The following risk management chapter appears in the International Mountain Bike Association's Bike Parks – IMBA’s Guide to New School Trails (2014); chapter section by Jeff Jackson (book link here/Canada or here/USA).
 |
| Petawawa, Ontario, Municipal Bike Park |
Offering riding
opportunities, be they in a skills park or bike specific trails, creates a
significant community asset with immense tangible and intangible benefits.
Balanced against these positive effects comes an obligation and responsibility
to do it right. There is an inherent tension between providing recreation
opportunities and at the same time protecting against their possible negative
side effects. This is the mediating role risk management plays.
By applying
systems to assess and manage the inherent and real risk, uncertainty is
directed towards positive outcomes and possible negative side effects are
prevented, controlled, or mitigated to within tolerable limits.
Adventure and action sport based
risk management has evolved towards ‘Systems based’ risk planning. Simply,
systems are integrated arrangement of parts, and help connect the complex
interconnections between the many facets of planning for and managing risk.
This has become the organizing feature of modern risk management (RM), as it
connects the many disparate aspects of risk planning.
A risk management
system for mountain bike specific parks or trails can be viewed as a cycle,
with each element of the system supporting and informing the others. RM is much
more than rider safety, as that is only one element of uncertainty facing a
bike park - nothing can be viewed in isolation. RM is about protecting the bike park
project in its entirety. The system then looks something like this; an overview
of each element follows below:
OVERSIGHT
The foundation for
a RM system is leadership and articulated risk tolerance. Establish a RM
committee with stable membership and clear authority lines. RM leadership calls
for a steady hand on the tiller that ensures policies and routines are
meticulously maintained, such as the inspection and maintenance system. It also
takes a team that can articulate the benefits of a bike facility, and won't
react with bulldozers the first time a rider scrapes their elbow or breaks a
bone.
The first job for
this RM committee is to articulate the park or trail project's Risk Tolerance.
Risk tolerance is the defined limits on the hazards and exposure that the
organization will accept. Consider it a mission statement of sorts, oriented
around defining what is acceptable risk. Risk tolerance is often assumed in the
planning stage: downhill flow trails with speed and jumps implies a greater
risk tolerance than a modest pump track and on-the-ground skill features. This
defined risk tolerance facilitates discussing RM with non-riding decision
makers, preventing 'risk creep' (inadvertant development incorporating greater
risk), crafting 'Assumed Risk' language, and protecting maintenance routines
(and budgets!).
FUNDING
The ultimate risk
to any recreation facility is lack of sustainable funding. A funding model or
revenue stream needs to be put in place to ensure the park or trail can pay its
bills, afford routine maintenance, and put something away for renovations,
repairs, or expansion. It's easy to cut corners in the design stage for the
sake of budget - skimping on fencing or signage, for example. A bike park or trail is a
communty asset, and assets do not come for free. Avoid
sacrificing an annual maintenance budget in order to make the project look more
palatable to decision makers. Plan on an annual maintenance budget and a five
year rebuild funding cycle.
DESIGN
Good design creates engaging riding, sustainable trails and
features, offers progressive challenge, minimizes maintenance, and most
importantly supports rider safety. A poorly designed park or trail ultimately
has less value, and carries more risk exposure. Professional input pays for
itself several times over at the design stage.
RISK ASSESSMENT
Formal risk
assessment has become standard practice in the adventure industry. Put simply,
all potential risks are considered for their probability, severity and exposure
level. Every aspect of the project is considered - each separate trail and park
feature, access points, road crossing, parking areas; uncertainty surrounding
funding, change in political support or the risk of being sued... Each item and
feature is scored, and those with the highest scores get the most attention
with preventative or mitigation strategies. All this gets documented to prove
due diligence, and that you were appropriately managing your highest risk
features. One risk assessment model known as HIRA (Hazard Identification Risk
Assessment) has been widely adopted by the outdoor field, and specific training
is available on its use and application.
RIDER INFORMATION
AND SIGNAGE SYSTEM
We've all seen
them at the trailhead: boiler plate 'Assumption of Risk' signs full of legal
language, designed for protecting the land owner rather than really helping the
rider understand or assume any real or inherent risk. Yes, you need one of
these signs posted at the entry points to your bike park or trail (because the
courts have said so), but systems thinking requires a complete view. Start from
the rider's perspective: what do riders need to know, in plain language, in
order to both enjoy their ride and manage their
exposure to risk? Informed
consent, assumption of risk, and safety messaging starts with your webpage and
should be consistent with entry or trailhead signage.
Next, consider how
riders flow through the park or trail - at what points are decisions made?
Place useful information at those decision points. If your bike park is
designed around skills progression, then provide instructional information as
to what the expected skills progression is, and what features are suitable for
given skill sets. Difficulty ratings, for example, need to be located at a
point where the rider chooses to engage a feature or not. Borrow from the National Ski Area
Association's terrain park's 'Smart Style' initiative, which uses simple, clear
messages to inform riders of risk exposure and safety precations (see www.terrainparksafety.org).
An image of a tilted rider falling off of a narrow bridge, a skull and cross
bones, or an overturned jumping bike with a vivid exclamation mark says more in
a split second than a long legal notice informing of the risks of mountain biking.
But, the legal language matters too – this system balances the need to inform
the rider and protect the land manager.
INSPECTION AND
MAINTENANCE SYSTEM
A thorough
inspection and maintenance system does more to proactively build a legal
defense than any other single action. What’s more, it protects the significant
investment put into a bike park or trail and ensures the features do not
degrade beyond the organization’s risk tolerance and become unsafe to riders.
Should a municipality or land owner find themselves facing legal action, they
are going to have to prove that they met their Duty of Care as an occupier to
keep visitors ‘reasonably safe while on their premises’. A detailed, documented
inspection and maintenance (I&M) system is the best way to prove this duty
was fulfilled.
An effective
I&M systems codifies oversight, inspection intervals, and triggers.
Defining who is in charge of doing the inspections, how it is documented (on a
standard checklist form, for example), who receives it and has the authority to
create action items is the first step. This authority would extend to ensure
the required maintenance was followed up in the specified manner.
Inspection
intervals are site specific. A high use full-scale skills park could reasonably
require a weekly detailed inspection, while a simpler or less used bike
specific trail could only require a monthly inspection. Regardless, inspection
needs to be routinized based on what is reasonable for the site.
Maintenance
triggers refers to pass/fail criteria incorporated into the inspection process.
Each individual feature (i.e. pump track, jump series, teeter totter, trail
section) is examined against specific objective measures (likely a checklist).
A ‘pass’ ensures the feature still meets its original design specs; a ‘fail’ is
a clear trigger for maintenance. Obvious safety issues may necessitate closing
the feature until repairs can be performed. All of this is documented.
Inspectors need
some basic training on process and triggers, but volunteers have successfully
been used in this capacity. Actual maintenance work, however, requires skilled
hands, as repairs need to bring the feature back to original design
specifications and eliminate unsafe conditions. It is also a good idea to have
an informal ‘report a problem’ procedure (such as a hotline) to harness local
riders as eyes and ears, and promotes a sense of ownership of the bike park or
trail.
RIDER SAFETY
SYSTEM
Rider safety is
considered as an individual aspect of managing risk – RM is the greater
concept, and safety falls within the greater system. A challenging tension
exists between protecting the rider and protecting the organization.
Ultimately, decision makers have to see the connection that protecting the
rider IS protecting the organization. This system is considered in detail in
the next section.
EMERGENCY RESPONSE
PLAN (ERP)
The ERP is a
series of pre-planned procedures that idle in the background until called into
action. The risk assessment portion of the RM system likely identified the
potential things that can go wrong, so now a pre-plan can be made to deal with
these possibilities. Practically speaking, the ERP defines what help is
available, how contact will be made, how they can access the facility, and who
needs to know about it. As most bike parks and trails are unsupervised, the ERP
needs to be made clear to riders – this could simply be an obvious ‘Call 911’
sign, but will also need to include an address and access point information. A
contained skills park provides direct access, but where are gates located? Who
has keys? A forested trail provides different challenges for access, but key
points can be mapped in advance and posted at the trailhead or provided to EMS.
The ERP should
extend beyond injury to include fire, vandalism, criminal acts, and severe
weather – eventualities need to be thought out, even though response options
are typically limited to only a handful. The ERP can be shared (in advance)
with local police, fire and ambulance; but should also include local decision
makers such as city recreation planners. In the event of an incident, who needs
to know? Ensure the ERP includes a communication chain that reaches all
stakeholders.
LEGAL PROTECTION
SYSTEM
The RM system is
about managing uncertainty, and in many jurisdictions legal liability provides
some measure of that uncertainty. The ‘challenging tension’ mentioned earlier
between providing risk-based recreation opportunities yet at the same time
protecting oneself against them is an inherent paradox in adventure activities.
Put simply, legal protection is jurisdiction dependent. Some states have
recreation statutes that limit liability, while others don’t. Some states (or
courts) allow waiver forms to be used and others don’t. There is variation in
how children/minors are considered. Canada has their Occupier’s Liability Act
and separate case history regarding negligence. The bottom line is planners
need to understand their own jurisdiction to learn what preventative and
mitigation strategies can be put in place. Professional legal advice is always
a good idea, but know that that advice often focuses on loss potential, and
omits the immense benefits bike facilities can bring to a community. Also know
that commercial ‘pay for play’ riding such as lift serviced mountain bike
resorts have developed in a specific manner, often mirroring the downhill ski
industry. Their risk management and legal protection systems may not apply to a
municipal setting. Lastly, consider insurance coverage – it is typically
inexpensive when added on to an existing recreation policy (for a city park,
for example), or can be purchased as a standalone item. Its cost needs be
worked into the funding model that sustains the bike park or trail.
The risk
management system needs to be considered as an interconnected arrangement of
parts. One piece cannot work without the others. Systems are put into action,
however, via routines. Prescribing and managing routines (such as documenting
inspection and maintenance) ensures the systems do their job. By viewing RM as
a system, planning for and managing risk becomes an integrated, comprehensible
package – one that will provide rewards for both those that get to ride great
trails and the community that gains the benefits from such an asset.
Summary:
Consider risk management as a
system of integrated parts
Establish clear leadership and
authority
Articulate risk tolerance for
the park or trail project
Ensure adequate annual funding
Design for sustainability,
progression and safety
Perform a risk assessment and
address priority areas
Create a signage system that
addresses the needs of the organization and the rider
Create an emergency response
plan
Investigate legal liability
specific to your jurisdiction; apply appropriate strategies
Investigate insurance coverage