Who is at fault and how should it be dealt?

Michael Press

In article
<artoi-B55657.11270923112007@news-server.bigpond.net.au
>,
Artoi <artoi@hotmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

Make it strong enough and you will have nothing
to worry about when it suffers damage in a collision.

--
Michael Press

Dana Myers

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?

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

In article <rubrum-AFEFB9.22132622112007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
Michael Press <rubrum@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...

http://static.flickr.com/117/281387667_c7b19cf325.jpg
--

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/me...ormation_and_Wa
> iver.pdf
>
> http://www.sydneycyclingclub.org.au...ew%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

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)

Bonehenge (B A R R Y)

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 22:24:51 -0800, Dana Myers <dana.myers@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>All this worry about fault and blame reminds me why I primarily
>ride alone.

Tel me about it...

Artoi

In article <4Nv1j.16071$CN4.8913@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
"PeteSig" <petesig@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.
> >
> > http://www.renegadecycles.com.au/me...ormation_and_Wa
> > iver.pdf
> >
> > http://www.sydneycyclingclub.org.au...ew%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.
--

dustoyevsky@mac.com

On Nov 23, 7:01 am, Artoi <ar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
> > >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?
>
> > 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

Dans le message de
news:artoi-104199.17072223112007@news-server.bigpond.net.au,
Artoi <artoi@hotmail.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> 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.

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" <mrbikejoc1@comcast.net> wrote in message
newsPudnfebpMWyf9nanZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@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)

In article <NbidnSPcQfGFw9vanZ2dnUVZ_uCinZ2d@comcast.com>, mrbikejoc1
@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.

--
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>

Ryan Cousineau

On Nov 23, 6:53 am, "Sandy" <leur...@free.fr> wrote:
> Dans le message denews:artoi-104199.17072223112007@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]>,
> > Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@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.
>
> 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.

In article <artoi-104199.17072223112007@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
artoi@hotmail.com says...
> 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.

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.

--
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>

Resound

"Sandy" <leurrre@free.fr> wrote in message
news:4746e96c$0$26091$4c368faf@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

josh@phred.org wrote:
>
> 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