Group ride sticky

[Hinny]

And more pertinently here.
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...100612&page=13

[PeteJ]

Right. Ryan and I got into a discussion on these issues about 18 months ago, but I've got two hats on at the mo - 1. lawyer; 2. roadrider/racer (sealed and unsealed surfaces)/formal event organiser, in every case for >35 years.

A. A disclaimer from an organiser in itself relieves no liability at all. Full stop.

B. "Organiser" will be seen in very wide terms at a coroner's inquest (yes, have had the unfortunate duty of attending some of those).

C. "Adventure riders are more responsible"? - well, I'm not going to speak for myself, but do we recall what happened on the "HUB" ride a bit over a year ago? And that "HUB" stood for "Harden Up Boys"? As I recall, it was ironically the organiser via KB who was killed.

D. Absolute legal liability is not the point. It's the accusations that cause the most grief to the accused.

E. There will always be people who ride beyond their abilities, trying to keep up with/be faster than others. Naturally, they will not recognise it, either before or after they have crashed. They will also blame everyone else.

F. My solution is usually to try to ride apart from the others on a group ride, and meet up at destinations.

G. If you have leaders and Tail End Charlies, that strongly implies an organised ride, rather than a social event.

This'll do for now.

[mazz1972]

I appreciate the legal situation of being an organiser - our bike club organises up to seven trail rides a year with between 300-800 participants each time. We are affiliated to Motorcycling NZ, so have rules & regs to follow. I’m the MNZ Steward at all our trail rides, so for me safety is paramount. We have a disclaimer that all riders sign, but that would not absolve us of liability if we did not take due care in plotting our course, follow our own rules, or provide an adequate briefing pointing out hazards etc. It's not helpful when people don't listen at the verbal briefing, or bother to read a written one.

However many trail rides are organized by school groups or the like, with no MNZ club backing, and from what I’ve heard, some of them are pretty lacking with care and safety.

I have no experience in organising road (or adv) rides, which is what the guidelines sticky leans towards.

However in terms of legal liability, surely in the eyes of the “law” there must be a difference between:

a) an organized ride advertised to all and sundry, with an entry fee. I would expect some responsibility falls on the shoulders of the organisers. There could be traffic management issues, maybe road closures, etc.

b) an informal KB post “I’m planning to ride to x - who wants to join me?”.

c) ringing/texting/emailing a group of mates seeing who wants to go for a blat Saturday, be it 2 or 12 people.

For any road ride, people should be responsible for their own safety as they are riding on public roads.

However if a trail ride (and maybe parts of an adv ride) where you are using on private property - the land owners could potentially face liability issues, so there should be guidelines/rules in place for participants.

In some areas (such as Kapiti) events must comply with by-laws, and council requires notification. Our trail rides fall into this category, but I’m unsure of the situation with road ride type events.

I've been told that ACC have been in discussions with certain people in the offroad motorcycling arena (not via Motorcycling NZ) – but I don’t know any details other than that.

Incidentally there is an interesting article in the latest Motorcycle Trader mag about group (road) rides and safety.

[clint640]

Given that this thread was originally about liability issues from organising a ride, surely the fact that someone has had a tragic accident on a very loosely organised ride & the organiser has not been prosecuted as a result would indicate that legal issues should not be a concern to those organising rides on here.

Cheers
Clint

[marks]

Given that this thread was originally about liability issues from organising a ride, surely the fact that someone has had a tragic accident on a very loosely organised ride & the organiser has not been prosecuted as a result would indicate that legal issues should not be a concern to those organising rides on here.

Cheers
Clint

Liability aside - I would wind myself in knots with guilt wondering if I could have done something different/better if something like this happened on a ride I was involved with organizing.

this is all certainly sobering food for thought

[PeteJ]

Given that this thread was originally about liability issues from organising a ride, surely the fact that someone has had a tragic accident on a very loosely organised ride & the organiser has not been prosecuted as a result would indicate that legal issues should not be a concern to those organising rides on here.

Cheers
Clint

Sorry, Clint, no. It's more a question of who gets wound up enough to get others wound up enough to prosecute, and that's just random. All it takes is a vengeful mother or partner, and then away it goes.

There's actually more likely to be civil court action by an insurance company for money for machine/car/other property damage, since you cannot sue for damages for personal injury in NZ.

Just as a general principle, group rides on roads are bloody dangerous, as clearly evidenced by the sheer number of crashes on them as reported on and from KB.

PS I have several mates who have each covered 2 million+ km on NZ roads, on 100+ plus machines owned in most cases, without falling off, or hitting, or being hit by anyone. Luck? Like hell. There is one common factor - they do not ride in groups with others.

[PeteJ]

Another thought: it's well known that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

Why are all the MNZ-affiliated clubs required to be incorporated societies? So as to avoid individual liability for event organisers, even for the road rides the clubs run.

Why are all the classic motorcycle clubs that arose in the late 70s and early 80s, and do not run competitive rides at all, incorporated societies also? Same reason. They have the nearest parallel to what we're discussing here: un-timed pre-set route runs, starting and stopping at predetermined places.

I am sad that so many friends on this forum seem determined to learn the hard way what motorcyclists three generations ago have already learned before them.

[clint640]

Why are all the classic motorcycle clubs that arose in the late 70s and early 80s, and do not run competitive rides at all, incorporated societies also? Same reason. They have the nearest parallel to what we're discussing here: un-timed pre-set route runs, starting and stopping at predetermined places.
.

So, in recent history, how many prosecutions / civil court actions have been brought against clubs for anything that has happened on such rides? It would be good to have some examples of the kinds of things that might get us in the shit.

Cheers
Clint

[Oscar]

Another thought: it's well known that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

Why are all the MNZ-affiliated clubs required to be incorporated societies? So as to avoid individual liability for event organisers, even for the road rides the clubs run.

Why are all the classic motorcycle clubs that arose in the late 70s and early 80s, and do not run competitive rides at all, incorporated societies also? Same reason. They have the nearest parallel to what we're discussing here: un-timed pre-set route runs, starting and stopping at predetermined places.

I am sad that so many friends on this forum seem determined to learn the hard way what motorcyclists three generations ago have already learned before them.

It is true that most Motorcycle Clubs incorporated because the NZACU required them to be incorporated before issuing permits to run events. The permit of course allowed access to the ACU's liability cover.

However a permit wasn't required for non-competitive events (such as the ones we're discussing), which could be a large part of the Clubs Calender. I do not recall any consideration or claim in respect of personal liability back then, and for that matter lately (up until recently I specialised in Liability Insurance). This of course excludes criminal or OSH (work place) prosecutions.

I have also never seen a claim for damages against anyone other than the owner of the vehicle where no official organisation existed. In other words, if you go through a farmers fence on the MMMMM, you'd better be insured, because it ain't Clint's problem.

[Maha]

Group Ride Sticky?
What about a Sticky Group Ride??

[That looks like fun]

I have taken the liberty of designing a form that all particapants should sign before doing anything at all

I (name goes here) being of sound mind and body, hereby sign and declare under oath (place blood drop here) that in the unlikely event of an event happening. I will freely partake of the following actions. And should said event be eventfull enough to cause or maybe cause or even a slight chance of causing something to go horribly wrong with any property or body parts including my wee wee (urine sample goes here) I am fully prepared to admit to and accept said event.
Unless I can get bike upright before photos of the event and/or injured wee wee are taken in which case I will deny all knowledge and blame others profusley
(sign here, here and
here)

[Rosie]

Group Ride Sticky?
What about a Sticky Group Ride??

On gravel? Stickiness and dust are a bad combination

[PeteJ]

It is true that most Motorcycle Clubs incorporated because the NZACU required them to be incorporated before issuing permits to run events. The permit of course allowed access to the ACU's liability cover.

However a permit wasn't required for non-competitive events (such as the ones we're discussing), which could be a large part of the Clubs Calender. I do not recall any consideration or claim in respect of personal liability back then, and for that matter lately (up until recently I specialised in Liability Insurance). This of course excludes criminal or OSH (work place) prosecutions.

I have also never seen a claim for damages against anyone other than the owner of the vehicle where no official organisation existed. In other words, if you go through a farmers fence on the MMMMM, you'd better be insured, because it ain't Clint's problem.

No, I was going much, much further back in history, to before the NZACU was created. Clubs incorporated for members' individual protection way back then, and that's why NZACU (now MNZ) requires them to be incorporated now. The insurers have always required incorporation to cut down the possibility of claims against many potential insureds (as would be the case with an unincorporated group covered by insurance).

And it's not the full story to say that permits are not required for non-competitive events. AMCC takes out permits for ART days, for instance; it's not required to, but does so out of ordinary commercial prudence.

But I'm pleased to hear that insurers are not interested in pursuing parties who may have been part of a cause of loss to property. I happily admit that this is news to me. Oscar, as a point of interest, I heard that vehicle insurers are abandoning/have abandoned "knock for knock". Is that so?

[PeteJ]

So, in recent history, how many prosecutions / civil court actions have been brought against clubs for anything that has happened on such rides? It would be good to have some examples of the kinds of things that might get us in the shit.

Cheers
Clint

Claims have been made against classic clubs, actually. (Incidentally, none, other than NZCMRR, is affiliated to MNZ.) I'm a life member of one, and well aware of the issue. The claims tend to be pootling little ones for those; "I fell off and crunched my bike on 'X Run, and it's the club's fault for making the route so hard' ". But as I said before, the hassle is fighting off a money claim, more than the prospect of it succeeding at the far end.

However, when someone dies - and there have been far too many deaths already on KB-assisted rides - then you can be sure that the coroners will increasingly be focussing on how the rider's deaths occurred, and who organised what. All it needs is for someone's Mummy to say at an inquest, "Oh, Clint from KB organised this and made it too hard for my little Deadikins", and the brown will meet the whirly thing. Coroners can and do recommend criminal prosecutions.

Look, obviously I am disappointed if folk are determined not to believe me, but in the end I'm not in any danger of the consequences I'm warning about. I won't even bother to say, "I told you so."

[Oscar]

No, I was going much, much further back in history, to before the NZACU was created. Clubs incorporated for members' individual protection way back then, and that's why NZACU (now MNZ) requires them to be incorporated now. The insurers have always required incorporation to cut down the possibility of claims against many potential insureds (as would be the case with an unincorporated group covered by insurance).

And it's not the full story to say that permits are not required for non-competitive events. AMCC takes out permits for ART days, for instance; it's not required to, but does so out of ordinary commercial prudence.

But I'm pleased to hear that insurers are not interested in pursuing parties who may have been part of a cause of loss to property. I happily admit that this is news to me. Oscar, as a point of interest, I heard that vehicle insurers are abandoning/have abandoned "knock for knock". Is that so?

The one I work for was never in the Knock for Knock.
Generally it doesn't work for smaller insurers.
I'm surprised no one has had a go at through the Commerce Commission.
It can be anti-competitive.