In Case You Don't Believe Some Drivers Don't Care If They Kill.

[SPORT]

"The cost of liability insurance is a huge factor around here"

Exactly! If judges would stop siding with the wrong side, then stupid law suits would not happen. Why should the owner of a track (or their insurance company) be responsible for my inability to negotiate a curve causing me to go down, wreck my bike, break a bone and perhaps cause another to go down. Here's a link of one such example. The rider accepts the risk of such venture, not the owner of the track. Ultimately judges do decide the fate of what is acceptable or not acceptable.

 

[Fred W]

"The cost of liability insurance is a huge factor around here"

Exactly! If judges would stop siding with the wrong side, then stupid law suits would not happen. Why should the owner of a track (or their insurance company) be responsible for my inability to negotiate a curve causing me to go down, wreck my bike, break a bone and perhaps cause another to go down. Here's a link of one such example. The rider accepts the risk of such venture, not the owner of the track. Ultimately judges do decide the fate of what is acceptable or not acceptable.

OK, I see where you're going with this now.

[edit] I just followed your link and realize that you are saying the same thing (I think).

Here's a problem: Suppose Joe Squidly decides to go ahead and sign a waver that relinquishes his rights and indemnifies the track from liability. Then something goes wrong and he stacks it up and dies. Squidly's widow or heirs can come along and still sue the track. Joe can't sign away the financial rights of others. Iss that right or wrong? Do you ant someone else to be able to release your financial rights for you?

As to it being the Judge's "fault", (trying hard to keep this apolitical) they are only tasked with interpreting the laws. The laws are written by the legislators that are elected to represent you and me. So really, it is us (collectively) that are at fault for not electing legislators to write the laws that we want, exactly the way that we want them.

 

[SPORT]

"The cost of liability insurance is a huge factor around here"

Exactly! If judges would stop siding with the wrong side, then stupid law suits would not happen. Why should the owner of a track (or their insurance company) be responsible for my inability to negotiate a curve causing me to go down, wreck my bike, break a bone and perhaps cause another to go down. Here's a link of one such example. The rider accepts the risk of such venture, not the owner of the track. Ultimately judges do decide the fate of what is acceptable or not acceptable.

OK, I see where you're going with this now.

[edit] I just followed your link and realize that you are saying the same thing (I think).

Here's a problem: Suppose Joe Squidly decides to go ahead and sign a waver that relinquishes his rights and indemnifies the track from liability. Then something goes wrong and he stacks it up and dies. Squidly's widow or heirs can come along and still sue the track. Joe can't sign away the financial rights of others. Iss that right or wrong? Do you ant someone else to be able to release your financial rights for you?

As to it being the Judge's "fault", (trying hard to keep this apolitical) they are only tasked with interpreting the laws. The laws are written by the legislators that are elected to represent you and me. So really, it is us (collectively) that are at fault for not electing legislators to write the laws that we want, exactly the way that we want them.

OK, I'll concede to your point. My point is that thrill seekers, who would more than likely take their wreckless behavior to a safer location, are being forced to intermingle with the locals; in this case, racing on public roads.

So your logic dictates that if Ricky racer crashes and dies on a public road, then his wife has nobody to sue. But, if Ricky racer causes someone else to be injured, they or their spouce can sue Ricky racer and/or his spouce. Sounds like a racket to me.

 

[Fred W]

OK, I'll concede to your point. My point is that thrill seekers, who would more than likely take their wreckless behavior to a safer location, are being forced to intermingle with the locals; in this case, racing on public roads. So your logic dictates that if Ricky racer crashes and dies on a public road, then his wife has nobody to sue. But, if Ricky racer causes someone else to be injured, they or their spouce can sue Ricky racer and/or his spouce. Sounds like a racket to me.

Or even worse, if Ricky J. Squid crashes on the public street and causes harm to John Q Public, Ricky's heirs may be stuck with a suit against him by John's people.

But I agree, there should be a place for racers to race. I think it just comes down to the racers having to bear the cost of the insurance via entry fees. Of course when the entry fees are what it actually costs (read high) they'll just take it to the street for free again. It's a viscous cycle.

 

[El Toro]

There are lots of things that we may lust after that aren't legal. Arguing that people who want to ride fast are being forced into the streets is like arguing that people who want to smoke crack are forced into crack houses. We pick our own poisons.

Judges rarely decide liability cases anyway. They're decided by juries made of of people who are considered "peers" of the accused.

Somehow the argument "I didn't mean to kill that guy by my racing, but I really needed to race, and they closed the track" rings really hollow.

 

[Kevin Daly]

Hmm,

I think you guys got it all wrong; they were going the speed limit and all the other cars were just parked on the freeway. :crazy:

Sadly, I am just not surprized but this stuff anymore.

 

[Fred W]

There are lots of things that we may lust after that aren't legal. Arguing that people who want to ride fast are being forced into the streets is like arguing that people who want to smoke crack are forced into crack houses. We pick our own poisons.

The problem with your analogy is that racing isn't illegal when done at a track, only if "forced" to the public streets. Last time I checked, it doesn't matter where you smoke your crack, it's always illegal.

 

[El Toro]

There are lots of things that we may lust after that aren't legal. Arguing that people who want to ride fast are being forced into the streets is like arguing that people who want to smoke crack are forced into crack houses. We pick our own poisons.

The problem with your analogy is that racing isn't illegal when done at a track, only if "forced" to the public streets. Last time I checked, it doesn't matter where you smoke your crack, it's always illegal.

You're right. How about this one instead:
....is like arguing that hunters are running out of legal territory for hunting, so their only choice is to hunt illegally in urban areas.

 

[Fred W]

There are lots of things that we may lust after that aren't legal. Arguing that people who want to ride fast are being forced into the streets is like arguing that people who want to smoke crack are forced into crack houses. We pick our own poisons.

The problem with your analogy is that racing isn't illegal when done at a track, only if "forced" to the public streets. Last time I checked, it doesn't matter where you smoke your crack, it's always illegal.

You're right. How about this one instead:
....is like arguing that hunters are running out of legal territory for hunting, so their only choice is to hunt illegally in urban areas.

That's better! But it all depends on what "game" they're after.