I’ve never tried auto-aspixia….. but I’m pretty sure that one shouldn’t be doing it at an intersection…

But Glissando, you do raise an interesting topic. We need to teach our children the dangers of Auto-Asphixia .
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/04/santa-monica-choking-game.html

Ian:

Two cases spring to mind. In one, an out of court settlement (a few hundred thousand dollars IIRC) was reached with a woman who fell off her bike into traffic (and was struck) from the Burrard Bridge sidewalk (prior to the separated lane being put in) and in another similar case (that went to court IIRC) a woman successfully sued for damages (around $150,o00 or more I think) due to insufficient signage for roadwork that caused her to crash her bike and suffer serious injuries).

http://www.geoffmeggs.ca/the-burrard-bridge-archive/
(scroll down to ‘2004: focus on safety)

and a second link with a number of similar instances:

http://bicyclesafe.com/lawsuits.html

Strange you couldn’t find these instances, the google search ‘cyclists sues city of vancouver’ pulled them up right away. Your google-fu is weak grasshopper. 😉

OK, took a quick look.

Both links reference a single instance, an accident in 2004 in which a Jane Lister sued the city. The case apparently settled, although no amount is mentioned.

Is that it? I don’t think that supports your assertion that there have been “court settlements that have cost the City hundreds of thousands of dollars when bicycle users successfully sued for damages related to inadequate facilities and/or signage…”. It appears that there was one court settlement for an undisclosed amount.

@Frances the Plumber
New Westminster have their own electric power company.
I see that the City of Palo Alto Power company is offering Feed-In-Tariffs for photovolatic and other home and business power generators to the City grid.
Has this been discussed locally? New West has 28,000 residential and 3000 commercial power customers.

Could the City of Vancouver or others take over their own civic Hydro (See Toronto Hydro) and move wires and power junctions underground?

@Chris Keam #57:

You write: “There was another incident where a woman was seriously injured on an early morning ride due to insufficient signage on a roadwork site. It originally appeared in the Vancouver Courier but any online link has now expired.”

So, the source of the statement that there have been “court settlements that have cost the City hundreds of thousands of dollars when bicycle users successfully sued for damages related to inadequate facilities and/or signage…” is one now unavailable link and the single instance mentioned in those two links?

Again, I don’t think the evidence you provide supports your statement.

“As I say, you can look for the story in the Vancouver Courier if I am correctly remembering where I read it. ”

Well, making an assertion and then telling others to go look for the evidence to back it up is.. how did you say it when someone else did that to you? “Weaksauce”?

(Besides, as I think we’ve established, my google skills are not that great.)

“Further, a Google search shows that you’ve questioned this very assertion before on this blog. ”

I have. And did not receive any satisfactory evidence at that time either. Which is why I raised the question. Based on your response, this seems to be one of those urban myths that gains “veracity” through unquestioning repetition rather than through any real basis in fact.

“Since you ‘work with lawyers’ perhaps you might ask them what size of out-of-court settlement would be enough for someone to pass up the likelihood of a successful case if it went to court. Probably six figure plus plus amirite?”

I am a lawyer. Your assumption in incorrect. There are any number of reasons a plaintiff, even with a good case, might settle for less than six figures.

“I know I’d be keen to hear the opinion of a real lawyer rather than rely on my fairly reasonable assumption.”

See above.

Sorry, one ‘other’ cyclist (in addition to the Burrard Bridge incident).

cheers,

CK

I’m comfortable with the comments I’ve put forward as sufficient proof for the purposes of this discussion, esp at $0.00 a word remuneration. 🙂

Fair enough Ian, but if you truly doubt what I have said, I would be most interested to hear why you think the situation as I describe it is unlikely to be the case? At the very least it would be instructive to learn about some instances where damages were not awarded to a cyclist in a case with similar circumstances. At this point I have provided a number of North American examples that support my assumption, and some Vancouver-specific information to boot.

@Chris Keam,

I’m anxious to avoid spilling a lot of metaphorical ink on this, so I’ll quickly sum up.

You originally wrote: “court settlements that have cost the City hundreds of thousands of dollars when bicycle users successfully sued for damages related to inadequate facilities and/or signage”. From the context, I inferred that the reference to “City” was to Vancouver.

I don’t know whether that is accurate, though I doubt it. I briefly looked, and was unable to find, any reference to such cases in law reports, and hence asked you for the source of your assertion.

In response, you provided two links referencing a single instance (Lister) in 2004, which apparently settled for an undisclosed sum. You also mentioned remembering reading about another case, but were unable to access the reference.

You also referenced, in a later post, an article the Vancouver Courier regarding settlements. I took a look at the FOI documents which form the basis of that article and, while they are a bit opaque, they don’t seem to support your assertion. For example, in 2004 there were apparently 15 claims and payments totaling just over $393,000. Of those 15 claims, there is one which might be Ms. Lister’s complaint.

(I note also that a review of the complaints in the FOI documents does not seem to indicate a large number of cyclist lawsuits, but, as I said, they are not very specific.)

So, at the end of the day, it appears to me that your assertion that there have been “court settlements that have cost the City hundreds of thousands of dollars when bicycle users successfully sued for damages related to inadequate facilities and/or signage” is supported by no more than the single instance in 2004, where Ms. Lister settled for an undisclosed amount.

While I accept that you believe what you are saying, I am unconvinced by the evidence you provide.

In response to your request, I did look around a bit more and have identified three cases in which cyclist have sued the City in negligence:

McIntosh v. Vancouver (City)
2004 BCPC 54

Action by McIntosh against the City for damages for personal injuries. McIntosh was cycling along a city bike path when he was forced to make an abrupt stop to avoid a collision with another cyclist. The collision occurred at an area where cyclists could proceed straight ahead or turn right. He alleged that the main cause of the accident was inadequate signage and poor design. He argued that the City invited cyclists into the area without taking reasonable care for their safety. There was a sign at the site of the accident marking the bypass, but McIntosh did not see it.

HELD: Action dismissed. McIntosh had not proved on a balance of probabilities that the design of the bike path contributed to his accident. The primary cause of the accident was that McIntosh cut across the path of the other cyclist before determining what route that other cyclist was taking. The other contributing factor was the similar negligence of the other cyclist. The signage did not contribute to the accident because McIntosh’s evidence was that he did not see the sign.

Wong v. Vancouver
2001 BCSC 693

Action by Wong against the City of Vancouver for damages for negligence. The City dug two trenches in the road for a sewage and water line installation project. Each of the two trenches was four feet wide. Wong was a skilled cyclist. She saw a sign indicating that the road was closed. The street barricades were on the opposite side of the street. She proceeded on the street, and drove at a speed of 10 kilometres an hour. She did not see the first trench and was thrown off her bicycle. She suffered two broken front teeth. She also sustained lacerations and bruises around her mouth and chin. Other cyclists who used this road walked on the sidewalk to avoid this hazard. The City denied liability because it provided adequate warning of the hazard. It claimed that it installed barriers across the entire street. The barriers were moved from the portion of the road that Wong travelled on by unknown persons.

HELD: Action allowed. The City was liable. It failed to implement more effective safety measures. This failure contributed to the accident. Wong was contributorily negligent. She could have come to a stop or walked on the sidewalk. Fault for this accident was allocated 75 per cent to the City, and 25 per cent to Wong.
The damages were about $13,000.

Lesage v. Vancouver
[1992] B.C.J. No. 2581

Action for damages for personal injuries. The plaintiff was injured while riding his bicycle on parkland owned by the defendant. Although he had been riding largely on a paved surface dedicated to bicycle riding, the accident occurred after he rode through a fence onto a surface covered with gravel in an area that he could see was used for storage. The apparent intention was to ride around certain buildings in order to get to his destination. The plaintiff argued that defendants should have taken steps to make the gravel surface safe or posted signs to discourage cyclists from riding therein.

HELD: Action dismissed. The defendants did not owe the plaintiff a duty in respect of risks he willingly accepted. The city discharged its duty by constructing a properly marked bicycle route over its parkland. There was no reason to anticipate that cyclists would depart from the paved route to ride through a gravel storage area.

The first two cases should be available to the public and I’ve given the citations. The last one is not.

Two of these claims were dismissed and, in the other (which involved inadequate safety measures for repair work rather than inadequate facilities for cyclists), damages in the amount of $13,000 were awarded (of which the City was responsible for 75%).

In the result, I remain unconvinced by your assertion, either from your evidence or by what I have been able to find myself.

(Heh.. good thing I decided to be brief in summing up. I don’t think anyone would want to see a lengthy response.)

@Chris_Keam #69:

FWIW, I agree that the City should be keeping its facilities, including bike routes, in good repair.

From reading the FOI document, I think it must be, but that’s just a guess based on the way the document is worded. As I said, it’s pretty opaque, to me at least.

Chris,

Yes, a good discussion. 🙂

As for overstating a point based on assumptions, it’s easy to do, particularly when throwing a quick statement out on a blog. I’ve done it often enough (as Spartikus recently pointed out to me).

That adage you mention really only applies to cross examination at trial (where you do not want surprises).