On August 31, 2014, in Llangollen, Wales, at a downhill race organized by Mike Marsden's Borderline Events Company, a rider lost control during their race run and crashed with their bike. The bike collided with a spectator standing in the crowd, unfortunately resulting in the tragic death of the spectator who was there to watch her fiancé race.
Last week, Mike Marsden, the race organiser; Kevin Duckworth, the marshal; and British Cycling attended court for the second time, with each one pleading not guilty to "failing to ensure the safety of spectators at the competition and failing to provide marshals with adequate training regarding the safety of spectators."
The following is taken from the BBC website: | The organizers of a mountain biking race in Denbighshire have pleaded not guilty to a variety of charges in relation to the death of a spectator.
Judith Garrett, 29, of Prudhoe, Northumberland, died after a bike hit her at the Borderline Downhill Series event in Llangollen in August 2014.
Two race officials and the British Cycling Federation faced health and safety charges at Mold Crown Court. A four-week trial is expected to take place in June next year.
Miss Garrett was airlifted to hospital after she was hit by an "out of control" bike as she watched her boyfriend Peter Walton compete in the race on 31 August, 2014 at Tan y Craig Farm. She died the following day at the University Hospital of North Staffordshire in Stoke having suffered major head injuries.
The charge against the British Cycling Federation - which sanctioned the race - alleges that it failed to conduct its undertaking in such a way as to ensure the health and safety of people attending.
Race official Michael Marsden, 40, of Lancaster, is alleged to have failed to conduct the event in such a way that people including Miss Garrett were not exposed to risk. It is alleged that he failed to ensure the safety of spectators at the competition and failed to provide marshals with adequate training regarding the safety of spectators. The final charge against him alleges that he failed to report the death of Miss Garrett at the competition.
A marshal, Kevin Ian Duckworth, 41 of Accrington, Lancashire, is alleged to have failed to ensure that his health and safety duties as a marshal were complied with. Mr Duckworth and Mr Marsden were given unconditional bail. |
The case will take place in Crown Court in front of a twelve-man jury in June 2018, and is expected to take up to four weeks. So what does this all mean? Well I am no lawyer, but the basic facts around the case appear to be:
• There has already been a coroner's inquest into the incident where it was determined that there is a criminal case to be answered.
• The trial is a criminal trial and not a civil one, therefore no compensation or insurance companies are involved. Denbighshire are the local authority and are responsible for enforcing the Health and Safety at Work act in their designated area.
• The race organiser, course marshal, and British Cycling are charged with a number of offences.
• The race organiser has duty of care for everyone at their event.
• The British Cycling Commissaire was a volunteer and only received out of pocket expenses, and therefore is not facing charges in relation to the incident.
• Breaches of the Health and Safety at Work act can lead to imprisonment and large fines for any individual or organisation found guilty.
• If the spectator had signed a disclaimer this would not change the current process because 'Under UK law, the validity of disclaimers is significantly limited by the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. By virtue of the Act, a business cannot use a contract term or a notice to exclude or restrict its liability for negligence causing death or personal injury'.
It's not a lawsuit, it's a criminal trial.
Sympathies to the victims family and friends.
On another note- I'm pleased to see it, but if the marshal and the race organiser have been accused then why also is not the rider? Surely he was negligent for crashing his bike and allowing it to leave the course
*sits back*
.
As for this affecting racing, I think DH racing has bigger problems than this. For MTB racing in general it will probably lead to tightening of standards for course taping, spectator areas and commissaire briefings. Up to now standards for MTB races have been vague at best, so hopefully British Cycling will take the bigger kicking of the three defendants since they set standards.
If you say it's obvious to a rider that people shouldn't have spectated there, HSE will probably ask why the organiser didn't recognise the danger and tape it off, have a visible warning or a marshal present. I don't know the specifics of this accident, but those are the general principles.
I hope this is resolved without ruining anyone else's life. Tragic incident and clearly lessons to be learnt, but I hope Mike and Kev are able to do so.
bestgifsdotnet.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/people-on-the-edge-of-the-rally-tracks.gif?w=720
A woman died, that is extremely serious, the court case currently proceeding will reveal whether or not this should have been avoided if the appropriate measures were followed. This doesn't mean that the tree stumps should all have been padded with cotton wool and the rocks replaced with pillows but it does mean that in organising an event of this nature certain measures must be taken.
If all measures were taken then nobody is to blame and there may be lessons for the future.
I imagine a lot of the smaller races here would not happen if they had to be taped top-to-bottom, because that would take a long time.
Enduro races are even less taped...
That is not to say that massive changes are required that would adversly affecting racing or spectating. Usually, just a small change creates a great safety improvement with only minor inconvenience.
~Benjamin Franklin
.
So it's meaning is the precise opposite of what most people who trot it out think.
.
The liberty being given up is better described in modern English as civil rights, whilst the safety described is safety from enforcement (of the rule of law). The Penn family were enjoying the benefit of free trade and the safety provided by British Army/Royal Navy/Pennsylvania militia, but were attempting to opt out of paying their share of the bill (sound familiar?), undermining the ability of all three to continue operating against the French. It always makes me smirk when I see the phrase used to argue against any kind of government regulation or control, when in reality it's damning the undermining of governance.
This is the same as rally driving. You need to be liable for your own decisions and placement.
Sure the guy didn't conduct safety response better and that's his messup, but it was her decision to stand by the track while a biker and bike are facing down a mountain.
eg. Poverty causes crime (no moral agency, they had no other option, blahblah)
when, in fact, crime causes poverty.. (can't get a job if you have a criminal record.............)
If a safety sign was taped to the tree next to this poor girl, I have a hard time believing this suddenly wouldn’t have happened. So basically your ok with people going to jail in order to fake the improvement of safety and “further legitimize” the sport. Nice.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-40670377
What really worries me with these charges is the use of the word 'ensure.' To ensure means to make something certain, or to guarantee something. That the courts are finding a criminal case in the lack of guaranteed safety at a downhill race is troubling. How can safety ever be guaranteed? Especially outdoors on the side of a mountain?
If there is something missing from this post, i.e. that because she was not a racer, medics failed to attend to her, then there was some failure on the part of the race. But simply that the race could not guarantee perfect safety and now individuals are facing prison time seems ridiculous. Even if they are all found not-guilty it seems like this could have a negative impact on races moving forward. I doubt this criminal case is cheap...
people are morons though
Not all criminals are poor some are insanely rich and successful
Not all poor people are criminals some live in abject poverty and never commit a crime
People that commit crimes will do it for a myriad of reasons; greed, jealously, opportunity, poor judgement etc. None of those are reasons are exclusive to poverty. Don't equate poverty to criminality.
If there weren't warnings then it would be pretty serious.
On one hand I do hope this isn't a pointless witch hunt because it will destroy the confidence of other organisers (nobody wants to be pursued when you have done things properly).....,but on the other hand I don't want to think somebody screwed up badly resulting in a death.
Can you read? I never said "all" once in my example. This hashtag exists for you: #notall
Do you agree that having a criminal record will keep you in poverty if you are poor?
Do you have two brain cells to rub?
1. The spectators were standing close enough to the track to be within 'flying bike range.'
2. The marshals lacked the appropriate training to handle a woman who suffered a fatal brain injury caused by a flying bicycle.
3. Signage warning of potentially deadly airborne bicycles was not readily posted where spectators stood.
Any others? Feel free to add to this list.
How would an organizer appropriately deal with flaw number 1? First they would have to identify what 'flying bike range' may be. I've seen crashes that sent bikes flying an impressive distance. So... 15 meters? Let's not allow any spectator within 15 meters of the course. But no one actually wants that! I've spectated my fair share of amateur races and standing against the tape with a beer and a noisemaker is, to me, worth the potential assault by bike. I don't actually want the first 'flaw' corrected. I think it's just a possible danger I'm perfectly okay with.
Flaw number 2? I'm not certain about UK racing, but in the US it isn't easy for race organizers to host good races. They are balancing the cost of the race with the demand for low entry fees so most course marshals tend to be unpaid volunteers. In fact, they are often the parents of groms who volunteer after an announcement by the organizer asking for more help. To either expect or require these marshals to be able to handle this level of trauma is ridiculous. They are present simply to call for medics when necessary and look for unfair racing. That is why race organizers pay medics. To clarify, it does not bother me that course marshals don't have medical training and don't interfere with injuries besides alerting medical professionals. So unless the marshal did not call a medic, I don't think flaw number 2 needs to be fixed either.
Flaw 3? As I posted originally, if you really want to post signs to inform people they may get hurt, because you feel they cannot take care of themselves, get ready to cover a wide range of dangers on the side of a mountain. There is: wild animals with potentially dangerous diseases, falling rocks, slippery conditions, lightening storms, fellow spectators who may be murderous psychopaths, the reality that you're on a side of a mountain without quick access to medical professionals and I'm sure we could think of a few more.
I'm sorry but I don't feel like anything could really be improved based on what I know of this incident. Tragedies happen, and as sad as they are they don't always require a new law or ordinance to prevent more in the future.
Your second point on marshals is fair, they shouldn't be expected to somehow handle this level of trauma but your only accessing one aspect. Though this was a brain injury and not much can be done, in the grand scheme if all marshals took a basic health and safety course far more injuries wouldn't escalate , with a little bit of training it's amazing what you can do to increase someones chances of living before medics come (recovery position, bandages ect). Yet also this could branch out into minor injuries being taken care off and an increased understanding of concussion and how to nurture it.
Point 3, freak accidents happen and this is one but if it highlights flaws in races that if addressed help the sport in a whole I don't mind it's just unfair i had to take someones life to highlight them. I do think it unfair for race organises to be threatened by jail time though.
I am always sceptical of people that claim to know or have the solutions to everything #TheDunningKrugerEffect
That hastag is for you (an actual helpful one by the way), I would sugest you spend time understanding cogative bias. "The only true wisdon is knowing you know nothing" - Socrates
Have a nice day, nice week and beautiful life, peace and love to you.
It is never to late to send out good vibes out to the world. Peace and love to you.
www.hse.gov.uk/riddor
It was introduced in part to stop serious injuries in the work place being hidden in order to prevent investigations into hazardous work places, so breaking it is taken seriously
Also for the event organiser, how can he allow spectators and then guarantee their safety? There are so many ways someone can get hurt out in the countryside, even without any event taking place.
So who exactly is pushing the Nanny State agenda? I don't personally know anyone who thinks it is a good idea to try to protect all people from all things at all times, so whomis driving it?
Race official Michael Marsden [...] failed to report the death of Miss Garrett at the competition.
so where and when did she actually die?
#cheersbbc
This would be covered under RIDDOR, any employer or event organizer should know their personal requirements.
www.hse.gov.uk/riddor
It was introduced in part to stop serious injuries in the work place being hidden in order to prevent investigations into hazardous work places, so breaking it is taken seriously
In my home state, Alabama, there is a recreation law that covers this type of situation. Basically, if a landowner/organizer charges money for use or attendance then they are responsible for the safety of those that are paying for a service to recreate.
I think so many people are confused because our governments don’t really care unless a lot of people die due to gross negligence. It is usually up to the family of the deceased to take action.
Leaving emotion at the door, I think that if a coroner has independently advised that charges should be brought then it is right that the matter is heard in Crown Court - someone has died after all... They will have had a multitude of information upon which to make that decision which we do not. Had we received all that information might we feel similarly?
For that reason I do think it is worth holding back on judgements at this point - it may be that the organisation of the race was dangerous, or it may be a tragic and unforeseeable accident (I don't know if anyone who was there can give any insight?) - but the legal system here means that 12 members of the public will hear all the evidence and make a decision. Their decision of guilt must be unanimous for any party to be found guilty, and that all parties are presumed innocent until proven otherwise. If there is any suggestion that they were not negligent then they will not be held criminally culpable.
If it's reasonably foreseeable that the outside of a techy corner is liable to be a wash out zone for crashes, it would be reasonably practicable to prevent spectators gathering in that area. It's not reasonably practicable to prevent spectators standing within 10m of every section of an Enduro race, nor would it be reasonably foreseeable for a rider to have a wild high-sider off on a relatively smooth, level-ish motorway section.
Always good to hear the perspective of someone who was actually present, and it sounds like you have some pretty important info there. As someone who works in law enforcement (albeit unrelated in form), the fact that Marshall’s were moving people on from the location may be a piece of critical information needed, so I hope they pick up your comments on here, or that they receive that information in some way, as it may inform the outcome of the case.
As someone else wisely posted, you can't expect a non-rider to make the correct risk assessment of where is and isn't safe to be as they're not familiar with things in the same way. As a result, it falls to the organisers and their staff to make the call around where is and isn't safe to be, and create steps (double taping, "no go areas" etc) to enforce that. If the case finds that BC or the organisers and their team fell short in those duties, it will create a framework for better safety in future.
Equally, those talking about "the death of UK DH" need to look at a bigger picture. You won't get the high value non endemic sponsorship you need to reduce entry costs (and so boost entry numbers) if potential sponsors are scared off by the risk of reputational damage through underdeveloped safety procedures that risk bad press for events they put their name to.
This is a horrible, tragic case that deserves to be viewed sensitively - and the outcome of the case could actually benefit the sport as a whole as well as providing answers as to what went wrong here. For that reason, it's probably time to put the pitchforks away.
This is the Act we have in the UK Don t know if other countries have this type of legislation, it seems that Denbighshire council should have ensured that the event organisers had complied with H&S before the event started?
Now I'm not making comment on whether it was an accident, but that is exactly what the court case is to determine.
We will know in June 2018 whether it was an accident or not, when a jury decides it, so until then, what you think is irrelevant
Excuse the messy google links. This explains the authority
www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/hse49.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjp1NiOy-LWAhXogFQKHZkYC9sQFgglMAA&usg=AOvVaw25gSsNVggKqrHstEh4o-St
Pg 12 summarizes the circumstances for the criminal law path. Note the"serious failings" reference
■ Prosecution in the criminal courts for the most serious failings:
▬ In England and Wales most cases are heard by magistrates who may, for certain serious offences, impose a maximum fine of £20 000 and a custodial sentence of up to 12 months. Some cases are referred to the Crown Court
where custodial sentences of up to two years can be given and there is no limit on the fine that may be imposed
Took a quick scan of the applicable law but couldn't find the relevant section for criminal prosecutions. See
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/37/contents
Saying that her fiance is a racer and she was not stood alone. The guilt resides with all present and involved. It's easy to push the blame away. Takes more than a man to share the load. But no one should be punished legally for this if no one gets punished for brexit or trump.
There does seem to be a strong dissonance between the requirements of the law and the realities of a downhill mountain bike race. One or both will have to adapt to minimize this risk in the future.
That all seems meaningless though, in light of the fact that a life was cut tragically short, several people are looking at potential prison sentences, and the person who crashed... I can't even imagine what a mind$#@! that must be. I don't pray, but my hopes and thoughts are with everyone impacted.
In sanctioned events, there are many layers of regulations, rules, technical requirements and similar in the world of sports where events are sanctioned by a sports National Sports Organization (NSO). The NSO must follow the regulations, rules, technical requirements and similar of the World Sports Organization (WSO. Throw in the Olympics (IOC) and you get another layer
Even though it's a sport, the sports still have to follow some of the bylaws, regulations, laws and etc of society that guide the public in everyday life and when they are in the workplace. Sure they are sports where physical contact is allowed but even those sports can see players charged with crimes when the physical aspect goes beyond what is an acceptable part of the sport.
In this criminal case that involves the death of a spectator at a sport, there must be some laws that hold the organizers at all administrative levels accountable for providing a safe environment for the spectators and the athletes. As downhill mountain biking is young with very little technical requirements for the course design when compared to other sports, I imagine this is that area that the prosecutors will be looking at and going after.
The outcome may not be good for those involved in this criminal case but it might cause the sport to mature more where technical requirements of the course design include some sort of safety requirements that avoid serious injury to spectators and athletes. Right now outsiders of the sport might look at a downhill race as a sanctioned NASCAR race with no technical requirements for the tracks design or cars for the racers and where there are no safety walls or debris fences.
What if the organizers would have taped sections further from the course for the spectators. What if those sections for spectators would have been marshalled. Maybe this could have prevented this tragic death. Maybe not, i don’t know. But life is precious and i strongly believe that it can be enjoyed and protected at the same time. All accidents can be prevented and safety is paramount.
The courts will decide if this was an accident or could have been prevented and if improvements in safety can be made - they should be.
But I think that it is wrong to say that any unfortunate event has someone behind it who is at fault or to blame - there is such thing as an accident.
The reason lawyers have to step in is obvious by some of the uniformed views posted in this blog series alone, (including my own).
You know nothing of the case (including the acute intricacies that will be heard in court) the family or anyone involved so you're comments regarding the family would be better kept to yourself.
Not sure the highly probable US scenario you posit is any better
@Sky-hi Just you wait. The victim's family can still sue.
no not really. In Canada you have 2 years from the event to file anything and liability laws are provincial. The UK is more than likely different even though our Common Law systems are almost the same. Civil suits are a totally different matter.
And for those who say the police are behind the charges, it is not the cops that actually decide on that it is the Crown Attorney for that area. Here, it would be the Attorney General of the Province that would sign off to anything that could create a precedent like this would.
Its a naivety that unprofessional organisers are guilty of and needs more thought or an independent safety body to set a standard
In North America, and France and Switzerland for example work safe accidents are civil matters. Criminal charges are not contemplated. In both the US and Canada there is a law for criminal negligence causing death that's used in work safe incidents but it's almost never used except in the most egregious circumstances where the workplace was so utterly careless that their actions were almost deliberate in causing death.
In all places in the world an event insurance policy would cover the organizer if they are sued civilly. Almost no insurance policies will cover an organizer for criminal charges.
Finally criminal charges are huge. Even being charged (and not convicted) can negatively affect one's life (border crossings, volunteering with minors etc)
That is why I was flabbergasted that this was a criminal prosecution. I hope that clarifies
Researching this story (my story is in early stages yet) I spoke to an organisation who provide marshals for rallying. There are a couple of spectator death cases going through the system now, but from what I understand they are unlikely to go past a coroners' inquest (which is where safety recommendations would be made), as the proper safety precautions were in place.
Thanks,
Just my 2 cents