Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 102
  1. #51
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,020
    Quote Originally Posted by altasnob View Post
    Doesn't mean you can't advocate for changes that you believe should be made, but there is a more professional way to do so than blaming a paralyzed guy. Ski Bowl made their comments with hopes that they get the exact reaction you see here. Lawyers are evil. Anyone who dares sue a ski area is an asshole. America's tort system is fucked. All other countries on earth let you do whatever you want and so should the US. If the laws aren't changed, there won't even be bike parks, or ski areas, in the state of Oregon. Then Ski Bowl can use that momentum to get Oregon's liability laws relaxed so that they can make more profit.

    20 years ago, when I drove north to bike at Whistler and North Shore Vancouver, I wondered why Washington didn't have the same radical bike trails and I naively assumed it was because of Washington's legal system. Fast forward to today and Washington has insane bike trails that rival anything on earth. Legal trails. Same with Oregon. And the laws haven't changed at all.
    This is interesting. In BC the waiver is very protective - even from negligence on the part of the park. Basically, if you warn the participant of the risk and that risk turns out to be risky it is on them.

    I have never ridden in Washington (would love to someday) - but are those insane bike trails lift access areas or on non-private lands?

    If they are in the lift access areas, I wonder if there is anyway to determine if a park in Washington is "safer" than one in BC. As in less accidents per visit, less serious accidents etc.

    I have always appreciated our system - but that may be because I work for more tour operators than insurance companies!

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Maine Coast
    Posts
    4,678
    Not a lawyer, but my understanding is a waiver does not protect from wanton negligence in the US

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hell Track
    Posts
    13,841
    Quote Originally Posted by cat in january View Post
    Not a lawyer, but my understanding is a waiver does not protect from wanton negligence in the US
    It varies from state to state. In some states, waivers are essentially meaningless.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    northern BC
    Posts
    30,879
    None the less thats the standard they are using

    yeah we got them " posts " all over the local trail system at the fork in a trail, while they may look like posts they are actually thin flat plastic with a ridge on each side, probably really cheap, point the flat part with the sticker on it at whom ever will be reading the sign, I havent tried it yet but I am fairly sure if I hit one it fold over.

    They are installed by pounding them in with a post pounder, I was actualy riding the day Laura a somewhat pregnant woman put a bunch of them in with the post pounder .
    Lee Lau - xxx-er is the laziest Asian canuck I know

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    northern BC
    Posts
    30,879
    [QUOTE=LHutz Esq;6626862 In BC the waiver is very protective - even from n,egligence on the part of the park. Basically, if you warn the participant of the risk and that risk turns out to be risky it is on them.
    ![/QUOTE]

    When i first moved here I hit a pot hole it caused 730$ of damage, so I write a complaint " failure to warn the public of a hazard the town had been made aware of siteing as precedent the case of DNV vs some plaintiff "

    The plaintiff actualy lost this case and the reason they lost is because the judge deemed it reasonable the hazard could have occured between inspections on an always very busy Marine drive in North Van so they would be unaware of a hazard

    BUT I could prove the town had been aware of this hazard ( main & 13th) for 3 months cuz everybody on the street had complained, the issue was not that they didnt fix the hole BUT that they failed to put up a sign

    No arguments the town cuts me a check

    and thats why you see or should see signs on potholes
    Lee Lau - xxx-er is the laziest Asian canuck I know

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Keep Tacoma Feared
    Posts
    5,266
    Quote Originally Posted by toast2266 View Post
    But, of course, that'll never happen because people like Altasnob get a hard on for big jury verdicts and they don't mind seeing bike parks get shut down for stupid reasons.
    I don't get a hard on for big jury verdicts. I just think tort reform is a complicated subject and we shouldn't be reactionary and call for an entire overhaul of Oregon's legal system based on one single lawsuit. I see myself more aligned with consumer's rights. The arguments you are making are the arguments big insurance and big business makes. It's no surprise the states with liability caps trend more conservative.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Park City
    Posts
    1,857
    It is terrible that a guy was paralyzed riding his bike. I’ve heard third hand that land owners in Britain are closing right of ways because the trail they considered a kindness to the community by providing access is getting them sued. If we go down this path, only government land will be open to riding due to the risk. Not bad for us in the west, where half (or more) of the land is government owned, but brutal for all of you in the east.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Keep Tacoma Feared
    Posts
    5,266
    Quote Originally Posted by LHutz Esq View Post
    I have never ridden in Washington (would love to someday) - but are those insane bike trails lift access areas or on non-private lands?
    Nearly all the gnarly trails with big jumps and features in Washington, and Oregon, are found on state, county, city, or private land. Not on federal land (National Forests). There is riding on National Forests, but these are generally old hiking and dirt bike trails. The Forest Service in the PNW has been very reluctant to allow new mountain bike trails to be built. It does exists (like around Bend) but again, most new trails are not on federal land.

    Ski Bowl is on federal land. Bike parks on ski resorts is the one exception the Forest Service makes. But here's my argument. We all agree bike parks in places like Ski Bowl are not profitable and will likely never be profitable. So why not close down bike parks like this and get the Forest Service to change their stance and allow trail building on ski resort land that is leased from the federal government. You could build just as good of trails, if not better. There is no shortage of people in the community willing to donate their time and money to trail building. You wouldn't be able to take a chair lift to the top but you could ride or ebike. And since you would not be paying for a lift ticket, as toast points out, liability on the Forest Service (the land owner) would be greatly reduced.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hell Track
    Posts
    13,841
    Quote Originally Posted by altasnob View Post
    We all agree bike parks in places like Ski Bowl are not profitable and will likely never be profitable. .
    No we don't. Plenty of bike parks on federal leases are profitable. They're not cash cows, but (absent dumb lawsuits) they're financially sustainable. Probably will be moreso as riding seasons get longer and ski seasons get shorter.

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Keep Tacoma Feared
    Posts
    5,266
    Ski areas in the PNW are completely different than ski areas in the rest of the country. They generally lack base development and the shopping mall feel of ski areas in the Rockies. So you can't compare a ski area, or bike park, like Ski Bowl, to Vail or Deer Valley. As others point out, Ski Bowl has been on the brink of bankruptcy forever. In the summer, they rely on weddings and the alpine slide to try to turn a profit. Up at Crystal they don't have a bike park but rely on glamping, zip lines, and scenic ghondola rides.

    In Ski Bowl's post they blame Oregon's liability laws for their inability to continue. But then why does Washington have a very limited bike park scene? The answer is because as you drive up to the ski areas outside of Seattle, you would be passing a lot of far superior trails to ride and you wouldn't have to pay for a lift ticket. It doesn't make sense to drive far to bike AND have to pay for a lift ticket to do so. And since there isn't a large base area, there are not other ways for the ski area to make money.

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hell Track
    Posts
    13,841
    Quote Originally Posted by altasnob View Post
    Ski areas in the PNW are completely different than ski areas in the rest of the country. They generally lack base development and the shopping mall feel of ski areas in the Rockies. So you can't compare a ski area, or bike park, like Ski Bowl, to Vail or Deer Valley. As others point out, Ski Bowl has been on the brink of bankruptcy forever. In the summer, they rely on weddings and the alpine slide to try to turn a profit. Up at Crystal they don't have a bike park but rely on glamping, zip lines, and scenic ghondola rides.

    In Ski Bowl's post they blame Oregon's liability laws for their inability to continue. But then why does Washington have a very limited bike park scene? The answer is because as you drive up to the ski areas outside of Seattle, you would be passing a lot of far superior trails to ride and you wouldn't have to pay for a lift ticket. It doesn't make sense to drive far to bike AND have to pay for a lift ticket to do so. And since there isn't a large base area, there are not other ways for the ski area to make money.
    You have no idea what you're talking about.

    Bike parks are profitable. The actual bike park. Not including revenue from other summer activities that may or may not exist at the resort.

  12. #62
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    northern BC
    Posts
    30,879
    the BC gov seems to be throwing money at mtn biking cuz its good for tourism and its not really much money
    Lee Lau - xxx-er is the laziest Asian canuck I know

  13. #63
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Keep Tacoma Feared
    Posts
    5,266
    Ok, so the only reason Washington and Oregon have had essentially a non-existent bike park scene until just recently is all because of liability laws? The scene here is not built around for profit bike parks, and that is a very good thing.

  14. #64
    Join Date
    Mar 2022
    Posts
    803
    Quote Originally Posted by Canada1 View Post
    It is terrible that a guy was paralyzed riding his bike. I’ve heard third hand that land owners in Britain are closing right of ways because the trail they considered a kindness to the community by providing access is getting them sued. If we go down this path, only government land will be open to riding due to the risk. Not bad for us in the west, where half (or more) of the land is government owned, but brutal for all of you in the east.
    More places need something like Kentucky's recreational use statute which is stronger than most states.

    Basically protects landowners who allow recreation access to their land by absolving them of liability for injuries/damage as long as that access is granted for free and there are no willful or malicious failures.
    You can even get away with charging parking fees so long as they are per-car and not charged to people who walk/bike.

    This has allowed climbing in the Red River Gorge to flourish including extensive investment in sport-route development, trail building, etc. Some landowners do ask for an additional waiver, but IIRC there's a lot of land owned by oil/gas/mining interests and you know that those businesses would not allow a bunch of dirtbags to dangle from cliffs on their property if there was any risk of liability.


    Granted that wouldn't apply to a bike park since they charge an entry fee which gives them a duty of care...but it would sure help make landowners in other places more comfortable with allowing people to cut trails.

  15. #65
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hell Track
    Posts
    13,841
    Lots of (most?) states have statutes limiting liability for landowners that allow recreation. Those statutes protect both private landowners and public entities. In a lot of places, those laws are the only reason we get to do anything fun on property we don't own.

    But yeah, they don't apply to bike parks and other paid recreation.

  16. #66
    Join Date
    Mar 2022
    Posts
    803
    Yeah, all 50 states have some sort of statute.

    I'm no lawyer, but my recollection is that Kentucky's is particularly strong/flexible and has the benefit of being well-tested in court with precedential rulings that shut down creative attempts to get around the statute.

    At least that's the story they tell in the climbing community for why the Red has been so successful--there are some major pieces of land that were purchased by private citizens solely for the purpose of opening up to climbers (e.g. Muir Valley which was owned by the Weber family for a decade until they donated it to a non-profit with the help of the Access Fund).

  17. #67
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Keep Tacoma Feared
    Posts
    5,266
    Oregon and Washington have a similar law as Kentucky. Oregon's law even survived a challenge arguing that by requiring an ATV to purchase a permit to use Oregon lands, that the State should not be able to take advantage of the immunity (because the law doesn't apply to landowners who are charging a fee). The court disagreed and said a general, state-wide permit requirement is not a "fee" under the law.

    It does sound like Kentucky is different in that they don't count a parking permit as a "fee."

  18. #68
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Vancouver/Whistler
    Posts
    13,983
    Quote Originally Posted by XXX-er View Post
    When i first moved here I hit a pot hole it caused 730$ of damage, so I write a complaint " failure to warn the public of a hazard the town had been made aware of siteing as precedent the case of DNV vs some plaintiff "

    The plaintiff actualy lost this case and the reason they lost is because the judge deemed it reasonable the hazard could have occured between inspections on an always very busy Marine drive in North Van so they would be unaware of a hazard

    BUT I could prove the town had been aware of this hazard ( main & 13th) for 3 months cuz everybody on the street had complained, the issue was not that they didnt fix the hole BUT that they failed to put up a sign

    No arguments the town cuts me a check

    and thats why you see or should see signs on potholes
    What you've explained Al does not apply to recreational trails in BC. Streets and trails are totally different. Doesn't matter if its a pay-for-access trail system or a public free access trail system; if there's a waiver you get squat. Even if there's no waiver if it's a public free access trail system you still get squat.

  19. #69
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    northern BC
    Posts
    30,879
    yeah but my point was that once they know they have to warn the public,

    i didn't plan to fight them, I was just counting on throwing enough FUD at them so they cave and they did
    Lee Lau - xxx-er is the laziest Asian canuck I know

  20. #70
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Last Best City in the Last Best Place
    Posts
    7,267
    If nothing else, I bet any bike park with 4 x 4 wood signposts will be replacing them with the floppy ones stat. Probably not a bad thing, even though I don't agree with this verdict. You get on a bike to careen down a mountain, you take full responsibility for that decision, come what may.

  21. #71
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    311
    IMO, bike parks are up and coming in the PNW, it's not as well developed in OR or WA yet, but it's coming.

    Also, something that would be pretty apparent to anyone who actually rides in OR: lots of ski resorts are on volcanoes, which I'm gonna argue generally make for bad riding. Only the lower elevation ski resorts have the right soil for building decent trails.

    Doesn't seem hard to believe that in 10 years, Ski Bowl would be know as the mountain biking destination that happens to have skiing.

    Also re: biking at Skibowl now that it's shut down - who is gonna build those trails?

  22. #72
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Keep Tacoma Feared
    Posts
    5,266
    Quote Originally Posted by Backward_Banana View Post
    Also re: biking at Skibowl now that it's shut down - who is gonna build those trails?
    Northwest Trail Alliance

    In affluent, bike crazy cities, like Portland and Seattle, the limiting factor isn't money or labor to build the trails, it is convincing the land agencies to allow the trails to be built. Hence all the illegal trails in the PNW forests.

    Ski Bowl claiming that Oregon's liability laws prevent them from operating a bike park would be a perfect opportunity to convince the Forest Service to allow trail maintenance and construction on Ski Bowl's leased land (which does not grant Ski Bowl exclusive use, meaning they have to share it with non-paying members of the public). All the typical reasons the Forest Service resists bike trail construction (environmental preservation) is thrown out the window when Ski Bowl has turned the place into an amusement park in the summer.

  23. #73
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    9,300ft
    Posts
    21,938
    Can't blame the guy even if that is the first instinct. Why? Because if you are suddenly facing the rest of your life as a paraplegic and you have an opportunity to make that life less miserable and broke, you are gonna take it even if the morality is slightly dubious from a 3rd party observer's POV, which is all we are.

    I'd blame the system.
    Quote Originally Posted by blurred
    skiing is hiking all day so that you can ski on shitty gear for 5 minutes.

  24. #74
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Where the sheets have no stains
    Posts
    22,061
    ^^^ Which system?
    I have been in this State for 30 years and I am willing to admit that I am part of the problem.

    "Happiest years of my life were earning < $8.00 and hour, collecting unemployment every spring and fall, no car, no debt and no responsibilities. 1984-1990 Park City UT"

  25. #75
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    9,300ft
    Posts
    21,938
    Legal, health, and social (but that opens a huge can-o-worms)
    Quote Originally Posted by blurred
    skiing is hiking all day so that you can ski on shitty gear for 5 minutes.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •