Originally Posted by swifferman
I said I agree with the parents in that their law suit will most likely result in a verdict for them. The city probably did not do all it could to prevent an accident from happening.
What's the difference if they're everywhere or not? If you have murderers at every playground do you say, "Oh, they're at every playground so there's nothing we can do." Obviously not, so not entirely sure how it's different depending on the numbers.
But I still don't agree that mountain biking should take place where animals would be likely to strike. Not entirely sure how you can defend yourself if a lion goes chasing after you. You sure as hell won't be able to outrun him.
What part of this don't you understand? There are risks even on paved multi use trails. It's also impossible to have an area that is animal free(Non dangerous and dangerous alike.) If done your way we would all be sitting indoors riding stationairy bikes. On the road there are risks of getting hit and killed by a car and on the trails you can get attacked. Face it the outdoors can not be controlled the only controlled area is in the indoors and where is the fun in that. If I get attacked and killed by wolfs it's not the wolf's fault I got killed, it's the nature of the animal, when you hit the trails, you basically sign a contract saying that you accept that you could wind up not walking out from it. You agree to the risk, the government is not responsible for the animals behavior.
Also, the parents are not thinking straight in this case and with their son being a very passionate mountainbiker who probably took part in alot of major aspects of the trail care in that area. This lawsuit the parents are pressing is a diservice to their sons memory.