Organised rides (copied here by Admin from feedback thread)
- Thread starter dellzeqq
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
What an absolute pile of bollocks. This "the organiser might be held liable" should anyone crash nonsense is an absolute bag of shite.
The problem is that there isn't anything in law that says if the organiser is or isn't liable for anyone crashing. Someone may have unsuccessfully sued in the past, that doesn't really prove anything though in terms of setting any precedent. It doesn't send a clear enough message that should someone sue again, they should also be unsuccessful for the same reason. The problem is that they might try again in the future, and that case will be decided on its own merits. That is wrong imho.
Wasn't some legal protection of the kind I'm proposing cycle ride organisers to seek afforded to teachers who take kids on school trips because fear of being sued was becoming far too rife?
There needs to be something set down to say that, organising a bike ride is a 'standard' recognised legal activity and it is reccognised that should you do so then under normal circumstanes, i.e. where you haven't explicitly offered liability, or even on the condition that you put a certain disclaimer on your advert, then you aren't liable for anyone crashing.
Audaxes have been going on for years, surely they must have a way of getitng round the possibility of being sued?
If not then you could easily get round it by making it a disorganised ride - in all seriousness, the one obvious example of a ride that has legally benefitted from becoming 'officially disorganised' is the critical mass?
Maybe you need to think less about being a ride organiser but look to becoming a 'ride disorganiser'
The problem is that there isn't anything in law that says if the organiser is or isn't liable for anyone crashing. Someone may have unsuccessfully sued in the past, that doesn't really prove anything though in terms of setting any precedent. It doesn't send a clear enough message that should someone sue again, they should also be unsuccessful for the same reason. The problem is that they might try again in the future, and that case will be decided on its own merits. That is wrong imho.
Wasn't some legal protection of the kind I'm proposing cycle ride organisers to seek afforded to teachers who take kids on school trips because fear of being sued was becoming far too rife?
There needs to be something set down to say that, organising a bike ride is a 'standard' recognised legal activity and it is reccognised that should you do so then under normal circumstanes, i.e. where you haven't explicitly offered liability, or even on the condition that you put a certain disclaimer on your advert, then you aren't liable for anyone crashing.
Audaxes have been going on for years, surely they must have a way of getitng round the possibility of being sued?
If not then you could easily get round it by making it a disorganised ride - in all seriousness, the one obvious example of a ride that has legally benefitted from becoming 'officially disorganised' is the critical mass?
Maybe you need to think less about being a ride organiser but look to becoming a 'ride disorganiser'
bonj said:What an absolute pile of bollocks. This "the organiser might be held liable" should anyone crash nonsense is an absolute bag of shite.
The problem is that there isn't anything in law that says if the organiser is or isn't liable for anyone crashing. Someone may have unsuccessfully sued in the past, that doesn't really prove anything though in terms of setting any precedent. It doesn't send a clear enough message that should someone sue again, they should also be unsuccessful for the same reason. The problem is that they might try again in the future, and that case will be decided on its own merits. That is wrong imho.
Wasn't some legal protection of the kind I'm proposing cycle ride organisers to seek afforded to teachers who take kids on school trips because fear of being sued was becoming far too rife?
There needs to be something set down to say that, organising a bike ride is a 'standard' recognised legal activity and it is reccognised that should you do so then under normal circumstanes, i.e. where you haven't explicitly offered liability, or even on the condition that you put a certain disclaimer on your advert, then you aren't liable for anyone crashing.
Audaxes have been going on for years, surely they must have a way of getitng round the possibility of being sued?
If not then you could easily get round it by making it a disorganised ride - in all seriousness, the one obvious example of a ride that has legally benefitted from becoming 'officially disorganised' is the critical mass?
Maybe you need to think less about being a ride organiser but look to becoming a 'ride disorganiser'
bonj. Why don't you get elected as Prime Minister, and pass a new law, which we could call 'Bonj's Law of Disorganised Rides'
yello - I hadn't bothered to reply to Bonj's rambling nonsense because it was just that. What he clearly doesn't know is that somebody has taken responsibility for CM. Which is just about as dumb as it gets. But, theoretically, yes. If a ride just happens, then fine. But how do you prove it just happens?
Again - I've always taken the view (and I might be wrong) that I've discharged my duty of care if I am not negligent. Now which of us wants to be negligent? So why not start by asking ourselves, individually, what we do to not be negligent (if you'll excuse the shoddy sentence)?
Again - I've always taken the view (and I might be wrong) that I've discharged my duty of care if I am not negligent. Now which of us wants to be negligent? So why not start by asking ourselves, individually, what we do to not be negligent (if you'll excuse the shoddy sentence)?
dellzeqq said:
Woops
I didn't realise bonj had mentioned CM... I just skim read his post 
I was being tongue-in-cheek......but, for all his ramblings, I'm sure there's a point in there - setting something up to avoid the law is a part of some accountants/solicitors job!
srw
It's a bit more complicated than that...
bonj said:
Now I know perfectly well that you're a complete and utter numpty, but since there will be other people reading this I'll point out that:
(a) Audax UK is obsessed with regulations.
(
Audax UK buys insurance. Anyone riding an Audax is covered by insuranceyello said:WoopsI didn't realise bonj had mentioned CM... I just skim read his post
...but, for all his ramblings, I'm sure there's a point in there - setting something up to avoid the law is a part of some accountants/solicitors job!
they're not obsessed with it, (a) all they have to do is get it set up once, and then it's sorted, and (
the riders don't have to bother themselves with the nitty gritty detail of it. I wonder why the CTC don't follow their example instead of getting in a big flap - or alternatively just make all their rides an audax?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...25046/Critical-mass-can-carry-on-cycling.html Look at the various facebook/myspace CM groups they are getting pretty savvy at making the event known without it being preplanned
bonj said:they're not obsessed with it, (a) all they have to do is get it set up once, and then it's sorted, and (the riders don't have to bother themselves with the nitty gritty detail of it. I wonder why the CTC don't follow their example instead of getting in a big flap - or alternatively just make all their rides an audax?
you are an idiot
Can i ask a silly question? if you go on a ctc organised ride without being a ctc member on your 1st ride you are covered by 3rd party ins, after that you are expected to join the ctc if only to cover your ins liability, never mind bringing cake/making new friends. bonj you seem obsessed with driving anyone who is not of your mindset away!
