[SDCBC] "Actuarial inevitability" my #(#$&@ !

[Serge Issakov]

On 7/18/07, JonIsaacs at aol.com <JonIsaacs at aol.com> wrote:

>  So, my original point was that collisions like this are not inevitable,
> they are easily avoided if riders pay attention to the road ahead and adjust
> their speed in accord to conditions ahead.

Given human nature, it is not reasonable to expect that all humans
will always pay attention.
Therefore, practically speaking, EVENTUALLY, collisions like this ARE
inevitable.

Yes, you SHOULD pay attention and if you do,  you should be able to
avoid collisions like this.

But, paved bike paths, like roads and sidewalks, and unlike unpaved
trails, should meet certain minimal design standards to reduce the
likelihood of having the inevitable collisions.

Unfortunately, because the courts keep ruling that the current laws
treat paved bike paths like off-road unpaved trails and so they should
be treated legally accordingly,  we have no recourse to motivate the
city to fix these problems.

In contrast, if  there is a tripping hazard on a sidewalk or a pothole
in the street, you can get the city to fix it relatively easily,
probably because they know they are legally liable for not repairing
hazards on streets and sidewalks.  That they don't have the same legal
obligation to maintain paved bike paths similarly is absurd.

Serge