Advocacy & Safety - This is a travesty of Justice!

Metropolitan News-Enterprise



Tuesday, May 22, 2007



Page 3



L.A. Not Liable to Cyclist Who Crashed on City’s Bikeway, C.A. Says



By a MetNews Staff Writer



The City of Los Angeles has absolute immunity for injuries suffered by a cyclist who collided with a chain link fence upon exiting the Los Angeles River Bikeway in Griffith Park, the Court of Appeal for this district ruled yesterday.

Div. Eight rejected David Prokop’s contention that the city can be held responsible for damages resulting from its defective design of a class I bikeway.

Prokop alleged that while cycling along the path, east of Victory Blvd., he sought to exit through an opening provided for bicyclists. When he attempted to cycle through the opening, at a spot where a message on the pavement says “WALK BIKE,” he ran into the fence, suffering a severe laceration to his forehead, loss of consciousness, and neck pain.

He contended that cyclists are forced to curve sharply several times in order to exit the path and avoid the fence, and that the fence is too close to the path. The city, he alleged, created the dangerous condition and knew or should have known that it was placing cyclists in peril.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Rolf M. Treu granted summary judgment, citing Farnham v. City of Los Angeles, (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1097. The court there held that a class I bikeway, as defined in Streets and Highways Code Sec. 890.4, is a “trail” within the meaning of Sec. 831.4(b).

The latter section grants public entities absolute immunity from liability for injuries resulting from a dangerous condition on a “trail used for” certain purposes, “including...all types of vehicular riding,” or on an unpaved road that provides access to such activities.

Justice Paul Boland, writing for the Court of Appeal, said the trial judge was correct, noting that a series of cases have held that bike paths, both paved and unpaved, are trails and that absolute immunity applies as a result. In doing so, he rejected the argument that Farnham, which dealt with an accident on the Sepulveda Basin Bikeway along the perimeter of Balboa Park in the San Fernando Valley, should be overruled or distinguished.

Prokop’s expert insisted that the gate where the injury occurred does not comply with the criteria set out in the California Highway Design Manual, as required by the California Bicycle Transportation Act. But even if that is so, Boland explained, the immunity has not been waived because Government Code Sec. 815 makes clear that a statute granting immunity takes precedence over any enactment purporting to impose liability on a public entity.

Boland acknowledged that Prokop’s suit differed from Farnham in some respects, including that the latter case dealt with an alleged defect in the path rather than a gate. But the result is the same, the justice said.

“No authority concludes that the ‘condition’ of a trail excludes conditions relating to its design,” the jurist wrote. “Indeed, the contrary is the case.”

Attorneys on appeal were Jonathan B. Cole and Matthew F. Blumkin of Nemecek & Cole and Karen K. Coffin-Brent of Karen K. Coffin Professional Corporation for the plaintiff and Deputy City Attorney Blithe S. Bock for the defendant.

The case is Prokop v. City of Los Angeles, 07 S.O.S. 2533.



Copyright 2007, Metropolitan News Company
http://www.metnews.com/articles/2007/prok052207.htm

So, if there is no possibility of liability to the builders if they are a government agency, then there is no pressure to maintain or even provide any reasonable security!:mad:

I have edited to highlight the particular point I am trying to convey here, for those of you that seem to think I am saying something else.

It would seem that the same would apply in the case of a motorist injured or killed due to defective roadway engineering, yes? In general, IMO, municipalities (or municipal corporations) tend to have immunity from far too much legitimate liability.

Prokop’s expert insisted ...
Unsuccessfully, again. Now whom might that "expert" be? And why didn't the judge and defense bow down and roll over in his presence?

Tom,

All I can say is, this ruling is not a suprise. In essence, it says, "We are not responsible for your safety on bike paths." There it is.

Who's your daddy, now? :rolleyes:

What doesn't kill you makes you smarter.

Although it was decided on lack of responsibility for the path, my mind keeps going back to where he rode his bike where it said "Walk Your Bike".

It would seem that the same would apply in the case of a motorist injured or killed due to defective roadway engineering, yes?
For a roadway, if the city followed the design standards, yes they would be immune. But if they didn't follow the design standards, or had a known defect, they could be liable. The latter is not the case for paths.

BTW, here's the legal opinion from the appeal:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B184025.PDF
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B184025.DOC

For a roadway, if the city followed the design standards, yes they would be immune. But if they didn't follow the design standards, or had a known defect, they could be liable. The latter is not the case for paths.

BTW, here's the legal opinion from the appeal:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B184025.PDF
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B184025.DOC
Right. This ruling basically affirms a previous ruling of a lower court that a bike path is a "trail", whether it is paved or not. Cities are immune from having to meet any kind of standards for a "trail".

In contrast, note that they are liable for injuries where the proximate cause is a substandard bike lane design, because bike lanes are part of the highway.

So if you're on a bike path in California, ride at your own risk, just as you do on a mountain biking unpaved trail. No one is legally responsible to keep it maintained.

There is some hope that this ruling can be used as leverage to get the legislature to revisit the law and update it accordingly, clarifying in law that a bike path is not a trail but part of the highway system, and, so, municipalities are required to keep them maintained according to the appropriate standards. But I'm not too hopeful about that. It will be tough sell, with most cash-strapped cities probably strongly opposed to it. It also could mean that those paths that cannot be maintained up to standards will be closed, which could make some cycling advocacy groups oppose it.

On the bright side, this ruling might be used as a reason to argue against removing cyclist highway access simply because a bike path alternative is available (as Dana Point tried to do a few months ago). The court basically said that bike paths are trails that are intended for recreational, not transportational, usage.

For a roadway, if the city followed the design standards, yes they would be immune. But if they didn't follow the design standards, or had a known defect, they could be liable. The latter is not the case for paths.

BTW, here's the legal opinion from the appeal:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B184025.PDF
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B184025.DOC
The "design standards" are not always sufficient. We all know engineers are both 'conservative' and 'fallible'...and I know how long it has taken for sharrows to be accepted as legitimate. My mind wanders back to I-40 through Albuquerque...it seemed like every interchange was designed by a different graduate student. There are many unsafe engineering designs out there in the 'real world'; and many 'innovative' designs which have promise are rejected for no reason at all. Engineers and the municipalities who employ them cannot hide behind 'priviledge' forever. Local streets and bike paths are no different.

Unsuccessfully, again. Now whom might that "expert" be? And why didn't the judge and defense bow down and roll over in his presence?
Yes, and I know that John Forester was the legal expert, and the Forester/Anti Forester argument has no place in this particular thread. If I had wanted to bring VC and JF into it, I would have posted it in the VC subforum.

By the way, rather than demonize him (since you brought him into the thread) in this particular instance, maybe you ought to look at the fact that he has been putting his own money up to help with Prokops legal costs as well. He at least deserves some credit for trying to help arrive at a solution here instead of ignore it, doesn't he?

When he attempted to cycle through the opening, at a spot where a message on the pavement says “WALK BIKE,” he ran into the fence


Sucks when you can't follow simple instructions.

Although it was decided on lack of responsibility for the path, my mind keeps going back to where he rode his bike where it said "Walk Your Bike".


Same here. Seems like there wouldn't have been a problem had he followed the instructions.

The travesty part is the lack of responsibility in my mind. If there is no legal responsibility, then there is no reason to maintain or provide secure environment either.

Prokop alleged that while cycling along the path, east of Victory Blvd., he sought to exit through an opening provided for bicyclists. When he attempted to cycle through the opening, at a spot where a message on the pavement says “WALK BIKE,” he ran into the fence, suffering a severe laceration to his forehead, loss of consciousness, and neck pain.




This moron can't follow a simple instruction and he sues the city for his own stupidity....give me a break. This is just another example of a friviolous lawsuit

Tom,

All I can say is, this ruling is not a suprise. In essence, it says, "We are not responsible for your safety on bike paths." There it is.

Who's your daddy, now? :rolleyes:

And who is responsible for Your safety when you bicycle around/through obstruction warnings on the road? The city or you? Who YOU going to sue? Sugar Daddy's wallet will be closed to you, too.

This moron can't follow a simple instruction and he sues the city for his own stupidity....give me a break. This is just another example of a friviolous lawsuit
Again, read what I said above:

The suit relieves other aspects that SHOULD be protected, because of how the judge ruled. There is no obligation to maintain the path, but yet under a rigid interpretation of the law, cyclists can be required to use this path instead of the road if the path serves as a route to where the rider is going. If it is interpreted as a required to use route, then it isn't a path, but instead is transportational infrastructure and the immunity ruling just opened up a different can of worms as far as use and liability (or lack thereof) of other transportational infrastructure as regards bicycle usage.

I wasn't referring to him disregarding the walk the bike sign. If that was the sole aspect, then I would have to agree with you.

He at least deserves some credit for trying to help arrive at a solution here instead of ignore it, doesn't he?
Not really. My understanding is that the "expert" cost the plaintiff a lot more money and grief by convincing him he had a case on appeal and that all he needed was a new lawyer who would defer to the "expert." The expert's game plan/legal strategy was going to win by demonstrating that the defense lawyers and judges didn't know anything.

And BTW how do you define "travesty of justice"? Did an "expert" advise you that the judges had it all wrong?

The "design standards" are not always sufficient. We all know engineers are both 'conservative' and 'fallible'...and I know how long it has taken for sharrows to be accepted as legitimate. My mind wanders back to I-40 through Albuquerque...it seemed like every interchange was designed by a different graduate student. There are many unsafe engineering designs out there in the 'real world'; and many 'innovative' designs which have promise are rejected for no reason at all. Engineers and the municipalities who employ them cannot hide behind 'priviledge' forever. Local streets and bike paths are no different.
Speaking as an engineer (although in another industry), the design standards, by necessity, leave room for engineers to make engineering judgments for individual cases. The problem is that some engineers don't have a clue about how to ride a bike in traffic, so the places where they have to make engineering judgment reflect that.

Engineers are conservative by nature, because if they try something innovative that doesn't meet the standards, that sets their city up for potential liability. Often times one city needs to take the lead to get approval to test these innovative designs (such as sharrows), then if successful they get added to the design standards so that others can use them.

Although complying with the design standards for roads gives cities immunity, at least as a roadway user we can expect roadways to meet certain minimum requirements. But for bike paths in California, cities have immunity no matter what, so as users we can't expect any compliance to any sort of reasonable design and maintenance.

Sucks when you can't follow simple instructions.


This is tantamount to driving one's car at double the speed limit on an offramp and then suing the state for not building an offramp banked enough to handle the 70 mph SUV. :rolleyes: Anything can be made hazardous if you are stupid enough.

Speaking as an engineer (although in another industry), the design standards, by necessity, leave room for engineers to make engineering judgments for individual cases. The problem is that some engineers don't have a clue about how to ride a bike in traffic, so the places where they have to make engineering judgment reflect that.

Engineers are conservative by nature, because if they try something innovative that doesn't meet the standards, that sets their city up for potential liability. Often times one city needs to take the lead to get approval to test these innovative designs (such as sharrows), then if successful they get added to the design standards so that others can use them.

Although complying with the design standards for roads gives cities immunity, at least as a roadway user we can expect roadways to meet certain minimum requirements. But for bike paths in California, cities have immunity no matter what, so as users we can't expect any compliance to any sort of reasonable design and maintenance.
The last is exactly the point I am trying to make....thanks! I've stated that at least twice in this thread, and that gets ignored because it doesn't fit the agenda of some people on this thread. They'd rather attack than read apparently.

The last is exactly the point I am trying to make....thanks! I've stated that at least twice in this thread, and that gets ignored because it doesn't fit the agenda of some people on this thread. They'd rather attack than read apparently.
No. Sorry, doesn't wash. Your OP title told all about where you are coming from.

This moron can't follow a simple instruction and he sues the city for his own stupidity....give me a break. This is just another example of a friviolous lawsuit
Not so. The test is whether a reasonable and prudent person/average joe would follow those instructions or believe that if he didn't he could be gravely injured. I'm not saying whether that is or isn't the case here. You can't simply say "because the writing said so."

That point not withstanding this is hardly a "travesty of justice."

No. Sorry, doesn't wash. Your OP title told all about where you are coming from.
I HIGHLIGHTED what I was trying to convey, for clarity in my OP. Now, I have no hidden agenda here, so I would appreciate it if you don't try to distort my position by implying I do. I am most assuredly not what you are implying. You are no less a zealot than the other side of the equation and the fact is, both sides of the debate have valid points on some, but not all issues. I prefer to draw on both sides good aspects and not have an exclusive viewpoint.

If you are telling me that if it doesn't agree with YOUR agenda, then I am automatically wrong, then you just completely discredited yourself as a source of any information. Sorry if you feel insulted by my saying this, but instead of using veiled insults and smears, if you want to argue any point I make, then use logic and valid form of argument. To do anything else is nothing but propaganda and not worthy of the intelligent posts I've seen from you in the past.

Although it was decided on lack of responsibility for the path, my mind keeps going back to where he rode his bike where it said "Walk Your Bike".

Yea that would seem to say something wouldn't it. If I were arguing the case I'd go out and take a look. If the "Walk Your Bike" was well displayed, E.g. plainly visible and all that and also early enough I Think I'd try to drop the case. If those were not met I'd use it as evidence the City knew of a problem and did not take proper action.

Although it was decided on lack of responsibility for the path, my mind keeps going back to where he rode his bike where it said "Walk Your Bike".

In my city there is a bike path that morphs into a sidewalk as it turns over a bridge. Vehicle traffic on this bridge is very tight, forcing cyclists who ride on the street to take the lane to cross the canal.

This bridge sidewalk has "walk your bike" signs, with a warning of a fine to whoever doesnt.

Every summer the local police has a "blitz" there, and officers wait behind the curve to fine cyclists who are too afraid to go mix with cars and take the lane, and naturally continue riding on the path-come-sidewalk.

So, instead of spending money to make the infrastructure right for cyclists, the city sends cops to make profits from cyclist traps created by its own bad designs.

I'm happy with the verdict.

Had it passed, it would have been one more barrier to opening off-road trails to cyclists. The liability concerns, even given the existing statues, are often raised as a reason for denying riders access to trails.
Now I can at least accept that argument. I might not agree, but you didn't accuse me of a hidden agenda!:D

The trail though, in this case is supposed to be transportational infrastructure as a class I bikeway. In theory, that should make it a dedicated bike roadway, rather than a pathway or trail.

I am going to sue God the next time I am mountain biking and run into a tree. Come on now people....was this man blind? If the path looks too narrow, steep, gravelly, next to a cliff, filled with peds, etc....I get off and walk. What ever happened to common sense?

There is no obligation to maintain the path, but yet under a rigid interpretation of the law, cyclists can be required to use this path instead of the road if the path serves as a route to where the rider is going.
What law is this? I am unfamiliar with a mandatory sidepath law in CA.

I would have to say HH's prior interpretion applies here. If there were a mandatory sidepath law, then they would be forced to maintain them to a uniform standard, or face liability issues.


Right. This ruling basically affirms a previous ruling of a lower court that a bike path is a "trail", whether it is paved or not. Cities are immune from having to meet any kind of standards for a "trail".

In contrast, note that they are liable for injuries where the proximate cause is a substandard bike lane design, because bike lanes are part of the highway.

So if you're on a bike path in California, ride at your own risk, just as you do on a mountain biking unpaved trail. No one is legally responsible to keep it maintained.

I HIGHLIGHTED what I was trying to convey, for clarity in my OP. Now, I have no hidden agenda here, so I would appreciate it if you don't try to distort my position by implying I do. I am most assuredly not what you are implying. You are no less a zealot than the other side of the equation and the fact is, both sides of the debate have valid points on some, but not all issues. I prefer to draw on both sides good aspects and not have an exclusive viewpoint.

If you are telling me that if it doesn't agree with YOUR agenda, then I am automatically wrong, then you just completely discredited yourself as a source of any information. Sorry if you feel insulted by my saying this, but instead of using veiled insults and smears, if you want to argue any point I make, then use logic and valid form of argument. To do anything else is nothing but propaganda and not worthy of the intelligent posts I've seen from you in the past.
WTF are you talking about? You posted an article and titled it" Travesty of Justice". I, and others have pointed out that the article doesn't warrant that rhetorical flourish. I also pointed out the obvious: the judges didn't agree with the defendent's "expert" advice or counsel. Who is talking agenda, your position, zeaotry, other sides of equations, or the rest of your "stuff"?

Your over reaction to the judges decision and my response is the only travesty around here.

I'm happy with the verdict.

Had it passed, it would have been one more barrier to opening off-road trails to cyclists. The liability concerns, even given the existing statues, are often raised as a reason for denying riders access to trails.

You might find that reading the Court of Appeal's decision is enlightening.

I find "the flip side" (bolded by me) of footnote 9 especially enlightening if one is looking for the likely agenda of some who talked Prokop into pressing the appeal, though not necessarily the agenda of the injured plaintiff.

"9 The Farnham court conceded it is not unreasonable to argue that, when a governmental entity undertakes to improve or create a paved trail in an urban area, it should have the duty to reasonably maintain its condition or face tort liability. (Farnham, supra, 68 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1102-1103.) However: “[T]he flip side of appellant’s position is the difficulty cities and counties might face in inspection and repair. Paved trails are subject to changing irregularity of surface conditions . . . . Additionally, the weather can cause dirt or sand to be blown on a trail, creating an unsafe surface for almost any user. . . . Bicycle paths (or bikeways) are not velodromes, and are not necessarily designed for a user to travel as fast as she or he can, although some people often do. In today’s litigious society, it does not take a very large crystal ball to foresee the plethora of litigation cities or counties might face over bicycle paths, which are used daily by a variety of people . . . all going at different speeds. The actual cost of such litigation, or even the specter of it, might well cause cities or counties to reconsider allowing the operation of a bicycle path, which, after all, produces no revenue.

I'm happy with the verdict.

Had it passed, it would have been one more barrier to opening off-road trails to cyclists. The liability concerns, even given the existing statues, are often raised as a reason for denying riders access to trails.
I assume by "had it passed", you meant, "had the verdict reversed the decision of the lower court".
I also assume by "off-road trails" you refer "off-road unpaved trails".

If either of these assumptions is false, please let me know.

I read the decision. My understanding is:


there is no issue about whether trails should be built to certain standards and have liability issues when they aren't: everyone agrees they shouldn't.
there is no issue about whether unpaved off-road trails are trails: everyone agrees they are.
there is (or was) an issue about whether Class 1 bikeways (paved bike paths) are trails (and, so, do not have to be built to certain standards and have liability issues when they aren't), or whether they are not trails and should be built to certain standards and have liability issues when they aren't.

If the lower court had been reversed, then only issue (3) would have been affected, not issues (1) or (2), so I don't understand why you think such a reversal "would have been one more barrier to opening off-road trails to cyclists", unless by "off-road trails" you meant Class 1 bikeways (paved bike paths).

I find "the flip side" (bolded by me) of footnote 9 especially enlightening if one is looking for the likely agenda of some who talked the defendent into pressing the appeal, though not necessarily the agenda of the injured plantiff.

"9 The Farnham court conceded it is not unreasonable to argue that, when a governmental entity undertakes to improve or create a paved trail in an urban area, it should have the duty to reasonably maintain its condition or face tort liability. (Farnham, supra, 68 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1102-1103.) However: “[T]he flip side of appellant’s position is the difficulty cities and counties might face in inspection and repair. Paved trails are subject to changing irregularity of surface conditions . . . . Additionally, the weather can cause dirt or sand to be blown on a trail, creating an unsafe surface for almost any user. . . . Bicycle paths (or bikeways) are not velodromes, and are not necessarily designed for a user to travel as fast as she or he can, although some people often do. In today’s litigious society, it does not take a very large crystal ball to foresee the plethora of litigation cities or counties might face over bicycle paths, which are used daily by a variety of people . . . all going at different speeds. The actual cost of such litigation, or even the specter of it, might well cause cities or counties to reconsider allowing the operation of a bicycle path, which, after all, produces no revenue.
The whole point of having standards is that all the city has to do is meet the standards and then it is immune from such litigation. Note that streets, after all, don't produce revenue either. That fact that they think it's significant to note that a bike path does not produce revenue is an example of cyclist inferiority thinking. Did you notice that?

If keeping dirt or sand off the bike path cannot be done reasonably, then that should not be part of the standard. but if all that is required is a periodic surface inspection, then that's reasonable and should be part of the standard.

As a bike path user and advocate, I resent the implication that Forester and others might have a hidden agenda to get rid of bike paths. It is true that we can leverage this decision to prevent local governments from prohibiting bike travel on surface streets when a bike path, I mean unmaintained trail, alternative is available.

Anyway, while we can dream of "bike freeways", it's a fantasy to consider Class 1 bikeway to be such a thing. This decision confirms that, at least for now, they are not transportational facilities, and their intended purpose is purely recreational, at your own risk.

Yes.



WHAT? Where do you get this crazy stuff?



Obviously there was an issue, hence the litigation. You're not going to try to argue the case all over again, are you Head?

The fact is that liability is a often used excuse for restricting cycling access. A change in the current interpretation of 831.4 would not have been a good thing.
Nobody was seeking changing the current interpretation of 831.4.
The only issue was whether 831.4 applied to paved bike paths (Class 1 bikeways). Prokop argued yes, the city argued no.

If Prokop had prevailed, the application and interpretation of 831.4 with respect to unpaved off-road trails would not have changed. That issue was never on the table.

I will say that I don't understand this part of the decision: "Prokop’s analysis, which would render section 831.4 meaningless, is mistaken, ...". I don't understand why the court felt that Prokop's analysis would render 831.4 meaningless. As far as I can tell, Prokop simply argued that 831.4 (which grants cities immunity from having to maintain "trails" to some standard) does not apply to paved bike paths because they are not "trails".

...The actual cost of such litigation, or even the specter of it, might well cause cities or counties to reconsider allowing the operation of a bicycle path, which, after all, produces no revenue.
here is the hidden anti-path agenda

there is no issue about whether trails should be built to certain standards and have liability issues when they aren't: everyone agrees they shouldn't.
You ignored my response to the craziness above. Where did you come up with that silliness? I don't see anything in the decision that indicates that Prokop argued that 831.4 should not apply to unpaved off-road trails.

Edit: I should add that I don't see anything in the decision that indicates that Prokop argued that 831.4 should not apply to any type of paved or unpaved trail. I do see that he argued that 831.4 should not apply to paved trails that are Class 1 bikeways (because Class 1 bikeways are not "trails").

here is the hidden anti-path agenda
Given the track record of the people in front promoting and raising funds for this failed appeal, the agenda was not really hidden except to the naive and perhaps the plaintiff himself.

Allow me to change bicycle paths to roads in the text below from Farnham:


In today’s litigious society, it does not take a very large crystal ball to foresee the plethora of litigation cities or counties might face over roads, which are used daily by a variety of people . . . all going at different speeds. The actual cost of such litigation, or even the specter of it, might well cause cities or counties to reconsider allowing the operation of a road, which, after all, produces no revenue.
Now doesn't that sound silly? :D

Allow me to change bicycle paths to roads in the text below from Farnham:


Now doesn't that sound silly? :D
But that wasn't the subject of this case was it? Nor has any one but yourself and perhaps some of your CABO comrades ever tried to tie the two issues together. Please correct me if I'm in error.

Of course this is a travesty of justice, a prime example of typical legal misfunctioning that is based on words instead of facts. Here is what happened over the years.

There is perfectly valid law that owners of unimproved property who permit people to use the land to reach recreational areas, such as beaches, or for recreation itself, such as hunting, are not responsible for injuries caused by the condition of the property. This goes even when a trail has been created across the property. Courts in considering bicycle accidents on such property came to refer to such trails as bike paths. This is legally incorrect, because in California statute law a bike path is a Class ! Bikeway that has to be built to specific design standards. However, in these cases nobody noticed the error because the question of whether this facility was, or was not, a Class 1 bike path was never involved in the case. These were mostly dirt trail cases, and in even the paved case the trail was a park road closed to public motoring. Therefore, by standard legal semantic logic, the courts decided that trail law applied to bike paths, even though they had never had a case in which a bike path was involved. Therefore, when the occasion arose of an accident on a real bike path, the courts refused to correct their error. The recent opinion clarifies the judges a bit, because it tries to pass the blame onto the Legislature for letting the judges get confused.

If an error as foolish as this had occurred in an engineering classroom, it would have been corrected in two minutes. But the judicial system has its own ways of operating on the basis of words rather than facts.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070522/ap_on_re_us/golf_cart_plunge

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070522/ap_on_re_us/golf_cart_plunge


Ban golf!!! It's dangerous!!!!

But if he drove a golf cart that poorly imagine how he drove a car. :eek:

What probably happened is he had a heart attack or some other event which caused him to crash the cart.

But that wasn't the subject of this case was it? Nor has any one but yourself and perhaps some of your CABO comrades ever tried to tie the two issues together. Please correct me if I'm in error.
Despite what the courts may have ruled, my belief is that the legislative intent was for paved bike paths to be held to similar design and maintenance standards as any other paved facility. I bet that most bike path users would expect cities to have a legal duty of care for the paths - and that the path users would be appalled if they found out that the opposite is true. It seems to me that supporters of the court decision are those who fear that less bike paths would be built otherwise. What's your opinion on the subject?

Although it was decided on lack of responsibility for the path, my mind keeps going back to where he rode his bike where it said "Walk Your Bike".
Mine, too, Dcheif.

But I can't get out of my mind the crazy and dangerous bike path designs we are supposed to swallow as taxpayers. I wasn't born yesterday (I'm sure you weren't, either :D ) and as a taxpayer I expect the best, not "leavings." Hell, I'm too old to put up with turkey crap.

By the way, "walk your bike" sounds like a sidewalk thing. Who "walks their bike" on a "bike path?" For that matter, who "walks their bike" on a sidewalk?

I'd love to see a freeway with the sign, "get out and push your car."

If I were a business selling a product, and I called my product a "lawn mower," but the warranty told me that "if you use this product to cut grass, this warranty is voided," I'd wonder if the world had gone crazy (and I sure wouldn't buy that lawn mower.) So a "bike path" has a sign that says, "walk your bike," doesn't that send up a red flag?

:rolleyes:

Mine, too, Dcheif.

But I can't get out of my mind the crazy and dangerous bike path designs we are supposed to swallow as taxpayers. I wasn't born yesterday (I'm sure you weren't, either :D ) and as a taxpayer I expect the best, not "leavings." Hell, I'm too old to put up with turkey crap.

By the way, "walk your bike" sounds like a sidewalk thing. Who "walks their bike" on a "bike path?" For that matter, who "walks their bike" on a sidewalk?

I'd love to see a freeway with the sign, "get out and push your car."

If I were a business selling a product, and I called my product a "lawn mower," but the warranty told me that "if you use this product to cut grass, this warranty is voided," I'd wonder if the world had gone crazy (and I sure wouldn't buy that lawn mower.) So a "bike path" has a sign that says, "walk your bike," doesn't that send up a red flag?

:rolleyes:

Walking your bike really is no big deal. There are plenty of times on a trail that I have to stop my bike to allow people to pass if it is really narrow. I have seen bridges that were barely wide enough for my bike. I felt my handling skills were up to snuff, but plenty of people didn't so they walked. Also, just because a path exists doesn't mean you can travel on it at any time in any weather in any manner you choose.

Since you like analogies...let's talk about motorcycles and tractor trailers on a bridge. If it is a very windy day, there are bridges near me that ban motorcycles. Sure you could argue that they should have built the bridge completely enclosed or built a tunnel instead such that you can travel on it at any time. But that is cost prohibitive. How about tractor trailers that exceed the weight limit for a bridge. Should we only build bridges that can carry the heaviest trucks regardless of location or cost?

Walking your bike really is no big deal. There are plenty of times on a trail that I have to stop my bike to allow people to pass if it is really narrow. I have seen bridges that were barely wide enough for my bike. I felt my handling skills were up to snuff, but plenty of people didn't so they walked. Also, just because a path exists doesn't mean you can travel on it at any time in any weather in any manner you choose.

Since you like analogies...let's talk about motorcycles and tractor trailers on a bridge. If it is a very windy day, there are bridges near me that ban motorcycles. Sure you could argue that they should have built the bridge completely enclosed or built a tunnel instead such that you can travel on it at any time. But that is cost prohibitive. How about tractor trailers that exceed the weight limit for a bridge. Should we only build bridges that can carry the heaviest trucks regardless of location or cost?
If a Class I Bike way is for bicycles, then should the facilities be designed for bicycling? I would hope so! If a road is designated for multiple use, then yes it should be designed to accommodate ALL potential users, shouldn't it? If it's stated purpose is to have trucks on it, then the answer would be yes!

If a Class I Bike way is for bicycles, then should the facilities be designed for bicycling? I would hope so! If a road is designated for multiple use, then yes it should be designed to accommodate ALL potential users, shouldn't it? If it's stated purpose is to have trucks on it, then the answer would be yes!

Since he was exiting the bike way there shouldn't be any expectation that it continue to meet the Class I standards.

When I pull into a parking lot, I have no expectations that I con continue to drive at 55 mph.

You're sorely mistaken about at least one supporter.
That may be true, but I believe your concerns about a successful appeal being one more barrier to opening off-road trails are misguided. If the appeal were successful, it would have made a clear legal distinction between liability for paved bike paths and unpaved trails - so I don't think it would have adversely affected off-road access. I didn't see any of the mountain biking groups here showing any concern about this case.


p.s. Nice use of "fear." Which LCI class is that tactic taught in?
Well, nice of you to imply that I have an agenda behind me choice of words. Yet one more reason I try to stay out of the A&S mud (although not as much as I should). Fine, then replace "fear" with "believe" in my statement.

If a Class I Bike way is for bicycles, then should the facilities be designed for bicycling? I would hope so! If a road is designated for multiple use, then yes it should be designed to accommodate ALL potential users, shouldn't it? If it's stated purpose is to have trucks on it, then the answer would be yes!


Not if it is cost prohibitive or there is another way around the problem such as walking one's bike for all of 10 seconds.

Walking your bike really is no big deal. There are plenty of times on a trail that I have to stop my bike to allow people to pass if it is really narrow. I have seen bridges that were barely wide enough for my bike. I felt my handling skills were up to snuff, but plenty of people didn't so they walked. Also, just because a path exists doesn't mean you can travel on it at any time in any weather in any manner you choose.
Of course walking my bike is no big deal. I take it down stairs, and in and out of doors, too. When I'm taking it down the hallway, I walk it. But that's because I'm in a pedestrian environment. I prefer to avoid pedestrian environments when riding my bike. My worst crash (got to have great painkillers for that one) involved pedestrians.


Since you like analogies...let's talk about motorcycles and tractor trailers on a bridge. If it is a very windy day, there are bridges near me that ban motorcycles. Sure you could argue that they should have built the bridge completely enclosed or built a tunnel instead such that you can travel on it at any time. But that is cost prohibitive. How about tractor trailers that exceed the weight limit for a bridge. Should we only build bridges that can carry the heaviest trucks regardless of location or cost?
As for motorcycles and trucks, the vast expanse of the American roadways favor them and allow them almost unlimited access, and even winks at excessive speed. For cyclists, we are expected to be shunted off the road to share a facility with pedestrians, a totally different scenario.

A better analogy would be this: how would truck drivers, motorists, and motorcyclists feel about sharing a facility with cyclists? What if they were required to slow down to a crawl when cyclists were present?

Here is a California Document on definitions and standards of what a bikeway is according to California Code and it clearly separates it from Trail Status. It also specifically mentions Class I as a transportation link.

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/hdm/pdf/chp1000.pdf

Funny thing, it's in the Highway Design Manual, so apparently California pretty clearly wanted to designate the Class I as an addition to the transportation network. See 1002.1 on.

Also see 5.2 here:
http://www.bikealameda.org/info/bikeplan/Alam5.pdf

In particular 5.2.1, Caltrans specification requirements.

In addition, if a facility is a Class I facility, it must meet ADA Standards and if an access is too hazardous to ride and requires walking, then it limits access to hand cycles, which are a form of wheelchair and these are more stable than a standard wheelchair design. If a facility is classed as Class I and doesn't meet this specification, then the governmental body responsible for oversight and maintenance should be held accountable.

For more info, see this Marin County document.

http://www.co.marin.ca.us/depts/pw/main/bike/Section6.pdf