Original article.

http://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au/...j94idh-1227074473079

My initial thoughts are poor form in the Elsey camp. What's the bet they went after the alleged instigator first, but he didn't have enough money to support their privileged lifestyle?

I wonder if the "no-fault" social norms for group rides will be an argument in this case.

Wow. He's suing her school because, and do correct me if I'm wrong, someone crashed into him in an "unfortunate accident" and it's the schools fault they didn't kick him out of the ride first? Ummm...ok.

Makes me wonder though, should all group rides do a 'separate the roadies from the triathletes' so the roadies don't get hurt? ;)

Lost his house?
"Director" of a construction company doesn't have disability insurance?
Aflac?

Musta have been a pretty hard crash, I wouldn't wish that one on any rider.

From the article: "It states Mr Milligan was “not satisfactorily trained and equipped to ride safely in the group ride on that day’’ and that he “ought to have been removed from the ride’’ when it became clear he was riding recklessly."

It's a pretty bold move to admit that you were riding recklessly prior to the accident. I'd be interested to hear from people on the actual ride (not that I expect to, I suppose it will all come out eventually) as to how bad of a rider he must have been.

Another example of what's wrong with the American legal system. Greedy American lawyers! Oh, wait....

I think you may have misread...the guy who got injured (Elsey) is complaining that someone else (Milligan) was riding recklessly and should have been removed from the ride. Your comment makes it sound as though Elsey was claiming that he himself was riding recklessly and should have been removed from the ride. That would indeed be a bold move.

---

__________________________

I tweet!

Right you are! I got the names backwards.

I should know better than to do anything involving reading comprehension right after the morning workout :-p

Personally, I think people use the word "accident" too liberally. The guy was either and idiot or not paying attention. He simply didn't stop and ran right into them.

Having suffered a broken femur that required surgery myself, I can tell you it's life altering and 750K is not a lot of money to receive in compensation. I'd gladly forgo receiving even 2M to not have to deal with a metal plate and screws in my leg.

Why don't we set you up with some surgery, metal plate and screws in your leg, have you miss work for a few months, go through rehab and live with constant pain in your leg. Then you can decide if asking for 750K in damages is being greedy.

I seem to remember a claim in the UK getting thrown out - guys crashed on a chain gang. Rider tried to sue another for not pointing out road debris and I think the judge threw out his claim as all riders accepted the risks of the ride.

I guess if I was part of a group ride where someone was riding erratically and endangering the group I'd either remove them or myself from the group. Seems the injured party was aware of the behavior and had a choice.

Did you read the article?

This is an Australian lawsuit, among Australians. I was poking fun at the people who complain about the US tort system.

Yeah, I read the article and I didn't find your comment amusing at all. It implies a "problem" with the Australian legal system (in relation to the events in the article) by alluding to all the complaints about the US system. I think the victim here has every right to sue. From what I read of the article it was no "accident", it was negligence.

If the person you are suing is responsbile for the injury, then it is not greedy. If you are suing the low hanging fruit just to get some kind of payout, but they are not responsible for your injury, then it is greedy. Sometimes bad things happen to people and it is no one's fault.

I am sorry to hear about your injury.

Did we read the same article? The only information given regarding the merits of the suit are from the accident victim (plaintiff) themselves. Do you see any objective information that points to this being negligence on the part of Ms. Carrigan?

I can't see this going anywhere unless there was some sort of written objective of the ride saying that either everyone is adequately prepared or they will be made so before riding with the group. It was an incident at a "school," so either of those is possible. I DO see it scaring shops or other businesses away from supporting group rides and leaving the organization to the participants.

But who is responsible for paying out? The idiot rider or the ride organizer who is being sued?

as bikes are classified as vehicles on Qld roads, technically the rider who ran into him would be at fault for following too close.

This could be seen as your written objective... PDF from her site. I am assuming this version is the same as published before the event.
I think this highlights 2 arguments.
1/ That it aims to provide a safe... atmosphere...
2/ That it is not necessary to complete the skills course.
So while you could argue it was not a safe environment, you are made aware that someone without the necessary skills could be in the group.

the guy is saying the cycling school should have kicked out the dangerous rider? Sure, fair call.

However, shouldn't the guy who got run into have also taken action when he noted a fellow rider was riding dangerously? Hell, if someone puts me at risk, I don't wait for mummy to make the bad man stop, I take care of it myself.

I used to ride early mornings with a group of guys. We had a written set of rules we followed. Most were simply stating the road rules, (like stopping at red lights etc) but others were courtesy's that bunch riding entails. Point out debris, rotate through the group in a prescribed manner, how long to stay on the front etc etc. We also had a 3 strike policy. Ride like a dufus 3 times and you're out! We kicked one guy out and several guys cleaned up their act when they got to 2 strikes. We also understood that by riding in a bunch, we were actually tailgating and therefore breaking a rule. As the rider in front, we assumed a certain level of risk. Anyone that couldn't accept that risk wasn't required to ride with us. Likewise, the guy in the back also assumed a level of risk by tailgating, and the benefit of the tailgating was getting a tow. That tow means you have to pay attention and not ride into the guy in front. It's hard to do, but if you don't, and you end up crashing into the guy in front, you're actually responsible for the accident.

I don't see how the cycle school or the bunch leader is at fault. The guy following is responsible and should pay. If he's insured, no problem. If he's not insured then that doesn't absolve him of responsibility, it just means he should compensate the injured guy in front, by losing his own house for example.

When I ride behind someone, I accept the risk/benefit situation. If I don't, then I get out of the situation. Just the other morning I was riding to work in the cycle lane when I caught a couple of guys. They were riding side by side, blocking the lane. I couldn't pass, as cars were whizzing by. I drafted for a while then realized the one guy in particular, was a muppet an rode dangerously. Rather than riding in a dangerous situation, I backed off and eased back about 20 metres. That was a safe thing to do. Hell, I was just on my way to work, so in no hurry :-)

I think a lot of people need to learn to take responsibility for thier own safety and also be responsible for their own actions. Unfortunately, society doesn't listen to me, and is going the other way. That makes me sad.

I hope the guys leg heals and I hope he has the sense to target the right person, the one that's actually responsible and not just going with the shotgun approach and hoping something will stick.

---

TriDork

"Happiness is a myth. All you can hope for is to get laid once in a while, drunk once in a while and to eat chocolate every day"

So now he already is a "Victim". Person gets hurt, so they deserve money you say. Why? So because the lost their house, they should get it back by making someone else los their house. Again why? What in the article says the women is negligent.
You say the accident is used to loosely. I say the word "victim" is used to loosely. It is unfortunate when anyone experiances anything that causes them pain, welcome to the world we live in.
Why is He not going after the one who ran into him if negligent? Oh, I know, money

Well said.