Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26
  1. #1
    Hi!!!
    Reputation: BelaySlave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    3,544

    New question here. Let's say you caused a crash....

    So you are flying down a trail at Mach 3....you come around a blind corner and WHAMMO!!!! you nail someone coming in the opposite direction either on foot or bike. The rider's bike is messed up....the guy is messed up and has some broken bones...bruises...cuts...etc. Bottom line he requires immediate medical attention. He gets hauled out....gets a ride to the ER...has a long recovery...rehab...lost time at work...blah blah blah.

    I'll let you folks take it from there.

    What exactly are your responsible for $$$-wise?

  2. #2
    dpr
    dpr is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    19
    Get a good lawyer.

  3. #3
    banned
    Reputation: 29Colossus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,163
    You are responsible for EVERYTHING related to the crash and then some.

  4. #4
    mmm bacon
    Reputation: 925hell's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    195

    Everyones Screwed

    Total cluster ______, the accident victims, which the party in the wrong (the person approching the blind corner at speed) is as stated prior responsible for all medical, legal, personal, etc.
    Lets not forget how it could affect the mountain biking community for the possibkle loss of a trail and the negative publicity.

  5. #5
    banned
    Reputation: 29Colossus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,163
    Quote Originally Posted by 925hell
    Lets not forget how it could affect the mountain biking community for the possibkle loss of a trail and the negative publicity.
    I agree with the first part of your post, but the second part is just ridiculous.

    It is as ridiculous as racism and it has NO validity in my world. It is a pity that it is valid in so many other people's worlds.

  6. #6
    Uit Nederland
    Reputation: fujirider1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    342
    Well if your side is blind then the other side also has to be blind. What speed was the other guy going at? If he was also going mach 3 then it's both of you alls' fault. But if he was being cautious then it would be mostly your fault.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    506
    Is the trail legal? MTB only or shared use? If MTB only one way or two way?

  8. #8
    mmm bacon
    Reputation: 925hell's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    195
    It is as ridiculous as racism and it has NO validity in my world. It is a pity that it is valid in so many other people's worlds.[/QUOTE]

    God, I wish I lived in your world of gummy bear rainbows and soda pop rivers.

  9. #9
    Endurance Junkie
    Reputation: bikes4max's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    349
    I would hope that the mach 3 person would do the right thing . KARMA !!!

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    63
    I wouldn't be so quick to jump on the "you're completely at fault and are going to be sued until you're homeless" bandwagon most of the posters above seem to be on.

    Everyone who rides/runs/whatevers a trail assumes a certain element of risk. If you ate it solo because a big rock was in the trail, do you think you could sue the state (or whoever owns the trail) and win? Very unlikely, because you assumed the risk by doing the activity.

    Likewise, the runner you tagged assumed some risk by running the trail, whether it be from the trail itself, other runners, cyclists, horses, rabid raccoons, or whatever.

    This doesn't mean you're off the hook entirely, but I'd ask my lawyer (yes, getting a lawyer is very good advice) about contributory and/or comparative negligence. Depending on the law in your state, you can get a significant reduction in the amount you owe, or could possibly even prevent the other party from recovering altogether (not likely).

    Disclaimer:
    This post is in no way intended to constitute legal advice or analysis and does not form or initiate a client-attorney relationship. This information is provided for informational purposes only, and any other use is against the intent of the poster.

  11. #11
    Uit Nederland
    Reputation: fujirider1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    342
    Please tell everyone how this escapade ended, once its all said and done.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JonathanGennick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    4,850
    As others have suggested, if this really happened then you might need legal advice.

    In an automotive situation the rules of the road are well-defined by law, and it's often (but not always!) reasonably easy to assign fault. Things are probably murkier when riding offroad on a bicycle. I'm not aware of any laws that regulate biking on random trails. There are no laws (that I'm aware of) that say ride to the left or ride to the right when you're out in the woods.

    If it were me, and if I came around a corner without leaving myself time to react to another biker or hiker on the trail, then I would blame myself for that. Even on a one-way trail I consider it my responsibility to be ready to react to whatever might suddenly show up in front of me.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    43
    Quote Originally Posted by BelaySlave
    So you are flying down a trail at Mach 3....you come around a blind corner and WHAMMO!!!! you nail someone coming in the opposite direction either on foot or bike, The rider's bike is messed up....the guy is messed up and has some broken bones...bruises...cuts...etc. Bottom line he requires immediate medical attention. He gets hauled out....gets a ride to the ER...has a long recovery...rehab...lost time at work...blah blah blah.

    I'll let you folks take it from there.

    What exactly are your responsible for $$$-wise?

    OK, was the other person on foot....or on a bike? Is this known as a biking trail or it is also a walking trail? Is this a two way trail or a one way trail? If this is two bikers traveling on what is known to be a biking trail and goes in both directions, it's fair game. You can't be personally held responsible for thousands of dollars if a fellow biker gets hurt in an accident on a trail. What insurance that you hold would ever pay or cover you for liability? I'm assuming you don't have some kind of fancy mountain biking accident insurance. So that would put you personally responsible if the other guys health insurance went after you. I don't think that's going to happen. Accidents happen, especially in mountain biking.

    Now on the other hand, if one assumed this was a shared use trail, then you would have a certain duty to exert special care and to be reasonable in your speed. If this is a one-way trail and you were the one going the wrong way, you are at fault. The speed at which you were traveling is important. Who are the witnesses to the event? Just the two of you? Did you tell anyone that you going unusually fast like medic personnel or the victim himself? Did you know the injured party? Does he have your personal information?

    Please give some further information so we can give you a more detailed opinion.


  14. #14
    Hi!!!
    Reputation: BelaySlave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    3,544
    Man I forgot about this thread .

    Anyhoo....

    This was just all a hypothetical situation. I've had some near misses in the past couple of months...both my fault and the other person's fault. You name it....coming around blind corners too fast....downhill rider not yielding....blah blah blah.

    Most of the trails around here are multi-use with some of them also being open to MX/ATV use.

    My whole point of starting this thread was to gauge how other MTBR's would react if they had caused a crash and more importantly how much said person is responsible $$$-wise.

    One of my managers at my parttime job was telling me that a roadie collided with a runner on the Boise Greenbelt not too long ago and the roadie felt like the runner should pay for a new helmet. I'm not sure what the circumstances were, but I think we've all read or heard similar stories in which a person is involved in a crash and then the question of paying for a new bike, clothes, medical costs, etc. comes up.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    4
    This is no different from some guy suffering a separated shoulder during a pick-up game of football. Your decision to participate infers that you acknowledge and accept the risks. If there’s no proof or malfeasance or malice of intent, there also is no liability.

    Biciclista emptor - Let the rider beware.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by BrevCampagnolo
    This is no different from some guy suffering a separated shoulder during a pick-up game of football. Your decision to participate infers that you acknowledge and accept the risks. If there’s no proof or malfeasance or malice of intent, there also is no liability.

    Biciclista emptor - Let the rider beware.

    Very nicely and concisely said.

  17. #17
    EGGROLL!!!
    Reputation: eggraid101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    382
    If someone was negligent or reckless in their behavior in the football game or their riding it could put them at risk for blame. I think it is a little different, because football, by it's nature, involves people running into each other. That isn't a normal part of mountian biking.
    http://www.mullenortho.com Braces and Invisalign in Leesburg VA

  18. #18
    midnight skulker
    Reputation: Prof. Chaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by BrevCampagnolo
    This is no different from some guy suffering a separated shoulder during a pick-up game of football. Your decision to participate infers that you acknowledge and accept the risks. If there’s no proof or malfeasance or malice of intent, there also is no liability.

    Biciclista emptor - Let the rider beware.
    I strongly agree with you in principle, and I must say that Shakespeare said it best.
    "first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."

    that being said, I think there was a street racing law passed in Colorado that took into account if a speeder had a roll cage or 5-point belts. If an accident took place in a car modified to withstand high speed crashes, it put the other drivers at a distinct survival disadvantage. Most people I know ride with helmets, and some with body armor. It hardly seems fair to pit that, and the (wonderful) metal contraptions we ride, against a pair of running shoes. So, yes there is some risk assumed when going out on a trail, just as with getting in a car to drive, but i don't think that most non-mtb'ers realize how fast we go, and are not protected to withstand the forces involved in a crash, with may place more responsibility on the biker's head.

    What if it was a horse around the corner, and it got spooked and kicked me in the head?

    That'd be pretty funny, huh?

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    831
    Anyone know if homeowner's or Automotive insurance would provide any liability coverage here for the at fault party? I thought I remember vaguely something about auto insurance covering you for liability while on a bike, but perhaps that is only if you are on a road?

  20. #20
    On MTBR hiatus :(
    Reputation: Speedub.Nate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    9,145

    Umbrella Insurance...

    A friend had a scenario very similar to this. She smacked a hiker from behind, on a public (and crowded) paved trail.

    Mach 3 speeds weren't involved. However, from the sounds of it, even though it was a pretty low speed impact, it was enough to send the hiker to the ground with swelling and sprains.

    So she did the right thing and traded info, and ended up paying doctor, x-ray, and prescription bills to the tune of $1500 or so. This sounds pretty cheap, all things considered, so I wouldn't be surprised if it was more and she just didn't let on.

    Then it got weird. About a year later, the hiker began calling her home regularly, asking for more money. I ran this past my brother-in-law, who is an insurance lawyer, and his advice was to not take her calls, and wait to be served. He indicated that in California, there was a 2 year window where a personal injury claim could be filed.

    That apparently never happened. I don't know what happened to the hiker, but to the best of my knowledge, no suit was ever filed, and everything just "went away."

    As you can imagine, this hit close to home. Both my wife and I ride, and she's had at least one close call on the trail (with another biker).

    We talked to our insurance agent about protection against such an incident. We now carry "umbrella insurance" -- a million dollar general liability policy for stupid, real life, non-automotive accidents such as this one. We're paying about $250 a year for it, but I hope we're never in a position to use it. If we do, I hope it's enough to protect whatever assets we have.
    speedub.nate
    · MTBR Hiatus UFN ·

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by chas_martel
    Oh the irony of someone with a screen name containing Prof. misquoting such a thing.

    Bwhahahahahahahahahahah.

    You might want to actually read the thing you misquoted.

    < s a r c a s m>Oh wait, Prof "Chaos" , that explains it.< / s a r c a s m >

    Or you might. Aside from leaving off the preceding "the", he got the quotation exactly right.

    Henry VI, Act 4, scene 2, the conversation between Dick the Butcher and Cade.

    Take your own advice next time.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: chas_martel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,482
    Quote Originally Posted by guitarist
    Or you might. Aside from leaving off the preceding "the", he got the quotation exactly right.

    Henry VI, Act 4, scene 2, the conversation between Dick the Butcher and Cade.

    Take your own advice next time.
    Context my friend, context.

    The Butcher wants to kill all the lawyers so that he can avoid prosecution
    of the illegal acts he is fantasizing about.

    Given that many put into the position this thread is about would
    like to "welch" on their responsibility I suppose the quote
    makes sense to some.

    My issue with this quote is that it is most often used by people wanting
    to sound like a good guy, yet they don't realize they are quoting
    a character that is a bad guy out to ruin people's lives.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    63
    If that's what you meant, then it's not a misquotation, it's a misuse of the quotation, or a misinterpretation.

    Either way, it's not like it's the first line of Shakespeare to be taken out of it's original context and applied in another.

    e.g. Et tu, Brute?; To be, or not to be, that is the question; All the world's a stage; The world is mine oyster; The lady doth protest too much, methinks; etc.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: chas_martel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,482
    Quote Originally Posted by guitarist
    If that's what you meant, then it's not a misquotation, it's a misuse of the quotation, or a misinterpretation.

    Either way, it's not like it's the first line of Shakespeare to be taken out of it's original context and applied in another.

    e.g. Et tu, Brute?; To be, or not to be, that is the question; All the world's a stage; The world is mine oyster; The lady doth protest too much, methinks; etc.
    OK, OK, I was not too precise. My intended point was that when someone
    quotes out of context they show either a) that they are purposefully misleading or
    b) that they are ignorant. Both of which detract from their message.

    In this example the person getting hit would have loved to have a lawyer
    if the other party was not willing to step to the plate and make good on
    their responsibility. I wonder if that quote would have jumped to mind
    if that was the point of this thread? Lawyers being a double edged sword
    and all.

    YMMV........................................
    Last edited by chas_martel; 05-18-2007 at 10:24 AM.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by chas_martel
    OK, OK, I was not too precise. My intended point was that when someone
    quotes out of context they show either a) that they are purposefully misleading or
    b) that they are ignorant. Both of which detract from their message.

    In this example the person getting hit would have loved to have a lawyer
    if the other party was not willing to step to the plate and make good on
    their responsibility. I wonder if that quote would have jumped to mind
    if that was the point of this thread? Lawyers being a double edged sword
    and all.

    YMMV........................................

    I get your meaning, I just don't know if it deserved a "bwahahahahahaha" at Prof. Chaos.

    And as a lawyer, I'd just like to say that we're just like everyone else: there are good ones and bad ones. Dateline (or whoever) exposes dozens of dirty mechanics and HVAC repairmen, but no one makes jokes about them. You don't blame the waiter when the cook burns your steak, right? No one thinks shooting the messenger will solve anything. Lawyers, on the other hand, well...

    If people could resolve their disputes on their own, no lawyer would have a job. So next time you feel like blaming the lawyer, remember -- he's just working for someone. And it's a rarity when one side is 100% right and the other is 100% wrong.

    But if you are planning a revolution, it would be a good idea to kill all the lawyers -- they usually support the status quo, being trained to be conservative pessimists, and abhor change, especially at the fundamental level of government. Not to mention having to learn a whole new set of laws
    Last edited by guitarist; 05-18-2007 at 11:25 AM.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •