Bunchriding legal liabilities

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 at 02:57 GMT, (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
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 wrote:
flyingdutch Wrote:
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 Wrote:
Rule 255 of the Australian Road Rules says you can't ride inside 2
behind a _motor_ vehicle, but that doesn't encompass a bunch o
cyclists... although Rule 126 says a driver must drive a sufficien
distance behind a vehicle... does this apply to a bunch? Have to loo
up the definitions of the terms driver and vehicle.

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

The defendant's lawyer will probably argue that the accident resulted i
more damage that it otherwise would have because the cyclists wer
travelling too close together to take evasive action. Under thi
argument, the driver will be liable for the initial accident but no
the chain reaction.

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

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

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

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

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

Hmmm. Me too

--
Roadie_scum

In article slrn-0.9.7.4-15952-27076-200412141407-
, -
astro.swin.edu.au says...

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

wrote in message ...
"flyingdutch" == flyingdutch
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 he
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 Wrote:
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

SteveA Wrote:
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.


--
phamcam

SteveA Wrote:
(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


--
flyingdutch

"TimC" == TimC writes:

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

"euan" == euan b uk 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