Risk management

[Greenbank]

Not a lawyer but...

You can't disclaim negligence.

But the idea is that if the organiser does a proper and thorough risk assessment, and takes reasonable precautions then it should land all other liability at the feet of the rider. And the liability insurance that the organisers have should back them up on this.

Whilst nothing can stop anyone attempting to sue an organiser for something, if the organiser has done their job properly then such a case shouldn't be successful.

[phil d]

The thread contains some good stuff; a lot of which is the personal opinion of the poster, as opposed to quoting regulation to which AUK must comply.  I am surprised that organisers are not fully aware of what / how they need to comply with regulation.  Is there an ‘Organiser’ pack which is sent to potential organisers?

My initial post was just one of those throw away ‘I wonder’ moments, having heard about the tumbles and seen reference to Risk Assessments regarding Audax.

There is indeed an organisers' pack (it is all online on the AUK website), and this includes notes on the risk assessment.  It makes it clear that it is exceptional risks that should be considered here, with "normal" risks attached to riding on the public highway covered by the standard entry conditions.

[ian_oli]

It's not in the Organisers Guidance that I can find but the handbook does say

"AUK has public liability, professional indemnity, employer’s liability and product liability insurance for AUK members acting in a voluntary capacity for AUK as committee members or committee delegates and also for organisers, and their helpers, of events registered with AUK, during their event. All members/Organisers have £5 million Public Liability cover through AUK for AUK Events.
NB Organisers of approved Permanents are regarded as organising on behalf of AUK.
ENTRY FORMS You must use the exact wording of the current AUK Entry Form which has been approved by our insurers. When this is updated, destroy previous forms."

[CommuteTooFar]

One of the problems with the risk assessment is that it is filled in up to a year before the event. So typically the additional boxes are filled in as nothing needed.  If something extraordinary does occur such as a tree falling across the road or bridge collapse the organiser can do nothing about it.  Or simply extraordinary weather.

[Ian H]

One of the problems with the risk assessment is that it is filled in up to a year before the event. So typically the additional boxes are filled in as nothing needed.  If something extraordinary does occur such as a tree falling across the road or bridge collapse the organiser can do nothing about it.  Or simply extraordinary weather.

It is required to be checked and updated each time an event is run (taking into consideration experience from the previous runnings), and it can be updated at any other time as needed.

[Manotea]

Given that riders are self certified as being competent to ride on the roads and are expected to be aware of, for example, the impact of weather and road conditions, I've see the RA as a place to note transient conditions such as, 'Frog migration in progress at Great Tew; road extra slippery'.

[DanialW]

All organisers are required to complete a risk assessment for each event they run, including reruns of events from previous years.

In reality, very few organisers put any effort at all into their risk assessment. Naming no names, I know of one organiser who had to cancel an event due to ice, on the morning of the event. The next year, there was no note on the risk assessment. Another event sent riders down a road waist deep in water. The following year, no note in the RA.

But risk assessment is not just health and safety. It's an opportunity to put down in writing the things that may go wrong on your event, and to think about how you might (if possible) mitigate those risks. As well as busy junctions, you should also consider risks like getting only a handful of entries, or a crucial control cancelling your booking. What would you do if your only volunteer called in sick, or if you got inured and couldn't test ride your routes. These are all things that happen regularly, yet hardly anyone puts them in their risk assessment.

[DanialW]

This is what the organisers' handbook currently says about the risk assessment:

"Before we can publish your event, you must identify and risks that are particular to your event, and what
controls you have put into place to manage those risks. For example, there may be a risk that a
particular café you use as a control will close down, so to manage the control, you may choose to
identify another place to use as a control. Alternatively, a section of your route may be prone to flooding,
so you might look for a backup route as a diversion. There may also be very particular hazards, such as
a busy control, that you might want to alert riders to on your routesheet.

"This is evidence that you have taken proper care in the organisation of your event. Should there be an
incident during your event involving injury or damage, our insurers might want to see this form.

"Completing the risk assessment is mandatory. We will not publish your event in the calendar until
you have completed your risk assessment. If you have identified no particular risks, then please say
so in the form."

[Polar Bear]

   
   

"If riders or their insurers are attempting to hold organisers responsible for their own lack of care then perhaps a watertight disclaimer clause needs to be added to the membership form and the entry form."

My understanding here is that  the wording of the Unfair Contract Terms Act (?) specifically prevents this sort of thing, you cannot contract out of your liability to others in respect of personal injury so effectively there cannot be such a thing as a watertight disclaimer in this context.


another non lawyer

I may have mis-interpreted UCTA but it is my understanding that it applies only where somebody is acting in the course of business.   I don't know whether audaxing counts as a business activity in any way.

Trainee lawyer.

[CommuteTooFar]

There is something I need to add to the Glamorgan Glamour risk assessment.  I get riders who greatly overestimate their ability.   I frequently get riders setting their own finish times way below the time they can achieve on my routes. I am worried that instead of DNFing one of these riders will ignore my request to carry lights even on a 100. (I had an alternative route mostly under traffic lights for the final few miles in case of darkness on the route sheet in previous years. This year for the first time people finished in the dark).

[frankly frankie]

I think AUK should be able to say, one way or the other, yes or no.  If only to be able to put an organisers mind at rest. 

This whole topic is a constant discussion at top levels within AUK, fear not about that.  If there seems to be reluctance to give a firm statement, well, that's just lawyers and insurers for you, isn't it.  Let's face it, nobody knows until the time comes that you have to read the small print.

[mattc]

But risk assessment is not just health and safety. It's an opportunity to put down in writing the things that may go wrong on your event, and to think about how you might (if possible) mitigate those risks. As well as busy junctions, you should also consider risks like getting only a handful of entries, or a crucial control cancelling your booking. What would you do if your only volunteer called in sick, or if you got inured and couldn't test ride your routes. These are all things that happen regularly, yet hardly anyone puts them in their risk assessment.

I might be alone in this, but that is a much wider definition of risk than what I would use.

In a "Project Planning" sense it is sensible to look at risks to the succesful running of a project; I think i'd probably call it Issue Management, or some other jargon! Perhaps we're in the world of semantics here ...

I don't see how my riders are more at risk if I get too few entries. That's my problem, not theirs.

[Billy Weir]

In reality, very few organisers put any effort at all into their risk assessment.

One might also observe that the event co-ordinator might have given the appearance of simply ticking the box that an RA has been submitted without questioning if it was comprehensive enough.  But I take your point - the form is there for a reason.

We all have a responsibility to ensure events pass by with a little incident as might reasonably be expected.  Riders, organisers and co-ordinators.

[DanialW]

I might be alone in this, but that is a much wider definition of risk than what I would use.

In a "Project Planning" sense it is sensible to look at risks to the succesful running of a project; I think i'd probably call it Issue Management, or some other jargon! Perhaps we're in the world of semantics here ...

I don't see how my riders are more at risk if I get too few entries. That's my problem, not theirs.

It's still a risk, whoever the problem relates to. Who said risk assessment was just about rider safety?

And yes, it might be a wider scope than you expect, but it's still risk management.

[Manotea]

Danial's well made points allude to 'risk to the event' rather than 'risk to riders' though the two converge rapidly the more audacious the event becomes.

The impact & probability of the Tuttti Pole in Hungerford closing on a Saturday lunchtime (Willy Warmer) is considerably lower than the impact & probability of the West End Cafe in Llandovery on a Saturday evening (Brevet Cymru), something I had cause to ponder when I rode in as Lanturne Rouge at Silly O'Freezing Clock at night one year minutes before the control closed. I did wonder what I would do if they had closed early or I was half an hour later. Die, most probably. I'm not entirely joking, I was frigging cold, completely out of food and drink, and close to bonking. Of course if I had been running late then that would have been entirely My Fault and the Org would be 'off the hook' (no criticism intended). Those audaxers who over estimate their abilities are such a nuisance.

[mikewigley]

Naming no names, I know of one organiser who had to cancel an event due to ice, on the morning of the event. The next year, there was no note on the risk assessment.

If the RA was done properly in the first place there might not be anything to add.  The anticipated bad thing happened (icy roads) and the planned action (cancellation) was taken.

This wasn't me but I take your point.  I've got all sorts of continguencies for flooded roads, closed cafes, promised controllers not turning up, but they are in my head not necessarily on my RA form, so I'll have a think about that.

[YahudaMoon]

I think the easiest way round the whole thing is simple. Though in my opinion there is nothing that needs changing anyway.
A simple disclaimer setting out all the possibilities that could go wrong on a AUK event (Calender/Perm/Diy)  that the entrant reads and signs.
This could be copied, paste and printed from the AUK web page and sent on a A4 paper to all entries and returned to the organiser and signed by the entrant before the route sheet validation is sent to the entrant for all AUK events.

[DanialW]

I think the easiest way round the whole thing is simple. Though in my opinion there is nothing that needs changing anyway.
A simple disclaimer setting out all the possibilities that could go wrong on a AUK event (Calender/Perm/Diy)  that the entrant reads and signs.
This could be copied, paste and printed from the AUK web page and sent on a A4 paper to all entries and returned to the organiser and signed by the entrant before the route sheet validation is sent to the entrant for all AUK events.

That sounds neither easy nor simple, nor do I think risk assessments are something to be got round.

[DanialW]

If the RA was done properly in the first place there might not be anything to add.  The anticipated bad thing happened (icy roads) and the planned action (cancellation) was taken.

This wasn't me but I take your point.  I've got all sorts of continguencies for flooded roads, closed cafes, promised controllers not turning up, but they are in my head not necessarily on my RA form, so I'll have a think about that.

Absolutely, and in this case it wasn't.

I'm sure many organisers have contingency plans, it's just that very few of them ever tell AUK about them. And should anything really bad happen, then everyone would be in a better position if they could demonstrate reasonable care in planning their event.

[Ian H]

We were conscious of the dangers of presenting a pre-filled risk assessment, that organisers might just sign without reading. The preamble above warns against this, but I'm not convinced everyone reads it. The alternative, to make every organiser fill in a blank form, would, I think, have been practically unworkable.

We do look at the base form regularly in the light of accident statistics,  so the reality is that it is a fair assessment for the majority of AUK events.

[YahudaMoon]

If changes are made with the risk assesment to the point of more work for organisers then I think there will be less events for AUK in general.
My opinion being it is left alone. It works OK as it is. Organisrs have enough work to do.
Im always amazed at what work organisers put into AUK.
I think this thread should be put to bed in my opinion.
Thanks to all who work for AUK 

[Panoramix]

I think the easiest way round the whole thing is simple. Though in my opinion there is nothing that needs changing anyway.
A simple disclaimer setting out all the possibilities that could go wrong on a AUK event (Calender/Perm/Diy)  that the entrant reads and signs.
This could be copied, paste and printed from the AUK web page and sent on a A4 paper to all entries and returned to the organiser and signed by the entrant before the route sheet validation is sent to the entrant for all AUK events.

I would define this as ass covering rather than risk assessment. I think that you can't disclaim negligence, it is a bit like selling a car and making buyers sign a disclaimer saying that the brakes may not work.

[YahudaMoon]

Hi Panoramix. Yes it would be to cover AUK from any person/persons from putting a claim against AUK.
I went once many years ago to a Go Karting event that I participated in.
Before I was allowed on the track and into the small petrol driven machine I had to sign a similar form.
It read something like 'If you get injured or die driving the go kart, the company except no liability'.
 

[Panoramix]

Not many sensible organisations "accept" liabilities, it tend to be forced on them. IANAL but I wouldn't rely on such a statement, I don't think that "I can't be bothered to do proper risk assessments so made people sign a catch all statement" will impress a judge.

[DanialW]

Not many sensible organisations "accept" liabilities, it tend to be forced on them. IANAL but I wouldn't rely on such a statement, I don't think that "I can't be bothered to do proper risk assessments so made people sign a catch all statement" will impress a judge.

Quite.

A proper risk assessment for an audax event should take no more than about 15 minutes to think about, and perhaps as long to think of what mitigation you might put in place. Rather than being seen as another piece of paperwork, it should be seen as an integral and essential part of planning an event.