Who is at fault and how should it be dealt?

"xzzy" wrote in message
news


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 , 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.

--
is Joshua Putnam
http://www.phred.org/~josh/
Braze your own bicycle frames. See
http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html

On Nov 23, 6:53 am, "Sandy" wrote:
Dans le message ,
Artoi a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

In article
],
Ryan Cousineau 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 ,
says...
In article
],
Ryan Cousineau 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.

--
is Joshua Putnam
http://www.phred.org/~josh/
Braze your own bicycle frames. See
http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html

"Sandy" wrote in message
...

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.

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 wrote:
"PeteSig" wrote in message
...
"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/med...rmation_and_Wa
iver.pdf

http://www.sydneycyclingclub.org.au/...w%20member.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

In article ,
"Zen Cohen" wrote:

"PeteSig" wrote in message
...

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"?
--

In article ,
G-S wrote:

Zen Cohen wrote:
"PeteSig" wrote in message
...
"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/med...rmation_and_Wa
iver.pdf

http://www.sydneycyclingclub.org.au/...w%20member.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.
--

In article
,
" wrote:

On Nov 23, 7:01 am, Artoi wrote:
In article ,

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.
--