Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

NinjaSant4 t1_jdfmxbc wrote

Skateboarding used to be problematic when they had nowhere to skate, give them a space and magically skaters were less of a problem.

Wonder why they haven't come up with a similar solution for ATVs and dirt bikes. Legal riding spaces aren't too crazy of a concept, don't know why everyone immediately jumps to banning the sale of them.

Shit, even for things like graffiti having legal spaces to do it reduce the illegal stuff significantly.

−7

fishythepete t1_jdgarsq wrote

>Wonder why they haven't come up with a similar solution for ATVs and dirt bikes. Legal riding spaces aren't too crazy of a concept,

Cool, they should start a club, buy some land, and build one. Or are you saying that taxpayers should pay to fix the problems of morons who bought toys they have no place to legally use? And let’s not even pretend that if there was a free park these mofos wouldn’t still be tearing up the streets.

>don't know why everyone immediately jumps to banning the sale of them.

Probably because they’re tired of irresponsible morons who buy them without a place to ride them and then make that everyone else’s fucking problem.

17

NinjaSant4 t1_jdhcyvg wrote

Because thats how we have dealt with other issues, right? Trinity skate park was bought by a skate club right?

Real solutions aren't just bitching about how you don't like seeing bikes and trying to ban them.

−1

fishythepete t1_jdhd876 wrote

>Real solutions aren't just bitching about how you don't like seeing bikes and trying to ban them.

Real solutions are when other people pay for my hobby so I don’t make their lives miserable.

~NinjaSant4, probably.

Legal riding spots exist. Why aren’t you making the trek to Richmond?

9

MonicaPVD t1_jdh598g wrote

The whole point of riding an unregistered, illegal bike on the street is the fact that you're not supposed to be on the street. Why would you want to go to some track where no one will see you? And how are you going to get there? Are you going to load your bike on a trailer that's pulled by your $75k SUV and unload it there? I don't think so.

13

NinjaSant4 t1_jdhcoh2 wrote

Lol, no that isn't the point of riding them on the street. If you weren't an ignorant fuck you'd know that those bikes can be registered (and often the hordes you see have a mix of legal and illegal bikes).

Tell me again how you know better than historical fact. Skateboarding caused issues, build a park and suddenly no issue. Legal graffiti parks? Suddenly less vandalism.

Cities with spaces to ride legally don't deal with people riding in their streets lol. Please be more of a NIMBY

And - skateboarding fell out of fashion? How come skateparks are frequently filled and looking for more space???

Lie more. Just say you want to hit people on their dirt bike because you have no self control.

−10

fishythepete t1_jdhfdfq wrote

Correlation isn’t causation. Skateboarding popularity has been on a downward trend since the early 2000s and is pretty much at an all time low. Skateboarding isn’t an issue anymore because almost no one skates anymore.

6

MonicaPVD t1_jdiq73k wrote

Yes, I am an ignorant fuck and I also have a younger cousin who is one of those kids riding around on ATVs in the city. He and his friends would tell you, Oh Enlightened One, that if you built them a state of the art facility they would use it a few times and still continue to ride on the street because that's where the excitement is.

3

FIFAFanboy2023 t1_jdhhtfy wrote

People typically aren'r riding road legal dirt bikes off road though. It's very much a one or the other type scenario.

2

quicktuba t1_jdhizft wrote

You’re really over simplifying the process of registering them. It’s not as simple as tossing on some lights and popping down to the local DMV. They have off road VINs, off road titles, and insurance is difficult to get. It’s possible to do it if you jump through the right hoops, but it’s far from easy and not to mention the bike they were riding is a 2 stroke so there’s EPA stuff potentially to deal with as another barrier. Getting through all the paperwork to do it there’s still the matter of putting on the right parts to make these street legal which is another uphill battle. You’ll need all DOT compliant parts, a wiring harness to connect it all and someway to power everything which these bikes don’t have. There’s no room for a battery and the stator doesn’t generate enough power for lights and it’s not a stable output either amount other issues.

2

GuardBusy9030 t1_jdfsxe9 wrote

Yea give ‘em a pit, you paying the insurance there?

10

NinjaSant4 t1_jdftt0s wrote

Lol, insurance for what exactly? Using state land? Or for a privately owned vehicle? Because I don't see tax payer dollars going to a magical insurance fund for boating on state lands. The individual is responsible for that.

Try harder.

−13

gusterfell t1_jdfykis wrote

You think these kids have their bikes insured?

If someone gets hurt, whoever owns the land would likely be liable.

10

NinjaSant4 t1_jdfzkco wrote

You clearly have never gone to a state park.

Whose getting sued when you break your leg in yellowstone? Or at Lincoln state woods?

Because the state isn't, lol.

0

gusterfell t1_jdg1p3g wrote

Skatepark insurance is a thing, often wrapped into a municipality’s general liability policy. Places like Yellowstone and Lincoln Woods generally ban skateboarding in large part to avoid liability issues.

9

degggendorf t1_jdg3d8r wrote

>Places like Yellowstone and Lincoln Woods generally ban skateboarding in large part to avoid liability issues.

Skateboarding is 100% allowed in Lincoln Woods, what are you talking about? Not really a stellar venue for it, but it's allowed. All sorts of other potentially dangerous activities are expressly encouraged there too...mountain biking, horseback riding, pond skating, etc.

2

gusterfell t1_jdg42rs wrote

I don’t skateboard, so I don’t know which venues allow it and which don’t. It is banned in many such venues though, and if it is expressly allowed at Lincoln Woods I promise the state has liability coverage.

Getting back to the topic of the thread, why don’t these roving gangs take their bikes to Lincoln Woods?

1

degggendorf t1_jdh6aq6 wrote

>I don’t skateboard, so I don’t know which venues allow it and which don’t

If you don't know, then why are you here confidently spouting conjecture about it?

3

gusterfell t1_jdhijbb wrote

Because I know how liability insurance works. What is or isn't allowed at one specific venue is irrelevant to the topic of discussion.

1

degggendorf t1_jdhlm5a wrote

> What is or isn't allowed at one specific venue is irrelevant to the topic of discussion.

...so why did you bring it up? Seems like an unforced error for you to share false information if it's irrelevant to anything you're saying.

−1

gusterfell t1_jdhsion wrote

I didn’t. The person I responded to did.

1

degggendorf t1_jdhu57l wrote

So it wasn't you that said "Places like Yellowstone and Lincoln Woods generally ban skateboarding". Must be something wrong with reddit then, because it's saying you did...

−1

gusterfell t1_jdhx48e wrote

I said that in response to his asking what happens if you break your leg at Yellowstone or Lincoln woods. I responded that places like that generally ban such activities to avoid the liability issue. There are exceptions, but Lincoln Woods being one doesn’t change the general trend.

I stand by my assertion that these exceptions will carry insurance protecting them from liability arising from these activities.

1

degggendorf t1_jdhyrhx wrote

> . I responded that places like that generally ban such activities to avoid the liability issue.

Except they don't.

> There are exceptions, but Lincoln Woods being one doesn’t change the general trend.

What's your evidence of that "general trend"? As a rule, public parks allow all nonmotorized transportation.

RI law: "No person shall operate or ride a bicycle, scooter, skate board or other operator propelled vehicle or device in any unit or portion thereof, of the Division of Parks & Recreation after the Regional Manager has made a finding that conditions are unsafe for the operation of such vehicles and has issued an order prohibiting such activity."

Meaning nonmotorized is allowed everywhere by default, and only not allowed where specifically banned.

If you have some data showing how often certain activities are specifically banned, please do share.

0

gusterfell t1_jdhzkow wrote

Seriously? You’ve never seen a “no skateboarding” sign in a public park?

1

degggendorf t1_jdi3hg9 wrote

I have seen those, in the minority of public parks I've been to. You are asserting that it's banned "generally", which is what I am asking you to prove out. Or are you just pulling it out of your ass and assuming that because you've seen one sign, it must be true for every public space?

1

NinjaSant4 t1_jdhd634 wrote

No, they don't have liability insurance. It's a state park. You use it at your own discretion.

The insurance state parks carry is for negligent upkeep - a bridge collapsing, a bear that was reported dangerous being allowed to continue hanging in campground ect. It is not because someone might try to sue for getting injured.

Glad you've literally never done a physical sport because you'd know how things work. Lol.

Plenty of public dirt bike courses that are unmonitored. Show me the lawsuits. Otherwise you are full of shit.

You can start down south and work your way up. Show me the rider being injured and suing the municipality. Otherwise...looks like I know what Im talking about

0

fishythepete t1_jdheuqt wrote

>The insurance state parks carry is for negligent upkeep - a bridge collapsing, a bear that was reported dangerous being allowed to continue hanging in campground ect

This isn’t a thing. General Liability coverage, which covers losses arising out of ordinary negligence, is. The state almost certainly self-insures a large amount of any GL claim.

>It is not because someone might try to sue for getting injured.

If someone is injured and alleges the state’s negligence contributed, GL is absolutely where coverage would like, but again, the state likely pays at least the first million of any claim.

Any municipality that opens a motor cross park will need to supervise it, or they will be sued the first time two kids who have no place on bikes wreck into each other for creating a place for an inherently risky activity where that injury could occur without providing supervision. The duty the owner owes varies based on the risk. It’s one thing to leave a skate park unsupervised, but you don’t see municipal pools unsupervised - this is why.

So now someone needs to buy and develop land, and pay to staff it. And the minute the staff doesn’t kick someone out for acting like a clown and that clown wrecks into someone, they’re going to get sued for negligent supervision.

Glad you literally have no idea how the stuff you’re talking about works.

2

imuniqueaf t1_jdhddlc wrote

There are places all throughout New England where a person can responsibly operate OHVs. Also, several OHVs (like dirt bikes) are capable of being operated on the road with some modifications and possession of a motorcycle license and following the rules of the road.

It's the same as skateboards. You can ride a skateboard most places, but no if you want to do stunts and shit, you should do it in an environment that won't cause other people injury or property damage, like a skatepark.

10

degggendorf t1_jdfsrr4 wrote

We even have the big unused dunes that seem perfect for that kind of thing.

4

Slow_Hard_Curve t1_jdhbzki wrote

They used to be used for exactly this back in the 70's and 80's. I remember as a kid driving up 95 and specifically waiting to get to that part of the highway to watch them ride for a couple of seconds. Then someone got hurt (naturally) and they closed the land for this use. Same thing has happened at parks and hills all over the northeast for sledding- one person gets hurt, everyone suffers the consequences. Insurance companies up the cost of coverage and it just becomes cheaper for municipalities to close everything off.

5

degggendorf t1_jdhdag2 wrote

Oh yeah, good analogy with sledding. I kept thinking about mountain biking which is allowed (and expressly encouraged) in a bunch of municipal parks around, and which also must have a pretty healthy injury rate too...but I guess not as high as sledding...?

Does the state actually have any liability beyond gross negligence in state parks? I guess I've just been assuming it's all at your own risk, and that I can't get the state to pay my bill if I trip while hiking and break a pinky finger.

3

Slow_Hard_Curve t1_jdhfafc wrote

That’s a good question and I have to believe it depends on where you are, as well as if the land is covered by a local municipality or is state owned (or even federally). I’m sure the state has a lot more leverage for covering themselves than a local municipality does, but as a hiker my understanding is that the local, state or federal government can be sued if you get hurt on their land if your injury is due to their negligence, although I have no idea how that would play out in real life (if a tree falls across the trail and you fall when trying to climb over it who’s fault is it?). That being said, I can see how making a state owned motocross area could have a lot of issues like this come up.

3

degggendorf t1_jdhglrh wrote

> That being said, I can see how making a state owned motocross area could have a lot of issues like this come up.

For sure; that will certainly ramp up the severity of both bodily and property damage.

I wonder how close to profitable a private business could be. $1 lease of that land from the state, modest amount of capital investment in track fencing, signage, clubhouse, track building/maintenance. Significant investment in security and insurance. What would someone pay, $40 for a 4-hour session? Then a clubhouse slinging $5 tall boys of Gansett after your session is over (strictly enforced) to pad the profits. It seems almost conceivable, but also, I know nothing.

3

ynwp t1_jdfx36f wrote

Warwick?

1

degggendorf t1_jdfz1xl wrote

I think they're technically mostly in West Greenwich

3

ynwp t1_jdi8wz7 wrote

I am new to discussion.

Is the idea to repurpose state land in west Greenwich into dirt bike trails?

Why not just go to places like Exeter where there are dirt bike trails open to public?

1

degggendorf t1_jdinb9v wrote

That's what I was suggesting, seems like as good a use as any, it's not like the dunes next to the highway are a great place for a housing development or any industry.

1

Previous_Floor t1_jds5a5g wrote

The people suggesting a legal space to ride are missing the entire point.

This is urban street culture. It's rooted in defiance.

0

degggendorf t1_jds7vyg wrote

If you want to paint Black kids as inherently criminal, that's on you. That is not my opinion.

1

Previous_Floor t1_jdsm3c5 wrote

Nice twist, but it just shows a lack of understanding of urban street culture.

While riding is fun, the true thrill is the bold disobedience.

They are expressing themselves through their actions. They are essentially throwing up a huge middle finger to society.

0

degggendorf t1_jdtg56t wrote

Thank you for expanding upon your prejudice against all younger people who live in the city, really helps paint a clearer picture of your opinions

1

Previous_Floor t1_jdtvb1k wrote

Have you ever seen the ATV people in Providence? They're not just having fun on the city streets. They're hostile and aggressive.

1

degggendorf t1_jduv5v6 wrote

Your opinion is crystal clear, no need to continue explaining it

1

Previous_Floor t1_jdwajkq wrote

Bad look, dude. I'd suggest you google urban street culture.

1

degggendorf t1_jdwe79c wrote

Bad look....allowing you to share your opinion uncontested? Sorry, I didn't realize that's a bad thing. Next time, I'll be sure to push back on your thinly veiled racism with more vigor.

1

Previous_Floor t1_jdwn99m wrote

It's not an opinion. Again, do some research.

And yes, very bad look. Instead of acknowledging that you don't understand urban street culture, you call people racist.

0

degggendorf t1_jdwo0s5 wrote

I'm really not sure what you want from me then. Do you want me to call out your prejudice or not? You've requested it both ways now, so I'm a bit confused.

But you know what? I don't really care how you feel, I'm going to keep doing what I want. No need for you to respond.

1

Previous_Floor t1_jdx6xe7 wrote

Pretty sure calling someone a racist is a violation of reddit's TOS.

Edit: But don't worry, I'm not going to report you.

0

degggendorf t1_jdxgcwc wrote

I specifically asked you not to respond. If you don't even put in the effort to do as I ask when it's so dead simple, how do you expect me to put in the effort to decipher your contradictory requests to accommodate your wishes? Or are you okay being so blatantly hypocritical that you want different rules to apply to you vs everyone else?

1

Previous_Floor t1_jdya6gw wrote

Dude, seriously, I thought we were past this nonsense.

0

degggendorf t1_jdycyze wrote

You lonely tonight or something? You keep multi replying to me just trying to goad more arguing.

If you really need a friend, stop trying to pick a fight and just converse like a normal person. Or, just please buzz off unless you have something actually meaningful to say .

1

Previous_Floor t1_jdyiwxc wrote

It's pathetic that you attack people because you can't handle being corrected.

Urban street culture isn't difficult to understand. But I'm guessing you probably live out in the sticks and have never been to Providence. Regardless, google is always available. You should use it for subjects you know nothing about.

Time to put you back on ignore.

0

degggendorf t1_jdzm380 wrote

>It's pathetic that you attack people

You don't see the irony in that phrase? Hope you find a friend so you don't need to string along inane arguments based on some imagined reality. Calling out your literal, direct prejudice "prejudice" isn't an attack, it's a fact. If you don't like that fact, then change yourself.

From the way you troll through people's histories, I would have thought you'd know enough to know what you said isn't true. Or, duh, you don't care about facts you just want to argue. Silly, I should have known that.

Good luck ignoring me, I really hope it sticks this time and you can avoid jumping into conversations you're not a part of just to argue with me.

1

Previous_Floor t1_jdto562 wrote

Again, nice twist, but lashing out at me with baseless personal attacks due to your failure to understand urban street culture...well, it's not a good look.

0