Duty of care and risk assessments in cycling events

Background to the Case.

On the 23rd of May 2019 the claimant, Mr Hetherington, a semi-professional cyclist, was partaking in a time trial on a dual carriageway organised by the second defendant, Ferryhill Wheelers cycling club (the club).

During this event, the first defendant drove into the claimant’s path when crossing a dual carriageway to turn into a junction and an impact occurred between the claimant and the first defendant’s car. As a result, Mr Hetherington suffered severe injuries including a traumatic brain injury.

Key Legal Issues.

The driver underwent criminal proceedings but was acquitted.

Mr Hetherington sued the first defendant for negligence in the civil court.

In response, the first defendant claimed that the cycling club had been negligent in failing to put out an adequate number of signs and marshals. He further criticised the risk assessments completed by the club and the categorisation of the risk at the junction where the accident occurred as low.

The first defender’s insurers admitted liability but argued that the club were partly to blame.

The court heard from a range of witnesses including the treasurer of the club responsible for implementing risk assessments, RTA reconstruction experts and risk assessment experts.

Court’s Findings.

The court found that the club did owe a duty to club members concerning assessment of third-party negligence. Regarding the scope of the duty, the court held that this was a duty to take reasonable care to identify the relevant hazards, assess the risk posed by them, identify reasonable mitigation measures within their power, and to inform club members of the assessment in a simple and clear manner.The standard of care in exercising the duty when completing risk assessments was that of a reasonably competent and informed volunteer.

The court held that the risk assessment method used by the club was reasonable and logical. The categorisation of the junction as low risk was a suitable and sufficient assessment. The signs put out were sufficient and adequate, and evidence of reasonable efforts exerted to alert drivers as far as possible.

Any such further or bigger signs would not have made a difference as the first defendant failed to see the marshals and signs already in place on multiple roundabouts and the slip road before the junction.

Judgement and Outcome.

The claim against the club was dismissed.

The club had discharged their duty of care through completion of the risk assessments.

The court highlighted the voluntary nature of the club and the idea that if a standard of care too high were to be placed upon such club it may discourage such beneficial activities.

Key takeaways.

• Hetherington v Fell & Ferryhill Wheelers Cycling Club [2025] clarified the duty of care owed by cycling clubs when organising events.
• The Court held that clubs must carry out reasonable risk assessments, identify hazards, and inform participants clearly.
• The standard of care expected is that of a reasonably competent volunteer, not a professional risk assessor.
• The club’s risk assessments and signage were found to be sufficient and adequate.
• The claim against the club was dismissed, reinforcing that imposing too high a duty may discourage volunteer-run sporting activities.