Who is at fault and how should it be dealt?



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>
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Terryc <[email protected]> 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.
--
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Dorfus <[email protected]> wrote:

> Artoi wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,

> > It's a tough subject as it's like playing Scruples and everyone will get
> > stressed and dodge hard answers. A lot of people would hide their true
> > opinion until the real event.
> >
> > The problem with those waivers (I provided two links in a separate post
> > earlier) is that, on a training ride on the road, all riders have to
> > obey regular road rules foremost. And in one of the waivers, it
> > specifically states that the rider has to obey all relevant road rules.
> > So a rear end accident like this where proper warnings were given in
> > good time, the second rider has clearly violated a basic road rule. So
> > under this scenario, does the liability waiver still protect him from
> > actions from the injured party?
>
> Yes if he's with the club on a club ride. No different to an accident at
> football training.
> >
> > And even in football, you are still bound by certain rules. If one
> > player goes beyond that eg. Punch up or head plants a player, then they
> > could still be subjected to legal procedures. We obviously are talking
> > about out of competition training here.
>
> When I was young head tackles were considered part of the game. The
> rules have since changed. The point is that the rules must be
> established before-hand and everyone must know what they are and agree
> to them, otherwise they shouldn't take part in the activity.
>
> Even in training, if you're with the club the rules must still apply.

The difference being, all participants signed up based on the agreement
that they and everyone else are all playing within the confines of the
rules (a condition of membership). So when a player plays outside of
those rules, then effectively he/she has rescinded on the conditions of
his membership, rendering him a non-member and without protections
offered by the membership/waiver.
--
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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 **** 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?

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.
--
 
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
 
In article <[email protected]>,
John Tserkezis <[email protected]> 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).
--
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> 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.
--
 
"John Tserkezis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> 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
>
 
"G-S" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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
 
>> 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
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"xzzy" <[email protected]> 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?
--
 
In aus.bicycle on Fri, 23 Nov 2007 00:42:52 GMT
Artoi <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Zebee Johnstone <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I suspect the 'bent would be fine and the carbon that hit me would
>> break :)
>
> 1) You wouldn't be permitted to enter in a club bunch.

If they are doing a ride to UCi rules, no. Wimps!

> 2) How much drafting can you get behind a low lying bent?

behind a lowracer or trike, bugger all. Behind a high-racer like
mine, it can be done and has been.

> 3) Whoever tries to draft off a bent has to be pretty desperate.

Or hitting one hell of a headwind. It's amazing what people will try
in a strong wind...

Zebee
 
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>
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Artoi <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> John Tserkezis <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] 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
 
In article
<rcousine-FC2D4D.21520922112007@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]>,
Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]> 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.
--
 
In article <[email protected]>,
John Tserkezis <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.

Sorry that you missed my earlier post, but here is an example used by a
local group. The waiver is one that's sanctioned by our state's cycling
body.

http://www.renegadecycles.com.au/media/docs/RideSydney_Information_and_Wa
iver.pdf

> > 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. :)

See link above.

Yes, given it's the net, we are just wind bagging our subjective
opinion. The real determinant will obviously be done through a formal
legal consultation or in front of a judge. Nevertheless, it's
interesting and is something that affect many riders.
--
 
In article
<[email protected]
>,
Artoi <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article
> <6d6bc448-0781-4a94-acb3-888e6be34f0c@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 21, 11:38 pm, Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > SLAVE of THE STATE <[email protected]> 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 *****ing. 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
 
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" 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/media/docs/RideSydney_Information_and_Wa
> iver.pdf
>
> http://www.sydneycyclingclub.org.au/Files General/new member.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

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
Car Vs Cyclist, who is at fault
Replies
9
Views
2K
Australia and New Zealand
SierraSlim
SierraSlim
cfsmtb
US: Judge finds fault with fixies
Replies
71
Views
3K
Australia and New Zealand
Paulus
P
G
Occasional Swear Words (Tam's Fault)
Replies
15
Views
1K
Australia and New Zealand
Tamyka Bell
T
D
Temperature dependent wireless fault?
Replies
6
Views
585
Australia and New Zealand
adam85
adam85
K
Cyclist vs Motorist: Court find Both At Fault
Replies
13
Views
949
Australia and New Zealand
Ian Wright
Ian Wright
Top Bottom Back