Who is at fault and how should it be dealt?

Dennis P. Harris

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 00:14:55 GMT in rec.bicycles.rides, Artoi
<artoi@hotmail.com> 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.

No, it's not. The rider who hit the stopped cyclist from behind
is at fault in almost every state. It was his negligence that
caused the accident.

Dennis P. Harris

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 00:56:43 GMT in rec.bicycles.rides, Artoi
<artoi@hotmail.com> 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.

I am not a lawyer, but every one I've ever talked to about such
waivers has told me that they don't protect someone who is
obviously negligent, which would be the case if the facts were as
stated.

Artoi

In article <474637b4$0$58494$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net>,
Terryc <newsthreespam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote:

> 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.

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.
--

Theo Bekkers

Artoi wrote:
> "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

In article <47463818$0$6070$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>,
John Tserkezis <jt@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.

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

In article <2pfck35pvan2fi3j555b3oejrfg2krk0q4@4ax.com>,
NO_SPAM_TO_dpharris@gci.net (Dennis P. Harris) wrote:

> On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 00:56:43 GMT in rec.bicycles.rides, Artoi
> <artoi@hotmail.com> 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.
>
> I am not a lawyer, but every one I've ever talked to about such
> waivers has told me that they don't protect someone who is
> obviously negligent, which would be the case if the facts were as
> stated.

Wished you were a lawyer so that there's solid legal backing. I think
this makes sense, at least conforms to my logic.

Speaking in similar circles, I get the impression that the culture of
being responsible for one's own equipment is strong. I can understand
how it came out of racing where bang ups happen regularly and as a club
you don't want to get into repeated conflict resolution. But it's hard
for many to accept that cultural standard outside of racing eg. Training
rides. To me, the waiver seemed to be an instrument used to maintain
that culture, with or without true legal foundation.
--

Artoi

In article <474646e7$1@news.bekkers.com.au>,
"Theo Bekkers" <tbekkers@bekkers.com.au> wrote:

> Artoi wrote:
> > "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? :-)

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" <jt@techniciansyndrome.org.invalid> wrote in message
news:47462280$0$9434$afc38c87@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" <geoff@castbus.com.au> wrote in message
news:13kah6ql787vvcb@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

>> 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?

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

In article <NbidnSPcQfGFw9vanZ2dnUVZ_uCinZ2d@comcast.com>,
"xzzy" <mrbikejoc1@comcast.net> wrote:

> >> 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?
>
> 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.

Huh? Did you not have any witnesses? Citing or not, would they not even
take an incident report?
--

John Tserkezis

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.

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

Ryan Cousineau

In article <artoi-9BC7C7.14172523112007@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
Artoi <artoi@hotmail.com> wrote:

> In article <47463818$0$6070$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>,
> John Tserkezis <jt@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 rcousine@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

In article
<rcousine-FC2D4D.21520922112007@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]>,
Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@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.
--