Organisers and officials of downhill mountain bike event cleared of charges relating to spectator’s death

were there are fixed barriers and speccies, should the riders not get so close to the barriers? Read this all the time, barriers to blame, not enough barriers, barriers too small/big, barriers sticking out at the foot, speccies leaning over barriers, stuff from speccies hanging from barrier.

Well yes because that's what spectators have done for thousands of years, this is nothing new. Maybe if riders took note of the fact there are things that make you crash if you get too close/make contact with, they'd crash less often?

Its a huge challenge running an event that people want to enter, compete and also spectate. Even more so in a public space where you cant 100% keep people away.

Ive been to many events where spectators have either been injured or close to being injured, ive also run events and then raced events where ive been injured.  In the case where i was hurt race traffic (cyclocross) went opposite directions either side of some tape, and both I and another rider crashed head on where we both 'leant' on the tape from opposit sides. No injuries but it changed how i tape courses now when i help at events. 

Of course then i go to road races and there is only a single barrier between the riders and general public, lean out and you get clipped by racers hugging barriers (how many pro-tour races have we seen that happen!). I dont think anyone can disagree that a road race sprint finish has a chance of a crash and bikes flying about, spectators should be at least a bike length from the barriers, does that happen?.

Safety actions must keep risk as low as practicable, but deciding (even identifying in some cases) what actually is a risk is a challenging and incredibly difficult task.

Health and Safety executive of a LA decided they had a strong case to get a conviction, was that before or after consulting with the expert barristers? Genuine question.

ATEOTD  a jury decided the charges were not proven.

I'm interested in your "that happens" comment Finkfloyd, it comes across that you think that's a 'you win some you lose some' so, do you think the jury is incorrect and if so why?

We've seen too many cases where people on bikes have been killed/seriously injured, the evidence seems clear cut, supposed experts from the CPS appear to fail, time and time again to pursuade jurists that motorists are guilty of the charges. Almost as bad is when judges hand out overtly lenient sentences seemingly contrary to law/guidelines and this happens regularly such that cycling UK have taken the government to task over it.

In the case of Michael Mason, a man who was mown down from behind doing absolutely nothing wrong the jury took a scant 17 minutes to decide a not guilty verdict. This was only after the police and CPS had decided that it was actually the fault of Michael Mason for his death/collision for having had the temerity of wearing a dark jacket and by not wearing a helmet, both which would not have ben provable to have changed the outcome, niether were they legal requirments and the fact that despite having correct/legal lights in a very well lit street where pedestrians saw him there was no case to answer so police did not charge his killer. it took a private prosecution to get to the end result. http://road.cc/content/news/220521-breaking-news-driver-mick-mason-case-... If only this was the only miscarriage of justice for people on bikes!

So despite evidence and a very strong case outcomes will not always go the way one thinks they should. In the case of people on bikes there is most definitely an inherrent bias/discrimination going on and is provable to be so.

Well done Finkfloyd, what a concise well made arguement, I would like to hear more of what you have to say, please contribute more.

Yorkshie Whippet: If you were betting that it was brought by a "half arsed accident lawyer" you'd have lost all your money.

It was a health and safety prosecution brought by Denbighshire County Council, who considered that it was in the public interest to prosecute given that there had been a fatality and on the basis of the evidence they had.  They instructed two very experienced barristers (one of whom was a QC specialising in this area) to prosecute it.  Applications to dismiss the charges summarily by the defendants were dismissed.  The judge found that there was a case to answer but the jury weren't satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that British Cycling or the organiser was guilty (after a three-week trial). 

That happens.  That's due process.  There is a yawning chasm between cases which result in convictions and cases which 'should never have been brought', as it is currently fashionable to declare upon being acquitted of a charge.  Bullshit.  It was decided by a responsible public body that the evidence was there and that it was in the public interest to proceed.  They aren't wrong in that assessment just because there's been an acquittal. 

Your little summary suggests that you think this is all very simple.  Several lawyers - all of whom will have forgotten more about this area of law than you know - thought otherwise.  Not everything is about some grubby little compensation claim, but your willingness to attribute it to that speaks volumes.

Who is betting this was brought by some half arsed accident lawyer?

1. Anything involving humans is inherently dangerous either to them or others.

2. Spectators go to see people push themselves/machinery to the limit.

3. Once the limits have been exceeded all hell can break loose.

4. H&S laws state “as so far as reasonably praticatable”.

5. Everyone attending such events either accepts the above points or is a bloody idiot.

Case closed.

Seems like a sensible outcome. Motorsport events carry notes on tickets stating that motorsport is a dangerous activity and that spectators should remember this. Spectators have responsibility to spectate responsibly.
Not a pleasant experience for anyone involved.
But the correct outcome.
I would ask for the legal pov, but I don't think we've got any legally trained peeps here.