Posts
1883
Joined
9/12/2010
Location
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
US
Edited Date/Time
3/17/2016 9:34pm
Reading the recent discussions in the "Marijuana at the Track" thread, a thought came to mind. Most of that thread basically seems to center on the debate over "Is it safe or not?" In the mix are stories about use of other things including alcohol, etc. at the track. Lets look at things from a different angle. Regardless of whether or not it is safe, for the MX community is it wise?
Every month or so, we get one or more threads on this site about tracks closing. As often as not, it is often related to someone suing over injuries and making it too expensive for the track to exist. We have had numerous discussions on here about releases the track owner should get to protect himself. Those kinds of things only go so far. As pointed out in those discussions, the releases don't protect the track (or presumptively other riders) from Gross Negligence. Now let's take the situation where a Track Owner knows that getting high or drinking or whatever is going on with those using the facility. (Reading the other thread, the track operator would probably have to live in a hole to not know); does nothing to stop it and someone is killed or seriously injured by a rider that is under the influence of something. Eventually this track owner and possibly the other rider(s) will find themselves in court before 12 members of the public attempting to defend themselves.
One of the questions our 12 non-moto riding jury members will be asked to answer is, Was the Track Owner or other Rider grossly negligent? In making this decision, they are going to hear arguments by the "for" and "against" pot community as well as from the vehicle code that does allow a DUI for driving while stoned. They may see video of what motocross is all about. They could be looking at an injured party sitting in a wheelchair paralyzed. They may also hear that the track owner knew about the activities going on (getting stoned, etc.) and didn't do anything to stop it (as it would have been bad for business at the time) and that the other rider got high and went out and rode recklessly causing the incident..
So, the question that I pose is, which way do you think the outcome would be? Depending on your answer, is it wise in this of shrinking number of tracks to even run the risk either as a track owner by not stopping things or as a rider for riding while high?
Every month or so, we get one or more threads on this site about tracks closing. As often as not, it is often related to someone suing over injuries and making it too expensive for the track to exist. We have had numerous discussions on here about releases the track owner should get to protect himself. Those kinds of things only go so far. As pointed out in those discussions, the releases don't protect the track (or presumptively other riders) from Gross Negligence. Now let's take the situation where a Track Owner knows that getting high or drinking or whatever is going on with those using the facility. (Reading the other thread, the track operator would probably have to live in a hole to not know); does nothing to stop it and someone is killed or seriously injured by a rider that is under the influence of something. Eventually this track owner and possibly the other rider(s) will find themselves in court before 12 members of the public attempting to defend themselves.
One of the questions our 12 non-moto riding jury members will be asked to answer is, Was the Track Owner or other Rider grossly negligent? In making this decision, they are going to hear arguments by the "for" and "against" pot community as well as from the vehicle code that does allow a DUI for driving while stoned. They may see video of what motocross is all about. They could be looking at an injured party sitting in a wheelchair paralyzed. They may also hear that the track owner knew about the activities going on (getting stoned, etc.) and didn't do anything to stop it (as it would have been bad for business at the time) and that the other rider got high and went out and rode recklessly causing the incident..
So, the question that I pose is, which way do you think the outcome would be? Depending on your answer, is it wise in this of shrinking number of tracks to even run the risk either as a track owner by not stopping things or as a rider for riding while high?
At the same time, knowingly allowing someone to ride intoxicated in any way would definitely increase the liability. The key word there is knowingly...
The Shop
Free shipping: VITALMX
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
It's quite common.
Personally I dont know how they do it either...
Sativa's make me very alert but paranoid/anxiety and Indica's make me relaxed/veg-out/sleep.
It makes my mind wonder and I think about everything in a different way. If I'm riding I'm always more cautious, maybe I shouldn't hit this jump. I got a little sketchy through that section last lap, maybe I should back it down going through it this lap. If I didn't smoke before then those things would not concern me the slightest bit. How does that make me a dangerous rider when I'm high? I would be way way more scared to ride around someone new to the sport on a 450 then someone stoned. But then again maybe they're high to?
Just like in Germany and Denmark we don't have this problem. I doubt it is a problem anywhere in europe luckily
Mr. X you may remember me from the acr southwick race last summer. I was on the line next to talking about your fe450. I had the 250sx 2 stroke, pretty sure I was high to haha. I did 3 almost back to back to back motos and I think I got first or second in the race I was sitting on th line next to you in. Idk though I was high
Pit Row
Post a reply to: Marijuana, Booze, Liability, Oh my!