Who is at fault and how should it be dealt?

G-S

Zen Cohen wrote:
> "PeteSig" <petesig@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:4Nv1j.16071$CN4.8913@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/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.
>
> 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

In article <4748cd5e$0$28820$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
"Zen Cohen" <aturny@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "PeteSig" <petesig@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:4Nv1j.16071$CN4.8913@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

In article <13kib19pqqp05ad@corp.supernews.com>,
G-S <geoff@castbus.com.au> wrote:

> Zen Cohen wrote:
> > "PeteSig" <petesig@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> > news:4Nv1j.16071$CN4.8913@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/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.
> >
> > 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.

Good reference. The event described wasn't in a race, it was a bunch
club ride.
--

Artoi

In article
<ceb91cac-7a61-4b7d-aa3e-bfda4a269429@w34g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
"dustoyevsky@mac.com" <dustoyevsky@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

In article <474769bb$0$10313$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>,
"Resound" <sacredchao@bigpond.com> wrote:

> "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.

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.
--

Artoi

In article
<12002176-7cc9-4aff-be9d-f7723bbf4558@s6g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

Unfortunately not all think that way.
--

Bonehenge (B A R R Y)

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 10:38:38 -0800 (PST), Ryan Cousineau
<rcousine@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>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.


We had a guy rear-end another rider on a 50+ rider shop ride. The
"rear-ender" offered to pay for the "rear-endee's" repairs on the
spot.

As a goodwill gesture, the shop provided a serious break on the repair
price, and all are happily riding together several years later.

G-S

Bonehenge (B A R R Y) wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 10:38:38 -0800 (PST), Ryan Cousineau
> <rcousine@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>
>
> We had a guy rear-end another rider on a 50+ rider shop ride. The
> "rear-ender" offered to pay for the "rear-endee's" repairs on the
> spot.
>
> As a goodwill gesture, the shop provided a serious break on the repair
> price, and all are happily riding together several years later.

Good outcome


G-S

Jym Dyer

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

=v= I stayed away from club rides and bike advocacy for
years because I kept running into zealots spewing their
John Forester 3:16 and preemptively blaming every biker
for all wrongdoing. Some of these people have no clue
about how their approach to things drives would-be allies
away from them.

=v= Of course I found harder/better/faster/stronger group
rides with friendlier folks, right about the time when
Critical Mass became a cultural phenomenon. Imagine.
<_Jym_>

Artoi

In article <7mrik3t8pduisvao31bbmb0d2ovl6o42n4@4ax.com>,
"Bonehenge (B A R R Y)" <DwightSchrute@DunderMifflin.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 10:38:38 -0800 (PST), Ryan Cousineau
> <rcousine@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >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.
>
>
> We had a guy rear-end another rider on a 50+ rider shop ride. The
> "rear-ender" offered to pay for the "rear-endee's" repairs on the
> spot.
>
> As a goodwill gesture, the shop provided a serious break on the repair
> price, and all are happily riding together several years later.

Ideal situation. The first response would often determine the eventual
outcome. I guess this is also an ad for shop bunch rides.

But going back. I note that there are some riders object to people
riding high end bikes and make statements like "No way am I going to pay
for that CF bike".
--

Theo Bekkers

Artoi wrote:

> But going back. I note that there are some riders object to people
> riding high end bikes and make statements like "No way am I going to
> pay for that CF bike".

Reverse snobbery?

BTH could be saying "I'm not going to pay for that $600 Columbus frame, they
should be riding a K-Mart bike like I am", but I can't picture him in the
Hell Ride peleton. :-)

Theo

Donald Munro

Artoi 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. --

Dumbass,
Just get a Bianchi and the warranty will cover all the
appaling damage.

marika

"Theo Bekkers" <tbekkers@bekkers.com.au> wrote in message
news:474a631c$1@news.bekkers.com.au...

>
> BTH could be saying "I'm not going to pay for that $600 Columbus frame,
> they should be riding a K-Mart bike like I am", but I can't picture him
> in the Hell Ride peleton. :-)

+
this is where a pharmacist I know worked for a while


mk5000

"Basically we're setting up the entire network
around the concept of
communities, As you travel down the
road of life you go into
and out of different [medical] communities, whether
directly or indirectly.People should be able to become part of one, two or
all different pieces of our network."--marc krigsman

SLAVE of THE STATE

On Nov 23, 10:40 am, <j...@phred.org> wrote:
> In article <artoi-104199.17072223112...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> ar...@hotmail.com says...
>
> > 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.

Even more.

> > 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.

That sort of assumes that the statute law -- the vehicle code -- is
well applied in a fairness sense to this sort activity. That is
dubious -- I suspect the law was mainly written for much higher mass
vehicles with much higher velocity.

The customary rules of conduct for group rides includes/allows close
riding, and all the riders taking part practice "tailgating."
Essentially the riders know the score (that something like that could
happen) and are consenting by participating. If customary law were
allowed to develop for this particular activity (meaning not get short-
circuited by statute), the law may be quite different. If you want to
apply some sort of strict rule according to legal positivism, then you
can easily say things like "damage he caused." Alone, it is not
persuasive in a common sense sort of way.

"An unjust law is no law at all." -- St. Aug.

I wonder what a real judge in a real court would actually do if
someone actually pushed it that far. According to strict State
vehicle code prevalent in the US, the rear-ender is almost always at
fault. But does that help?

> 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.

That is a very stiff legal positivist attitude. Strictly true, but
"right?"

Learned Hand: "Do justice, sir, do justice."

Oliver Wendell Holmes: "That is not my job. It is my job to apply the
law."

> 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.

I don't think it is vague at all. It is very well understood pack
riding behavior. Participants would seem to be consenting. (Well
some dumbasses are flakes, but they should be getting chewed out.
Normal/basic social pressure most often provides the needed
correction.)