Risk management

[Exit Stage Left]

I had to do a risk assessment for a tree planting job last week, here is what it says.

Risk Assessment. Windmill Wood Blackpool.
This is a tree planting job between the Mereside housing estate and a busy dual carriageway road on the edge of Blackpool, the A583. The most prominent landmark is the windmill, if emergency services need to find it mention the windmill at Marton Mere, Tesco is a well known location opposite the Southern part of the site.

Nature of Site.
It’s flat, close mown grass that’s wet in patches. It is pretty slippy and you’d get wet feet in boots, Wellingtons are better. The public exercise pets on the area so watch out for dog turds. People will wander over to find out what’s going on, so be polite and aware that some may not like the idea of trees. Don’t pull off onto the grass, you’ll get stuck and it’s forbidden, don’t obstruct driveways.
Part of the job is to plant on the central reservation of the dual carriageway, be careful crossing the road.

Work.

Spraying.
We will mark the tree planting areas with Roundup Biactive herbicide, this is safe for people and pets, be careful filling the knapsack sprayers so we don’t kill off grass beside the verge. Wear a disposable overall, Wellington boots and gloves. Observe all manufacturers advice, be careful not to slip and fall.

Bare planting.
We will plant cell grown stock, using a planter designed for that purpose. Take care not to overstrain backs during the planting.

Spiral planting.
This part of the job is on the central reservation of the A583, there is an access point for utility services in the middle of the hedge we are planting, we can pull onto there to deliver materials. The traffic light phasing will allow us to do that, switch on the flashing beacon when turning, switch it off to avoid distracting drivers when parked up. Wear Hi Vis jackets and keep to the middle of the site. The surface is mown grass and well drained. Be careful of your back when planting and shifting materials. Don’t push in canes with the palm of your hand, use a mallet.

Welfare
There’s a toilet at Tesco. The nearest Aand E is Blackpool Victoria Hospital, Whinney Heys Road, Blackpool, FYR3 8NR Tel 01253 300000. Make sure you know where the First aid kit is.

Imagine that you are stood in front of the riders at the start of the event and write down what you'd say to them. Print it on the back of the route sheet, still say it to them at the start. That is a risk assessment. Don't get hung up on some standard format or it ends up being a strangled cut and paste job.

[Euan Uzami]

It would be stooping pretty low to (try to) sue an organiser for an injury sustained on an audax, and I think they would hopefully be chucked out of AUK if they tried.
I would think that hardly any would even consider it.

[mikewigley]

This a lively debate. 
Risk assessment would not have been the done thing in the seventies, at the start of AUK, would it?

I like to think that we've always done RAs, we've just not committed them to paper in a formal manner.  We all do it.  When we think to ourselves "I wouldn't cross this busy dual carriageway here, I'll cross it at the next junction where there are traffic lights to make it easier and safer" - that's a risk assessment.

[Exit Stage Left]

This a lively debate. 
Risk assessment would not have been the done thing in the seventies, at the start of AUK, would it?

I like to think that we've always done RAs, we've just not committed them to paper in a formal manner.  We all do it.  When we think to ourselves "I wouldn't cross this busy dual carriageway here, I'll cross it at the next junction where there are traffic lights to make it easier and safer" - that's a risk assessment.

Exactly, there's a danger that people go off to websites and see complicated forms that purport to be risk assessment templates and think that it's a big deal. I think that most times a simple narrative run through any obvious hazards will do. It can however be useful to have standard procedures to guide new organisers as it can reassure them, but I've found that the danger is that a template encourages a cut 'n paste culture, I hate to say it, but it is important that everyone 'owns' the safety culture, and if we are a cynical bunch of old sweats, then the format should be capable of reflecting that, while fulfilling the duty of care that the overarching body has in informing new members of stuff they might not have considered.

[frankly frankie]

Risk assessment would not have been the done thing in the seventies, at the start of AUK, would it?  What caused or when did it start?  Do 'we' have to do it for some legal requirement?

No its just a duty of care thing.  Why would anyone not want to do that?

[Ian H]

If there were an explicit "this ride will be exhausting:  if you choose to ride at night ensure you rest regularly and sleep if required" in the risk assessment than all well and good.  Regrettably the nature of the events means that's not possible; you'd never finish if you rested whenever tired and there is rarely provision for sleeping, apart from bus shelters.

These are two of the six risk phrases on the entry form:-
"You are responsible for your safety/conduct.  Some routes may be arduous. "

[corshamjim]

It would be stooping pretty low to (try to) sue an organiser for an injury sustained on an audax, and I think they would hopefully be chucked out of AUK if they tried.
I would think that hardly any would even consider it.

Agreed, but suppose "Joe cyclist" has personal injury insurance and suffers an injury.  It's not Joe but his insurers who would be looking to claim against whoever was responsible if that were likely to have any chance of success.  IANAL.

[The Seldom Killer]

I would expect an organiser to check that road signage of cattle grids was adequate or otherwise include a note in the routesheet. The same would apply to any hazard. I also expect that an organiser has ridden or driven the route not much more than about two weeks ahead of the event and noted any other hazards (large potholes, broken signage, etc).

That was a joke surely?

Not really no. I'm not expecting an organiser to nitpick every defect in the road surface. For instance, if a cattle grid were on a long clear stretch of road I wouldn't care if there were signage or it were noted on a routesheet. OTOH, if it were immediately after a sharp decent into a blind corner on a section that riders are likely to be doing at night and on the recce ride the organiser spotted that the sign had been knocked down then I don't think it unreasonable to pass on that information to the riders before they set off.

Likewise with large potholes. I'm not referring to the annoying ones that might cause a snakebite but the really deep trench wheel-killers that have sprung up in the middle of nowhere and are difficult to avoid if you don't know they are coming.

[ian_oli]

Likewise with large potholes. I'm not referring to the annoying ones that might cause a snakebite but the really deep trench wheel-killers that have sprung up in the middle of nowhere and are difficult to avoid if you don't know they are coming.

Yes but then you set the expectation that all such hazards will be reported. So someone goes barreling around a corner where a pothole emerged the day before and it's not pointed out...  Surely it is safer to point out that there may be potholes and people's riding speed should allow for that.

As a new organiser I am following this thread with interest. Has anyone given AUK a legal opinion on what risk organisers are exposed to in the event of a life-changing injury or death during a ride? Also what protection/help will be offered an organiser if and when one of them does face being sued?

[Exit Stage Left]

For the LEL I effectively carried out a risk assessment on the condition of the B709 and the likely impact of the forestry traffic.
LEL - Road Surface on B709

It took place on here. it was transparent, was recorded and highlighted the attitude to risk of the participants. The process involved liaising with the forest industry, who raised the issue at their weekly traffic coordination meetings. At a late stage the Police found out about LEL and raised concerns which were answered by this process. LEL 2009 was organised in a somewhat devolved way, which fostered this sort of individual initiative. LEL 2013 will probably need more robust procedures in place.

[frankly frankie]

When I rode my first 600 - which was a very linear out-and-back route and so passed through a lot of different counties - also a lot of riders, probably 150+ - I was very surprised when I discovered that the police had no knowledge of what was going through their respective patches.  Especially through the Cotswolds at dead of night.  A bit like Seldom Killer, I had 'expectations' of what provisions the organiser was making, as part of their duty of care (though that phrase was unknown to me in 1983 - but the concept is just simple common sense and always has been).

[Greenbank]

For instance, if a cattle grid were on a long clear stretch of road I wouldn't care if there were signage or it were noted on a routesheet. OTOH, if it were immediately after a sharp decent into a blind corner on a section that riders are likely to be doing at night and on the recce ride the organiser spotted that the sign had been knocked down then I don't think it unreasonable to pass on that information to the riders before they set off.

The bit in bold is the key bit. If the sign hasn't been knocked down then there's no need to make an explicit warning of it on the routesheet, the sign is the warning. If the organiser sees that the sign has been knocked down on his recce ride then he would be negligent to not point this out on the routesheet or as a verbal warning to all riders at the start of the ride.

If the sign gets knocked down between the recce ride and the event then there's not much the organiser can do. Much as if the council decide to put in a new cattle grid in the week between the recce ride and the event, but fail to put up a sign. The organiser can hardly be held at fault for that.

[mattc]

It would be stooping pretty low to (try to) sue an organiser for an injury sustained on an audax, and I think they would hopefully be chucked out of AUK if they tried.
I would think that hardly any would even consider it.

I know it's unhelpful to quote an incomplete example, but:
it's already happened to an organiser I've spoken to. I think I saw the rider in the aftermath - he'd basically overcooked a sharp corner on a descent.(minor injuries only)

I didn't think the descent was at all tricky, but sure, riding a push-bike down any long hill greater than (say) 5%, with bends, is dangerous - one has to mitigate the risks.

I don't know the outcome, but the case had been rattling along for at least a year last time I heard. So yes, riders (or their insurers) will go after organisers - fortunately it is very rare.

[Hummers]

For the LEL I effectively carried out a risk assessment on the condition of the B709 and the likely impact of the forestry traffic.
LEL - Road Surface on B709

It took place on here. it was transparent, was recorded and highlighted the attitude to risk of the participants. The process involved liaising with the forest industry, who raised the issue at their weekly traffic coordination meetings. At a late stage the Police found out about LEL and raised concerns which were answered by this process. LEL 2009 was organised in a somewhat devolved way, which fostered this sort of individual initiative. LEL 2013 will probably need more robust procedures in place.

All of which meant that LEL virgins like me knew what was coming on the way to Eskdalemuir (sp?) which had we been riding in the dark, would have been useful.

H

[Exit Stage Left]

When I rode my first 600 - which was a very linear out-and-back route and so passed through a lot of different counties - also a lot of riders, probably 150+ - I was very surprised when I discovered that the police had no knowledge of what was going through their respective patches.  Especially through the Cotswolds at dead of night.  A bit like Seldom Killer, I had 'expectations' of what provisions the organiser was making, as part of their duty of care (though that phrase was unknown to me in 1983 - but the concept is just simple common sense and always has been).

The Police are usually sympathetic, they work shifts, so they are aware of some of the sleep issues. Many ride bikes and are encouraged to be fit.
Most Audaxes are low key so don't encounter the hostility that some Sportives do, e.g. the Caledonian. There was some negative feeling to LEL in the Scotch Corner area which manifested itself in one farmer ostentatiously trimming his hedges at an unlikely time of year. That's a risk as events get bigger, especially on an out and back course.

[mikewigley]

If the organiser sees that the sign has been knocked down on his recce ride then he would be negligent to not point this out on the routesheet or as a verbal warning to all riders at the start of the ride.

Far better would be to report the missing sign to the appropriate authority.  It's not just up to the organisers - how many of the riders will bother to report the potholes encountered to FillThatHole.org.uk?

It's no good including any safety warnings on the route sheet for those following a GPX file

[Jaded]

I understood from the Highway Code that users of roads are advised to progress at a speed at which they can stop safely in the distance they can see to be clear.

Barrelling round a corner in the dark and thus being surprised by a cattle grid seems to be outside this advice.

[mattc]

If the organiser sees that the sign has been knocked down on his recce ride then he would be negligent to not point this out on the routesheet or as a verbal warning to all riders at the start of the ride.

Would he be negligent to not notice the missing notice sign?

As riders we'll never know what was on the recce, or what the organiser noticed.

[Hot Flatus]

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.

[Greenbank]

If the organiser sees that the sign has been knocked down on his recce ride then he would be negligent to not point this out on the routesheet or as a verbal warning to all riders at the start of the ride.

Would he be negligent to not notice the missing notice sign?

As riders we'll never know what was on the recce, or what the organiser noticed.

Sorry, I should have said 'could be negligent'.

Proof of what was/wasn't there is another matter.

[Ian H]

It's the highway authorities' responsibility to maintain the roads and signage, etc. It's the riders' responsibility to ride safely. If there was a course on private land, or a race (so outside normal use of the highway) then the onus would shift towards the organiser.

[notlobgp14]

‘The duty of care’ is a general legal duty on all individuals and organisations to avoid carelessly causing injury to persons. It requires everything ‘reasonably practicable’ to be done to protect the health and safety of others.

'Reasonably practicable' means that the requirements of the law vary with the degree of risk in a particular activity or environment which must be balanced against the time, trouble and cost of taking measures to control the risk. It allows the duty holder to choose the most efficient means for controlling a particular risk from the range of feasible possibilities. The duty holder must show that it was not reasonably practicable to do more than what was done or that he/she has taken ‘reasonable precautions and exercised due diligence’
IANAL

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.

The 3rd of the accidents on our Claughton ride, mentioned in post 1, was a rider coming down a 1 in 5 too fast, in the wet.  He caught up with myself and a slow moving vehicle in front of him; knew he could not avoid hitting one of us unless he used more than braking, so went into the verge / fence on the left.  He was very shook up, gear / brake levers mangled, gear cable snapped.  I don’t think he is claiming that anyone was to blame other than himself.  It never entered my head that he could take the organiser to task?  From what I am reading in the thread, some have the opinion that he; or his insurance company could have a case?

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. 

[mattc]

‘The duty of care’ is a general legal duty on all individuals and organisations to avoid carelessly causing injury to persons. It requires everything ‘reasonably practicable’ to be done to protect the health and safety of others.
...
 I am surprised that organisers are not fully aware of what / how they need to comply with regulation.

Every ride is different. Just look at the wording you have used in your first 2 sentences - do you fancy being the arbiter of the requirements for events run on every possible road in the UK, in every possible weather conditions?!?

I don’t think he is claiming that anyone was to blame other than himself.  It never entered my head that he could take the organiser to task?  From what I am reading in the thread, some have the opinion that he; or his insurance company could have a case?

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.  

As I think I'm the only one who posted about such a case, let me stress:
I do not know of any succesful claims against organisers. Anyone with some cash can start a nuisance claim.

And as an organiser I can't say I worry about this much, but that doesn't make it not worth discussing once in a while. Which is exactly what has happened here - handily, we have non-trivial accidents once-in-a-while, at which point there is often discussion! 

[Panoramix]

IANAO either, and this is why.

You and me both.  It's a shame because I'd love to put on a 200 and 300 from Chepstow to precede the Brevet Cymru and Bryan Chapman.

The difficulty lies in what to include in a risk assessment, and what a coroner or judge might conclude if a rider's family employ some good lawyers to pursue an organiser in the event of their death or serious injury, which is, unfortunately, likely to happen at some point. 

IANAL but it seems to me that organisers have a clear duty of care to their riders.  What this means in terms of what should be expected on a routesheet and in a risk assessment remains to be seen, and it will, rather sadly, take a bad accident to find out. 

What I do suspect is that hazards that riders will experience on the ride should be explicitly made clear to them, even the bleedin' obvious like hazards presented by other road users, cattle grids, frost and tiredness.  I don't think it's good enough to say that riders are taking part in a private excursion on public roads and let them get on with it.  They are not; they're taking part in an organised event.

This is why I don't think we should be trying to make Audax appeal to a wider range of cyclists. 

Well, mainly:  I also want to still be able to get a bunk on the Bryan Chapman if I turn up at 2am!

This is not my understanding of H&S. I work in the construction industry and when you design stuff you have the right to assume (and it is explicitly stated in CDM regulation) that contractors are competent. So in short you can't be blamed for people injuring themselves out of their stupidity but if I do something silly (such as design something instable or expect people to manhandle 80kg bits of kit) and sombody gets hurt then I am in real trouble. I can nevertheless specify stuff with hazards associated to it if I have a good reason documented and I have highlighted to everybody so that they can derisk it.

So in short with my understanding on how H&S works, as an organiser I would flag up only things that would catch people by surprise such as a nasty corner, a very badly placed MH cover or a dangerous cattle grid. If a genuine hazard make somebody come off one year, I would definitely flag it the next time.

I would expect people to spot bad road surfaces, visible cattle grids, traffic lights roundabouts white vans... Because of the sentence on"arduous routes etc" I would expect people to have sound kit and be reasonably fit.

I would aim to have no more than a few warnings and if challenged why, I would reply that too much information is useless as people don't read it. If I had to write 10 warnings, I would seriously think why and either conclude that the route is not suitable or that I am highlighting hazards that a competent rider would spot. I can't think of an audax route I've ridden which wasn't suitable. There are events though where the organiser could have been in trouble such as LEL when they did not really know how many people were riding which is obviously a big H&S fail, if things go wrong the authorities need to know how many people to look for (a remake of fastnet 79 anybody?)


There is also one important point to remember, IME lawyers mainly pursue where they can smell money and I don't think that Audax UK qualify for their definition of solvability; they are more likely to go after the city council or the Highway agency.

Organiser who really want to cover themselves can write a letter to the relevant city councils highlighting the major hazards they've identified. They can also write a warning on the routesheet saying that they expect participants to be competent riders and only hazards that may catch an experienced rider are highlighted. With such a statement it would be very difficult to blame the organiser for anything trivial and anything major would be passed to the CC/HA.

H&S gets a bad name because too many people use it for their personal agenda but in my experience when done correctly it is not such a burden and I like the idea of sleeping well at night. If somebody were to loose life through my negligence I would be sick of it!

IANAL, and this is no more than a personal opinion. I have never been to court through my negligence nor send any of my previous employers... and this kind of stuff is frequent in the building industry! Touching wood. ;-)

EDIT: cross post with notlobgp14 + mattc

[dougal]

   
   

"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