The Riverfront Thread

[kirk]

Originally Posted by hrlyman

There is the key factor.... "perception" and "contribution" It doesnt even matter whether or not the rider was "capable" him or herself, it matters that YOU as the property owner protect their irrisponsible act that ulitmatley caused them pain. Right?

(blood sucking attorneys).... sorry mike!

which is why a certain amuont of " negligence " is allowed , the promoter is not expected to be perfect .

[5150.4mx]

Originally Posted by oxy81

There are some things that cannot be waived.

Please... do tell?? Seriously. I really want to know what you know that I may not. Thanks.

As for the comments about "blood sucking attorneys," I know you guys are having fun with lawyer bashing. It's cool, but get in line. I hate lawyers more than most people, especially because I have to deal with them everyday. I see certian behaviors and personality issues from many of them that would make your blood boil. It does to mine anyway.

Yet, beyond the greed, incompetence, dishonesty, etc. of some lawyers, don't forget that there is always the client behind the lawyer (who of course is not a lawyer, but is just as greedy and dishonest). Without clients, lawyers have no work. If clients decided to accept responsiblity for life's accidents and injuries, the courts would be a much lonelier place.

Trust me when I say that there have been times when I've been hurt bad from certain incidents where I assumed full responsibility, like skiing (broken femur), football (broken coller bone and arm), boxing (partial loss of hearing in my left ear), and of course motocross (how much time do you have for this list of injuries??); and times when I've been hurt that I bore no responsibility (hit by a car on my bicycle) and in another car accident where I broke the windsheild with my head. Did I go seek out a lawyer and sue?? NO. I clearly had a lawsuit when I got hit by the car and was hospitalized, but I had health insurance and even though the person who hit me was negligent, I did not think it was worth the lawsuit because I knew I would heal up, plus the person at fault paid my health ins deductible.

OK... enough on that. I just thought I'd point out that, yes, MOST LAWYERS SUCK BALLS!! But, so do their clients.

Back to the main point: if people took full responsibility for the extremely inherant danger of this sport, they would never allow a lawyer to represent them and sue for their injuries, regardless that the track was not clearly marked, two sections of the track were too close together, there was no flagger on duty, etc. There is an old phrase in motocross. If you are relatively young and reading this, take note: EVERY MOTOCROSS RIDER IS EITHER INJURED OR BETWEEN INJURIES. And, some of those injuries will likely be severe. If you have't suffered a major injury yet, consider yourself lucky. Might as well just accept the fact of getting hurt if you plan on riding or racing motocross for any appreciable length of time.

[MXDave]

I worked in the Snow Ski industry for over 12 years, it seemed like lawsuits were a daily ritual. But some good did come out of it. The serious companies engineered better equipement, helmets became acceptable and resorts looked at the terrain and conditions and groomed runs to for beginners and intermediate runs to be safer. It seemed though it took some litigation to get their attention.

I really like the current trend of making Tracks safer by adding flaggers, here again it took several injuries and a few deaths to get focused. I also like having sessions split by bike size but more can be done; skill level...When Saturday race weekend practice sessions are split up by "Bike Color" I just shake my head. I've tried it twice but never again. I'll take my $$$ to another track to practice that day. Maybe if and when the promoters can come up with the color classification numberplate backgrounds, that will be a big step in providing skill based practice session. I think it will add to your count of weekday/weekend practice riders and reduce injuries; that will be good for business and reputation.

[MXDave]

Originally Posted by mapicella

I strongly suggest (for your own benefit) that you read the waiver before you sign it. Even if you don't, a court will assume you did, if you were ever to sue and claim that the waiver doesn't apply. If/when you read the waiver, you will see that you are waiving any claim against a track owner for their negligence that may directly or indirectly cause you to be personally injured or to suffer property damge.

Word to the wise... you should read any contract in full before you sign it, as you are waiving important rights. Claiming that you didn't read it, or that you didn't understand it, is not an easy road to success, especially if you've visited a motocross track on more than one occasion. Prudent people are assumed to have read the contract they sign. If that doesn't sit well with you, don't take it up with me, take it up with the legislature or the courts.

Signing a waiver doesn't mean you give up a right to sue or absolves the track from negligence because you are signing it under duress. "Drive all the way to a track...", who isn't gonna sign it. How many times have each of you said no to a waiver? Ski resorts, manufactures, etc get sued all the time. But, I have heard more cases where the courts denied the claim though because they proved their expertise in the field and shown "great lengths to provide safety by doing XYZ." If the track has performed to the best of it's ability to provide a safe environment, that helps it's cause better than any paper (created by a lawyer too).

[Claire Beauchamp]

Originally Posted by norcaladmin

To the contrary, Its not a bad thing. It was just a honest question. Because as a consumer, the only way you affect change of a business/product is to not support it. I honeslty dont care if Scott gets it or Charlie gets it. I dont like to ride Riverfront. One reason is I cant see very well at night, so i dont ride there at night. The other is I have a hard time passing E Street to ride Riverfront. If there was a race I wanted to do at Riverfront, or E Street was closed on a day I wanted to ride, I would ride Riverfront. Its just not my preferred place to ride. Unless Scott can some how include a lasik surgery with my 15 dollars I still wont be riding E Street at night no matter who owns it. Also I really dont like riding when there are 300 people at the track and I dont see that changing no matter who owns it. People like to ride there.

With that said, I just want to make sure people understand my posistion on the matter. I am pro Scott Davis. If Scott wants to run Riverfront, I am going to support him as a person. I dont see anything wrong with what he is doing. If I did, I would tell him. Thats what friends do. they tell their friend they are f*(&ing up. I dont think he is. If Scott wants to club homeless people in the head I wouldnt support him.

I dont think anybody has to draw lines in the Sand. If Charlie wants to take over E Street than go for it. If he wins great. I will still ride at E Street as long as its safe, well maintained and worth my 20 dollars. When its not I wont go there anymore, not because Charlie or anyone else runs it. I will stop riding there, when I dont feel its worth my hard earned money.

I think Nick or anyone else who feels strongly enough about the situation to make a stand. If you morally dont want to ride at Riverfront because Scott takes it over then stick to your guns and dont ride there. Everyone has to make their own decision.

Well, I happen to be Pro Charlie and Mike! And if it were not for Charlie and Mike, Scott Davis would'nt even be interested in this track. It is because of Charlie and Mike's years of hard work, solid reputation and knowing from years of experience on how to prep Riverfront. Scott Davis knows nothing about how to prep the soil at Riverfront. It is not a sandbowl. That is what keeps it drawing the numbers of riders that it does. People like to ride there.

If it were not for these numbers Scott would not be interested in it. It has nothing to do with better riding conditions. The conditions are great @ both tracks. It has to do with $ signs. Scott Davis is not pro-rider. He is pro $'s for himself. (Just ask Fish!) And in this case. trying to get a monopoly on MX dollars in the area. Especially if he gets the 2 tracks in Nevada that he bid on and the other NorCal track that he also bid on. How is he possibly going to run 4 to 5 tracks or will he just shut some of them down so poeple will have to come to him This Monopoly will leave us Tthe Rider) at his mercy, ie: will there soon also be a Riverfront MX card? Price to be announced. By the way one ScottDavis MX Card, unnumbered and unrecorded in any records pays his entire 20yr lease at E Street with $15.00 left over. Does he really need Riverfront? leaving us (the Rider) at his mercy ie; will there soon be another MX card (price to be announced).

You say that you wouldn't support him if he wanted to club the homeless over the head. But you must support his under handedly going to the City and proposing they put Riverfront up for open bid an in being the only person classless enough to bid against Charlie, an Icon of NorCal Promotors from the early 70's with AMA and now with CMC. He has done more for the sport than Scott Davis even knows about the sport. You must also support the fact that after realizing what Charlie and Mike have, he would go ahead and try to steal it away from them. Possibly, ultimately leaving them and their families, including children homeless. However it is comforting to know that after you have supported him through all of this that you would not allow him to then club them over the head.

[TeamGreen]

Wow! This is gettin' serious.

I like Charlie. He IS a Benchmark in California MX track operations as we know it.

I like Scott's youth and enthusiasm. And I like how he runs HIS operation, too.

To make either out to be a bad guy/anything other than a guy tryin' to make a buck "righteously" is simply "just Wrong".

For a PUBLICLY owned parcel designated for reacreational uses by "Private Contractor" to NOT be open for bid is, also, "just Wrong".

Yes, Charlie may be "Invested in it"; sadly, that doesn't make it "His". Same goes for Scott.

When a contract is up...it's time for healthy and "Good Ol' Fashioned" COMPETITON!

Does this have caveats?

Absolutely.

However, don't worry...we riders have the power of the $ in our pockets.

And, those $ speak very LOUDLY!

So, jus' chill...