Who is at fault and how should it be dealt?
Artoi
discussion.
Came across this hypothetical scenario on a cycling forum...
Several riders are returning from their weekend club ride and are riding
together in a bunch. One cyclist signals turning and another cyclist,
riding second wheel in the group, looks back to wave him an extended
farewell. In the meanwhile, the cyclist at the head of the bunch signals
stopping at a congested round-about, slowing to an almost complete stop.
the cyclist waving his mate fails to heed the signal, and the loud
warnings of others behind him, and collides with the cyclist at the head
of the bunch writing-off his expensive carbon fiber frame.
Who is at fault here? If you were the cyclist with the wrecked frame,
what would you be thinking? What would you expect of the rider who
rammed you from behind?
--
Steven Bornfeld
Hypothetical, of course. I've never seen anyone "fail to heed".
Steve (no waving either)
Artoi
Steven Bornfeld <dentalt...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Well, let's just discuss it as a hypothetical...
--
Pete
You'd have to be doing something really odd there. You aren't likely
to wreck a frame by crashing into it from behind at a slow speed
(wheels maybe, but frame?)- so unless this guy looking behind is
cruising down a hill at 50kph towards a busy roundabout while looking
back (which is really stupid), it doesn't seem likely in the first
place.
That said, if you aren't looking where you're going and you hit
something, you're pretty much automatically at fault, especially if
what you hit is in the right place. So - IMO, guy at the front gets a
new bike (in the same price range, not taking the piss with a 5 grand
colnago) and the guy not looking pays.
Pete
Paul Cassel
>
> Who is at fault here? If you were the cyclist with the wrecked frame,
> what would you be thinking? What would you expect of the rider who
> rammed you from behind?
> --
Clearly, IMO, the fellow who rammed from behind. It's his duty to make
sure the way is clear for him to proceed. He failed to do so by looking
backwards.
amit....@gmail.com
> Artoi wrote:
> > Excuse the cross-posting but I think this could be interesting for
> > discussion.
>
> > Came across this hypothetical scenario on a cycling forum...
>
> > Several riders are returning from their weekend club ride and are
> > riding together in a bunch. One cyclist signals turning and another
> > cyclist, riding second wheel in the group, looks back to wave him an
> > extended farewell. In the meanwhile, the cyclist at the head of the
> > bunch signals stopping at a congested round-about, slowing to an
> > almost complete stop. the cyclist waving his mate fails to heed the
> > signal, and the loud warnings of others behind him, and collides with
> > the cyclist at the head of the bunch writing-off his expensive carbon
> > fiber frame.
>
> > Who is at fault here? If you were the cyclist with the wrecked frame,
> > what would you be thinking? What would you expect of the rider who
> > rammed you from behind?
>
> You'd have to be doing something really odd there. You aren't likely
> to wreck a frame by crashing into it from behind at a slow speed
> (wheels maybe, but frame?)-
a digression, but i've seen exactly that. at a race a rider crossed
the line and stopped abruptly and a rider rammed him from behind
breaking his frame (a giant TCR carbon).
dusto...@mac.com
Don't look back. Glance. Real quick.
Because otherwise, you'll run into someone or something-- it's a
setup; nothing ever happens until you have your head turned.
What kind of new frame are you going to get <g>? --D-y
derF...@gmail.com
> If you were the cyclist with the wrecked frame,
> what would you be thinking?
I'd be thinking, what was I thinking riding with these f'ing wankers?
William Asher
But most people think that even if they don't end up with a wrecked frame.
--
Bill Asher
scotty72
circumstance, the guy behind would be a fault for not maintaining a safe
stopping distance.
Scotty
--
scotty72
OzCableguy
"Artoi" <ar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:artoi-C045DA....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Hell no. Any official or unoffical bunch ride has to be a case of ride at
your own risk or it loses all of its appeal and is no fun anymore. There's
always a risk of accident, even accidents caused by stupidity, in any type
of performance or bunch ride and if you can't live with that ride solo, buy
a cheaper bike and wear a full suit of armour lined with cotton wool.
Tend to their wounds and assist in getting your fallen comrade's bike up &
running again (or help guard it while someone fetches a vehicle to collect
it) but forget this financial liability nonsense. I think that would be an
appalling thing to happen to the sport.
Perhaps the answer here is insurance. Can you get insurance for this type of
thing?
--
www.ozcableguy.com
www.oztechnologies.com
Duncan
wrote:
Surely you're joking?
It is fine to live-and-let live for minor accidents. Unfortunately,
not all accidents are so minor, or cause relatively little damage.
> Perhaps the answer here is insurance. Can you get insurance for this type of
> thing?
If you aren't at least third-party insured and you are racing (or
commuting), you're just being naive..
Low cost insurance (such as the standard BNSW membership) covers the
guilty party (in this case, the guy behind) for this sort of thing:
<snip>
POLICY INFORMATION
Insured:
Members of Bicycle New South Wales Incorporated
Scope of Cover:
Members of Bicycle New South Wales legal liability to compensate third
parties with regard to Personal Injury/Death and/or Property Damage as
a result of an occurrence arising from the bicycle riding activities
of the member.
Limit of Liability
$20,000,000 any one occurrence and in the aggregate
Deductible (excess)
$1,000 Each & Every Incident
<snip>
SLAVE of THE STATE
> Excuse the cross-posting but I think this could be interesting for
> discussion.
>
> Came across this hypothetical scenario on a cycling forum...
>
> Several riders are returning from their weekend club ride and are riding
> together in a bunch. One cyclist signals turning and another cyclist,
> riding second wheel in the group, looks back to wave him an extended
> farewell. In the meanwhile, the cyclist at the head of the bunch signals
> stopping at a congested round-about, slowing to an almost complete stop.
> the cyclist waving his mate fails to heed the signal, and the loud
> warnings of others behind him, and collides with the cyclist at the head
> of the bunch writing-off his expensive carbon fiber frame.
>
> Who is at fault here?
The dumbass that rear-ended the other dumbass.
> If you were the cyclist with the wrecked frame,
> what would you be thinking?
Did Robert make his afternoon training ride? Is Ryan drunk? Is Don
looking at porn? Why is my math whacked? Why do french lawyers need a
"just kidding" and a smiley face? When will the g-d shed be
finished? Why am I cold? This elastic sucks. Why am I so
fat? ...
CCCAAANNN'''''''''TTTTT TTTTUUURRRNNN IIIITTTT OOOFFFFFFFFFF!
MUST BREAK LOOP! MUST BREAK LOOP!!!!!!!!!..........
> What would you expect of the rider who
> rammed you from behind?
There is no way a socially responsible individual can replace the
carbon frame with another carbon frame. Since everything in the world
is about global warming, the carbon footprint must reduced at all
costs. Carbon frame: a no-no. Therefore, I suggest a Ti or Al frame
replacement. (Steel has carbon in it. Terrible.)
Duncan
> There is no way a socially responsible individual can replace the
> carbon frame with another carbon frame. Since everything in the world
> is about global warming, the carbon footprint must reduced at all
> costs. Carbon frame: a no-no. Therefore, I suggest a Ti or Al frame
> replacement. (Steel has carbon in it. Terrible.)
But think of all that carbon that can be sequestered in a frame
build.. never to be made into CO2
Theo Bekkers
Mmmm, and how much coke is burnt to make steel?
Theo
jo...@phred.org
ar...@hotmail.com says...
> Several riders are returning from their weekend club ride and are riding
> together in a bunch. One cyclist signals turning and another cyclist,
> riding second wheel in the group, looks back to wave him an extended
> farewell. In the meanwhile, the cyclist at the head of the bunch signals
> stopping at a congested round-about, slowing to an almost complete stop.
> the cyclist waving his mate fails to heed the signal, and the loud
> warnings of others behind him, and collides with the cyclist at the head
> of the bunch writing-off his expensive carbon fiber frame.
Assuming this is a ride on an ordinary public road, not a closed course,
not an organized event, the rider who failed to stop is very likely at
fault, given the information provided. From the description, he's lucky
he had an accident with the lead cyclist, rather than blindly riding
into traffic in a congested roundabout, adding injuries to his failure
to yield.
At least in the U.S., the negligent rider's homeowner's or renter's
insurance policy probably includes personal liability coverage that
would usually apply to an accident other than a motor vehicle accident.
--
jo...@phred.org is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Braze your own bicycle frames. See
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html>
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
> There is no way a socially responsible individual can replace the
> carbon frame with another carbon frame. Since everything in the world
> is about global warming, the carbon footprint must reduced at all
> costs. Carbon frame: a no-no. Therefore, I suggest a Ti or Al frame
> replacement. (Steel has carbon in it. Terrible.)
>
>
>
>
>
Yes it does:
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Campus/8262/htdocs/steels/allst1.html
Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
SLAVE of THE STATE
<bornfeldm...@dentaltwins.com> wrote:
> SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
>
> > There is no way a socially responsible individual can replace the
> > carbon frame with another carbon frame. Since everything in the world
> > is about global warming, the carbon footprint must reduced at all
> > costs. Carbon frame: a no-no. Therefore, I suggest a Ti or Al frame
> > replacement. (Steel has carbon in it. Terrible.)
>
> Yes it does:
>
But I like Duncan's point. Let's get it sequestered in bike frames.
xzzy
> insurance policy probably includes personal liability coverage that
> would usually apply to an accident other than a motor vehicle accident.
>
any info regrarding this for a negligent rider in Colorado would be helpful
Thank you
Artoi
"OzCableguy" <ozcab...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
This hypothetical has been worked by other groups too. There has been
two lines of thoughts. One that sticks to the road rules where the one
at the rear was negligent and should be responsible for the damages. The
second considered the club bunch riding aspect and felt that bunch
riders should accept their own responsibility for any injuries or
damages they suffer, irrespective of who or how of the negligence. A
situation similar to participation in a bike race. As the hypothetical
is set on public roads, I am not sure the second group can make such a
claim. Even with a liability waiver required by some clubs and ride
groups, I am not sure it'll stand up in the courts and would be able to
avoid a claim by the first rider on the second.
Insurance is an interesting point. Assume all these club riders have
racing license and associated insurance, it should be a practical way
out (with excess). It was also interesting in some of the discussions
elsewhere that some taking the second view felt that a claim on the
second rider's insurance was not appropriate. They felt the first rider
should just cough up the buck and cover his own damage.
--
Artoi
scotty72 <scotty7...@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
> Artoi Wrote:
> > Excuse the cross-posting but I think this could be interesting for
> > discussion.
> >
> > Came across this hypothetical scenario on a cycling forum...
> >
> > Several riders are returning from their weekend club ride and are
> > riding
> > together in a bunch. One cyclist signals turning and another cyclist,
> > riding second wheel in the group, looks back to wave him an extended
> > farewell. In the meanwhile, the cyclist at the head of the bunch
> > signals
> > stopping at a congested round-about, slowing to an almost complete
> > stop.
> > the cyclist waving his mate fails to heed the signal, and the loud
> > warnings of others behind him, and collides with the cyclist at the
> > head
> > of the bunch writing-off his expensive carbon fiber frame.
> >
> > Who is at fault here? If you were the cyclist with the wrecked frame,
> > what would you be thinking? What would you expect of the rider who
> > rammed you from behind?
> Just as with the rules for cars, unless there is some extra-ordinary
> circumstance, the guy behind would be a fault for not maintaining a safe
> stopping distance.
With your experience, would the fact that this was a voluntary club
bunch ride affect your view? Some argue that bunch rides are inherently
dangerous and everyone should be responsible for their own
participation, even if it was not your fault.
--
Artoi
<ab1e0bc2-735b-451a...@c30g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
"derF...@gmail.com" <derF...@gmail.com> wrote:
That doesn't solve your immediate problem of a wrecked frame.
--
Artoi
<ec65628f-37e6-43dd...@f3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
"dusto...@mac.com" <dusto...@mac.com> wrote:
Not me. It was a hypothetical setup by a buddy who knows of a similar
case. As the case caused quite a heated debate within our club, I just
want to get the view on this in the wider cycling community.
--
Artoi
<fbf82481-2eee-4798...@b32g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
Pete <peter...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> That said, if you aren't looking where you're going and you hit
> something, you're pretty much automatically at fault, especially if
> what you hit is in the right place. So - IMO, guy at the front gets a
> new bike (in the same price range, not taking the piss with a 5 grand
> colnago) and the guy not looking pays.
Did you take into account of the fact that it was a voluntary club bunch
ride? An activity with known risks?
--
Artoi
"xzzy" <mrbik...@comcast.net> wrote:
Are there insurance coverage with your racing license there in the US?
--
jo...@phred.org
@comcast.net says...
The rider should contact his/her own insurance agent to see if the
policy in question has appropriate coverage.
I'm not licensed in Colorado and haven't seen the individual's insurance
policy, so I can't be more specific than that.
Zebee Johnstone
Artoi <ar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> With your experience, would the fact that this was a voluntary club
> bunch ride affect your view? Some argue that bunch rides are inherently
> dangerous and everyone should be responsible for their own
> participation, even if it was not your fault.
Negligence and not keeping a proper lookout are things no club rider
should have to cope with.
The bod who hit was not looking where he was going. Stupid and he
can't expect to get away with breaking someone else's kit.
Zebee
ZBicyclist
>
>
> Assuming this is a ride on an ordinary public road, not a closed
> course, not an organized event, the rider who failed to stop is very
> likely at fault, given the information provided. From the
> description, he's lucky he had an accident with the lead cyclist,
> rather than blindly riding into traffic in a congested roundabout,
> adding injuries to his failure to yield.
>
The similar situation: Club ride with standard waiver. We've reached our
destination and are sightseeing a historic district. One rider points out a
landmark. I look to the left to see it. The two riders immediately in front
of me stop (I did not hear/heed their warning, although the rider behind me
did hear them and stop.). There was less damage -- a badly bent rim that was
capable of being trued enough to be ridden back 40 miles home with the brake
disabled.
I looked at it this way: I can make a friend or lose a friend. For the cost
of a new wheel I can look like a generous person or like an asshole. I
immediately offered to pay for a repair or a new wheel. (I ended up paying
for a used wheel he found.)
I'm just reporting my choice in an actual situation, not trying to make a
universal statement about a "hypothetical" situation.
Bret
> Excuse the cross-posting but I think this could be interesting for
> discussion.
>
> Came across this hypothetical scenario on a cycling forum...
>
> Several riders are returning from their weekend club ride and are riding
> together in a bunch. One cyclist signals turning and another cyclist,
> riding second wheel in the group, looks back to wave him an extended
> farewell. In the meanwhile, the cyclist at the head of the bunch signals
> stopping at a congested round-about, slowing to an almost complete stop.
> the cyclist waving his mate fails to heed the signal, and the loud
> warnings of others behind him, and collides with the cyclist at the head
> of the bunch writing-off his expensive carbon fiber frame.
>
> Who is at fault here? If you were the cyclist with the wrecked frame,
> what would you be thinking? What would you expect of the rider who
> rammed you from behind?
I had some co-workers that were involved in a similar incident only
funnier. Four of them were out for a noon ride in the late 80's when
they spotted Andy Hampsten riding in the other direction. The rider at
the front was so awstruck that he stopped pedaling and gawked at Andy.
The rider behind was only semi-awstruck because he gawked, but kept
pedaling and ran into the rider in front. It was like, "Look, there's
Andy Hampsten! Crash! Crash! Crash! Three riders went down. The 2nd
rider broke his frame and thought the lead rider should pay to replace
it. He lobbyed the "more experienced" riders at work, including
myself, hoping to get a judgement that yes indeed he was due a new
frame. We all told him it was his fault and that anyway, you accept
the risk. He wasn't happy with that and never rode with a co-worker
again. He also never acknowledged that it was his mistake that brought
the other riders down. All that over a late 80's Trek frame that you
couldn't give away today.
Bret
TimC
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
I do mostly agree, with one caveat. Being the communist hippy bastard
that am I, is it my responsibility to pay the full amount if I destroy
your bike when
1) Your bike is more extravagent than it needs be for the purposes you
are riding it for, and I should only have to pay a reasonable cost for
an equivalently usable bike in the circumstances[1].
2) Your bike is more fragile than it ought to be because it is more
expensive and hi-tech etc. Why don't you have suitable insurance?
I'm equally going to skip the country rather than pay for someone's
luxury $200,000 status symbol of a car in the event of a failure of
mine.
[1] Club ride. Being able to show your status is not something I
should be responsilble for. A $1500 bike is perfectly sufficient in a
club training ride and is much more practical than a $8000 carbon
frame.
--
TimC
NOT A CHANCE! I know for a *fact* the kittens aren't frightened
by temporal anomalies. Clock watching simply ain't their bag.
John Schmidt in ARK
Ryan Cousineau
<8bd7d95a-c796-44c8...@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
SLAVE of THE STATE <gwh...@ti.com> wrote:
BTW, this is the best advice in the whole thread. Heed it.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcou...@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing
Stu Fleming
> The rider should contact his/her own insurance agent to see if the
> policy in question has appropriate coverage.
Or, if it's a Bianchi, contact the manufacturer directly.
Did the frame break directly behind the bottle cage mounts?
G-S
> As the case caused quite a heated debate within our club, I just
> want to get the view on this in the wider cycling community.
> --
*Looks at waistline*
Oh... not that sort of wider cylist.
G-S
G-S
>
> Why don't you have suitable insurance?
>
Even if a suitable insurance policy is held that only covers the rider
of the 'not at fault' bike (lets assume that's the broken carbon frame
$5000 bike for the moment ok).
The insurance company will pay to the rider with the busted bike but
they will then pursue you for the money.
That pretty much ends up the same way for the rider at fault I'd have
thought.
G-S
G-S
>
> If you aren't at least third-party insured and you are racing (or
> commuting), you're just being naive..
>
That sounds entirely reasonable to me (but then I manage a transport
company for a living and I wouldn't dream of not having insurance on
vehicles).
> Low cost insurance (such as the standard BNSW membership) covers the
> guilty party (in this case, the guy behind) for this sort of thing:
I wonder how many state associations/groups have something similar?
G-S
Pete
> In article
> <fbf82481-2eee-4798-93bf-af22dc370...@b32g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Pete <petersr1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > That said, if you aren't looking where you're going and you hit
> > something, you're pretty much automatically at fault, especially if
> > what you hit is in the right place. So - IMO, guy at the front gets a
> > new bike (in the same price range, not taking the piss with a 5 grand
> > colnago) and the guy not looking pays.
>
> Did you take into account of the fact that it was a voluntary club bunch
> ride? An activity with known risks?
It's voluntary any time you go out on your bike, you know the risks.
Just because you're riding with other guys doesn't change that.
If a car hits you in that situation, you'd say the driver should pay
(and their insurance would). I don't see why a cyclist you know is any
different.
If it was something a bit less clear cut - maybe the group's doing a
paceline, the guy on the front signals to slow for a car and although
everyone's paying reasonable attention someone doesn't slow in time
and there's a pile-up - then I'd say that's a risk of group riding,
and everyone pays for their own repairs. That sort of thing happens
often enough, where maybe you could pin blame on someone but you'd
concede that you might do that yourself easily enough. In a race pile-
up, basically that's a risk of racing (but hopefully you are insured
then).
Short version: if you cause an expensive crash through being a
complete idiot (approaching a busy roundabout, and the guy must have
known it, where you expect that maybe you have to stop, and instead of
paying attention turning round and looking the other way for no good
reason) then causing someone else to be two grand out of pocket -
that's the holiday money, so perhaps your guy at the head of the group
is now stuck between not riding for a year or messing over his wife
and kids - is not acceptable.
Pete
Artoi
Zebee Johnstone <zeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
Been looking around, it would appear that quite a number of clubs have a
signed liability waiver requirement for any of their riders joining
their rides. These include a clause that waives one's right for claims
in the event of an accident.
I wonder how effective these waivers are in situations where there's
undeniable negligence by another rider.
--
Artoi
<slrn-0.9.7.4-20268-...@hexane.ssi.swin.edu.au>,
TimC <tcon...@no.spam.accepted.here-astro.swin.edu.au> wrote:
If you are a communist, then you should be well versed in Frederick
Engel's dialectical materialism, heavily adopted in Marxist thinking.
Your two highly subjective points lack foundation and should be rejected.
--
Artoi
G-S <ge...@castbus.com.au> wrote:
No, the insurance company would only pursue the excess amount, which
happens to be $1000 for insurance associated with Cycling Australia's
membership.
--
Artoi
<10b0690e-4d4d-4cf3...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Pete <peter...@hotmail.com> wrote:
As I replied in another post, within parts of the cycling community,
there are waiver requirements that tries to remove one's right to claim
responsibility on another. One example being BNSW's liability waiver
document, which has been adopted by bunch ride groups as a condition for
joining their rides. Similar waivers are also used by cycling groups as
a condition of membership.
http://www.renegadecycles.com.au/media/docs/RideSydney_Information_and_Wa
iver.pdf
http://www.sydneycyclingclub.org.au/Files%20General/new%20member.pdf
Any comments on these and their legal merits?
--
Dorfus Dippintush
The end result would be both views, the guy in front would rightly feel
that he's owed a new frame, the guy behind would insist that since it's
a friendly group ride it's just an unfortunate accident and shouldn't
have to pay. The outcome will be that the two will become bitter enemies
and never ride together again. the group will probably split too, as
each person takes sides.
Dorfus
G-S
Yes the unpaid monies (which in that case is the excess), sorry if I
implied it was the whole amount, that wasn't my intent.
By 'the money' I meant the money that the insurance company is out of
'pocket'.
G-S
Artoi
Dorfus Dippintush <Dorfus.D...@kippinbot.com> wrote:
> The end result would be both views, the guy in front would rightly feel
> that he's owed a new frame, the guy behind would insist that since it's
> a friendly group ride it's just an unfortunate accident and shouldn't
> have to pay. The outcome will be that the two will become bitter enemies
> and never ride together again. the group will probably split too, as
> each person takes sides.
Yes, so how should it be managed?
Would it be fair to say that anyone participating in a bunch ride should
be fully responsible for anything that happens to them during the bunch
ride, with no claim on any of the other participants and the organizer?
--
Artoi
G-S <ge...@castbus.com.au> wrote:
Thanks for the clarification. We are on the same line.
--
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
> SLAVE of THE STATE <gwh...@ti.com> wrote:
> > > What would you expect of the rider who
> > > rammed you from behind?
>
> > There is no way a socially responsible individual can replace the
> > carbon frame with another carbon frame. Since everything in the world
> > is about global warming, the carbon footprint must reduced at all
> > costs. Carbon frame: a no-no. Therefore, I suggest a Ti or Al frame
> > replacement. (Steel has carbon in it. Terrible.)
>
> BTW, this is the best advice in the whole thread. Heed it.
Just get a frame solid enough that it doesn't
break when you stop short without warning like a
dumbass and your dumbass riding buddy, who like
you doesn't know how to ride in a group, rides
into you. Any overbuilt steel or titanium or
aluminum frame will work. Mike J will claim that
a carbon frame could be equally durable. That's
because he doesn't ride with dumbasses.
Also, stop bitching. And don't do the "My hypothetical
friend's frame broke on a hypothetical bike ride
and I^H he is trying to get the hypothetical dumbass
to pay for it." That "my friend" stuff is for people
who write to Dear Abby and teenage girls calling
Dr. Drew for birth control advice on the radio.
Sincerely Yours,
Miss Lonelyframes
RBR Advice Columnist
dusto...@mac.com
> The 2nd
> rider broke his frame and thought the lead rider should pay to replace
> it. He lobbyed the "more experienced" riders at work, including
> myself, hoping to get a judgement that yes indeed he was due a new
> frame. We all told him it was his fault and that anyway, you accept
> the risk. He wasn't happy with that and never rode with a co-worker
> again. He also never acknowledged that it was his mistake that brought
> the other riders down.
My daughter and I play a game while in the car: assessing the Gobble
Quotient of observed riders.
What's funny is the attitude you see when people join our old-timers'
ride, that we're kinda stupid, you know? And "chicken" in a couple of
meanings of the word.
Close to thirty years on, I've never touched a wheel. Duh. Puck puck
pa-dawk!
Have a happy Thanksgiving, and a safe ride after the stuffing! --D-y
Pete
> iver.pdf
>
> http://www.sydneycyclingclub.org.au/Files%20General/new%20member.pdf
>
> Any comments on these and their legal merits?
I have no idea what the legal position is, except that I'm sure there
is a point beyond which the waiver is worthless (if someone murders
someone else on a group ride, that waiver will not do a thing).
More to the point, if I cause a few grands' worth of damage by
stupidity then I would feel I had to pay for it (or pay the insurance
premium if it was insured). I mean, what else do you do? Turn to a
friend (presumably) and say, all my stupid fault but now you choose
between having a bike this year and not taking your kids on holiday,
I'm not giving you a penny?
Again, if the same accident occurred in the middle of a ride because
some obstacle appeared in the road when the guy behind was looking
back, then I'd not feel so much the same way (I'd maybe offer to pay
something in that position, though). Sometimes something does run out
in the road when no-one expects it. But coming up to a roundabout? The
second guy either saw it, saw the traffic and then decided to ignore
it or he was looking back for >20 seconds - that's a long, long time
to be facing the wrong way.
Pete
Plodder
"Pete" <peter...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:80777bcd-fdf7-4bd4...@f3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
For me it would depend on circumstances. Putting myself in the crashee's
position, in a race I'd just have to grin and bear it. It's a risk I'd take
when racing. When racing, normal road rules don't apply (on a closed
course).
If it was just a ride, however, then, in effect, it's a bunch of vehicles
riding on the road, so they should be subject to the same rights and
responsibilities of any other road user. That means people riding behind
must leave sufficient stopping distance. If the bunch chooses to ignore the
rule then people in the bunch should be subject to the same range of
responsibilities as any other vehicle. That means the crasher should be
liable for damages.
It's exactly the same principle as a bunch riding through a red light;
ignore the rules and there are consequences. Just because people in the
bunch are 'training' does not confer the right to ride contrary to the
rules.
Hmmm. I'm not usually a black-and-white type, but this seems pretty clear
cut.
Ciao!
me
Artoi
<80777bcd-fdf7-4bd4...@f3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Pete <peter...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I have no idea what the legal position is, except that I'm sure there
> is a point beyond which the waiver is worthless (if someone murders
> someone else on a group ride, that waiver will not do a thing).
I fully agree with you. I can't see how that waiver can remain valid if
there's an obvious disregard for common traffic rules or worse. But it
would be interesting to see how the lawyers interpret it. I assume the
drafting of that waiver was through a competent lawyer.
> More to the point, if I cause a few grands' worth of damage by
> stupidity then I would feel I had to pay for it (or pay the insurance
> premium if it was insured). I mean, what else do you do? Turn to a
> friend (presumably) and say, all my stupid fault but now you choose
> between having a bike this year and not taking your kids on holiday,
> I'm not giving you a penny?
That's more a moral issue. From some of the posts and in the case of the
hypothetical, it would appear that not everyone are at the same level.
> Again, if the same accident occurred in the middle of a ride because
> some obstacle appeared in the road when the guy behind was looking
> back, then I'd not feel so much the same way (I'd maybe offer to pay
> something in that position, though). Sometimes something does run out
> in the road when no-one expects it. But coming up to a roundabout? The
> second guy either saw it, saw the traffic and then decided to ignore
> it or he was looking back for >20 seconds - that's a long, long time
> to be facing the wrong way.
Yes, I concur.
--
Bean Long
> Excuse the cross-posting but I think this could be interesting for
> discussion.
>
> Came across this hypothetical scenario on a cycling forum...
>
> Several riders are returning from their weekend club ride and are riding
> together in a bunch. One cyclist signals turning and another cyclist,
> riding second wheel in the group, looks back to wave him an extended
> farewell. In the meanwhile, the cyclist at the head of the bunch signals
> stopping at a congested round-about, slowing to an almost complete stop.
> the cyclist waving his mate fails to heed the signal, and the loud
>
> Who is at fault here? If you were the cyclist with the wrecked frame,
> rammed you from behind?
> --
The fault is clearly with the rider waving and not looking where they
are going. If the rider in front has made all efforts to signal they are
stopping, what else can they do?
--
Bean
Remove "yourfinger" before replying
Dorfus Dippintush
When you play football you agree to the terms of the game, which
included being tackled by the opposition. This is known as a lawful
assault. The same applies when a doctor cuts you open for a medical
operation, once again this is lawful because you have authorized it.
When you join a bike club there ought to be a waiver you sign that says
you won't prosecute anyone that runs into the back of you. If such a
waiver doesn't exist then the person at the rear is clearly in breach of
the rules.
Unless the "rules" are clearly worked out before the ride, there won't
be a satisfactory outcome to the accident.
Bring it up for discussion as you start your next ride and see what your
friends think.
Dorf
Zebee Johnstone
Dorfus Dippintush <Dorfus.D...@kippinbot.com> wrote:
> When you join a bike club there ought to be a waiver you sign that says
> you won't prosecute anyone that runs into the back of you. If such a
> waiver doesn't exist then the person at the rear is clearly in breach of
> the rules.
Would the idea that if someone is careless or foolish and breaks your
bike you won't get any recompense mean people would be less likely to
join the ride?
Rearenders are a nasty case because there's usually bugger all the
person hit can do about it.
What a policy like this might do is stop people taking expensive
bikes, and/or make people get insurance.
I suspect the 'bent would be fine and the carbon that hit me would
break :)
Zebee
Artoi
Bean Long <ben....@yourfinger.anu.edu.au> wrote:
I think most people have accepted this fact. The really hard part is who
should pay for the wreck, especially considering it's a club bunch ride.
--
Dorfus Dippintush
> In aus.bicycle on Fri, 23 Nov 2007 08:17:34 +0900
> Dorfus Dippintush <Dorfus.D...@kippinbot.com> wrote:
>> When you join a bike club there ought to be a waiver you sign that says
>> you won't prosecute anyone that runs into the back of you. If such a
>> waiver doesn't exist then the person at the rear is clearly in breach of
>> the rules.
>
> Would the idea that if someone is careless or foolish and breaks your
> bike you won't get any recompense mean people would be less likely to
> join the ride?
>
This situation already exists. I know of many people that won't ride
with certain groups because they are too fast/stupid/dangerous and are
an accident waiting to happen.
Dorf
Artoi
"Plodder" <DACKSfran...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> For me it would depend on circumstances. Putting myself in the crashee's
> position, in a race I'd just have to grin and bear it. It's a risk I'd take
> when racing. When racing, normal road rules don't apply (on a closed
> course).
>
> If it was just a ride, however, then, in effect, it's a bunch of vehicles
> riding on the road, so they should be subject to the same rights and
> responsibilities of any other road user. That means people riding behind
> must leave sufficient stopping distance. If the bunch chooses to ignore the
> rule then people in the bunch should be subject to the same range of
> responsibilities as any other vehicle. That means the crasher should be
> liable for damages.
>
> It's exactly the same principle as a bunch riding through a red light;
> ignore the rules and there are consequences. Just because people in the
> bunch are 'training' does not confer the right to ride contrary to the
> rules.
>
> Hmmm. I'm not usually a black-and-white type, but this seems pretty clear
> cut.
Good points in differentiating the difference b/n racing and bunch
training rides on public roads.
Question is, has there been any test cases challenging those bunch ride
liability waivers under such circumstance? I note that one version of
the waiver was from BNSW, you'd think that BNSW would know what they are
on about in terms of legal position. Or is that just a document to scare
off those frivolous claims that's so common in our society?
--
Artoi
<6d6bc448-0781-4a94...@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
"b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote:
Getting a tougher frame may reduce the damage, but may still get damaged
or even totaled. The question really has nothing to do with what the
equipment is, it's about how the situation should be managed.
--
Artoi
Dorfus Dippintush <Dorfus.D...@kippinbot.com> wrote:
It's a tough subject as it's like playing Scruples and everyone will get
stressed and dodge hard answers. A lot of people would hide their true
opinion until the real event.
The problem with those waivers (I provided two links in a separate post
earlier) is that, on a training ride on the road, all riders have to
obey regular road rules foremost. And in one of the waivers, it
specifically states that the rider has to obey all relevant road rules.
So a rear end accident like this where proper warnings were given in
good time, the second rider has clearly violated a basic road rule. So
under this scenario, does the liability waiver still protect him from
actions from the injured party?
And even in football, you are still bound by certain rules. If one
player goes beyond that eg. Punch up or head plants a player, then they
could still be subjected to legal procedures. We obviously are talking
about out of competition training here.
--
John Tserkezis
> I think most people have accepted this fact. The really hard part is who
> should pay for the wreck, especially considering it's a club bunch ride.
This really is cut and dried. There is nothing ambiguous about who did
what, who waved at what, who was looking where and who hit what.
If two vehicles were in a similar situation where the forwardmost vehicle
stops, and the guy behind simply wasn't looking where he was going, the police
report would be quite clear. Insurance companies view on the situation would
be similarly clear.
Now for the 'grey area' you're outlining.
If said drivers were mates, then police report would be just as clear, and
if the insurance companies were handling the issue, they REALLY wouldn't care
who knew who nor what relationship car A had with car B.
Why should this be any different? With the exception of the likelyhood of
insurance and police not getting involved, the snoozer loses. If you killed
your mate's car, YOU pay for it.
The only grey area I see if it were a husband/wife team where one (I won't
say which!!) hits the other, and general funds assignment in the household
means ONE partner pay for all, then said partner would probably be suitably
pissed if their other half simply wasn't careful, but at the end of the day
he^M^Mthey would pay for it anyway.
Perspective here. We're not dealing with a scratch here, and these people
are not related, it's serious damage with a serious amount of cash associated
with it.
If the snoozer wants this dragged over the courts, then so be it.
It's quite clear what should be done. You break it, you fix it.
--
Linux Registered User # 302622
<http://counter.li.org>
Artoi
Zebee Johnstone <zeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on Fri, 23 Nov 2007 08:17:34 +0900
> Dorfus Dippintush <Dorfus.D...@kippinbot.com> wrote:
> > When you join a bike club there ought to be a waiver you sign that says
> > you won't prosecute anyone that runs into the back of you. If such a
> > waiver doesn't exist then the person at the rear is clearly in breach of
> > the rules.
>
> Would the idea that if someone is careless or foolish and breaks your
> bike you won't get any recompense mean people would be less likely to
> join the ride?
Not sure. I suspect that most cyclists don't even think that far when
they sign that waiver. They are too eager to get into the sport and
participate. Like most legal documents, you often don't get the full
ramification on a quick read. Lawyers are very tricky... ;)
> Rearenders are a nasty case because there's usually bugger all the
> person hit can do about it.
>
> What a policy like this might do is stop people taking expensive
> bikes, and/or make people get insurance.
True and that has been a common response. But for many if not most, you
just have that one bike, and it's one that you love and treasure. As for
insurance, most club riders (in Australia) do have 3rd party liability
insurance through their membership in CA or BNSW (as an example), but
those waivers precludes you from claiming off another rider's third
party insurance under such a circumstance. The questions are, 1) Is such
a clause appropriate. 2) When there's clear negligence based on road
rules, is the waiver still valid?
> I suspect the 'bent would be fine and the carbon that hit me would
> break :)
1) You wouldn't be permitted to enter in a club bunch.
2) How much drafting can you get behind a low lying bent?
3) Whoever tries to draft off a bent has to be pretty desperate.
--
Artoi
John Tserkezis <j...@techniciansyndrome.org.invalid> wrote:
When I referred to "club bunch ride", I was suggesting of a culture that
seemed to exist amongst roadies that you look after your own equipment.
This is reflected by those liability waiver requirement of many cycling
clubs.
--
Theo Bekkers
> Question is, has there been any test cases challenging those bunch
> ride liability waivers under such circumstance? I note that one
> version of the waiver was from BNSW, you'd think that BNSW would know
> what they are on about in terms of legal position. Or is that just a
> document to scare off those frivolous claims that's so common in our
> society?
If someone runs up your arse and destroys your $8000 vehicle because of
their inattention, I doubt the claim would be seen as frivolous.
Anyway, riding on public open roads as fast as you can inches apart is just
a bit silly, isn't it?
Theo
Dorfus
Yes if he's with the club on a club ride. No different to an accident at
football training.
>
> And even in football, you are still bound by certain rules. If one
> player goes beyond that eg. Punch up or head plants a player, then they
> could still be subjected to legal procedures. We obviously are talking
> about out of competition training here.
When I was young head tackles were considered part of the game. The
rules have since changed. The point is that the rules must be
established before-hand and everyone must know what they are and agree
to them, otherwise they shouldn't take part in the activity.
Even in training, if you're with the club the rules must still apply.
John Tserkezis
> When I referred to "club bunch ride", I was suggesting of a culture that
> seemed to exist amongst roadies that you look after your own equipment.
I'm not a lawer, but a "culture" of not being responsible for your own
idiocy doesn't count when the legals are involved.
> This is reflected by those liability waiver requirement of many cycling
> clubs.
Let's get this clear so we know where we stand. Are you saying if I sign a
waver that prevents me from suing anyone who burns my house down, that would
legally prevent me from suing them after them burning my house down?
Really, what does that say about the mental ability of those who sign such
documents? Since you can't hide behind diminished mental ability, you deserve
what you get?
Terryc
> Who is at fault here? If you were the cyclist with the wrecked frame,
> what would you be thinking? What would you expect of the rider who
> rammed you from behind?
In Australia, when push comes to shove, the person at fault would the
poor bunny least able to afford a good solicitor/barrister.
Artoi
Terryc <newsthree...@woa.com.au> wrote:
Good point. Or the one least informed of the law. So many contracts are
badly drafted that they aren't absolute except to those who are not
willing to challenge them. Some of them are just to hoodwink people.
--
Artoi
Dorfus <Dorfus.D...@kippinbot.com> wrote:
> Artoi wrote:
> > In article <47460...@news.peopletelecom.com.au>,
> > It's a tough subject as it's like playing Scruples and everyone will get
> > stressed and dodge hard answers. A lot of people would hide their true
> > opinion until the real event.
> >
> > The problem with those waivers (I provided two links in a separate post
> > earlier) is that, on a training ride on the road, all riders have to
> > obey regular road rules foremost. And in one of the waivers, it
> > specifically states that the rider has to obey all relevant road rules.
> > So a rear end accident like this where proper warnings were given in
> > good time, the second rider has clearly violated a basic road rule. So
> > under this scenario, does the liability waiver still protect him from
> > actions from the injured party?
>
> Yes if he's with the club on a club ride. No different to an accident at
> football training.
> >
> > And even in football, you are still bound by certain rules. If one
> > player goes beyond that eg. Punch up or head plants a player, then they
> > could still be subjected to legal procedures. We obviously are talking
> > about out of competition training here.
>
> When I was young head tackles were considered part of the game. The
> rules have since changed. The point is that the rules must be
> established before-hand and everyone must know what they are and agree
> to them, otherwise they shouldn't take part in the activity.
>
> Even in training, if you're with the club the rules must still apply.
The difference being, all participants signed up based on the agreement
that they and everyone else are all playing within the confines of the
rules (a condition of membership). So when a player plays outside of
those rules, then effectively he/she has rescinded on the conditions of
his membership, rendering him a non-member and without protections
offered by the membership/waiver.
--
Artoi
"Theo Bekkers" <tbek...@bekkers.com.au> wrote:
Somewhat relative. For motor vehicles in traffic (60-80kph), the typical
separation don't give enough stopping distance if the car in front
instantly stopped. If everyone kept a truly safe separation, then city
motor traffic would probably be 5 times as bad.
--
Theo Bekkers
> "Theo Bekkers wrote:
>> Anyway, riding on public open roads as fast as you can inches apart
>> is just a bit silly, isn't it?
> Somewhat relative. For motor vehicles in traffic (60-80kph), the
> typical separation don't give enough stopping distance if the car in
> front instantly stopped. If everyone kept a truly safe separation,
> then city motor traffic would probably be 5 times as bad.
So how much is your ex-mate asking you to cough up for his broken frame? Or
is it the other way round? :-)
Theo
Artoi
John Tserkezis <j...@techniciansyndrome.org.invalid> wrote:
Let's not get personal. This is the exact issue I am questioning myself
and is seeking the opinion of the cycling community at large.
Exactly as you questioned, just how enforceable are those liability
waivers? Note that one of the waiver actually came out of BNSW, our
state cycling organization.
And in terms of people signing for it, well, plenty. I note that at
least one prominent cycling club in Sydney have exactly such a waiver in
place as their membership condition. And they aren't short of well
heeled members (wondered how many lawyers they have in their rank).
--
Artoi
"Theo Bekkers" <tbek...@bekkers.com.au> wrote:
Hey hey, if only I could ding someone for a new CF frame... ;)
As previously stated, I am not involved. This hypothetical came out of a
club mate of mine who posted the scenario on our club forum. As a
result, there was heated debate with conflicting view. Given the limited
size of my club, I thought it would be interesting to see how the wider
cycling community sees this. But as it turned out, this in fact is a
real case that I nor my club mate have any involvement in. Irrespective,
it's worth a discussion as a hypothetical.
--
marika
"John Tserkezis" <j...@techniciansyndrome.org.invalid> wrote in message
news:47462280$0$9434$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> Now for the 'grey area' you're outlining.
probably a lot like films
apparently they canned the beast from the second x men because he and
mystique are both blue so they kept interferiing with one another in the
blue screen
mk5000"His life history runs like a mixture of Hornblower, D'Artagnan and
Captain
Blackbeard. Now I have a new gear kit to work on, and if I ever do a
historical book series I'm set with a hero right away. And hey, I just did
happen to lack a rapier in my sword collection."-- Terje
>
marika
"G-S" <ge...@castbus.com.au> wrote in message
news:13kah6q...@corp.supernews.com...
> Artoi wrote:
>
> *Looks at waistline*
>
> Oh... not that sort of wider cylist.
>
>
Reminds of a story about Balduccis that always makes me laugh.... when my
sister's friend was alive, he used to get
$98/week
for unemployment. Invariably, he would PROMPTLY buy a pair of shoes with it
(Bruno Magli's, of course) or alternately, better still he would call his
girlfriend and
say he was "cooking dinner". When she got home there would be 6 people in
her
house (dinner party!) and a huge spread that he drove all the way to New
York City for,
to Balducci's, and spend his entire $98 unemployment check on exotic
cheeses
and caviar. He was always jealous that everyone else who was employed had a
post-work "happy hour" on Friday afternoons, so he would throw one in his
house
every Friday (not realizing that NO ONE ate caviar at happy hours!) I
can't
even say the word Balducci's now without cracking up and thinking about him
(died 8 yrs ago today).
If that boy had been homeless, he'd still have a subscription to
Architectural
Digest and House Beuatiful delivered to his cardboard box every
month.mk5000" Six of the seven programs currently
operating on or in orbit around
Mars have Spectrolab-built solar cells and panels. The Mars Global
Surveyor, for example, has exceeded its mission life-span by about six
years and continues to function nominally. "--boeing press release
xzzy
>>
>> Several riders are returning from their weekend club ride and are riding
>> together in a bunch. One cyclist signals turning and another cyclist,
>> riding second wheel in the group, looks back to wave him an extended
>> farewell. In the meanwhile, the cyclist at the head of the bunch signals
>> stopping at a congested round-about, slowing to an almost complete stop.
>> the cyclist waving his mate fails to heed the signal, and the loud
>> warnings of others behind him, and collides with the cyclist at the head
>> of the bunch writing-off his expensive carbon fiber frame. Who is at
>> fault here? If you were the cyclist with the wrecked frame, what would
>> you be thinking? What would you expect of the rider who rammed you from
>> behind?
Real Scenario, very similar to the above hypothetical:
Summer of 2006 at the Tuesday/Thursday evening ride at Meridian,
Colorado, John Hornick was off the back when the field had to stop for a red
light. About 15 seconds after the field started up after the light turned
green, John Hornick - head down, trying to get back on - missed about 30
cyclists and then rear-ended me, destroying my frame. According to John
Hornick, he did not see me because he had his head down and was not looking
where he was going ( why am I so lucky? ).
John Hornick then left the scene.
I went home and called Douglass County police, they said that, given the
above, no crash occurred and they would not cite John Hornick.
The following link is Colorado's Bicycling manual:
http://www.dot.state.co.us/BikePed/BikePedManual.htm
Artoi
"xzzy" <mrbik...@comcast.net> wrote:
Huh? Did you not have any witnesses? Citing or not, would they not even
take an incident report?
--
Zebee Johnstone
If they are doing a ride to UCi rules, no. Wimps!
> 2) How much drafting can you get behind a low lying bent?
behind a lowracer or trike, bugger all. Behind a high-racer like
mine, it can be done and has been.
> 3) Whoever tries to draft off a bent has to be pretty desperate.
Or hitting one hell of a headwind. It's amazing what people will try
in a strong wind...
Zebee
John Tserkezis
> Exactly as you questioned, just how enforceable are those liability
> waivers? Note that one of the waiver actually came out of BNSW, our
> state cycling organization.
I'm only going off yours and others' statements here on the issue. I don't
know the waivers, I've never read them, and merely have a basic paraphrase of
some parts of it here.
In other words, I'm going to have to read it to understand it. I say this
because from what you say, it REALLY doesn't make sense.
It would make much more sense if the waiver covered only the group
organisers, not the members. There should be nothing stopping the member from
suing each other if they wanted to.
Again, not having read it, I can only comment on what makes sense.
> And in terms of people signing for it, well, plenty. I note that at
> least one prominent cycling club in Sydney have exactly such a waiver in
> place as their membership condition. And they aren't short of well
> heeled members (wondered how many lawyers they have in their rank).
Do you have the text available to post here?
I think we've reached the stage that we really can't get any further without
a clear understanding on what was signed.
"I read about it on the internet" is the best we can currently do, and that
holds absolutely no ground.
Legally, it'll hold no ground on the net anyway, but if we start with a real
document, we can at least pretend we know what we're doing. :-)
Ryan Cousineau
Artoi <ar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <47463818$0$6070$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>,
> John Tserkezis <j...@techniciansyndrome.org.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Artoi wrote:
> >
> > > When I referred to "club bunch ride", I was suggesting of a culture that
> > > seemed to exist amongst roadies that you look after your own equipment.
> >
> > I'm not a lawer, but a "culture" of not being responsible for your own
> > idiocy doesn't count when the legals are involved.
> >
> > > This is reflected by those liability waiver requirement of many cycling
> > > clubs.
> >
> > Let's get this clear so we know where we stand. Are you saying if I sign
> > a
> > waver that prevents me from suing anyone who burns my house down, that
> > would
> > legally prevent me from suing them after them burning my house down?
> >
> > Really, what does that say about the mental ability of those who sign
> > such
> > documents? Since you can't hide behind diminished mental ability, you
> > deserve what you get?
>
> Let's not get personal. This is the exact issue I am questioning myself
> and is seeking the opinion of the cycling community at large.
>
> Exactly as you questioned, just how enforceable are those liability
> waivers? Note that one of the waiver actually came out of BNSW, our
> state cycling organization.
It varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but the short version is
that they often mean very little, except possibly as a deterrent to
legal action before the suit is filed.
> And in terms of people signing for it, well, plenty. I note that at
> least one prominent cycling club in Sydney have exactly such a waiver in
> place as their membership condition. And they aren't short of well
> heeled members (wondered how many lawyers they have in their rank).
> --
Almost all clubs I know of have such a waiver, probably on the advice of
their sanctioning body, the club lawyer, or for insurance reasons.
Personally, this reminds me once again of the Real Amateur Racer's
adage: never race a bike you're not willing to wreck. It goes just as
much for most club rides.
Seriously, spare yourself the heartache,
--
Ryan Cousineau rcou...@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing
Artoi
<rcousine-FC2D4D.21520922112007@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]>,
Ryan Cousineau <rcou...@sfu.ca> wrote:
> Personally, this reminds me once again of the Real Amateur Racer's
> adage: never race a bike you're not willing to wreck. It goes just as
> much for most club rides.
True. But the scenario isn't for a race. I think for most, accepting
risks and damage to own equipments is a given when a race is entered.
But to have others negligently smashing your equipment on a training
ride? That's got to be somewhat different.
--
Michael Press
<artoi-B55657....@news-server.bigpond.net.au
>,
Artoi <ar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Make it strong enough and you will have nothing
to worry about when it suffers damage in a collision.
--
Michael Press
Artoi
John Tserkezis <j...@techniciansyndrome.org.invalid> wrote:
> Artoi wrote:
>
> > Exactly as you questioned, just how enforceable are those liability
> > waivers? Note that one of the waiver actually came out of BNSW, our
> > state cycling organization.
>
> I'm only going off yours and others' statements here on the issue. I don't
> know the waivers, I've never read them, and merely have a basic paraphrase of
> some parts of it here.
> In other words, I'm going to have to read it to understand it. I say this
> because from what you say, it REALLY doesn't make sense.
>
> It would make much more sense if the waiver covered only the group
> organisers, not the members. There should be nothing stopping the member
> from suing each other if they wanted to.
> Again, not having read it, I can only comment on what makes sense.
Sorry that you missed my earlier post, but here is an example used by a
local group. The waiver is one that's sanctioned by our state's cycling
body.
http://www.renegadecycles.com.au/media/docs/RideSydney_Information_and_Wa
iver.pdf
> > And in terms of people signing for it, well, plenty. I note that at
> > least one prominent cycling club in Sydney have exactly such a waiver in
> > place as their membership condition. And they aren't short of well
> > heeled members (wondered how many lawyers they have in their rank).
>
> Do you have the text available to post here?
> I think we've reached the stage that we really can't get any further
> without a clear understanding on what was signed.
>
> "I read about it on the internet" is the best we can currently do, and that
> holds absolutely no ground.
> Legally, it'll hold no ground on the net anyway, but if we start with a
> real document, we can at least pretend we know what we're doing. :-)
See link above.
Yes, given it's the net, we are just wind bagging our subjective
opinion. The real determinant will obviously be done through a formal
legal consultation or in front of a judge. Nevertheless, it's
interesting and is something that affect many riders.
--
Dana Myers
> Excuse the cross-posting but I think this could be interesting for
> discussion.
>
> Came across this hypothetical scenario on a cycling forum...
>
> Several riders are returning from their weekend club ride and are riding
> together in a bunch. One cyclist signals turning and another cyclist,
> riding second wheel in the group, looks back to wave him an extended
> farewell. In the meanwhile, the cyclist at the head of the bunch signals
> stopping at a congested round-about, slowing to an almost complete stop.
> the cyclist waving his mate fails to heed the signal, and the loud
> warnings of others behind him, and collides with the cyclist at the head
> of the bunch writing-off his expensive carbon fiber frame.
>
> Who is at fault here? If you were the cyclist with the wrecked frame,
> rammed you from behind?
Well, clearly the cyclist that's not paying attention
and runs into someone else did a stupid thing. But this misses
the real point...
All this worry about fault and blame reminds me why I primarily
ride alone. If I want to worry about fault and blame, I can
just drive a car with everyone else worried about fault and
blame.
Dana
Artoi
Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Make it strong enough and you will have nothing
> to worry about when it suffers damage in a collision.
Assuming you can still ride and move it...
PeteSig
"Artoi" wrote:
> As I replied in another post, within parts of the cycling community,
> there are waiver requirements that tries to remove one's right to claim
> responsibility on another. One example being BNSW's liability waiver
> document, which has been adopted by bunch ride groups as a condition for
> joining their rides. Similar waivers are also used by cycling groups as
> a condition of membership.
>
> http://www.renegadecycles.com.au/media/docs/RideSydney_Information_and_Wa
> iver.pdf
>
> http://www.sydneycyclingclub.org.au/Files%20General/new%20member.pdf
>
> Any comments on these and their legal merits?
Such waivers are totally overridden where someone has owed a duty of care
(to avoid running into the back of another vehicle) and has failed in that
duty (been negligent - collided and caused damage). You cannot write away
your rights to be protected from negligent behaviour.
Such waivers are intended to cover the "Oh, I didn't know cycling was so
hard! I've pulled a hammie, I'll sue the cycling club"
--
Cheers
Peter
~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)
Plodder
"Dorfus Dippintush" <Dorfus.D...@kippinbot.com> wrote in message
news:47460...@news.peopletelecom.com.au...
The difference is that you play football on a designated field, not out on
the road. Similarly, a surgeon doesn't cut people open in a public place.
I'd have no problem signing a waiver for racing. I would not sign a waiver
that eanbled people behind me to ride too closely to stop when not racing
and not bear the consequences of riding so closely. That behaviour is a bit
like (OK, a lot like...) playing football in the street. There are
consequences for actions taken in a different context.
When I raced cars I couldn't drive privately in the same way as I drove when
racing. Why should riding a bicycle be any different?
Yesterday, while commuting home, someone decided to wheelsuck me. No
problem, but if I brake suddenly and he crashed into me, damaging my bike
(or me) I'd expect reparation. He didn't ride at a safe stopping difference.
I don't see riding in a bunch any differently unless explicit permission is
given to ride too close to stop. Note: 'explicit'. I might be argued that
joining a bunch constitutes implicit permission, but I doubt that implicit
permission would hold much water in court, nor should it morally or
socially. Perhaps clubs should issue a warning of the dangers of bunch
riding and make that permission explicit for club rides. Dunno...
As you probably gather, I agree with Theo that "... riding on public open
roads as fast as you can inches apart is just a bit silly, isn't it?"
Cheers,
me
Bonehenge (B A R R Y)
wrote:
>
>All this worry about fault and blame reminds me why I primarily
>ride alone.
Tel me about it...
Artoi
"PeteSig" <pet...@bigpond.com> wrote:
Very interesting and made sense.
It's interesting so far that there's been very few defender of that so
called bunch culture, unless there's very few roadies on these groups.
--
dusto...@mac.com
> In article <4Nv1j.16071$CN4.8...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
>
>
>
> "PeteSig" <pete...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> > "Artoi" wrote:
>
> > > As I replied in another post, within parts of the cycling community,
> > > there are waiver requirements that tries to remove one's right to claim
> > > responsibility on another. One example being BNSW's liability waiver
> > > document, which has been adopted by bunch ride groups as a condition for
> > > joining their rides. Similar waivers are also used by cycling groups as
> > > a condition of membership.
>
> > > iver.pdf
>
> > >http://www.sydneycyclingclub.org.au/Files%20General/new%20member.pdf
>
> > > Any comments on these and their legal merits?
>
> > Such waivers are totally overridden where someone has owed a duty of care
> > (to avoid running into the back of another vehicle) and has failed in that
> > duty (been negligent - collided and caused damage). You cannot write away
> > your rights to be protected from negligent behaviour.
>
> > Such waivers are intended to cover the "Oh, I didn't know cycling was so
> > hard! I've pulled a hammie, I'll sue the cycling club"
>
> Very interesting and made sense.
>
> It's interesting so far that there's been very few defender of that so
> called bunch culture, unless there's very few roadies on these groups.
> --
Bunch culture? What seems to be your bunch culture is a whole lot
different from mine. May we discuss? --D-y
Sandy
news:artoi-104199....@news-server.bigpond.net.au,
Artoi <ar...@hotmail.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
This is getting tedious! Haven't you folks any minimum ethical standards?
You all look to me like a bunch of [insert your preferred] ball players all
claiming the
out-of-bounds ball goes their way, two sides at a time, both knowing the
correct ruling.
There are simple human rules of conduct that mandate some level of truth,
especially when simply at play. You are at play, riding your bike. Get
over the issues of adult responsibility and culpability. Get over playing
pretend lawyers. Reset your moral compasses and do the right thing. And if
you don't know the right thing, try to figure it out. When you approach a
lawyer or otherwise use courts to decide these matters, you are abandoning
the personal responsibility for making the right choice.
If, while at play on two wheels, you can't quite arrive at the right answer,
ask your mommies for guidance - guidance they apparently failed so far to
inculcate in you. Or arm wrestle. Your choice.
--
"Manners are of more importance than laws.
Upon them, in a great measure, the laws depend.
Manners are what vex or soothe,
corrupt or purify, exalt or debase,
barbarize or refine us, by a constant,
steady, uniform, insensible operation
like that of the air we breathe in."
E. Burke
marika
"xzzy" <mrbik...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:oPudnfebpMWyf9na...@comcast.com...
>>
>
> any info regrarding this for a negligent rider in Colorado would be
> helpful
>
and wouldn't you know, i don't know any of 'em.
mk5000
"fictive institution which in principle allows one to say everything. [...]
but to say everything is also to break out of prohibitions" --(Attridge
1992: 36)
jo...@phred.org
@comcast.net says...
> Real Scenario, very similar to the above hypothetical:
>
> Summer of 2006 at the Tuesday/Thursday evening ride at Meridian,
> Colorado, John Hornick was off the back when the field had to stop for a red
> light. About 15 seconds after the field started up after the light turned
> green, John Hornick - head down, trying to get back on - missed about 30
> cyclists and then rear-ended me, destroying my frame. According to John
> Hornick, he did not see me because he had his head down and was not looking
> where he was going ( why am I so lucky? ).
>
> John Hornick then left the scene.
>
> I went home and called Douglass County police, they said that, given the
> above, no crash occurred and they would not cite John Hornick.
More likely, what they *meant* was that no *motor vehicle* crash had
occurred, so they would not complete a motor vehicle accident report.
That does not mean that no accident occurred, or that neither rider was
negligent, it just means the incident does not fit the officers' usual
routine of writing up traffic accidents.
In any case, liability for damage is a civil matter separate from
whether police cite anyone at the accident.
If two motorists have a minor fender-bender and the police don't write
it up at the scene, that doesn't mean the negligent driver isn't liable
for the damages, it just means there isn't a police report to use as
evidence in the claim.
--
jo...@phred.org is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Braze your own bicycle frames. See
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html>
Ryan Cousineau
> Dans le message denews:artoi-104199....@news-server.bigpond.net.au,
> Artoi <ar...@hotmail.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>
> > In article
> > <rcousine-FC2D4D.21520922112007@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]>,
>
> >> Personally, this reminds me once again of the Real Amateur Racer's
> >> adage: never race a bike you're not willing to wreck. It goes just as
> >> much for most club rides.
>
> > True. But the scenario isn't for a race. I think for most, accepting
> > risks and damage to own equipments is a given when a race is entered.
> > But to have others negligently smashing your equipment on a training
> > ride? That's got to be somewhat different.
>
> This is getting tedious! Haven't you folks any minimum ethical standards?
> You all look to me like a bunch of [insert your preferred] ball players all
> claiming the
> out-of-bounds ball goes their way, two sides at a time, both knowing the
> correct ruling.
> There are simple human rules of conduct that mandate some level of truth,
> especially when simply at play. You are at play, riding your bike. Get
> over the issues of adult responsibility and culpability. Get over playing
> pretend lawyers. Reset your moral compasses and do the right thing.
Well said, Sandy. I think part of the problem is that people are at
play, and some of them forget that bad things can happen, or they
forget that a club ride does have different rules than a race (which
really, seems to be the question at hand: are we going by the
conventions of a race or the conventions of a ride on public roads).
This is, of course, dumb, because a club ride is not a race. But I
would never even think of asking someone to pay for damage inflicted
on my bike in a race unless it was either blatantly malicious (the
proverbial pump shoved into the spokes) or grotesquely negligent
(can't even think of an example offhand).
On the other hand, if I clearly caused an accident, I hope I'd be
mature enough to do what I know to be right in the cold light of day:
offer to make restitution.
jo...@phred.org
ar...@hotmail.com says...
Ethically, there's no doubt the negligent rider should pay for the
damage he caused.
On a public road that isn't closed for an event, the rules of the road
apply -- he's responsible for controlling his vehicle and avoiding
stopped traffic. He should grow up and pay for his mistake, and
shouldn't try to wiggle out of it with vague claims of a "bunch
culture" or similar nonsense.
Resound
"Sandy" <leu...@free.fr> wrote in message
news:4746e96c$0$26091$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> This is getting tedious! Haven't you folks any minimum ethical standards?
> You all look to me like a bunch of [insert your preferred] ball players
> all claiming the
> out-of-bounds ball goes their way, two sides at a time, both knowing the
> correct ruling.
> There are simple human rules of conduct that mandate some level of truth,
> especially when simply at play. You are at play, riding your bike. Get
> over the issues of adult responsibility and culpability. Get over playing
> pretend lawyers. Reset your moral compasses and do the right thing. And
> if you don't know the right thing, try to figure it out. When you
> approach a lawyer or otherwise use courts to decide these matters, you are
> abandoning the personal responsibility for making the right choice.
>
> If, while at play on two wheels, you can't quite arrive at the right
> answer, ask your mommies for guidance - guidance they apparently failed so
> far to inculcate in you. Or arm wrestle. Your choice.
*applauds*
I've been lurking on this thinking much the same thing. Kudos to you for
saying it. Recourse to law to resolve this sort of thing really should be
reserved for those who are so socially incompetent as to be pathological
about it. Once you're an adult you should have managed a level of mental and
emotional development that allows you to empathise with others and take
responsibility for actions of yours that affect others.
ZBicyclist
>
> If two motorists have a minor fender-bender and the police don't write
> it up at the scene, that doesn't mean the negligent driver isn't
> liable for the damages, it just means there isn't a police report to
> use as evidence in the claim.
And it also means that there is no ticket to be paid, which is good news for
whoever might have received the ticket.
--
Mike Kruger
Error is eternal, and wisdom consists in living with it, not letting
our vanity tell us that it has been transcended. - Michael T. Ghiselin
Zen Cohen
"PeteSig" <pet...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:4Nv1j.16071$CN4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Artoi" wrote:
>
>> As I replied in another post, within parts of the cycling community,
>> there are waiver requirements that tries to remove one's right to claim
>> responsibility on another. One example being BNSW's liability waiver
>> document, which has been adopted by bunch ride groups as a condition for
>> joining their rides. Similar waivers are also used by cycling groups as
>> a condition of membership.
>>
>> http://www.renegadecycles.com.au/media/docs/RideSydney_Information_and_Wa
>> iver.pdf
>>
>> http://www.sydneycyclingclub.org.au/Files%20General/new%20member.pdf
>>
>> Any comments on these and their legal merits?
>
> Such waivers are totally overridden where someone has owed a duty of care
> (to avoid running into the back of another vehicle) and has failed in that
> duty (been negligent - collided and caused damage). You cannot write away
> your rights to be protected from negligent behaviour.
That's not true. The laws on negligence waivers vary by state, but such
waivers are largely enforceable if drafted properly. For instance, in Texas
a negligence waiver must use claer and conspicuous language that the right
is waived. As a matter of public policy, waivers for *grossly* negligent
behavior are far less likely to be enforced.
As to the OP's question, seems to me that the rider not paying attention was
negligent by failing to keep a proper lookout and should be liable for the
damages he caused as a result. However, the question of someone's negligence
is not always clear cut and, if the parties can't agree to a settlement, it
is usually a matter for a jury to decide, esp if the parties don't agree on
how the event actually unfolded.
G-S
> "PeteSig" <pet...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:4Nv1j.16071$CN4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> "Artoi" wrote:
>>
>>> As I replied in another post, within parts of the cycling community,
>>> there are waiver requirements that tries to remove one's right to claim
>>> responsibility on another. One example being BNSW's liability waiver
>>> document, which has been adopted by bunch ride groups as a condition for
>>> joining their rides. Similar waivers are also used by cycling groups as
>>> a condition of membership.
>>>
>>> http://www.renegadecycles.com.au/media/docs/RideSydney_Information_and_Wa
>>> iver.pdf
>>>
>>> http://www.sydneycyclingclub.org.au/Files%20General/new%20member.pdf
>>>
>>> Any comments on these and their legal merits?
>> Such waivers are totally overridden where someone has owed a duty of care
>> (to avoid running into the back of another vehicle) and has failed in that
>> duty (been negligent - collided and caused damage). You cannot write away
>> your rights to be protected from negligent behaviour.
>
> That's not true. The laws on negligence waivers vary by state, but such
> waivers are largely enforceable if drafted properly.
And country by country... this thread is crosted posted to aus.bicycle
(which stands for australia not austin ;-)
In Australia the law in effect says that one cannot sign away ones
common law rights, hence over here at least waivers have little bearing.
An exception exists herh for certain 'dangerous activities' like
competitive motor racing... I'm not sure bike riding would qualify, but
bike racing might.
G-S
Artoi
"Zen Cohen" <atu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "PeteSig" <pet...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:4Nv1j.16071$CN4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> That's not true. The laws on negligence waivers vary by state, but such
> waivers are largely enforceable if drafted properly. For instance, in Texas
> a negligence waiver must use claer and conspicuous language that the right
> is waived. As a matter of public policy, waivers for *grossly* negligent
> behavior are far less likely to be enforced.
>
> As to the OP's question, seems to me that the rider not paying attention was
> negligent by failing to keep a proper lookout and should be liable for the
> damages he caused as a result. However, the question of someone's negligence
> is not always clear cut and, if the parties can't agree to a settlement, it
> is usually a matter for a jury to decide, esp if the parties don't agree on
> how the event actually unfolded.
Question is, could that be considered to be "gross negligence"?
--
Artoi
G-S <ge...@castbus.com.au> wrote:
Good reference. The event described wasn't in a race, it was a bunch
club ride.
--
Artoi
<ceb91cac-7a61-4b7d...@w34g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
"dusto...@mac.com" <dusto...@mac.com> wrote:
> On Nov 23, 7:01 am, Artoi <ar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > In article <4Nv1j.16071$CN4.8...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> > It's interesting so far that there's been very few defender of that so
> > called bunch culture, unless there's very few roadies on these groups.
> > --
>
> Bunch culture? What seems to be your bunch culture is a whole lot
> different from mine. May we discuss? --D-y
Not mine. But a culture that's being described by some other roadies.
--
Artoi
"Resound" <sacre...@bigpond.com> wrote:
Problem is, there are members of the society who prefers to do things
their way. Under such, the law provides the guidance in how the problem
should be viewed and resolved. Only as a last resort would one go to the
courts.
--