|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Who is at fault and how should it be dealt?
Duncan wrote:
If you aren't at least third-party insured and you are racing (or commuting), you're just being naive.. That sounds entirely reasonable to me (but then I manage a transport company for a living and I wouldn't dream of not having insurance on vehicles). Low cost insurance (such as the standard BNSW membership) covers the guilty party (in this case, the guy behind) for this sort of thing: I wonder how many state associations/groups have something similar? G-S |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Who is at fault and how should it be dealt?
In article
, Pete wrote: On 22 Nov, 02:15, Artoi wrote: In article , Pete wrote: That said, if you aren't looking where you're going and you hit something, you're pretty much automatically at fault, especially if what you hit is in the right place. So - IMO, guy at the front gets a new bike (in the same price range, not taking the **** with a 5 grand colnago) and the guy not looking pays. Did you take into account of the fact that it was a voluntary club bunch ride? An activity with known risks? It's voluntary any time you go out on your bike, you know the risks. Just because you're riding with other guys doesn't change that. If a car hits you in that situation, you'd say the driver should pay (and their insurance would). I don't see why a cyclist you know is any different. If it was something a bit less clear cut - maybe the group's doing a paceline, the guy on the front signals to slow for a car and although everyone's paying reasonable attention someone doesn't slow in time and there's a pile-up - then I'd say that's a risk of group riding, and everyone pays for their own repairs. That sort of thing happens often enough, where maybe you could pin blame on someone but you'd concede that you might do that yourself easily enough. In a race pile- up, basically that's a risk of racing (but hopefully you are insured then). Short version: if you cause an expensive crash through being a complete idiot (approaching a busy roundabout, and the guy must have known it, where you expect that maybe you have to stop, and instead of paying attention turning round and looking the other way for no good reason) then causing someone else to be two grand out of pocket - that's the holiday money, so perhaps your guy at the head of the group is now stuck between not riding for a year or messing over his wife and kids - is not acceptable. 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? -- |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Who is at fault and how should it be dealt?
"Pete" wrote in message ... On 22 Nov, 10:36, Artoi wrote: In article , Pete wrote: On 22 Nov, 02:15, Artoi wrote: In article , Pete wrote: That said, if you aren't looking where you're going and you hit something, you're pretty much automatically at fault, especially if what you hit is in the right place. So - IMO, guy at the front gets a new bike (in the same price range, not taking the **** with a 5 grand colnago) and the guy not looking pays. Did you take into account of the fact that it was a voluntary club bunch ride? An activity with known risks? It's voluntary any time you go out on your bike, you know the risks. Just because you're riding with other guys doesn't change that. If a car hits you in that situation, you'd say the driver should pay (and their insurance would). I don't see why a cyclist you know is any different. If it was something a bit less clear cut - maybe the group's doing a paceline, the guy on the front signals to slow for a car and although everyone's paying reasonable attention someone doesn't slow in time and there's a pile-up - then I'd say that's a risk of group riding, and everyone pays for their own repairs. That sort of thing happens often enough, where maybe you could pin blame on someone but you'd concede that you might do that yourself easily enough. In a race pile- up, basically that's a risk of racing (but hopefully you are insured then). Short version: if you cause an expensive crash through being a complete idiot (approaching a busy roundabout, and the guy must have known it, where you expect that maybe you have to stop, and instead of paying attention turning round and looking the other way for no good reason) then causing someone else to be two grand out of pocket - that's the holiday money, so perhaps your guy at the head of the group is now stuck between not riding for a year or messing over his wife and kids - is not acceptable. 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...Information_an... iver.pdf http://www.sydneycyclingclub.org.au/...w%20member.pdf Any comments on these and their legal merits? I have no idea what the legal position is, except that I'm sure there is a point beyond which the waiver is worthless (if someone murders someone else on a group ride, that waiver will not do a thing). More to the point, if I cause a few grands' worth of damage by stupidity then I would feel I had to pay for it (or pay the insurance premium if it was insured). I mean, what else do you do? Turn to a friend (presumably) and say, all my stupid fault but now you choose between having a bike this year and not taking your kids on holiday, I'm not giving you a penny? Again, if the same accident occurred in the middle of a ride because some obstacle appeared in the road when the guy behind was looking back, then I'd not feel so much the same way (I'd maybe offer to pay something in that position, though). Sometimes something does run out in the road when no-one expects it. But coming up to a roundabout? The second guy either saw it, saw the traffic and then decided to ignore it or he was looking back for 20 seconds - that's a long, long time to be facing the wrong way. Pete For me it would depend on circumstances. Putting myself in the crashee's position, in a race I'd just have to grin and bear it. It's a risk I'd take when racing. When racing, normal road rules don't apply (on a closed course). If it was just a ride, however, then, in effect, it's a bunch of vehicles riding on the road, so they should be subject to the same rights and responsibilities of any other road user. That means people riding behind must leave sufficient stopping distance. If the bunch chooses to ignore the rule then people in the bunch should be subject to the same range of responsibilities as any other vehicle. That means the crasher should be liable for damages. It's exactly the same principle as a bunch riding through a red light; ignore the rules and there are consequences. Just because people in the bunch are 'training' does not confer the right to ride contrary to the rules. Hmmm. I'm not usually a black-and-white type, but this seems pretty clear cut. Ciao! me |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Who is at fault and how should it be dealt?
In article
, Pete wrote: I have no idea what the legal position is, except that I'm sure there is a point beyond which the waiver is worthless (if someone murders someone else on a group ride, that waiver will not do a thing). I fully agree with you. I can't see how that waiver can remain valid if there's an obvious disregard for common traffic rules or worse. But it would be interesting to see how the lawyers interpret it. I assume the drafting of that waiver was through a competent lawyer. More to the point, if I cause a few grands' worth of damage by stupidity then I would feel I had to pay for it (or pay the insurance premium if it was insured). I mean, what else do you do? Turn to a friend (presumably) and say, all my stupid fault but now you choose between having a bike this year and not taking your kids on holiday, I'm not giving you a penny? That's more a moral issue. From some of the posts and in the case of the hypothetical, it would appear that not everyone are at the same level. Again, if the same accident occurred in the middle of a ride because some obstacle appeared in the road when the guy behind was looking back, then I'd not feel so much the same way (I'd maybe offer to pay something in that position, though). Sometimes something does run out in the road when no-one expects it. But coming up to a roundabout? The second guy either saw it, saw the traffic and then decided to ignore it or he was looking back for 20 seconds - that's a long, long time to be facing the wrong way. Yes, I concur. -- |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Who is at fault and how should it be dealt?
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? -- The fault is clearly with the rider waving and not looking where they are going. If the rider in front has made all efforts to signal they are stopping, what else can they do? -- Bean Remove "yourfinger" before replying |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Who is at fault and how should it be dealt?
In article ,
Bean Long wrote: 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? -- The fault is clearly with the rider waving and not looking where they are going. If the rider in front has made all efforts to signal they are stopping, what else can they do? 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. -- |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Who is at fault and how should it be dealt?
In article ,
"Plodder" wrote: For me it would depend on circumstances. Putting myself in the crashee's position, in a race I'd just have to grin and bear it. It's a risk I'd take when racing. When racing, normal road rules don't apply (on a closed course). If it was just a ride, however, then, in effect, it's a bunch of vehicles riding on the road, so they should be subject to the same rights and responsibilities of any other road user. That means people riding behind must leave sufficient stopping distance. If the bunch chooses to ignore the rule then people in the bunch should be subject to the same range of responsibilities as any other vehicle. That means the crasher should be liable for damages. It's exactly the same principle as a bunch riding through a red light; ignore the rules and there are consequences. Just because people in the bunch are 'training' does not confer the right to ride contrary to the rules. Hmmm. I'm not usually a black-and-white type, but this seems pretty clear cut. Good points in differentiating the difference b/n racing and bunch training rides on public roads. 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? -- |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
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. -- |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Who is at fault and how should it be dealt?
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 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Who is at fault and how should it be dealt?
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. -- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Who is at fault and how should it be dealt? | Artoi | Racing | 97 | December 7th 07 02:50 AM |
NiteRider light lack of durability, and how I dealt with it | Ben Pfaff | General | 22 | November 6th 05 03:02 AM |
NiteRider light lack of durability, and how I dealt with it | Ben Pfaff | Techniques | 28 | November 6th 05 03:02 AM |
It's your fault | Maggie | General | 22 | November 16th 04 05:41 PM |
Anyone dealt with a broken fibula? | Dora Smith | General | 20 | July 30th 04 01:00 AM |