Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Pacific Northwest' started by pnj, Sep 30, 2010.
get your jump on while you can, kids. Mr. Plow is coming soon.....
Please register to disable this ad.
Highway? More jails?? Something less relevant???
Someone broke their neck out there in 2005. The lawyer was representing that guy and was trying to make a case that city knew the jumps were there and didn't do enough(or anything) to let riders know the dangers of said jumps.
F*ck people like that (and the laws that allow them to do this crap).
If you do a sport like this, you should be full aware of the consequenses and accept responsibility for your actions. Don't ruin it for the rest of us.
Even the lawyer agrees with that thought. I said it's really horrible that his friend (or anyone) gets hurt so bad that they can never ride again (or wipe their own bumm) but the jumps were not at fault.
Lawyer even said his friends seat was too high. So he was an XC guy, out of his element. He also spent the night out there (bike rider) because he was alone, with a broken neck.
Where is "Softies?" I got back into biking this summer after a long time off...
RCW 4.24.210 basically says that land owners have no liability as long as there are "warning signs conspicuously posted" for dangerous stuff. Were there any?
It's a horrible story - everyone's worst nightmare, I'm sure - but I absolutely hate it when people try to blame land owners for stuff like this. Bicycling is dangerous, bad things happen, and it's the rider's job to stay upright and in control. Way too many people are expecting someone else to guarantee their safety, which just screw things up for everyone else - land owners and other riders for sure, and society in general too IMO.
I hope you buried said lawyer there...
You bought the bike, you chose to hit the jumps and YOU crashed....Who's fault is that?
Took the words straight out of my mouth!
One point the lawyer was saying was that the city knew they were there and that there are no signs warning people....
the lawyer honestly seemed down to earth and said he had ridden at 'Nade and Duthie. However, he is a lawyer and is not to be trusted.
Either he has a job that doesn't jive with his values -or- he's putting on a little show so no one realizes that he's giant asshole until he's gone.
Either way, I think he sucks as a human being.
You should have killed him and buried him under Margo
F*cking noobs!!! Out there alone and with the seat too high. Goes waaaay beyond assumed risk and more into the realm of imminent disaster. Pity his saddle/post didn't wind up deep in his rectum...and where were the coyotes when we needed them???
All the same, it's somewhat of a miracle they have been around as long as they have. Barely even got to know them, but I'm going to miss them all the same.
Fun police, die!
i really wonder if the city really knew about Softies? i think they knew about the Flow Park. i suppose if they could prove that it's going to be bad news for rogue trail building.
But to me the focus should be to keep work on new parks, and trying to get current bootleg trails legitimized. Because if they are successful then it's either the bulldozer or work on something to get it official. Which sucks but before 2005, the bulldozer option was the only option out there.
What's that cheesy saying? Don't hate the player, hate the game...
The movement currently is to push the current legitimate builds to the level of the rogue builds. But it takes alot of work. But the work pays off in the long run for many reasons.
And to all of you who are spouting off at this guy lacking common sense. How much sense does it make to talk so much $hit about a cripple on an internet forum board. Go deeper into the story and you'll probably find out that the decision is probably out of his hands, and that the insurance companies or whoever else is paying for his care wants some money.
Just because the Lawyer is representing this individual does not meen this individual filed said suit. Lets put it this way. You know the risks,except such risk and say hey I have insurance whats the worst that can happen. Well no matter how good a rider is **** happens. So you get hurt file a claim with your insurance and they denie your claim. Somewhere buried in the paper work gives them the right to denie coverage because of what you were doing or they think they can claim some one else should be responsible. What do you do when you are faced with hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical bills and will need care the rest of your life. Just another way to look at it. Now you know why when people start to get older and have others in there life depending on them they choose to change there perspective on what risk they are willing to take.
Hey Marty what would you have done without UPS.
I love this idea, but it's scary because it puts the trails "out there" in the open with the potential of being taken out.
I guess this is a good time to try- there has been so much progress in this region with the legal parks. Where to start though?
the city knew the dirt piles were there.
I spent an hour talking to the lawyer guy..
I don't know if you're replying to me- that does suck that they knew they were there- hopefully it doesen't set a precedent to get rid of anything potentially not legal that could hurt someone.
In my previous post, I was referring to the trails that the county/city doesn't (in theory) know about... How do we go about legitimizing them and minimize the risk of losing them all together?
at what point does the city(tax payers) become resposible for the lack of common sense. are we really at a point that we have to put a sign or rope up for every dangerous scenerio? is that even possible? i can't beleive we acuatally are engaging in this type of thought process in our society. i guess his mom forgot to take off his diaper before left the house. this is exactly why its so hard to build anything worth a **** in this country. That worthless m.fcker is responsible for someone else getting ticketed/arrested for trail building. All actions have repracussions and if your not willing to accept it; then stay home! Maybe we need to put up a sign that says running across I-5 during rush is dangerous?
F.Y.I -that lawyer is getting rich($250. hr at least i would bet) to destroy our trails while shrugging his shoulders at our misfortune, while using these same trails that he help desroy.
bury the cocksucker next time!
Go to the land owner / manager and ask for permission to build trails. If permission is granted, they'll be amazed at how quickly you get things done.
Regarding Softies, I wonder if the city could argue that yes, they knew the jumps were there, however they believed that they were so obviously dangerous that a sign would be redundant.
And they city's lawyer needs to ask the injured guy if he knew that there was risk involved in jumping his bike. Had he done it before? On jumps how big? What gave him the confidence to attempt this jump? I have a very hard time believing that he was not aware of the risks, and needed a sign to inform him.
I wonder if it would help to bring video of people having fun on the jumps, to make the point that they do serve a useful purpose. Maybe interview some kids about how they perceive the risk.
I guess there's a risk that the jury would see that sort of thing as insulting the intelligence of a guy who already has the worst injury imaginable, but still... if he's going to claim that he needed to be informed of the risk, then someone should point out how obvious the risks are in the first place. I would never insult his intelligence, but I have no problem making it clear that he is insulting his own intelligence by saying that a sign really would have made a difference.
I wouldn't have had the money to buy the bike in the first place.
This is more often the case than the commonly perceived notion that the injured party is just out to get a free ride.
The way our health care and insurance system is currently set up this is often the only recourse that a catastrophically injured person has to fall back on. I don't know the specifics of this individual's case, but I would feel comfortable betting my next paycheck that:
1) The individual wishes they did not have to file this lawsuit but they are faced with no other recourse.
2) The individual is not looking for a free ride for the rest of their life, they are most likely looking for a way to simply live with the enormous bills piling up and the cost of future care for the rest of their life.
3) The individual would more than likely exchange everything they ever owned in order to walk again.
I'll also go out on a limb and claim that all of you who decry the injured rider's actions, unless you sleep on piles of money, would be forced to do EXACTLY THE SAME THING if faced with a life altering spinal cord injury. Think about that the next time you hit the lip of a jump at your favorite riding area.
As DHRacer said, "no matter how good you are, s*** happens" and life can be permanently changed in the blink of an eye, literally.
No need to flame away, you're right. I wasn't so much mad at the guy, but at the laws that allow the land owner to be held responsible for stuff like this. I wish our liability laws were more similar to canada.
i heard they wernt gonna get plowed from someone out there
I hear you and I'll go a step further...I wish our society was set up so we could all carry the load for those who are less fortunate when this stuff happens without having to resort to lawsuits. Because it does happen, and it will continue to happen.
weather they get plowed or not is all just speculation on our part. I know the city did have plows back there a year ago to remove the homeless camp that was directly above the jumps.
The lawyer said he believes the city didn't plow them at that time because it would have strengthened the case.
Are you willing to have a National Health Care plan? One where you may not have choices. On another note. Litigation like this usally follows the money. If the land owner had none they would not be a target.
Actually, yes, I am leaning more and more towards some sort of national plan, perhaps combined with some sort of traditional private option. As with everything there are drawbacks, however. And to afford something like this I realize that the traditional American standard of living that we Americans currently (or used to!) enjoy may need to be adjusted somewhat. But no one seems to want to pay the cost, we just want the benefits.
Warning signs are not needed. I have had dealing with atorney's and i have refered them to the RCW and have never heard back from them. We thank the late state senator Bob Oak for getting that law passed. Main reason we now have skate parks, BMX tracks, Downhill ,etc open to the public. The RCW says (the short version) if you don't charge for it you can't be sued for it. The sign issue is only if a property owner has dangeous area that may cause trouble for people using his property. Like an open pit full of starving wolves. Dirt Jumps don't count!
Dude save your rhetoric for a political forum.
i think there is more inherent risk just accessing the jumps. The creek is all the toxic runoff from the runway, originates near the fuel depot... Always makes me wonder why they're working so hard to get salmon to take back to that creek...
Sure would be good to get someone to champion efforts out there, save the existing trails and jumps and maybe get more opportunity.
One thing i always thought is that if the Tyee Golf Course shut down and the City/County or whoever gave that land to mt. bikers, that would be completely frikking sick. Just think of the flow lines that could be built... All you have to do is flag a line, skim off the grass, and you're off and running. That build would go quick! Never understood why people still golf there, but then i don't understand why people golf, so...
Rite ON, thats Too FUNNY - Coyote part f'n cracked me up
I wish we had a single payer health plan... don't buy into that republican garbage
My only info came from the lawyer guy. I passed it on to this page....
and keep yer 'effin' politics out of my thread!@!!!!
We'll PM you so you can approve all posts beforehand.
Warning signs may not have been needed in your cases, since RCW 4.24.210 basically states that land owners are generally not liable for biking injuries. However, the same law also has a clause that says land owners can be held liable in some cases:
Given that there's a lawyer still interested in the case, I'd wager that the lawyer was trying to determine whether that clause applies. The injured guy's case depends on it.
If the jumps do not qualify as a "known dangerous artificial latent condition" then the guy has no case.
If they do qualify, and signs were posted, then the guy still has no case.
If they do qualify, and signs were not posted, there's gonna be a lawsuit.