Who is at fault and how should it be dealt?

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org

On Nov 21, 11:38 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
> 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

dustoyevsky@mac.com

On Nov 21, 11:59 pm, Bret <bret.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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

On 22 Nov, 10:36, Artoi <ar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <10b0690e-4d4d-4cf3-a25a-77416170f...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> Pete <petersr1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> 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/me..._Information_an...
> iver.pdf
>
> http://www.sydneycyclingclub.org.au...ew%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" <petersr1088@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:80777bcd-fdf7-4bd4-b3c1-d17c7057b5bc@f3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On 22 Nov, 10:36, Artoi <ar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> In article
>> <10b0690e-4d4d-4cf3-a25a-77416170f...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>>
>>
>> Pete <petersr1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > 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.
>>
>> 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/me..._Information_an...
>> iver.pdf
>>
>> http://www.sydneycyclingclub.org.au...ew%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

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

In article
<80777bcd-fdf7-4bd4-b3c1-d17c7057b5bc@f3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Pete <petersr1088@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

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?
> --

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

Artoi

In article <47460be5$1@clarion.carno.net.au>,
Bean Long <ben.long@yourfinger.anu.edu.au> 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?
> > --
>
> 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?

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.
--

Artoi

In article <Btm1j.15927$CN4.11855@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
"Plodder" <DACKSfrank.palermo@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

In article
<6d6bc448-0781-4a94-acb3-888e6be34f0c@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
"bjw@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote:

> On Nov 21, 11:38 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
> > 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

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.
--

John Tserkezis

Artoi 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.

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

In article <47462280$0$9434$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>,
John Tserkezis <jt@techniciansyndrome.org.invalid> wrote:

> Artoi 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.
>
> 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.

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

Artoi wrote:

> 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

Terryc

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?

In Australia, when push comes to shove, the person at fault would the
poor bunny least able to afford a good solicitor/barrister.

John Tserkezis

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?
--
Linux Registered User # 302622
<http://counter.li.org>