A High Court judge has ruled that a cycling club is not liable for a time trial collision which left a cyclist in hospital for three months with serious injuries, the driver who hit the rider having accused the volunteer-run club of a negligent risk assessment and insufficient signage and marshals.
The judge ruled that the driver was solely at fault and that a volunteer organisation such as a cycling club should not be held to the same compliance standards as multinational organisations, Mr Justice Ritchie concluding that “we are not talking about the Shell Corporation here”.
The Law Society Gazette reported on the case from the High Court, the driver having admitted liability but subsequently bringing Part 20 proceedings against Ferryhill Wheelers Cycling Club and alleging its risk assessment for the time trial was negligent as the club had failed to provide adequate signage and marshals.
A rider was seriously injured while taking part in a club time trial on the A689 Hartlepool Road back in 2019, the driver having finished a 12-hour shift before the 20mph collision which left the cyclist in hospital for three months. He also required four and a half months of rehabilitation and has been left with “a lack of capacity, personality change and a six per cent risk of epilepsy”.
The driver failed to notice signs put up by the club to warn road users of the event, the judge ruling that the motorist was solely at fault.
“This was a voluntary organisation carrying out tasks for free for the benefit of members of society and the standard of care placed upon them in law is not so high that it would discourage such beneficial voluntary activities,” the High Court judge ruled, adding that he was “without any reservation” that the club had met its duty of care.
The judge accepted the club’s argument that it was a group of volunteers carrying out desirable activities and that imposing a stricter duty of care would put off organisers and participants.
The Law Society Gazette reports that it is believed to be the first time that the Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Act 2015 has been relied upon in a judgment in the High Court, the act requiring the court to consider whether any party was acting for the benefit of society or members.
25 thoughts on “Cycling club cleared of liability over time trial collision as High Court judge rules negligent driver solely at fault”
Well done Mr Justice Ritchie
Well done Mr Justice Ritchie.👏
A victory for common sense.
Presumably the collision was no different to one with any cyclist. And during a time trial there are other cyclists at regular intervals on both carriageways and they display front and rear lights, plus a luminous rear number. All cyclists are briefed that they are on open roads and must obey the highway code at all times.
If only similar common sense had been applied in the case where a cricket club has been prevented from playing at home because of the risk of a nearby resident (in housing built long after the cricket club was established) being hit by a cricket ball.
I wouldn’t worry, Mr Driver,
I wouldn’t worry, Mr Driver, we are all well aware of the risks posed by people like you whenever we cycle on the roads.
Drivers in this country NEED
Drivers in this country NEED be held to far more accountability when driving, I do and am never not astounded by the speeds and micro-second decisions they make usually not slowing them getting a stupid second-rate punishment; IT’S WAAAY OVER TIME that the responsibility lays with them for the safety of all, not just themselves! as well as not relying on a stupid insurance policy either!
The results of the
The results of the comprehensive review of road laws will be in any day now. Well, soon anyway. Definitely within a year. Or two. Or it might be delayed just a bit, like five or six. But because of the total incompetence of the authorities, not to mention immigrants, Brexit and climate change, it won’t be reporting at all.
You see this shit decision
You see this shit decision making every day and its just mad. Someone pulled out of a side road as I was walking the boys to school. The car on the main road had to whack on their brakes. Was it busy? Not even a little. It was clear for a few hundred metres after that car. If he waited 3s he could have pulled out in his own sweet time but his tiny brain said “I can get out without a crash if the other guy is paying attention and off he went”.
“The DRIVER on the main road
“The DRIVER on the main road had to whack on their brakes…”
An interesting, and in my
An interesting, and in my opinion a quite correct decission, but there are wider unsaid implications. By that I mean if you arranged a bike ride based at your local village hall to raise money for the Church roof, then it’s likely that it’ll be ‘for the benefit of members of society’. A company running an organised sportive, based at the same village hall, running the same route, even if it’s raising money for a charity and I think the judge would take a different view.
The other good news in the judgment is that it upheld the law in that it’s the motorist responsibility to look beyond the end of their bonnets.
Better for the company to
Better for the company to sponsor the volunteers effort.
Capt Sisko wrote:
Which, I think is right. Although in this case, I would still say the driver would be 100% responsible.
I don’t think the judge would
I don’t think the judge would have taken a different view in this case, given point 78 of the summing up – that the extra safety measures the driver (/drivers representative) claimed should have been undertaken wouldn’t have made any difference on the day, which on its own is enough to prevent liability, even if the judge was wrong about duty of care.
Though it is true that professional/commercial operations are held to a higher standard, point 80 suggests that the Judge thought the club had gone beyond the required standard for a volunteer organisation anyway (with no discussion on what would be expected for a commercial operation if different to what the club had already done).
He hit a cyclist, one of many
He hit a cyclist, one of many I assume, on a public highway. He admitted liability.
The rest is irrelevant. Driving his car he hit something, something he should not have done. The sun, the signs, the sleeping is no excuse.
Exactly this. He’s subject to
Exactly this. He’s subject to the rules of the road, everythign else is irrelevant.
If he had just been cycling
If he had just been cycling along a road, that he is entitled to cycle along, there would not have been any signs. This is just another driver showing how much of a shit they do not give.
The full judgment is here,
The full judgment is here, for anybody interested:
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2025/1487.html
Some interesting points:
– The proven time of the crash and when the driver claimed to have left work meant that they would have had to have been speeding.
– The driver claimed the cyclist was in the shade, but the shade ended 50m prior to the junction. Regardless the judge’s comment is spot-on “Mr Fell was not entitled to assume that, because it was a bit darker there, he could ignore any road user going through the shade”
And a conclusion is fairly damning:
“In the event, on 23.5.2019, Mr Fell failed to see the hazard warning signs informing him of the cycling event at Wynyard Business Park and at Wynyard Village. He failed to see the marshals with high viz jackets at both roundabouts too. He did not adjust his driving for the Highways Authority signs 500 m before the slip lane warning of cycling, horses and pedestrians. Finally, as he drove down the slip lane at 50 mph, slowing to around 20 mph, Mr Fell failed to see or register the yellow warning triangle with a bike on it and then he drove across the eastbound lanes at around 20 mph and never saw the Claimant on his bicycle, despite the latter being in the sunshine for 40-60 metres before impact.
I find that the sign at the junction was clearly visible to drivers turning right and that it showed a bicycle, but the wording at the bottom was partly obscured by grass. However, I find that any reasonable driver would have realised that such a sign did not relate merely to random cyclists riding alone on the dual carriageway and so related to some sort of cycling event being held at that time.
If a sign had been placed at the entrance to the slip lane, I find that Mr Fell would not have noticed it. If a marshal had been positioned on one of the central reservations in a high viz jacket, it would not have made any difference to Mr Fell’s driving. On balance I do not find that Mr Fell would have registered the presence or significance of the marshal.”
ruling wrote:
Correct response to a driver trying to argue that ‘they couldn’t see the cyclist’…
I suspect one that is regularly used in judges conclusions despite seeming to come up all the bloody time…
Whilst I always appreciate
Whilst I always appreciate the considered, reasonably argued responses from other members on here, am I alone in thinking “what an utter cunt”?
You’ve seriously injured a vulnerable road user and, instead of having the balls to at least admit you’re in the wrong, you resort to some legalese bullshit in a pathetic attempt to absolve yourself from responsibility for your actions.
Just fuck off.
That is all.
Understood, but please note
Understood, but please note that it was probably his insurers trying it on rather than the motorist himself.
They could have gone after
They could have gone after his employers for their shift patterns.
They could, but a cycling
They could, but a cycling club’s insurer is a lot closer to any potential liability than anybody else.
What Road CC has missed in
What Road CC has missed in reporting on this is that from the transcript it was *the cyclist* claiming negligence against both the Driver AND the cycling club.
Suspect this was insurance related ambulance chasing for support for the cyclist but still leaving aside the incident and his mealy mouthed defence it was the cyclist going after his own cycling club.
Doesn’t look like it to me.
Doesn’t look like it to me.
If your interpretation is correct, then the Law Society Gazette (which road.cc
basically copiedsourced the story from) appears to have missed it too.No, as far as I can see the
No, as far as I can see the cyclist went after the driver and the driver, denying liability, went after the cycling club. However before anything went to court the driver’s insurer settled the cyclist’s claim in full. The cyclist had nothing to do with the claim against the cycling club which was between the driver’s insurers and the club’s insurers, which was dismissed.
No, the cyclist was the
No, the cyclist was the claimant against the driver, Mr Fell. Mr Fell (or their insurer) was the claimant against the cycling club. The cyclist was not a claimant against the cycling club.
Ok. I get it. Part 20
Ok. I get it. Part 20 procedings are where a claimant tries to drag in someone else into their own liability defence. (it was their fault not ours Guv)
Confusingly they are both listed as Defendants in the court transcript, but that does not necessarily mean the Claimant is going after both….
Learnt something new etc…
Interesting: I feel for the
Interesting: I feel for the cyclist who has obviously had a difficult time and hope for a full recovery. 6 years for this matter to be dealt with by the civil courts is too long.
What I’m really curious about though is what was the outcome of the criminal prosecution of Fell for dangerous driving? Was there one and surely that information should be in this article.