Hmm, Well I do hope you recover fully but, I'm not the guy you want on a jury trial of this case based on what's been provided and I haven't even seen the city's side of it.

The way I see it, you chose to ride on the city property. The city has and does allow for this but, that doesn't release you or anyone else from personal responsibility. There is no way the city should be held responsible for you running into something obviously placed there to mark the trail. Would you prefer a flashing light?

I'm not making fun, I simply don't agree that it was anyone's fault but your own. I suppose if you had been riding on the sidewalk (assuming that's allowed where you are) and ran into a parking meter then, it's the cities fault? Stuff happens, accept it, you ran into the post, it didn't jump out and hit you. Sorry, that's just the way I see it. Allowing someone to opportunity to ride or walk and attempting to make it a safe journey by providing and marking a path does not in my mind release the rider/walker of personal responsibility to not walk or ride into those things there to assist them.

Again, I sincerely do hope you recover and continue to do what you and your wife enjoy doing but, that does not include blaming another entity for a lack of caution on your part. The admitted fact that you have ridden this path (apparently frequently) indicates you should have been aware of the markers. Sorry, just the way I see it.

------------------
Ron
We learn good judgement by exercising bad judgement. Such is the human condition, as sad as that sounds.

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 10-10-2012).]

quote Originally posted by blackrams: Hmm, Well I do hope you recover fully but, I'm not the guy you want on a jury trial of this case based on what's been provided and I haven't even seen the city's side of it. The way I see it, you chose to ride on the city property. The city has and does allow for this but, that doesn't release you or anyone else from personal responsibility. There is no way the city should be held responsible for you running into something obviously placed there to mark the trail. Would you prefer a flashing light? I'm not making fun, I simply don't agree that it was anyone's fault but your own. I suppose if you had been riding on the sidewalk (assuming that's allowed where you are) and ran into a parking meter then, it's the cities fault? Stuff happens, accept it, you ran into the post, it didn't jump out and hit you. Sorry, that's just the way I see it. Allowing someone to opportunity to ride or walk and attempting to make it a safe journey by providing and marking a path does not in my mind release the rider/walker of personal responsibility to not walk or ride into those things there to assist them. Again, I sincerely do hope you recover and continue to do what you and your wife enjoy doing but, that does not include blaming another entity for a lack of caution on your part. The admitted fact that you have ridden this path (apparently frequently) indicates you should have been aware of the markers. Sorry, just the way I see it.

Blackrams,

Very well written and thought out. Would you happen to have time to evaluate THIS case? It seems that you and some others have decided that I'm choosing to not be responsible and choosing to blame someone else. Please go back through my posts and find which statements led you to this conclusion. I have simply shown a situation that I have found myself in and have asked for thoughts and advice. I have also stated that we have insurance and we will make it with or without assistance from the city or anyone else. I have also stated that I hate dealing with lawyers or insurance people. That doesn't exactly smack of someone looking for a free ride.

"Stuff happens, accept it"? Really? Just exactly where am I not accepting it? If I had a high idle problem posted in Tech, would that be the answer you'd give me for that too? This is just another case of a member trying to lean on the experience of the group. Should I not have brought it up? Is this example somehow taboo?

Do I need flashing lights instead of poles? Very cute, but no. The only solution I have put forward is to remove any bollards without a clear purpose and add reflective tape to the ones that remain. Hell, if they'll supply the tape, I'll supply the labor and go install it! How's that for taking responsibility? By riding this trail on my bicycle, I have shown no more irresponsibility than any other user of the trail. As a citizen of this city, I am well within my rights to use this trail in accordance with its intended purposes. I have also stated that there were other people on the trail and in the park at the time of the crash. If it was too dark for the park to be open, apparently I'm not the only one who didn't think so.

As for the damage to the bike, feel free to google Diamondback Response XE. What you will find is a majority of evaluations that say that the front fork is the weakest link on the bike and it should be replaced first. The wheel is also slightly out of true but I can easily fix that myself as I have trued dozens of bicycle wheels.

And what a friend we have in Wichita! "Just to make it fair for the city of Kingsport, Tennessee they should be getting a link to this thread." I must say this is a first for me! I have never seen a suggestion like this ever posted. Not that I have a problem with any of the facts that I've presented, it is the suggestion that a forum member and Fiero brother be thrown under the bus. Maryjane - disapointed in you too for agreeing with it.

Apparently I have been under the mistaken notion that we have a close-knit brotherhood here with an unstoppable willingness to help each other, no matter what the situation. Am I wrong or is it shame on you?

Jonathan

quote Originally posted by Boostdreamer: It seems that you and some others have decided that I'm choosing to not be responsible and choosing to blame someone else. Please go back through my posts and find which statements led you to this conclusion. Apparently I have been under the mistaken notion that we have a close-knit brotherhood here with an unstoppable willingness to help each other, no matter what the situation. Am I wrong or is it shame on you?

Jonathan, I will weigh in. I have followed this since your first post but refrained from replying. I am not the suing kind. Not that I would not go at wrong doing tooth and nail, including suing if need be.
I think you are wrong. We do have a close brotherhood within the forum. It is not shame on us, nor you. When my wife asks if those pants make her butt look fat, I can and should say yes. I do not think any here have decided that you are not being responsible nor choosing to blame the city. Intimate honesty is intimate honesty. The other side always deserves a hearing.
Having said that, I would sue if there was gross neglect. It seems the pole was there for a reason. Was it safety ? A failed attempt is an attempt, and I never fault for trying. I would, if things did not work out (explained later) use the "Freedom of Information Act" to find out the history of the trail's safety record/complaints lodged. Has the City neglected to address any concerns ? If so, I would sue them as incentive to address any future concerns. I might expand my search to other areas of the City responding to correcting and improving safety if needed. I would ask the city to pick up your medical costs and to re-evaluate the safety measures they undoubtedly had to put in place.
All that said, , I wouldn't have ran into that pole and if I did, would have looked around to see if anybody saw me, hoping they did not. That is the first thing we do where I work, . Hope you mend quickly.

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 10-10-2012).]

quote Originally posted by cliffw: I think you are wrong.

I don't like being wrong any more than the next guy. The difference with me is that I'm the kind that wants to correct my deficiency. Please show me where I was wrong.

Thanks for the well wishes,
Jonathan

Jonathan, I can't exactly show you where you are wrong. I would say trust your first instincts on the brotherhood of the forum. There are numerous examples I could cite but do not have the time to recollect them and link their threads. Getting Antuzzi out of California, on our dime, comes to mind. The Katrina response also stands out. The Tyler project is another but they are all biggies. Many other small acts of forum brotherhood go on all the time.
Also, fair is fair. Two sides of a story should be heard. Especially if it helps us give you better advice, which it could.

Those are the same things that have helped form my opinion about this forum. They are some of the reasons I felt comfortable bringing this situation out. I don't believe I ever saw any posts in those respective threads telling those folks to accept their fate as it is presented to them.

I don't think I'm getting your point.

Thanks anyway,
Jonathan

Tennessee has a "recreational immunity" statute that makes it impossible for you to sue a landowner (even if it is a municipality) if you are on there property for recreational purposes and they do not charge you to gain entrance. It can be found at Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 70-7-101 et. seq.

It reads in pertinent part:


(a) The landowner, lessee, occupant, or any person in control of land or premises owes no duty of care to keep such land or premises safe for entry or use by others for such recreational activities as hunting, fishing, trapping, camping, water sports, white water rafting, canoeing, hiking, sightseeing, animal riding, bird watching, dog training, boating, caving, fruit and vegetable picking for the participant's own use, nature and historical studies and research, rock climbing, skeet and trap shooting, skiing, off-road vehicle riding, and cutting or removing wood for the participant's own use, nor shall such landowner be required to give any warning of hazardous conditions, uses of, structures, or activities on such land or premises to any person entering on such land or premises for such purposes, except as provided in § 70-7-104.6

While biking isn't specifically listed, it would fall under the broad heading of recreational use. As explained by the Tennessee Court of Appeals, "[t]he statute employs the phrase 'such recreational activities as' in a manner that implies that the list is neither exclusive nor exhaustive. . .Accordingly, activities similar to those explicitly enumerated in section 102 may also fall within the purview of the recreational use statute." The law has consequently been held, for example, to bar claims arising from falls on sidewalks, collapsing non-functioning cannons, fly fishing accidents, bicycling, and caving. While there are some exceptions for "willful and wonton behavior" or "gross negligence", exceptions are hard to come by. If you wish to pursue this consult an attorney, as the issue is a highly technical argument to make and would be difficult for a lay person to pursue without legal counsel. Good Luck and I hope you make a speedy and full recovery.

Good job Tytehead, found what the local attorney would find eventually after a big bill.
In the mean time, there is no problem in asking to have the bills paid!

quote Originally posted by Tytehead: Tennessee has a "recreational immunity" statute that makes it impossible for you to sue a landowner (even if it is a municipality) if you are on there property for recreational purposes and they do not charge you to gain entrance. It can be found at Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 70-7-101 et. seq. It reads in pertinent part: (a) The landowner, lessee, occupant, or any person in control of land or premises owes no duty of care to keep such land or premises safe for entry or use by others for such recreational activities as hunting, fishing, trapping, camping, water sports, white water rafting, canoeing, hiking, sightseeing, animal riding, bird watching, dog training, boating, caving, fruit and vegetable picking for the participant's own use, nature and historical studies and research, rock climbing, skeet and trap shooting, skiing, off-road vehicle riding, and cutting or removing wood for the participant's own use, nor shall such landowner be required to give any warning of hazardous conditions, uses of, structures, or activities on such land or premises to any person entering on such land or premises for such purposes, except as provided in § 70-7-104.6 While biking isn't specifically listed, it would fall under the broad heading of recreational use. As explained by the Tennessee Court of Appeals, "[t]he statute employs the phrase 'such recreational activities as' in a manner that implies that the list is neither exclusive nor exhaustive. . .Accordingly, activities similar to those explicitly enumerated in section 102 may also fall within the purview of the recreational use statute." The law has consequently been held, for example, to bar claims arising from falls on sidewalks, collapsing non-functioning cannons, fly fishing accidents, bicycling, and caving. While there are some exceptions for "willful and wonton behavior" or "gross negligence", exceptions are hard to come by. If you wish to pursue this consult an attorney, as the issue is a highly technical argument to make and would be difficult for a lay person to pursue without legal counsel. Good Luck and I hope you make a speedy and full recovery.

We also need to understaand that responsibility of the landowners means individual, not the state. Also, it is the responsibility of the state that makes recreational areas for public use to be safe, if not, fixing it is the responsibiity of the state. It is the same as Road Laws for it is tax paid built areas. When a road is damaged, or a ridge is damaged, it is replaced or fixed. however, just because you hit a pot hole doesn't mean the state will give you an allignment on your car, but it is enugh to make a complaint for the pot hole to be filled.

[This message has been edited by CrazyDragn (edited 10-10-2012).]

I have no opinion either way...but there is one thing that will trip you up, if they have a smart Lawyer fighting you. TAMMY was lead rider by 20ft...and she missed it, so she must have seen it. They will say you obviously weren't paying the same attention as Tammy was, or you were riding head down trying to catch up.......your fault .
I too hope you have no long-lasting repercussions from a nasty fall, and sustained injury.

[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 10-11-2012).]

quote They will say you obviously weren't paying the same attention as Tammy was, or you were riding head down trying to catch up.......your fault .

They don't have to say it Nick--Boostdreamer already did.

quote Just past this post is a turn to the left. That's were my attention went since I wanted to know what was ahead and if we needed to slow for walkers.

He has also stated that they were going to make the ful length of the path and back, which infers that the path is intended for 2-way traffic. IF, that is the case, then cyclists going in the direction Boostdreamer was, are supposed to stay on the right side of the path and not take their part out of the center. He was either riding on the center, or moved to the center when his attention shifted to the upcoming curve, which was somewhere beyond where his wife was--some 20 feet ahead. This, is why I said "It's called 'outdriving/overdriving your headlights".

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 10-11-2012).]

quote Originally posted by Boostdreamer: Blackrams, Very well written and thought out. Would you happen to have time to evaluate THIS case? It seems that you and some others have decided that I'm choosing to not be responsible and choosing to blame someone else. Please go back through my posts and find which statements led you to this conclusion. \ Jonathan

quote Originally posted by Boostdreamer: Tammy called the City to see if they had liability insurance for things like this. They do. The investigator is supposed to come to our house on Monday the 15th to interview us and have us sign to release my medical records. What do you think about my case? What should I ask for? What should I refuse to do? Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks,

Although I'll admit, I'm not a lawyer, the above post indicates that you or your wife Tammy is seeking a financial solution to the problem, is that not why the city was asked if they had liability insurance for things like this? What should I ask for? What should I refuse to do? Is this legalize for I'm not threating to sue and I surely don't hold you (the city) responsible for my accident? Please enlighten me because, it really looks like you're intending to reap the bounty of getting hurt on City property. Please corrent me if I'm wrong.

I'm honestly not throwing darts at you but, I am being honest about what I read in your posts. As far as that brotherhood goes, I'll always tell my brother my honest opinion. I might lie to my enemy but, never my brother. Just cause I don't agree with you on something doesn't mean I don't hold you in high regard. But, the honest truth is, not everyone here is your brother. Some aren't good second cousins and just to be clear, most families have at least one black sheep they wish was someone else's brother. ;
------------------
Ron
We learn good judgement by exercising bad judgement. Such is the human condition, as sad as that sounds.

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 10-11-2012).]

Before my mom was rear-ended and paralyzed, I pretty much hated anyone who wanted to sue. Now, I understand the point of suing just to pay damages if the fault is truly the other party's...

Having said that... I never would have thought to sue in this case. I have hurt myself on city property before... from things ranging from holes in the field while playing football to cracks in the sidewalk causing me to crash my bike. I've had concussions and bled all over my hometown. Heh, there are probably samples of my blood everywhere outdoors in my hometown if you dig deep enough.

That doesn't mean it's anyone else's fault.

If you truly care enough about this, go buy some inexpensive roll of reflective duct tape, call the city and tell them you hurt yourself on the pole and would like to put a band at the top of every pole just to encourage visibility. I highly doubt they will say no. Then go out there and put some tape on and call it a day.

Problem solved... unless you're looking to get money out of it, in which case, good luck, but I can't offer any other advice. I believe the responsibility lies solely on you. But, hey, I also think consumers are responsible for knowing hot pockets may be hot out of the microwave without a warning that says so.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: He has also stated that they were going to make the ful length of the path and back, which infers that the path is intended for 2-way traffic. IF, that is the case, then cyclists going in the direction Boostdreamer was, are supposed to stay on the right side of the path and not take their part out of the center. He was either riding on the center, or moved to the center when his attention shifted to the upcoming curve, which was somewhere beyond where his wife was--some 20 feet ahead. This, is why I said "It's called 'outdriving/overdriving your headlights".

Most people use the path for walking. When they do, they are normally in pairs. The pairs normally walk abreast and they center themselves on the path. Like I said, the path isn't that wide. When passing from behind, it is best to pass on someone's left. They don't always move in that direction, though. When passing head-on traffic, both should move to the right to maximize room. The path doesn't have a center mark and noone is expected to stay on one side. It's not used that way and I don't think it was intended to be that way. Everyone feels free to use what is available and then they make room when need be.

Not far behind the position where the pic of the post is taken is an intrance to a parking area. This intersection is protected by the exact same kind of bollards. I knew they were there, I expected them, I saw them and I avoided them. Less than 60 seconds later, I hit the one I didn't see. It wasn't a matter of ambient light. Like I said though, if it had been painted a lighter color or if it had reflective material, I would had seen it. Even so, it still serves no purpose in that location.

Also, if there was enought light for me to look past my wife who was ahead of me and look to the curve to check for walkers, I could obviously see well enough to do that. Could I have seen a guy in a ghilliey suit laying against the bank? No. I couldn't see things that were camouflaged.

Jonathan

[This message has been edited by Boostdreamer (edited 10-12-2012).]

Just out of curiosity did you damage your sternoclavicular joint? Mine is currently dislocated and I was wondering if you had any thing done to yours. I wanna know what im looking forward too

quote Originally posted by maryjane: I'm confused. What possible upside would there be in the City NOT being fully aware of ALL the facts and particulars of this accident? How can they possibly make a fair and impartial determination of cause and responsibility if they do not know all the particulars? How can they knowing with 100% certainty exactly what happened, just as you stated in your posts-- be construed as "throwing a forum member and Fiero brother under the bus"? Stuff happens--no sense pretending it doesn't or not divulging that it does--IF, that is your intention and I hope that is not the case.

I don't know about upsides or downsides. What I do know is that legal procedures are best played close to the chest. You don't want the other side to know your every thought and move. I think everyone will agree that is basic. I've see a bunch of stuff about tickets and DUI and guns and thefts and all sorts of legal problems brought here in hopes of some free education. Never once have I ever seen anyone post that a non PFF member should be contacted about this thread so they will know about the hidden cameras or whatever has been suggested to solve a particular problem. Like I said, I was just asking, and I intend to present ALL of these facts. I see no reason not to. They are, however, mine to present, and like it was mentioned before, the city and their liability company will have full-time lawyers on the case. They will take all the time they want to evaluate the case. They have their resources, I thought PFF was mine. Sorry, must be the meds messing up my reasoning.

Jonathan

I have stayed out of this so far because it is a different state and all states have different laws regarding liability on public recreational trails.
The state of Maine recently took by eminent domain along the snowmobile/four wheeler trail. They also put gates up to prevent people with cars and trucks from driving down there. they did that because people are stupid and drunks who would use it to get home without driving down roads and getting caught for drunk driving.

That said, the gates and posts are Orange to make them more visible. The one I saw in the picture was black that is not very visible at dusk or dark. That could be what saves you in a lawsuit, it should have been orange to make it more visible.
Unless the place is closed at night to traffic, foot or otherwise.

Hope nothing is permanently damaged to you.

Steve

------------------
Technology is great when it works,
and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't
Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.

quote Originally posted by theBDub: Before my mom was rear-ended and paralyzed, I pretty much hated anyone who wanted to sue. Now, I understand the point of suing just to pay damages if the fault is truly the other party's... Having said that... I never would have thought to sue in this case. I have hurt myself on city property before... from things ranging from holes in the field while playing football to cracks in the sidewalk causing me to crash my bike. I've had concussions and bled all over my hometown. Heh, there are probably samples of my blood everywhere outdoors in my hometown if you dig deep enough. That doesn't mean it's anyone else's fault. If you truly care enough about this, go buy some inexpensive roll of reflective duct tape, call the city and tell them you hurt yourself on the pole and would like to put a band at the top of every pole just to encourage visibility. I highly doubt they will say no. Then go out there and put some tape on and call it a day. Problem solved... unless you're looking to get money out of it, in which case, good luck, but I can't offer any other advice. I believe the responsibility lies solely on you. But, hey, I also think consumers are responsible for knowing hot pockets may be hot out of the microwave without a warning that says so.

I wouldn't have thought of suing either. I'm not that bright. I was impressed with my wife's idea to check with the city. That's all we have done. We have no plans of a law suit.

Once again, I'm not a lawyer and I don't know. What I do know is that legal and fair are rarely the same. With that knowledge, it is safe to say that by law, this COULD be the city's fault. I don't know. And I won't know until it is all out on the table. Like I said before, if nothing comes from this, we will still pay our doctor bills and we will still put food on the table. Would some help be nice? Hell yes! I rarely ask for help and even rarer do I ask twice but if someone comes by and wants to get beside me and get their hands dirty with me, I'll never run you out of my yard for offering help.

I mentioned earlier that I would be happy to place reflective tape on all of the bollards. I would not invest my money and do it on my own, though. Knowing my luck, I'd be arrested and charged with vandalism! Sure as the world, if I did it, they'd say that some kind of city committe has to approve of the color, the width of the stripes and their exact placement. Let them do that first, then they can call me.

Jonathan

quote Originally posted by 87antuzzi: Just out of curiosity did you damage your sternoclavicular joint? Mine is currently dislocated and I was wondering if you had any thing done to yours. I wanna know what im looking forward too

I'm very sore there but there's nothing in my report about it. I asked the Doc today about it and he said it could just be general bruising. Here's the metal fab he did for me. EIGHT SCREWS!!!



Jonathan

The bike path that my son and I ride has those post, but only where the path crosses the main road. Putting that post in a shaded area like that was an accident waiting to happen. I wonder how many other people have hit it but did not report their accident.

quote Originally posted by Cooter: The bike path that my son and I ride has those post, but only where the path crosses the main road. Putting that post in a shaded area like that was an accident waiting to happen. I wonder how many other people have hit it but did not report their accident.

I asked that question myself, as well as wondering how many hundreds or thousands of people cycled by without hitting it.

BoostDreamer--I've never played anything close to my chest--legal or otherwise, and don't intend to change at my age. If something happens--it happens, and whether I keep it close to my chest or spread it far and wide won't change one single fact of the event, so there's no reason for me to not be very very open about it. What the law, an attorney, another person or a govt does will never ever affect that.

If it had been me that hit the post, I would have already printed out this whole thing and sent it to 'em or sent them a link--without ever batting an eye about it.

I just don't understand why you would get upset that the City would see this--Your ire makes no sense to me at all, especially since you've already stated you intend to tell them every single detail in all aspects of the event. IOW, there's nothing here you aren't going to tell them anyway--so what's the problem?

I have my beliefs and morals as you obviously do. I can't make you understand mine and I don't agree with some of the things you've said. I don't know what else to say.

I will say I'm not a rat and I don't like rats. If you come to me with a problem concerning your ex-wife, for example, you don't have to worry that I'm going to call her up and tell her what you've told me. That's the same way I'm looking at this thread. I have always thought of PFF as my back pocket, quick reference guide to all problems human. Yes it is a public forum and anyone can see what is discussed but I don't believe there is much danger in anyone searching PFF to see what I'm up to. If they do, no big deal, they do. On the other hand, if another member calls the other party in ANYONE'S thread to say, "Hey, look at this!" They're a rat and I'd be glad to see them get banned.

Maybe I'm wierd but that's just me.

Jonathan