Gary Land was leading a single file peloton along the left shoulder of Airport Drive, Eagle Farm when a taxi veered directly in front of him and slammed on the brakes. Mr Land hit the rear of the vehicle and was thrown over the boot of the car.

Unfortunately, as is common in claims brought by cyclists, Gary suffered significant injuries to his back and one of his knees. He now also suffers post-traumatic headaches.

Mr Land made a claim for personal injuries against the negligent taxi driver.

Jason, an active and fit 37 year old, was a passionate cyclist. He rode his bike to and from work every day. On the morning of 26 November 2014 Jason was cycling to work on his normal route. As he was riding on the left hand side of Noble Street in Windsor, QLD, a vehicle has suddenly and unexpectedly reversed out of the carpark and directly into Jason’s path.

Jason hit the brakes and attempted to swerve around the vehicle however he was unable to avoid a collision. He collided with the rear back passenger side of the vehicle which caused him and his bike to be thrown over the boot of the car and onto the roadway.

Jason sustained a number of injuries in the accident including:

• fractures to his neck;
• fracture to his right wrist;
• microfractures to his left knee; and
• bursitis to his left elbow.

Jason pursued a personal injuries claim against the CTP insurer of the vehicle that collided with him.

At the time of the accident Jason worked as a Project Manager in the oil and gas industry. He was earning approximately $3,000 net per week. Jason was required to take about 3 months off work as a result of his injuries. He recommenced his employment on a graduated return to work program.Jason found that his neck injury in particular continued to cause him problems. He found he was…

• less efficient;
• less productive; and
• less suited

…to working the long hours required of him in his position as a Project Manager.

Following Jason’s return to work there was a decline in the oil and gas industry and as Jason was struggling with his task load and was made redundant shortly after returning to work.

Due to Jason’s ongoing symptoms he was no longer suited to his role as a Project Manager. Prior to the accident Jason was a highly driven man who had ambitions of progressing his career within the oil and gas industry. His ultimate goal was to progress to the position of COO or even CEO. This career path was no longer possible for Jason.

Jason was unemployed. He needed to find a form of employment that would provide him flexibility in his working hours so he could manage his ongoing symptoms. He therefore embarked on setting up a home-based online retail business and a consultancy business.

To progress his claim, Jason needed to document what his plans were prior to the accident and how his career ambitions would be affected by his injuries. He also had to obtain the evidence to support those claims.

To do this he contacted a past general manager and the current COO of the oil company he had worked for prior to the accident. From those conversations Jason was able to establish that an employee at the company with comparable skills to Jason took over his role and continued to be employed by the company. This evidence was used as a predictor for what Jason would have been capable of had he not sustained his injuries in the accident.

After supplying the insurer with the evidence to support his claim, a conference with the insurer was held. Jason was able to successfully resolve his claim at that conference for a sum of $440,000.
​
 

This case is a good example of how to settle a case on the best possible terms at the earliest opportunity. Unless you support your claims with solid evidence, an insurer will not agree to pay you the compensation you deserve.

The key to receiving a good award for damages is the evidence you gather to support your case. Every person will be impacted by their injuries in very different and specific ways depending on their circumstances.

Jason’s case is not an isolated one. Cycling has become a common and efficient mode of transport for many people. However, there are many associated safety risks for cyclists on our roads. Cyclists continue to remain vulnerable on our roads and errors by motorists that may result in a minor incident for a motor vehicle user can have major consequences for a cyclist.

The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development has published data concerning the percentage of traffic crash casualties as a result of cycling. The table below sets out the fatalities and injuries (hospitalised and police-reported) arising from cycling accidents on our roads between 2003 and 2014:

Due to an increase in the amount of people cycling on our roads, traffic crash casualties relating to cyclists has been slowly increasing from 12.8% in 2003 to 16% in 2011-12.

Cyclist road safety and the one metre breach rule

In an effort to provide more safety to cyclists on the roads, the one metre breach rule was introduced in Queensland in 2014. With the introduction of this rule drivers must ensure they keep a distance of at least one metre away from cyclists in 60km/hour zones and 1.5 metres from cyclists in zones with greater speed limits. If they do not it is now considered an offence and they risk being charged by the police.

The introduction of this law is an important safety measure for cyclists to increase the awareness of motorists. It means that motorists are more likely to keep a lookout for cyclists on the roads. Unfortunately however, cyclists such as Jason continue to be injured by motorists who fail to keep a proper lookout for cyclists.

It is important to know that if you are injured in a cycling accident through the fault of a motorist, there are avenues you can take to assist with your recovery and be compensated for your injuries.

Asif Ahmed, a 47 year old lawyer in the UK, had owned a mountain bike for 12 years.  He had regularly ridden his bike on the road but had only ridden off road on a few occasions.  He had never ridden his mountain bike in rough terrain.  He decided to pursue his passion for mountain biking by undertaking a course in off road mountain biking.   He found and paid for a course online.  The mountain biking course was designed for beginners.

On 25 March 2012 Asif attended the course.  As part of the course the instructor, Leon McLean, took him to a section of the bike trail known as BKB or “Barry Knows Best” which consists of a single track that descends through wooded terrain. The group commenced riding on BKB with Leon until they arrived at a steep gully. The instructor provided a bit of training at the top of the descent before asking each of them to ride down the steep gully.

Asif’s first attempt was successful however he was a little shaky and had to steady himself from falling from his bike.  He was advised by the instructor to have a second attempt.  On this attempt the instructor told Asif to start riding his bike some way back from the edge of the gully so he could gain some extra speed prior to his descent down the gully.

Asif made a second attempt.  He aimed to do what the instructor had told him and increased his speed.  As he rode over the top of the slope he mistakenly took a different path down the track because he was unable to see over the top of the gully as he approached it.  As he descended down the slope his bike slammed into a grassy mound causing him to be catapulted through the air, over the handlebars. He landed heavily on his neck and lay still. As a result of the accident, Asif became a paraplegic.

Asif sued the riding instructor for negligence and/or breach of contract.

This case was heard before Mr Justice Jeremy Baker in the England and Wales High Court.  On 10 November 2016 Justice Baker handed down his decision in relation to the issue of who was at fault for the accident.

Asif’s lawyers provided evidence at the trial from William MacKay who had been involved in mountain bike training for over 30 years.  Mr MacKay gave evidence to the court that…

Asif did not receive appropriate instruction and training before attempting to ride down the steep gully.

The lawyers for Leon McLean provided evidence at the trial from Richard Martin, who was a technical leader in the field of mountain bike coaching.  Mr Martin gave evidence to the court that Asif had received adequate instruction to enable him to ride down the gully safely.

Justice Baker noted that the reason for Asif booking into the course was not to have a thrilling day out but rather to ensure he could pursue his passion for mountain biking in a safe and effective manner.  He accepted that Asif was not an experienced mountain bike rider and that prior to this course he would not have known how to safely ride a mountain bike on this type of steep terrain.

The trial judge accepted the evidence of Mr MacKay over Mr Martin and formed the view it was essential for the instructor to make sure he tailored the course to ensure the safety of the most inexperienced riders.  He found that the instruction given to Asif by Mr McLean was inadequate.

The trial judge held that...

Asif was not the ‘author of his own misfortune, and therefore liable for the accident’.

He held that Mr McLean was also responsible for Asif’s accident because he did not carry out his instruction with ‘reasonable skill and care’.

The trial judge did find that Asif was partly responsible for his injuries because he did not inform the instructor that he felt the ride down the slope was beyond his capacity.  He therefore found that Asif had contributed to his accident.  He found that Asif was 20% responsible for his accident and Mr MacLean, the instructor, was 80% responsible for Asif’s accident.

Spinal injuries from cycling accidents in Australia are not uncommon.

According to the national statistics for spinal cord injuries from case registrations to the Australian Spinal Cord Injury Registry approximately 80% of all spinal cord injuries sustained in Australia were caused by traumatic injury such as accidents.

The graph below represents the different causes of spinal injuries recorded in Australia:

Leisure activities which includes cycle related injuries has been documented under other causes and represents 8% of all spinal cord injuries sustained in Australia.

If this situation arose in Queensland it is possible that a claim could be made for negligence against the instructor.  However, the injured person would have to overcome the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld).  This Act contains a specific section that allows a person to escape responsibility for the injuries of another if it can be shown that the injuries were sustained due to an obvious risk resulting from a ‘dangerous recreational activity’.  A dangerous recreational activity in Queensland means ‘an activity engaged in for enjoyment, relaxation or leisure that involves a significant degree of risk of physical harm to a person’.

It would most certainly be argued that mountain biking would fall into this category and therefore this section would be difficult to overcome.  However, in the situation of Asif, he had paid for and was participating in a course under the guidance of an instructor. In those circumstances, a person in Queensland may be able to successfully bring a claim against the instructor for breach of contract.  A claim made for breach of contract means that the Civil Liability Act 2003 would not apply.