I can see how this sounds like a sympathetic argument, and this situation naturally draws sympathy, but in the end, it doesn't really hold up since no matter how many Socal downhillers don't ride Big Bear, all that not riding of Big Bear isn't going to make the guy walk again. It's not like you can trade the one for the other.Damn True said:SoCal downhillers are upset about losing a great riding and racing spot. I understand the passion, the blind devotion, the selfishness. It's all about getting that next perfect run, getting faster, winning races. On one side of the equation, maybe a thousand people must adjust to the loss of the Snow Summit Sky Chair. On the other side, you have a family that's permanently affected and a guy who will never enjoy the things we take for granted. Which weighs heavier, the inconvenience of a thousand, or the devastation of one? I guess that depends on your perspective.
This is like saying that we are selfish b/c we all read the paper, and if we were forced to give up our newspapers so that he could pay his medical bills, it would be fair.Lee likes bikes said:I don't know whether the lawsuit is driven by him, his family or his insurance company, but I do know it's not driven by greed. We're talking about a man in his mid-twenties, a union tradesman moving up the pay scale, with 30+ lost earning years, never-ending health care bills and an irrevocably ****ed up life. How much is that worth? In the end $25 million comes far, far short of compensating him for what he lost.
SoCal downhillers are upset about losing a great riding and racing spot. I understand the passion, the blind devotion, the selfishness. It's all about getting that next perfect run, getting faster, winning races. On one side of the equation, maybe a thousand people must adjust to the loss of the Snow Summit Sky Chair. On the other side, you have a family that's permanently affected and a guy who will never enjoy the things we take for granted. Which weighs heavier, the inconvenience of a thousand, or the devastation of one? I guess that depends on your perspective.
Want to bet?OGRipper said:we can't be expected to assume the risk of someone else's poor judgment creating additional hazard.
I agree. It's not another perspective, it is just the same one we have already heard. There has to be more details to this case than what we know now. This article just said he clipped a course marker and crashed. I don't know of a DHer on the planet who has not crashed form a course marker, whether it is poorly placed or not. This guy's injuries are absolutely terrible, and again I wish him the very best, but there has to be more to this lawsuit for sure.narlus said:OGRipper's comments about not complaining about the marker placement prior to the fateful run are right on. i don't see a case.
Yes, I always walk the course first. But I've also had the course changed between practice and the race runs.Ciaran said:I have a question for those of you that race... Do you all walk the course before you ride it? Do you look for unusual obstacles and the like? I am curious because I used to race karts and cars but never bikes. No one would ever take their car on the track without walking it first. The reason we do that is to check for anything unusual on the racing surface... rocks, cracks, rubber laid down in unusual patterns, etc. Every driver after walking the track has the options of: a) Accepting the course as safe and racing, Not accepting the course as safe and not racing, and b) Bringing up saftey issues/hazards to the race officials so that they can decide if the course is too dangerous to run.
I am wondering if this fellow had walked the course and taken note of the course markers and such. As to whether or not SS/TBB was negligent I do not know... I don't have any race experience and cannot give an informed opinion.
In SCCA solo races we were required to walk the course, if you didn't show up for the course walk through they wouldn't let you race.Ciaran said:I have a question for those of you that race... Do you all walk the course before you ride it? Do you look for unusual obstacles and the like? I am curious because I used to race karts and cars but never bikes. No one would ever take their car on the track without walking it first.
See that is another problem. Our sport is so grassroots ghetto that half the time then the course is changed or markers are removed, it is done by the racers unofficially. This kind of stuff happens all the time. And normally it is to make the course safer, but not always. It is just another risk we have to put up with.PsychO!1 said:Yes, I always walk the course first. But I've also had the course changed between practice and the race runs.
Would you consider that negligent??
It's beginning to sound to me like the sport really is ghetto. Personally I feel that one should not have to put up with risks such as courses being changed mid race, or competitors moving or changing things on the course. Like I said, I have never raced bikes (well, a little BMX when I was a kid), so I could be off base here, but it sounds like the people running the races (TBB, NORBA, whoever) had no idea of how racing should be run.Jeremy R said:Our sport is so grassroots ghetto ... It is just another risk we have to put up with.
I wouldn't be too sure of that. There are a few lawsuits out there that I can think of that come to mind that the plantiff's won for millions upon millions of dollars, and yet there was no good reason for them to have won at all. A kid crashed into a brick column on a sidewalk, and sued the school for the placement of the column, and won. A thief jumped a fence into someone's yard to break into the house from the back (yes, the motives were exposed in court), and landed on a rusty nail in a board, and sued for negligence on the houseowner's part, and won. A thief was attempting to break into a house through a skylight, fell through and broke his leg, and sued the houseowner (for who knows what), and won. My business law professor explained these cases to me as examples of how the law can be abused.PsychO!1 said:I'v been listening to all the trashing of this guy, thinking to myself, 'there's more to the story, some gross negligence we're not aware of.'
Sure I'll bet, what do you want to wager?bushwacker said:Want to bet?
I signed a waiver this year that had a line it it like this:
"You cannot hold us responsible for anything bad that occurs. Even if it is due to our own gross negligence, bad decision, or stupidity."
I signed that waiver, and I know a whole lot of monkey's that were at that same race and signed it too.
If someone still has a copy of the GGG race waiver, post the exact quote.
That's it exactly....we are all making assumptions, when we don't ANY of the facts.OGRipper said:I don't think so, but we don't know enough. Like I said earlier, if they ignored complaints that weighs against BB.
I'm basing my opinion on what Lee said this guy said. I would believe it as the true story.PsychO!1 said:That's it exactly....we are all making assumptions, when we don't ANY of the facts.
BB may have been responsible....we don't know, he may be a sue happy prick....we don't know.
There are a lot of frivilous (sp?) lawsuits in this country, so, it's easy to hop on that band wagon. But without the WHOLE story, we can't make the call.
I always hear the McDonalds Hot Coffee Suit as an example of frivilous suits, but when you know thw whole story, McDonalds was negligent (sp?) and responsible.
Lee also said this could not speak about it. Lee story did have ALL the facts.Eigil said:I'm basing my opinion on what Lee said this guy said. I would believe it as the true story.
See, in my opinion mcdonals WAS NOT responsible. The dumb broad who drove with hot coffee between her legs was stupid and thus, responsible.PsychO!1 said:I always hear the McDonalds Hot Coffee Suit as an example of frivilous suits, but when you know thw whole story, McDonalds was negligent (sp?) and responsible.
Then you don't know the whole story.Transcend said:See, in my opinion mcdonals WAS NOT responsible. The dumb broad who drove with hot coffee between her legs was stupid and thus, responsible.
It doesn't matter. This is what is wrong with America. Whether Mcdonalds over heated the coffe to near boiling, I DON'T care.PsychO!1 said:Then you don't know the whole story.
Transcend said:It doesn't matter. This is what is wrong with America. Whether Mcdonalds over heated the coffe to near boiling, I DON'T care.
The accident could have been prevented had she
a) not driven with hot coffee at all and concentrated on driving
b) used a cup holder instead of her crotch.
Try again.Transcend said:It doesn't matter. This is what is wrong with America. Whether Mcdonalds over heated the coffe to near boiling, I DON'T care.
The accident could have been prevented had she
a) not driven with hot coffee at all and concentrated on driving
b) used a cup holder instead of her crotch.
WOW!!! Are telling me Trancend didn't have ALL of the facts???DRB said:Try again.
1. She was NOT driving the car.
2. The car was NOT moving.
3. She was holding the cup in one hand, removing the top with the other when it spilled.
I agree 100%. But, I'm also pretty sure they had a better understanding of what happened then any of us.Brad23 said:jury's are the puppets of the lawyers, most people don't care about facts just the way the story has been told. I'm just saying that fact the Jury desided something doesn't make any more palletable to the rest of us. Just remember OJ is free