Who is at fault and how should it be dealt?

[G-S]

Bonehenge (B A R R Y) wrote:
> 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.

Good outcome


G-S

 

[Artoi]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Bonehenge (B A R R Y)" <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.

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

>
> 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, <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.

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.)

 

[John Tserkezis]

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. (and that I am not a
lawyer, and legal advice obtained from the Internet, well, says it all...)
You get the idea.

> 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?

I can only speak for New South Wales because they're the only road laws I'm
vaguely familiar with. If you're on the road with a bicycle, you assume the
same rules as a motor vehicle.
A poofy waiver saying you don't, doesn't change the law. In the unlikely
event you backend someone one a bike, resulting in the carbon splintering and
impaling the other guy through the heart (unlikely but bear with me here), you
WILL be held liable. Lesser grades of injuries or property damage don't
change the law.

There is no such thing as a document that you can sign that makes you
invincible to laws that apply under the prevailing conditions.

This also holds true for _private_ land, but because there aren't any "road"
laws that apply on private land, THEN it might be a different story depending
on the conditions. However, there are STILL property damage rights, and death
and/or injury rights that apply even if incident occurred on private property.

>> 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."

There is no place for justice in a court of law. I suppose there was once
supposed to be, but doesn't appear that way now.

> 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.)

Collective idiocy doesn't negate current law.
--
Linux Registered User # 302622
<http://counter.li.org>

 

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On Nov 26, 3:01 pm, John Tserkezis
<[email protected]> 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>, [email protected] says...
> On Nov 23, 10:40 am, <[email protected]> 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.

--
[email protected] 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>, [email protected] 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.

--
[email protected] 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 <[email protected]>,
Donald Munro <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>,
"Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> 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:[email protected],
Artoi <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Donald Munro <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Nov 27, 1:50 pm, Artoi <[email protected]> wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> 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 [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

 

[Artoi]

In article
<rcousine-0B835E.16543103122007@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]>,
Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article
> <bf0d5369-5314-4d16-82d7-0d9b81ddba63@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> BT Humble <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 27, 1:50 pm, Artoi <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > In article <[email protected]>,
> > > "Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> 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.
--

 

[ZBicyclist]

>>>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.

Depends on the club. We had a guy riding with us one winter riding on a
cheap mountain bike with knobbies, while we were on road bikes.

He did PBP a few months later (unless that was the year he did BMB).
(PBP is Paris-Brest-Paris in 90 hours. BMB is similar, but
Boston-Montreal-Boston).

For him, the cheaper the mountain bike, and the knobbier the knobbies, the
more performance enhancement he got.