Public liability

[XF650]

What I find helps is explaining the difference between adv riders & trail riders.
Also a verbal comittment to sticking to formed tracks where possible, leaving gates as we find them, not annoying stock etc all helps too. Just basic respect really.

[cooneyr]

Thanks for that info Mike J. I'm glad that is where things sit cause it is bloody ridiculous for a farmer to be liable for natural hazards. Last comment about paying is interesting. I don't mind paying the small fees that people ask but it is probably in the farmers best interests not to ask for cash. Places like black forest where cash is asked for but no induction given are taking a real punt then it seems! Rainbow make you sign one of their waivers but again probably not worth the paper it is on. Also no induction given.

I agree with others post - explaining ADV riders vs trail riders makes a difference as does telling them that your all a bunch of old nana's that will do best endeavours to stick to tracks, minimise damage, not annoy stock etc etc.

Cheers R

[monchopper]

Thanks for that info Mike J. I'm glad that is where things sit cause it is bloody ridiculous for a farmer to be liable for natural hazards. Last comment about paying is interesting. I don't mind paying the small fees that people ask but it is probably in the farmers best interests not to ask for cash. Places like black forest where cash is asked for but no induction given are taking a real punt then it seems! Rainbow make you sign one of their waivers but again probably not worth the paper it is on. Also no induction given.

I agree with others post - explaining ADV riders vs trail riders makes a difference as does telling them that your all a bunch of old nana's that will do best endeavours to stick to tracks, minimise damage, not annoy stock etc etc.

Cheers R

I agree, but maybe ADV riders v motorcross riders as my lot (the 4 day high country trip I'm organising that originated this thread) are basically road legal trail riders (or is that ADV lite riders).
FE570's, 530excs, 450exc, DRZ400 etc.
I find explaining that the lads are all middle aged and if you didn't hear us you wouldn't know we were there.
What I also have up my sleeve which works really well and I've had to use a few times is a reference from the owner of a well known high country station.
That way any farmers humming and harring about not knowing us etc can give the referree a call.

UPDATE: I've spoken to the farmer again today and he's cool with the public liability thing but is calling my referee just to double check our credentials so hopefully we're all go!! This farm is a critical link in the route so fingers crossed.

Interesting during my land access enquiries this weekend one farmer has (the first of 20 odd farmers on this trip) asked for a $20 land access fee.
I'm in 2 minds as to whether to
a) Except it and use the land
b) Send them a copy of the document Mike pointed us to.

To educate and risk the access or to leave them in the dark and carry all that risk they're are most likely oblivious to????

[dino3310]

nice one mate looks like things could pan out nicely apart from the chap wanting $$, if he did take money wouldnt it just be him in the poo(osh wise) if something went wrong.

[cooneyr]

.....Interesting during my land access enquiries this weekend one farmer has (the first of 20 odd farmers on this trip) asked for a $20 land access fee.
I'm in 2 minds as to whether to
a) Except it and use the land
b) Send them a copy of the document Mike pointed us to.

To educate and risk the access or to leave them in the dark and carry all that risk they're are most likely oblivious to????

The silly thing with this is that what rider in the right mind after being given permission to go onto somebody else's land would then turn around and sue (or whatever) for some issue. Most likely we did something stupid anyway.

Pay the dosh, keep the guy happy and don't do anything stupid

Cheers R

P.s. Also mentioning that you grew up on a farm is a good icebreaker - especially when they know of your old man or cousins.

[dino3310]

yeh yeh just tell him your related to the Smiths

[monchopper]

nice one mate looks like things could pan out nicely apart from the chap wanting $$, if he did take money wouldnt it just be him in the poo(osh wise) if something went wrong.

Not the same farmer (one of neighbours actually).

Funny thing the land he wants to charge us to cross isn't that critical to the trip and I can easierly re-route to avoid this with little hassle.

Over the 4 day trip we will pass through approx 35 farms, if we were to pay 20 everytime it would make it an prohibitively expensive exercise.

Fortunately over the last few trips I've organised like this I've contacted around 100 different farmers.

2 have denied access
2 have looked to charge us.
The rest have all been very agreeable, help with route suggestions, give contact details of their neighbours.

All and all the typical NZ farmer is usually happy to accommodate once your intent is established.

Thanks for everyones input, especially yours Mike. It's apparent from some of the early post this is not very well understood by both farmers and us potential users.

I hope we're all much more aware of the legal position of landowners in relation to us recreation riders have and we have link and easierly downloadable attachment for show any hesitant landowners.
The good think about the document is that it is in plain english and not laced with off putting legal jargon.

Cheers

[p.dath]

The silly thing with this is that what rider in the right mind after being given permission to go onto somebody else's land would then turn around and sue (or whatever) for some issue. Most likely we did something stupid anyway.

It's not the rider suing that is the problem, its the fines that OSH can charge if there is an accident.

[NordieBoy]

It's not the rider suing that is the problem, its the fines that OSH can charge if there is an accident.

Have you been reading the thread at all?

[p.dath]

Have you been reading the thread at all?

Yep, and I understand that OSH is unlikely to be involved because it is not a work place.

However, the ACT does have some provision for the protection of "volunteers". I think it is unlikely to be applied in this case - just have to be careful with any "helpers". Note that this could be equally applied to the person running the ride, as opposed to just the landowner.
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/p...&p=1#DLM279195

Protections for other volunteers
(1) This section applies in respect of all volunteers doing any voluntary work activity in respect of whom section 3C does not apply.
(2) The person for whom such a volunteer does the work activity should take all practicable steps to ensure the health and safety of the volunteer while he or she is doing the work activity, in particular by taking hazards into account when planning the work activity.
(3) If an inspector becomes aware of a significant hazard relating to the work activity, the inspector must, as soon as practicable, contact the person for whom the volunteer is doing the work activity (or the person's representative) to discuss means of eliminating, isolating, or minimising the hazard.
(4) If this section applies, sections 39, 41, and 49 do not apply.
Section 3D: inserted, on 5 May 2003, by section 6 of the Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Act 2002 (2002 No 86).

[FJRider]

Yep, and I understand that OSH is unlikely to be involved because it is not a work place.

But it IS the farmers workplace ... and as such, he has a "duty of care" to warn visitors to his "workplace" of any and all dangers they could reasonably expect to find ...

Sounds easy enough you might say ... but seldom do you see the same hazards on each and every farm, on each and every day. On some back-blocks of some areas ... the landowner may not even be aware of (new) hazards ... ie: washed out track, slips etc in less visited areas of the property.

Farm operations and their timing vary, so unless you are familiar with that area ... and often that farm in particular ... it is a lucky-dip as to what you may encounter ...

Farms seem to have big heavy things ... with sharp and pointy things on them, that you do not want to hit.

Most farms do have some form of public liability insurance ... but they wont want the premiems increase, if a visitor hurts themselves on their property .... with or without their permission to be there. Or not being "warned" of the dangers ...

Landowners may not be willing to take the risk of allowing visitors (motorcyclists or 4WD'rs)

THEIR property ... THEIR choice !!!

[p.dath]

But it IS the farmers workplace ... and as such, he has a "duty of care" to warn visitors to his "workplace" of any and all dangers they could reasonably expect to find ...

The duty of care extends beyond that of simply warning them ...

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/p...&p=1#DLM279232

Duties of employers to people who are not employees
Every employer shall take all practicable steps to ensure that no action or inaction of any employee while at work harms any other person.

So failing to "act" to protect visitors is enough to get prosecuted ...

[oneofsix]

But it IS the farmers workplace ... and as such, he has a "duty of care" to warn visitors to his "workplace" of any and all dangers they could reasonably expect to find ...

so by that logic the roads are the cop on traffic duties work place so he has a duty to stop every person using the road and warn them of the hazards, after all no two roads are the same. The roads are also the work place of every courier driver, taxi driver, bus driver ... nah that's silly.

[p.dath]

so by that logic the roads are the cop on traffic duties work place so he has a duty to stop every person using the road and warn them of the hazards, after all no two roads are the same. The roads are also the work place of every courier driver, taxi driver, bus driver ... nah that's silly.

The Government owns the road, not the cops.

[FJRider]

The duty of care extends beyond that of simply warning them ...




So failing to "act" to protect visitors is enough to get prosecuted ...

HENCE ... refusal of entry ... and LOCKED gates. Signs warning of prosecution for tresspass is not enough. Cutting locks is breaking and entering ... and the tresspass.
Some judges take a dim view of that ...