delimma...read if you've built

[BikerBoy21]

alright we have some dirt jumps that we have built, they are in a park so theres a liability issue that could arrise. one of my friends approached me with the idea to make a sign that would go somthing like this:

WARNING
ride these jumps at your own risk. us riders must understand that the park is not resposible for any injuries that may occur while riding. These jumps were made with a large concern for the surrounding wildlife, any roots that were encountered durring building were either burried or avoided, not cut out. These jumps are maintained lots daily. We do our best to keep the transistions smooth, landings solid, and everything packed for the safest ride possible.

(and then in small print)this jump was put up by local riders.


are there advantages/disadvantages to putting this sign up? is it a good idea to do it? i want some imput, as we are doing all that we can to keep them up as long as possible.

thank you,
sean

[well ridden]

why dont you just contact the city? see if they will let you ride there.

[BikerBoy21]

Originally posted by well ridden
why dont you just contact the city? see if they will let you ride there.

people have tried for other spots, one of my friends even wrote an 18 page essay and got almost 2000 signitures supporting the jump but they ignored it. also if we contact them there is an ever greater chance that they could be torn down due to the fact that they most likely dont even know about them now. the bbtc is responsible for making the park bikable, they had to work for that, the city knowing theres big doubles and ladders and shit would help.
thats why im making the sign to prevent people from trying to sue n shit.

[Zaskar]

i think that liability signs only really work if they're endorsed by both the city and insurance companies as adequate means of not being liable.

putting one up i think really only (in the eyes of the city/insurance companies) is a courtesy warning? am i wrong???

i would put it up though, how could it hurt?

[baloom]

There are 2 humungoid issues here.....

1) you cannot limit the property owners exposure to liability in this way.....riding after reading this sign does not imply "informed consent" and if someone gets injured, the owner is likely still fully liable,

2) even if "informed consent" was implied in some fashion (which it is not) a minor cannot give informed consent (only a legal guardian can do that on their behalf.

3) posting a sign positively identifies (assuming that those responsible for the sign indicate who they are) the people who affected change to "real" property without owner consent. The owner (whether this is the city, state or otherwise) could seek reparations for damage caused when the jumps were built. There have been cases where civil action was taken by the land owner/manager and the parties that built the jumps/stunts ended up being liable for all costs incurred in reclaiming the site to its state prior to the said building,

4) if someone were hurt on the jumps/stunts, civil damages could be sought from the builder.

It would probably be best to first get permission to build stunts if it is possible to do so.

[baloom]

Originally posted by baloom
There are 2 humungoid issues here.....


sorry....there were actually 4 points....i forgot to take off my mittens to assist me with my counting.....

[ATN]

Putting up signs was not an option to save some structures up the local mountain... baloom pointd out all the legal behind it.

[BikerBoy21]

Originally posted by baloom
There are 2 humungoid issues here.....

1) you cannot limit the property owners exposure to liability in this way.....riding after reading this sign does not imply "informed consent" and if someone gets injured, the owner is likely still fully liable,

2) even if "informed consent" was implied in some fashion (which it is not) a minor cannot give informed consent (only a legal guardian can do that on their behalf.

3) posting a sign positively identifies (assuming that those responsible for the sign indicate who they are) the people who affected change to "real" property without owner consent. The owner (whether this is the city, state or otherwise) could seek reparations for damage caused when the jumps were built. There have been cases where civil action was taken by the land owner/manager and the parties that built the jumps/stunts ended up being liable for all costs incurred in reclaiming the site to its state prior to the said building,

4) if someone were hurt on the jumps/stunts, civil damages could be sought from the builder.

It would probably be best to first get permission to build stunts if it is possible to do so.

what would you suggest doing then?

[Greenspringer]

Signs are one thing but what would be worse and probably cause them to be ripped out would be to bring a BC parks guy on a tour and show him where everything (stunts and trails) are so that once they're location is known by authorities they must destroy what you worked so hard to build.( Aint that right ATN?)

[Mr. Sinister]

ahhh thats possible the dumbest thing ive ever heard of......................... thats like a waiver but without siging it ..... it is the useless.......cause it can easily be disputed against.

[ATN]

Originally posted by Greenspringer
Signs are one thing but what would be worse and probably cause them to be ripped out would be to bring a BC parks guy on a tour and show him where everything (stunts and trails) are so that once they're location is known by authorities they must destroy what you worked so hard to build.( Aint that right ATN?)

They had info on everything, from the internet, from the bike shop guidebooks, and other user groups knew where most things were as well, and those were ones that he was in contact with. The corner at the TC entrance washed out in November, Scott was up there then.

[baloom]

Originally posted by BikerBoy21
what would you suggest doing then?

Like I said previously ....."It would probably be best to first get permission to build stunts if it is possible to do so."

In lieu of permission or if you have just gone ahead and built the shit already, I would not go around advertising the fact....I would simply and quietly enjoy the fruits of my labours and rip on it.....If you can live with not getting hung up on getting the accolades for your hard labour, this will protect you civily and will probably be the best way to ensure that your stunts/jumps stay in place and intact.

This is in fact what most of us builders tend to do anyway (particularly here in Canada where almost all of the land we build on is owned by the federal, provincial or municipal governments and getting permission from them is an ordeal not to be trifled with). We are respectful of the ecosystem in which we build, never cut down standing timber, never divert a water way, and be concious of the effect our building may have on erosion......and most importantly we try not to build things that will be a weak, junky, shit pile eyesore......we take pride to build something that we can be proud of. Even though most riders will know who was involved in any particular build, no builder goes off advertising the fact.......we try to keep a low profile.

So for the ramble.......I can never answer anything simply.....it's verbal Crones Disease.

[Ewan]

Heres an crazy idea, DON'T BUILD ON BC PARKS LAND, Jesus christ man do you think if I built some big doubles in golden ears and then put up signs they would stay. I'm sure that I'm coming off as an asshole for saying that but come on, you don't build in parks, its pretty f'in simple. Put the work into a place where you know there aren't any big land use issues. Its called crown land, ie actively logged, then if anyone complains about environmental impact you can tell them to blow it out there ass.

[Ewan]

Heres an crazy idea, DON'T BUILD ON BC PARKS LAND, Jesus christ man do you think if I built some big doubles in golden ears and then put up signs they would stay. I'm sure that I'm coming off as an asshole for saying that but come on, you don't build in parks, its pretty f'in simple. Put the work into a place where you know there aren't any big land use issues. Its called crown land, ie actively logged, then if anyone complains about environmental impact you can tell them to blow it out there ass.

[BikerBoy21]

Originally posted by Ewan
Heres an crazy idea, DON'T BUILD ON BC PARKS LAND, Jesus christ man do you think if I built some big doubles in golden ears and then put up signs they would stay. I'm sure that I'm coming off as an asshole for saying that but come on, you don't build in parks, its pretty f'in simple. Put the work into a place where you know there aren't any big land use issues. Its called crown land, ie actively logged, then if anyone complains about environmental impact you can tell them to blow it out there ass.

there were allready ladders there, in the park, that arent being torn down and they have been there for ovre a year. and i was just seeing if it was a good idea from people who have bulit before, because i've built like stunts here and there buyt no lines of djs n shit so im sorry. fuckin i didnt know so i asked man.

ps im not in canada so its not bc parks.

[ATN]

Originally posted by BikerBoy21
there were allready ladders there, in the park, that arent being torn down and they have been there for ovre a year. and i was just seeing if it was a good idea from people who have bulit before, because i've built like stunts here and there buyt no lines of djs n shit so im sorry. fuckin i didnt know so i asked man.

He was not directing that at you.

[BikerBoy21]

Originally posted by ATN
He was not directing that at you.

oh, my bad. sry dude

[seand]

so i take it you guys built more jumps in st eds?

remember what happened to 76? the only way to win the battle here in WA is to get permission BEFORE building. even if you build, get some serious backing, and then propose that the city allow it, you have proven to them that you dont think you need permission prior to building.

to them they most likely see it as "its easier to ask for forgiveness than ask for permission", and city officials dont like that type of thinking when there are potential lawsuits on the horizon.

jump em while you can, they will most likely be nuked :(

[BURKE PHANTOMS]

Thanks Ewan for your constructive feedback on the situation. There are riders up at Burke who are working to keep the trails mainly intact. No, they will not be nearly as imposing as some of the trails at the woodlot but they will be solidly constructed. Scott and his staff from parks are really trying to work with us to allow progressive trails for bike riders. Burke is a park yes but it has a long history of riding and parks have recognised that. Comparing it to Golden Ears is not an accurate or measurable comparison with the only similarity being that they are parks. And besides it seems like there is limit on the amount of builders welcome to build at the woodlot. Which I agree needs to happen to control quality and construction integrity.

[LOBOTIDULATOR]

what happend at a meeting for trail the subject of signs came up. apperently it goes alot deeper than just putting it up. there has to be trail checks and all the junk for liability. mind you thats for trails, so i dont know about parks.

as for atn showing trails. i dont agree at all. if they knew about all of it, they would have taken stuff down. but atn, why would you put yourself between the parks and the builders, knowing that there would be alot of angry people head hunting and blaming you.

i've said it once, i'll say it again. we cant cry over spilled milk. what will hapen will happen, no use getting worked up about it

[ATN]

Originally posted by LOBOTIDULATOR
as for atn showing trails. i dont agree at all. if they knew about all of it, they would have taken stuff down. but atn, why would you put yourself between the parks and the builders, knowing that there would be alot of angry people head hunting and blaming you.

The reason was given as just time... they had the fire season come in, then the torrential rains, so 03 was a writeoff for them. I don't like my position, but I have a vision that is attainable, my only choice is to make it happen. Keep in mind that it could of happened that they found them themselves, ripped them all out, and banned riding (though ineffectively).

There is no use crying over spilt milk, but you could say that I am now hungry for more milk.

[LOBOTIDULATOR]

i think you need to check your vision with the vision of the builders/riders