Ultra endurance race deaths - there is no simple answer

99 views
Skip to first unread message

Opendro

unread,
Aug 3, 2017, 10:20:00 AM8/3/17
to Bangalore Bikers Club
I just saw this in fb : https://cyclingtips.com/2017/08/commentary-theres-no-simple-answer-comes-ultra-endurance-race-deaths/

I was just thinking loud on this. It is very tricky question indeed. While there are no answer to the question, a few improvements that came to my mind are:
  1. Ensure that the route majority, if not all, of the route is not prone to accidents with high speed vehicles. E.g. Mysore road is outright death zone.
  2. Introduce regular checkpoints like the brevet where one can neither come in too early nor is allowed to proceed if too late. Boundary failure scenario is when the rider is pushing hard to each control point and reaches right within cut off time every time.
  3. Mandatory off the saddle hours, say, minimum 3 hours a day.
  4. And of course, all safety lights, reasonably good brake and reflective vests, etc.

I know, I'm being protective of this dangerous sport since I also love this. But then, what is life without some risk? How far one should risk is a question that should be answered by every rider to himself. For instance, riders hallucinating sounds really scary to me.

I sincerely hope that self supported rides are not banned altogether. At the same time, riders should keep the margin of safety a bit higher - a very subjective point of course.

berkeleydb

unread,
Aug 4, 2017, 4:24:03 AM8/4/17
to Bangalore Bikers Club
Thanks Open, for sharing that article, & your comments. Will post my comments later.

-{db}.

berkeleydb

unread,
Aug 11, 2017, 8:54:06 PM8/11/17
to Bangalore Bikers Club
Getting back to this thread.

Before discussing what can be done to make the (ultra) endurance races safer, I think there is a more sticky issue -- legal. I don't have any background in law, but I think these points can be the basis for fairly sound legal arguments --

Cyclists might think that they do_not pose risk to others on the road, but that is_not right. Everyone on the road, is a potential risk to others. So everyone needs to be responsible. When folks do endurance rides, it can be argued that their behaviour on the road can be risky, and so they are liable in case there is some accident. Also, any medical / life insurance that the rider has, could be deemed void, incase the rider is a casualty.

And it's not necessarily about what sort of actual behaviour the rider exhibits; it's just the fact that the rider is in a endurance ride, that can make a case against them. Put another way -- a rider doing some ride on their own, might ride in a dangerous way on the road, but if there is no plan they have published about the ride, they might be ok. While another rider in some well publicised endurance ride, might be riding very safe, but just the fact that they are in an publicsed endurance ride (where info is avaiable to anybody that there is some element of competition/race involved in the ride), could make for a case against them.

And it does_not have to be a rase perse; brevets (which are non-competitive rides) can also come under the purview of the above points, because the time stipulation makes them a race against time.

So as long as there is anything "published" about a ride, which can be used to argue that the rider was on a regular open road, and was riding with some intent of competition / race, can open up a complete range of legal issues for the rider.

What argument will be valid in court, will ofcourse be different in different countries. Some of the above might be more applicable to foreign countries, where the laws are very specific, and very enforceable. In countries like India, the laws and thier interpretation/enforcement can be quite haphazard, IMO. So will be very difficult to say what argument will carry what weight in Indian courts.

But I do feel that any published ride on regular roads, with any semblance of competition / race, is legally dubious. Would like to see what folks think of that aspect. Just wanted to discuss this aspect on it's own, before getting into ride organisation and logistics aspects.

-{db}.

berkeleydb

unread,
Aug 20, 2017, 7:40:46 PM8/20/17
to Bangalore Bikers Club
Came across this article recently --

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/14/cyclist-charlie-alliston-killed-pedestrian-blamed-crash-kim-briggs-court-told

Shows how openly published info (a tweet, in this case), plus things like bike config, could be used in arguments against a cyclist.

-{db}.

Ali Poonawala

unread,
Aug 21, 2017, 11:03:01 AM8/21/17
to berkeleydb, Sharath Chandar
Very sound argument.
Cyclist seems guilty here. 
It is responsibility of the faster moving object to guard pedestrian, children, animals etc. 
Fixie or not, you must be able to stop safely. 
Period.
Shouting at people to get out of the way is not the method to achieve that !


Ali Poonawala
Bangalore

--
Biking conversations on the world famous "Bangalore Bikers Club" :)
bangalorebikersclub.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bangalore Bikers Club" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bangalore-bikers+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

berkeleydb

unread,
Aug 21, 2017, 12:16:42 PM8/21/17
to Bangalore Bikers Club
I would disagree with that aspect. It seems the pedestrian was_not crossing on a zebra-crossing, so the cyclist has right of way. (Plus the defence argued that the pedestrian was looking at their phone; which might be relevant only if they were_not on a zebra crossing.)

That said, I was_not looking to debate the case itself. What I was saying was, the prosecution was trying to infer the cyclist's "riding mindset" from a tweet the cyclist had sent, about riding that bike. It might be far fetched, & the judge may_not agree with the prosecution's argument, but that is on a case by case basis. Such "published" pieces of info can have a bearing on the ruling in some case.

If one is participating in a publicised endurance ride, the argument that the rider was "riding fast / racing" is a much much stronger argument, than a tweet about riding experience on a bike.

-{db}.

Ali Poonawala

unread,
Aug 22, 2017, 5:08:29 AM8/22/17
to berkeleydb, Bangalore Bikers Club
A road user has to be ready or unusual circumstances. You may have an animal,or a blind/deaf person who may stray.
I agree about the racing cyclist on a road may be on a poor wicket if he is involved in a law suit.


-{db}.

Opendro

unread,
Aug 22, 2017, 7:52:52 AM8/22/17
to Bangalore Bikers Club
I agree with both of you and doc. It all depends on the situation. Just because someone is in the wrong place does not mean that we have the right to mow down though whoever is in the wrong place causes danger directly. The rider/driver should have capability to react and respond to such situations unless it is totally beyond his control, say, the pedestrian suddenly ran into his way or she was in a completely blind spot due to another vehicle that blocks the riders view of the pedestrian. Just to name a few situations.

These days, a lot of cars install dashboard camera to capture last few hours of driving so that such inadvertent accidents don't put the car owner in complete jeopardy. Things that can turn in favor of the car are lower speed, driving on expected lane/path, pedestrian suddenly jumping into the way, drivers effort in averting the accident, etc.

berkeleydb

unread,
Aug 22, 2017, 8:50:50 PM8/22/17
to Bangalore Bikers Club
I don't think anything in my posts would suggest that I was saying a rider or driver should_not be ready for unexpected situations on the road. But it would be dangerous to mix that with legal responsibility / accountability.

Always try to be clear in your head about what your legal responsibility / accountability might be. That should be top of the mind. It will be very bad, if you drop the ball on that, while trying to give priority to something else.

If some pedestrian suddenly comes in your way on the road, you might be within the speed limit, but still unable to stop in time. If you swerve, & hit someone else, & let's say there are no winesses or cameras etc. to prove that some pedestrian did come in your way (or heck, even if there are), you might be liable for the injury you caused to the other party that you hit when you swerved. As bad as it may sound, you most likely would_not be liable, if you had not swerved, & ended up hitting the pedestrian who came in your way. Because then the spot of the accident might prove that you had right of way.

A pedestrian (say a kid) on the side of the road, can easily make an unexpected move & take you by surprise even if you are within the speed limit.

I have mentioned this on other threads in the past -- the habit of swerving to avoid a pothole. One should try to slow down, & hit the pothole if it comes to it, rather than swerve w/o giving adequate indication to other vehicles. If you swerve suddenly, you might relinquish your legal safety net.

Again, all this might_not mean much in India, where I am not really sure how trafic accident cases are investigated & then handled in courts. But atleast on paper (& in countries where traffic cases do get investigated properly), the entire case could turn on any of these aspects.

-{db}.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages