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

[N0bodyOfTheGoat]

I presume the solicitor is thinking that payment would come from the rider

and if the rider doesn;t have the funds them he might not get paid

which is morally wrong
but how many of us would have done our job for nothing for several days (or more) if it helped someone else who was morally in the right?

But the solicitor doesn't have a magic ball when someone turns up at their office, knowing the financial situation of the rider. That wouldn't come out until at least closer to a court date, if not during the trial itself.

 

[wiggydiggy]

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

They do (archive link as the British Cycling website appears to be down): Public liability insurance of up to £20 million for your club activities

I presume the solicitor is thinking that payment would come from the rider

and if the rider doesn;t have the funds them he might not get paid

which is morally wrong
but how many of us would have done our job for nothing for several days (or more) if it helped someone else who was morally in the right?

If the club was British Cycling affliated at the time of the incident then any solicitor would have been able to claim against that surely? I think either it didn't at the time or she's been given bad advice.

 

[T4tomo]

If the club was British Cycling affliated at the time of the incident then any solicitor would have been able to claim against that surely? I think either it didn't at the time or she's been given bad advice.

well the solicitor doesn't claim against the insurance company, if they are claiming damages they need to take a civil claim against the cyclist, which presumably the solicitor thought unlikely to succeed. The fine and compensation were from the criminal case. I'm pretty sure the victim could still pursue a civil claim if she wished, against the cyclist and his club jointly and severably.

 

[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?

 

[wiggydiggy]

well the solicitor doesn't claim against the insurance company, if they are claiming damages they need to take a civil claim against the cyclist, which presumably the solicitor thought unlikely to succeed. The fine and compensation were from the criminal case. I'm pretty sure the victim could still pursue a civil claim if she wished, against the cyclist and his club jointly and severably.

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.

 

[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.

 

[wiggydiggy]

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?

Just in case you missed my correction as I wrong in saying it was a club ride, the ride was organised by a 3rd party (Club Peloton) which I couldn't tell from their website if they have any cover.

 

[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.

 

[wiggydiggy]

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.

Yes - here is their UK Charities information

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.

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. There are 'No Win No Fee' solicitors still that deal with pedestrian victims of a RTC. She could certainly still contact one of them who (given the cyclist has been found guilty) would likely take the case.

 

[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)