RE: Very interesting article by Dave Brown...

RE: Very interesting article by Dave Brown...
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

BVM Super Bandit - ARF
Seller: Wahkit
Details: $10,000.00 | 12/1/2008 | Classified Ad
We will rotate YOUR AD in this spot if you select "Forum Featured" when placing or editing your ad!

This thread is locked

All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> AMA Discussions >> RE: Very interesting article by Dave Brown...

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Very interesting article by Dave Brown... - 3/10/2006 12:06:14 PM

piper_chuck

Posts: 7896
Joined: 6/13/2004
From: Pittsboro, NC, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: STLPilot

quote:

I have just 2 words to say, PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!!!!! Riding any vehicle at night, at hight speed, on property you shouldn't be on in the first place, no one else,s fault except your own. Any other court in any other country you wouldn't stand a chance of suing anybody.

Sorry, but your wrong, the personal liability is held to the owner of the pole or chain, since it's their chain that caused the accident, whether it was tresspassing or not.

This is not necessarily correct.

quote:

Ever heard the old story about the robber that came into your house and fell down and sued you, we'll don't think that's an urban legend, because it's not.

And if you go do some research you'll probably find there are many more cases that were thown out of court.

quote:

If you put up a fence that is not clearly identified then YOU are taking the responsibility.

What ever happened to the responsibility to NOT TRESPASS?

quote:

Why have a pole across a road if you are not going to mark it as private property?

Do you know that the property was not marked as private? It was not described as being on a road, it was described as being in a place that was most likely already marked as private property. It's very likely they KNEW they were not supposed to be there and had passed several signs informing them that it was private property. This is the personal responsibility people are talking about.

_____________________________

AMA 87959, IMPBA 19650 CD, IBDBG #2, local 12
There's A Reason I'm Behind You. You're About To Be Lapped!!!

(in reply to STLPilot)

Post #: 26

RE: Very interesting article by Dave Brown... - 3/10/2006 12:22:46 PM

STLPilot

Posts: 9237
Joined: 3/12/2003
From: Manhattan, NY, USA
Status: offline

He didn't say personal responsibility, he said personal liability for one thing.

quote:

This is not necessarily correct.

True not "necessarily" 100% accurate, it comes down to you're lawyer v. my lawyer and local laws. Had there been a sign clearly identifying the deadly object, then the property owner has more grounds for dismissal then the ATV rider. Did you read about my analogy of the "beware of dog" and "danger high voltage" on private property?? It was accurate. I can name 1000 other signs used in/on private/public property which is common use if you want me to start spitting them out.

quote:

And if you go do some research you'll probably find there are many more cases that were thrown out of court.

Says you.

quote:

What ever happened to the responsibility to NOT TRESPASS?

Where does it state in the law you can hang weapons across your streets? Right to bear arms doesn't mean you can hang weapons across your property without identifying them. You're property, you're responsibility, this is why they invented LIABILITY insurance. This is no different then the law that says I need to have a fence around my pool, even though it's on my property. The law is written TO SAVE LIVES first and FOREMOST.

quote:

It's very likely they KNEW they were not supposed to be there and had passed several signs informing them that it was private property

So it's the property owners responsibility to "play god" by hanging a chain or pole across his road with or without knowing that the ATV rider may or may not know he or she is trespassing, just because you think it was "likely" they knew???

Sorry guys, but anyone who doesn't hangs a sign on these objects on these roads after reading about 3 deaths to AMERICAN CITIZENS should have nothing to do with this hobby and deserves any lawsuit the judge throws at them. Just because you don't know the person killed, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Sure hope the friends and family of these kids don't find their way to this forum.

Historically most people learn from mistakes, but obviously some people don't.

< Message edited by STLPilot -- 3/10/2006 12:36:05 PM >

_____________________________

Here At The Wall

(in reply to piper_chuck)

Post #: 27

RE: Very interesting article by Dave Brown... - 3/10/2006 1:03:40 PM

piper_chuck

Posts: 7896
Joined: 6/13/2004
From: Pittsboro, NC, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: STLPilot

He didn't say personal responsibility, he said personal liability for one thing.

I suggest you reread the post you quoted, the word liability was not even in it.

quote:

quote:

This is not necessarily correct.
True not "necessarily" 100% accurate, it comes down to you're lawyer v. my lawyer and local laws. Had there been a sign clearly identifying the deadly object, then the property owner has more grounds for dismissal then the ATV rider. Did you read about my analogy of the "beware of dog" and "danger high voltage" on private property?? It was accurate. I can name 1000 other signs used in/on private/public property which is common use if you want me to start spitting them out.

I'm not disputing that courts have made some really stupid decisions, or that there are not dangers that should have signs.

quote:

quote:

And if you go do some research you'll probably find there are many more cases that were thrown out of court.
Says you.

quote:

What ever happened to the responsibility to NOT TRESPASS?
Where does it state in the law you can hang weapons across your streets? Right to bear arms doesn't mean you can hang weapons across your property without identifying them. You're property, you're responsibility, this is why they invented LIABILITY insurance. This is no different then the law that says I need to have a fence around my pool, even though it's on my property. The law is written TO SAVE LIVES first and FOREMOST.

It wasn't a weapon across a street. It was a barrier on private property. Fences around pools are required because SMALL CHILDREN who don't know any better fall in and drown. This case wasn't about a child, it was about an adult operating a motor vehicle.

quote:

quote:

It's very likely they KNEW they were not supposed to be there and had passed several signs informing them that it was private property
So it's the property owners responsibility to "play god" by hanging a chain or pole across his road with or without knowing that the ATV rider may or may not know he or she is trespassing, just because you think it was "likely" they knew???

You really should review the facts a bit more. It wasn't a road and it wasn't an ATV. The property owners weren't "playing god", they put up a barrier in a place the person should not have been riding.

quote:

Sorry guys, but anyone who doesn't hangs a sign on these objects on these roads after reading about 3 deaths to AMERICAN CITIZENS should have nothing to do with this hobby and deserves any lawsuit the judge throws at them. Just because you don't know the person killed, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Sure hope the friends and family of these kids don't find their way to this forum.

Historically most people learn from mistakes, but obviously some people don't.

Spare us the insults and the hollier than thou attitude. Nobody's arguing against signs. The object wasn't on a road, and you fully understand the point being made, but you just don't want to ackowledge it.

_____________________________

AMA 87959, IMPBA 19650 CD, IBDBG #2, local 12
There's A Reason I'm Behind You. You're About To Be Lapped!!!

(in reply to STLPilot)

Post #: 28

RE: Very interesting article by Dave Brown... - 3/10/2006 1:59:26 PM

Roby

Posts: 981
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: AMESBURY, MA,
Status: offline

I posted my opinion at post #4 that indicates that for sure do the
marking/ identification thing but don't expect that alone to change
anything.

Post #6 by EASYTIGER hits the nail on the head. Reduce the liability
to the landowner /club .

Roby

(in reply to piper_chuck)

Post #: 29

RE: Very interesting article by Dave Brown... - 3/10/2006 2:03:09 PM

EASYTIGER

Posts: 7676
Joined: 12/7/2001
From: nyc, NY, USA
Status: offline

STL pilot, you are RIGHT ON THE MONEY. Liability, schmiability. If you don't mark your fence or gate after reading that article, what kind of jerk are you?

Piper Chuck, sorry, but you are WRONG.

I'll give you a perfect example...Floyd Bennet Field. It's PUBLIC land. You can ride your motorcycle all you want there, it's not trespassing. And people ride their motorcycles at 100mph there all the time. And sometimes onto the model airplane section of the runway.
AND THERE IS NO GATE FOR THIS VERY REASON. We would LOVE to put up a gate so that bikes and cars don't speed out onto the runway while we are landing our models, but we can't...because someone might get killed.

So, who said anything about trespassing?

You have NO IDEA if this event happened on public or private property, or if the biker(s) had any more or less right to be there than the modellers.
So "pipe" down.

(in reply to piper_chuck)

Post #: 30

RE: Very interesting article by Dave Brown... - 3/10/2006 2:46:36 PM

P-51B

Posts: 6173
Joined: 10/11/2002
From: An Iceburg in, ANTARCTICA
Status: offline

1. Sorry for those who got Killed

2. Maybe they should be nominated for Darwin Awards

3. If your not familiar with where your riding, its your own fault

4. If you are riding in areas others use for other things and don't check it out first, its your own fault ...especially if you are behaving recklessly by "And people ride their motorcycles at 100mph there all the time"

5. If your trespassing....enough said.

_____________________________

In order to think "outside the box", one must first accept there IS a box.

(in reply to EASYTIGER)

Post #: 31

RE: Very interesting article by Dave Brown... - 3/10/2006 2:46:45 PM

J_R

Posts: 4446
Joined: 1/4/2002
From: Corona, CA,
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: piper_chuck

quote:

ORIGINAL: J_R

There was no trespass involved.

Please support this statement.

I can, but I may not. If you read the initial link I posted and the posts contained in that thread, you will find that I said I had requested info from someone at the AMA relative to the issue of tresspass. The question was answered. I was asked not to use the name of the person involved, nor ask further questions, since the case is pending. You can either accept that, or not. It is certainly your choice and you have no obligation to believe what I post. All I will say is that if you have been consistently reading this forum, you will find very few, if any, misstatements by me that have not been corrected if found to be in error. Please also note the dates of the posts in that discussion. This is not fresh information.

At the time, you could have asked me to prove that the words that I posted and attributed to Dave Brown were true. Now, over a month later, it is obvious, since they have, in fact been published as his column.

< Message edited by J_R -- 3/10/2006 2:58:30 PM >

(in reply to piper_chuck)

Post #: 32

RE: Very interesting article by Dave Brown... - 3/10/2006 3:10:19 PM

J_R

Posts: 4446
Joined: 1/4/2002
From: Corona, CA,
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: EASYTIGER

You have NO IDEA if this event happened on public or private property, or if the biker(s) had any more or less right to be there than the modellers.

Herein lies the truth of the situation. If anyone has facts to add, that is one thing. What is the point of trying to analyze something without knowing the facts?

Not since rw Guinn posted back in October of 2005, in this forum, has anyone added anything that might remotely be construed as facts about this incident from actual first hand knowledge.

More than anything else expressed in this thread, I find it unfortunate that Dave Brown has written about liability so often, that when he writes about the conservation of life, it is assumed to be about liability instead. If those "in the know" in this forum misread his intent, as indicated in the first posts in this thread, what are the chances the average AMA member read his column as he intended?

< Message edited by J_R -- 3/10/2006 3:17:58 PM >

(in reply to EASYTIGER)

Post #: 33

RE: Very interesting article by Dave Brown... - 3/10/2006 3:24:08 PM

EASYTIGER

Posts: 7676
Joined: 12/7/2001
From: nyc, NY, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: J_R

quote:

ORIGINAL: EASYTIGER

You have NO IDEA if this event happened on public or private property, or if the biker(s) had any more or less right to be there than the modellers.

Herein lies the truth of the situation. If anyone has facts to add, that is one thing. What is the point of trying to analyze something without knowing the facts?

Not since rw Guinn posted back in October of 2005, in this forum, has anyone added anything that might remotely be construed as facts about this incident from actual first hand knowledge.

More than anything else expressed in this thread, I find it unfortunate that Dave Brown has written about liability so often, that when he writes about the conservation of life, it is assumed to be about liability instead. If those "in the know" in this forum misread his intent, as indicated in the first posts in this thread, what are the chances the average AMA member read his column as he intended?

THREE events. All different. I know nothing about the other two, but as far as I can see, NOBODY sued ANYBODY over the first one, the one that RWgwinn gave some details about.
Maybe though, somebody's son would not be DEAD if the barrier had been marked better? Maybe he and his parents accept responsibilty for what happened and did not think of suing anybody, but maybe with a little extra care, someone would not be DEAD. Forget FAULT.
Could be you are right, that DB's concern is all about that, rather than the liability aspect. Dunno. But the column was very interesting to me, and I hope people took it to heart and marked their fences and gates better, that could be you, or YOUR child, who gets killed, and forget BLAME, just do your best to prevent an accident.

(in reply to J_R)

Post #: 34

RE: Very interesting article by Dave Brown... - 3/10/2006 3:28:52 PM

A320driver

Posts: 188
Joined: 2/5/2003
From: phoenix, AZ,
Status: offline

Actually you folks in this country provide hours of entertainment for the rest of the world with your crazy "lets sue everyone for everything" attitude. (McDonald's "Hot" coffee?) In reply to your comments on my post, PHAEDRUS-MMVI. Your ignorance and arrogance of how the rest of the world functions is the perfect example of the "Ugly American". I don't claim to have ever lived in any country that was perfect, including this one. The USA does have a lot of good points, but parts the legal system are out of control. By the way, I am a US citizen, and have been for a number of years.

< Message edited by A320driver -- 3/10/2006 3:33:42 PM >

(in reply to Silent-AV8R)

Post #: 35

RE: Very interesting article by Dave Brown... - 3/10/2006 3:48:22 PM

EASYTIGER

Posts: 7676
Joined: 12/7/2001
From: nyc, NY, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: A320driver

Actually you folks in this country provide hours of entertainment for the rest of the world with your crazy "lets sue everyone for everything" attitude. (McDonald's "Hot" coffee?) In reply to your comments on my post, PHAEDRUS-MMVI. Your ignorance and arrogance of how the rest of the world functions is the perfect example of the "Ugly American". I don't claim to have ever lived in any country that was perfect, including this one. The USA does have a lot of good points, but parts the legal system are out of control. By the way, I am a US citizen, and have been for a number of years.

You really do not know what you are talking about.
Do you know the REAL story of the "McDonalds coffee cup?" Do you REALLY think some woman got eight million dollars for burning her tongue? It's not TRUE. It's MYTH. Don't beleive everything you read. And, no, you really have no idea about the american legal system, or the "tort reform" baloney, so spare us your judgements based upon lawyer jokes, rumors, and political PR put up by big corporations who would like to put a nice low limit on the value of a human life like in so many countries. When YOUR wife gets killed due to negligence and some European court tells you, "sorry, she's only worth $250, 000, too bad, so sad!" and some corporation laughs their way out of the courtroom, your perspective might change.
Sorry, I'm just sick of hearing the same nonsense from totally clueless and naieve people about "sue crazy America".

Do YOU know anybody who got rich from a lawsuit from a broken nose? Know anybody who got sued when an intruder broke a leg entering their house? It's a lot of NONSENSE.

(in reply to A320driver)

Post #: 36

RE: Very interesting article by Dave Brown... - 3/10/2006 4:41:51 PM

STLPilot

Posts: 9237
Joined: 3/12/2003
From: Manhattan, NY, USA
Status: offline

Piper Chuck I hope you're saying what your saying because you feel like another debate wtih me.

No, I did not read all the fact of what happened, but I DO KNOW that I've been to RC fields and have seen chains and poles across roads leading to the fields and I did read what Dave Brown had to say. So now if I see one not marked will make sure to tell the landowner/field operator that they better mark it. If they don't they don't, but at least they will know.

Also chains and poles ARE WEAPONS. At rest no pole or chain is a weapon, but in motion they are. Why put up a chain and not a rope??? Because a chain will do more damage.

Just listen up guys and take the advice of Dave, if you see a chain or pole that is not marked, have someone CLEARLY mark it otherwise they COULD be sued and lose their filed due to neglect.

_____________________________

Here At The Wall

(in reply to EASYTIGER)

Post #: 37

RE: Very interesting article by Dave Brown... - 3/10/2006 4:46:48 PM

P-51B

Posts: 6173
Joined: 10/11/2002
From: An Iceburg in, ANTARCTICA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: STLPilot

Why put up a chain and not a rope??? Because a chain will do more damage.

No, because the intent is to keep people out. Chains are stronger and typically harder to cut. Anyone with a pocket knife can cut through a rope.

_____________________________

In order to think "outside the box", one must first accept there IS a box.

(in reply to STLPilot)

Post #: 38

RE: Very interesting article by Dave Brown... - 3/10/2006 4:56:35 PM

STLPilot

Posts: 9237
Joined: 3/12/2003
From: Manhattan, NY, USA
Status: offline

quote:

No, because the intent is to keep people out. Chains are stronger and typically harder to cut. Anyone with a pocket knife can cut through a rope.

Exactly, and since you want to keep people out, and since it's your pole on your land, you get full responsibility for that pole/chain if someone gets hurt whether they were tresspassing or not.

_____________________________

Here At The Wall

(in reply to P-51B)

Post #: 39

RE: Very interesting article by Dave Brown... - 3/10/2006 5:08:09 PM

piper_chuck

Posts: 7896
Joined: 6/13/2004
From: Pittsboro, NC, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: EASYTIGER

STL pilot, you are RIGHT ON THE MONEY. Liability, schmiability. If you don't mark your fence or gate after reading that article, what kind of jerk are you?

Piper Chuck, sorry, but you are WRONG.

Did I say anything about not marking a gate? Nope, didn't think so. Try reading more carefully!

quote:

I'll give you a perfect example...Floyd Bennet Field. It's PUBLIC land. You can ride your motorcycle all you want there, it's not trespassing. And people ride their motorcycles at 100mph there all the time. And sometimes onto the model airplane section of the runway.

Did this happen at Floyd Bennet Field? Nope, didn't think so.

quote:

AND THERE IS NO GATE FOR THIS VERY REASON. We would LOVE to put up a gate so that bikes and cars don't speed out onto the runway while we are landing our models, but we can't...because someone might get killed.

So, who said anything about trespassing?

You have NO IDEA if this event happened on public or private property, or if the biker(s) had any more or less right to be there than the modellers.

And you have no idea whether the biker did have a right to be there, do you?

quote:

So "pipe" down.

So, while you are free to assert your opinion, don't tell others they are wrong unless you have the facts, and above all, DON'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO!

< Message edited by piper_chuck -- 3/10/2006 5:20:01 PM >

_____________________________

AMA 87959, IMPBA 19650 CD, IBDBG #2, local 12
There's A Reason I'm Behind You. You're About To Be Lapped!!!

(in reply to EASYTIGER)