You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Big debate at our fairly traditional cycling club around satisfyingly BC insurance requirements. To be covered as a leader for a road ride you've got to have a risk assessment and be named/nominated as the ride leader. Easy.
Interpreting the rules for off road riding, and even the most tame terrain appears to require formal off road ride leadership training, going to the full level 3 for a moderately challenging day in the peaks or similar.
It's a genuine concern for us as one of our members leading a ride a few years ago was actually sued by someone who injured themselves which was sorted out by BC insurance, as the requirements at the time were far less demanding. Honestly nobody would likely commit to the full training, and of course you'd need a rolling program of leaders so somebody was always to guide.
Anyone else had to tackle this? The nuclear option is that the MTB group removes itself from club administration and just goes to a totally informal WhatsApp group of mates 'club'.
It's not unreasonable for those wanting to lead groups in remote and challenging territory to need significant skills in terms of route choice, remote first aid, group management etc. When I was involved with this we did MTB trail leader qualifications though rather than the BC level 2/3 coaching.
The trail leader gives you authorisation (from memory) to go up to 600m ASL and up to 30 minutes from a road which covers most of the Peak district.
Might be a better route to go down?
We have a lot of active gravel and occasional MTB riders in our BC affiliated club and I've never heard this mentioned. One of our guys is a fully qualified MTB leader with his own guiding business, beyond that we've got zilch.
I've got ride leader level 1 for leading council health rides but we avoid anything remotely singletrack or actual MTB for those.
Following this, but having to post to subscribe...
Ours is that last option. Notionally the club has a MTB section, except for the odd (externally) organised event or race everything else is pushed into whatsapp groups where it’s emphasised that no-one is in charge or officially guiding on rides, we all have to be self-sufficient and that we’re not club sanctioned or insured.
We have a lot of active gravel and occasional MTB riders in our BC affiliated club and I've never heard this mentioned.
It's a new one on us too. Weather this is because it's newish, or we just didn't look hard enough, I don't know. And there is of course somewhat opaque info on the BC website.
Ours is that last option. Notionally the club has a MTB section, except for the odd (externally) organised event or race everything else is pushed into whatsapp groups where it’s emphasised that no-one is in charge or officially guiding on rides
We have been considering this, but seems to introduce grey areas of responsibility. And as I said as a club we have actually experience of this, so are understandably alert to such issues.
Our off-road section consists of informal rides with no ride leader and no risk assessment. Timely as today is our inaugural gravel sportive, The Surrey Grumble, that DOES have all the BC insurance of a formal event. And entry is available on the line at Downside village hall.
Watching with interest as one of the Road/TT coaches
When we were in Stirling Bike Club/Wallace Warriors, we needed L3 coach on many off road rides. Even then we were limited to "around Red grade or equivalent" in technicality.
It costs huge amounts of volunteer time and effort, and financial cost for the club.
It didn't help that Scottish Cycling are utter c*ockw*mbles who managed singlehandedly to get rid of me and at least two others I know of through thier ineptitude and arrogance. It had been my intention to do L3, but I gave up at L2 due to the people and organisation that is Scottish Cycling.
The nuclear option is that the MTB group removes itself from club administration and just goes to a totally informal WhatsApp group of mates 'club'.
One issue to consider, which is not clear cut either way is if you do that is someone still “in charge”? A WhatsApp group has administrators, a ride has someone who planned it, decided the weather was ok (or not). It’s easy enough when everyone is already mates with vaguely similar skills and experience to see that it’s a shared responsibility. It becomes a bit murky when someone new wants to tag along, or one of the roadies you know well but has zero MTB experience wants to see what the fuss is about. Even the name of the WhatsApp group might influence a judge in the future as to how they retrospectively view the “informal club”.
Are there other affiliations or insurers who can help? Eg. Cycling UK? Of course it might be that they all face the fundamental problem that genuine MTB has risks and an injured party may try to lay blame elsewhere.
Don't disagree with any of that Poly. We'd probably start an entirely new WhatsApp group and have a sticky post explaining the nature of it as a minimum.
I don't know if Cycling UK offer such an insured affiliation, but even that can be fraught with risk as 2 insurers with similar liability end up both declining cover expecting the other to deal with it.
Cycling U.K. do have a scheme for affiliated clubs and ride leaders I don’t know the details of what they can or can’t do. Would be worth a call to CUK. They will I am sure have dealt with the question of clubs that are also BC affiliated. Or if you are really brave… convert the roadies to CUK too (or run two clubs in parallel).
Following
When our boys were involved in the local club / MTB racing, BC NW were trying to start an MTB cluster so kids could do off road skills training together with mtb coaches. Coaches were actually limited where they could take them (was 10 years ago so that might have changed), so we got roped in doing BC MTB leader L2 to give them more freedom and help herd / chaperone (Mrs rode MTB for GB bitd so they were keen for her to be involved). This also meant any off road rides the club did were fully legal and insured (which was a grey area before that).
Kids are grown up now and we've moved. My first aid is out of date but Mrs has kept her's up for local ride leader stuff.
Or if you are really brave… convert the roadies to CUK too (or run two clubs in parallel).
The club organises a couple of road races and a round of the NW cyclocross each year, so that's sadly unlikely to happen. And I'm not starting my own club! I've been a committee member for just over 6 months and I can't be arsed with all the formal BS. I'm not doing it again next year, hateful.
What happens if all of the people going for a MTB ride (note not an “event”) happen to be individual members of CUK, not affiliated to a formal club?
this really is the sort of committee based, fun-sponging that puts people (i.e. me) off of joining clubs TBH…
If you're all consenting adults, just do a risk-assessment and move on.
The example given by Matt relates to children / coaching. Then you need L3 etc.
this really is the sort of committee based, fun-sponging that puts people (i.e. me) off of joining clubs TBH…
Can't lay this one on the committee, they're just wanting to protect ride leaders from being sued personally by following the conditions of insurance.
If you're all consenting adults, just do a risk-assessment and move on.
All very well until somebody is injured and decides they want to be compensated for the financial losses of not being able to work for a while.
And as I said, in our club that's not a hypothetical situation.
Can't lay this one on the committee, they're just wanting to protect ride leaders from being sued personally by following the conditions of insurance.
Yeah, I've got unaffiliated BC membership because I'm not really a 'joiner' but might want to do the occasional race, outside of races or big events, club politics do seem to suck much of the fun out of riding bicycles (IME).
Instead I mostly go for rides on my own or with various, disparate groups of mates (some of whom have got club memberships), we barely ever sue each other. I'm not sure we've fully established enough of a hierarchy to call anyone a "Leader" either...
Clubs are fine up to a point, they can lend structure to things but if you're just a bunch of mates (who happen to know each other through a Road club, that makes no real provision for MTBing) wanting to ride MTBs one weekend, are you really calling it off for fear of Club/BC reinforced liability? How utterly joyless... I think the fact that the OP is wringing their hands over a mates ride in the peaks illustrates my point.
Go for the ride, if the club have an issue just say you collectively considered the ride an unaffiliated activity, outside of their purview as the club doesn't really seem to be setup for MTBs anyway.
Do a risk assessment if you like, take reasonable precautions (like a 1st aid kit and some inner tubes) that's just a personal choice to undertake take sensible pre-planning... why does that have to infer any liability on anyone else?
I think the fact that the OP is wringing their hands over a mates ride in the peaks illustrates my point.
I'm really not. We're talking about official club rides offered by a club who had a member sued after an accident.
why does that have to infer any liability on anyone else?
It doesn't HAVE to, but in the event lawyers get involved, that's how the law works sadly.
Who even is the "leader" on a MTB whatsapp group group ride?
1 - The person who posts the ride?
2 - The person who selects the route/trail?
3 - The person at the front on the particular bit where an incident occurs?
or even - and the most likely person that could be to "blame" for a crash - the person immediately in front of the crasher who picked a stupid line or braked before a jump that they just survived, and the rider behind them didn't?
All very well until somebody is injured and decides they want to be compensated for the financial losses of not being able to work for a while.
And whilst that might seem unlikely with some close mates who were all equally stupid and enjoy the same type of riding, even in that situation, there may be a "loss of income claim" against someone's own insurer who will then look to see if there is someone else to pursue.
All this is why as a MTBer I don't ride with a club. Happy riding with mates in an informal arrangement.
Was a committee member of a local club in the past (same club/committee as two other posters in this discussion). Also got my Fun MBL L1 via local junior club - course was incredibly basic IMO. Ended up stopping volunteering when my kids stopped going as I wasn't comfortable leading groups of kids who were looking for coaching rather than ride leading, and I wasn't covered for that.
The one who has enough assets or an insurance policy to make it worth suing! But there's no reason to pick on one individual, they can sue multiple people! Of course 1,2,3(4) could all be the same person and potentially more likely to get sued... the problem with Whatsapp groups is they provide a record of the conversation too! In reality its the person who made (or didn't make) the decision that ultimately lead to your injury who MIGHT have liability.Who even is the "leader" on a MTB whatsapp group group ride?
1 - The person who posts the ride?
2 - The person who selects the route/trail?
3 - The person at the front on the particular bit where an incident occurs?
or even - and the most likely person that could be to "blame" for a crash - the person immediately in front of the crasher who picked a stupid line or braked before a jump that they just survived, and the rider behind them didn't?
And in a club setting it might be the committee that get pursued for not ensuring the ride leaders were appropriately trained, rides risk assessed, previous skill levels clearly communicated. When their governing body has defined rules and they've not been adhered to then is leaves the door open for a claim. Or worse, if the claimant believes that the rules were intentionally dodged to avoid the hassle/cost.
And the person suing you might not be someone in your own group - it might be a member of the public walking / riding on the trails who gets injured by one of the groups cyclists. Perhaps whilst waiting for an ambulance one of your group is making small talk with the injured or their friend and says that you are all in a particular club, or implies that "X" is the organiser... Even if you are not liable - getting sued, even to the extent of a snotty letter threatening action is not a pleasant experience.
Thanks Poly, you nailed it.
I was reminded of this thread when I saw a local bike shop social ride organised via the shop SM, with the caveats that the shop accepts no liability etc etc.
I did wonder whether that was right, and whether a shop organising and advertising a ride via their SM would by default be seen as the responsible organiser and be the end point should there be any comeback from riders and public alike?
I think OP, you've answered your own question here. Your now in the unfortunate position of being aware of BC's rules about leading people off road. If you want to be sure the club is covered your gonna have to play by the rules. Failing that you risk it or sack it off. 🤷
I'm not sure I understand where/what BC rules have to do with it, except highlighting the issue.
If someone on a Whatsapp group posts they will lead/guide a newbie on a ride, they are not covered by BC insurance (unless suitably qualified & under the auspices of an insured club).
If the group has nothing to do with BC, the leader can be held liable. If the group happens to be connected to a BC club, but it is not an official club sanctioned event, I don't see the difference, the self-proclaimed leader/guide is uninsured either way.
I was reminded of this thread when I saw a local bike shop social ride organised via the shop SM, with the caveats that the shop accepts no liability etc etc.I did wonder whether that was right, and whether a shop organising and advertising a ride via their SM would by default be seen as the responsible organiser and be the end point should there be any comeback from riders and public alike?
As a general rule (in all walks of life, not just cycling) you can't simply declare that you are not liable and expect it to have any actual effect. The courts will decide if you were liable or not, and disclaimers are often deemed to be of no value there. HOWEVER the court can take into account the existence of disclaimers when assessing if the participants knew what they were doing and the risks they were getting into. Interestingly in the Haverfordwest paddleboard incident the complete absence of waivers/disclaimers was considered an indicator that the organiser was lax in her paperwork, but I don't think that was about not trying to dodge liability, but rather than they would expect participants to have clearly accepted their involvement in a risk activity.