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

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?
--

"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

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.
--

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

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.
--

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?
--

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.
--