Bike snowplow guy threatened by park district. - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

02-21-2004, 03:53 PM

I don't have time to give this the treatment it deserves but i want to
get it out to the biking masses.

You may recall the Fermilab engineer, one of my coworkers, who
voluntarily plows the Fox River Trail between Geneva and Batavia, on his
own time, using a plow he designed, that he pulls behind a bicycle.

<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
es/Bike_Plow.html>

Last week he was informed by park distric personel -- while giving a
local newspaper an interview -- that he better knock it off. Subsequent
email with the park district have yielded not-s--vieled threats of
arrest and jail should he continue plowing the sidewalk.

<http://www.kcchronicle.com/today/KCC/news/280305827094436.html>

As a result of this, Dave has ceased snow removal until a compromise
position can be reached. Having seen pretty much all of the
correspondence with the FVPD, i can tell you that they don't sound very
interested in doing _anything_ at all other than leaving the trail a
nearly unusable icy mess for the entire winter. Liability issues, don't
you know. The districts correspondance is almost trolling in its
refusal to address any of Dave's position on-point.

The next open to the public meeting of the Fox Valley Park district is
Monday March 8, at 712 S. River St. in Aurora.

If this issue means anything to you, i'm sure that Dave would appreciate
your writing a letter etc. on his behalf.

Thanks,

..max

--
the part of <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
was played by maxwell monningh 8-p

02-21-2004, 06:11 PM

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 23:53:06 GMT, Max <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>I don't have time to give this the treatment it deserves but i want to
>get it out to the biking masses.
>
>You may recall the Fermilab engineer, one of my coworkers, who
>voluntarily plows the Fox River Trail between Geneva and Batavia, on his
>own time, using a plow he designed, that he pulls behind a bicycle.
>
><[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>es/Bike_Plow.html>
>
>Last week he was informed by park distric personel -- while giving a
>local newspaper an interview -- that he better knock it off. Subsequent
>email with the park district have yielded not-s--vieled threats of
>arrest and jail should he continue plowing the sidewalk.
>
><http://www.kcchronicle.com/today/KCC/news/280305827094436.html>
>
>As a result of this, Dave has ceased snow removal until a compromise
>position can be reached. Having seen pretty much all of the
>correspondence with the FVPD, i can tell you that they don't sound very
>interested in doing _anything_ at all other than leaving the trail a
>nearly unusable icy mess for the entire winter. Liability issues, don't
>you know. The districts correspondance is almost trolling in its
>refusal to address any of Dave's position on-point.
>
>The next open to the public meeting of the Fox Valley Park district is
>Monday March 8, at 712 S. River St. in Aurora.
>
>If this issue means anything to you, i'm sure that Dave would appreciate
>your writing a letter etc. on his behalf.
>
>Thanks,
>
>.max

HI Max,

Would it not be prudent for Dave to get a lawyer. It may be that there are
liability issues, or there may not be. I mean maybe it could be defined
that he is dragging essentially a "bike trailer", and what's the diff if
scrapes the ground or rolls and carries groceries?

Thinking about it some more, maybe the liability is if someone slips and
sues the city and blames it on the plowing creating a bare spot that pools
water and ices up? Sheesh that was hard to contrive an example.

Uh, anyway, a lawyer would protect Dave, define the issues, and maybe bring
those a-holes in line. All correspondence would go through the lawyer, not
spiked at Dave, in an in-your-face way.

Then the best way, IMO, might be to have a 'Defend Dave' fund that various
bikers could send in five bucks or something.

Given the way a city/district can stonewall over things like this, I don't
particularly see any advantage at protesting at the public meeting. There
seems to be a hidden agenda is all I'm saying.

(not a lawyer, free advice, yadda, yadda) ;-)

Good luck!

-B

Good luck.

02-21-2004, 06:11 PM

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 23:53:06 GMT, Max <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>I don't have time to give this the treatment it deserves but i want to
>get it out to the biking masses.
>
>You may recall the Fermilab engineer, one of my coworkers, who
>voluntarily plows the Fox River Trail between Geneva and Batavia, on his
>own time, using a plow he designed, that he pulls behind a bicycle.
>
><[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>es/Bike_Plow.html>
>
>Last week he was informed by park distric personel -- while giving a
>local newspaper an interview -- that he better knock it off. Subsequent
>email with the park district have yielded not-s--vieled threats of
>arrest and jail should he continue plowing the sidewalk.
>
><http://www.kcchronicle.com/today/KCC/news/280305827094436.html>
>
>As a result of this, Dave has ceased snow removal until a compromise
>position can be reached. Having seen pretty much all of the
>correspondence with the FVPD, i can tell you that they don't sound very
>interested in doing _anything_ at all other than leaving the trail a
>nearly unusable icy mess for the entire winter. Liability issues, don't
>you know. The districts correspondance is almost trolling in its
>refusal to address any of Dave's position on-point.
>
>The next open to the public meeting of the Fox Valley Park district is
>Monday March 8, at 712 S. River St. in Aurora.
>
>If this issue means anything to you, i'm sure that Dave would appreciate
>your writing a letter etc. on his behalf.
>
>Thanks,
>
>.max

HI Max,

Would it not be prudent for Dave to get a lawyer. It may be that there are
liability issues, or there may not be. I mean maybe it could be defined
that he is dragging essentially a "bike trailer", and what's the diff if
scrapes the ground or rolls and carries groceries?

Thinking about it some more, maybe the liability is if someone slips and
sues the city and blames it on the plowing creating a bare spot that pools
water and ices up? Sheesh that was hard to contrive an example.

Uh, anyway, a lawyer would protect Dave, define the issues, and maybe bring
those a-holes in line. All correspondence would go through the lawyer, not
spiked at Dave, in an in-your-face way.

Then the best way, IMO, might be to have a 'Defend Dave' fund that various
bikers could send in five bucks or something.

Given the way a city/district can stonewall over things like this, I don't
particularly see any advantage at protesting at the public meeting. There
seems to be a hidden agenda is all I'm saying.

(not a lawyer, free advice, yadda, yadda) ;-)

Good luck!

-B

Good luck.

02-21-2004, 11:15 PM

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 21:11:32 -0500 in rec.bicycles.misc,
Badger_South <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

> Would it not be prudent for Dave to get a lawyer. It may be that there are
> liability issues, or there may not be.

a couple of springs ago, when we couldn't get our local DOT crew
to get the winter's grit out of the bike lane on a heavily cycled
highway, a few club members got together a saturday morning work
party and started with a truck, push brooms, & shovels at the
edge of town. after about 2 miles & 2 hours, an irate DOT
foreman showed up and threatened to have us arrested if we kept
sweeping. said it was a "liability problem" although we all had
on safety vests and it was a nice sunny day.

one of the guys took pix and i sent a short note to the
governor's office (our previous governor was quite athletic and
did cycle occasionally) along with the pix, to the staffer
responsible for DOT liason. 2 days later they sent out the
sweeper; the lanes were clean for the rest of the summer.

i think the liablity issue is just a control issue for some anal
bureaucrat. it may not be necessary to get attornies involved if
the agency has a governing body of some kind, or if he can find
out which legislators, council members, or other elected official
can lean on them to have common sense prevail.

02-21-2004, 11:15 PM

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 21:11:32 -0500 in rec.bicycles.misc,
Badger_South <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

> Would it not be prudent for Dave to get a lawyer. It may be that there are
> liability issues, or there may not be.

a couple of springs ago, when we couldn't get our local DOT crew
to get the winter's grit out of the bike lane on a heavily cycled
highway, a few club members got together a saturday morning work
party and started with a truck, push brooms, & shovels at the
edge of town. after about 2 miles & 2 hours, an irate DOT
foreman showed up and threatened to have us arrested if we kept
sweeping. said it was a "liability problem" although we all had
on safety vests and it was a nice sunny day.

one of the guys took pix and i sent a short note to the
governor's office (our previous governor was quite athletic and
did cycle occasionally) along with the pix, to the staffer
responsible for DOT liason. 2 days later they sent out the
sweeper; the lanes were clean for the rest of the summer.

i think the liablity issue is just a control issue for some anal
bureaucrat. it may not be necessary to get attornies involved if
the agency has a governing body of some kind, or if he can find
out which legislators, council members, or other elected official
can lean on them to have common sense prevail.

02-21-2004, 11:53 PM

Dennis P. Harris wrote:

> a couple of springs ago, when we couldn't get our local DOT crew
> to get the winter's grit out of the bike lane on a heavily cycled
> highway, a few club members got together a saturday morning work
> party and started with a truck, push brooms, & shovels at the
> edge of town. after about 2 miles & 2 hours, an irate DOT
> foreman showed up and threatened to have us arrested if we kept
> sweeping. said it was a "liability problem" although we all had
> on safety vests and it was a nice sunny day.

I'd tell him to go to hell, and if it's an actual crime he could get the police
to arrest you. Or he could send a crew to do the job they're supposed to, so
the people wouldn't have to do it themselves.

> one of the guys took pix and i sent a short note to the
> governor's office (our previous governor was quite athletic and
> did cycle occasionally) along with the pix, to the staffer
> responsible for DOT liason. 2 days later they sent out the
> sweeper; the lanes were clean for the rest of the summer.

> i think the liablity issue is just a control issue for some anal
> bureaucrat.

Bureaucrats with control issues? Do ya think?

If you do their work for them, they can't get money appropriated for their
departments to do it, and hire people that said bureaucrats would be boss of.
So you're cutting off their careers at the knees, taking a slice out of their
piece of the pie. This is why many volunteer efforts are met with hostility.

Matt O.

02-21-2004, 11:53 PM

Dennis P. Harris wrote:

> a couple of springs ago, when we couldn't get our local DOT crew
> to get the winter's grit out of the bike lane on a heavily cycled
> highway, a few club members got together a saturday morning work
> party and started with a truck, push brooms, & shovels at the
> edge of town. after about 2 miles & 2 hours, an irate DOT
> foreman showed up and threatened to have us arrested if we kept
> sweeping. said it was a "liability problem" although we all had
> on safety vests and it was a nice sunny day.

I'd tell him to go to hell, and if it's an actual crime he could get the police
to arrest you. Or he could send a crew to do the job they're supposed to, so
the people wouldn't have to do it themselves.

> one of the guys took pix and i sent a short note to the
> governor's office (our previous governor was quite athletic and
> did cycle occasionally) along with the pix, to the staffer
> responsible for DOT liason. 2 days later they sent out the
> sweeper; the lanes were clean for the rest of the summer.

> i think the liablity issue is just a control issue for some anal
> bureaucrat.

Bureaucrats with control issues? Do ya think?

If you do their work for them, they can't get money appropriated for their
departments to do it, and hire people that said bureaucrats would be boss of.
So you're cutting off their careers at the knees, taking a slice out of their
piece of the pie. This is why many volunteer efforts are met with hostility.

Matt O.

02-22-2004, 07:36 AM

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 22:15:07 -0900, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Dennis P.
Harris) wrote:

>On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 21:11:32 -0500 in rec.bicycles.misc,
>Badger_South <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
>> Would it not be prudent for Dave to get a lawyer. It may be that there are
>> liability issues, or there may not be.
>
>a couple of springs ago, when we couldn't get our local DOT crew
>to get the winter's grit out of the bike lane on a heavily cycled
>highway, a few club members got together a saturday morning work
>party and started with a truck, push brooms, & shovels at the
>edge of town. after about 2 miles & 2 hours, an irate DOT
>foreman showed up and threatened to have us arrested if we kept
>sweeping. said it was a "liability problem" although we all had
>on safety vests and it was a nice sunny day.

Again, I think just touching base with the lawyer would be helpful. Any
cycling law students on here?

I can't believe the liability is for the cleaners/sweepers/plowers, like
you could get a hernia or something? It's gotta be that your actions could
cause a liability to a pedestrian that would follow, or something.

In addition, WTF would (sorry mad at them not you...) a DOT dork bother to
get PO'd and stop and threaten ppl? Like you said, it's probably a turf
issue, and there's probably no freakin' way they'd arrest anyone, b/c they
couldn't prove anything, yadda, yadda. I'd have given him the finger and
threatened to kick him in the leg. <g> What's he gonna do, detain you?
Write down your bike's serial number? (again, mad at them, not you...)

>one of the guys took pix and i sent a short note to the
>governor's office (our previous governor was quite athletic and
>did cycle occasionally) along with the pix, to the staffer
>responsible for DOT liason. 2 days later they sent out the
>sweeper; the lanes were clean for the rest of the summer.
>
>i think the liablity issue is just a control issue for some anal
>bureaucrat. it may not be necessary to get attornies involved if
>the agency has a governing body of some kind, or if he can find
>out which legislators, council members, or other elected official
>can lean on them to have common sense prevail.

Good plan. Probably the way to go. Get a couple pix, call the newspaper,
hell get the name of the anal bureaucrat.

Hope it works out, b/c I love the Snowplow Guy. He rules! (I sent him an
email to that effect last month.)

-B

02-22-2004, 07:36 AM

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 22:15:07 -0900, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Dennis P.
Harris) wrote:

>On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 21:11:32 -0500 in rec.bicycles.misc,
>Badger_South <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
>> Would it not be prudent for Dave to get a lawyer. It may be that there are
>> liability issues, or there may not be.
>
>a couple of springs ago, when we couldn't get our local DOT crew
>to get the winter's grit out of the bike lane on a heavily cycled
>highway, a few club members got together a saturday morning work
>party and started with a truck, push brooms, & shovels at the
>edge of town. after about 2 miles & 2 hours, an irate DOT
>foreman showed up and threatened to have us arrested if we kept
>sweeping. said it was a "liability problem" although we all had
>on safety vests and it was a nice sunny day.

Again, I think just touching base with the lawyer would be helpful. Any
cycling law students on here?

I can't believe the liability is for the cleaners/sweepers/plowers, like
you could get a hernia or something? It's gotta be that your actions could
cause a liability to a pedestrian that would follow, or something.

In addition, WTF would (sorry mad at them not you...) a DOT dork bother to
get PO'd and stop and threaten ppl? Like you said, it's probably a turf
issue, and there's probably no freakin' way they'd arrest anyone, b/c they
couldn't prove anything, yadda, yadda. I'd have given him the finger and
threatened to kick him in the leg. <g> What's he gonna do, detain you?
Write down your bike's serial number? (again, mad at them, not you...)

>one of the guys took pix and i sent a short note to the
>governor's office (our previous governor was quite athletic and
>did cycle occasionally) along with the pix, to the staffer
>responsible for DOT liason. 2 days later they sent out the
>sweeper; the lanes were clean for the rest of the summer.
>
>i think the liablity issue is just a control issue for some anal
>bureaucrat. it may not be necessary to get attornies involved if
>the agency has a governing body of some kind, or if he can find
>out which legislators, council members, or other elected official
>can lean on them to have common sense prevail.

Good plan. Probably the way to go. Get a couple pix, call the newspaper,
hell get the name of the anal bureaucrat.

Hope it works out, b/c I love the Snowplow Guy. He rules! (I sent him an
email to that effect last month.)

-B

02-22-2004, 07:41 AM

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 07:53:39 GMT, "Matt O'Toole" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>Dennis P. Harris wrote:
>
>> a couple of springs ago, when we couldn't get our local DOT crew
>> to get the winter's grit out of the bike lane on a heavily cycled
>> highway, a few club members got together a saturday morning work
>> party and started with a truck, push brooms, & shovels at the
>> edge of town. after about 2 miles & 2 hours, an irate DOT
>> foreman showed up and threatened to have us arrested if we kept
>> sweeping. said it was a "liability problem" although we all had
>> on safety vests and it was a nice sunny day.
>
>I'd tell him to go to hell, and if it's an actual crime he could get the police
>to arrest you. Or he could send a crew to do the job they're supposed to, so
>the people wouldn't have to do it themselves.

RIGHT ON! ;->

>> one of the guys took pix and i sent a short note to the
>> governor's office (our previous governor was quite athletic and
>> did cycle occasionally) along with the pix, to the staffer
>> responsible for DOT liason. 2 days later they sent out the
>> sweeper; the lanes were clean for the rest of the summer.
>
>> i think the liablity issue is just a control issue for some anal
>> bureaucrat.
>
>Bureaucrats with control issues? Do ya think?
>
>If you do their work for them, they can't get money appropriated for their
>departments to do it, and hire people that said bureaucrats would be boss of.
>So you're cutting off their careers at the knees, taking a slice out of their
>piece of the pie. This is why many volunteer efforts are met with hostility.
>
>Matt O.

Uh, this makes sense, but do you know this for a fact? (Just askin') I'd
think it would take more than a couple guys with brooms to cause a loss of
funding and stuff, haha.

Again, what you said, and get the guy's name (politely) who is threatening
you with arrest (or at least his truck number or something). Not easy to do
if you're a couple slim bikers vs a truck full of burly (read:fat) DOT
guys. Also, ask him (politely) for his supervisor's name. If he doesn't
answer, take a picture of him (many bikers carry digital cameras or those
cheap one-shot cams) and tell him he'll be hearing from your lawyer?

Freakin' bureaucrats... <grumble, grumble>

Sorry. Forget what I said. Take Matt's advice. ;-}

-B