Bunchriding legal liabilities

flyingdutch said:

Just heard a talkback call on 774AM with their legal guy.
A man called in saying that he was on a regular Sat am training ride with about 100 others (Hell ride?) and due to the actions of a driver, 10 of them had a fall. There was a Cop amongst the riders who duly saw to the driver being charged.

The cller asked should the 10 riders be bandeding together to get their case more oomph and streamlined. Answer was yes, as facts pertaining were common.
The legal guy then went on to comment that if (for argument's sake) he was representing the driver he would be pursuing a line as to what degree/% of liability was the driver liable for as the riders could be percieved to be contributing to a portion of the damage/accident bcos they were riding too close together!!!

So will this lead to limitied number bunches?
Wearing ahoolahoop so other riders cant get too close??

Sadly, the legal guy has a point. The closeness of the bunch probably did contribute to the extent of the accident insofar as crashes in bunches tend to have a chain reaction effect. If the riders were spaced apart a little more, then following riders would have more time to avoid a collision. The UCI figured this idea out when they banned aero bars in bunch races.

I doubt whether this incident will lead to any new legislation on bunch riding, though it will be interesting to see what, if any, portion of the damages are borne by the riders.

I hope the riders involved were not injured... shivers every time I hear of a bike accident...

Ritch

ritcho said:

I doubt whether this incident will lead to any new legislation on bunch riding, though it will be interesting to see what, if any, portion of the damages are borne by the riders.

It's not legislation that's the concern, it's the establishment of case law.

ritcho said:

Sadly, the legal guy has a point. The closeness of the bunch probably did contribute to the extent of the accident insofar as crashes in bunches tend to have a chain reaction effect. If the riders were spaced apart a little more, then following riders would have more time to avoid a collision. The UCI figured this idea out when they banned aero bars in bunch races.

I doubt whether this incident will lead to any new legislation on bunch riding, though it will be interesting to see what, if any, portion of the damages are borne by the riders.

I hope the riders involved were not injured... shivers every time I hear of a bike accident...

Ritch

I actually repaired the bike yesterday at work of one of the guys who came down in the Hell ride crash last Sat - not too hard, no Ergolever/frame/fork/rim (expensive) replacement (although his superlight alloy bars were bent, couldn't (wouldn't want to - crack, ouch!) straighten . . . $170 later . . .)

He said, and I hope he (anonymously) doesn't mind me quoting him, that he was just leaning down to take a drink, and at exactly the wrong moment, the ripple went back up the bunch from the car pulling in, he hadn't got both hands on the bars, panicked a little, so locked his back wheel, collision, fall x approx. 10. Car drivers fault, pulling into the middle of a moving bunch.

How can cyclists be at fault if they are just trying to use physics (aerodynamics) to their advantage? Why aren't roads designed to let this efficient form of cycling occur more readily/safely? I have fantasies of big (solar/pedal powered) "draftmobiles" moving up and down major roads at 40+ kmh , warning lights etc, with the ultimate right of way, with bunches tucked in behind, peeling on and off as they need, or with stronger riders falling back to tow riders up to the peleton.

M "you may say that I'm a dreamer . . ." H

you can successfully argue anything in court in Australia, but does the judge ride?

Seems that motorists along the St Kilda to Frankston (even beyond to Dromana & Sorrento) are getting short tempered with cyclists more frequently.
Motorists & bus drivers are complaining about having to merge into the right lane to pass cyclists on that stretch, although I don't see any complaints about parked cars along the road that result in the same sort of thing.

Marx SS said:

you can successfully argue anything in court in Australia, but does the judge ride?

No you can't and almost definitely not.

Roadie_scum said:

No you can't and almost definitely not.

Apparently one of the Bayriders bunch is a beak. Titanium Opera, of course.

M "sine qua non" H

Roadie_scum said:

No you can't and almost definitely not.

Rule 255 of the Australian Road Rules says you can't ride inside 2m behind a _motor_ vehicle, but that doesn't encompass a bunch of cyclists... although Rule 126 says a driver must drive a sufficient distance behind a vehicle... does this apply to a bunch? Have to look up the definitions of the terms driver and vehicle.

The defendant's lawyer will probably argue that the accident resulted in more damage that it otherwise would have because the cyclists were travelling too close together to take evasive action. Under this argument, the driver will be liable for the initial accident but not the chain reaction.

The plaintiff might argue that a bunch ride is safe, evidenced by the fact that accidents are rare, riders in bunches tend to be more experienced cyclists and often require someone outside the bunch to cause an accident (driver fails right of way). In this case, the driver is liable for the lot.

I wonder which way the insurer (and the courts, if it comes to that) sees it?

Ritch

"flyingdutch" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Just heard a talkback call on 774AM with their legal guy.
A man called in saying that he was on a regular Sat am training ride
with about 100 others (Hell ride?) and due to the actions of a driver,
10 of them had a fall. There was a Cop amongst the riders who duly saw
to the driver being charged.

The cller asked should the 10 riders be bandeding together to get their
case more oomph and streamlined. Answer was yes, as facts pertaining
were common.
The legal guy then went on to comment that if (for argument's sake) he
was representing the driver he would be pursuing a line as to what
degree/% of liability was the driver liable for as the riders could be
percieved to be contributing to a portion of the damage/accident bcos
they were riding too close together!!!

So will this lead to limitied number bunches?
Wearing ahoolahoop so other riders cant get too close??

--
flyingdutch

They were obviously roadies because triathletes would NEVER be less than
two bike lengths apart. 😉

Marty

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> "flyingdutch" == flyingdutch <[email hidden]> writes:

flyingdutch> The legal guy then went on to comment that if (for
flyingdutch> argument's sake) he was representing the driver he
flyingdutch> would be pursuing a line as to what degree/% of
flyingdutch> liability was the driver liable for as the riders could
flyingdutch> be percieved to be contributing to a portion of the
flyingdutch> damage/accident bcos they were riding too close
flyingdutch> together!!!

I remembered reading something about the distance cyclists had to give
vehicles, it's covered here:
http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/vrpdf/randl/part_15.pdf

Interestingly it states that a cyclist has to give two meters to
_motor_ vehicles.

With that in mind it would seem that legally there is nothing to prevent
cyclists from bunch riding, which makes a lot of sense as bunch riding
seems to make much better use of the road.

Of course I've never ridden in a bunch, been overtaken by a few but that
hardly counts now does it?
--
Cheers
Euan

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 at 02:57 GMT, [email hidden] (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

Interestingly it states that a cyclist has to give two meters to
_motor_ vehicles.

With that in mind it would seem that legally there is nothing to prevent
cyclists from bunch riding, which makes a lot of sense as bunch riding
seems to make much better use of the road.

It may not be illegal, but is it sensible to do it if it is not
necessarily safe?

In a car, you drive 3 seconds behind the next car, not only because
you have to, but it is sensible to do so - it gives you enough time to
stop in all but the most drastic of situations. We are lucky to not
have the same rule apply to cycling, but it's not necessarily a given.

Your reasoning that it makes better use of the road could equally
apply to cars, but the safety factor overrides it. Why doesn't the
safety factor override it in the case of cycling?

--
TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
The other day I overheard that a friend of the family had called their
new kid "Noah". I thinks "Noah? I 'ardly -" and then I bursts out
laughing.. -- Screwtape in RHOD

ritcho said:

flyingdutch said:

The legal guy then went on to comment that if (for argument's sake) he
was representing the driver he would be pursuing a line as to what
degree/% of liability was the driver liable for as the riders could be
percieved to be contributing to a portion of the damage/accident bcos
they were riding too close together!!!

Sadly, the legal guy has a point. The closeness of the bunch probably
did contribute to the extent of the accident insofar as crashes in
bunches tend to have a chain reaction effect. If the riders were spaced
apart a little more, then following riders would have more time to avoid
a collision. The UCI figured this idea out when they banned aero bars in
bunch races.

I doubt whether this incident will lead to any new legislation on bunch
riding, though it will be interesting to see what, if any, portion of
the damages are borne by the riders.

I hope the riders involved were not injured... shivers every time I
hear of a bike accident...

Ritch

Interestingly, the law on two-abreast riding in Qld (and elsewhere I
assume, since we are _supposed_ to have uniform national road rules),
says that you must remain within 1.5 metres of the other rider. There's
no minimum distance specified. So the law is telling you to ride closer
together rather than further apart.

Peter

--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA

ritcho said:

Rule 255 of the Australian Road Rules says you can't ride inside 2m behind a _motor_ vehicle, but that doesn't encompass a bunch of cyclists... although Rule 126 says a driver must drive a sufficient distance behind a vehicle... does this apply to a bunch? Have to look up the definitions of the terms driver and vehicle.

Vehicle would include cyclists travelling on a road, but the road rules are not conclusive of negligence. For example, the fact that someone was travelling at 102km/h and is then involved in a crash will not make them negligence. The test is whether the defendant conducted themselves as a 'reasonable person' - this is referenced to case law and has a legal meaning which doesn't always attach precisely to the commonsense one.

Quoted post said:

The defendant's lawyer will probably argue that the accident resulted in more damage that it otherwise would have because the cyclists were travelling too close together to take evasive action. Under this argument, the driver will be liable for the initial accident but not the chain reaction.

The defendant's lawyer might be right too. I ride in bunches all the time and it most definitely does entail more risk than riding by one's self, especially the hell ride. You almost certainly couldn't make out the defence voluntary assumption of risk on the part of the riders for a number of reasons, so the defendant will be arguing contributory negligence. This reduces damages rather than eliminates them. The defendant is liable for all damage that is not remote or unforseeable (eg all damage to bikes and bodies) but this figure is then reduced by a percentage if contributory negligence is made out. My hope would be that either the %age is small or contributory negligence is excluded. That depends on the behaviour of the bunch in part - I stopped riding the hell ride because they were so clearly negligent so often it was ridiculous. You just can't take up all of a three lane road, run red lights and call it safe. Riding in bunches that take one lane and obey road rules is another thing entirely.

Under contributory negligence the driver is still liable for the chain reaction minus a deduction of a $age to reflect the riders contribution.

Quoted post said:

The plaintiff might argue that a bunch ride is safe, evidenced by the fact that accidents are rare, riders in bunches tend to be more experienced cyclists and often require someone outside the bunch to cause an accident (driver fails right of way). In this case, the driver is liable for the lot.

I don't think you could characterise all bunches as either safe or unsafe. I'd say hell ride is unsafe. North Rd slightly less so on Thursdays and Tuesdays, much less so other days. Other bunches are safer again. It will (I hope) come down to argument about the individual circumstances rather than about bunches in general (although it might be used as authority in later cases on bunch rides if there were more).

Quoted post said:

I wonder which way the insurer (and the courts, if it comes to that) sees it?

Hmmm. Me too.

In article <slrn-0.9.7.4-15952-27076-200412141407-
[email hidden]>, [email hidden]-
astro.swin.edu.au says...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

SNIP
legally nothing to prevent
cyclists from bunch riding,

SNIP
It may not be illegal, but is it sensible to do it if it is not
necessarily safe?

In a car, you drive 3 seconds behind the next car, not only because
you have to, but it is sensible to do so .
SNIP
<<that Drafting>> makes better use of the road could equally
apply to cars, ... safety factor overrides it. Why doesn't the
safety factor override it in the case of cycling?

"But is it safe??", said the middle-aged woman on the old "Inventors"
show.
I've just been working out some of my Wattages on
http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm

Bicycles make do with 1/10 of a horsepower (70-80W cruising at 20-30kph).
Your standard Aussie passenger car (Falcon) has 243HP (181kW). I can
output 350-400W for an hour (TT 4 yrs ago) or used to be able to output
420 Watts for about 10mins (20 yrs ago). And my sprint works out at about
1.6kW for a second or two (last week).

From http://www.cptips.com/energy.htm - drafting at 40kph requires 27%
less power than riding 40kph on your own.

Each year cars come out with more and more power. A 90's Suzuki Swift
can race Bathurst quicker than a 1958 F1 car... while it's being lapped
by all the taxis (Fords & Holdens)! However, we humans are stuck with
pretty much the same 80-400Watts. That's why bikes must be light, we
have to be very light ourselves to get up hills easily and headwinds
SUCK! (or do they blow?).

Bunch riding - you're more likely to fall (wheeltouch) but less likely to
be killed (head run over by a car)...herd safety. Drafting is an
enjoyable skill which has its risks. Leave some room, stay alert and the
benefits usually win the day.
--
Mark Lee

<[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> "flyingdutch" == flyingdutch

Quoted message said:

flyingdutch> The legal guy then went on to comment that if (for
flyingdutch> argument's sake) he was representing the driver he
flyingdutch> would be pursuing a line as to what degree/% of
flyingdutch> liability was the driver liable for as the riders could
flyingdutch> be percieved to be contributing to a portion of the
flyingdutch> damage/accident bcos they were riding too close
flyingdutch> together!!!

I remembered reading something about the distance cyclists had to give
vehicles, it's covered here:
http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/vrpdf/randl/part_15.pdf

Interestingly it states that a cyclist has to give two meters to
_motor_ vehicles.

With that in mind it would seem that legally there is nothing to prevent
cyclists from bunch riding, which makes a lot of sense as bunch riding
seems to make much better use of the road.

Of course I've never ridden in a bunch, been overtaken by a few but that
hardly counts now does it?
--
Cheers
Euan

West Aussie rules. 🙂

219. Bicycle riders not to cause an obstruction
(1) The rider of a bicycle shall not unreasonably obstruct or prevent the
free passage of a vehicle or pedestrian by moving into the path of the
vehicle or a pedestrian.

(2) A person shall not leave a bicycle in or upon a road so as to become an
obstruction.

Modified penalty: 1 PU

ritcho said:

Rule 255 of the Australian Road Rules says you can't ride inside 2m behind a _motor_ vehicle, but that doesn't encompass a bunch of cyclists... although Rule 126 says a driver must drive a sufficient distance behind a vehicle... does this apply to a bunch? Have to look up the definitions of the terms driver and vehicle.

The defendant's lawyer will probably argue that the accident resulted in more damage that it otherwise would have because the cyclists were travelling too close together to take evasive action. Under this argument, the driver will be liable for the initial accident but not the chain reaction.

The plaintiff might argue that a bunch ride is safe, evidenced by the fact that accidents are rare, riders in bunches tend to be more experienced cyclists and often require someone outside the bunch to cause an accident (driver fails right of way). In this case, the driver is liable for the lot.

I wonder which way the insurer (and the courts, if it comes to that) sees it?

Ritch

We are looking at 2 areas of law - statute (ie the road rules) and torts (negligence).

Under the area of statute, the question is whether the 'rules' were broken. If the action of the driver was more serious, he will be charged with breaches of more serious rules. The driver would be penalised but there would not likely be any compensation for the riders (leaving aside the criminal compensation legislation in most States).

Under the tort of negligence, for the driver to be liable there has to be a duty of care owed by the driver to the riders, the driver's actions have to cause the damage/injury and the driver must have been able to take reasonable action to avoid the damage.

Person in car pulling into pack of riders most probably has a duty of care, has caused the injuries sustained in the fall and could have taken reasonable action to avoid pulling into the peleton. It would be reasonably arguable that the driver who caused the first rider to swerve/fall was the cause of the fall of each and every rider who fell. (As mentioned above, the argument will be causality - did the car cause rider number 3 to fall or did rider number 2 cause number 3 to fall?)

Damages awarded by the Court will take into account any contributory negligence on the part of the riders who fell. Courts have been known to consider pedestrians who were standing on the footpath and run over to have some contributory negligence because they did not leap out of the way of the car. So the bike riders in this example would almost certainly have contributed, even if only because they did not avoid the collision.

I am more interested in whether riders in a closely packed peleton have a duty of care to each other, such that a rider who brings down another could be sued for negligence, or whether in that situation all the riders have voluntarily assumed the relevant risks of crashes in the normal course of riding in a bunch.

SteveA
(just finished last of my law exams. Must think about bikes beer and sex...... Must not think about law..Think about ....Bikes .....Beer......Sex.....)

SteveA said:

We are looking at 2 areas of law - statute (ie the road rules) and torts (negligence).

Under the area of statute, the question is whether the 'rules' were broken. If the action of the driver was more serious, he will be charged with breaches of more serious rules. The driver would be penalised but there would not likely be any compensation for the riders (leaving aside the criminal compensation legislation in most States).

Under the tort of negligence, for the driver to be liable there has to be a duty of care owed by the driver to the riders, the driver's actions have to cause the damage/injury and the driver must have been able to take reasonable action to avoid the damage.

Person in car pulling into pack of riders most probably has a duty of care, has caused the injuries sustained in the fall and could have taken reasonable action to avoid pulling into the peleton. It would be reasonably arguable that the driver who caused the first rider to swerve/fall was the cause of the fall of each and every rider who fell. (As mentioned above, the argument will be causality - did the car cause rider number 3 to fall or did rider number 2 cause number 3 to fall?)

Damages awarded by the Court will take into account any contributory negligence on the part of the riders who fell. Courts have been known to consider pedestrians who were standing on the footpath and run over to have some contributory negligence because they did not leap out of the way of the car. So the bike riders in this example would almost certainly have contributed, even if only because they did not avoid the collision.

I am more interested in whether riders in a closely packed peleton have a duty of care to each other, such that a rider who brings down another could be sued for negligence, or whether in that situation all the riders have voluntarily assumed the relevant risks of crashes in the normal course of riding in a bunch.

SteveA
(just finished last of my law exams. Must think about bikes beer and sex...... Must not think about law..Think about ....Bikes .....Beer......Sex.....)

If it was the Hell ride pile up of which there were 2 on Sat; the first was caused by reckless driving (my opinion).

It was reported to me by a mate on the ride, I missed it this week, that it was caused by a driver who was annoyed by bunch passed it move in front of the bunch & braked hard & then drove off.

The police have been focusing on this ride for months now, & giving the riders a hard time….I believe it is another example of road rage…
Its a pity the police were not there this time, it will be interesting to see the outcome, if it true that the car purposely caused the accident I can’t see how the driver can get off.

My 2cents for what it is worth.

SteveA said:

(just finished last of my law exams. Must think about bikes beer and sex...... Must not think about law..Think about ....Bikes .....Beer......Sex.....)

perhaps if you consume enough of the second you could partake in the last with the first 😄 😄 😄

Flyin "Not-that-there's-anything-wrong-with-that" Dutch

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> "TimC" == TimC <[email hidden]> writes:

TimC> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 at 02:57 GMT, [email hidden] (aka
TimC> Bruce) was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Interestingly it states that a cyclist has to give two meters to
_motor_ vehicles.

With that in mind it would seem that legally there is nothing to
prevent cyclists from bunch riding, which makes a lot of sense as
bunch riding seems to make much better use of the road.

TimC> It may not be illegal, but is it sensible to do it if it is
TimC> not necessarily safe?

That's the problem with words like safe, too open to interpretation.
One man's safe and reasonable thing to do is another man's insanity. In
bunch riding I would expect that the riders are (generally) informed
about the potential risks and potential benefits and make a judgment
accordingly. Being a slow coach commuter, I have no idea.

TimC> In a car, you drive 3 seconds behind the next car, not only
TimC> because you have to, but it is sensible to do so - it gives
TimC> you enough time to stop in all but the most drastic of
TimC> situations. We are lucky to not have the same rule apply to
TimC> cycling, but it's not necessarily a given.

Doing some rough maths, 30Km/h equates to a little over 8M/s. Three
second gap would require a 25M gap between two cyclists riding at
30Km/h.

I do leave a good gap between me and another cyclist because I have zero
experience and / or skills in drafting, I'm pretty sure I don't leave a
25M gap though, more like a ten meter gap. Thus far that's proved more
than adequate.

Traveling at 60 km/h a 50M gap is required for the 3 seconds thing.

TimC> Your reasoning that it makes better use of the road could
TimC> equally apply to cars, but the safety factor overrides it. Why
TimC> doesn't the safety factor override it in the case of cycling?

Apples and pears, I'm talking about how much of the road is used per
user. It is much easier for a car to overtake a bunch of ten cyclists
in one go than it is to overtake ten individual cyclists one after the
other. Overtaking maneuvers are inherently risky so reducing the number
of times a car has to overtake can only be a good thing.

I pointed this out to my wife the other day when we overtook a bunch of
fifty going down North Road. Her comment was that they should be in
single file, I explained that how they were riding was in fact a good
deal safer than riding in single file as it forces other road users to
overtake properly. I'd have had a harder time making that argument if
they were strung out over 625M rather than the 30M they were using. Or
in the case of single file, 1.25Km rather than 60M.
--
Cheers
Euan

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> "euan" == euan b uk <[email hidden]> writes:

euan> I pointed this out to my wife the other day when we overtook a
euan> bunch of fifty going down North Road. Her comment was that
euan> they should be in single file, I explained that how they were
euan> riding was in fact a good deal safer than riding in single
euan> file as it forces other road users to overtake properly. I'd
euan> have had a harder time making that argument if they were
euan> strung out over 625M rather than the 30M they were using. Or
euan> in the case of single file, 1.25Km rather than 60M. -- Cheers
euan> Euan

Oops, error in figures. Forgot to allow for length of bikes.

For ease, let's say 1M per bike.

For a bunch riding two abreast 1M apart, that's 25M plus 24M which is
49M

For a bunch riding two abreast 25M apart, that's 25M plus 600 which is
625M.

For a bunch riding single file, 1M apart that's 50M plus 49M which is
99M.

For a bunch riding single file, 25M apart that's 50M plus 1225M which is
1.275Km.

A motorist traveling at 60km/h to overtake a 50M or 100M obstacle
traveling at 30km is trivial. The same cannot be said for distances of
over half a km to 1.275 km.

Statistically speaking, anyone know what proportion of cyclist accidents
come from bunch riding as opposed to not riding in a bunch? Just about
all the ``Motorist kills cyclist'' stories I've read involve a lone
cyclist.
--
Cheers
Euan