion how likely it is the club were following its advice on how to conduct a ride, given what's been reported?

 

[Webbo2]

would the affiliation for BC not include some 3rd party insurance on club rides??

My club is affiliated to British Cycling but I still had to join BC to get 3rd party insurance.

 

[mjr]

In any case I still think rides organised by professional groups like this (to be clear, I'm not talking about a bunch of friends/webmates organising a ride) that they should have a legal resposibility to either check that their participants have their own cover, or provide their own at a cost to the rider.

Is it a professional group?

How could they check? Almost no insurers offer a way for the public to validate rider insurance. Even the police only gained the ability to validate motor insurance after a lot of shoot and they still can't validate pedal cycle rider insurance without making phone calls in office hours. If I remember correctly, clubs that insist on insurance enforce it by demanding to see CUK or BC membership cards, which prevents people with other rider insurance (such as combined with their theft insurance) taking part, and is still vulnerable to most scams people used to do with paper motor insurance certificates.

But it shouldn't matter: if they're uninsured, they'll have to pay the damages themselves.

 

[T4tomo]

It sounds like the victim was unaware he'd plead guilty until contacted by a journo. @wiggydiggy, I agree, with guilt plead a civil claim is potentially possible. The existing damages award needs to be taken into account I imagine.

 

[mjr]

Yes - here is their UK Charities information

I know plenty of non-professional mostly-voluntary groups that are registered charities and that doesn't say otherwise. It says they only have 4 employees, it doesn't give 3 of their roles (the only one given is CEO), it mentions other rides but not the Regents Park ones, and we don't know that any staff are even at these rides, do we? So it seems likely that most of the riders and probably most of the organisers are volunteers.

Verification of insurance could be easy, during their registration process you should upload evidence of your membership or other defined benefit showing your insurance. Or offer the chance to buy theirs if you need to. But either way having it as a T&C of taking part in one of their events that you do have insurance should be a given.

That doesn't sound easy or like anything is being verified. How could it be verified? If a random volunteer phones up some insurer and says "do you insure Freda Bloggs?" then would they give an answer anyway?

They can put whatever they like in the T&C but without any viable way to verify insurance, that's pretty much just theatre. Also, would it be a fair term in a contract for the organiser to force purchase of particular insurance, or indeed any insurance? Ultimately, the victim still has to claim damages from the person who did the damage and it's up to that person to involve their insurer if they have one.

I do think the victim has been given bad advice at some point which is where her comments of 'Cyclist have no insurance so he's got away with it' comes from.

Agreed. Or it might just be she's had no advice and shares a widespread misunderstanding that victims of road violence sue the insurers, rather than usually suing their customer (the driver) and the insurers managing the defence of that.

 

[matticus]

Then she absolutely should have been informed of the hange in plea, but I'm not sure if that would be the resposibility of the CPS/Court or her own solicitors. From something else she said "this man is a cyclist without insurance means he has got away with it. Solicitors are not prepared to fight such cases for victims because cyclists do not have insurance." it sounds like perhaps she didn't. Should insurance for cyclists on organised events be mandatory so pedestrians have some protection?

She did get £2,500 in compo without lifting a finger, so that's something. I guess she could employ a solicitor if she feels entitled to more. (with associated time and stress)

 

[Drago]

I expect a tool of that calibre also drive his car in a similar manner, ie, like a complete nodule.

 

[Webbo2]

I receive regular emails from UKCC events I think they were part of Wiggle back in the day. I can’t see any mention of them having insurance or you needing it to ride their events.

 

[mjr]

I don't think its theatre to get riders on their events to agree that they have the relevent insurance in place or to agree to abide by the Highway Code (and relevent laws), its again just asking sensible question so that in the event something goes wrong they can show they have taken steps to plan for that.

Why isn't it? You put it in the terms, people either don't read it, or just agree whether or not they have rider insurance.

There are still some bad rules in the Highway Code (fewer since the last major update) and any organiser requiring following all of them can not be following best practice, but I'm sure there's another thread to discuss that. I'm not touching it further here, except to ask: so the rider agrees and doesn't do it - then what? The ride is on public roads and we've also discussed this before somewhere.

So both terms seem pretty impractical to me. Theatre.

 

[classic33]

I know plenty of non-professional mostly-voluntary groups that are registered charities and that doesn't say otherwise. It says they only have 4 employees, it doesn't give 3 of their roles (the only one given is CEO), it mentions other rides but not the Regents Park ones, and we don't know that any staff are even at these rides, do we? So it seems likely that most of the riders and probably most of the organisers are volunteers.

That doesn't sound easy or like anything is being verified. How could it be verified? If a random volunteer phones up some insurer and says "do you insure Freda Bloggs?" then would they give an answer anyway?

They can put whatever they like in the T&C but without any viable way to verify insurance, that's pretty much just theatre. Also, would it be a fair term in a contract for the organiser to force purchase of particular insurance, or indeed any insurance? Ultimately, the victim still has to claim damages from the person who did the damage and it's up to that person to involve their insurer if they have one.

Agreed. Or it might just be she's had no advice and shares a widespread misunderstanding that victims of road violence sue the insurers, rather than usually suing their customer (the driver) and the insurers managing the defence of ththat.

The same applies to car drivers, and their insurance. You may find out who their insurance is with(if insured), but the company will just fob you off at best.

The injured party in an incident, and the insurance company hides behind the phone/online contact form. Who's the directors in "the theatre"?

 

[Alex321]

Cyclist who fractured pedestrian's skull while riding laps of Regent's Park fined £500 over group ride collision on wrong side of crossing

Plus £2500 compensation to be paid by the cyclist Mathew Thornley

> Lawyers representing the cyclist said there was a "build up of traffic" which led to him taking "evasive action" and riding on the wrong side of the road and a pedestrian island, where he hit Ms Dos Santos. Thornley added that he was not riding faster than the park's 20mph speed limit and called the riding an "evasive manoeuvre".
> However, Ms Dos Santos told the newspaper the sentence was "paltry and insulting", claiming she had not been informed of the change to Thornley's plea and never submitted an impact statement.
> She commented: "What annoys me is that the judge has sentenced this cyclist without any input from me about how this collision has affected me. The cyclist was on the wrong side of the road. If a motorist was driving on the wrong side of the road and caused these injuries he or she would have been punished far more severely.

I've got some problems with this firstly if there was "a build up of traffic" then he should have stopped, riding on the wrong side of the road is not an option. His ride is not more important the the laws he should have been following. If he was unable to stop then he is riding without due care, too fast or his bike was defective.

Well what he pleaded guilty to was riding without due care & attention.

Then she absolutely should have been informed of the hange in plea, but I'm not sure if that would be the resposibility of the CPS/Court or her own solicitors. From something else she said "this man is a cyclist without insurance means he has got away with it. Solicitors are not prepared to fight such cases for victims because cyclists do not have insurance." it sounds like perhaps she didn't. Should insurance for cyclists on organised events be mandatory so pedestrians have some protection?

I'm not sure why the change of plea would make any difference (other than reducing his sentence - but not all that much as it was a late change).

She should have submitted a victim impact statement, though I don't know who would have asked for it (I would guess the police, but it may be the CPS).

And this wasn't an organised event, so mandatory insurance for those would not have made any difference.

Not sure why she thinks him being uninsured means he has "got away with it". He is still liable for the fine and the compensation awarded. If he had been insured, that would just have meant the compensation would have been paid by his insurer rather than himself, so I think he is worse off for not having insurance.

 

[Alex321]

I didn't realise it was the same club, they do link the article in the one I put above and the original article does name the same club. But this one doesn't mention its the same club both times.

Someone should be stepping in and looking at how they organise their rides and what advice they give their members. Their website mentions that [Muswell Hill Peloton club] is affiliated to British Cycling, maybe they should be stepping in?

From the article linked in the first post

The group ride Thornley was part of was organised by Club Peloton, who confirmed he is a member who was taking part in one of its "informal" rides that is "open to members and organised by volunteers within our community".

A spokesperson told The Telegraph the club has "reviewed member communications and reinforced guidance around safe and respectful riding" following the incident.