Accidents on club runs or group rides

[T.M.H.N.E.T]

There's also this https://www.motorcyclenews.com/news/2009/november/nov1909-speeding-penalty-for-leading-rideout/

 

[Racing roadkill]

The usual unwritten rule, is that if there’s a wreck on a club ride, whoever’s bike gets broken is responsible for it, that’s the chance you take, stuff happens.

 

[nickyboy]

The usual unwritten rule, is that if there’s a wreck on a club ride, whoever’s bike gets broken is responsible for it, that’s the chance you take, stuff happens.

That's great unless whoever caused it was acting negligently or irresponsibly.

If someone has a tyre blowout, goes down and takes me with them then I'll pay my own repairs for example

But if someone wasn't paying attention (say distracted by their phone ringing) and takes me down then I would expect them to pay

 

[mjr]

The attempt to duck out by posting a disclaimer along the lines of "This is not an organised ride, just a meeting of biker mates on a casual ride-out" was also deemed to be open to interpretation by a court, and probably of no legal significance.

Deemed by who?

As far as I know, the disclaimer is necessary but not sufficient: that is to say, if you post such a statement but still act as if you are the organiser or leader of the ride, then you are still the organiser or leader of the ride; but if you then clearly acted as just one of the bikers on a casual ride-out (so that would include not always being on the front, not always taking the decisions to start off again and things like that), then what's to say you are the organiser? I'd be astonished if posting a meet-up time/place and suggested destination was sufficient.

My usual reminders for new riders with our group (and I say them mainly because I'm more paranoid than the people publishing the suggested destinations and doing the navigating) include "ride as you would if you were alone" (so we don't do tight formations) and things like the route and even setting off from any stops are usually more of a negotiation/conversation on the day than any sort of order. I think this sometimes frustrates riders from the more led traditions who want GPXes and schedules and so on, but this sort of consensus/anarchy seems to have worked for years, since long before I joined.

Surely it's common desceny, if you damage someones property you pay for it. what is this country coming to?

Surely it's common decency not to tailgate each other? Once that's gone, the rules have altered and should be spelt out.

 

[mjr]

That's great unless whoever caused it was acting negligently or irresponsibly.

If someone has a tyre blowout, goes down and takes me with them then I'll pay my own repairs for example

But if someone wasn't paying attention (say distracted by their phone ringing) and takes me down then I would expect them to pay

So if someone doesn't maintain their tyres/brakes (brake striking tyre sidewall is one way to cause blowouts) then you think that isn't negligent/irresponsible?

 

[derrick]

Surely it's common decency not to tailgate each other? Once that's gone, the rules have altered.

No one forces you to tailgate. surely you can make a decision.

 

[nickyboy]

So if someone doesn't maintain their tyres/brakes (brake striking tyre sidewall is one way to cause blowouts) then you think that isn't negligent/irresponsible?

Stop trying to split hairs. I've provided straightforward examples to illustrate my position. Each actual event has to be determined on its own merits

 

[Brandane]

Deemed by who?

As far as I know, the disclaimer is necessary but not sufficient: that is to say, if you post such a statement but still act as if you are the organiser or leader of the ride, then you are still the organiser or leader of the ride; but if you then clearly acted as just one of the bikers on a casual ride-out (so that would include not always being on the front, not always taking the decisions to start off again and things like that), then what's to say you are the organiser? I'd be astonished if posting a meet-up time/place and suggested destination was sufficient.

It was deemed by the general membership; which like this place had a wide and varied membership, some of whom had specialist knowledge (not me!).
When I said the organiser posted a time/date, it was a bit more involved than that (I know, having organised a few myself in my naivety). The route was published, as were lunch stops. A safety briefing was given by the organiser, who also led the ride and arranged back markers, and decided on the system used for marking junctions and keeping the group together. It was all there on the website for all to see, including lawyers representing insurance companies if later required (thankfully it never was).

 

[Racing roadkill]

Stop trying to split hairs. I've provided straightforward examples to illustrate my position. Each actual event has to be determined on its own merits

The argument is going to be, if you weren’t riding in a manner that allows you to stop in the space you can see to be clear, you weren’t riding with due care. You plough into a downed rider, you were too close / not paying enough attention. The downed rider, should know the risks.

 

[Ajax Bay]

Quite often in close riding the rider in fron does a sudden move, even standing on the pedals slows you down very quickly,

On a point of physics, when the rider in front of you 'stands up' they are not significantly slowing down. The centre of gravity of the rider/bike combination maintains its velocity BUT the rider has shifted forward (90% of the bike/rider's weight) compared with their bike so to the rider drafting behind that rear wheel has suddenly moved (relatively) 'back' towards the drafting rider's front wheel (to me it seems to be at least 14 inches / 350mm - half a wheel). It is an element of the skill in riding in a group to understand this and allow sufficient distance (a wheel's diameter and slightly offset?) in case the rider in front 'stands up'.

 

[nickyboy]

The argument is going to be, if you weren’t riding in a manner that allows you to stop in the space you can see to be clear, you weren’t riding with due care. You plough into a downed rider, you were too close / not paying enough attention. The downed rider, should know the risks.

And that's why you can't apply the normal "safe stopping distance" premise on a group ride. Everyone rides too close to stop safely

It is when the rider in front goes down (and thus you do) due to their negligence. Or you get rear ended due to the rider behind's negligence

 

[Milkfloat]

The argument is going to be, if you weren’t riding in a manner that allows you to stop in the space you can see to be clear, you weren’t riding with due care. You plough into a downed rider, you were too close / not paying enough attention. The downed rider, should know the risks.

That is the nature of close group rides, in my opinion you take that risk when you join. Personally, if it had been at clear fault for damaging someone else or their equipment then I would pay, but a ‘racing incident’ is just unfortunate.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Sounds like another reason to avoid club riding (not that I partake anyway, it's just not my scene on several levels). But......

A motorcycle club that I used to belong to, used to organise fairly regular semi-organised ride-outs; where one member would post a route with start time/date, and it was then up to others whether or not they wished to attend the open invitation.
They stopped happening after questions were asked about the ride organiser's liability in the case of an accident in which a participant was injured, or worse. The consensus of opinion was that it wasn't worth the risk involved in being ride organiser.
There are no hard and fast rules, but it would be down to a court to decide on the matter of whether the organiser was liable or not. It might not even be down to the injured party to decide whether to pursue a claim or not (as some had said they would never do that) - his or her insurance company would probably make that decision depending on the costs involved.
So now, there are no more ride-outs and the club has pretty much disintegrated...
The attempt to duck out by posting a disclaimer along the lines of "This is not an organised ride, just a meeting of biker mates on a casual ride-out" was also deemed to be open to interpretation by a court, and probably of no legal significance.

They could have made the posting anonymous, so no "organiser" was identified. Then at the start riders should just say, right I am starting, what about you?

 

[screenman]

On a point of physics, when the rider in front of you 'stands up' they are not significantly slowing down. The centre of gravity of the rider/bike combination maintains its velocity BUT the rider has shifted forward (90% of the bike/rider's weight) compared with their bike so to the rider drafting behind that rear wheel has suddenly moved (relatively) 'back' towards the drafting rider's front wheel (to me it seems to be at least 14 inches / 350mm - half a wheel). It is an element of the skill in riding in a group to understand this and allow sufficient distance (a wheel's diameter and slightly offset?) in case the rider in front 'stands up'.

Interesting read, how much is not significantly? I was told to push a little harder on the pedals just before I stood.

 

[Racing roadkill]

Interesting read, how much is not significantly? I was told to push a little harder on the pedals just before I stood.

Rightly so, and don’t push the bike backwards as you stand up.