Is this racing?

[Grandad]

I'm thinking of the traditional clubrun sprint for the 30 sign at the cafe or finish of the ride.

A fortunately hypothetical question but if during such a sprint a rider crosses the centre of the road and causes an accident would the club (or riders own) Public Liability insurers consider it to be racing and so excluded from the policy cover?

[Vorpal]

I wouldn't think that would be considered racing. It doesn't meet the definition under the 'Cycle Racing on the Highways' regulations.

However, I would also guess it to be a grey area of the law, and furthermore, insurance companies are inclined to try to use any unusual circumstances to exclude someone from cover.

You might do better to contact the CTC, or the incident line, even if it just a hypothetical question.

But maybe someone else on here has a more definitive answer.

[Grandad]

But maybe someone else on here has a more definitive answer.

That's what I'm hoping. Past requests to CTC with insurance questions have been like trying to get hold of a cloud

[thirdcrank]

Cycle racing on "public ways" is prohibited unless it's organised under the relevant regs.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/31

As to what amounts to a race would be a matter of fact, based on available evidence. It certainly wouldn't depend on having all the usual trappings of a race: if people were organising informal races in cars, I don't think anybody would argue it was legal in the absence of chequered flags, pit lanes etc. I can't imagine the authorities actively looking for informal cycle racing during club runs, although if there were to be a serious crash as a result of something like this it would be there as a possibility, depending, as I said, on the evidence. From the POV of any prosecution, careless or dangerous cycling would almost certainly cover it. I've no idea what an insurer would make of it. Perhaps checking the relevant policy might help: eg, it might specify organised races or some similar wording.

[Brian1946]

I'm thinking of the traditional clubrun sprint for the 30 sign at the cafe or finish of the ride.

A fortunately hypothetical question but if during such a sprint a rider crosses the centre of the road and causes an accident would the club (or riders own) Public Liability insurers consider it to be racing and so excluded from the policy cover?

The key issue here is that insurers will always seek to limit their liability to pay out. That said, the sprint, and in particular crossing the centre line could/would, I would have thought, be classed as reckless riding in an otherwise orderly club run. As such the sprint and crossing the centre line would be considered a contributory/causal factor and result in a reduced pay out, if any.
My two penneth!

[TrevA]

Does anyone still sprint for signs? As a club, we gave it up probably 20 years ago, though we still have a bit of a gallop for the cafe, so we can get to the front of the queue.

[jezer]

No, I think we stopped sprinting for signs and hill tops in the 80's. These days we have leisure rides rather than club runs. The cafe stops are certainly more leisurely than they used to be

[NUKe]

My guess would be that the offence would be 'Furious cycling' rather than racing on a public highway, if there was a prosecution. The insurance claim is a completely different matter to the offence though, I would suspect the other party would simply claim the cyclist was onthe wrong side of the road and therefore liable

[Grandad]

I would suspect the other party would simply claim the cyclist was on the wrong side of the road and therefore liable

Agreed, but would the cyclist's insurers class the fast competitive riding as being racing? If so it would be down to whether the policy excludes racing - if it does and they refuse to handle the claim the cyclist (and club?) would be responsible and would have to pay whatever damages are awarded.

Probably time to follow the example of some earlier posts and ban the practice.

[NUKe]

How could they your not in a competive event, your just rding badly on the road. your assuming the cyclist has insurance, of which there is no legal requirement. Also this a third party claim, so cycle insurance may not cover it. dependent upon the size of the group you might get a claim that it was an organised ride/ In which case the liabilty of the organiser of the ride comes into it, if you can prove who they are. but we are starting to get into daytime TV lawyer territory.

When does a ride become an organised event? We ofent ride out from Work on a Friday lunchtime to a local cafe, How many before it becomes an event. Word spreadds lasttime there were eight of us. Now if anything happened, Who organised it ? were we a group or just all heading inthe same dirction.

[Vorpal]

Agreed, but would the cyclist's insurers class the fast competitive riding as being racing?

How could they? Based on speed? Riding in a group? I think, to be honest, that it would be all but impossible to prove, unless he is actually convicted of the offence of racing a bicycle on the road. It's much easier for them to just say that the cyclist was acting irresponsibly and refuse to cover him because of that.

Even in sanctioned road races at most levels, riders are warned not to cross the line, and may be disqualified if they do so (I have known it to happen). If a cyclist engaged in a race was known to have crossed the line and caused a crash with an oncoming vehicle, I think it unlikely that the insurance for the event would cover it, anyway. A cyclist is likely to have the same sorts of problems with his / her own insurance independent of the circumstances under which they occur.

[NUKe]

Even in sanctioned road races at most levels, riders are warned not to cross the line, and may be disqualified if they do so (I have known it to happen). If a cyclist engaged in a race was known to have crossed the line and caused a crash with an oncoming vehicle, I think it unlikely that the insurance for the event would cover it, anyway. A cyclist is likely to have the same sorts of problems with his / her own insurance independent of the circumstances under which they occur.

Not quite true the event would have to cover it, or rather the BCF through the liabilty which is part of the racing licence. The reason they insist on you not crossing the line is the restrictions put onto keep the event safe so that the Police will allow it to happen and the insurers will cover it on the grounds you have taken all reasonable steps. Once the line is crossed the rider leave themselves exposed to disqualification, but not to being uninsured.

car insurance is similar in that once you have insurance if you speed/drink/do something else stupid, you are still covered. They can't turn round and say our driver wasn't supposed to be on the wrong side onthat blind bend therefore we are not paying. they may decide they don't want to insure you in future but they can't not cover the claim. Gaining insure under false pretences is a different matter again.

[Vorpal]

Most insurance contracts have clauses that exempt insurers from responsibility if the insured party does something illegal, is convicted of particular types of offences, or causes damage by inappropriate or extreme behaviour. If you have car insurance, read it and come back here and tell us if there aren't some clauses like that in your insurance coverage. Drink and drive? I'd be impressed if you could find a car insurance policy in the western world that would insure someone to crash whilst drink driving.

I have to admit that I'm not certain what the insurance for road races actually says, and I expect that it would depend on the behaviour of the person involved, the circumstances, etc. I am certain that any effects within the event would be covered. I am not certain that an individiual, acting irresponsibly, would be able to rely upon 3rd party coverage. And it may very well be that a 3rd party involved in a crash like that, could get compensation from the event insurance, even if he couldn't from the individual.

p.s. it's British Cycling, not BCF these days.

[NUKe]

No you are covered but appears recently things may have started to change. certainly you are still covered third party
http://www.confused.com/news-views/blog ... en-revoked.