Techno Destructo
Riding In Peace
Ok. You're making good arguments here. I'm no longer pissed off at the girl. Who should I be pissed off at?
It Makes Me Sooooo Maaaaad!!!!!!
- Thread starter Techno Destructo
- Start date
toodles
Wheel size expert
No but what if she'd fallen off riding on the road and done the same thing? Who would be liable? She went somewhere and did something that she had to be dared into doing - so there's evidence she must have realised it was beyond her abilities. Still I agree access should have been restricted.johnny said:
What if she had "just" broken her wrist, and still sued? Would you consider it "fair" then? Unlikely. As for the extent of her injuries, curiously she has a kid. If her frontal lobe was considerably damaged, I have doubts custody would still be hers. Lawyers have a way of over-blowing injuries for these court cases.johnny said:
Actually I would still be interested as I've got to deal with liability considerably. And it shits me. We've got incidents where an operator has bypassed safety mechanisms, reached 80cm through a hole the just larger than a cricket ball, past stickers that warn against sharp machinery and then sued successfully when they've severed a finger. People's lack of ability to accept responsibility disgusts me.johnny said:I think most people are a little more relentless and harsh with their opinions here because this issue affects them. Would this have even been posted if it was an issue regarding sheep dip or low doorways in telephone exchanges? I think not
Change the system and you will no longer risk park closures or brain damaged people having to fend for themselves.
Aye, I understand to an extent. And I do sympathise. But I think the community has lost much more than $1.4 million here, and I don't believe that all the facts have been presented.johnny said:
Techno Destructo
Riding In Peace
Good point. What if it happened at a skate park? The one in Manly even has a fence around it, but you can enter it at any time? What if the dare occurred there?toodles said:
i think if the jumps were in good working order, ie is was not the jumps that caused her to stack by being unsafe (say if they collapsed, broke or the like) and no warnings were up then sure sue!!
But it was just that she attempted something way out of her capabilities, I still would have liked signs up but knowing how dangerouse it was she should accept that she too may have ended up dead, and is lucky she didn't. Do something usefull and educate people instead of closing down actively centres.
I know ppl on disabilty payment, its not so bad, could be better but i mean its not like students get much from the government either.
In my opion she was at fault.
Can we make this a poll??
But it was just that she attempted something way out of her capabilities, I still would have liked signs up but knowing how dangerouse it was she should accept that she too may have ended up dead, and is lucky she didn't. Do something usefull and educate people instead of closing down actively centres.
I know ppl on disabilty payment, its not so bad, could be better but i mean its not like students get much from the government either.
In my opion she was at fault.
Can we make this a poll??
LOL. Nice one.Techno Destructo said:
One thing that hasn't really been raised here is the whole "have to support a child" thing. That really shits me. It has no relevance to the issue they are supposedly suing about which is the liability of the council and the BMX club in preventing access to the track and the level of public danger from not doing so. To bring into that argument the fact that the girl now has a child to support is bloody ridiculous as well as being an indication of how slow the legal system is (she has time to grow up and have a kid before the case gets heard).
And while she may have frontal lobe damage, reduced capacity for decisions etc etc etc, the entities being sued cannot go on being liable for every bad decision made in her life since the accident.
OK, re-read the article and the kid thing MAY just be surrounding fact, not part of the legal argument. If so discount above rant.
No need for frustration, it only gets in the way of rational decision making.Techno Destructo said:
What's the problem: Some say people not taking responsibility.......I say a less than comprehensive system of communal care. This lack of safety net ensures a practice of placing blame. This blame is somewhat unintensional, you can only gain recompense once some one is held liable for lack of care resulting in loss. We as a community/culture have to understand that life is not perfect, we are not owed quality of existence and bad things WILL happen whether you are responsible or not.
I obviously draw the line at foolish (drunken, drugged, etc) behaviour, but when the person is not at fault (slip on wet surface breaking hip. People fall over, it's not like they want to, it's part of life's imperfections, it's no ones fault) and the accident couldn't have been foreseen/avoided, care should be provided at minimal cost ot everyone, not maximum cost to an otherwise innocent party.
I can only revert back to my big picture argument and I'm sorry about that, but it's hard for me to see it any other way, so here goes:
We live in a capitalist society where status, quality of life, life opportunities and so on are dictated by the amount of money you have. The amount of money you have is dictated by earning potential (what's one of the first things you say when meeting some one "what do you do for a job?" that's how we judge thier lifestyle, status and personality), the more earning/cash you have, the more fun you have (in theory).
We are all geared to want a good life for ourselves, therefore we have to chase the dollar, as described above. Hence the dollar becomes an aspiration that tends to (generally) supercede many other facetes of life (let's just remember that money only has worth because we give it said worth, it's really just a figment of our collective imaginations that it's worth anything, let alone killing for).
So, we all want money and more of it than we have now.
This is how we've ended up here. The girls life opportunities seem irrelevant to most people in this thread. The only thing we're concerned about is that our life opportunities will be reduced by not being able to ride parks. Why will it be reduced? Because the parks can't afford the insurance costs. So when it boils down to it, it's all hinging on the money.
The girl needs to have money to survive (so does that mean we use starvation to blackmail people into giving us money for food?) and she can't earn it because she fell off her bike when she was young. The insurance company needs money to pay for this, so they slug the park to cover costs, the park closes down. The girls injury, parks liability and our life (biking) opportunities are all held enthralled to the mighty $
There in lay the premise to our (bike riders, park owners insurance companies and injured girls) problem. We allow ourselves and our culture to be based on individual gain that can only be facilitated by money. Now money isn't the problem here, it's the value (fiscal or social) that we place on it. Placing the value of cohesiveness of culture one step above the dollar and our focus will be less narrow and restricted and more able to find mutual solutions. Money makes social actions a zero sum game (for some one to gain, some one must lose).
Nobody wins in a team, unless everybody wins.
I'm sorry to take such a seemingly simple situation into my whole social slant, but we are dealing with the big picture when we talk about issues that affect us all, such as litigation does. You must address the root causes of problems, otherwise they'll just manifest itself again at a later time. When you pull weeds from a garden, you don't just take the leaves off the plant, you pull it out by the roots so it doesn't grow again.
dickyknee
Likes Dirt
i have been to the bmx track in albion park a few times the last year or so and there is no fence around it , we parked the car got out and rode it simple as that , surely some one would have used their brain and fence it by now .
i know all you guys are allowed to voice your opinions , but lets say it was your daughter who was now brain damged , not one of you will be suing ???
i know all you guys are allowed to voice your opinions , but lets say it was your daughter who was now brain damged , not one of you will be suing ???
schmackster
NSWMTB, Manly Warringah MTB
It is pleasing to see that this thread has turned from a nasty blame-fest to a more intelligent discussion which restores my faith in the intelligence of my fellow bike riders.
There have been a few comments about parental supervision and as a parent who supervises his kids a skate parks I know that there is a chance that one of them will come a cropper and spill some blood, as has happened a couple of times, but that is part of childhood. No amount of supervision will stop them falling off you just have to be there to comfort them when it happens.
Also did anyone else's parents supervise them when they were off riding when they were 13??? No, there is a point where you have to trust your kids and let them learn for themselves.
As has been said before it was not the child's, the parent's, the BMX club's, or the council's fault. It was an ACCIDENT but the current system leaves the victim no other option than to sue someone if they are unable to cover the ongoing medical costs.
I hear New Zealand has a government fund setup purely for these type of no-fault accidents in order to help them to pay for the on-going costs and stop the litigation. Maybe that is something that we should push for here as well?
There have been a few comments about parental supervision and as a parent who supervises his kids a skate parks I know that there is a chance that one of them will come a cropper and spill some blood, as has happened a couple of times, but that is part of childhood. No amount of supervision will stop them falling off you just have to be there to comfort them when it happens.
Also did anyone else's parents supervise them when they were off riding when they were 13??? No, there is a point where you have to trust your kids and let them learn for themselves.
As has been said before it was not the child's, the parent's, the BMX club's, or the council's fault. It was an ACCIDENT but the current system leaves the victim no other option than to sue someone if they are unable to cover the ongoing medical costs.
I hear New Zealand has a government fund setup purely for these type of no-fault accidents in order to help them to pay for the on-going costs and stop the litigation. Maybe that is something that we should push for here as well?
wombat
Lives in a hole
$1.4 mil eh? So what percentage do litigators take in cases like this?
I'm loathe to get too far into a debate like this when we have nothing but a few choice facts, there are still a few points I'd like to comment on though.
16 is the legal age for personal responsibility, that's fair enough as the law needs a definitve number to work on I guess. A 13 year old is someone who is in year 7 or 8 at high school, and in fact my own brother is close to that age. Now, despite what the legal definition is, I personally don't believe that a 13 year old child is the naive, uninformed individual that many people would like to make out. At that age the school syllabus includes algebra, so it's not as though these kids are still learning how to count their fingers. Self preservation is an even more natrual instinct is it not? If someone has managed to get to 13 years of age without realising that falling over hurts, and if you're moving fast when you fall over it's going to hurt even more, then I'd dare say that their particitpation in sporting activitites has been fairly limited (read: non-existant) which means that you'd hardly be fit to be doing something like riding a bicycle without parental supervision (you'd probably still be on training wheels!).
I'm not trying to say here that we should be stringing the girl up, I mean we all make errors in our judgement, but you have to give a teenager (that's what I'd call a 13 year old, not a "child") a bit of credit; this girl wasn't a toddler, she should have known right from wrong, and safe from dangerous. (If she didn't, then I think someone needs to be talking to the parents.)
I think the helmet issue is a big one too, if she wasn't wearing a helmet when she sustained the head injuries then she's a bloody idiot, not to mention breaking the law.
I really hope that the victim's (speaking of "victim", what exactly is she the victim of, her own misjudgement?) own child hasn't played a part in determining compensation here; I mean it's the BMX club that is being held liable, and why should they be held liable for an unrelated event? Having a child is a big step, and if this woman consciously decided to have a child (or to not not have a child) whilst knowing that she was unable to support it, then I question whether she is a suitable mother. If the preganancy was a result of extenuating circumstances then that is an issue which I would assume would be dealt with in a seperate arena.
Just a few random thoughts there, sorry for the lack of structure or coherence.
I'm loathe to get too far into a debate like this when we have nothing but a few choice facts, there are still a few points I'd like to comment on though.
16 is the legal age for personal responsibility, that's fair enough as the law needs a definitve number to work on I guess. A 13 year old is someone who is in year 7 or 8 at high school, and in fact my own brother is close to that age. Now, despite what the legal definition is, I personally don't believe that a 13 year old child is the naive, uninformed individual that many people would like to make out. At that age the school syllabus includes algebra, so it's not as though these kids are still learning how to count their fingers. Self preservation is an even more natrual instinct is it not? If someone has managed to get to 13 years of age without realising that falling over hurts, and if you're moving fast when you fall over it's going to hurt even more, then I'd dare say that their particitpation in sporting activitites has been fairly limited (read: non-existant) which means that you'd hardly be fit to be doing something like riding a bicycle without parental supervision (you'd probably still be on training wheels!).
I'm not trying to say here that we should be stringing the girl up, I mean we all make errors in our judgement, but you have to give a teenager (that's what I'd call a 13 year old, not a "child") a bit of credit; this girl wasn't a toddler, she should have known right from wrong, and safe from dangerous. (If she didn't, then I think someone needs to be talking to the parents.)
I think the helmet issue is a big one too, if she wasn't wearing a helmet when she sustained the head injuries then she's a bloody idiot, not to mention breaking the law.
I really hope that the victim's (speaking of "victim", what exactly is she the victim of, her own misjudgement?) own child hasn't played a part in determining compensation here; I mean it's the BMX club that is being held liable, and why should they be held liable for an unrelated event? Having a child is a big step, and if this woman consciously decided to have a child (or to not not have a child) whilst knowing that she was unable to support it, then I question whether she is a suitable mother. If the preganancy was a result of extenuating circumstances then that is an issue which I would assume would be dealt with in a seperate arena.
Just a few random thoughts there, sorry for the lack of structure or coherence.
and1
Likes Bikes and Dirt
Cant the council or bmx track counter sew because of negligence on behalf of the parents or something? This is purely speculation but I am guessing she wasnt wearing a helmet or a properly fitted on at least as a helmet should protect someone from any frontal lobe damage in a crash. Why cant the girl be fined for not having a helmet - she was breaking the law yet she is getting rewarded for her own stupidity.
Techno Destructo
Riding In Peace
But that is the BIG question here... WAS the girl wearing a helmet at the time?
I suppose, though, it doesn't make much of a difference in the ruling....
I suppose, though, it doesn't make much of a difference in the ruling....
dude, your high horse has given you altitude sickness. I'm assuming from your post that every decision you've ever made has been a good one, yeah?chickadee said:
SHE WAS 13 FFS!!!
Yeah, sure 13 year olds are starting to learn about algebra and they understand self preservation, but this does not, quite obviously, give people the ability to make sound judgements concerning everyday life!
KEEP it in fkn perspective SHE WAS RIDING A BIKE ON A BIKE TRACK. She fell off a bike for godsake, she wan't trying to drive an unregisterd car when unliscenced and pissed!
Just because a KID (yes a 13 year old is still a kid, Wombat, you know I'm not trying to be patronising or condescending, but when you're my age, I think you'll see it differently). As a matter of fact, kids are biologically predisposed to taking unnessecary risks, it's how we learn to get through life. We learn from ours, or others experiences. If she'd never hit a jump or BMX track before, she's not going to be aware of the full extent of the risk she is taking.
AS A MATTER OF FACT, MOST KIDS ARE NOT AWARE OF THE RISKS THEY TAKE BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T BEEN ALIVE LONG ENOUGH TO KNOW AND UNDERSTAND THE CONSEQUENCES, THAT'S ONE OF THE BIGGEST THINGS THAT DEFINES A KID FROM A GROWN UP.
I might actually bow out of this thread for a while, for I'm starting to get pissed off at the holier than thou judgemental attitude of some people. And getting pissed off helps nothing.
For future refence, see Carlin's post^^^^^. Once again, he's said the same thing as me, but in far fewer words and much more convincingly!
Last edited:
sorry have to defend myself
my point Jonny was simply that she is one of those ppl who spoils it for others. I have made bad decision, many of them, i pay for it now trust me. But i don't waste other ppls money and time because of these bad choices i've made. I take it on the chin and suffer the consequences.
my point Jonny was simply that she is one of those ppl who spoils it for others. I have made bad decision, many of them, i pay for it now trust me. But i don't waste other ppls money and time because of these bad choices i've made. I take it on the chin and suffer the consequences.