Results 51 to 75 of 102
Thread: Ski Bowl Halts Biking Operations
-
06-02-2022, 12:05 PM #51Registered User
- Join Date
- Sep 2011
- Posts
- 1,021
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!
-
06-02-2022, 12:11 PM #52
Not a lawyer, but my understanding is a waiver does not protect from wanton negligence in the US
-
06-02-2022, 12:13 PM #53
-
06-02-2022, 12:16 PM #54Registered User
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
- Location
- northern BC
- Posts
- 31,085
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
-
06-02-2022, 12:46 PM #55Registered User
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
- Location
- northern BC
- Posts
- 31,085
[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 potholesLee Lau - xxx-er is the laziest Asian canuck I know
-
06-02-2022, 01:03 PM #56
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.
-
06-02-2022, 01:07 PM #57
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.
-
06-02-2022, 01:12 PM #58
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.
-
06-02-2022, 01:16 PM #59
-
06-02-2022, 01:25 PM #60
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.
-
06-02-2022, 01:36 PM #61
-
06-02-2022, 01:45 PM #62Registered User
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
- Location
- northern BC
- Posts
- 31,085
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
-
06-02-2022, 01:47 PM #63
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.
-
06-02-2022, 02:10 PM #64Registered User
- Join Date
- Mar 2022
- Posts
- 835
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.
-
06-02-2022, 02:51 PM #65
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.
-
06-02-2022, 03:17 PM #66Registered User
- Join Date
- Mar 2022
- Posts
- 835
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).
-
06-02-2022, 03:28 PM #67
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."
-
06-02-2022, 04:16 PM #68
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.
-
06-02-2022, 04:32 PM #69Registered User
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
- Location
- northern BC
- Posts
- 31,085
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 didLee Lau - xxx-er is the laziest Asian canuck I know
-
06-02-2022, 04:39 PM #70
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.
-
06-02-2022, 08:02 PM #71
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?
-
06-03-2022, 07:56 AM #72
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.
-
06-09-2022, 12:44 PM #73
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.Originally Posted by blurred
-
06-09-2022, 04:58 PM #74
^^^ 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"
-
06-09-2022, 05:42 PM #75
Legal, health, and social (but that opens a huge can-o-worms)
Originally Posted by blurred
Bookmarks