Why the hate for Cyclists?

[chipbennett]

Hell, I'd bet even Mike would agree the cycle **** was at fault.

Now here's a situation I wonder about. One of the multi-use paths I ride on has a very long and steep hill. It's a bitch to go up. But the problem is going down. At the bottom of the hill is a curve. It's wooded so in the warm seasons there's foliage blocking the view around the curve. So you can't see until you get down there if anyone is in the way. On the side of the path just after the curve is a bench.

Walkers, usually women, like to congregate in front of the bench, sometimes taking up the whole width of the path. I haven't hit anyone yet, but they're just asking to be hit. And if a rider hits them, the cacklers will prolly sue the rider. I've always been able to stop in time. It's just really stupid to take up the whole path, and very dangerous.

Going down that hill, you gain so much momentum, you don't want to break much because who wants to wear out their breaks? But I feel like I have to feather them a bit so I have room to stop in case there are hens cackling all over the path. A noob on that path wouldn't be aware of the propensity idiots to be gathered there. They might not ride their breaks down.

Two solutions:

1. Install a mirror to see around the blind curve
2. Put up a sign instructing non-walkers to stay off the path / yield to those using the path

 

[foszoe]

Who's the top of the heap? The bikers clearly won't stand for this.

You using a clip from Midnight Cowboy. Somehow that is fitting.

 

[foszoe]

That is because roads have motor vehicle traffic. Pedestrians use roadways opposing motor vehicle traffic.

These cyclists have deployed motors, electric motors no less revealing their leftist tendencies by shunning fossil fuels, in their constant war on the happiness of mankind.

Fully Nude Bicyclists Flash Children at Seattle Pride Parade - Cops Say It's Okay (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

Fully nude bicyclists flashed children at a pride parade in Seattle, Washington.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

 

[Ingomike]

IIRC that lawsuit outcome rested on the temperature of the coffee, which was deemed to be excessive and at fault for the seriousness of the burns caused. It had nothing to do with intended vs permitted use of the coffee cup.

So let’s recap, bicycling is a permitted use but government owes no duty of safety, and thus has no liability, because bicycles are not intended?

As a determination of the court I truly am puzzled. I have heard stories such as this hypothetical for years. Kid trespasses on a companies property to ride his bike, falls in a deep hole that had no markings or warnings. The kid was not even permitted to be there, was not intended to be there, but courts have ruled that the company is liable for the damages.

I have never heard of the intended use being a get out of jail free card as a legal defense, and certainly not in the case of government public areas.

 

[chipbennett]

So let’s recap, bicycling is a permitted use but government owes no duty of safety, and thus has no liability, because bicycles are not intended?

As a determination of the court I truly am puzzled. I have heard stories such as this hypothetical for years. Kid trespasses on a companies property to ride his bike, falls in a deep hole that had no markings or warnings. The kid was not even permitted to be there, was not intended to be there, but courts have ruled that the company is liable for the damages.

I have never heard of the intended use being a get out of jail free card as a legal defense, and certainly not in the case of government public areas.

Perhaps the issue is with the prior ruling instead? Should someone trespassing on private property not assume all risk related to said (unlawful) trespass?

Why would you want to extend bad precedent?

 

[Ingomike]

Perhaps the issue is with the prior ruling instead? Should someone trespassing on private property not assume all risk related to said (unlawful) trespass?

Agreed.

Why would you want to extend bad precedent?

I think many of our common nuance lawsuits are bad precedent.

So are you saying you completely agree with the decision, city makes repairs to the road that create a danger that caused injury for a permitted user, but because the permitted user was deemed not an intended user the city has no liability to a permitted but not intended user?

How can a specific user be explicitly written into law as a permitted user but be deemed not intended user? If they are not intended they shouldn’t be permitted…

 

[jamil]

Two solutions:

1. Install a mirror to see around the blind curve
2. Put up a sign instructing non-walkers to stay off the path / yield to those using the path

I dunno about the practicality of a mirror. I just checked the app on my phone for a recent ride. Elevation at the top is 587ft, bottom is 528ft. Let's call it a 60ft drop in elevation top to bottom. The app doesn't give distance but I'd estimate it's several hundred feet distance. It is the steepest in the first couple hundred feet from the bottom. Maybe a 10% grade. I'll check next time I ride there.

If I don't touch the breaks I'm doing ~28mph at the bottom. If I feather the brakes I can keep it under 20. But even then, I'm not taking my eyes off the path to look for a mirror. I'm too old not to play it safe.

There are already have signs telling everyone to keep to the right. Don't take up the whole path. Most people seem to ignore those signs. I think the best solution for this particular situation is to move the bench. That seems to be the thing that gets people to congregate there. Maybe another 50 feet from the hill base. The trail kinda goes uphill a little and it's a little more open and visible.

 

[jamil]

As an aside. About that hill. Mostly because I'm a little jealous. I often see this tall, skinny but really fit, long-haired beatnik looking rollerblader. For a while there I saw him almost every weekend I went out there. He passed me once on rollerblades going up the hill. I'm a big guy. It's a tough hill. But quite doable on an e-bike. Still I'm ready for a rest.

Thankfully there's a bench at the top of the steapest part of the hill. The hill goes up from there, but I like to use that rest spot going up, so that I have enough energy to get up the rest of it. So when I got up to the rest, the dude was sitting on the bench drinking water. I told him that rollerblading up that hill was impressive. He not so graciously thanked me for not getting in his way, lol. He said it's really hard if he has to stop on the way up.

The next weekend I happened to be sitting at the rest bench at the top of the steep part. I saw him coming around the bend and heading for the steep part. I told my wife he's probably gonna kill himself. That was crazy. He made it no problem. No idea how fast he was going but it looked pretty fast. There's a lot that could have gone wrong though.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

IIRC that lawsuit outcome rested on the temperature of the coffee, which was deemed to be excessive and at fault for the seriousness of the burns caused. It had nothing to do with intended vs permitted use of the coffee cup.

You remember correctly. 3rd degree burns to an elderly woman.

 

[jamil]

IIRC that lawsuit outcome rested on the temperature of the coffee, which was deemed to be excessive and at fault for the seriousness of the burns caused. It had nothing to do with intended vs permitted use of the coffee cup.

That's why I told Mike it was a bad example.

 

[jamil]

You using a clip from Midnight Cowboy. Somehow that is fitting.

Is that another cultural icon I have to watch so people don't razz me for being such a boomer? I mean. Usually it's not a bad reason to watch a movie. I watched Tropical Thunder and The Big Lebowski for that reason. They were good movies and after watching I understood the cultural references for never go full retard, and that's like your opinion, man.

But I've never seen Midnight Cowboy either. Culturally important? Or skip?

 

[jamil]

Agreed.


I think many of our common nuance lawsuits are bad precedent.

So are you saying you completely agree with the decision, city makes repairs to the road that create a danger that caused injury for a permitted user, but because the permitted user was deemed not an intended user the city has no liability to a permitted but not intended user?

How can a specific user be explicitly written into law as a permitted user but be deemed not intended user? If they are not intended they shouldn’t be permitted…

Okay. Look. The standards for making roads safe for cars is different from the standards for making roads safe for bikes. It's more expensive. So, the intended use of roads for cars vs permitted use, like I said, for permitted use, it's more like use at your own risk.

If there's a pothole that a car can take, and such a pothole doesn't get the priority for fixing because cars can take it, but a bike can't... I think riding on the road is at your risk. Of course if you're following the rules and some driver is acting negligently, causing you actual harm, you should be able to sue the driver. But, if you want standards for roads intended for motor vehicles, to comply with what bikes require, someone needs to pay for that.

 

[actaeon277]

I mean. It's just a video.

Then you're looking at it wrong.

That's 'T-R-O-U-B-L-E'

 

[Ingomike]

Okay. Look. The standards for making roads safe for cars is different from the standards for making roads safe for bikes. It's more expensive. So, the intended use of roads for cars vs permitted use, like I said, for permitted use, it's more like use at your own risk.

If there's a pothole that a car can take, and such a pothole doesn't get the priority for fixing because cars can take it, but a bike can't... I think riding on the road is at your risk. Of course if you're following the rules and some driver is acting negligently, causing you actual harm, you should be able to sue the driver. But, if you want standards for roads intended for motor vehicles, to comply with what bikes require, someone needs to pay for that.

A practical approach here for sure but that is not the point. The point is the court in Illinois made a permitted user group a second class by stripping them of legal protections and unwittingly increased liability for bike paths…

 

[chipbennett]

Agreed.


I think many of our common nuance lawsuits are bad precedent.

So are you saying you completely agree with the decision, city makes repairs to the road that create a danger that caused injury for a permitted user, but because the permitted user was deemed not an intended user the city has no liability to a permitted but not intended user?

How can a specific user be explicitly written into law as a permitted user but be deemed not intended user? If they are not intended they shouldn’t be permitted…

That's the difference between intended and permitted. You're essentially begging the question here.

Would the pothole in question have posed a danger to the intended users of the road - i.e. motor vehicles? If so, perhaps that should have been the lawsuit's tactic.

If you decide to crawl along the shoulder of the road, through the broken glass and rusty nails, should the city be liable for you getting tetanus?

 

[chipbennett]

I dunno about the practicality of a mirror. I just checked the app on my phone for a recent ride. Elevation at the top is 587ft, bottom is 528ft. Let's call it a 60ft drop in elevation top to bottom. The app doesn't give distance but I'd estimate it's several hundred feet distance. It is the steepest in the first couple hundred feet from the bottom. Maybe a 10% grade. I'll check next time I ride there.

If I don't touch the breaks I'm doing ~28mph at the bottom. If I feather the brakes I can keep it under 20. But even then, I'm not taking my eyes off the path to look for a mirror. I'm too old not to play it safe.

There are already have signs telling everyone to keep to the right. Don't take up the whole path. Most people seem to ignore those signs. I think the best solution for this particular situation is to move the bench. That seems to be the thing that gets people to congregate there. Maybe another 50 feet from the hill base. The trail kinda goes uphill a little and it's a little more open and visible.

A properly placed blind-spot mirror wouldn't require you to take your eyes off the path.

That said: maybe putting the bench on the other side of the path and prohibiting people from standing in the path would be the best approach.

 

[Ingomike]

That's the difference between intended and permitted. You're essentially begging the question here.

Would the pothole in question have posed a danger to the intended users of the road - i.e. motor vehicles? If so, perhaps that should have been the lawsuit's tactic.

If you decide to crawl along the shoulder of the road, through the broken glass and rusty nails, should the city be liable for you getting tetanus?

No court should take my right to get the answer that question in court.

 

[Ingomike]

That's the difference between intended and permitted. You're essentially begging the question here.

Would the pothole in question have posed a danger to the intended users of the road - i.e. motor vehicles? If so, perhaps that should have been the lawsuit's tactic.

If you decide to crawl along the shoulder of the road, through the broken glass and rusty nails, should the city be liable for you getting tetanus?

Can you show me the law that says cars are intended but bicycles are not? Like to read that. The courts job is to read and apply the laws not make laws, as they did here…

 

[foszoe]

Is that another cultural icon I have to watch so people don't razz me for being such a boomer? I mean. Usually it's not a bad reason to watch a movie. I watched Tropical Thunder and The Big Lebowski for that reason. They were good movies and after watching I understood the cultural references for never go full retard, and that's like your opinion, man.

But I've never seen Midnight Cowboy either. Culturally important? Or skip?

Let's just say it won best picture in 1969.

I watched it because some friends of mine and I decided to watch the movies that won best picture the years we were born back in the 90s.

Cultural icon? Well it's still influencing Printcrafts posts so there is that.

I wasn't a big fan. I don't really remember much about it. There are few key scenes I vaguely remember.

 

[chipbennett]

Can you show me the law that says cars are intended but bicycles are not? Like to read that. The courts job is to read and apply the laws not make laws, as they did here…

How do you know what the court did here and what they relied upon to render their decision? Do you have a link to their actual decision?