Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid.

[Dianyla]

I have to wonder... if drivers were properly punished for manslaughter, would the victim's families feel so litigious?

The correct governmental response to having been forced to pay up for someone's death would be to increase the legal punishment for negligent driving and vehicular homicide. Instead, they're taking this out on the cycling community. Blame the victim, eh?

[wannaduacentury]

I have to wonder... if drivers were properly punished for manslaughter, would the victim's families feel so litigious?

The correct governmental response to having been forced to pay up for someone's death would be to increase the legal punishment for negligent driving and vehicular homicide. Instead, they're taking this out on the cycling community. Blame the victim, eh?

I agree with you on this one. After reading the article in Bicycling magazine, Not enough penalties are being placed on the ones at fault. Jenn

[Eden]

The article posted above makes it clear that it was a problem with the road surface, so I can understand why the family went after the county. I'm not sure why the county thinks that shutting down the bike ride will end their liablility. Sure, if fewer riders ride their roads the likelyhood of an accident may decrease, but I think they need to view it differently. If any person, on an orgainized ride or not is injured because they haven't taken proper care of their roads, then they are still open to being sued over it - and should also view it in terms of a person's life too! Rather than blame the organization that puts more bicycles on their roads to find the flaws, they should be more dillegent about fixing them (and you would think if they can prove that they are being dillegent about keeping their roads safe they may be less liable too, even if someone is hurt). Their position at the moment says to me that they care much more about reducing their risks than reducing the risks to their road users.

I know this is kind of a simplified view and that taking care of roads anywhere is a big job. Even the most dilligent crews may miss something that is hazardous, and weather can open up big holes and cracks seemingly overnight, but can we just excuse it as an impossible task or use it as an excuse to exclude some road users? Around here (which admittedly is easier because this is a city, with many more people on the roads to see things) we can report road hazards to the city via the internet and they are *very* good at fixing things promptly when they are reported. I've reported several areas that were taken care of within a week or so and others have had the same experience.

[Grog]

When I did big rides organized by Velo-Quebec, they would always go on the road before the bikes and be very generous with orange paint. There are LOTS of potholes and cracks and the like and they were nearly all indicated pretty neatly. They had a good technique to put warning signals ahead of time if we were to be going fast on a dowhnill, etc.

I'm not saying that RAGBRAI is not doing its job. I'm nearly sure that they do have lots of orange paint on the road, too. But maybe this should be emphasized next year... Dunno.

[pinkychique]

I have to wonder about how much responsibility should be placed on the county for poor road conditions. There are several roads that I frequent here that have VERY bad shoulders, and many riders just ride with the cars going by them at least 55 mph or more. I'm not sure whether they are city, county, state roads, but still.

I don't think it's right to just go after everyone you can in the sad event of someone's death . It happens. Blaming everyone else won't bring someone back right?

[smilingcat]

I'm not a lawyer but... so I go to this county in Iowa, form a cycling club at a local bike shop. We get together and go for a "group ride". You get the idea. Well how is the ban going to apply? or a family reunion "group ride"

And about this person getting killed on RAGBRAI ride, was he riding safely? I've been on some rides where people act pretty stupidly, like they should have won the Darwin Award hands down.

Like one of the previous posters, I'm sure they will work things out. WITHOUT banning directly. They may do so overtly with unreasonably high event fee...

Yup guacomole ride is NO-MORE!

sad (accidents do happen but you shouldn't be profitting from it). I could of sued the city of Lake Forest when I crashed but I didn't. I'm sure they would have paid out dearly. but I didn't sue. They didn't go out of their way to cause an injury. IT WAS JUST AN ACCIDENT AND I WAS JUST UNLUCKY THAT DAY!! Why ruin it all?

smilingcat

[Geonz]

Unfortunately in ILlinois we had a related incident some years back that we're still reaping hte "benefits" of. A rider was injured because of road conditions and lost because the rider was not "an expected user of the road," so they shouldn't have had to think about safety for cyclists; it wasn't as if, the majority ruled, the road had been marked for cyclists or anything!
This created an instant and huge disincentive for ever doing *anything* to a road so that a rider could say "I'm expected here." http://chicagobikelaw.blogspot.com/search?q=boub has the details including a link to a list of known times when the case meant planners & government folks decided not to do things that might be confused as admitting bicyclists used roads.

Fortunately I *do* think the tide is shifting (I'm certainly shouldering up to it and trying to help). I'm hoping that bicycling will start to be something that even people who can afford cars do for good and valid reasons.