Quantcast

No more Big Bear

Transcend

My Nuts Are Flat
Apr 18, 2002
18,040
3
Towing the party line.
Silver said:
Anyways...back to the rebar thing.

Why not use the spring loaded ski gates? Or just pvc? You'd have to dig a small hole, whereas with rebar you can just pound it in...but it would be a little more forgiving, no?

I'm still unclear too...was the rebar sticking out bare or not?
The real break away ski poles cost a bloody fortune. They screw into the ground, and flex about 8" above the screw end. Rebar costs pennies.

PVC would undoubtedly break, cut someone badly, and then he'd sue and say why didn't you use rebar. Same goes for wood, but substitute splinters.
 

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
11,698
1,749
chez moi
Silver said:
Anyways...back to the rebar thing.

Why not use the spring loaded ski gates? Or just pvc? You'd have to dig a small hole, whereas with rebar you can just pound it in...but it would be a little more forgiving, no?

I'm still unclear too...was the rebar sticking out bare or not?
OK, one more time...Snow Summit pounds very short pieces of rebar into the ground, no more than a foot high in my memory, and I'm inclined to think 6-8" (or 150-200mm for you...) is an accurate figure. They place PVC pipes over these stakes and tie the course tape to it. Hit the pipe and it flies off the rebar. Clip the rebar with a pedal, and it's not going anywhere...much like the base of nearly any course marker, however flexible the top is.

MD
 

HarryCallahan

Monkey
Sep 29, 2004
229
0
SC mtns
MikeD said:
OK, one more time...Snow Summit pounds very short pieces of rebar into the ground, no more than a foot high in my memory, and I'm inclined to think 6-8" (or 150-200mm for you...) is an accurate figure. They place PVC pipes over these stakes and tie the course tape to it. Hit the pipe and it flies off the rebar. Clip the rebar with a pedal, and it's not going anywhere...much like the base of nearly any course marker, however flexible the top is.

MD
Mike,

Thanks for the description.

So here's a followup question for y'all. Is this a standard way of marking the courses? It defintely sounds like something you wouldn't want to clip, and any experienced racer would know it.

On the other hand, if other major race sites use a totally break-away marker (such) as burying the rebar completely in the ground, then slipping the pipe over it, and that's a norm, then that's what an experienced racer would expect.
 

drc

Chimp
Dec 7, 2004
2
0
SoCal
First, I want to make perfectly clear that I am not in any way trying to comment on merits of Brian's suit against Snow Summit or his character. He may very well have a valid case against snow summit or may not. I find myself very sympathetic toward his injuries. I would hate to be in his position... we all think its not going to happen to us or anyone we know. However, as someone who has raced many times at summit and other venues, crashing and breaking you neck during a race is a very REAL possibility that could happen to anyone of us at any time. If you cannot accept that risk and provide yourself with adequate health and disability insurance you should not be racing.

Second, I am not a lawyer, have never attempted to sue anyone and fortunately I have not been sued by anyone (yet). So I am commenting from the lay-man's point of view. If the tort-law/liability insurance/medical insurance system is broken to the point where it is driving business under even when there is adequate demand to support those businesses then the system needs fixed.

I'm not saying all lawyers are bad (where were you on the "kill all lawyers" post), they are necessary and benefical to society. Lawsuits are more preferable to shoot-outs in the streets. But, just like DH'ers there are percentage that are sum-suckers that give the rest of the profession a bad image. You cannot deny that there are issues with the system that need to be fixed. Those bad lawyers and the publicity they generate are a large part of the reason that us "free" Americans are not allowed to do alot of the things our parents used to because people are afraid of being sued. If the BAR association and court system cannot figure out a way to police themselves them I am going to call on my legislators to fix the problem.

Third, I did actually write my previous post. Admittedly, my ideas are not new; alot of them came from the book "The Case Against Lawyers" by Cathrine Crier. Its a good read and is presented in fairly even maner (i.e. it picks on both dem. and rep. politicos pretty evenly). I recomend that everyone should read it to get a picture of how our government and its bearuacracy REALLY works.

Fouth, based on your replies so far, I am going to assume that you are in some way connected with the legal profession. I am going to base the rest of this post with that assumption in mind. If that is incorrect then please say so.

This is the same thing as "only the wealthy can take advantage of the legal system." Loser pays has the effect you desire all right--fewer suits filed. It also has the effect of making people unable to bring legitimate suits when they have been screwed because any lawsuit, no matter how righteous, can fail for reasons completely outside their merrits.
How many times do we hear about a worthy suit that fails versus the times we hear about a ridiculous suit that wins? If you're really concerned that this would really limit the accessiblity of the law to the poor, we could change the concept to losing-lawyer-pays. That way the attorney would have to weigh the risks of the case presented to him just a bit harder. I bet we wouldn't see to many more 1-800-the-law2 commercials anymore - "Get all you can".

If an action truly has no merit, a defendant may bring a malicious prosecution action once he/she/it has been vindicated. These actions can award large damages to those wrongfully sued.
The problem with this statement is the fact that most people bringing the type of suits we're talking about (med-malpractice, personal injury, liablity, etc) typically do not have any money to sue for. Wasn't there some saying about blood and turnips or something?? Regardless, any damages I may recover will not cover my legal costs.

No attorney takes a case on contingency unless he believes it has merit. That's a simple business decision
I couldn't have made that point any better than you did. The attorney takes a case on financial/business merit (can we get any money out of the defendant) not moral/legal merit (did the defendant actaully do anything wrong in the eyes of a reasonable lay-person).

Many suits are often filed soley seeking a settlement. Lets say my neighbor's kid hops my locked back-yard 6' fence, tries to butt-rape my pitbull that is chained to a tree and gets mauled in the process. My neighbor sues me for $3M; he can hire a "starving" attorney on a contingency basis (no $$ up front = low risk). I know that I am right... it was the kid's fault for jumping my locked fence and raping my dog. But to defend myself I'm going to have to hire a lawyer and pay $200-300/hr. If the case goes to court, who knows what the jury will do or what they'll award. The plantiff offers a settlement for $100K. Now, I can choose to spend several thousand $$ to go to trial in front of a jury. Even if I have a rock-solid case, I could still lose since as you mentioned before, no matter how righteous, [my] case can fail for reasons completely outside [its] merrits. So on the one hand I can spend $50k on lawyer fees (166 hrs @ $300/hr) and potentially still lose and owe $3M (if I win I'm still out $50K) or I can settle for $100K and put the mess behind me. What would you do... would you risk it on the will of a jury? In either case, settle, win, lose, my home-owners insurance will at best raise my rates or at worst drop me all together. If I get dropped, I could be labeled as un-insurable and end up paying big time for basic home-owners coverage. I bet most people would probably settle. The attornery knows this and thats why he would take the case. Now if I'm super-rich and could afford the $50K + possible $3M he might not take the case since I can easily afford to defend myself.

Another way to look at this is would an attorney have taken Brian's case (exact same crash) if his injuries weren't as severe? Say only a broken collarbone? (he got lucky and hit shoulder first rather than headfirst) Probably not since the potential payout wouldn't be as high... I bets its much easier to justify and convince a jury of a high payout for a paralisys case vs just a broken collarbone. Exact same "rebar hazard" though..... If I later crash and break my neck on the same type of "rebar hazard", should I then be allowed to sue the attorney that didn't take Brian's collarbone case since it wasn't a wise business decision even though he knew of the dangerous condition that ultimately leads to my crash?

Further, the average contingency is between 33% and 45%. While that sounds like a lot, the more a claim is worth, the more work you'll do and the more risk you'll take. Less than that simply is not worth it. I'm sure you think that is BS, but that's because you have no idea what you're talking about.
Well that is higher than I thought. Well if we take the case in hand, 45% of $25M = 11.5M. Assuming that the case drags on for 5 years and it takes 3 lawyers working 40 hrs a week with no vacations for those five years solely on this case alone:

3 x 52 x 40 x 5 = 31,200 hours ==> $11.5M/31,200hrs = $369/hr (pre tax)

I'm going to guess that my assumptions are on the conservative side. Most likely it would be 1 lawyer, 2 or 3 underpaid para-legals and unpaid law school interns doing most of the leg work. I don't think that you're going to get much sympathy from commoners like me regardless of whether or not we have any idea of what we're talking about (most of us can still do math).

Like it or not, lawyers do not have a postive public image due to these liability cases. Rather than sit on you high horse and talk down to me because I am so obviously ignorant of the business of law, maybe you could offer some constructive arguments of how to fix the tort/liabilty insurance system instead. If the tort-system is not reformed, you can pretty much bet on any high-risk activity eventually being banned by private businesses/land owners or by public legislation. If this type of thing is allowed to continue, how long do you think it would take for the City of Fontana to shut Southridge down?

For those interested in contacting you CA legislators:

Assembly:
http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset7text.htm

Senate
http://www.sen.ca.gov/~newsen/senators/senators.HTP

The Governator
http://www.governor.ca.gov/state/govsite/gov_homepage.jsp

happy trails,
drc
 

HarryCallahan

Monkey
Sep 29, 2004
229
0
SC mtns
dhjill said:
Yeah, we could contribute resources (money, time, etc) to help Tom and Pat find a new/develop another DH venue. The announcement on the TBB website said they were looking into other venues. Hell, I'd contribute some sweat equity to help build trails somewhere like Waterman or Mtn High. Just a thought. :)
Not a bad idea; maybe the specific location is a significant problem

I haven't ridden at Big Bear but am familiar with the general area. TBB and SS said the suit was only part of the problem; trail poaching into the national forest was an additional factor (Maybe a bigger factor and the suit was the last straw...). You gotta remember these resorts have been around for decades, relying just on the ski season dollars. Bike events were supposed to bring in more revenue. If bikes are a loser, they drop 'em.

So, of the other resorts at Big Bear, or Wrightwood, are any not on or adjacent to the national forest, or at least so situated that trail poaching out of the resort wouldn't be attractive?
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
MikeD said:
OK, one more time...Snow Summit pounds very short pieces of rebar into the ground, no more than a foot high in my memory, and I'm inclined to think 6-8" (or 150-200mm for you...) is an accurate figure. They place PVC pipes over these stakes and tie the course tape to it. Hit the pipe and it flies off the rebar. Clip the rebar with a pedal, and it's not going anywhere...much like the base of nearly any course marker, however flexible the top is.

MD
I'm not trying to be dense, honestly. I just never paid much attention to how they marked the courses.

I'm wondering if there isn't a better way...when I worked construction in college, there would be HUGE amounts of trouble if a safety inspector saw one piece of rebar without the rounded orange cap on the top, no matter how long the rebar was.

I know in this case the guy wasn't impaled...but that's the grisly thing I'm thinking about.
 

Echo

crooked smile
Jul 10, 2002
11,819
15
Slacking at work
drc said:
Rather than sit on you high horse and talk down to me because I am so obviously ignorant of the business of law, maybe you could offer some constructive arguments of how to fix the tort/liabilty insurance system instead.
Probably not gonna happen. It sounds like he's a lawyer (duh) so all you'll get is more talking down and rhetoric...

Good post, again :thumb:
 

Jeremy R

<b>x</b>
Nov 15, 2001
9,698
1,053
behind you with a snap pop
Silver said:
I'm wondering if there isn't a better way....
Well, the reason that Big Bear has to use the rebar is because of the fart dust that tries to pass for dirt out there will not hold a ski pole up on its own.
Calling it sand would be a compliment. Moon dust is more like it.
So not every resort has to use such measures.
Around here, we just stick a ski pole in the ground, and the ground holds it up all on its own. Its the damndest thing. ;)
I am not saying that there is not a better way for Big Bear to mark the course, but it can't be easy on that stuff.
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
The Pinto is a different case, I think. Didn't Ford do an analysis of a fix against possible lawsuit costs and decide not to fix a defect? I don't think that TBB in anyone's wildest dreams is that sophisticated or organized.
 

BMXman

I wish I was Canadian
Sep 8, 2001
13,827
0
Victoria, BC
Mani_UT said:
No way.. the person got what she deserves. A car is meant to be driven it's not a fock#^ cafeteria. Wanna eat something? Get out of your car you fatass

uh yeah right....no one ever eats in their cars now days.....D
 

Zark

Hey little girl, do you want some candy?
Oct 18, 2001
6,254
7
Reno 911
Jeremy R said:
Well, the reason that Big Bear has to use the rebar is because of the fart dust that tries to pass for dirt out there will not hold a ski pole up on its own.
Yes, it is hard as hell to dig that stuff. There has to be a better solution than rebar. A ski pole would work, but you have to drill it into the hardpan though. :p

At a race last year I helped on, we used rebar to hold up the course fencing. We still had to drill in with an augering tool. For saftey we had pipe inslulation packed on any poles that might be umm....crashed into. :p We also capped all the rebar.It was a pain in the ass, but it needed to be done.
 

El Caballo

Chimp
Nov 21, 2004
61
0
East Bay, West Coast
Here's the problem:

In the USA, people can sue anyone for any reason.

Since the legal system is so byzantine, it is effectively impossible for anyone who is not a lawyer to defend themselves against a lawsuit. This means you will have to pay a lawyer no matter how silly the lawsuit is.

It costs a bare minimum of $15-20K to defend the simplest and most frivolous lawsuit if it goes to court. This would be something like a traffic accident where the police report showed one party 100% at fault.

Therefore, the lawyers can always get about $5K-10K out of you no matter what, because it will cost you more than that to go to trial.

Unfortunately this case doesn't have a police report ready-made. This means the lawyers will be calling expert witnesses, making all sorts of motions, and the trial will last a while. Defense lawyers are paid by the hour. Cha-ching!

An insurance company has a huge staff of lawyers on retainer. Any time anyone rings up a big medical bill, they will sue, because they're on salary and it doesn't cost the insurance company anything. Then the other insurance company says "Gee, we have to raise our premiums because it costs so much to defend lawsuits". And all the insurance companies and lawyers get rich suing each other and we pay for it.

Any solution has to be patterned after the Colorado skiing law. It would be great to have a "Sporting Access Law" that extended the ski hill type of protection to any provider or manager of land which is used for recreation. This would cover motocross, hunting, mountain biking, skiing, and any other sport where the players provide their own equipment. We would still have lawsuit problems, but they would be lessened -- which would bring insurance premiums down and give us more places to ride.
 

shhhh

Chimp
Dec 9, 2004
5
0
What's going on... Where's the post referring to the Pinto? Where's the email referring to why Brian's website is not up? Is this site one sided and deletes posts by others that may have a different opinion? You want the truth, but the adminstrator deletes it. Maybe that's why all the posts seem so cruel and inhuman.. The posts in supports of a guy thats been paralyzed, that support truth have all been deleted? Maybe a lawsuit needs to be filed against this site for deleting posts - there is case law that supports it you know!!! Let everyone's voice be heard! Stop erasing posts that don't violate your terms of conduct! There are plenty of posts that do violate, but you allow. I guess the truth hurts, so you delete it.
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
shhhh said:
What's going on... Where's the post referring to the Pinto? Where's the email referring to why Brian's website is not up? Is this site one sided and deletes posts by others that may have a different opinion? You want the truth, but the adminstrator deletes it. Maybe that's why all the posts seem so cruel and inhuman.. The posts in supports of a guy thats been paralyzed, that support truth have all been deleted? Maybe a lawsuit needs to be filed against this site for deleting posts - there is case law that supports it you know!!! Let everyone's voice be heard! Stop erasing posts that don't violate your terms of conduct! There are plenty of posts that do violate, but you allow. I guess the truth hurts, so you delete it.
Repeat after me...no first amendment rights on a privately owned bulletin board.

Besides, the original poster could have deleted his own post.
 

BMXman

I wish I was Canadian
Sep 8, 2001
13,827
0
Victoria, BC
shhhh said:
What's going on... Where's the post referring to the Pinto? Where's the email referring to why Brian's website is not up? Is this site one sided and deletes posts by others that may have a different opinion? You want the truth, but the adminstrator deletes it. Maybe that's why all the posts seem so cruel and inhuman.. The posts in supports of a guy thats been paralyzed, that support truth have all been deleted? Maybe a lawsuit needs to be filed against this site for deleting posts - there is case law that supports it you know!!! Let everyone's voice be heard! Stop erasing posts that don't violate your terms of conduct! There are plenty of posts that do violate, but you allow. I guess the truth hurts, so you delete it.
"holy jumping to completely baseless conclusions batman"
 

shhhh

Chimp
Dec 9, 2004
5
0
I know the poster, it wasn't deleted by the poster. This site is totally one sided. The people that contribute to this site want the truth, but whoever has access to the delete button doesn't. It's JFK all over again! It's a conspiracy! This monkey smells fishy!

And if it's not... why is the poster telling me that they aren't allowed to post anymore?

Where's the conclusion I am jumping to?
 

shhhh

Chimp
Dec 9, 2004
5
0
Seems strange though... some support for the guy from someone that knows him - offers an intelligent comment instead of "DEAL WITH IT DUDE, I WANT TO RIDE MY BIKE" or "I BROKE MY LEG ONCE, I DIDN'T SUE" -like the injuries are comparable. A post to someone asking where the web-site is, and the ultimate results is being banned from future posts - what other conclusion can you make? It's almost personal, maybe it is! This whole thread is people ACCUSING SOMEONE WITHOUT ASKING QUESTIONS! Why shouldn't I be able to? No one knows what they're talking about. What the case, or imagine this... cases are about! I've seen so much mis-information on this site, it's not funny!
 

Kona99

Chimp
Dec 9, 2004
17
0
It's pretty simple: Big Bear did not make enuf money to cover their operating expenses and insurance. Also, since the law allows, if any one of us was paralyzed from the neck down, I expect we'd sue for everything we could get, desipte offhand remarks to the contrary. It sucks, but DH racing at Big Bear is a victim of its own success. IMHO
 

Stiff

Monkey
Sep 24, 2001
346
0
Miss Washington DC
shhhh said:
This whole thread is people ACCUSING SOMEONE WITHOUT ASKING QUESTIONS!
I'd like to see the original post. No one should be censored except for inflammatory personal attacks. But it is very clear to me that the vast majority of posters on this thread are sympathetic to Brian, and many admit that they might even file a suit themselves if they were faced with a multi-million dollar lifetime medical care bill. People seem quite honest and empathetic I think. The discussion is fairly focused on the legal and business environment surrounding the viability of US DH, which is why people are posting form all over the country; the future of the sport is at stake in this country - and that's not an exaggeration, lamentably.
 

Echo

crooked smile
Jul 10, 2002
11,819
15
Slacking at work
shhhh said:
A post to someone asking where the web-site is, and the ultimate results is being banned from future posts - what other conclusion can you make? It's almost personal, maybe it is! This whole thread is people ACCUSING SOMEONE WITHOUT ASKING QUESTIONS! Why shouldn't I be able to? No one knows what they're talking about.
Did you ever stop to consider that maybe someone associated with Brian's website asked the link to be taken down? I don't know who removed what, but the mods here only remove stuff that is useless or pure flame bait, and people only get banned when they deserve it. If someone got edited or banned, there was good reason.
 

Ridemonkey

This is not an active account
Sep 18, 2002
4,108
1
Toronto, Canada
shhhh said:
What's going on... Where's the post referring to the Pinto? Where's the email referring to why Brian's website is not up? Is this site one sided and deletes posts by others that may have a different opinion? You want the truth, but the adminstrator deletes it. Maybe that's why all the posts seem so cruel and inhuman.. The posts in supports of a guy thats been paralyzed, that support truth have all been deleted? Maybe a lawsuit needs to be filed against this site for deleting posts - there is case law that supports it you know!!! Let everyone's voice be heard! Stop erasing posts that don't violate your terms of conduct! There are plenty of posts that do violate, but you allow. I guess the truth hurts, so you delete it.
You registered for one reason only: to flame and post idiotic remarks. It IS possible to present another side of the story without being an ass. Let's see if you can do it this time.

LMAO! I just read your email! "Check with my lawyer about the legality of deleting my posts"! BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! WOOHOOO I violated some fools eFirstamendment eRights! WOOHOOOOOOOO!!!!!
 
May 24, 2002
889
0
Boulder CO
Bro, you can't come into somebody elses house, or place of business and say whatever you want. At the end of the day, YOU'RE IN RIDEMONKEY'S house, on his property persay. You have absolutly no legal basis to your claims. Now if this site were run by the government it would be a different story BUT IT'S OWNED AND OPERATED BY RIDEMONKEY!!!

It's morons like you tha...okay I'll just stop there.
 

riverside73

Monkey
Nov 29, 2004
362
0
Jeremy R said:
Well, the reason that Big Bear has to use the rebar is because of the fart dust that tries to pass for dirt out there will not hold a ski pole up on its own.
Coming from a promoter who has actually put on a NORBA Nat, the user guide or manual or whatever you want to call it that tells you the guidelines of how what you need to do to mark courses specifically state that you will use the rebar/PVC system. It has been done this way for years. The manual is written by Team Big Bear and Blue Wolf Productions, the co-promoters of te NORBA Nats. Not saying it's the best system, just the one that has always been used. It's simple and easy (as long as you are not pounding rebar into rock) and works well. it's also inherent that whatever you mark the course with has the potential to become hazardous as racers blow through the course. The only way to maintain it perfectly through the duration of the race/practice would be to have an army of volunteers (more than just course marshals) stationed along the course who would actually fix something when they saw a problem.

Somebody else said it somewhere in here that no matter what you mark the course with, someone get's hurt and they will find a way to sue. Probably even if the course was flat and obstacle free!!!
 
Sep 10, 2001
834
1
Wow... I have got to get my home internet fixed.... I miss all the good drama overnight..

To Shhhh... Man, you are in the wrong house.... Myself and Ridemonkey have had a little history of disagreements, but one thing we do see eye to eye on is that it is his board, his rules. It you don't like it, leave. Good luck on thinking you can sue on that.

I wish I could have seen the Pinto comparison....

Brian
 

-BB-

I broke all the rules, but somehow still became mo
Sep 6, 2001
4,254
28
Livin it up in the O.C.
kiko77 said:
I do not know if this has already been asked, but if BB is not going to let DH’rs ride anymore, where could we go, that has a lift?
Mammoth, NorthStar (Tahoe) or Whistler.

Slim Pickins round here though.
 

-BB-

I broke all the rules, but somehow still became mo
Sep 6, 2001
4,254
28
Livin it up in the O.C.
shhhh said:
Seems strange though... some support for the guy from someone that knows him - offers an intelligent comment instead of "DEAL WITH IT DUDE, I WANT TO RIDE MY BIKE" or "I BROKE MY LEG ONCE, I DIDN'T SUE" -like the injuries are comparable. A post to someone asking where the web-site is, and the ultimate results is being banned from future posts - what other conclusion can you make? It's almost personal, maybe it is! This whole thread is people ACCUSING SOMEONE WITHOUT ASKING QUESTIONS! Why shouldn't I be able to? No one knows what they're talking about. What the case, or imagine this... cases are about! I've seen so much mis-information on this site, it's not funny!

The Boyfriend of one of the BigBear DH Chix got paralized as well, and he didn't sue.
So what was your point again?
 

-BB-

I broke all the rules, but somehow still became mo
Sep 6, 2001
4,254
28
Livin it up in the O.C.
HarryCallahan said:
Not a bad idea; maybe the specific location is a significant problem

I haven't ridden at Big Bear but am familiar with the general area. TBB and SS said the suit was only part of the problem; trail poaching into the national forest was an additional factor (Maybe a bigger factor and the suit was the last straw...).

So, of the other resorts at Big Bear, or Wrightwood, are any not on or adjacent to the national forest, or at least so situated that trail poaching out of the resort wouldn't be attractive?
If they would build trails that were "good", then this wouldn't be a problem.
Take a look at Northstar (Tahoe) I don't know of ANY unapproved trails on or off the mountain. People dont' do it b/c they are happy with the trails that are there. This proves that illegal trails are not inevetable, but rather a result of poor "legal" trail building.
 

OGRipper

back alley ripper
Feb 3, 2004
10,655
1,129
NORCAL is the hizzle
Sssshhh said: "Maybe a lawsuit needs to be filed against this site for deleting posts - there is case law that supports it you know!!!"


Sssshh, you are a clown. You spout off about your rights and "case law" without knowing anything. Maybe you can provide a citation to the case law that says a private website can be forced to post something it doesn't want to post. Jackass, the First Amendment protects RM's right to post whatever he wants, free from government restrictions, but it doesn't require RM to keep something up here if he wants to delete.

Go start your own friggin site you asshat, the First Amendment protects your right to do it and say anything you want. But if I try to post saying you're in the KKK and then give your home address and a description of what you look like, don't delete it or I will sue you. Sound good?

Ever think that maybe RM is showing some respect by deleting it?

Chump get a clue. Sounds like you made up your own definition of free speech based on something you saw on Jerry Springer.
 

-BB-

I broke all the rules, but somehow still became mo
Sep 6, 2001
4,254
28
Livin it up in the O.C.
Jeremy R said:
That's because the whole system is broke. People always talk about big bad insurance companies, but alot of health insurance companies lose their azz every year. I had a client get turned down the other day for health insurance. Her monthly premium was gonna be about $130, and she was taking over $150 in just medicine every month alone. The girl was like 19, and on a couple of expensive stomach drugs. The insurance company will lose money by taking her, so she got declined.
Medical costs are through the roof because of a few reasons including lawsuits, and most health insurance companies do well just to break even.
Alot of people have health insurance and never use it, but back when I was paying about $100 a month, I broke my leg and after all the surgeries my total bill was $70,000. Do you know how many people it takes not using their insurance to make that up? A ton.
The whole system is screwed though, and our gov't trying to run a national healthcare system would be brutal at best.
Its sad though, I get 3 or 4 calls a week from people with conditions like mild Diabetes, back problems etc....., and I basically have to tell them they are uninsurable unless they can get on a employer group plan. That always goes over great with self-employed people running their own business. :(
Isn't this b/c the cost of medicine is so high, and the reason that the cost is so high is b/c the doctors have to amortize the cost of malpractice insurance and work for people w/o insurance over all of the "regular" peocedures that they do.
Whay do you think they charge $8 for an Asprin?
 

buildyourown

Turbo Monkey
Feb 9, 2004
4,832
0
South Seattle
-BB- said:
If they would build trails that were "good", then this wouldn't be a problem.
Take a look at Northstar (Tahoe) I don't know of ANY unapproved trails on or off the mountain. People dont' do it b/c they are happy with the trails that are there. This proves that illegal trails are not inevetable, but rather a result of poor "legal" trail building.
No doubt that boring trails encourage renegade building, but Whistler has great trails and people still build illegal ones and poach closed trails.
 

buildyourown

Turbo Monkey
Feb 9, 2004
4,832
0
South Seattle
-BB- said:
Isn't this b/c the cost of medicine is so high, and the reason that the cost is so high is b/c the doctors have to amortize the cost of malpractice insurance and work for people w/o insurance over all of the "regular" peocedures that they do.
Whay do you think they charge $8 for an Asprin?
The cost of medicine is so high because the drug companies have to pay for developing drugs to keep old men hard and pay for ads during the world series for those ads. Don't forget all those political contributions they have to make so they can keep gouging you on drugs.

You want to know why drugs are cheaping in Canada and Europe?
20% of drug prices goes to advertising. If your on a new drug like I am that isn't available in a generic, you go to Canada for the discount.

ok, this thread officially has about 7 topics
 

-BB-

I broke all the rules, but somehow still became mo
Sep 6, 2001
4,254
28
Livin it up in the O.C.
buildyourown said:
The cost of medicine is so high because the drug companies have to pay for developing drugs to keep old men hard and pay for ads during the world series for those ads. Don't forget all those political contributions they have to make so they can keep gouging you on drugs.

You want to know why drugs are cheaping in Canada and Europe?
20% of drug prices goes to advertising. If your on a new drug like I am that isn't available in a generic, you go to Canada for the discount.

ok, this thread officially has about 7 topics
Yes... They have to pay for R&D No Doubt, but a significant portion of "hospital" costs go to the items I mentioned. I listen to my uncle and Sister bitch all the time about the cost of Malprac. and how they either have to close their practice or jack up the costs. Which then lead to higher insurance costs... which leads to more uninsured, which leads to higher costs, which leads to higher insurance, which leads to higher costs.. Bla Bla Bla...

buildyourown said:
No doubt that boring trails encourage renegade building, but Whistler has great trails and people still build illegal ones and poach closed trails.
I've only been to Whistler once, so I can comment. I DO know that N* does not have these problems.
 

SLAPSHOT

Chimp
Jun 9, 2003
43
0
SoCal
I am a lawyer and I ride BB. I would simply note that most of the statements about lawsuits, caps on damages, insurance, costs of litigation, etc., in this thread are not accurate. The vast majority of my practice is civil defense work, meaning I defend entities like BB when they are sued. I am often angered by many of the lawsuits that I defend, however, I no longer judge people for filing lawsuits. If you believe you were wronged and suffered an injury and your lawsuit is legally cognizable, then you are entitled to file a lawsuit. If your lawsuit is frivolous there are a number of ways that the system addresses those cases. If you wish to implement limits on litigation beyond those that currently exist, then you need to contact your legislator. Nonetheless, my guess is that BB simply did not generate sufficient revenue to make mountain biking viable, if they did, then they would probably pay whatever insurance premiums were necessary. Given what they charge and the number of people out there on an average weekend, I would not be surprised if they did not make a profit.
 

-BB-

I broke all the rules, but somehow still became mo
Sep 6, 2001
4,254
28
Livin it up in the O.C.
SLAPSHOT said:
I am a lawyer and I ride BB. I would simply note that most of the statements about lawsuits, caps on damages, insurance, costs of litigation, etc., in this thread are not accurate. The vast majority of my practice is civil defense work, meaning I defend entities like BB when they are sued. I am often angered by many of the lawsuits that I defend, however, I no longer judge people for filing lawsuits. If you believe you were wronged and suffered an injury and your lawsuit is legally cognizable, then you are entitled to file a lawsuit. If your lawsuit is frivolous there are a number of ways that the system addresses those cases. If you wish to implement limits on litigation beyond those that currently exist, then you need to contact your legislator. Nonetheless, my guess is that BB simply did not generate sufficient revenue to make mountain biking viable, if they did, then they would probably pay whatever insurance premiums were necessary. Given what they charge and the number of people out there on an average weekend, I would not be surprised if they did not make a profit.
Nor would I... However the sport is growing and I'd wager that in a few years they will open back up again.
Or we will call a new place "home"
 

Roasted

Turbo Monkey
Jul 4, 2002
1,488
0
Whistler, BC
buildyourown said:
No doubt that boring trails encourage renegade building, but Whistler has great trails and people still build illegal ones and poach closed trails.
Not really that bad though. Poaching closed one does happen, but I don't know of many trails on whistler that were built without someone know about it. (and usually the poaching happens because someone in the know leaks info like that new trail up top. Everyone online thinking they found some new trail and were sneaking onto it...haha that was quite funny end of the summer)

Whistler mountain itself doesn't have much of an illegal trail problem. Whistler valley does, but for the most part, and most don't realize, they are being built with the knowledge of either Worca or other legit builders. Thats why most of the illegal trails either get torn down or legitimized. At least in my experience. The shore has a signifigantly worse problem then we do for trail building.
 

buildyourown

Turbo Monkey
Feb 9, 2004
4,832
0
South Seattle
-BB- said:
Yes... They have to pay for R&D No Doubt, but a significant portion of "hospital" costs go to the items I mentioned. I listen to my uncle and Sister bitch all the time about the cost of Malprac. and how they either have to close their practice or jack up the costs. Which then lead to higher insurance costs... which leads to more uninsured, which leads to higher costs, which leads to higher insurance, which leads to higher costs.. Bla Bla Bla...
A signifigant portion of hospital cost also goes to treating patients which have no means of paying because they have no insurance. The hospital is legally required to treat them, but they have no way of recouping there costs.
Those of us who can pay, make up for. Those of us who are under-insured and pay cash, pay way more.