Bike Forums

Bike Forums (http://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Advocacy & Safety (http://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/)
-   -   Lightning while riding (http://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/903764-lightning-while-riding.html)

CB HI 07-28-13 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PlanoFuji (Post 15898439)
Look up the May day run in Fort Worth a few years back (Just one of several incidents where I am personally aware of such suits). There were a number of suits--though they were settled out of court since the organizer didn't have a leg to stand on. It is called negligence, not an act of god when a outdoor event (for which people pay a fee that they would forfeit) when the weather forecast calls for severe weather--ie the weather service has issued warnings...


Of course, I suspect you are just looking for another argument where you fail to understand the reality...

So they were settled for small amounts by the insurance just to be done with it (business cost). No leg for the plaintiffs to stand on, but they got a little money out of it once their lawyers took most of it.

Any links?

I-Like-To-Bike 07-28-13 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FBinNY (Post 15898409)
I don't know if any have made it through the courts, but that's a terrible indicator. The vast bulk of these types of cases are settled before trial. Success is hard to define. If an insurer and plaintiff settle for $50k or $100k, is that success?

Any evidence that any organized rides/no mandatory helmet "caused" injury cases have been settled before, during, or after trial in the plaintiff's favor for any amount of money?

PlanoFuji 07-29-13 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CB HI (Post 15898979)
So they were settled for small amounts by the insurance just to be done with it (business cost). No leg for the plaintiffs to stand on, but they got a little money out of it once their lawyers took most of it.

Any links?

Getting settled means they lost. If the plaintiffs had no leg to stand on they would not have been awarded over $1 million for their total injuries (over 45 people were injured in one of these events) It cost the organizers (and their insurers) for what was their negligence. Not that you are likely to be able to comprehend that since you frequently claim legal expertise (though you clearly don't understand the difference between civil and criminal law). Of note that after that little mistake, the organizer was unable to get insurance for the following year, though they were able to the second year (after changing their written policy associated with weather issues)...


And what links do you expect for out of court settlements? I am only aware of these settlements because a relative works for the insurance company involved.

ItsJustMe 07-29-13 08:34 AM

If it's a light thunderstorm, I just keep riding, the odds are very low. If it was a crazy thunderstorm like they get in Florida where there are close hits every few seconds, I guess I'd probably shelter somewhere.

PlanoFuji 07-29-13 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike (Post 15898996)
Any evidence that any organized rides/no mandatory helmet "caused" injury cases have been settled before, during, or after trial in the plaintiff's favor for any amount of money?

Such evidence is held closely by the insurance companies (and direct participants who are frequently subject to confidentiality agreements) that require those events to have the mandatory helmet clauses in the language in order to get insured. So unless you have access to their records (or know someone who does), you aren't likely to be able to do a google search and find it.

P.S., I am not personally aware of the helmet related cases mentioned, but I am personally aware that insurers require the clause mentioned in order to insure the events. They also seem to require the clause when providing insurance for cycling clubs host group rides as well.

It does make sense though (without regard to whether helmets actually provide any protection) since civil cases (as would arise from such accidents) are resolved by jurors who would very likely believe that those helmets might have prevented the damage associated with the accident without regard to the accuracy of that belief.

I-Like-To-Bike 07-29-13 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PlanoFuji (Post 15900022)
It does make sense though (without regard to whether helmets actually provide any protection) since civil cases (as would arise from such accidents) are resolved by jurors who would very likely believe that those helmets might have prevented the damage associated with the accident without regard to the accuracy of that belief.

Do you know of civil cases in the U.S. where the jurors resolved that the injured should receive reduced or no compensation for injuries because of a "failure" to wear a helmet in a locale where there was no legal requirement for its wear?

PlanoFuji 07-29-13 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike (Post 15900059)
Do you know of civil cases in the U.S. where the jurors resolved that the injured should receive reduced or no compensation for injuries because of a "failure" to wear a helmet in a locale where there was no legal requirement for its wear?

As I mentioned in my post, I have no personal knowledge of helmet related awards (or lack thereof). I just have personal knowledge that many (if not all) insurers require language stating that helmet wearing is compulsory for participation in the events in order to get insured. The rest was speculation as to why, given the personal knowledge I do have relating to other cases where insurers have made contractual requirements (the weather issue I have already described) such clauses might have come to be required.

FBinNY 07-29-13 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike (Post 15900059)
Do you know of civil cases in the U.S. where the jurors resolved that the injured should receive reduced or no compensation for injuries because of a "failure" to wear a helmet in a locale where there was no legal requirement for its wear?

So far no. But then again, "contributory negligence" defenses aren't allowed in many states, so the driver's insurance company cannot raise the issue in court.

I-Like-To-Bike 07-29-13 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PlanoFuji (Post 15900118)
As I mentioned in my post, I have no personal knowledge of helmet related awards (or lack thereof). I just have personal knowledge that many (if not all) insurers require language stating that helmet wearing is compulsory for participation in the events in order to get insured. The rest was speculation as to why, given the personal knowledge I do have relating to other cases where insurers have made contractual requirements (the weather issue I have already described) such clauses might have come to be required.

That is what I thought. Stories about juries or insurance companies taking injured cyclists to task for not wearing helmets are Urban Legends/Internet fables/speculation with little or no basis in fact.

CbadRider 07-29-13 09:37 AM

Let's get back on track to the OP's question about being protected in a thunderstorm, please.

asmac 07-19-14 06:23 PM

Lightning Strikes Pickup Truck Alberta Canada WATCH VIDEO | Mediaite

I revive this only to post this remarkable video. I don't suppose getting hit while riding is too likely but it would certainly make an impact.

walrus1 07-19-14 07:46 PM

I think where you're riding has more to do with your chance of getting hit and killed then what you're. Here in NYC for example there are plenty of tall buildings to take the strikes then there are in say rural Ohio. I'm more concerned about the amount of rain following and limited visibility then lighting here. So I might ride through it if the rain isn't too heavy. That being said if there weren't a lot of tall buildings around me and I was one of the highest things around I probably wouldn't ride.

In all likelihood the event will be canceled if lighting is forecast due to safety and liability reasons.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lostarchitect (Post 15892280)
I rode over the Manhattan Bridge in a bad thunderstorm one time. It was terrifying.

I could imagine! I wonder if being on the metal bridge has any effect on your safety or not?

Grillparzer 07-19-14 07:57 PM

Regardless of what's around you or what your frame is made of, I strongly suggest taking cover if lightening is close. One billion volts of electricity isn't going to care if you're on a carbon frame or a steel one. Can't watch it at work, but a YouTube video, supposedly of a man getting hit while riding:

Man riding bike gets struck by lightning - YouTube

FBinNY 07-19-14 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by walrus1 (Post 16955215)



I could imagine! I wonder if being on the metal bridge has any effect on your safety or not?

It would be nearly impossible to be struck by lightning while on a bridge with a steel superstructure or cable suspension system. The steel would form a Faraday Cage with you inside, and direct all electricity energy around you. That's why passengers in aircraft and autos that are struck by lightning remain unaffected.

So I guess that in an electrical storm the term (Faraday) cagers becomes more appropriate.

Schwinnhund 07-21-14 02:35 AM

It is a myth that lightening always strikes the tallest things around. Lightening hits where it hits, and whatever is between it, and where it is going will get zapped. I personally know a local Forest Ranger that has been zapped twice, both times in his truck, in the woods, with trees all around. He did not get off unscathed. He sustained several burns and injuries, both times.

If you are on a cycle and see lightening, seek cover ASAP, and not under a tree......

Quote:

Originally Posted by DX-MAN (Post 15892018)
"Common wisdom" says that when you're NOT the tallest "thing" in your immediate vicinity, you're safer. Personally, I'd get under the underpass, or yeah -- in a ditch, which is a low point.



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:55 PM.