Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

gusterfell t1_jdg42rs wrote

Reply to comment by degggendorf in 2 dead from reckless Dirt Bike riding on city streets by Flashbulb_RI

I don’t skateboard, so I don’t know which venues allow it and which don’t. It is banned in many such venues though, and if it is expressly allowed at Lincoln Woods I promise the state has liability coverage.

Getting back to the topic of the thread, why don’t these roving gangs take their bikes to Lincoln Woods?

1

degggendorf t1_jdh6aq6 wrote

>I don’t skateboard, so I don’t know which venues allow it and which don’t

If you don't know, then why are you here confidently spouting conjecture about it?

3

gusterfell t1_jdhijbb wrote

Because I know how liability insurance works. What is or isn't allowed at one specific venue is irrelevant to the topic of discussion.

1

degggendorf t1_jdhlm5a wrote

> What is or isn't allowed at one specific venue is irrelevant to the topic of discussion.

...so why did you bring it up? Seems like an unforced error for you to share false information if it's irrelevant to anything you're saying.

−1

gusterfell t1_jdhsion wrote

I didn’t. The person I responded to did.

1

degggendorf t1_jdhu57l wrote

So it wasn't you that said "Places like Yellowstone and Lincoln Woods generally ban skateboarding". Must be something wrong with reddit then, because it's saying you did...

−1

gusterfell t1_jdhx48e wrote

I said that in response to his asking what happens if you break your leg at Yellowstone or Lincoln woods. I responded that places like that generally ban such activities to avoid the liability issue. There are exceptions, but Lincoln Woods being one doesn’t change the general trend.

I stand by my assertion that these exceptions will carry insurance protecting them from liability arising from these activities.

1

degggendorf t1_jdhyrhx wrote

> . I responded that places like that generally ban such activities to avoid the liability issue.

Except they don't.

> There are exceptions, but Lincoln Woods being one doesn’t change the general trend.

What's your evidence of that "general trend"? As a rule, public parks allow all nonmotorized transportation.

RI law: "No person shall operate or ride a bicycle, scooter, skate board or other operator propelled vehicle or device in any unit or portion thereof, of the Division of Parks & Recreation after the Regional Manager has made a finding that conditions are unsafe for the operation of such vehicles and has issued an order prohibiting such activity."

Meaning nonmotorized is allowed everywhere by default, and only not allowed where specifically banned.

If you have some data showing how often certain activities are specifically banned, please do share.

0

gusterfell t1_jdhzkow wrote

Seriously? You’ve never seen a “no skateboarding” sign in a public park?

1

degggendorf t1_jdi3hg9 wrote

I have seen those, in the minority of public parks I've been to. You are asserting that it's banned "generally", which is what I am asking you to prove out. Or are you just pulling it out of your ass and assuming that because you've seen one sign, it must be true for every public space?

1

NinjaSant4 t1_jdhd634 wrote

No, they don't have liability insurance. It's a state park. You use it at your own discretion.

The insurance state parks carry is for negligent upkeep - a bridge collapsing, a bear that was reported dangerous being allowed to continue hanging in campground ect. It is not because someone might try to sue for getting injured.

Glad you've literally never done a physical sport because you'd know how things work. Lol.

Plenty of public dirt bike courses that are unmonitored. Show me the lawsuits. Otherwise you are full of shit.

You can start down south and work your way up. Show me the rider being injured and suing the municipality. Otherwise...looks like I know what Im talking about

0

fishythepete t1_jdheuqt wrote

>The insurance state parks carry is for negligent upkeep - a bridge collapsing, a bear that was reported dangerous being allowed to continue hanging in campground ect

This isn’t a thing. General Liability coverage, which covers losses arising out of ordinary negligence, is. The state almost certainly self-insures a large amount of any GL claim.

>It is not because someone might try to sue for getting injured.

If someone is injured and alleges the state’s negligence contributed, GL is absolutely where coverage would like, but again, the state likely pays at least the first million of any claim.

Any municipality that opens a motor cross park will need to supervise it, or they will be sued the first time two kids who have no place on bikes wreck into each other for creating a place for an inherently risky activity where that injury could occur without providing supervision. The duty the owner owes varies based on the risk. It’s one thing to leave a skate park unsupervised, but you don’t see municipal pools unsupervised - this is why.

So now someone needs to buy and develop land, and pay to staff it. And the minute the staff doesn’t kick someone out for acting like a clown and that clown wrecks into someone, they’re going to get sued for negligent supervision.

Glad you literally have no idea how the stuff you’re talking about works.

2