Who is at fault and how should it be dealt?

In article
,
" wrote:

On Nov 21, 11:38 pm, Ryan Cousineau wrote:
SLAVE of THE STATE 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 bitching. 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.
--

Artoi wrote:

I think most people have accepted this fact. The really hard part is who
should pay for the wreck, especially considering it's a club bunch ride.

This really is cut and dried. There is nothing ambiguous about who did
what, who waved at what, who was looking where and who hit what.

If two vehicles were in a similar situation where the forwardmost vehicle
stops, and the guy behind simply wasn't looking where he was going, the police
report would be quite clear. Insurance companies view on the situation would
be similarly clear.

Now for the 'grey area' you're outlining.

If said drivers were mates, then police report would be just as clear, and
if the insurance companies were handling the issue, they REALLY wouldn't care
who knew who nor what relationship car A had with car B.

Why should this be any different? With the exception of the likelyhood of
insurance and police not getting involved, the snoozer loses. If you killed
your mate's car, YOU pay for it.
The only grey area I see if it were a husband/wife team where one (I won't
say which!!) hits the other, and general funds assignment in the household
means ONE partner pay for all, then said partner would probably be suitably
****ed if their other half simply wasn't careful, but at the end of the day
he^M^Mthey would pay for it anyway.

Perspective here. We're not dealing with a scratch here, and these people
are not related, it's serious damage with a serious amount of cash associated
with it.

If the snoozer wants this dragged over the courts, then so be it.

It's quite clear what should be done. You break it, you fix it.
--
Linux Registered User # 302622
http://counter.li.org

In article ,
John Tserkezis wrote:

Artoi wrote:

I think most people have accepted this fact. The really hard part is who
should pay for the wreck, especially considering it's a club bunch ride.

This really is cut and dried. There is nothing ambiguous about who did
what, who waved at what, who was looking where and who hit what.

If two vehicles were in a similar situation where the forwardmost vehicle
stops, and the guy behind simply wasn't looking where he was going, the
police
report would be quite clear. Insurance companies view on the situation would
be similarly clear.

Now for the 'grey area' you're outlining.

If said drivers were mates, then police report would be just as clear, and
if the insurance companies were handling the issue, they REALLY wouldn't care
who knew who nor what relationship car A had with car B.

Why should this be any different? With the exception of the likelyhood of
insurance and police not getting involved, the snoozer loses. If you killed
your mate's car, YOU pay for it.
The only grey area I see if it were a husband/wife team where one (I won't
say which!!) hits the other, and general funds assignment in the household
means ONE partner pay for all, then said partner would probably be suitably
****ed if their other half simply wasn't careful, but at the end of the day
he^M^Mthey would pay for it anyway.

Perspective here. We're not dealing with a scratch here, and these people
are not related, it's serious damage with a serious amount of cash associated
with it.

If the snoozer wants this dragged over the courts, then so be it.

It's quite clear what should be done. You break it, you fix it.

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.
This is reflected by those liability waiver requirement of many cycling
clubs.
--

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 arse 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?

Theo

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.

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

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 06:38:38 GMT in rec.bicycles.rides, Ryan
Cousineau wrote:

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.

HUH? If the frame is carbon fiber, that carbon is sequestered in
the frame, NOT in the atmosphere. Once the frame is broken, the
carbon remains sequestered by the plastics that sourround it.

And any metal frame is probably manufactured with processes that
generate carbon dioxide, which is the global warming culprit. The
carbon sequestered in steels is not the problem, it's the carbon
dioxide generated in the steel making and fabricating processes.

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 00:14:55 GMT in rec.bicycles.rides, Artoi
wrote:

I think most people have accepted this fact. The really hard part is who
should pay for the wreck, especially considering it's a club bunch ride.

No, it's not. The rider who hit the stopped cyclist from behind
is at fault in almost every state. It was his negligence that
caused the accident.

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 00:56:43 GMT in rec.bicycles.rides, 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.
This is reflected by those liability waiver requirement of many cycling
clubs.

I am not a lawyer, but every one I've ever talked to about such
waivers has told me that they don't protect someone who is
obviously negligent, which would be the case if the facts were as
stated.

In article ,
Terryc 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.
--