@mjr I understood Ride Leader training was specifically aimed at those leading BC rides, for example Breeze rides?
BC say it is for "confident cyclists who are enthusiastic about taking groups out on the road, whether you are a recreational leader, club cyclists, school or leading businesses alike". It seems not specifically for BC rides and I know people who did it to lead other rides. Of course, it does train you to lead in a BC style, for better or worse. (There's a separate course for Breeze ride leaders which I have not looked at because I think they're irrelevant.)
As regards tool kits I guess it depends on what you mean. Everyone I ride with carries what they need to "get home." I feel that qualifies as a tool kit? If I was the OP I'd have a rule that all participants are expected/required to carry all they need to get home.
It's reasonably probable that someone will forget something despite such a rule, or someone will fib about compliance with the rule. It's what people do. Ensuring at least one decent toolkit is in the group seems easier than checking everyone's tools at the ride start — such an idea reminds me of the totally impractical County Council Cycle Rides policy which starting demanding that leaders checked new participants' bikes and skills at the ride start despite them not necessarily being qualified mechanics or trainers.
This might be of interest. I'm not endorsing it, I've not read it or used it. Just saying that it exists.
https://www.cyclinguk.org/Support for cycling groups and clubs/ride-leaders-toolkit
Good link. It's worth a read if you're considering joining CUK for the ride organiser insurance, as I am fairly sure you are expected to follow the leader handbook as a condition of insurance (see "You are covered provided the ride/event is run in accordance with any guidance issued by Cycling UK" in the Ride Organiser documents in
https://www.cyclinguk.org/insurance-document-hub ) but I know others disagree about that.
It is of course somewhat nebulous and there's no clear principle to divide the border between:
A) A group of friends of equal abilities meet up and do something potentially dangerous (everybody is liable for their own actions)
B) An experienced person takes people they don't know to do something potentially dangerous (even if not formally recognised they are the leader and will be found responsible)
This is the key point, I feel, but I don't think "equal abilities" is relevant. Even if you're equal abilities, if the "leader" is directing people, they take on some liability for what they did.
And cycling isn't necessarily that dangerous.
Being in a recognised club for £x/year following their rules, takes away the very slight risk of you being sued for what could be a very very large sum, and the slighter higher risk of some chancer suing you for a frivolous reason that will still cost a lot of time and effort to fight on your own.
You don't necessarily need club insurance to protect against third party liability claims. Some people may find their workplace or household insurance offers a suitable option, which they might already have bought: check the paperwork and if you're insured, see what it requires. And you can never take away all risk of some chancer suing you, but insurance gives you a company, possibly a big one with clever lawyers, to fight alongside you under certain conditions.
But the OP is offering to guide a bunch of total strangers on the highways and byways of this fair land and has no idea if any of them are homicidal maniacs who might ram an innocent fisherman or dog-walker straight into the canal lock which the OP has told them about. Well, that's a silly, extreme example but you get my drift.
I agree with most of the post that the above is cut from, but I don't believe there's a court in the land that would hold the OP liable for the actions of homicidal maniacs on the ride, unless the OP knowingly invited maniacs or instructed them to knock people into the canal.
There are many valid reasons to do ride leader courses and/or get insurance but I don't think that silly example is one.
There's not only the risk that participants may themselves be injured or suffer loss. There's also the risk that participants may do this to a third party (or to each other). Which is why you may need to ensure that everyone has third party insurance.
We don't have an equivalent of business or motoring insurance certificates that you can check to make sure people have third party insurance, so it's pretty much impossible to ensure that they have it and much less that they actually comply with any conditions of insurance.
Even if you require everyone to join the same club or small group of clubs, which would reduce the number of potential riders to a tiny percentage of people, some will try to fake memberships, or they stop paying their subs early but keep hold of the card, or whatever. And, philsophically, do you want to ride, or be a recruiting sergeant for some national organisation?
And, pragmatically, I'm pretty sure even a ride leader ain't liable for what participants do to a third party unless they caused it to happen in some way, and hopefully the insurance covers that sort of claim. It's really up to the participants whether they prefer to get insurance or risk going bankrupt in the case of a successful claim against them personally, whether it's on the ride, before or after.
