Who is at fault and how should it be dealt?

[G-S]

Artoi wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> G-S <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> TimC wrote:
>> >
>>> Why don't you have suitable insurance?
>>>
>> Even if a suitable insurance policy is held that only covers the rider
>> of the 'not at fault' bike (lets assume that's the broken carbon frame
>> $5000 bike for the moment ok).
>>
>> The insurance company will pay to the rider with the busted bike but
>> they will then pursue you for the money.
>>
>> That pretty much ends up the same way for the rider at fault I'd have
>> thought.
>
> No, the insurance company would only pursue the excess amount, which
> happens to be $1000 for insurance associated with Cycling Australia's
> membership.
> --

Yes the unpaid monies (which in that case is the excess), sorry if I
implied it was the whole amount, that wasn't my intent.

By 'the money' I meant the money that the insurance company is out of
'pocket'.


G-S

 

[Plodder]

"Dorfus Dippintush" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Artoi wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Dorfus Dippintush <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> The end result would be both views, the guy in front would rightly feel
>>> that he's owed a new frame, the guy behind would insist that since it's
>>> a friendly group ride it's just an unfortunate accident and shouldn't
>>> have to pay. The outcome will be that the two will become bitter enemies
>>> and never ride together again. the group will probably split too, as
>>> each person takes sides.
>>
>> Yes, so how should it be managed?
>>
>> Would it be fair to say that anyone participating in a bunch ride should
>> be fully responsible for anything that happens to them during the bunch
>> ride, with no claim on any of the other participants and the organizer?
>> --
>
> When you play football you agree to the terms of the game, which included
> being tackled by the opposition. This is known as a lawful assault. The
> same applies when a doctor cuts you open for a medical operation, once
> again this is lawful because you have authorized it.
>
> When you join a bike club there ought to be a waiver you sign that says
> you won't prosecute anyone that runs into the back of you. If such a
> waiver doesn't exist then the person at the rear is clearly in breach of
> the rules.
>
> Unless the "rules" are clearly worked out before the ride, there won't be
> a satisfactory outcome to the accident.
>
> Bring it up for discussion as you start your next ride and see what your
> friends think.
>
> Dorf

The difference is that you play football on a designated field, not out on
the road. Similarly, a surgeon doesn't cut people open in a public place.

I'd have no problem signing a waiver for racing. I would not sign a waiver
that eanbled people behind me to ride too closely to stop when not racing
and not bear the consequences of riding so closely. That behaviour is a bit
like (OK, a lot like...) playing football in the street. There are
consequences for actions taken in a different context.

When I raced cars I couldn't drive privately in the same way as I drove when
racing. Why should riding a bicycle be any different?

Yesterday, while commuting home, someone decided to wheelsuck me. No
problem, but if I brake suddenly and he crashed into me, damaging my bike
(or me) I'd expect reparation. He didn't ride at a safe stopping difference.
I don't see riding in a bunch any differently unless explicit permission is
given to ride too close to stop. Note: 'explicit'. I might be argued that
joining a bunch constitutes implicit permission, but I doubt that implicit
permission would hold much water in court, nor should it morally or
socially. Perhaps clubs should issue a warning of the dangers of bunch
riding and make that permission explicit for club rides. Dunno...

As you probably gather, I agree with Theo that "... riding on public open
roads as fast as you can inches apart is just a bit silly, isn't it?"

Cheers,

me

 

[Bonehenge (B A R R Y)]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 22:24:51 -0800, Dana Myers <[email protected]>
wrote:

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

Tel me about it...

 

[Artoi]

In article <[email protected]>,
"PeteSig" <[email protected]> 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/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"

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.
--

 

[[email protected]]

On Nov 23, 7:01 am, Artoi <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
>
>
>
> "PeteSig" <[email protected]> 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/media/docs/RideSydney_Information_an...
> > > 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"
>
> 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:[email protected],
Artoi <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> 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.

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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...

>>
>
> 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 <[email protected]>, 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.

--
[email protected] 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" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dans le message denews:[email protected],
> Artoi <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>
> > 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.
>
> 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 <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> 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.

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.

--
[email protected] is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Braze your own bicycle frames. See
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html>

 

[Resound]

"Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> 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]

[email protected] 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

 

[Zen Cohen]

"PeteSig" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "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.

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.

 

[G-S]

Zen Cohen wrote:
> "PeteSig" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "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.
>
> 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 <[email protected]>,
"Zen Cohen" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "PeteSig" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...

> 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 <[email protected]>,
G-S <[email protected]> wrote:

> Zen Cohen wrote:
> > "PeteSig" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> "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.
> >
> > 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>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Nov 23, 7:01 am, Artoi <[email protected]> wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,

> > 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 <[email protected]>,
"Resound" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > 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
<[email protected]>,
Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]> 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
<[email protected]> 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.