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
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.
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?
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
That is how it works here in the US.
People need to stand up and take responsibilities for their own actions.
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.
So, any lawyers out there, please send it. Slap that on a brief for a dentist looking to get richer.
Much love.
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.
-License to Thrill
Post a Comment