Iconic North Shore Teeter Totters Saved After Ontario Liability Ruling

Jul 3, 2019
by James Smurthwaite  
Image Credit: Pinkbike User Leelau
Image Credit: Pinkbike User Leelau

Five teeter totters on Mount Fromme that were set to be dismantled following a liability case in Ontario have been saved following the advocacy work of the NSMBA and local mountain bikers.

The case in question held Bruce County liable when a man broke his neck and ended up paraplegic following a fall off a similar obstacle in 2008. The court claimed that the rider was insufficiently warned about the dangers of the obstacle, setting a legal precedent for municipalities to oversee safety measures and own responsibility for accidents.

As a result, the North Vancouver district told the North Shore Mountain Biking Association (NSMBA) it would move to dismantle five teeter totters on Mount Fromme between now and the end of the year. The teeter totters set to be dismantled included the one on Ladies Only, which is claimed to be the first in the world for mountain bikes, and the one on Pipeline on which a rider from Idaho died in 2013.

Mike Little, the North Vancouver Mayor told globalnews.ca, "The simplest solution was to remove the teeter-totters. I’m a heritage guy and I would love to retain them for that, but we do have to manage the risk."

However, thanks to pressure from the NSMBA, Mayor Little confirmed yesterday that after a meeting with the Municipal Insurance Association the teeter totters would stay in place for the time being with better signage and alternative routes to be put in, something which most of the at risk see saws already have.

Mayor Little told globalnews.ca, "We do see mountain biking as being a significant part of our identity for North Vancouver and we definitely want to keep that active and healthy in our community, but we always have to reassess when safety matters come up and make sure that the risks are being mitigated in an appropriate and reasonable way."

Cooper Quinn, president of the North Shore Mountain Biking Association, described the news as "awesome". He said, "I think it speaks to the district really reacting to the community’s reaction and understanding, listening to the people and trying to find a balance between risk management and the value of the resources that we have. It means a lot to the people who built them decades ago and the people who, you know, are still learning, getting the ability level to such that they can ride them in the future here.“


109 Comments

  • 255 5
 Fuck a mountain biker who gets hurt on trails then tries to sue the trail builder.
  • 79 3
 Yup, this reminds me of the MTBer who tried to sue Whistler because he got injured riding like a jackass. These people suck so bad.
  • 8 3
 People will sure for damn near anything even if it was their own fault
  • 12 3
 @scott-townes:
Have a read guys here are the trial details for Campbell v. Bruce (County), 2015 ONSC 230:

blg.com/en/News-And-Publications/Publication_4517

Basically the ruling went in favor of the plaintiff due to the County not providing adequate warning signage, skills required and the layout of an easy totter leading directly to a difficult totter where ultimately the injury was sustained.

Sucks for Campbell that he was injured so seriously.
  • 82 0
 @scott-townes: Most of the time this isn't the individual launching lawsuits. It is insurance companies. If any of us are to hurt ourselves and make a claim to a long term disability insurance through work that we've paid into for years, that company will basically do anything they want to try and reduce their payout. If that means suing someone, then that's what they'll do. Without your consent. Pretty gutless, but that's the way it works.
  • 6 1
 @gbeaks33: how does that work in Canada with their universal health care? In the US its def the insurance companies, even when you dont want them too
  • 5 0
 @Svinyard: I'm fairly certain you can still get private insurance in most countries that offer a single-payer option.
  • 37 1
 @gbeaks33: Truth. After I hurt myself at the bikepark in Northstar, I kept getting calls from my insurance company asking if anyone else could be held responsible. You just have to keep telling them that it was your fault and an accident; NEVER even hint at implying that the fault lies somewhere else or this kinda shit happens. Insurance companies are in the business of not paying for what they say they cover... crooked bastards.
  • 11 0
 @Svinyard: universal healthcare doesn't pay for your living expenses if you injure yourself and can't work anymore. Our healthcare system only pays for things like hospital visits, doctors appointments, surgeries, etc. Cost of prescription drugs, medical supplies, etc, are your own expense and can add up. That's where your own personal insurance comes in (if you have any), or whatever provincial social assistance programs exist to help with prescription coverage, disability payments, etc. Here in BC, prescription drug coverage is income based. So you pay for everything until you reach a deductible that based on your income of your last tax return. Government disability payments are basically worthless and can't even cover rent or groceries these days. I think it's like $600 a month and hasn't changed in 20 years? Might be wrong about that. But anyways, if you have insurance, you're going to need it.
  • 6 1
 @scott-townes: Yup. We have universal health care insurance... not loss of income and peripheral costs. So many citizens still carry some form of private insurance to cover loss of life, mobility, etc. And it is absolutely the insurance companies at play somehow. They either deny claims and leave the injured with little options but to try to recover some costs through litigation or the insurance does pay out and they try to recover costs. It's getting out of hand up here, though the payouts are still limited vs US. The insurance industry is now actually trying to explain massive rate hikes on the fact that there is a significant uptick in litigation costs... which is likely driven by 3 general scenarios: 1. insurance companies suing for loss recovery, 2. individual suing insurers for not honoring a policy, 3 uninsured individuals suing each other (or a business), who in turn look to insurance to help cover their court losses. Of the victims, insurance companies and lawyers... guess which one isn't getting rich but is ultimately paying more in the long run? Nothing better than free market insurance...
  • 6 1
 @scott-townes: yep. And there’s not actually universal healthcare here. There are provincial systems and each one is different. In Alberta the province provides basic care, but I still pay (through my employer) for dental and vision, prescription coverage, physical therapy, etc through an insurance company
  • 2 2
 @gbeaks33: Yeah, heard of people basically having to sue family members when they get hurt at their house because of the insurance companies getting involved. Bloody rotten crooks.
  • 3 0
 @jefe: Same experience here in WA. I told them it was my fault and that it was a sports injury. At least they were pleasant over the phone and did not harass me. ($4,400 ER visit a few months back).
  • 1 6
flag ICKYBOD (Jul 3, 2019 at 12:40) (Below Threshold)
 @jefe: " Insurance companies are in the business of not paying for what they say they cover... crooked bastards."

It sounds like they did cover and pay for it. Did they not pay for it and blame someone else instead of covering your injury?
  • 4 0
 @gbeaks33: Yep, the insured cannot tell an insurance company 'not to press charges' like a criminal case. their recovery algorithms are savage.
  • 2 2
 @vggg: That isn't exactly "details." It's a summary by a law firm.
  • 6 1
 Yeah my first thought is that life is dangerous and more so when you decide to step on a bike and ride over voluntary obstacles. So I think the nanny state of needing signs for everything that might be dangerous is kinda lame- you should be able to look at a floppy plank and think "hmm...I may get hurt here" and then build the skills to not get hurt without blaming others. However- I would also say that were I in the position of the person hurt and was hurt seriously enough to loose my livelihood and was terrified about the stress on my family moving forward, my increased medical needs, my now way sh!ttier life, it would be hard not to scrape and do everything possible to look out for my family and my future. Not saying it's right- just that it would be a horrific situation to be in and I could understand why someone may look for others to accept some financial responsibility. Again, I think it's lame...just that I could see why it might happen and always feel bad for those living post massive injury like that.
  • 6 16
flag millsr4 (Jul 3, 2019 at 13:31) (Below Threshold)
 Someone like this was the reason my local ski mountain almost closed... too bad they only got paralyzed...
  • 3 0
 @jefe: So, so, so true. I broke my neck fairly badly last year. My ins. company kept doing the same in trying to find someone else to blame. They got no such information. But sometimes the insurance company sues the land owner, not the injured, and the injured can't do anything to stop them. The ins. company's will spend more to sue than to just help the one they are supposed to be "insuring"....
  • 1 1
 Sometimes they have to to receive health insurance / injury insurance etc.
  • 3 1
 @millsr4: 1) if your local mountain was found liable and almost had to close then they probably did something negligent and wrere at fault, otherwise they wouldn’t have lost the lawsuit. The laws in most states make it very difficult to win a lawsuit against a ski area. 2) if something like this almost forced them to close then they probably aren’t carrying the sufficient liabilty insurance that a ski area should.
  • 2 1
 @sino428: I believe they ended up settling out of court but yes they probably would have been found negligent if they went the course, but that is more an issue with the laws than anything they did. I was an employee at the time and it was 100% the fault of the person who got injured. We use cattle gates to keep people out of certain areas for safety reasons and these gates have interlocking features with the ones next to them. This person thought it was a good idea to separate the gates and move their chair behind them since it was crowded in our beer garden on a sunny day. These gates happened to be keeping people from sitting under a roof overhang where snow regularly sluffs off. The gates themselves are only about 5 feet long and we had caution signs on one out of every 3 gates. The liability came in because there wasn't a sign on EVERY gate... Apparently personal responsibility isn't a thing in our country anymore... Our mountain is owned by local share holders not some big corporation so they may not have the best insurance. They even ended up getting rid of the terrain park to help limit future liabilities...
  • 3 0
 @millsr4: that’s a little different then. When you said ski resort I assumed it had to do with a ski accident which is much different than an accident that happened in a lodge or restaurant area.
  • 1 0
 @sino428: Not really though, the same principles apply... someone got hurt from their own stupid decision so they sued the mountain.
  • 3 1
 @gbeaks33: This is an incredibly important comment. I don’t deny that North America has gone sue-crazy, but as you stated, it’s probably insurance companies trying to recoup a loss more often than an individual not taking responsibility for themselves.
  • 3 0
 @vggg: I really think people need to accept more responsibility for their actions. Kind of like the kid who tries to throw a back flip off a ski jump and cases it, then sues everyone including his sponsors - sorry, but you kinda should have known the risk (and I believe the judge in that case agreed). Same with the teeter - it was right there in your face, if your dumb enough not to realize you can get hurt from going up it - it's no one's fault but your own. Too much signage and you stop paying attention. I find it crazy we need to put warnings on plastic bags to not put them on your head for fear of suffocating, or to watch operating a chainsaw around your private parts.
  • 1 2
 I want to go to court in Canada hahahaha
  • 3 0
 @millsr4: it is actually completely different because most states have specific laws in place regarding the liability of ski areas and the inherent risk is skiing and snowboarding. And accident at the bar is covered by a completely different set of rules.
  • 1 0
 @sino428: Well from what I was told the same insurance policy covers both so even though it happened at the bar we saw the effects on the slopes with them removing obstacles due to a liability lawsuit. Sounds like a similar situation to me...
  • 2 0
 @jefe: same thing happened to me at Bootleg years ago. Insurance, who put the rock there? Me, I don't know, God?

And the whole bill was less than my deductible anyway. All of this was to save the cost of this from going towards my year deductible! Insurance in the US is such a scam.
  • 1 0
 @millsr4: yea it can have the sane effect as any lawsuit will potentially cost a resort money. But there is a much greater responsibility on the part of a resort to keep people from getting hurt at bar/restaurant than there is to keep them from getting hurt while skiing or boarding. These are inherently dangerous activities, while sitting at a table in a bar is not. That’s why there is a greater requirement for signage and whatnot. There is no expectation for that type of danger to exist in a beer garden.
  • 1 0
 @sino428: "There is no expectation for that type of danger to exist in a beer garden." but common sense would dictate that a steep roof with snow on it is not safe to sit under... and further more, if there are gates barricading you with sings that should be enough... As far as I'm concerned that person deserved what they got. Darwinism at work!
  • 3 0
 Everybody says they wouldn't be "that guy" until they are that person with a broken neck, no feasible employment future and no options. Then what are you going to do? You use possibly the only option you have left to help you live.
  • 1 0
 @greener1: I would blame myself like a normal human instead of ruining recreation for everyone else that didn't f*ck themselves up. You're basically advocating for being an a*shole just because you're in a desperate situation because of your own actions. That's the definition of being a dick.
  • 1 0
 @gbeaks33: No it’s not. Not claims like these. I handled sports liability claims all across Canada for around twenty years. Never saw it happen. Property losses are different. Often those claims are subrogated claims. The property insurer covers say a water damage loss from a pipe that failed due to poor workmanship and once the claim is paid that insurer is subrogated to the insureds right to recovery. You do see in some provinces the provincial medical insurer seeking recovery of their costs. In BC adjusters or lawyers handling the claim are obligated to notify the provincial insurer and determine how much that insurer paid out.
  • 2 0
 @millsr4: sure it’s not safe to sit under a steep roof with snow on it. But you know what most resorts do? They go up and clear the snow off the steep roofs where it could fall on people, which is probably what your resort should have done as well instead of just using a temporary fence. Yes people should follow rules, but there is also a responsibility on behalf of the establishment to mitigate what seems like a very dangerous situation.
  • 1 0
 Looking for support to re open 20km of MTB trails on the North Shore, Auckland, New Zealand. Please follow link and sign the petition. www.savetherat.co.nz
  • 2 0
 @scott-townes: you seem to disagree with the general liability principle that people are expected to take reasonable precautions against causing undue harm to people who place some duty of care in them. While I won't disagree that there is a lot of abuse when it comes to liability I would not want to live in a society where we as citizens are not held to some level of accountability for our actions, both ways. You argue that as a rider there is inherent risk and therefore the injured should accept bad outcomes. The same argument, exact same, can be made against people who provide a service to public in that doing so they take on a level of risk and duty of care and when they fail in that they must also accept bad outcomes. It all comes down to reasonability.
  • 2 2
 @sino428: Thinking like that and people like you are why our liability laws are so ridiculous in this country. You can find justification for anything apparently... You can try to justify it all you want but as far as I'm concerned the mountain did nothing wrong and that person deserves what they got.
  • 2 0
 @millsr4: I’m not defending the laws at all, I’m just pointing out what they actually are. I think liability laws in the country are ridiculous. But that doesn’t mean they can be ignored, especially if you are running a business and would like to stay in business.
  • 2 0
 @millsr4: Actually your liability laws are so F-d because as a society we value money over people. Instead of the risk of others being hurt acting like a deterrent we use the risk of losing money because our actions may hurt someone as incentive to act responsibly. That's what's f'd up.

And it happens because people skew responsibility by applying it disproportionately to victims than both parties. We're responsible when our actions lead to a negative outcome we could have foreseen, but the same responsibility is usually not held on the party that created an environment in which a certain level of risk could also have been foreseen.
  • 53 0
 Shout out to all of you People and the NSMBA who sent emails and raised awareness across social media platforms. A key part of what it means to ride Fromme has been saved and thats FUCKING AWESOME! Now let's all continue to work on riding Grannies on Fromme to keep the powers to be from turning it into a bloody hiking trail. There are trail counters out there apparently keeping tabs on the volume of riders using the trail.
  • 3 0
 Has anyone actually seen the Granny's trail counters???
  • 1 0
 @dr-airtime: Hard to take time to look when just rambling down that trail haha. Apparently they are well hidden or thats what I was told.
  • 9 0
 I e mailed the DNV about this, and got this response from the parks manager.

"Fortunately, the rumor you have heard about Grannies is only that - a rumor.

I can confirm that the District Parks Department has not engaged in any discussions regarding the future of this trail, and we do not currently have any plans regarding its future beyond maintaining its current status."

So keep fighting the good fight, but this one doesn't seem to be an issue for now.
  • 1 0
 need to find those trail counters and pad the numbers. edit: ok i didn't see the comment about it being only a rumor.
  • 1 0
 You don't have to worry about grannies anymore.
  • 33 0
 Fuck it feels good to see reason and sense win one these days!
  • 19 0
 Thank you to Pinkbike for giving us the skinny on this story. And a tip of the hat to the Mayor for making the right call! I understand it's hard to balance risk liability and whilst maintaining the historical character of these trails. This is a win for this generation of riders, as well as the tots just starting in the sport.
  • 18 1
 I can't wait to hurt myself hitting a warning sign, then I can sue and maybe we can get warning signs for the warning signs.
  • 3 2
 ..this one time, at boat camp(show), a sign was posted to "watch your step" at the transition from stairs/platform into a boat. A small gap, covered with a board and heavy mat. Someone trips...hurts an ankle or something, gets ptsd, probably raped...probably got offended at something nearby while they were at it.
Ends up in court....boat show organizers or whoev's found guilty of negligence. The sign proved or indicated an awareness of the danger. FFS. True story.
  • 14 0
 DUDE THANK YOU NSMBA! This is why I want to give you all my money. I am so thankful for you fighting to keep the trails true North Shore MTB trails.
  • 15 0
 It was not really NSMBA here. Their hands were tied, and then 1300 local MTBers signed the petition in 72 hours that wend around and probably hundreds of MTBers emailed the DNV council. NSMBA was conflicted from doing anything else as they were first to rally to resist this. This is a MTB community victory.
  • 2 0
 @dr-airtime: absolutely correct - but that doesn't take anything away from the great work NSMBA has done. Sometimes it's a matter of rallying the troops to make land managers aware that advocacy groups are single voice but have many people behind them.

Also, kudos to DNV for revisiting this decision. The easiest and most risk-averse solution would have been to rip out the teeter totters, but they're now putting in the work to come up with something better.
  • 1 0
 We'll take all your money, anytime. Smile
  • 1 0
 @dr-airtime: Emails to Council did this, and media pressure.
  • 10 0
 I don't know how many states have this, and I'm not sure it would have covered the Ontario situation, but my state has 'recreational immunity'. It basically says if someone (including governments) offers their land to the public for recreational enjoyment AND doesn't charge a fee, then they are immune from liability.

It has done a lot for opening up so many trails here (Idaho) and it helps keep the landowner from wanting to charge a use fee.
  • 7 0
 Both BC and Ontario have an almost identical occupiers liability statute which sounds very like your state's recreational immunity.

However the Ontario Bruce County decision happened on a teeter-totter in a trials skills area in a municipal bike park - not a trail. The North Shore teeter-totters are on recreational trails ( not a muni bike park). Bottom line is that BC municipalities are essentially immune from liability for accidents on trails; similar to your state
  • 12 0
 Bravo NSMBA and DNV! Probably more concise to call it "advocacy" rather than "pressure from"...
  • 9 0
 While saving the teetors is nice, the real victory in my mind is that the DNV has received a loud and clear message that mountain bikers won't stand aside if they try to take things away without adequate consultation and reasoning. Thanks to everyone who sent a message, and to the various news outlets who shared our story. This was a win for the public voice overcoming lazy governance.
  • 1 0
 Ding ding ding.
  • 9 1
 Leave it to Ontario. The No Fun Province. -- It's on our license plates.
  • 4 0
 I was at Esther Shore and rode a seesaw there and brained myself. Landed over the bars square on my head and remember my neck compressing and nothing more than thinking I can feel my feet!! I’m ok.
I wasn’t but. One things for sure. You don’t ride a seesaw and think sh*t I didn’t know this thin piece of wood with no end and a pivot was a surprise. It was my fault I f*cked up. Cost me a helmet a dentist bill. Concussion and bruising. Not wishing the guy who got hurt the worst. But we do the sport and tow the line. It’s the line we like to dabble in and out of. Sometimes we don’t get back as we liked.
It’s not the trails fault.
  • 3 0
 No mention of him but Councilor Matthew Bond of the District of North Vancouver has helped mountain bike a ton in the area and help stop the teeter totters from being taken out. Please vote in municipal elections or better yet run! Having elected municipal officials that ride does a ton for the sport.
  • 1 0
 Yes, thank you Councillor Bond. There's several trail users on Council, but having an avid mountain biker who shares our concerns and understands our goals is great.
  • 4 1
 Can't believe the DNV actually did something cool. These dipshits have been trashing our trails and making out lives difficult for years. Fuck the DNV.
  • 1 0
 Legit richards .... years ago i had an epic bmx race track with sick tabletops in my local park. Both park and track gated and surrounded with fence... a local state troopers kid jumped the fence after park was closed, hit a big launch and broke his neck crashing....dad sued state and town and needless to say there is now a nice batch of trees and a bench there....
  • 3 2
 Can't fault the DNV for their initial reaction. One of their jobs is to protect the financial interests of the taxpayer. Risking having to pay millions in a liability lawsuit doesn't meet that objective. Adequate signage and disclosure should do the trick. Glad they listened to the community and were able to find common ground.
  • 11 0
 You can fault them for not consulting with professionals that actually have a clue how liability issues differ between ON and BC, and you can fault them for not consulting with the one Council member who actually understands the issue (Matthew Bond), before deciding to remove them. Then when asked direct questions about whether the decisions had been finalized, the DNV basically lied and said they were in the consulting/deciding phase. Plenty of blind leading blind in this scenario.
  • 1 1
 @mammal: It's seems it wasn't finalized as the teeters were not removed. Some communication issues for sure but in the end they listened and this is the result the MTB community wanted, no?
  • 5 0
 @jawzzy3: DNV did intend to remove the structures. They changed their mind following public pressure
  • 4 0
 @jawzzy3: Indeed, the end result was favorable. But there was seemingly no conciliation with the only council member that had any experience in the issue, and they were obviously getting inadequate council from the "professionals" that they hired on the matter. Anyone with fairly sparse knowledge of the OLA and the history of that act in BC can tell you that this scenario is vastly different that what happened in Ontario.

There were also several deceiving statements on the process coming directly from the DNV, a day before sh*t hit the fan and they announce the reversal. This doesn't cast a favorable light for the decision making processes going on within the DNV.
  • 1 3
 @leelau: Intend ≠ finalized
  • 1 2
 @mammal: Only thing I'd note - "legal expertise" isn't guarantee of outcome. I bet the lawyers (legal experts) defending the case in Ontario were very sure they'd win, but they didn't. I agree with you though - does seem like there are public communication issues at the DNV.
  • 3 0
 @jawzzy3: I'm not sure "will be removed immediately" really qualifies as "not finalized", but [shrug].

Yes, one of their jobs is to protect their financial interests of the taxpayer. But, they also need to balance against what the taxpayers value. This is literally their job, whether its "do we replace this aging water main", or "should we add protected bike lanes".

And, if you're going to try and mitigate liability concerns, getting a third party risk management consultant is all well and good, but maybe also ask your insurer before you make final decisions? That's what ultimately saved this; conversations between Mayor/Council, Senior Staff, and MIA after pressure from the community.
  • 1 1
 @cooperquinn-wy: Totally... glad they listened.
  • 1 0
 It is correct that most of the time, it is the insurance company who effects the lawsuit. Even though the individual who was hurt is the named plaintif, it is the insurance company who "works with" the injured to encourage them to file a suit in exchange for better financial coverage for the injured. This encouragement all takes place off the record and in one-on-one 'over coffee' type discussions. And then there are other times of course when the injured is the one who pushes for the suit.

That is how it works here in the US.
  • 3 0
 That is not at all how it works in the US. Your policy gives the insurance company the right to subrogate, which means they can attempt recovery for money they spend on you- which means they can initiate suit in your name but only after they have spent money. You are required to cooperate and you can't sign away the insurer's subrogation rights without their permission. It is not some secret deal for better coverage.
  • 5 0
 As a trail builder and resident of Ontariarario this nauseates me.
  • 2 0
 Freakin "Chainsaw massacre" punks...
  • 3 0
 @MrLski: Jah knows.
People need to stand up and take responsibilities for their own actions.
  • 2 0
 As horrific it would be to be seriously injured, maimed or to die on a trail or in a race, I would never want to have my name attached to anything that would destroy the sport that I love.
  • 1 0
 In California the doctrine of assumption of risk would prevent this type of lawsuit from being successful. If you engage in risky behavior as part of a sport you pretty much assume all risks associated with the sort. We now have skateparks and pump tracks on public land that can be operated without fear of liability. For a long time there were none due to liability concerns. A lawsuit stands a chance only when the inherent risk have been negligently increased. That’s hard to prove. Your health insurance still has to pay to fix you. Canadian provinces could adopt this as the law. Be Best Ya’ll.
  • 2 0
 All Canadian provinces have adopted this as law. Except Ontario which has gone nanny-state
  • 1 0
 5 teeter totters on Fromme ? Where ?

Five teeter totters on Mount Fromme that were set to be dismantled following a liability case in Ontario have been saved following the advocacy work of the NSMBA and local mountain bikers.
  • 1 0
 Four on Fromme, one on Seymour.
  • 1 0
 Huge respect to NSMBA for this. I live in Marin County CA where if an equestrian is mildly annoyed rangers will be out ticketing for a year, and all legal MTB has essentially been restricted to fire roads (which have a speed limit). Our toothless MTB advocacy groups will call an IMBA doubletrack that nobody rides that costs 2 million over a 10 year development a victory. Goes to show what an actual MTB advocacy group can accomplish.
  • 6 1
 Yay for tittie trotters!
  • 3 0
 LoL right because the teeter totter is how I'm most likely to have a massive accident on Ladies Only.
  • 1 0
 I absolutely fell in love with Fromme while I was there in May. I wouldn't want anything to be altered out there, that place is absolutely next level!
  • 2 0
 It's sad but he was in operation of the bicycle, it's not like the bike malfunctioned or the laws of physics betrayed him.
  • 1 0
 Should be quadriplegic or tetraplegic, not paraplegic in the article. Other than that, good news!
  • 5 4
 I just came to read all the tough guy curse word posts. Never disappointed.
  • 1 0
 used to ride bruce bike park all the time before the skinnies got taken down
  • 2 0
 It's no longer a slip & fall, it's a skrrrt and crash.
  • 3 0
 Hey, pinkbike community, if we could get "skrrtt & crash" as official legal jargon for bike accident lawsuits, that would be dope.

So, any lawyers out there, please send it. Slap that on a brief for a dentist looking to get richer.

Much love.
  • 1 0
 Well, if someone dies on the street because of any reason, will we suppress the streets?..
  • 1 0
 Thats awesome news!!! Congrats and thanks to all the people that worked together to keep the wood work alive.
  • 2 1
 Pink starfish RIP. Load of crap. Tear em down . The North shore was cool . 20 years ago.
  • 3 0
 What? Maybe if you were there 20 years ago. I was there only once 2 years ago and I thought it was better than cool. I knew my place with my skillset and have never seen these features but that doesn't mean they should be torn down.

I submit that depending on your skillset there's plenty of normal spots for things to go wrong, so by your logic you should shut the whole mountain down to bikes. Even as a Light Blue rider I'd oppose that.
  • 2 0
 Awww yissss
  • 4 4
 f*ck yeah! What kind of a*shole turns on their fellow mountain bikers just because they’re a lousy rider?!
  • 2 1
 Someone in Morontario.
  • 1 1
 “People shooting ski areas should be sued... well, they should!”
-License to Thrill
  • 1 0
 Time to rebuild the teeter on Dales!
  • 1 0
 Not on DNV land.
  • 2 2
 I was just surprised to find out there are still teeters out there somewhere. Thought they all died out with the skinnies.
  • 2 1
 We still have skinnies, too.
Below threshold threads are hidden

Post a Comment



Copyright © 2000 - 2019. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.039174
Mobile Version of Website