Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner

1 - 20 of 34 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,644 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Talking to a friend of mine yesterday and he was telling me about an accident he got in on a MUT. Basically an older lady hit him head on as she was trying to pass a jogger. He was OK, but bent his wheel. The lady did say sorry, but he had to walk 2 miles back to his car. The lady and her husband passed him again while he was walking back and did not offer any assistance.

So my question is: Is there a rule or courtesy that should be followed here? Should the lady have offered to pay for the damage or is it just another reason to stay off MUTs?
 

·
corning my own beef
Joined
·
5,713 Posts
yes.

yes.

and yes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,597 Posts
Definition of MUT ?

MUT Mahanakorn University of Technology (Thailand)
MUT Music Theory (college course)
MUT Markt Und Technik (German)
MUT Mensch Umwelt Technik (German: Humans, Environment, Technology)
MUT Mountain/Ultra/Trail (USATF running council)
MUT Malta Union of Teachers
MUT Mauritius Time
MUT Material Under Test
MUT Magyar Urbanisztikai Társaság (Hungarian Society for Urban palnning)
MUT Monitor Under Test
MUT Modulo Unico Telematico (Italian)
MUT Multi-User Talk
MUT Mensch und Umwelt Schonende DB-Trasse (German)
MUT Moralisches Urteil Test (German)
MUT Modem Under Test
MUT Museum of Useful Things (website)
MUT Multi Use Trailer
MUT Mussorgsky Theatre (Russia)
MuT Marked Up Twext
MUT Market-Driven Understanding of Technology
MUT McGill Ultimate Team (Canada)
MUT Münchener Universitäts-Textarchiv (German: Munich University TextArchive)
MUT Main Unit Task
MUT Mensch Umwelt Tier eV (Germany)
MUT Migration in the Province of Utrecht (The Netherlands)
MUT Metropolis University of Technology (Superman)
MUT Multi Unit Transporter
MUT Manpack UHF Terminal
MUT Muscatine Municipal Airfield, Iow
 

·
Honey Smack!
Joined
·
7,966 Posts
Hooben said:
Definition of MUT ?

MUT Mahanakorn University of Technology (Thailand)
MUT Music Theory (college course)
MUT Markt Und Technik (German)
MUT Mensch Umwelt Technik (German: Humans, Environment, Technology)
MUT Mountain/Ultra/Trail (USATF running council)
MUT Malta Union of Teachers
MUT Mauritius Time
MUT Material Under Test
MUT Magyar Urbanisztikai Társaság (Hungarian Society for Urban palnning)
MUT Monitor Under Test
MUT Modulo Unico Telematico (Italian)
MUT Multi-User Talk
MUT Mensch und Umwelt Schonende DB-Trasse (German)
MUT Moralisches Urteil Test (German)
MUT Modem Under Test
MUT Museum of Useful Things (website)
MUT Multi Use Trailer
MUT Mussorgsky Theatre (Russia)
MuT Marked Up Twext
MUT Market-Driven Understanding of Technology
MUT McGill Ultimate Team (Canada)
MUT Münchener Universitäts-Textarchiv (German: Munich University TextArchive)
MUT Main Unit Task
MUT Mensch Umwelt Tier eV (Germany)
MUT Migration in the Province of Utrecht (The Netherlands)
MUT Metropolis University of Technology (Superman)
MUT Multi Unit Transporter
MUT Manpack UHF Terminal
MUT Muscatine Municipal Airfield, Iow
His friend got into an accident at the Marked up Twext.
 

·
Honey Smack!
Joined
·
7,966 Posts
JustTooBig said:
yes.

yes.

and yes.
this.

I'll ride ours late evening or randomly during the week. Never on a weekend, especially Sat morning. I become a ball of blinding rage by the end of it if I do.
 

·
duh...
Joined
·
9,658 Posts
it was an accident.... get over it and stay off the mut
 

·
Rollin' Stones
Joined
·
2,560 Posts
Contact BP. They are ready to pay for EVERYTHING right now.
 

·
Squirrel Hunter
Joined
·
3,806 Posts
Proper Aim

Wasn't your friend watching where he was aiming his bike?

Sorry to say but this sounds like an accident where he was as much at fault as the old lady. Why was he going too fast to stop? Why did he have his head down trying to go fast instead of looking up the trail? Was the jogger wearing a cloak of invisibility so your friend could not see the potential hazardous situation ahead? Why didn't he just move to the side or go into the grass? How come the old lady was able to ride away?

While the old lady may have screwed up your friend should have been riding with a lot more awareness when on the MUT. I don't think your friend shared all the facts. Tell him to suck it up and learn to ride appropriately for the conditions be they road, dirt or MUT.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,837 Posts
Keeping up with Junior said:
Wasn't your friend watching where he was aiming his bike?

Sorry to say but this sounds like an accident where he was as much at fault as the old lady. Why was he going too fast to stop? Why did he have his head down trying to go fast instead of looking up the trail? Was the jogger wearing a cloak of invisibility so your friend could not see the potential hazardous situation ahead? Why didn't he just move to the side or go into the grass? How come the old lady was able to ride away?

While the old lady may have screwed up your friend should have been riding with a lot more awareness when on the MUT. I don't think your friend shared all the facts. Tell him to suck it up and learn to ride appropriately for the conditions be they road, dirt or MUT.
This.

Our MUT is crazy in the summer with the tri-crowd face down on their aerobars. Terrifying.
 

·
LCI #1853
Joined
·
134 Posts
Tommy Walker said:
Talking to a friend of mine yesterday and he was telling me about an accident he got in on a MUT. Basically an older lady hit him head on as she was trying to pass a jogger. He was OK, but bent his wheel. The lady did say sorry, but he had to walk 2 miles back to his car. The lady and her husband passed him again while he was walking back and did not offer any assistance.

So my question is: Is there a rule or courtesy that should be followed here? Should the lady have offered to pay for the damage or is it just another reason to stay off MUTs?

At this point, your pard is stuck with the bill. Sounds like he doesn't even have contact info on the old lady.

Ideally, if you get into a crash like that, the person at fault would offer to at least help pay for the damages. But the world isn't ideal, and neither are the people who live in it. Live and learn, slow down when you're on an MUP, and learn a little defensive biking.
 

·
Master debator.
Joined
·
8,761 Posts
I always ride very offensively on multi use trails. I take old ladies out with an elbow before they get a chance to make me wreck a wheel.
True story, I live in a college town. The kids like to play frisbee in the park that the bike path goes through. I was rollerblading along minding my own business when a guy ran into me trying to catch a Frisbee. I took him out with an elbow to the side of the head. I lost it but fell into the grass. His friends were about ready to kill me, but I calmly told them to not run out in front of people who can't stop in a 3 foot distance. Hopefully it woke him up some, and maybe to this day he got better grades in school because of it.
 

·
Team Tom's
Joined
·
1,880 Posts
I would have bent her wheel or done something equally damaging. I also would have flung her against the rope and then clothes lined her followed by a power elbow from the top turnbuckle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,644 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Keeping up with Junior said:
Wasn't your friend watching where he was aiming his bike?

Sorry to say but this sounds like an accident where he was as much at fault as the old lady. Why was he going too fast to stop? Why did he have his head down trying to go fast instead of looking up the trail? Was the jogger wearing a cloak of invisibility so your friend could not see the potential hazardous situation ahead? Why didn't he just move to the side or go into the grass? How come the old lady was able to ride away?

While the old lady may have screwed up your friend should have been riding with a lot more awareness when on the MUT. I don't think your friend shared all the facts. Tell him to suck it up and learn to ride appropriately for the conditions be they road, dirt or MUT.
Actually there were two other road bikers that passed the jogger before the elderly lady. He had to move further right as they passed and was almost on the grass; he said he didn't believe it when he saw they lady coming. The lady had a bigger bike (fixie with big tires) and just plowed right in, no damage to her. He said he was on the ground, she said "sorry" and then her hubby came up behind and they just rode off. I think a little more also has to do with the lady being elderly (and I know you are going to take offense there Keeping up with Jr. because you still use a wired computer with an abacus:rolleyes: )

BTW he is sucking it up, I just thought this was an interesting thread because I wasn't sure if you were suppose to stop, exchange numbers, do as MaddSkillzz suggest and throw her into the turnbuckle. Fortunately he was not riding with his new Hed's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,439 Posts
asically an older lady hit him head on as she was trying to pass a jogger. He was OK, but bent his wheel. The lady did say sorry, but he had to walk 2 miles back to his car. The lady and her husband passed him again while he was walking back and did not offer any assistance.

So my question is: Is there a rule or courtesy that should be followed here? Should the lady have offered to pay for the damage or is it just another reason to stay off MUTs?
Since I am taking the bar exam next week, I will analyze this issue as an essay question under New York law :D

The issue is whether the cyclist has a cause of action for negligence against the jogger.

In order to show negligence, the cyclist must show that the jogger had a duty to him, that the jogger breached that duty, and that the breach of that duty was the factual and proximate cause of a legally redressable injury.

Under the majority rule followed in New York, a person owes a general duty of care to foreseeable plaintiffs. A cyclist on a MUT could be foreseeably harmed by a passing jogger who hits him on the head. Because the cyclist was a foreseeable plaintiff, the jogger owed the cyclist a duty of care.

In order to avoid breaching a general duty of care, a party must have behaved as a reasonably prudent person would under the circumstances. Note that this duty is objective, and does not consider the abilities of the individual defendant. Here, the jogger unreasonably failed to yield to the cyclist as an ordinarily prudent person would. The jogger therefore breached her duty of care to the cyclist.

A party is the factual cause of an injury if the injury would have happened but-for the actions of the party. In this situation, there is clear factual causation because the cyclist would not have crashed had he not been hit on the head. A party is the proximate cause of a harm if the harm is reasonably foreseeable based on the action. It is reasonably foreseeable that being hit on the head would cause a cyclist to crash. Therefore, the jogger was both the proximate and factual cause of the harm.

Finally, to prevail in a claim for negligence, a party must have suffered injury. Here, the cyclist has suffered momentary damages to due the broken wheel.

For the reasons stated above, the cyclist will therefore be able to sustain a valid negligence action against the jogger.


A sub-issue exist as to whether the jogger had a duty to aid the cyclist after he crashed. Under both the common law and New York law, there is no general duty to aid an injured party. An exception exists if the party created a peril. However, in this case, there was no ongoing peril. Instead, the jogger merely caused inconvenience to the cyclist. The jogger therefore had no legal duty to assist the cyclist in returning home.

An additional sub issue is whether the jogger's apology will be admissible in court, subject to any of the hearsay exceptions.

Generally, hearsay is an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Both the common law and New York recognize certain exceptions to the hearsay rule. In this case, the statement by the jogger would be recognized as a party-admission. A party admission is a statement by the liable party or their lawful agent tending to show liability for the harm caused. The Federal Rule of Evidence recognize this as an exclusion from the hearsay rules, while New York recognizes this as an exception from hearsay.

Here, the jogger's statement "I'm sorry" may be interpreted as an implicit admission of negligence, thus falling under the party admission hearsay.

Accordingly, the jogger's statement will be admissible in court.

^^^ The above is not legal advice! ^^^
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,644 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
nealric said:
Since I am taking the bar exam next week, I will analyze this issue as an essay question under New York law :D

The issue is whether the cyclist has a cause of action for negligence against the jogger.
^^^ The above is not legal advice! ^^^
The jogger didn't say he was sorry the old lady did. The jogger is presumed to be free and clear of any harm caused to the plantiff because he was apparently on the correct side of the MUT and traveling at a speed that was consistent with pedestrians desiring to advance at a faster pace than 120 steps per minute. I am assuming that he (or she) was past the scene of the crime at the time of occurance and could have been possibly listening to an iPod, thus drowning out any noise that would have made him stop to render assistance at the time of the alleged impact that caused damage to the plantif and his Mavic Wheel.

Determining that you have inacurately stated the facts in this case and that you have one week before taking your bar exam, you should not be wasting your time reading Road Bike Review threads that provide no possible benefit towards your quest to become a barrister.

I do appreciate your humor and do wish you good luck on your upcoming adventure,
 

·
Yet Vertically Compliant
Joined
·
111 Posts
grade: FAIL
reason: respondent did not read essay question closely enough. The individual whose potential liability was in question was the "older lady" (presumed to be on a bicycle) who was trying to pass a jogger. The jogger's liability was not the subject of the question.


nealric said:
Since I am taking the bar exam next week, I will analyze this issue as an essay question under New York law :D

The issue is whether the cyclist has a cause of action for negligence against the jogger.

In order to show negligence, the cyclist must show that the jogger had a duty to him, that the jogger breached that duty, and that the breach of that duty was the factual and proximate cause of a legally redressable injury.

Under the majority rule followed in New York, a person owes a general duty of care to foreseeable plaintiffs. A cyclist on a MUT could be foreseeably harmed by a passing jogger who hits him on the head. Because the cyclist was a foreseeable plaintiff, the jogger owed the cyclist a duty of care.

In order to avoid breaching a general duty of care, a party must have behaved as a reasonably prudent person would under the circumstances. Note that this duty is objective, and does not consider the abilities of the individual defendant. Here, the jogger unreasonably failed to yield to the cyclist as an ordinarily prudent person would. The jogger therefore breached her duty of care to the cyclist.

A party is the factual cause of an injury if the injury would have happened but-for the actions of the party. In this situation, there is clear factual causation because the cyclist would not have crashed had he not been hit on the head. A party is the proximate cause of a harm if the harm is reasonably foreseeable based on the action. It is reasonably foreseeable that being hit on the head would cause a cyclist to crash. Therefore, the jogger was both the proximate and factual cause of the harm.

Finally, to prevail in a claim for negligence, a party must have suffered injury. Here, the cyclist has suffered momentary damages to due the broken wheel.

For the reasons stated above, the cyclist will therefore be able to sustain a valid negligence action against the jogger.


A sub-issue exist as to whether the jogger had a duty to aid the cyclist after he crashed. Under both the common law and New York law, there is no general duty to aid an injured party. An exception exists if the party created a peril. However, in this case, there was no ongoing peril. Instead, the jogger merely caused inconvenience to the cyclist. The jogger therefore had no legal duty to assist the cyclist in returning home.

An additional sub issue is whether the jogger's apology will be admissible in court, subject to any of the hearsay exceptions.

Generally, hearsay is an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Both the common law and New York recognize certain exceptions to the hearsay rule. In this case, the statement by the jogger would be recognized as a party-admission. A party admission is a statement by the liable party or their lawful agent tending to show liability for the harm caused. The Federal Rule of Evidence recognize this as an exclusion from the hearsay rules, while New York recognizes this as an exception from hearsay.

Here, the jogger's statement "I'm sorry" may be interpreted as an implicit admission of negligence, thus falling under the party admission hearsay.

Accordingly, the jogger's statement will be admissible in court.

^^^ The above is not legal advice! ^^^
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,439 Posts
The individual whose potential liability was in question was the "older lady" (presumed to be on a bicycle) who was trying to pass a jogger. The jogger's liability was not the subject of the question.
The fact pattern was unclear. I presumed the lady was a jogger who was passing another jogger. Will be more careful in the future :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
161 Posts
nealric said:
Therefore, the jogger was both the proximate and factual cause of the harm.

Finally, to prevail in a claim for negligence, a party must have suffered injury. Here, the cyclist has suffered momentary damages to due the broken wheel. ^
Hint for the exam: Read carefully, write clearly.
 
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
Top