Who is at fault and how should it be dealt?

SLAVE of THE STATE

On Nov 26, 3:01 pm, John Tserkezis
<j...@techniciansyndrome.org.invalid> wrote:
> SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
>
> > The customary rules of conduct for group rides includes/allows close
> > riding, and all the riders taking part practice "tailgating."
>
> And as I've said before, a custom does not make a law.

Customary Law was the first sort of law that existed on "your" island
-- at least it sure looked that way in the research I did. Then the
Normans invaded and brought "common law." Then came statutes. I
believe customary practice is still used for case law decisions when
the other forms are non-existant. That is, the customary practice is
examined and then used to make a ruling. As that customary case law
builds it can then become "common," depending on if it gets to higher
courts, or other "parallel" level courts use decisions from other
jurisdictions as aids to ruling on their own cases. Then a statute
may get written. I mean that Rules of Conduct do sometimes become
law, whatever form.

Moreover, my point was that a law's existence does not mean it is
"just." There are some ethereal superman ideas about "truth and
justice" floating around, but it is really more basic, at least in
first principle. Justice simply means /giving someone their due/ in a
plain sort of way.

In article <0d8796da-43b6-466c-8905-51ac4aad67e8
@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, gwhite@ti.com says...
> On Nov 23, 10:40 am, <j...@phred.org> wrote:

> > 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.

Sorry if I wasn't clear.

I meant that *ethically*, entirely apart from the legal question, the
rider who screwed up should pay for the damage he did. Not paying
attention when approaching an intersection is dumb, reckless riding.

--
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>

In article <0d8796da-43b6-466c-8905-51ac4aad67e8
@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, gwhite@ti.com says...

> The customary rules of conduct for group rides includes/allows close
> riding, and all the riders taking part practice "tailgating."

Drafting is a hazardous activity that imposes a higher burden of
responsibility on those taking part -- if you're going to stop paying
attention to traffic, you should pull out of the paceline, or accept
responsibility for the consequences of your inattention. Ethically, at
least. Legally, at least under the U.S. vehicle codes I've read,
"following too close" is an offense defined specifically for *motor*
vehicles, not for all vehicles, and does not apply to bicycles.

--
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>

Artoi

In article <474a8083$0$1769$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com>,
Donald Munro <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

Bianchi's warranty is only 3 years IIRC.
--

Artoi

In article
<0d8796da-43b6-466c-8905-51ac4aad67e8@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
SLAVE of THE STATE <gwhite@ti.com> wrote:

> 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.

A vehicle is a vehicle. Never heard weight being a criteria.

> 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.

Not sure about that. With specific reference to the hypothetical (or not
so hypothetical) scenario. The bunch was coming to an intersection with
signals being given, permission for close quarter drafting/tailgating
would have ceased by this point. Drafting practice may be permitted
during uninterrupted sections, but it's just common sense to back off
when there's traffic condition ahead, especially one that can be seen by
all in the bunch from a distance.

> 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.)

Yes, well understood pack riding behaviour to also look way ahead of the
rider in front and follow to the calls and hand signals of the lead
rider. In the hypothetical case, it was second wheel who crashed into
the leader of the bunch. So the dumbass here being?
--

Artoi

In article <474a631c$1@news.bekkers.com.au>,
"Theo Bekkers" <tbekkers@bekkers.com.au> wrote:

> 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. :-)

Yes, I would take it as a form of reverse snobbery too.
--

Sandy

Dans le message de
news:artoi-34E084.13341327112007@news-server.bigpond.net.au,
Artoi <artoi@hotmail.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> In article <474a8083$0$1769$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com>,
> Donald Munro <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Bianchi's warranty is only 3 years IIRC.

Acute nostalgia attack. We have moralists/ethicists and warranty leaners.
Hey, someone get Justin back!

BT Humble

On Nov 27, 1:50 pm, Artoi <ar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <474a631...@news.bekkers.com.au>,
> "Theo Bekkers" <tbekk...@bekkers.com.au> wrote:
>
> > 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?
>
> >BTHcould 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. :-)
>
> Yes, I would take it as a form of reverse snobbery too.
> --

Hmm, and all this last week I was thinking that the burning feeling in
my ears was just because of the sunburn! ;-)

Much as I hate to have to admit that I'm not perfect in every way,
there *is* a substantial element of reverse snobbery in what I'm
doing. If you're trying to win big-name races where the difference
between first and second place is measured in fractions of a second
over a 100km race I suppose I can see how lighter weight, etc. might
make a difference. However for your average club rider *it appears to
me* that the performance-return-on-investment falls off a cliff once
you go over $2k or so.


BTH

Ryan Cousineau

In article
<bf0d5369-5314-4d16-82d7-0d9b81ddba63@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
BT Humble <bt_humble@bigpond.com> wrote:

> On Nov 27, 1:50 pm, Artoi <ar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > In article <474a631...@news.bekkers.com.au>,
> > "Theo Bekkers" <tbekk...@bekkers.com.au> wrote:
> >
> > > 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?
> >
> > >BTHcould 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. :-)
> >
> > Yes, I would take it as a form of reverse snobbery too.
> > --
>
> Hmm, and all this last week I was thinking that the burning feeling in
> my ears was just because of the sunburn! ;-)
>
> Much as I hate to have to admit that I'm not perfect in every way,
> there *is* a substantial element of reverse snobbery in what I'm
> doing. If you're trying to win big-name races where the difference
> between first and second place is measured in fractions of a second
> over a 100km race I suppose I can see how lighter weight, etc. might
> make a difference. However for your average club rider *it appears to
> me* that the performance-return-on-investment falls off a cliff once
> you go over $2k or so.

I bid $1000.

--
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-0B835E.16543103122007@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]>,
Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca> wrote:

> In article
> <bf0d5369-5314-4d16-82d7-0d9b81ddba63@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> BT Humble <bt_humble@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 27, 1:50 pm, Artoi <ar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > In article <474a631...@news.bekkers.com.au>,
> > > "Theo Bekkers" <tbekk...@bekkers.com.au> wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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?
> > >
> > > >BTHcould 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. :-)
> > >
> > > Yes, I would take it as a form of reverse snobbery too.
> > > --
> >
> > Hmm, and all this last week I was thinking that the burning feeling in
> > my ears was just because of the sunburn! ;-)
> >
> > Much as I hate to have to admit that I'm not perfect in every way,
> > there *is* a substantial element of reverse snobbery in what I'm
> > doing. If you're trying to win big-name races where the difference
> > between first and second place is measured in fractions of a second
> > over a 100km race I suppose I can see how lighter weight, etc. might
> > make a difference. However for your average club rider *it appears to
> > me* that the performance-return-on-investment falls off a cliff once
> > you go over $2k or so.
>
> I bid $1000.

Others in my club would bid $500.
--