Canadian cyclist sues race organisers

Chips Lovell

This is interesting. A cyclist who was seriously injured in a race is now suing the organisers:

Uy’s accident was one of nearly a dozen crashes during the entry-level race featuring nearly 200 participants. During the race, traffic along the 18.5-kilometre Flamborough course was limited, but the roads weren’t closed completely, forcing the cyclists to stay in a single lane.

Among the allegations against the Hamilton Cycling Club and Ontario Cycling Association outlined in the statement of claim are that:

• the two organizations permitted an unreasonable amount of participants in the race such that the race course posed a danger to due to congestion;

• failed to properly plan and organize the race course when they knew or ought to have known that the race course posed a risk of injury or harm to participants;

• failed to implement and adhere to international standards for the organization and operation of the race;

• failed to warn or adequately warn Christopher Uy of the potential danger of participating in the race;

fat bloke

What a w@nker.

Failed to warn him of the dangers of participating in a cycle race??? Is he for real?

Cookie_Monster

^ +1

just another chancer trying to blame someone else for his complete lack of responsibility for himself and his actions :mad:

Lumen

During the race, traffic along the 18.5-kilometre Flamborough course was limited, but the roads weren’t closed completely, forcing the cyclists to stay in a single lane.

Sounds pretty safe to me. Those Canadians must be more obedient than us.

GlennaMaddy

only a matter of time before something similar is tried here (there was a case a few years ago -Junior Tour I think -it was thrown out by the judge).
I've never heard of a race organiser or commissar take numbers from riders who cross the white line, only a few times do I recall being reminded that the normal rules of the road apply.
Never heard or numbers being limited either, which has always amazed me considering the boreens we're often sent down.

barrabus

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

^ +1

just another chancer trying to blame someone else for his complete lack of responsibility for himself and his actions :mad:

i cant agree with calling him a chancer, brain injury, 3.5 months in hospital ;hasnt worked since, i am all in favour of being free to take on risks and taking responsibility for your actions be it bike racing rock climbing or whatever; but i am also in favour of race organisers being required to take reasonable precautions in planning and organising the race so that risks are minimised.

Can imagine many on here would at least take legal advice if they or their loved one were involved in a serious accidient leaving them badly and permanently injured with a bank chasing them for mortgage and car repayments and no one to put food on the table which was arguably caused by the negligence of the race organisers.

RobFowl

GlennaMaddy wrote: »

only a matter of time before something similar is tried here (there was a case a few years ago -Junior Tour I think -it was thrown out by the judge).
I've never heard of a race organiser or commissar take numbers from riders who cross the white line, only a few times do I recall being reminded that the normal rules of the road apply.
Never heard or numbers being limited either, which has always amazed me considering the boreens we're often sent down.

The PSNI limit the numbers on races up North (usually 60 I think but depending on the level of marshalling/police cover 80-160).
There were a good few races stopped due to crossing the white line in the past. Always made the bunches behave for a few months !!
I've seen very serious injuries and near fatalities directly caused by riders crossing the white line races....

spokeydokey

Depressing...

I didn't notice any sugestion that riders were crossing the white line in the article. If anything there seems to be an implication that 'congestion' was caused by riders being restricted to one side of the road.

I wonder what 'international standards' refers to?

fat bloke

" Uy was riding at more than 40 kilometres an hour when the pack he was in suddenly bunched up. Uy hit the brakes, crashed and went over the handlebars, the carbon frame of his bicycle snapping in two."

That can happen anytime, anywhere for many reasons. Of course one can sympathize with the guy on a personal level but racing is inherently dangerous and anyone taking part should do so with eyes wide open. If everyone who crashes and hurts themselves can sue for millions then may as well call it a day now -no more races, no more sportives. The claim that the organizers should have explained to him that there was a risk involved is rubbish. He's not 6 years old, and presumably he's seen some footage from, I dunno, let's see... the tour de France maybe??

Sh1t happens. It can be unfortunate. But I fundamentally disagree with the automatic assumption of litigation and 6 figure compensation

Ryder

fat bloke wrote: »

" Uy was riding at more than 40 kilometres an hour when the pack he was in suddenly bunched up. Uy hit the brakes, crashed and went over the handlebars, the carbon frame of his bicycle snapping in two."

That can happen anytime, anywhere for many reasons. Of course one can sympathize with the guy on a personal level but racing is inherently dangerous and anyone taking part should do so with eyes wide open. If everyone who crashes and hurts themselves can sue for millions then may as well call it a day now -no more races, no more sportives. The claim that the organizers should have explained to him that there was a risk involved is rubbish. He's not 6 years old, and presumably he's seen some footage from, I dunno, let's see... the tour de France maybe??

Sh1t happens. It can be unfortunate. But I fundamentally disagree with the automatic assumption of litigation and 6 figure compensation

To be fair the guy got pretty horrendous and life changing injuries. It seems like he wont be able to provide for his family again. I think it may be a case of having to sue rather than wanting to.......in fairness thats why there is insurance for these events.

On a related note a 32yr old in his first race involving 200 riders on an 18k loop does sound dangerous. Maybe new riders should have to undergo a period of race training before getting their license (he braked at 40+kph causing his crash). Enforcing this should be up to the cycling authorities hence their inclusion in the suit.

Am def not anticycling/racing, just trying to see this from the other side

doozerie

Labeling the guy as "a w@nker" on the basis of the limited information in the linked article is just offensive. Perhaps the race organisers have no case to answer, perhaps they do, but that judgement can only be made by those with access to more information than the writer of the article.

The reference to race organisers not having made him aware of the dangers of the race is only one of four claims mentioned in the article (and the article implies that there are others too) and whatever your view of the merits of that particular claim the other three claims listed seem on the face of it to be ones that anybody could relate to. It's certainly not easy to run a "safe" race (i.e. one in which organisers have done everything in their power to minimise the dangers), but organisers have a responsibility to do their best to minimise risks and if they fail to do so then they are liable to be held to account. There are many ways in which race organisers may fall short of their responsibilities, not having enough marshals for every significant junction on the race route is an obvious one that springs immediately to mind, it remains to be seen whether the criticisms of the organisers in this instance are valid.