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

[wiggydiggy]

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.

To be fair it doesn't really matter if they are professional by any set definition or not, they organised a group ride on a public road and someone was injured by one of the riders. Thats all I can really go on so thats why I do think if you are organising rides in any capacity beyond asking your mates to go for a ride, then some sort of public liability insurance is a good idea.

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.

In any case this time it is the riders fault, he chose to disobey the traffic laws and even if the organisers and himself had insurance, and he had agreed to T&Cs (whatever they may be) it didn't stop him running down the victim.

 

[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"?

 

[wiggydiggy]

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.

Why isn't it what, theatre? You'll have to explain it better to me as I've obviously misunderstood what you mean.

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"?

Its why I think the victim needs her own insurance/solicitors to deal with it, she's potentially been fobbed off like you say. I've had RTCs, and had to give statements in other RTCs I was not directly involved in, the insurers/solicitors dealt with all of it and my engagement was limited to giving them statements.

 

[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.

 

[wiggydiggy]

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

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.

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.

I'm not sure either on the effect of changing the plea, lack of victim statement etc would have had on the sentence, one for the magistrate to answer (though they won't of course).

You're right, it is an organised event by Club Peloton, here's a link to the event this morning: Regent's Park laps. I've already corrected myself earlier for saying it was his club rather than this organisation that hosted it.

You're right, he is worse off without insurance, the other thing I am suggesting is the victim should open a civil claim for damages from him. Given his guilty plea theres a high chance of success.

 

[Ian H]

Club Peloton doesn't appear to be affiliated to any cycling body. Part of their blurb states:-
All Club Peloton events allow industry professionals to swap their business suits for Lycra and build much stronger relationships by beating tough challenges together. With marshalled roads, lead cars, support crew and vehicles, sports injury specialists and mechanics, this is the closest an amateur cyclist can get to riding like a professional.
I have bolded the bollocks bit.

 

[Alex321]

Club Peloton doesn't appear to be affiliated to any cycling body. Part of their blurb states:-
All Club Peloton events allow industry professionals to swap their business suits for Lycra and build much stronger relationships by beating tough challenges together. With marshalled roads, lead cars, support crew and vehicles, sports injury specialists and mechanics, this is the closest an amateur cyclist can get to riding like a professional.
I have bolded the bollocks bit.

Not that this particular ride had any of those, as it was an "informal" ride according to them. So not really any different to the regular club rides most clubs have.

 

[Ian H]

Not that this particular ride had any of those, as it was an "informal" ride according to them. So not really any different to the regular club rides most clubs have.

No, but statements like that quoted encourage a certain ethos and possibly certain kinds of behaviour.

 

[Drago]

this is the closest an amateur cyclist can get to riding like a professional.
I have bolded the bollocks bit.

That's indeed of concern. As a retired advanced skills (including road skills) trainer id judge the average professionals, and indeed higher level amateur competitive riders, roadcraft to be utterly appalling, completely incompatible with safe and legal progress on a public highway.

And there they are telling the great unwashed its the closest theyll get to that woeful standard.

 

[mjr]

That's indeed of concern. As a retired advanced skills (including road skills) trainer id judge the average professionals, and indeed higher level amateur competitive riders, roadcraft to be utterly appalling, completely incompatible with safe and legal progress on a public highway.

To be fair, the road closures during typical professional and higher-level amateur races mean that participants don't need roadcraft suitable for safe and legal progress on a public highway.

That probably makes it worse that Club Peloton are suggesting participants can ride in that manner with them. I wonder whether the victim could claim against the club as well as the rider, but it does risk being accused of taking money away from its charitable projects... although it looks like less than 25% of their spending is on charitable projects anyway!

 

[wafter]

As a genuine question with no loading / agenda, at what point are we actually ascribing wrongdoing to the cyclist?

He's passing / filtering past stationary traffic, which is perfectly legal.

He's doing so on the right hand side, which is adviseable in preference to the left as it reduces the chance of getting squashed against the kerb, clobbered by a car turning left or having nowhere to go if a pedestian steps out from behind a vehicle.

He's riding on the opposite side of the road, which presumably is acceptable since we're allowed to do this to overtake other vehicles as long as it's safe to do so.

He's passing on the other side of a pedestrian island; which granted would be a hard nope in a car (possibly because if passing other moving cars the speed involved would make it a lot more dangerous, and there would be little to no mandate for a car to pass other static cars under these circumstances unless they were very badly parked blocking the road). Personally I see no issue in filtering on a bike / motorbike on the other side of an island as long as it's sufficiently well-sighted and done with care - where does the law stand on this?

It seems he plead guilty to riding without due care and attention; which seems reasonable and suggests that intrinsically his actions were justifiable and his failing was his lack of observation / awareness / consideration for the pedestrian involved whist carrying them out; potentially including doing so at an inappropriate speed...?

Thinking about some similar situations on my commute it seems pretty difficult to hit a pedestian under these circumstances as long as you're right in the middle of the carriageway, visibility is good and they're not running at full tilt from behind an obstruction (such as a bus)...