@bNator
This are well established legal terms. Best if you take it from there. As if we would now start to have some linguistic debates. I don't see what would be the real point in doing that.
And you know what, I’m feeling frisky enough to enter the legal debate. I live in Nevada so will use that NRS law which shouldn’t really differ across the 50 states on this subject and I would assume be the same laws world wide. Thankfully I do have the law and references that help describe these terms for us. Now I’m not a lawyer but I have sued some individuals in my time and have had to research the law extensively for those issues. I think some after reading this point just might be surprised and change their view as they see a rider committed both of these “legal terms”, or stay in their ways.
For these two terms that are being used “riding without do care and attention” and “reckless riding”, would be classified legally as negligence and reckless endangerment respectively.
Negligence/“riding without do care and attention” is defined under NRS law as:
- The defendant had a duty of reasonable care;
- The defendant breached this standard of care;
- This breach was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries
- These injuries resulted in a financial loss
To establish a case of negligence under Nevada law, you must prove four things: The defendant had a duty of reasonable care; The defendant breached this standard of care; This breach was the proximate cause of your injuries; and These injuries resulted in a financial loss If successful, you may...
www.shouselaw.com
Reckless endangerment/“reckless riding” is defined under NRS law as:
[A] person who performs any act or neglects any duty imposed by law in willful or wanton disregard of the safety of persons or property shall be punished:
1. If the act or neglect does not result in the substantial bodily harm or death of a person, for a gross misdemeanor.
2. If the act or neglect results in the substantial bodily harm or death of a person, for a category C felony as provided in NRS 193.130.
Reckless endangerment in Nevada (NRS 202.595) can be a gross misdemeanor or felony depending on whether there was substantial bodily harm.
www.shouselaw.com
.
Based on the three video angle evidence we have available to us, the facts of the matter are:
Roglic was riding at the front of the group,
Roglic swung off the front to the side of the road and started riding slower,
Roglic started his sprint, rode back to the right side of the road, and rode on the left side of the white line,
Wright was coming up faster from behind and stayed on the right side of the road and right side of the white line,
Wright came alongside Roglic with neither touching the other or deviating,
Wright started to pass Roglic without touching him,
Rolgic deviated from his line further towards the right side of the road,
Rolgic rode over the white line and on the right side of it,
Roglic crashed into the back of Wright’s right elbow with his left elbow and handlebar,
Wright never deviated from his line,
And finally Roglic crashed.
Now based off the evidence and the way the law is written and explained to us, Wright was neither negligent or reckless. Wright never left his line, nor did he initiate contact with Roglic.
On the other hand, Roglic was and would be found in the court of law if Wright were to sue him of negligence and recklessness!
- The defendant had a duty of reasonable care;
- The defendant breached this standard of care;
- This breach was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries
- These injuries resulted in a financial loss
- Roglic knows that it is required by him through UCI rules not to deviate from his line during a sprint. Roglic knows the reason the rule is in place is for rider safety from crashes in the past.
- Roglic clearly deviated from his sprint multiple times in the video evidence.
- Wright was injured due to Roglic crashing into the back of his elbow AND Roglic’s defamatory libel and slander statement that Wright was the cause of the crash and injuries Roglic received.
- Wright might become affected come contract time or sponsorships due to Roglic’s statements. Wright has clearly been affected by the defamatory statements with many falsely believing them to be true.
[A] person who performs any act or neglects any duty imposed by law in willful or wanton disregard of the safety of persons or property shall be punished:
1. If the act or neglect does not result in the substantial bodily harm or death of a person, for a gross misdemeanor.
2. If the act or neglect results in the substantial bodily harm or death of a person, for a category C felony as provided in NRS 193.130.
A. Rolgic knows the UCI rules in regards to line deviation in a sprint. Roglic knows the risks that can happen if he deviated from his line. Roglic willingly swung his line from the left side of the road to the right. Roglic started his sprint and swung back to the right side of the road and to the left of the white line. Roglic left his line, went passed the white line, and on the right side of it. Roglic crashed into Wright.
- No harm as far as we know has occurred to Wright’s elbow.
- If Wright would have crashed and suffered harm, Roglic would have been found guilty of a felony.
Thus answers the debate between
@CyclistAbi and
@bNator.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram