Who is at fault and how should it be dealt?

xzzy

> 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.
>

any info regrarding this for a negligent rider in Colorado would be helpful

Thank you

Artoi

In article <a231j.15608$CN4.11477@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
"OzCableguy" <ozcableguy@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:

> "Artoi" <artoi@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:artoi-C045DA.00393122112007@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > 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?
> > --
>
> 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?

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

In article
<ab1e0bc2-735b-451a-a061-48ea1506608e@c30g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
"derFahrer@gmail.com" <derFahrer@gmail.com> wrote:

> > 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?

That doesn't solve your immediate problem of a wrecked frame.
--

Artoi

In article
<ec65628f-37e6-43dd-9a0d-6bc5b693e882@f3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
"dustoyevsky@mac.com" <dustoyevsky@mac.com> wrote:

> On Nov 21, 7:39 am, Artoi <ar...@hotmail.com> 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?
>
> 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

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

In article
<fbf82481-2eee-4798-93bf-af22dc3709cf@b32g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
Pete <petersr1088@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

In article <oPudnfebpMWyf9nanZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"xzzy" <mrbikejoc1@comcast.net> wrote:

> > 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.
> >
>
> any info regrarding this for a negligent rider in Colorado would be helpful

Are there insurance coverage with your racing license there in the US?
--

Paul Cassel

Artoi wrote:

>
> 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.

In article <oPudnfebpMWyf9nanZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@comcast.com>, mrbikejoc1
@comcast.net says...
> > 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.
> >
>
> any info regrarding this for a negligent rider in Colorado would be helpful

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.

--
josh@phred.org is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Braze your own bicycle frames. See
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html>

ZBicyclist

josh@phred.org wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>
Forgetting legal liability for a moment, I've paid in similar circumstances.

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

On Nov 21, 6:39 am, Artoi <ar...@hotmail.com> 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?
> --

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

Stu Fleming

josh@phred.org wrote:

> 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

Artoi wrote:
> 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

Duncan wrote:
>
> 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

On 22 Nov, 02:15, Artoi <ar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 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