Teeters banned by MMBA

[Superbike373]

viewtopic.php?f=40&t=93587

[Loren]

It's not the MMBA.

Read also
IMBA Insurance thread on MTBR board
Insurance/Teeter thread from Minnesota
Insurance thread from mid-atlantic org

Bottom line, you'll be seeing teeters removed thoughout the country until this insurance issue changes. In the mean time, you'll need to go to a private park (like Ray's) or make one for your backyard. Mine:

[jasondew]

http://mmba.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=93587

it sounds like you care enough about this issue to get involved and help. i'd recommend starting with your local MMBA chapter. they can point you in the correct direction at the state level to help raise more funds to pay for a policy that will cover teeters.

[Loren]

My understanding is that with this underwriter, teeters are uninsurable at any price.

Some groups seem to be exploring alternatives, such as contracting with a private company to do all construction and maintenance of TTFs and assuming all liability. Not sure if that would really work or not. Hopefully, a creative solution will be found and this is all temporary.

[HiptonRadcliffIII]

efforts can be directed elsewhere. I'd prefer a more organic looking approach to built obstacles anyways. I don't think you'll be outraged for more than a few months, eventually they'll get boring. your better off risking your neck on drops, jumps, skinnies, etc. building your ability on those because you can do a whole lot more than just riding over them. sure, you can ride really fast and jump a teeter, but wouldn't you rather just hit a stationary jump at that point?

I wonder if this ban had anything to do with a suite involving ski/snowboard deaths and a ruling that because the snow was constantly changing they could not guarantee the jumps safety; because teeters are not predicable (changing obstacles), maybe they don't want to get wrapped up in a suite that will end in a similar ruling (I might be a bit off on how exactly this event went down, so someone might be able to elaborate more accurately).

[jonw9]

^ This is the kind of level-headed common sense we are looking to avoid!

Seriously though, I somewhat agree with the poster in the other (Burchfield) thread, that although the teeters are a small issue now, is it a stepping stone removing ladders, bridges, skinnies and eventually log piles?

[HiptonRadcliffIII]

^ This is the kind of level-headed common sense we are looking to avoid!

Seriously though, I somewhat agree with the poster in the other (Burchfield) thread, that although the teeters are a small issue now, is it a stepping stone removing ladders, bridges, skinnies and eventually log piles?

Hey, maybe you are right. this is just the first of a lot of features to be banned, but I really think it is very specific why they are denying it (it moves and therefore isn't safe).
I view it as a pretty simple concession, but only time will tell (you don't see teeter todders on playgrounds, but that hasn't been the end of playgrounds).

[ibisman]

No, it's all that liberal, protect everyone from them self mindset. Lets not teach people how to drive a car, lets put airbags and anti-lock brakes on them. Thats why the death rate for single car accidents has climbed so high. Something happens in front of a driver and he or she, hits the brakes and now the car keeps rolling as they steer away off into the ditch and rolls the car. Well they will get around to banning your mountain bike.

[xcrdr]

We have seen the erosion of personal responsibility for some time now. Yup, liberal mindset. Some people here are my age and have seen the changes over the last 50 years. Unfortunately, private riding areas with signed waivers might be the only way to ride this stuff. Very sad. Next we will have guardrails lining every cliff in Moab.

[Loren]

Or, maybe it's the lack of national health care, leaving an injured rider no alternative than to sue everyone in sight to pay for their medical care.


Cool teeter pic from leelikesbikes to bring it back to topic:

[nolan]

Please don't take this lightly. For those of you that aren't worried, this is a very big deal.

I am among those that don't really care much for teeters relative to other obstacles but being forced to remove them sets a very bad precedent. When I ask my self this question its not the teeters that I'm worried about, its the "what next?" The removal of teeters is a simple stepping stone into problems with every other stunt or obstacle; stunts that have far more painful penalties for failure than teeters, and thus greater liability issues.

I understand that the MMBA needs to protect itself and its officers but this is a huge step in the wrong direction. Everyone who enjoys access to our trails should be concerned about this.

[brokenbones]

Quite frankly, I'm surprised we are able to get insurance at all for any TTFs or even allowed to ride on State land for that matter. Mountain biking is fraught with risk and danger, and there could be law suits flying around all the time to cover injuries. Keep in mind it's not always the injured rider who brings the suit, but his health insurance company looking to collect damages. As far as teeters go, yes they are fun the first few times you ride them, but their absence won't "make or break" my riding experience. For sure, though, we don't want to lose other TTFs one-by-one as they get closer scrutiny.

And specifically on the topic of teeters, or "articulated features", I think I understand why the MMBA (IMBA too) Underwriters have drawn the line here. You need only look at an incident http://mmbane.wordpress.com/ (scroll to the bottom) right here in Michigan where some D-bag booby-trapped the teeters at the Midland City Forest skills park this summer, by propping them up from the underside. A biker not knowing this to be the case, rode off the end (of course it never tipped), did a face plant and broke his neck. If I were an insurance underwriter, I would look at a situation such as that and conclude that a moving feature that could be tampered with would not be a reasonable risk. Drops, berms, jumps, etc., can be very challenging (and fun! whoo hoo!), but they don't have hidden risks that can cause injury.

[scat silvurz]

Exactly - one doesn't have to maintain a boulder to huck off off. Natural obstacles have always had much more allure, and challenge, to myself, but purely from an aesthetic standpoint. Constructed stunts feel forced to me, and look like crap when displayed in a natural setting - they're ugly! But, if you build a teeter in the woods, in a park, who's gonna know? [hello, BC?] Sure, it will eventually fall apart, get vandalized, or removed by the park, but that kind of stuff has been happening since people started riding bikes offroad.

The MMBA does not own the trails, so it's kinda a stretch to *beep* about not having teeters, since it's not really the MMBA's problem. The MMBA's main objective is making sure we have access to ride our bikes on trails that exist in parks we pay taxes for. Advocating for teeter totters is not something I'd plant my flag and die on the mountain top for. If you want a teeter totter, go find someplace that will allow you to teeter totter til your teeth fall out.

Places like Seattle, where there's a whole freeride funpark under the freeway, is on city land, and it's all cordoned off + well maintained. Fully protected under the City's insurance. Do they have a teeter totter? Don't rightly know. Perhaps they know something we don't....?

[Superbike373]

Ok the MMBA did not directly ban teeters. This is just the start of removing trail features in my book. If teeters are not the MMBA's "problem" why were they removed? Why does the MMBA's insurance have to cover everything on the trail? Yes these features will need maintenence. I feel we are privaleged to have places like this to ride. I like jumps drops and skinnies too. This does not mean we should start banning things. This is not the end of the world for us. Whats next?

[c0nsumer]

Ok the MMBA did not directly ban teeters. This is just the start of removing trail features in my book. If teeters are not the MMBA's "problem" why were they removed? Why does the MMBA's insurance have to cover everything on the trail? Yes these features will need maintenence. I feel we are privaleged to have places like this to ride. I like jumps drops and skinnies too. This does not mean we should start banning things. This is not the end of the world for us. Whats next?

My understanding is that it works this way:

- MMBA builds or maintains teeters.
- Someone gets hurt.
- Someone and/or their insurance company sues everyone involved in the teeters, including the MMBA.

Thus, with the MMBA not having insurance to cover teeters, it needs to wash their hands of them lest the entire organization be at risk.

This is not much different from if you built teeters in your back yard and invited the public to use them. You'd probably want to be plenty insured, because if someone gets hurt and sues you'll have to deal with it. Even if you were to fight the suit and win, you'd still be out a ton in legal costs. Most people and organizations can't cover these type of legal costs out of pocket, so they have insurance to handle them. If the insurance simply isn't available, well... That's where we are.