Bike mfg to pay $7M in damages
bryan.s.katz
permission.
NEWARK - A bicycle company has been ordered to pay $7 million in damages to
an East Orange man struck by a vehicle as he rode after dark without safety
lights. Collin Johnson's lawyer argued that the company, Derby Cycles of Kent,
Wash., should have sold the bicycle with a light as standard equipment or with a
warning not to ride at night with no lamp.
Johnson was a 17-year-old high school student going home from a part-time job
around midnight when he was hit by a Jeep in 1989. The driver said he did not
see Johnson.
Johnson suffered partial paralysis leaving him with a disfigured face and no
sense of smell.
Superior Court Judge Martin Greenberg ordered Derby Cycles to pay Johnson $5
million for pain and $2 million for medical and other expenses.
Johnson's attorney, Kenneth Berkowitz of Newark, said the case could set a
legal precedent. A survey of 150 Essex County youghts found that 80 percent of
them assumed that only refelectors were necessary for night riding, Berkowitz
said.
Larry Watanabe
>From an article in my local paper by "The Associated Press".
>Reprinted without>permission.
>NEWARK - A bicycle company has been ordered to pay $7 million in damages to
>an East Orange man struck by a vehicle as he rode after dark without safety
>lights. Collin Johnson's lawyer argued that the company, Derby Cycles of
>Kent, Wash., should have sold the bicycle with a light as standard equipment
>or with a warning not to ride at night with no lamp.
I think that this kind of settlement is long overdue. It is criminal
that the bicycle companies managed, through lobbying efforts, to
get the CPSC (Consumer Product Safety Commission) to declare that
an all reflector system is safe for night riding. They did not want
bicycle lights to be standard equipment on bikes because of the cost
(which may be reasonable, also since everyone may want a different light)
but to drive through legislation pretending that lights are not
necessary is criminal.
The company must be hitting itself in the head because, from the wording
of the settlement, they could have avoided paying damages if they
had included a simple warning that riding at night without lights
is not safe.
Most of us probably think this to be obvious. But as pointed out
by the survey, 80% of youths think it is safe to ride without lights.
This opinion is endorsed by the CPSC, who should
know better; high school students can scarcely be expected
to display better judgement (at least me when I was in high school).
I do not think it is asking too much to require bicycle companies
to include this warning with their bikes, or to require bicycle
retailers to warn their customers not to ride at night without
a light.
-Larry Watanabe
Michael David Slater
Larry Watanabe <wata...@asimov.cs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>>From an article in my local paper by "The Associated Press".
>>Reprinted without>permission.
>
>>NEWARK - A bicycle company has been ordered to pay $7 million in damages to
>>an East Orange man struck by a vehicle as he rode after dark without safety
>>lights. Collin Johnson's lawyer argued that the company, Derby Cycles of
>>Kent, Wash., should have sold the bicycle with a light as standard equipment
>>or with a warning not to ride at night with no lamp.
>
>I think that this kind of settlement is long overdue. It is criminal
Maybe for you, a supplicant to the criminal socialist government occupying
our country, it is long overdue, but to the rest of us, who value things
like "competitivness" "self-reliance" "independence" it is just another
unwanted attempt by the perverse government to protect us from ourselves.
John Panusa
"rights and responsibilities" as automobiles, then lights
(or at least warnings about lights) should be mandatory.
How many cars have you seen sold without a lighting system?
GP
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Robert Byron Lowrie
In article <1993Nov7.2...@sol.UVic.CA>, jpa...@sol.UVic.CA (John Panusa) writes:
> If most laws state that bicycles (and riders) have the same
> "rights and responsibilities" as automobiles, then lights
> (or at least warnings about lights) should be mandatory.
> How many cars have you seen sold without a lighting system?
>
> GP
Most states also require liability insurance. Does that mean the auto
manufacturer should be held liable if I don't have insurance?
--
Rob Lowrie
Aerospace Engineering Dept.
University of Michigan
low...@caen.engin.umich.edu
Chuck Anderson
>From an article in my local paper by "The Associated Press". Reprinted
>without permission.
>Johnson's attorney, Kenneth Berkowitz of Newark, said the case could set a
^^^^^^^
Is this how you spell the New Jersey word for youths ("utes")?
What a sucko judgement, by the way. Mr. Berkowitz must be proud of how
he's twisted the notion of personal responsibility.
--
*************************************************************************
Chuck Anderson uucp : uunet!nyx!canderso
Boulder, CO internet: cand...@nyx.cs.du.edu
*************************************************************************
Bob Becker - The World's Leading Authority
>>an East Orange man struck by a vehicle as he rode after dark without safety
>>lights. Collin Johnson's lawyer argued that the company, Derby Cycles of
>>Kent, Wash., should have sold the bicycle with a light as standard equipment
>>or with a warning not to ride at night with no lamp.
Another glowing example of the American trend toward avoiding
responsibility for your own actions.
Some guy rode his bike at night with no light, and now he's
screaming, "It's not my fault!" when he gets hit.
Amazing, just amazing.
Bob Becker - The World's Leading Authority
>
>I do not think it is asking too much to require bicycle companies
>to include this warning with their bikes, or to require bicycle
>retailers to warn their customers not to ride at night without
>a light.
OK How about clothing companies that sell dark clothing?
Should they also include a warning not to walk along unlit
roads without wearing a light or some kind of reflective gear?
What's the difference?
Thomas H. Kunich
>If most laws state that bicycles (and riders) have the same
>"rights and responsibilities" as automobiles, then lights
>(or at least warnings about lights) should be mandatory.
>How many cars have you seen sold without a lighting system?
How many babies are born _with_ headlights? Are the lighting manufacturers
required to label each baby with a warning that they shouldn't walk at night
without headlights, taillights and sideview reflectors?
Lord knows that people should never be held accountable for their own
actions. Particularly if they work for the government.
Chris Malcolm
>>From an article in my local paper by "The Associated Press".
>>Reprinted without>permission.
>>NEWARK - A bicycle company has been ordered to pay $7 million in damages to
>>an East Orange man struck by a vehicle as he rode after dark without safety
>>lights. Collin Johnson's lawyer argued that the company, Derby Cycles of
>>Kent, Wash., should have sold the bicycle with a light as standard equipment
>>or with a warning not to ride at night with no lamp.
>I do not think it is asking too much to require bicycle companies
>to include this warning with their bikes, or to require bicycle
>retailers to warn their customers not to ride at night without
>a light.
In the US are cyclists not required by law to have lights at night?
In the UK such a prosecution would stand no chance at all for the
simple reason that it is legally required to have lights of a certain
defined quality on your cycle at night. Since ignorance of the law is
no excuse, nobody is required to tell you about this. As a road user
it is your duty to become familiar with relevant law, which is
summarised in a booklet "The Highway Code".
In the UK the cyclist would have been found guilty of breaking the law
about lights at night, and so cetera aequa would automatically be
considered to have caused the accident, and so might well be held
liable for damages by the vehicle which hit him.
--
Chris Malcolm c...@uk.ac.ed.aifh +44 (0)31 650 3085
Department of Artificial Intelligence, Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK DoD #205
bui tho xuan
>
>In the US are cyclists not required by law to have lights at night?
>
>In the UK such a prosecution would stand no chance at all for the
>simple reason that it is legally required to have lights of a certain
>defined quality on your cycle at night. Since ignorance of the law is
>no excuse, nobody is required to tell you about this. As a road user
>it is your duty to become familiar with relevant law, which is
>summarised in a booklet "The Highway Code".
>
to yours.
At any rate, I'm interested in the young cyclists of UK--young means
too young to drive. Who teach them the rules of the road? Who requires
them to read "The Highway Code?" At what age is one considered
roadworthy? I think I'd be alarmed to see a five yearsold mixing it
up with automobiles on the street (unfortunately, that's what I see in
america--coming home from a ride last week, I saw a child almost
ran over by a car on his BMX bike).
When I was told of effective cycling, it was a simple process for me to
adopt it because I already was trained to drive. I just simply behaved
as if I were driving a car--with a few simple exceptions. If a child doesn't
know how to drive, how can one expect him/her to behave properly?
Surely they don't teach traffic law _that_ early in the UK?
Is legislating bicycles out of the hands of children the answer? The
injured cyclist wasn't a child but he was still a minor by our laws.
tho
R.D. Morris
>This is interesting. Our (US) bicycles laws are rather goofy compare
>to yours.
[stuff deleted]
>At any rate, I'm interested in the young cyclists of UK--young means
>too young to drive. Who teach them the rules of the road? Who requires
>them to read "The Highway Code?" At what age is one considered
[stuff deleted]
>as if I were driving a car--with a few simple exceptions. If a child doesn't
>know how to drive, how can one expect him/her to behave properly?
>Surely they don't teach traffic law _that_ early in the UK?
I'm not sure if the scheme is still running, but there used to be a very good
cycling proficiency scheme run by local councils which trained children in
safe cycling, and awarded certificates etc. This was aimed at very young
children.
Other than that, some parents do have the common sense to worry about the
safety of their children and make sure they are compentent on the road.
Robin
Anders Jacob Truelsen
>In article c...@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:
>>
>>In the US are cyclists not required by law to have lights at night?
[snip-snip]
>When I was told of effective cycling, it was a simple process for me to
>adopt it because I already was trained to drive. I just simply behaved
>as if I were driving a car--with a few simple exceptions. If a child doesn't
>know how to drive, how can one expect him/her to behave properly?
>Surely they don't teach traffic law _that_ early in the UK?
You do not need to know how to drive a car to ride a bike. As is most often the
case, kids learn to ride bike before they learn to drive. At least thats how
things work around in Europe :) And often a skilled biker will be a
(potentially) better driver.
>Is legislating bicycles out of the hands of children the answer? The
>injured cyclist wasn't a child but he was still a minor by our laws.
No I think not. Kids should ride bikes....
The problem of who's to educate the young bikers is _very_ simple the way I see
things. The only one to hold responsible for this job is the one that puts the
kid onto the bike.
In my school we received further education on how to behave on the road, at
foot and on bike, but basically it is the responsibility of the parents.
/anders
--
_0
,\ \
(*)/ ' Anders Truelsen email : leg...@daimi.aau.dk
/%%\(*) CS. Dept. phone : +45 8942 3358
/%%%#%%\ University of Aarhus fax : +45 8942 3255
/%#%%%%%%#%\ 8000 Aarhus
/%###% %%##%#%%\__ DENMARK Priv. : +45 8618 8915
/%%%## %%%% %####%%
Alex Swart
Good point! I know here in Florida that lights are required by law if you
are biking at night, regardless if its on a street or sidewalk (know from
personal experience). And I've definitely heard the "ignorance of the law
is no excuse" speech from police officers when I've been pulled over in
my car! So does the same apply to bike light laws??
Regardless of the answer, any idiot should know to ride with a light at
night! I don't use reflectors or lights, but I stay off the rode at
night. And if I were to get caught by the darkness on my way home, I'd
get the hell off the rode and ride in the grass! And here's the kicker,
if I did get hit, WELL IT WOULD BE MY OWN DAMN FAULT!! Come on people,
take responsability for your own actions!
--alex
Alex Swart
>
> How many babies are born _with_ headlights? Are the lighting manufacturers
> required to label each baby with a warning that they shouldn't walk at night
> without headlights, taillights and sideview reflectors?
Tom, I just about fell out of my seat laughing when I read your response!
How true, how true! Where does this "warning label" crap end? People
know the consequences of their actions, they just don't want to be held
accountable. What kind of society is it that needs to blame eveything on
someone else?!
--alex
Mark Bonneville - SunExpress IR
>What kind of society is it that needs to blame eveything on
>someone else?!
Ours.
Mark
neil j.cherry
I know that in Jersey we're supposed to have lights, reflectors, and bells. I
wonder if this is law? Also I beleive that the schools systems as taught us
that to ride at night we just need to have reflectors so wouldn't that mean
we should sue the state also. (yes this is sarcastic!)
But a _LOT_ of cyclist really beleive that reflectors are all you need. When
I was younger I also thought the same way. When I learned to drive I found that
I couldn't see the reflectors because they were bent, dirty, or at the wrong
angle.
angle.
NJC
neil j.cherry
I think we should geneticly engineer every US citizen with a label on the
back of their right hand. And it should be something as follows:
WARNING: You are stupid! Any you may do may dangerous to your
health. So don't do it, you're been warned!
NJC
PS ObSmiley ;-}
William Kellagher
Yes, I agree. I believe all shoe companies should equip all shoes with either
shoe lighting systems as standare equipment, or a warning to not walk in the dark.
SHEESH!
This all seem especially rediculous in the light of the hunting incident in Maine.
Bill Kellagher
Boulder CO
Brian A. Mellor
Hate to say this but YOURS ?
:-<
Brian
John Vance
Bob Becker - The World's Leading Authority <b...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>OK How about clothing companies that sell dark clothing?
>Should they also include a warning not to walk along unlit
>roads without wearing a light or some kind of reflective gear?
>
>What's the difference?
>
Imagine if said clothing companies put a label on their dark clothes
that read "Highly visible at night!" This is what bicycle
manufacturers, such as Derby Cycles, and the Consumer Product Safety
Commission essentially have done - they have claimed that it is safe
to ride at night with just reflectors.
In fact, the CPSC mandates that bicycles be sold with the eight cheesy
reflectors that it has approved. Bike shops can't replace these with
better reflectors, and they can't substitute a light for the front
reflector. The instructions for my VistaLite VL 430, which most will
agree is a good headlight, state that it is not a substitute for CPSC
approved reflectors, and that the reflectors should not be removed.
The CPSC is going a long way to give the impression that its reflectors
make riding at night safe.
This is not a matter of personal responsibility. It is a matter of
the bicycle industry and a government agency blatantly lying to the
public. A teenager believed the lie, and relied the eight reflectors
on his bike to make him visible to traffic. His mistake was
gullibility, and he'll be paying for it for the rest of his life.
John Vance
Dieu-Huong T. Vo
I also resent the notion of suing rather than taking responsibility
for one's choices. More troubling - if this case becomes a trend -
is that manufacturers will have to incorporate the costs of these
judgments into their prices. I do not wish to subsidize - through
higher prices - those who are hurt through their own negligence.
The most economical way to foster safety is to have each individual
reponsible for safe cycling, skiing or whatever. Attempting to pass
responsibility to manufacturers in cases such as this is a crude and
ultimately more expensive way for society to pay the costs of
accidents.
Same for helmet laws. I never ride without one. However, if an adult wants
to ride without a helmet that's fine with me as long as I am not
expected to pay indirectly - through higher insurance premiums or
through tax revenues spent on county hospital treatment - for that
adult's decision to ride naked.
Sorry for the diatribe. Just my $0.04. I think I'll go for a ride now
to dissipate my anger. Later.
--
Teri Vo ter...@leland.stanford.edu
"Jazz is not dead - it just smells funny." F. Zappa
Brooke Fabricant
: OK How about clothing companies that sell dark clothing?
: Should they also include a warning not to walk along unlit
: roads without wearing a light or some kind of reflective gear?
: What's the difference?
...and I want warnings on every spoke about possible breakage,
and on the seat concerning the risk of saddle sores......
Brooke
Glen Niebur
>Bob Becker - The World's Leading Authority <b...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>OK How about clothing companies that sell dark clothing?
>>Should they also include a warning not to walk along unlit
>>roads without wearing a light or some kind of reflective gear?
>>
>>What's the difference?
>>
>Imagine if said clothing companies put a label on their dark clothes
>that read "Highly visible at night!" This is what bicycle
>manufacturers, such as Derby Cycles, and the Consumer Product Safety
>Commission essentially have done - they have claimed that it is safe
>to ride at night with just reflectors.
Have they? Or have they claimed that it is UNSAFE to ride without the
reflectors?
>In fact, the CPSC mandates that bicycles be sold with the eight cheesy
>reflectors that it has approved. Bike shops can't replace these with
>better reflectors, and they can't substitute a light for the front
>reflector. The instructions for my VistaLite VL 430, which most will
My bike came with NO reflectors. I bought it 2 years ago, it came completely
assembled, and had no reflectors. I don't even think about riding it at
night.
>This is not a matter of personal responsibility. It is a matter of
>the bicycle industry and a government agency blatantly lying to the
>public. A teenager believed the lie, and relied the eight reflectors
>on his bike to make him visible to traffic. His mistake was
>gullibility, and he'll be paying for it for the rest of his life.
I've never seen any documents from a bicycle company or anyplace else that
suggests that it is safe to ride at night with only reflectors. I think
i'll go home and reread my owners manuals tonight.
I think it is all well and fine to have sympathy for this kid, but to
pretend that it is the _fault_ of the bicycle manufacturer is ludicrous.
The theory of deep pockets may be a time honored legal premise, but it
is simply wrong to make the manufacturer pay just because they have money.
>John Vance
--
Glen Niebur | The poor boy changes clothes and puts on aftershave
Mayo Clinic | to compensate for his ordinary shoes.
Biomechanics Lab|
g...@mayo.edu | ~Paul Simon
Curt Simkins
NO shit! I have empathy for the fellow being hurt but it
was his responsibility to make himself visible at night.
I really hope this is over turned on an appeal. Just another
*great* job done by another @#$%&* lawyer.
The bicycle industry doesn't need to/should not have to
*baby sit* everyone that buys a bike. Also they should
not be required to guarantee that the consumer have comman sense.
Duh...............real hard to figure out eh?
Curt
cu...@mcm.hp.com
Steve Manifold
>
> that read "Highly visible at night!" This is what bicycle
> manufacturers, such as Derby Cycles, and the Consumer Product Safety
> Commission essentially have done - they have claimed that it is safe
> to ride at night with just reflectors.
>
> In fact, the CPSC mandates that bicycles be sold with the eight cheesy
> reflectors that it has approved. Bike shops can't replace these with
> better reflectors, and they can't substitute a light for the front
> reflector. The instructions for my VistaLite VL 430, which most will
> agree is a good headlight, state that it is not a substitute for CPSC
> approved reflectors, and that the reflectors should not be removed.
> The CPSC is going a long way to give the impression that its reflectors
> make riding at night safe.
>
> This is not a matter of personal responsibility. It is a matter of
> the bicycle industry and a government agency blatantly lying to the
> public. A teenager believed the lie, and relied the eight reflectors
> on his bike to make him visible to traffic. His mistake was
> gullibility, and he'll be paying for it for the rest of his life.
>
>
headlight, then why is the bicycle manufacturer (or in this case, the
importer) held responsible, since they were complying with the CPSC
mandate? It seems that the guilty party is the CPSC.
>
>
>
--
____________________________________ _ ___________________________________
Steve Manifold _| ~-. University of Texas
eza...@hermes.chpc.utexas.edu \, *_} Center for Electromechanics
____________________________________ \/ ___________________________________
Larry Watanabe
>I've never seen any documents from a bicycle company or anyplace else that
>suggests that it is safe to ride at night with only reflectors. I think
>i'll go home and reread my owners manuals tonight.
You might want to read "Effective Cycling", John Forester, which
describes the study done by the CPSC that "proved" it was
safe to ride at night with only reflectors. This stood up in
court because the CPSC did not make available the "studies"
upon which the findings were based. The "study" consisted of
a bunch of bicycles riding around in circles around a car,
and the testers being able to "see" them.
More recently, John Forester writes:
"That is exactly the same mistake that the federal Consumer Product Safety
Commission, acting at the behest of the Bicycle Manufacturers
Association and Schwinn Bicycle Company, made when it published its
finding in the Federal Register without having either investigated
nighttime accidents or tested reflectors for their effectiveness in
traffic situations. This mistake is the principal reason why I sued
the CPSC over its bicycle design regulation."
-Larry Watanabe
Jeff Bernhard
I would guess that no criminal charges were filed for the cyclist riding
at night without lights, and as no criminal charges were filed, the civil
case could proceed without this concern. It is bewildering to me that anyone
would think that reflectors alone are sufficient when illumination may be
low and closing speeds high. And, as the law requires bicycles to use lights
at night, just as automobiles, I wonder if this is simply a case of some
officer at the scene not issuing a citation, and the cogs of the system
turning and yet again grinding sense into nonsense. Oh, I should add, I
truly am sorry that the cyclist was injured -- I would not wish that on
anyone.
--
********************************************************************************
Jeffrey B. Bernhard HARRIS CORPORATION
je...@ssd.csd.harris.com Computer Systems Division
(305) 973-5496 - Voice 2101 W. Cypress Creek Road M/S 161
(305) 977-5580 - FAX Ft Lauderdale, FL 33309-1892
********************************************************************************
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed herein are mine, not those of my employer!
********************************************************************************
William Kellagher
I wonder why they found Derby to be the responsible party and not the CPSC. It
seems that bicycle manufacturers are relying on goverment safety standards. In
this case the goverment is lying to the manufacturer at least as much as the manufacturer is lying to the teenager.
I would have thought that the buck would be passed to Uncle Sam in this case. I've heard that this was one of the reasons that the USCF had such a hard time enacting a
hard shell helmet rule back in the mid 80's. The argument was that if the USCF
specified a particular kind of helmet, they would be held liable if the helmet
failed. The establishment of the ANSI standard for bicycle helmets cleared
the way, because it is basicly a government standard. This is all second
hand info, please correct me if I'm wrong.
Bill Kellagher
America's Bicycling Theme Park
Boulder CO
David Harrell
need light to ride a bike in the dark reminds me of the CNN, etc. idiots
in Somalia complaining that the Pentagon didn't warn them not to shine
lights on troops trying to sneak ashore at night.
Eric S. Boltz
What do you expect? 1 out of every 60 people in the US is a lawyer.
We have a "representative" democracy and almost all of these representatives
are also lawyers. As the President of Harvard Law put it...
'...if the current rate in the increase of lawyers continues, by the
year 2000 there will be more lawyers than people...'
Here's the solution (no, don't kill them):
If you want to sue for liability the attorney has to put up a bond equal to
30% of the damage claims. If s/he loses then the 30% is lost *and* s/he must
pay the defendants attorney fees.
Right now lawyers get either big $$ or nothing. They need to face the
possibility of actually *losing* something if we're going to end this
frivolous lawsuit crap.
It's killing US industry.
--
Eric S. Boltz
My views, opinions and statements in no way reflect those of the U.S. Gov't,
the U.S. Department of Commerce or NIST.
John Vance
neil j.cherry <nch...@cbnewsg.cb.att.com> wrote:
>
[previous quotes deleted]
>
>I think we should geneticly engineer every US citizen with a label on the
>back of their right hand. And it should be something as follows:
>
> WARNING: You are stupid! Any you may do may dangerous to your
> health. So don't do it, you're been warned!
>
>NJC
>
>PS ObSmiley ;-}
>
In a recent survey of adolescents, 80% thought that the reflectors that
came with bikes made cycling at night safe. I guess that dovetails
nicely with your contention that most people are dumb as rocks and can't
think for themselves. Of course, this doesn't apply to anyone who is
sophisticated enough to type 'rn' on the command line :-)
I agree that warning labels regarding cycling without lights are
crap. There should be no warning labels, and there certainly should
be no Consumer Product Safety Commission approved/mandated reflectors
on the bike to give Joe "dumb as rocks" Blow the impression that it is
ready for night riding. Maybe then we'll see more people using head
lights and taillights. Nah. We'll see more Evolution in Action.
("I've got a CueLite clipped to my jersey pocket. I must be _very_
visi*SPLAT!*")
John Vance
Chris Malcolm
>This is not a matter of personal responsibility. It is a matter of
>the bicycle industry and a government agency blatantly lying to the
>public. A teenager believed the lie, and relied the eight reflectors
>on his bike to make him visible to traffic. His mistake was
>gullibility, and he'll be paying for it for the rest of his life.
Pretty extreme gullibility! This can't have been the first time in his
life he went out in the dark. It can't have the first time in his life
he saw other bicycles at night with only the standard reflectors. In
fact he must on many occasions have travelled in a car at night and
seen what bicycles with thee reflectors looked like in various
conditions. And he must have known that roads are dangerous places
where people get killed and injured -- I'm sure he knows people who
have been hurt on the roads, and regularly sees accident reports in
the media.
So, if he then chooses to throw away all these possible opportunities
for observation and learning how to conduct himself safely on the road
in favour of some words on a bit of paper supplied by some Govt agency
he is dangerously irresponsible. He is a very immature child who
should not be allowed near a road unsupervised. It's a shame for a
naive gullible kid to get killed on the road, but the road isn't a
playground, it's well known as one of the major killers everyone
faces.
It is impossible to make the roads safe enough by legislation that we
can all pretend they are a playground in which, like the A team's
adventures, all hell can break loose but nobody ever gets hurt. You
have to face up to the fact that traffic is a major killer, and you
must teach people to behave with proper responsibility and caution in
the face of such a serious threat. If you don't, then your society
will strangle itself to death trying to pretend in a fantasy
Disneyland version of reality.
It looks to me as though instead of bringing up your children to be
adult men and women you (in the US) are bringing them up to be naive
escapists who run whining to the nearest lawyer every time their
fantasy breaks down.
John Lipinski
>>NEWARK - A bicycle company has been ordered to pay $7 million in damages to
>>an East Orange man struck by a vehicle as he rode after dark without safety
>>lights. Collin Johnson's lawyer argued that the company, Derby Cycles of
>>Kent, Wash., should have sold the bicycle with a light as standard equipment
Another outrageous decision by our Big Brother gov't trying to protect us
from ourselves. If this trend continues, and it looks like it will, none
of us will be responsible for ourselves and we'll all be forced to walk
around in our own personal sealed body tanks from birth, able to withstand
bullets, cars, disease and any other risk we might possibly encounter.
This way we'll all be "safe".
I keep hoping for this society to realize that "safety" is a myth. Life is
full of risks of varying degrees and individuals should be responsible for
themselves.
After bicycling light requirements, what's next? Tires that never go flat?
Manditory helmets? Manditory bicycle bumpers? ....
-John
Dave Petro
...and I want warnings on every bike and car saying they are
not always safe even if all the safety equipment works. Warning
should continue to say not to ever use the vehicle on or off rode.
Dave P.
John Vance
>In <2bm2sa$p...@phobos.unm.edu> jav...@unm.edu (John Vance) writes:
>
>
>>Bob Becker - The World's Leading Authority <b...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>OK How about clothing companies that sell dark clothing?
>>>Should they also include a warning not to walk along unlit
>>>roads without wearing a light or some kind of reflective gear?
>>>
>>>What's the difference?
>>>
>
>>Imagine if said clothing companies put a label on their dark clothes
>>that read "Highly visible at night!" This is what bicycle
>>manufacturers, such as Derby Cycles, and the Consumer Product Safety
>>Commission essentially have done - they have claimed that it is safe
>>to ride at night with just reflectors.
>
>Have they? Or have they claimed that it is UNSAFE to ride without the
>reflectors?
They have claimed that reflectors are safe. Quoted from Effective
Cycling, 6th ed:
"The most deceitful claim about headlamps is that you don't need one.
That claim was made by the Consumer Product Safety Commission at the
urging of the Bicycle Manufacturers Association (BMA) on the basis
of no testing at all. (They tested reflectors for optical reflectivity,
but not for the ability to prevent collisions, which is the desired
function that we know they cannot meet.) The manufacturers didn't want
to supply headlamps and were frightened that the government would force
them to do so. As a result, bicycles are required to be sold with
dangerously defective nighttime equipment, instead of either with none
or with proper equipment."
>
>My bike came with NO reflectors. I bought it 2 years ago, it came completely
>assembled, and had no reflectors. I don't even think about riding it at
>night.
>
Interesting. How many other bikes in the shop had no reflectors? How many
of those bikes sold for under $1000?
[deleted.]
>I think it is all well and fine to have sympathy for this kid, but to
>pretend that it is the _fault_ of the bicycle manufacturer is ludicrous.
>The theory of deep pockets may be a time honored legal premise, but it
>is simply wrong to make the manufacturer pay just because they have money.
>
Talk to some of your non- cycling friends. Talk to their kids. Ask
them what they think of those shiny reflectors on all sides of the
bike. A psychiatrist published a study recently that showed that 80%
of adolescents believed that it was safe to ride at night with just
the OEM reflectors, and 75% of those who rode at night did so without
lights. If you don't believe these numbers, risk your life one night
and ride down a popular recreational trail. Why do so many people -
the majority of people who ride at night - believe something so absurd?
Because they think that the reflectors wouldn't be required on all
bicycles if they weren't effective.
What do I think should be done? I think the reflectors are an
attractive menace, and bikes should be sold without them. The
CPSC's incompetence in this matter borders on malfeasance.
John Vance
Mr. S.J. Wooding
: At any rate, I'm interested in the young cyclists of UK--young means
: too young to drive. Who teach them the rules of the road? Who requires
: them to read "The Highway Code?" At what age is one considered
: up with automobiles on the street (unfortunately, that's what I see in
: america--coming home from a ride last week, I saw a child almost
: ran over by a car on his BMX bike).
Actually, in my experience, kids are taught stuff like the pedestrian part
of the highway code (things like where it's safe to cross, when, how to
safely cross a road etc.) in the primary schools, at around the age of 5-6
years old, usually by the schools liason officers of the local police.
The bike part is taught about four years later in *some* schools (mine - I've
detailed this before), with a course lasting several weeks (an afternoon
or two a week) to teach basics like how to turn right and left, emergency
stops, mounting and dismounting safely, slow speed handling, and how to
look over your shoulder properly without wobbling (takes a bit of practice).
We were also expected to learn *all* the relevant road signs (everything
except motorway stuff). All of us then went through a 'bike test' - a mini
driving test which went over all these skills, and had an oral section on
the highway code. Some kids did fail, and their parents were advised not
to let them ride on the road. Of course most ignored the advice unfortunately.
It was quite a difficult course to pass, but most managed it. The number of
kids cycling to school doubled after that. Make your own conclusion...
Steve JW (MadBritishMountainBikerAndMaterialsScientist)
!faster and faster until the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death!
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
S.J. Wooding (Yahoo!)
Radiation Damage Group __._. __.. O
Dept. of Materials Science and Engineering ____ ._.. /\,
University of Liverpool -|~(*)
PO Box 149 :::::::::. (*)
L69 3BX :::::::::::............
fax: (051) 794-4675 tel: (051) 794-5384 radd...@liv.ac.uk
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Thomas H. Kunich
>Here's the solution (no, don't kill them):
>If you want to sue for liability the attorney has to put up a bond equal to
>30% of the damage claims. If s/he loses then the 30% is lost *and* s/he must
>pay the defendants attorney fees.
>
>Right now lawyers get either big $$ or nothing. They need to face the
>possibility of actually *losing* something if we're going to end this
>frivolous lawsuit crap.
Well, let's be a little intelligent. There are too many lawyers and a great
many of them are the scum of the earth. But the LEGAL PROFESSION is a
necessary evil in all societies.
Because there is a great many vampires doesn't mean that all lawyers suck
blood. Because the world would be better off if perhaps a majority of
the lawyers were sent to the wall doesn't mean that there aren't good
lawyers and just causes.
It's just the frustration of having to deal with the chaff that turns
people against lawyers in general. While I agree that it is probably
a bad idea to have mostly lawyers in politics, how else do you write laws
that can sustain legal challenges?
Drat, stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea.
Bob Becker - The World's Leading Authority
>
>manufacturers, such as Derby Cycles, and the Consumer Product Safety
>Commission essentially have done - they have claimed that it is safe
>to ride at night with just reflectors.
>In fact, the CPSC mandates that bicycles be sold with the eight cheesy
>reflectors that it has approved. Bike shops can't replace these with
>make riding at night safe.
>This is not a matter of personal responsibility. It is a matter of
>the bicycle industry and a government agency blatantly lying to the
>public. A teenager believed the lie, and relied the eight reflectors
>on his bike to make him visible to traffic. His mistake was
>gullibility, and he'll be paying for it for the rest of his life.
So lemme get this straight......
For all these many years now this has been going on?
Millions of bikes have been sold under these same circumstances?
Exactly how is this kid different?
If the government agency has been "blatantly lying to the public"
all these years, why were they not sued?
I think you're wrong. His mistake was not gullibility, his mistake
was riding at night with no light. He took a risk. He lost.
Thomas H. Kunich
>>(John Vance wrote)
>>This is not a matter of personal responsibility. It is a matter of
>>the bicycle industry and a government agency blatantly lying to the
>>public. A teenager believed the lie, and relied the eight reflectors
>>on his bike to make him visible to traffic. His mistake was
>>gullibility, and he'll be paying for it for the rest of his life.
>
>seems that bicycle manufacturers are relying on goverment safety standards. In
>this case the goverment is lying to the manufacturer at least as much as
>the manufacturer is lying to the teenager.
Both of you seem to be missing the entire point. This isn't a case of
the 'government' lying to the public. This isn't the case of Derby Cycles
lying to anyone.
This is a very simple case. Some blockhead rode his bike in the dark
without legally required lighting. He was involved in an accident --
this is the same sort of accident that we so decry in auto drivers --
the kind where we say it wasn't any accident at all, but callous
indifference. He was hurt, to bad, but tough hocky pucks.
He should have been issued a citation for riding without lighting.
And he should have his butt kicked real good.
Bob Becker - The World's Leading Authority
Please watch your quoting techniques.
John Vance
Chris Malcolm <c...@castle.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>In article <2bm2sa$p...@phobos.unm.edu> jav...@unm.edu (John Vance) writes:
>
>>This is not a matter of personal responsibility. It is a matter of
>>the bicycle industry and a government agency blatantly lying to the
>>public. A teenager believed the lie, and relied the eight reflectors
>>on his bike to make him visible to traffic. His mistake was
>>gullibility, and he'll be paying for it for the rest of his life.
>
>Pretty extreme gullibility! This can't have been the first time in his
>life he went out in the dark. It can't have the first time in his life
>he saw other bicycles at night with only the standard reflectors. In
>fact he must on many occasions have travelled in a car at night and
>seen what bicycles with thee reflectors looked like in various
>conditions. And he must have known that roads are dangerous places
>where people get killed and injured -- I'm sure he knows people who
>have been hurt on the roads, and regularly sees accident reports in
>the media.
>
You have a very good point. However, most adolescents in this country
believe the reflectors make riding at night safe, and most of those
who ride at night do so with only reflectors. My own experience
supports this - most bicyclists I see - make that narrowly miss - at
night have no lights. I can think of a couple of semi-serious reasons
why these people think reflectors are safe.
1) Few cyclists in the US venture onto major roads, where most of
the driving is done, so there is little opportunity to observe the
effectiveness of the front and rear reflectors.
1a) The front and rear reflectors are so ineffective that cyclists
relying on them are simply _not noticeable_ (half smiley.)
2) They have observed the spinning white reflectors on bicycles crossing
main streets from residential streets or bike paths. These reflectors
are very bright, and very noticeable, and so it would be easy to
conclude that they are effective. However, they are next to useless in
preventing collisions since they reflect neither to the front nor the
rear.
>So, if he then chooses to throw away all these possible opportunities
>for observation and learning how to conduct himself safely on the road
>in favour of some words on a bit of paper supplied by some Govt agency
>he is dangerously irresponsible. He is a very immature child who
>should not be allowed near a road unsupervised. It's a shame for a
>naive gullible kid to get killed on the road, but the road isn't a
>playground, it's well known as one of the major killers everyone
>faces.
Unfortunately, most bicyclists in the US have _no idea_ how to ride on
the road. The bicycle is regarded as a toy, or a device that makes
pedestrians faster. You don't need lights to walk at night, so why
should you need lights to ride? Pedestrians don't need to wait for
traffic lights, so why should cyclists? Pedestrians can walk on
either side of the road; so, therefore, bicyclists can ride on either
side of the road. Here in the US, the paradigm of bicycles-as-vehicles
is held by very few people, and if you voice it you are met with
incredulity - even hostility. Riding at night without lights is
perfectly logical if, like most, you consider the bicycle to be a toy
exempt from the requirements of vehicles.
>
>It is impossible to make the roads safe enough by legislation that we
>can all pretend they are a playground in which, like the A team's
>adventures, all hell can break loose but nobody ever gets hurt. You
>have to face up to the fact that traffic is a major killer, and you
>must teach people to behave with proper responsibility and caution in
>the face of such a serious threat. If you don't, then your society
>will strangle itself to death trying to pretend in a fantasy
>Disneyland version of reality.
>
We can, at least, remove devices from bicycles that give the appearance
of increasing safety without producing the effect.
The following has nothing to do with bicycles.
Malcomb, it sounds like you've been watching too much American TV.
It's bad for your health. You should tune in more of your quality
British TV - like The Two Ronnies, or Man About the House.
John Vance
Richard F. Masoner
>From an article in my local paper by "The Associated Press". Reprinted without
>permission.
>
>NEWARK - A bicycle company has been ordered to pay $7 million in damages to
>an East Orange man struck by a vehicle as he rode after dark without safety
>lights. Collin Johnson's lawyer argued that the company, Derby Cycles of Kent,
>Wash., should have sold the bicycle with a light as standard equipment or with a
>warning not to ride at night with no lamp.
This is so absolutely RIDICULOUS!!! My goodness, like, I'm sure
the kid couldn't figure out that people can't see him when
it's dark outside. GIVE ME A BREAK! Nobody's responsible
for their own actions anymore. Sheesh.
I used to work for TU Electric (large electric utility in
Texas). A man walked up to a transfer station (one of those
big structures with high voltage and transformers surrounded
by barbed wire and fences and warning signs saying "CAUTION:
DON'T ENTER") and stuck a 12 foot aluminum pole through the
chain link fence. He was severely injured in the ensuing
electrocution, caused no small amout of damage to TU
Electric's property, and attempted to sue the electric
company because the warning signs weren't specific enough
or some such baloney. Never heard if he won or lost.
--
Richard F. Masoner rich...@sdf.lonestar.org
Seen on a magazine cover: "Guns don't kill people, television does"
Eric House
I think the posts I've read on this thread so far have missed the point.
Maybe not the point of what went wrong, but the tactics used by the
plaintifs
and by Forester.
Whoever said the 17-year old was not a smart kid was right. You might be
able to blame someone else had it been his first time riding at night, but
this was his commute route. He rode at this time at night regularly. And
I speak from experience when I say you figure out pretty quickly that cars
just don't see you without lights. You can compensate for this to an
extent
by acting as if invisible, but you don't get very far pulling off the road
every 20 yards.... I'd even bet that if anyone had asked the victim the
night before about riding without lights, he'd have said something along
the lines of "I make my own decisions and take responsibility for the
results." But it sounds as if he can't be asked that anymore.
Anyway, from Forester's post I gather that he convinced the jury that
the bicycle industry forced through regulations suggesting that reflectors
were sufficient for night riding in spite of knowing this not to be true.
The analogy that springs to mind is the attempt by anti-smoking activists
to prove that tobacco companies knew about the harmful effects of their
products back when they were promoting them as healthful. While it's true
that anyone who smokes is asking for an early death (and the sooner the
better if he smokes in public :-), it's much more effective to attack
smoking by holding the tobacco companies accountable for their share of
the damage.
This lawsuit is about trying to overturn those stupid CPSC regulations.
Maybe Forester will be willing to comment on how he got involved in this
case, but in the absence of any remarks let me suggest that he saw here
an opportunity to advance his campaign to get more reasonable regulations
on nighttime bicycle lighting enacted. If you read _Effective Cycling_ or
pay attention to his posts here you know that he's been doing this for a
long time, and has tried unsuccessfully to influence the CPSC directly.
Maybe this time he'll succeed, and if so we'll all be better off. At
least, those of us who want to be safe at night, both from cars and from
police harassment.
I'm sorry if any of my speculation is completely off the mark, and in fact
hope that Forester will set the record straight when he can. (I'm also
sorry if I'm misspelling his name.) It's also too bad that a single
bicycle company got singled out here, but the effect of this will be higher
premiums for all of them and hence pressure to get those regs fixed. Only
in America could things be so crazy, but that's the system and you do what
you feel you must.
(BTW, I have no clue whether Forester's allegations of an industry con-
spiracy to enact those stupid reflector regs is at all accurate. But I
credit him with acting on his beliefs.)
--
**************************************************************************
Eric House "My employer doesn't share its opinions with
BMB in '94? me, so I can share only mine with you"
Stanton Truxillo
and VERY disconcerting is that a jury agreed. Note that I didn't say "a jury of his
peers" because almost no one is tried by a jury of OUR peers. Since everyone
who can tries to get out of jury duty, juries are largely made up of folks who don't
work or support a family or anything else that can be used as an excuse. What that
leaves is a large pool of folks who think someone ELSE is responsible for their
problems, their future, etc. This is clearly a generalization, but certainly we all
must see that there is a biasing mechanism at work here in jury selection. I would
suggest that much of what is wrong with our legal system is not the fault of lawyers
or judges (again, that's trying to put the blame on someone ELSE). Pogo had it right
many years ago: "We has met the enemy and he is us". Think about it the next time
you are called for jury duty...........
David A. Byars
STUFF DELETED
>Both of you seem to be missing the entire point. This isn't a case of
>the 'government' lying to the public. This isn't the case of Derby Cycles
>lying to anyone.
>This is a very simple case. Some blockhead rode his bike in the dark
>without legally required lighting. He was involved in an accident --
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>this is the same sort of accident that we so decry in auto drivers --
>the kind where we say it wasn't any accident at all, but callous
>indifference. He was hurt, to bad, but tough hocky pucks.
>He should have been issued a citation for riding without lighting.
>And he should have his butt kicked real good.
Where did this accident ocurr? What are the laws regarding lights in that
state? I have a very hard time believing Derby's lawyer's could lose the
case if the kid was breaking state law by riding without lights. The original
post quoted a newspaper article from New Jersey, is that where the accident
happened?
dB
Eric S. Boltz
writes:
> In article <CG718...@dove.nist.gov> ebo...@bldrdoc.gov writes:
>
> >Here's the solution (no, don't kill them):
> >If you want to sue for liability the attorney has to put up a bond equal to
> >30% of the damage claims. If s/he loses then the 30% is lost *and* s/he must
> >pay the defendants attorney fees.
>
> Well, let's be a little intelligent. There are too many lawyers and a great
> many of them are the scum of the earth. But the LEGAL PROFESSION is a
> necessary evil in all societies.
I've got nothing against lawyers. Hell, my Dad and every person I've ever
known are either lawyers or in Law School :)
(seriously, 18 of my best friends from undergrad are either lawyers or
in Law School...whenever one decides to go I always say "...another one
bites the dust eh?")
When someone files a frivolous liability suit against JoeBlow, JoeBlow is
*going* to lose money, period. The filer, however, will either gain $$ or
gain nothing - s/he cannot lose.
I say make it more like a bet. If the filer loses the case then they pay
for the costs of JoeBlow. That way the frivolous "we might win" cases
wouldn't ever be filed.
Oh, and BTW, vampires aren't real. :)
Eric
bob geer
>pc...@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (bryan.s.katz) writes:
>>... should have sold the bicycle with a light as standard equipment
>>or with a warning not to ride at night with no lamp.
>I do not think it is asking too much to require bicycle companies
>to include this warning with their bikes, or to require bicycle
>retailers to warn their customers not to ride at night without
>a light.
Jeez...are our 17-yr-olds so lame in the brain as to need everything
in the world spelled out to them? How're ya gonna make sure they read
the warnings...how're ya gonna make sure they can even read? What
ever happened to deductive reasoning, such as "night...hmmmm...no
sunlight...hmmm...reduced visibility...hmmmm...extra precautions"?
My preference is to lobby for legalized adulthood (a Utah thing),
legalize personal responsibility, legalize the acceptance that some
people will screw up at the wrong time & have to pay the price.
On the other hand, maybe the person that received the settlement
should be sued by the defendant for not revealing the true purpose to
which the bike was to be put; i.e., reveal that the bike was to be
ridden at night.
Another failure by the US civil justice system.
--
<> Bob `Bear' Geer <> bg...@beorn.sim.es.com (this *should* work) <>
<> cola-zombie <> speaking only for myself, one of my many tricks <>
<> Salt Lake City, <> "We must strive to be more than we are, Lal." <>
<> Ootah <> -- Cmdr. Data, learning schmaltz <>
David Wittenberg
rule is: What would a "reasonable man" do in the circumstances. In
almost all cases, the behaviour of a large majority of his peers
defines what a "reasonable man" would do. Everyone seems to agree that
a large majority of the people who bicycle at night do so without lights.
I (and a large majority of the people who post here) consider that to
be negligent, but unless he was on this newsgroup (or some similar one),
he wouldn't know that, and must be considered to have behaved as a
reasonable man would have.
By the same token, the bicycle company is not negligent, as they
behaved as all the other companies did, and were following a (bad)
legal requirement. I don't worry too much about what the manual said,
since they now are so full of legal bull that nobody reads them.
I do wonder about the store. If the kid said that he wanted to ride
at night, and they told him reflectors were enough, that would be
negligent. If he just said that he wanted a bike, then the store had
no way to know that they should recommend lights, and they would then
be fine.
--
--David Wittenberg
d...@cs.brandeis.edu
Mike Iglesias
>Most of us probably think this to be obvious. But as pointed out
>by the survey, 80% of youths think it is safe to ride without lights.
I'm glad my 11 year old son is in the other 20%. I asked him "What
do you need if you're going to ride a bike at night?". His answer, in
order:
Lights
Helmet
Light colored clothing
Reflectors
Neither of us ride at night, and we really haven't discussed what is
needed if you do. He must have some common sense, which some people
seem to be lacking.
>This opinion is endorsed by the CPSC, who should
>know better; high school students can scarcely be expected
>to display better judgement (at least me when I was in high school).
Would those high school students drive a car with no lights at night? I
wouldn't when I was in high school, nor would I be riding my bike at
night with no lights (high school for me was over 20 years ago). Back
then you were lucky to have 1 reflector. But maybe I had too much
common sense back then (and still do today).
>I do not think it is asking too much to require bicycle companies
>to include this warning with their bikes, or to require bicycle
>retailers to warn their customers not to ride at night without
>a light.
It's common sense Larry. The problem is that people will no longer
take any personal responsibility for their actions because they "know"
that there's a deep pocket out there that can compensate them for anything
stupid they do.
Pretty soon all the frame tubes are going to be covered by stickers
warning against something or other. When will it stop? Someone
out there is going to sue a bike company for almost anything that can
go wrong while riding a bike. How about a big warning sticker like this:
Warning
Riding this bike can be hazardous to your health.
When riding your bike, you should
stay away from cars
stay away from dogs
stay away from pedestrians
avoid wet pavement
avoid potholes, large bumps or dips
avoid railroad tracks
avoid sandy/dirt covered pavement
wear a helmet
use a light at night
make sure your bike is in good mechanical condition
wear clothing that won't get caught in the moving parts
wear shoes
I could go on, but you (hopefully) get the point. The above are all common
hazards of bike riding, and I'm sure someone has sued a bike company because
they were not warned about any one or more of them.
Mike
Dieu-Huong T. Vo
>>Here's the solution (no, don't kill them):
>If you want to sue for liability the attorney has to put up a bond equal to
>30% of the damage claims. If s/he loses then the 30% is lost *and* s/he must
>pay the defendants attorney fees.
>
>
Too simplistic by half. Of course few attorneys would then take
any cases, regardless of merit. If you are then struck by a drunk
driver while on your bike you might be hard pressed to file what you
then consider a meritorious claim.
Doing away with contingency fees might help but then access to the
legal system would be restricted to those with the money to pay
their attorneys hourly charges.
Perhaps the better solution is to 1) speed up and streamline trials
to reduce the cost of litigation and 2) do away with trial by jury
for product liability cases. Judges or trained mediators might be
less inclined to vote with their hearts rather than based on the facts.
OK, you don't like my ideas. So sue me!
--
Teri Vo ter...@leland.stanford.edu
"Jazz is not dead - it just smells funny." F. Zappa
Dieu-Huong T. Vo
>
>Jeez...are our 17-yr-olds so lame in the brain as to need everything
>in the world spelled out to them? How're ya gonna make sure they read
>the warnings...how're ya gonna make sure they can even read? What
>ever happened to deductive reasoning, such as "night...hmmmm...no
>sunlight...hmmm...reduced visibility...hmmmm...extra precautions"?
If they can't read why not sue the schools which indirectly
caused their injury by failing to allow them to read the warnings.
If their deductive reasoning fails maybe we can sue the college
professor who taught the course or perhaps the school admin
for failing to make deductive logic part of the core curriculum.
Why not sue the employer for failing to adopt a car pool plan so that
the employees would not have to ride their bikes at night. The city also
for failing to properly light a dangerour area. Of course the parents must
be sued for raising such a retard and then loosing him on the
general populace.
While we're at it let's sue the Japanese just for the fun of it.
bryan.s.katz
> |>
> |> How true, how true! Where does this "warning label" crap end?
>
> The bicycle industry doesn't need to/should not have to
> *baby sit* everyone that buys a bike.
I don't recall the specifics, but the water recreation industry just took
a similar hit. Someone that rented a canoe to float down the Delaware
sued because the renter didn't provide sufficient safety management. The
judgement came out worded that the canoe livery should provide for life guards.
(This is really true. No kidding!) (By the way, the rentor in this case
*had* signed a waiver.)
Can you imagine the horrific impact this would have, if it holds up, on
the recreation industry? Let's extrapolate: Ski rentals, for example, would
need to provide instructors for everyone renting.
b
Ed Botsko
|> In article <2bjm8r$e...@TAMUTS.TAMU.EDU> mds...@TAMUTS.TAMU.EDU (Michael David Slater) writes:
|> >In article <CG50F...@cs.uiuc.edu>,
|> >Larry Watanabe <wata...@asimov.cs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
|> >|> >
|> >
|> "rights and responsibilities" as automobiles, then lights
|> (or at least warnings about lights) should be mandatory.
|> How many cars have you seen sold without a lighting system?
|> |> GP
|>
|> Were lights mandatory before the bike was sold? This sounds like a bogus
ruling and should be ripe for appeal. If there was a basis for selling the
bike with lights (all other bikes were sold with lights) or all other mfg'rs
sold their bikes with lights or if the bike was bought contingent upon it
being able to be ridden at night with every safety device needed as being
part of the purchase then maybe....
There is a difference between truth and court room truth and I think rulings
like this, that defy logic represent court room truth.
Ed Botsko
/Ed Botsko
|> In article <CG50F...@cs.uiuc.edu> wata...@asimov.cs.uiuc.edu (Larry Watanabe) writes:
|> >pc...@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (bryan.s.katz) writes:
|>
|> In the UK such a prosecution would stand no chance at all for the
|> simple reason that it is legally required to have lights of a certain
|> defined quality on your cycle at night. Since ignorance of the law is
|> no excuse, nobody is required to tell you about this. As a road user
|> it is your duty to become familiar with relevant law, which is
|> summarised in a booklet "The Highway Code".
|>
|> In the UK the cyclist would have been found guilty of breaking the law
|> about lights at night, and so cetera aequa would automatically be
|> considered to have caused the accident, and so might well be held
|> liable for damages by the vehicle which hit him.
|> --
|> Chris Malcolm c...@uk.ac.ed.aifh +44 (0)31 650 3085
|> Department of Artificial Intelligence, Edinburgh University
|> 5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK DoD #205
buy the US court....Who would be responsible if the bike HAD a light but
the bulb was burned out? Could the bulb manufacturer be held liable?
Ed B
Jim Shankland
bicycles of a long-term trend in the motor vehicle industry:
somebody suffers a horrible accident, and sues the vehicle
manufacturer, saying that the vehicle wasn't safely constructed.
The motor vehicle manufacturers are fighting a seemingly endless
series of "airbag cases", all of which go like this: vehicle
occupant was in a vehicle equipped with seat belts but no air
bags (ok by federal standards when the vehicle was built).
Occupant *doesn't wear the seat belt*. Occupant is horribly
maimed/crippled/injured/disabled in an accident, and sues
the motor vehicle manufacturer, claiming: "you *knew* that
some high percentage of occupants don't bother to wear their
seat belts, therefore you were negligent in not installing
an air bag, even though the government didn't require you to."
Lots of people seem to think that "safe" is a binary attribute:
something is "safe" or it isn't. (Listen for people saying,
"It's just not safe to ....") Actually, of course, safety is a
matter of degree: you're *safer* wearing your seatbelts than
not, it's *safer* not to drink and drive, etc., but you can be
cold sober and wearing a seat belt and still get killed in a
crash. It's *safer* to have a headlight when you bicycle at
night than not, and if you don't have a headlight, it's *safer*
to assume that the left-turning jeep doesn't see you rather than
to keep barreling down the hill at 20 mph, and it's *safer*
still to stay home at night. But if you assume that everything
is either "safe" or "not safe", then when something goes horribly
wrong, it must mean that somebody did something that was
"not safe" -- and the best alternative is if that somebody has
deep pockets.
How safe is safe enough? Who should decide? You? The government?
The manufacturer of the equipment you use? And who should pay
when something goes wrong (as, inevitably, it will)? These
questions are being decided almost daily, in courtrooms around
the country.
jas
Eric House
> A psychiatrist published a study recently that showed that 80%
> of adolescents believed that it was safe to ride at night with just
> the OEM reflectors, and 75% of those who rode at night did so without
> lights. If you don't believe these numbers, risk your life one night
> and ride down a popular recreational trail. Why do so many people -
> the majority of people who ride at night - believe something so absurd?
^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^
> Because they think that the reflectors wouldn't be required on all
> bicycles if they weren't effective.
I'll need a reference to this article to be sure, but I think this
interpretation is wrong. Specifically, though 75% of those riding at
night do so without lights there is not necessarily a connection between
them and the 80% who think it's safe. As I read it, you cannot conclude
that a large percentage of those riding without lights consider themselves
to be safe; rather, I think they know they aren't and ride accordingly,
and the fact that they're still alive proves this. Put differently, the
sample 80% of whom think reflectors are sufficient for safe night riding
is *much* larger than the second group, and consists mostly of non-cyclists
or at least of cyclists with no night experience.
Chris Malcolm
>In article <CG585...@festival.ed.ac.uk>, c...@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:
>|> In the UK the cyclist would have been found guilty of breaking the law
>|> about lights at night, and so cetera aequa would automatically be
>|> considered to have caused the accident, and so might well be held
>|> liable for damages by the vehicle which hit him.
>This sounds a whole lot more reasonable than the ruling that was handed down
>buy the US court....Who would be responsible if the bike HAD a light but
>the bulb was burned out? Could the bulb manufacturer be held liable?
You are legally required to have a LIT lamp. It is your responsibilty
to carry spare bulbs and batteries as necessary. If your lamp is not
working you can't legally ride the bike in the dark and you can't sue
anybody for an accident caused by your illegal behaviour, EVEN IF THE
LAMP WAS FAULTY AND THE MANUFACTURER TO BLAME. It is your legal
responsibility to ensure that your lamp is working, and to stop if it
isn't.
In some parts of the EC you are even legally REQUIRED to carry spare
bulbs, and it is an offence if you can't produce them on demand by the
police.
Ilana Stern
> Note that I didn't say "a jury of his
> peers" because almost no one is tried by a jury of OUR peers. Since everyone
> who can tries to get out of jury duty, juries are largely made up of folks who don't
> work or support a family or anything else that can be used as an excuse. What that
> leaves is a large pool of folks who think someone ELSE is responsible for their
> problems, their future, etc. This is clearly a generalization, but certainly we all
> must see that there is a biasing mechanism at work here in jury selection.
I disagree (having been called for jury duty). At least in our local court,
it was very difficult to get out of jury duty, and only a very few people
did. Working and supporting a family aren't valid excuses. On the trial
I was involved in, only one person (out of the pool of 80 or so) was
excused on hardship grounds, and only three or four were excused on bias
grounds (this was an incest/sexual assault case and the judge asked
people who had some personal reason to not want to hear the case to talk
to him privately...he dismissed a few but not all of those who did).
Only two jury members were homemakers; one other was a student, the
rest of us all had "real jobs" and one was even a local politician.
Followups certainly don't belong in misc.bicycles.misc. I've set them
to go to misc.legal, but I don't read it, so if you want to argue with
me, please do it by email.
(ObBicycle: I commuted to jury duty by bike.)
--
/\ "This technique probably only makes the difference between
\_][ serious injury and total disaster."
\________Ilana Stern dod#009 r.b. cliff swallow il...@ncar.ucar.edu____
Ray Trudel
In article <2bm2sa$p...@phobos.unm.edu>, jav...@unm.edu (John Vance) writes:
|> This is not a matter of personal responsibility. It is a matter of
|> the bicycle industry and a government agency blatantly lying to the
|> public. A teenager believed the lie, and relied the eight reflectors
|> on his bike to make him visible to traffic. His mistake was
|> gullibility, and he'll be paying for it for the rest of his life.
|>
|>
|>
|>
|>
|>
You got that wrong! Responsibility for safety rests ultimately on the person
involved in the activity. The person must consider the risks involved in that
activity and judge the benefits from that perspective. The bicycle did not cause
his injuries; a motorist did. There also is only anecdotal evidence that lights
could have prevented this.
k...@hplkdw.hpl.hp.com
In article <1993Nov9.1...@b23a.b23a.ingr.com>, <e...@frame.b23a.ingr.com>
writes:
> buy the US court....Who would be responsible if the bike HAD a light but
> the bulb was burned out? Could the bulb manufacturer be held liable?
No, the light manufacturer would have been responsible for not explicitly
saying in the manual that the light was not effective with a burned out bulb
and that burned out bulbs must be replaced before using the light.
I'm really disappointed in Forrester for supporting the plantif in this case.
I thought that he supported the idea that bicycle riders should use common
sense and ride defensively. I don't see how he could feel good about
supporting someone who does something as stupid as ride at night without
lights. Just what does he mean by "Effective Cycling" anyway?
Loosing confidence in you John...
Kevin
Hassan Schroeder { Support Services }
>
>You have a very good point. However, most adolescents in this country
No. No. No. As the father of an adolescent, and a former (yes, I admit it!)
adolescent myself, I have to say: bulls- er. I mean, nonsense. :^)
Adolescents don't think; they know they don't have to, because they're immortal.
I thought so when I was an adolescent (and still do, I guess), my 16-year-old son
thinks so, my 18-year-old daughter thinks so - it's one of those sloppy "human
nature" kinda things, eh? - and you can put anything at all in the "Read This
First", or the "Owner's Manual", or whatever, and it won't make any difference.
So what now?
Diagramatically:
60s ---------------- 70s - 80s ----------------------------- 90s
Teach Your Children Well It's Not Our Fault, Let's Sue Someone
I guess that's another vote for individual responsibility ... :^)
H*
--
|[ Hassan Schroeder has...@ripple.Eng.Sun.COM 415-336-2672 ]|
=========================================================================
|[ EAT RIGHT. GET LOTS OF SLEEP. DRINK PLENTY OF FLUIDS. GO LIKE HELL. ]|
======/* Nike said it first, but it sounds like a great idea ... */======
bui tho xuan
>
>I'm really disappointed in Forrester for supporting the plantif in this case.
>I thought that he supported the idea that bicycle riders should use common
>sense and ride defensively. I don't see how he could feel good about
>supporting someone who does something as stupid as ride at night without
>lights. Just what does he mean by "Effective Cycling" anyway?
>Loosing confidence in you John...
>
IMO, JForester's support of the plaintiff is consistent with his agenda.
I agree with EHouse's analysis, and it seems to bear out when I read
John's last post re this trial. His fight is one against various government
agencies and the bicycle industry, and his attack against one of the industry's
soldier, i.e., the importer that sold that kid the unlit bike, is perfectly
understandable when viewed along that train of thoughts.
I think the problem that you and I have is that we don't view the
bicycle industry as one single entity--personally, I viewed each company
as a group of human beings trying to make enough money to feed themselves.
As a result, to us, it is wrong to "sacrifice" that soldier to win the
war. To John, it's a mean to an end: to get bicycle companies and the
government to admit that their current light rules are stupid.
Hey, I admire John's work most of the time. I even paid real money for the
6th edition of Effective Cycling--I usually just check books out from the
library-- and got all of my 19 bucks worth (and more). But it's
ok to disagree with him...lots of good people do.
tho
Jennifer R. Accettola
>I also resent the notion of suing rather than taking responsibility
>for one's choices. More troubling - if this case becomes a trend -
>is that manufacturers will have to incorporate the costs of these
>judgments into their prices. I do not wish to subsidize - through
>higher prices - those who are hurt through their own negligence.
>The most economical way to foster safety is to have each individual
>reponsible for safe cycling, skiing or whatever. Attempting to pass
>responsibility to manufacturers in cases such as this is a crude and
>ultimately more expensive way for society to pay the costs of
>accidents.
I agree with you Teri... One seriously disturbing trend in the last
several decades has been for people to look at lawsuits as a an easily
accessible get-rich-quick-mechanism. This trend is either the result of
or correlated with the rise of "Morris Bart" type of lawyers (I am sure
you all know who I am talking about!) that advertise on TV and assure
cash settlements for anything (on a contingency basis of course!).
Time to cut down on lawyers in general! Limits on indemnities for lawsuits
would also help a great deal. I can't believe how much money that kid
got! I have a friend who dove off a diving board (drunk) and broke his
neck-- however, he did not sue the contracter who put the pool in or
the manufacturer of the diving board. Lawsuits are just getting
ridiculous!
Ciao, Jenn
Frank Krygowski
In a previous article, eho...@apple.com (Eric House) says:
...
>
>Anyway, from Forester's post I gather that he convinced the jury that
>the bicycle industry forced through regulations suggesting that reflectors
>were sufficient for night riding in spite of knowing this not to be true.
>This lawsuit is about trying to overturn those stupid CPSC regulations.
...
>(BTW, I have no clue whether Forester's allegations of an industry con-
>spiracy to enact those stupid reflector regs is at all accurate. But I
>credit him with acting on his beliefs.)
I remember John Forester mentioning this conspiracy both in his posts
and in _Effective Cycling_. What puzzles me is this:
Why would bike manufacturers fight a requirement to sell every bike
with a headlight in place? It seems to me it would work to their benefit.
First, if it were mandatory, they couldn't worry about you going tto
another bike shop to save bucks by buying a bike without one. Each
shop and manufacturer would be in the same boat.
And, in selling this mandatory light, wouldn't the manufacturers and
shops take a standard markup on the light? Sounds like more profit
to me! (That's certainly how the oil industry treats hikes in crude
oil prices. "Oh my, the wholesale price went up. Sorry, we've got
to raise the retail price... twice as much!")
John's a sharp guy, and he was there, I wasn't... I'd like to see
his explanation.
--
Frank Krygowski ae...@yfn.ysu.edu
John - Forester
discussion on rec.bicycles.misc (which I didn't read until today)
than it has on rec.bicycles.soc, to which I previously made two
lengthy postings. Those on .misc who are interested should read
.soc for these.
I am making two postings. This one answers questions that have
been asked, about me and about the use of lights survey. The
other one discusses the meaning of the case in the context of the
discussions that have prevailed here.
Yes, I do make lighting equipment. In my latest catalog I
started offering the Forester generator mounting kit which has
been illustrated for years in Effective Cycling. Years ago I
openly offered that design as a prospective standard to replace
or supplement the two older designs of lamp boss and lamp bracket
that have been in use in Europe for at least fifty years. Anyone
may make it, but I think that it would be best if all who do so
stick to the 2, 5 mm mounting holes 30 mm apart so that all
versions will be compatible. Since no bicycle firm has taken up
that offer, I make the parts at my workbench. I begged one day
use of a lathe from an old cycling buddy who builds racing
engines and turned out a batch of high-speed generator wheels.
The rest of the kit I make at my workbench. Aside from the dozen
or so that I made for my family long ago, I have sold exactly
one.
I earned $17,500 for my services in the Johnson case. However,
little of that went to demonstrating the plaintiff's case that
cycling at night without a headlamp is dangerous and that the
bicycle manufacturer(s) have systematically downplayed that
danger while emphasizing the safety value of reflectors. Those
are easy things to demonstrate very quickly at very low cost. The
bulk of my effort went to figuring out the errors in the work of
the expert for the defense. He made so many errors that it was
impossible to guess what he would do next. He claimed that
reflectors, when illuminated to the left of the headlamps' low
beams as in this case (cyclist descending hill, motorist coming
up hill and turning left into cyclist) are as bright as
headlamps. He calculated the impact point as if velocities were
conserved in a collision, instead of momenta. He calculated the
speed of cyclists on a hill by the law of falling bodies, free
fall in a vacuum, instead of allowing for air resistance. He
calculated the impact force between bicycle and other object
according to the mass of the cyclist instead of the bicycle (they
are substantially separated by the time the impact has developed
maximum force). He crashed three bicycles on a test track and
declared that his measurements of the relationship between speed
and front fork deformation were 99.4% accurate. By that he meant,
I discovered, that the three data points fitted some mathematical
function with that degree of correlation. Trouble was, that
mathematical function could not possibly fit the facts, because
it showed that the incremental deformation with incremental speed
increase got smaller with higher speeds instead of higher, as it
should because the incremental energy increases. What he had
demonstrated was that his crash tests were inaccurate. He even
made mistakes in algebra and arithmetic, saying that his
calculation showed a speed of over 40 mph when, if you ran his
values through a calculator exactly according to his equation,
the answer was a bit over 20 mph. The plaintiff's attorney had
him run his values through a calculator in front of the jury. The
jury laughed out loud to see him squirm. He is a very well known
expert. I guess that this experience will increase his notoriety.
It took me many hours to discover and identify these errors and
figure out how to explain these to the jury in words that they
would understand.
That $17,500 is a lot of money for me. My last year's income,
typical, was $2,200 from books, $12,800 from consulting, and $8
from hardware. However, it is absurd to think that the prospect
of that money made any difference to either my work or my
testimony. Except for showing up the errors of the defense
expert, everything I said I have written about for years. Had I
said anything different the defense attorney would have hung me
right there for everybody to see.
The survey of the use of nighttime equipment was made by John
Lamberth, Chairman of the Department of Psychology at Temple
University, a person with special expertise in survey techniques
and statistics. I summarize his report. One survey interviewed 50
teenagers at shopping malls in New Jersey. They were shown a
bicycle typically equipped with 10 reflectors but no headlamp. In
the questions asked was: "Would it be safe to ride at night?" 76%
said Yes. Another survey was a telephone survey of 100 teenagers
randomly selected from Essex County. The bicycle used in the mall
survey was described to them, and among the questions asked was
"Would it be safe to ride the bike I earlier described, at
night?" 82% said Yes, 17 said no, 1 didn't know. The 17 who said
it was not safe were asked why. 9 said that it needed a light on
either front or back, 3 said that even with reflectors riding at
night was not safe, 5 asked for more reflectors, light-colored
clothing or reflectorized clothing, or that the reflectors should
be in different places. 88% did not know that a headlamp was
required for safety when riding at night. Respondents were then
asked whether they had ever ridden a bike at night. 74% said Yes.
Of these, 63.5% said they did not use any additional equipment.
The additional equipment used by the 27 persons who used
additional equipment at night was: Light, 4; Light or
reflectorized clothing, 12; Helmets, knee pads, elbow pads,
gloves, 8. Therefore only 5.4% of those who ride at night use
lights.
Summary: 12% know that a light should be used, but only 5.4%
of those who ride at night use one.
JFor...@cup.portal.com John Forester
726 Madrone Ave
408-734-9426 Sunnyvale CA 94086 USA
John - Forester
The Johnson vs Derby Cycles $7million case has caused more
discussion on rec.bicycles.misc (which I didn't read until today)
than it has on rec.bicycles.soc, to which I previously made two
lengthy postings. Those on .misc who are interested should read
.soc for these.
I am making two postings. This one discusses the meaning of
the case in the context of the discussions that have prevailed
here. The other one answers questions that have been asked, about
me and about the use of lights survey.
Now consider the meaning of the case. Those of you who have
complained about the destruction of self-reliance in our society,
the complaint that whenever something goes wrong somebody wants
the government to fix it, or somebody else to pay for it, are
exactly correct. That is exactly what this case is about. I have
spent over twenty years fighting for self-reliance, proper
actions and behavior informed by correct knowledge. In the
cycling sphere, that's what Effective Cycling is all about. In
those twenty years I have fought pretty regularly for treatment
of cyclists as mature adults against the motoring establishment,
the Consumer Product Safety Commission, that part of the bicycle
industry that advocates the no-lights-at-night policy, the bike-
safety programmers, the bike planners, and the transportation
reformers. Not one of those groups wants to accept cyclists as
mature persons. The policies of these groups that cyclists should
be immature have, over the decades, created the chaotic mess that
is the cycling done by the American public. Wrong side of the
road, no lights at night, left turns from the curb lane, failure
to look behind before moving left, even running stop signs; these
are all largely caused by those policies.
Specifically in the field of nighttime protection, the Bicycle
Manufacturers Association invented the all-reflector system and
specified it for their products marketed to children. The BMA
could do what it liked for its own products. However, the federal
Consumer Product Safety Commission built the all-reflector system
into the regulation for all bicycles for all people as it
declared that all bicycles except track-racing bicycles were
"toys or other articles intended for use by children." That made
the all-reflector system the law of the land. One argument that
the CPSC made for its system was that children were incapable of
operating headlamps.
The CPSC was run by people who thought that a large proportion
of accidents to cyclists were caused by defective bicycles; they
never bothered to discover the truth. They were utterly
incompetent. When challenged about a particular requirement they
said that it was to prevent a particular type of accident. When
told that nobody had ever heard of that type of accident ever
occuring in 100 years, they replied that the analysis of their
expert engineers showed that it was likely to happen. The
engineer who predicts a likely failure in a product that has
never experienced such a failure when used as much as bicycles
had been in their first 100 years of use is not what I would call
a reliable engineer. In fact, when the theory of this part of the
bicycle was developed ten years later, it showed that any failure
would be of the opposite type, as had been frequently experienced
and recognized. Since the CPSC regulation, the bicycle industry
has emphasized reflectors and downplayed lights. The industry was
instrumental in getting a federal law passed prohibiting states
from doing anything contrary to the all-reflector system. Then it
systematically went around the states ensuring that state laws
were changed to agree with it. They tried to remove the
additional requirement for headlamps, but I persuaded the
motorists of the states that if they did that they would be held
liable whenever they hit a cyclist whom they couldn't see, as in
this Johnson case. That argument prevented the removal of the
headlamp requirement, so that now we have a foolish system in
which a cyclist is supposed to carry both a front reflector and a
headlamp. How is he supposed to learn the truth when official
policy and even the law is a mess like that?
I could go on with pages of this type of stuff for every one
of the groups I listed above. Every governmental or quasi-
governmental organization I know that takes an interest in
cycling does it wrong, largely by considering cyclists to be
immature, ignorant, reckless, or nuisances. When such are the
policies, such are the results, except for the few who are smart
enough to stand up to the system. This Johnson vs Derby case is
the natural result of that mess. Maybe, particularly if other
cases follow with the same result, those in power will think
better of their policies and start to reform.
Do you think that I haven't taken my lumps over the last
twenty years for advocating that cyclists be treated as adults?
Probably few of you would have lasted the course that I have
experienced. Ironic, isn't it, to have some of you now complain-
ing that I am on the side of the gimmes, the immatures, the I
can't do its?
Ian Lewis
>
> Chris Malcolm <c...@castle.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>In article <2bm2sa$p...@phobos.unm.edu> jav...@unm.edu (John Vance) writes:
>>
>>>This is not a matter of personal responsibility. It is a matter of
>>>the bicycle industry and a government agency blatantly lying to the
>>>public. A teenager believed the lie, and relied the eight reflectors
>>>on his bike to make him visible to traffic. His mistake was
>>>gullibility, and he'll be paying for it for the rest of his life.
>>
>>life he went out in the dark. It can't have the first time in his life
>>he saw other bicycles at night with only the standard reflectors. In
>>fact he must on many occasions have travelled in a car at night and
>>seen what bicycles with thee reflectors looked like in various
>>conditions. And he must have known that roads are dangerous places
>>where people get killed and injured -- I'm sure he knows people who
>>have been hurt on the roads, and regularly sees accident reports in
>>the media.
>>
>
> You have a very good point. However, most adolescents in this country
> who ride at night do so with only reflectors. My own experience
> supports this - most bicyclists I see - make that narrowly miss - at
> night have no lights. I can think of a couple of semi-serious reasons
> why these people think reflectors are safe.
etc.....
Safety issues aside; is it *legal* to ride at night without lights in
the U.S. (or parts thereof)? If it is illegal, what if any effect did
this have in this case?
Ian Lewis, Voice: +61 3 253 6317 Fax: +61 3 253 6144
Telecom Research Laboratories
Telstra Corporation
P.O. Box 249, Clayton, Victoria 3168, AUSTRALIA
Internet: i.l...@trl.oz.au
X400: g=ian s=lewis ou=trl o=telecom prmd=telecom006 admd=telememo c=au
John Panusa
>
>In article <1993Nov7.2...@sol.UVic.CA>, jpa...@sol.UVic.CA (John Panusa) writes:
>> If most laws state that bicycles (and riders) have the same
>> "rights and responsibilities" as automobiles, then lights
>> (or at least warnings about lights) should be mandatory.
>> How many cars have you seen sold without a lighting system?
>>
>> GP
>
>manufacturer should be held liable if I don't have insurance?
>
>--
> Rob Lowrie
> Aerospace Engineering Dept.
> University of Michigan
> low...@caen.engin.umich.edu
No, but the auto manufacturer should be held liable if it
sells vehicles which are improperly equipped to perform
the operations they were intended for (like driving at
night, for example). The point has been made that
bicycle manufacturers have insisted (partially through
the CPSC) that reflectors are sufficient for night
riding. If we consider bicycles truly transportation
vehicles (and not kid's toys), then they should be
properly equipped for carrying out their intended
purpose.
GP
John Panusa
>In article <1993Nov7.2...@sol.UVic.CA> jpa...@sol.UVic.CA (John Panusa) writes:
>
>>If most laws state that bicycles (and riders) have the same
>>"rights and responsibilities" as automobiles, then lights
>>(or at least warnings about lights) should be mandatory.
>>How many cars have you seen sold without a lighting system?
>
>required to label each baby with a warning that they shouldn't walk at night
>without headlights, taillights and sideview reflectors?
>
>Lord knows that people should never be held accountable for their own
>actions. Particularly if they work for the government.
>
Babies are not considered by law to be vehicular modes of
transportation. Although it may seem obvious to people
with much cycling experience that lights are essential,
there exist many bike owners that truly feel reflectors
are sufficient (they came with the bike, right?) to ride
at night. Try to tell a 'non-cycling' person that a
decent headlight system costs about $200.00 Cdn and
they'll be sure to fall down laughing...
"That much for a light? What for?"
I suppose its a good thing there were no cyclists like
you on this kid's jury...he wouldn't have received a
penny...
GP
John Panusa
>
>In article <2bm2sa$p...@phobos.unm.edu>, jav...@unm.edu (John Vance) writes:
>|> This is not a matter of personal responsibility. It is a matter of
>|> the bicycle industry and a government agency blatantly lying to the
>|> public. A teenager believed the lie, and relied the eight reflectors
>|> on his bike to make him visible to traffic. His mistake was
>|> gullibility, and he'll be paying for it for the rest of his life.
>|>
>|>
>|> John Vance
>|>
>|>
>|>
>|>
>You got that wrong! Responsibility for safety rests ultimately on the person
>involved in the activity. The person must consider the risks involved in that
How can you make such sweeping generalizations? If safety rested
ultimately with the individual, then there would be little
reason for much civil legal action and tort law! (Ex. your
new titanium mtb was incorrectly welded and splits on a
high-speed decent. According to your logic, its too bad
for you, because safety was *your* responsibility, and heh,
you knew the risks for mountain biking anyway...)
GP
Stuart Paynter
|> I don't think the kid was negligent in the legal sense. The general
|> rule is: What would a "reasonable man" do in the circumstances. In
|> almost all cases, the behaviour of a large majority of his peers
|> defines what a "reasonable man" would do. Everyone seems to agree that
|> a large majority of the people who bicycle at night do so without lights.
|> I (and a large majority of the people who post here) consider that to
|> be negligent, but unless he was on this newsgroup (or some similar one),
|> he wouldn't know that, and must be considered to have behaved as a
|> reasonable man would have.
By the same arguement, wouldn't a reasonable person agree that riding a night
would be more safe with a light. Just because most people choose to ignore
this, does not necessary constitute what a "reasonable" person would do.
Stuart
Anthony Rossini
Regarding tickets given to cyclists for not using lights, when I was in
Houston (5-7 years ago), West University (I think that's the name -- one of
the small independent towns surrounded (eaten?) by Houston) gave tickets to
cyclists cycling at night without lights. At the time, I thought it was a
scam, though I wasn't cycling at the time... A few friends ended up
spending their weekly beer money for the fine -- needless to say, they had
lights soon after...
Don't know what they do these days, though...
-tony
--
Anthony Rossini - grad student/statistician/hacker
ros...@hsph.harvard.edu
Department of Biostatistics, Harvard School of Public Health
677 Huntington Ave, Boston MA 02115 617-432-1056
Robert Byron Lowrie
In article <2bsahm$g...@news.ysu.edu>, ae...@yfn.ysu.edu (Frank Krygowski) writes:
>
> In a previous article, eho...@apple.com (Eric House) says:
> ...
> >
> >Anyway, from Forester's post I gather that he convinced the jury that
> >the bicycle industry forced through regulations suggesting that reflectors
> >were sufficient for night riding in spite of knowing this not to be true.
> ...
>
> >This lawsuit is about trying to overturn those stupid CPSC regulations.
> ...
> >(BTW, I have no clue whether Forester's allegations of an industry con-
> >spiracy to enact those stupid reflector regs is at all accurate. But I
> >credit him with acting on his beliefs.)
>
> I remember John Forester mentioning this conspiracy both in his posts
> and in _Effective Cycling_. What puzzles me is this:
>
> Why would bike manufacturers fight a requirement to sell every bike
> with a headlight in place? It seems to me it would work to their benefit.
> First, if it were mandatory, they couldn't worry about you going tto
> another bike shop to save bucks by buying a bike without one. Each
> shop and manufacturer would be in the same boat.
Because each bike would cost more, and therefore a certain segment of
the population that could barely afford a bike (or was borderline on
buying anyway because of cost), will no longer would be able to. The
volume of sales would presumably go down, and the manufacturers must
doubt that the profit margin on the lights on the bikes they do sell
will make up for it.
[other stuff deleted]
My whole problem with this sort of regulation is why should I have to
shell out for a light for my mtb, if I have no intention of riding at
night. I already have to shell out for reflectors (along with my
share of Forester's $17,500), which I then have to spend time
removing! TAKE RESPONSIBLITY for your own actions.
Robert Byron Lowrie
In article <1993Nov11....@sol.UVic.CA>, jpa...@sol.UVic.CA (John Panusa) writes:
> In article <2bk15v...@srvr1.engin.umich.edu> low...@shock.engin.umich.edu (Robert Byron Lowrie) writes:
> >
> >In article <1993Nov7.2...@sol.UVic.CA>, jpa...@sol.UVic.CA (John Panusa) writes:
> >> If most laws state that bicycles (and riders) have the same
> >> "rights and responsibilities" as automobiles, then lights
> >> (or at least warnings about lights) should be mandatory.
> >> How many cars have you seen sold without a lighting system?
> >>
> >> GP
> >
> >Most states also require liability insurance. Does that mean the auto
> >manufacturer should be held liable if I don't have insurance?
> >
>
> sells vehicles which are improperly equipped to perform
> the operations they were intended for (like driving at
> night, for example).
If the safety feature is obvious (such as headlights), I strongly disagree.
> The point has been made that
> bicycle manufacturers have insisted (partially through
> the CPSC) that reflectors are sufficient for night
> riding. If we consider bicycles truly transportation
> vehicles (and not kid's toys), then they should be
> properly equipped for carrying out their intended
> purpose.
I would guess nearly every car is driven at night, whereas not every
bike is ridden at night. What about an mtb? I have no intention of
riding my mtb at night, so why should I have to pay for a light? Or
do I have to my pay share for other people's ignorance?
bui tho xuan
>
>In article , ae...@yfn.ysu.edu (Frank Krygowski) writes:
>> Why would bike manufacturers fight a requirement to sell every bike
>> with a headlight in place? It seems to me it would work to their benefit.
>> First, if it were mandatory, they couldn't worry about you going tto
>> another bike shop to save bucks by buying a bike without one. Each
>> shop and manufacturer would be in the same boat.
>
>Because each bike would cost more, and therefore a certain segment of
>the population that could barely afford a bike (or was borderline on
>buying anyway because of cost), will no longer would be able to. The
>volume of sales would presumably go down, and the manufacturers must
>doubt that the profit margin on the lights on the bikes they do sell
>will make up for it.
I'm not taking side on whether bikes should be sold w or w/p lights. But
the light system recommended by John Forester costs about 40 bucks max:
generator front, reflector rear. _IF_ this is sufficient, I think the
general public can afford it. This is RETAIL price, too.
In that respect, I'd prefer bikes to be sold either bare--no reflector,
nuthin'--or with a full set of generator or battery lights such as the
Union, Sanyo sets.
Jean-Pierre Jacquot
In article <2btkul...@srvr1.engin.umich.edu>, low...@shock.engin.umich.edu (Robert Byron Lowrie) writes:
|>
|> I would guess nearly every car is driven at night, whereas not every
|> bike is ridden at night. What about an mtb? I have no intention of
|> riding my mtb at night, so why should I have to pay for a light? Or
|> do I have to my pay share for other people's ignorance?
|> --
|> Rob Lowrie
|> Aerospace Engineering Dept.
|> University of Michigan
|> low...@caen.engin.umich.edu
There are two bogus assertions there (I least for a Frenchman).
1- If there is ligths, it will cost more. Wrong from the consumer point
of view. I own two bikes (plus half a tandem :-), my commuting bike came
fully rigged (fenders, bagage rack, ligths, ...), it is a Peugeot bike with
a good quality frame (mangalloy, nice welding, ...) and good components
(3 speeds Sturmey hub, a good pump (!)), it cost 2300FF. My leisure bike is
an hybrid, came nude, with lower frame quality (alloy, not so nice welding),
low end components (Shimano st20), it costs 2300FF, I have had to add 250FF
for a bagage rack, another 150FF for a very low ligth system for this summer,
and $30 since I used it to commute in Pittsburgh.
Add the figures. My point is that the price of the bike is not only
given by the amount of things you have on it, but mostly by fashion, brand
stickers and so on.
2- You have no intention to ride at night. Ok. But how can you be so
sure you will never do ????? Don't think your flatproof tires or your daily
mechanical inspection will prevent that, it just can lower the probability.
The point is that if a bicycle, or anything else for that matter, is considered
as a vehicule, it is then the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that
the bike can be legally operated under any normal circumstance. In the case of
vehicules, you can safely assume that "normal circumstance" mean "circumstance
refered to in the law". Operating a vehicule at night is mentioned in the rules
of the roads, hence, it is a normal circumstance.
I have little sympathy for the present american tendency of suing everybody
for everything. If this case was just to make money, shame on the participants.
But if it was to make society aware of a real problem (i.e., bicycles are a
mean of transportation), it is a good thing.
==============================================================================
Jean-Pierre JACQUOT CRIN (Centre de Recherche en Informatique de Nancy)
INRIA-Lorraine
presently on leave at Carnegie Mellon University
e-mail: jac...@loria.fr or jac...@cs.cmu.edu
post: Dpt of Computer Science CMU 5000 Forbes Av
Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3891 USA
phone: (412) 268 5299
fax: (412) 681 5739
home: (412) 421 6653
==============================================================================
Glen Niebur
[Bunch of previous posts deleted]
[In reference to regulations regarding requiring reflectors and/or lights]
>My whole problem with this sort of regulation is why should I have to
>shell out for a light for my mtb, if I have no intention of riding at
>night. I already have to shell out for reflectors (along with my
I agree with this. I don't think the average cyclist rides his bike at
night. I don't mean things like "Well i rode down the block to my friends
house one night". I mean people who actually ride at night. I may be
wrong, and would welcome any statistics on night riding (besides the
survey in the case). If there isn't any substantial amount of bicyles
ridden at night, then the industry has no obligation to provide lights
for this purpose. If there is, then they do, (or they should even if
they have no obligation to do so). All IMO of course. I'm no lawyer and
i'm not Ralph Nader either.
>share of Forester's $17,500), which I then have to spend time
>removing! TAKE RESPONSIBLITY for your own actions.
I believe that this judgement is wrong, and the logic that lead to it
does not convince me. I have made a couple of posts to this effect.
I don't think we want to turn this into a slam fest of John Forester
though. I don't begrudge him whatever amount of money he was paid to
act as an expert witness. He would have been paid whether or not the
case was won. He stated the facts as he believes them, and didn't
change his story to conform to the needs of the case. I have never
read his book, but it seems many have, and he states the same claims in
the book. The judge in the case accepted him as an expert in the
field. Derby failed to provide a more convincing expert for their
side. This is unfortunate, because i think they should have been able
to.
--
Glen Niebur | The poor boy changes clothes and puts on aftershave
Mayo Clinic | to compensate for his ordinary shoes.
Biomechanics Lab|
g...@mayo.edu | ~Paul Simon
Alan Bloom
: In <2btkeh...@srvr1.engin.umich.edu> low...@shock.engin.umich.edu (Robert Byron Lowrie) writes:
: I agree with this. I don't think the average cyclist rides his bike at
: night.
I dunno, I sure see a lot of bicyclists (mostly teenagers) riding around
here at night with no lights. Many have no reflectors either.
Alan Bloom
Siddarth Subramanian
I think you guys are missing the point. No one is asking for mandatory
light sales... just clear warnings with all bikes sold that they
should not be used at night without an adequate lighting system. They
should also not be sold with reflectors which give some riders a false
sense of security.
Also, I'd like to see stricter enforcement of laws against riding at
night without lights (and other traffic laws that pertain to all
vehicles). Maybe then people will get the message that a bicycle
really is a vehicle and people should ride it as one.
--
*****************************************************************
* Siddarth Subramanian Austin, Texas, USA *
* sidd...@cs.utexas.edu 30 16 01 N 97 44 34 W *
*****************************************************************
Dean Hayes
> Why would bike manufacturers fight a requirement to sell every bike
> with a headlight in place? It seems to me it would work to their benefit.
> First, if it were mandatory, they couldn't worry about you going tto
> another bike shop to save bucks by buying a bike without one. Each
> shop and manufacturer would be in the same boat.
>
Why would I, as a consumer want to allow an industry be forced into this
type of regulation. I already have a fairly nice light for my current bike
which is easily moved. If I choose to buy another bicycle, why should I be
forced into buying another light? I can only use one bicycle at a time.
In the interest of KISS (Keep it simple stupid), other regualations such as
waiving the light requirement if one shows proof of ownership is too
complicated and untolerable.
There is also the problem of lighting standards. What is adequate for one
user isn't for another, or may be overkill for others.
Dean Hayes
Forester) wrote:
> THE MEANING OF JOHNSON VS DERBY
>
. . . Lot's of stuff deleted to conserve bandwitdh . . .
>
> I could go on with pages of this type of stuff for every one
> of the groups I listed above. Every governmental or quasi-
> governmental organization I know that takes an interest in
> cycling does it wrong, largely by considering cyclists to be
> immature, ignorant, reckless, or nuisances. When such are the
> policies, such are the results, except for the few who are smart
> enough to stand up to the system. This Johnson vs Derby case is
> the natural result of that mess. Maybe, particularly if other
> cases follow with the same result, those in power will think
> better of their policies and start to reform.
>
I have a much larger concern that if other cases follow with the same
result, the knee-jerk reaction from grovernmental organizations would to
declare the bicycle as a toy and ban its existance from our road system.
One of my co-workers expeirenced a similiar reaction when she was riding
into work one morning and complained to the city that the light controlling
a crosswalk across a very busy city street was out of order and she had to
ride 3 miles extra distance for safety reasons. The city chose to 'fix'
the problem by removing the light and crosswalk forcing everyone to either
risk the traffic or find an alternate route.
Larry Watanabe
>In article <95...@cup.portal.com>, <JFor...@cup.portal.com> writes:
>>
>> Do you think that I haven't taken my lumps over the last
>> twenty years for advocating that cyclists be treated as adults?
>> Probably few of you would have lasted the course that I have
>> experienced. Ironic, isn't it, to have some of you now complain-
>> ing that I am on the side of the gimmes, the immatures, the I
>> can't do its?
>Exactly John, the above statement is why I find your support
>of this case so confusing. Here is a clear example of a bicycle rider
>saying "don't expect me to behave like a thinking person, if I do
>something dumb, it's somebody elses fault". So why do you appear to
>be "on the side of the gimmes, the immatures, the I can't do its"
>in this case. Saying that you have a lofty goal is fine
>but the hard facts are that you have helped a person get a reward for
>behavior that I wouldn't have expected you to support.
>Kevin
From reading John's posting about his role as expert witness for the
defense, John Forester appeared to be testifying that an all-reflector
system was NOT safe. I don't think that any of us disagree with
that. I also don't think it was morally wrong for him to testify
to that fact before a jury, even if the result was to give a
"reward" to Collin Johnson.
John has himself stated that the issue of whether $7 million
was a fair settlement is beyond his expertise. His area of
expertise is cycling, not the American judicial system or
philosophy.
Those thorny ethical/philosophical issues are the responsiblity
of the jurors. If you disagree with the judgement, then it is
fair to criticze the jury, but not John's role as expert witness.
I can't speak for John, but I myself feel that the 80% figure
for high school students believing that all-reflector system
is safe is very telling. If the figure were more like 20%,
then I think we could write Collin off as stupid. But the 80%
figure seems to indicate that his beliefs were reasonable
for someone of his age, maturity, who had access to the
same information and who was exposed to the same all-reflector
dis-information.
-Larry Watanabe
Larry Watanabe
>The judge in the case accepted him as an expert in the
>field. Derby failed to provide a more convincing expert for their
>side. This is unfortunate, because i think they should have been able
>to.
I'd like to read more about the trial. From the limited information
I have gotten reading John's post on the trial, it sounds like
you would disagree with their legal strategy. The expert made
claims such as (quoting John Forester's post)
"reflectors, when illuminated to the left of the
headlamp's low beams as in this case (cyclist descending
hill, motorist coming up hill and turning left into
cyclist) are as bright as headlamps."
This seems to suggest that the legal strategy (that headlamps
weren't needed) was wrong, rather than the expert testimony
in support of it.
You seem to assume (sorry if I'm wrong) that Derby's case was based
on the claim that it should have been obvious to Collin that
headlamps were needed and therefore they were not liable.
I don't seem to see any arguments by Derby for this at all.
Instead, John mentions that some company officials thought the
all-reflector system was safe, and shows their expert providing
testimony in that direction. So, I don't think a more competent
expert for their side would solve their problems. They were
probably stymied in pursuing this kind of defense by the
80% figure from the survey, which would probably kill that
approach before a jury.
-Larry Watanabe
k...@hplkdw.hpl.hp.com
> twenty years for advocating that cyclists be treated as adults?
> Probably few of you would have lasted the course that I have
> experienced. Ironic, isn't it, to have some of you now complain-
> ing that I am on the side of the gimmes, the immatures, the I
> can't do its?
>
> JFor...@cup.portal.com John Forester
> 726 Madrone Ave
> 408-734-9426 Sunnyvale CA 94086 USA
>
Exactly John, the above statement is why I find your support of this case so
Mr. Nice Guy
bui tho xuan <bl...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>In article low...@shock.engin.umich.edu (Robert Byron Lowrie) writes:
>
>I'm not taking side on whether bikes should be sold w or w/p lights. But
>the light system recommended by John Forester costs about 40 bucks max:
>generator front, reflector rear. _IF_ this is sufficient, I think the
>general public can afford it. This is RETAIL price, too.
Adding $40 to a $100 retail bicycle is a lot of money.
>
>In that respect, I'd prefer bikes to be sold either bare--no reflector,
>nuthin'--or with a full set of generator or battery lights such as the
>Union, Sanyo sets.
--
Rod Anderson | "I do not think the United States government
rcan...@nyx.cs.du.edu | is responsible for the fact that a bunch of
| fanatics decided to kill themselves"
Clinton, Gore, gone in four | Slick Willie the Compassionate
bui tho xuan
...
>dis-information.
Larry made a good point that I haven't even considered. It certainly
isn't wrong for John to present his expertise in the matter, and it
certainly also isn't wrong for him to get some money for his hard earned
experience.
On the other hand, I simply can't side with his employer. I simply cannot
believe that a normaland intelligent 17 yearsold would go read the brochure,
and decided from the bad English that it's OK to ride at night with just
reflectors. he might have been told so by someone else, or copying a
friend's behavior, but I seriously doubt that he made the decision from
the brochure. The importer's principle shortcomming is their choice
in lawyer, and not whether or not they were morally or ethically wanting.
....
On a separate note, some might have recalled a while back I posted a
scenerio when hilly country side might render a rear reflector only set
up will fail....
Now, consider the closing/turning speed of this case: if the car is
turning at 20 miles, and the kid was doing 15 miles, the closing speed
between the two vehicles was about 35 miles.
If you use a rear reflector only instead of a light, any car that's going
35 miles faster than you (15+35=50mph) can potentially turn you into
hood ornament also.
I, for one, wouldn't bet my life savings on a frontlight/rear reflector
system. You need front and rear lights.
tho
bui tho xuan
lightset: 11.95 dollars plus tax--about 12 percent in relative price,
and about 3 hours of work flipping burgers in absolute price.
Also, remember that this is retail price. If included with the bike, it'll
probably be less.
tho
Chris Malcolm
>I don't think the average cyclist rides his bike at
>night. I don't mean things like "Well i rode down the block to my friends
>house one night".
A dispoportionately large number of accidents happen close to home on
short trips because people think "I'm only going down the block, this
is isn't a `real' journey", so they fail to take normal safety
precautions. As a car driver, if you don't have lights on your bike in
the dark, I have no way of knowing that you're only going down the
block rather than making a world tour, and I'm just as likely to hit
you.
>I mean people who actually ride at night.
Many cyclists live in latitudes where at this time of year, if they
leave work or college at 5pm and cycle home, it is already completely
dark.
--
Chris Malcolm c...@uk.ac.ed.aifh +44 (0)31 650 3085
Department of Artificial Intelligence, Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK DoD #205
Chris Malcolm
>They [bikes]
>should also not be sold with reflectors which give some riders a false
>sense of security.
A very good point. For the same reason I think cars should not have
seat belts or air bags.
Siddarth Subramanian
Chris Malcolm <c...@castle.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>In article <2bual3$a...@deimos.cs.utexas.edu> sidd...@cs.utexas.edu (Siddarth Subramanian) writes:
>
>>They [bikes]
>>should also not be sold with reflectors which give some riders a false
>>sense of security.
>
>A very good point. For the same reason I think cars should not have
>seat belts or air bags.
That's not a good analogy. Seat belts and air bags *do* protect you
from injury (often fatal) in case of an accident. Reflectors
(especially front reflectors) are completely useless except in making
you believe that you can be seen at night, when in fact, you can't.
A good analogy would be selling cars with front reflectors instead of
head lights.
Another good analogy to selling reflectorized bikes would be selling
bikes without brakes but with special shoes and instructions on how to
stop by putting your foot on the ground and dragging it. :-)
ilan vardi
>pc...@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (bryan.s.katz) writes:
>
>>From an article in my local paper by "The Associated Press".
>>Reprinted without>permission.
>
>>NEWARK - A bicycle company has been ordered to pay $7 million in damages to
>>an East Orange man struck by a vehicle as he rode after dark without safety
>>lights. Collin Johnson's lawyer argued that the company, Derby Cycles of
>>Kent, Wash., should have sold the bicycle with a light as standard equipment
>>or with a warning not to ride at night with no lamp.
>
>I think that this kind of settlement is long overdue. It is criminal
>that the bicycle companies managed, through lobbying efforts, to
>get the CPSC (Consumer Product Safety Commission) to declare that
>an all reflector system is safe for night riding. They did not want
>bicycle lights to be standard equipment on bikes because of the cost
>(which may be reasonable, also since everyone may want a different light)
>but to drive through legislation pretending that lights are not
>necessary is criminal.
I don't know if New Jersey has a law requiring bicyclists to have
lights when riding at night. If they do have such a law (I know
California does) then I don't see why the bicycle company should
provide a warning for the operator not to break the law. This decision
seems ridiculous to me.
-ilan
ilan vardi
>to...@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
>>
>> How many babies are born _with_ headlights? Are the lighting manufacturers
>> required to label each baby with a warning that they shouldn't walk at night
>> without headlights, taillights and sideview reflectors?
>
>How true, how true! Where does this "warning label" crap end? People
>know the consequences of their actions, they just don't want to be held
>accountable. What kind of society is it that needs to blame eveything on
>someone else?!
>--alex
This issue is not as clear as you make it out to be. Some things are
the responsibility of others, and they can be liable even if they warn
you that they will not take responsibility. For example, ski lifts
have signs saying that you use them at your own risk, but if there is
an accident, the manufacturers and operators can still be sued
successfully, because it is their responsibility to make sure that the
equipment is running safely. The point is that you cannot sign your
rights away.
-ilan
ilan vardi
>There is a difference between truth and court room truth and I think rulings
>like this, that defy logic represent court room truth.
I don't remember the specific person involved, but some number of
years ago, an Indy car race driver died while doing tire testing for
some company. The tire company was sued by the family and lost, even
though they had written statements from the driver that he understood
and accepted the dangers of being a test pilot and that a lawsuit would
be bad for drivers as it would limit the development of technology.
-ilan
ilan vardi
>
> I earned $17,500 for my services in the Johnson case. However,
>little of that went to demonstrating the plaintiff's case that
>cycling at night without a headlamp is dangerous and that the
>bicycle manufacturer(s) have systematically downplayed that
>danger while emphasizing the safety value of reflectors. Those
>are easy things to demonstrate very quickly at very low cost. The
>bulk of my effort went to figuring out the errors in the work of
>the expert for the defense. He made so many errors that it was
>impossible to guess what he would do next. He claimed that
>reflectors, when illuminated to the left of the headlamps' low
>beams as in this case (cyclist descending hill, motorist coming
>up hill and turning left into cyclist) are as bright as
This seems to explain why the bicycle company lost. They had an
incompentent defense attorney. In particular, they were doomed as soon
as they tried to prove that reflectors are as good as lights. The
correct defense was to argue that they were not liable, not that
lights are not needed.
Steve Manifold
> In article <CGDKu...@festival.ed.ac.uk>,
> Chris Malcolm <c...@castle.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >In article <2bual3$a...@deimos.cs.utexas.edu> sidd...@cs.utexas.edu (Siddarth Subramanian) writes:
> >
> >>They [bikes]
> >>should also not be sold with reflectors which give some riders a false
> >>sense of security.
> >
> >A very good point. For the same reason I think cars should not have
> >seat belts or air bags.
>
>
> That's not a good analogy. Seat belts and air bags *do* protect you
> from injury (often fatal) in case of an accident. Reflectors
> (especially front reflectors) are completely useless except in making
> you believe that you can be seen at night, when in fact, you can't.
>
Do you really believe that reflectors are useless? I don't, because I have
seen quite a few bicyclists at night solely because of their reflectors.
For sure, a headlight and taillight are better, but to argue against reflect-
ors just because they are inferior is folly. Is a bicycle ridden at night
without lights and reflectors safer than with reflectors only? I think not.
Now, you may say that without reflectors, a cyclist knows he is vulnerable
and is therefore extra careful. Maybe you and I would be, but what about
the average teenager or college student, caught out after dark on his
bicycle?
I think that reflectors are far better than nothing, but they are certainly
not *enough* for safety, which seems to be the position the govt and the BMA
takes.
Based on my own experience, however, I wouldn't trust even a headlight to
make me visible to car drivers. I nearly broadsided a car recently that
pulled out of a parking lot in front of me. I had a headlight and I was
the only vehicle on the road at the time, yet the driver didn't see me.
It happens to motorcyclists all the time. Furthermore, the type of accident
that caused this lawsuit happens even in broad daylight, as has been pointed
out by others.
What has been bugging me is the thought that the driver really did see
the kid but misjudged the kid's speed and took a chance and turned anyway.
Of course, the driver claims "I didn't see him".
steve
--
____________________________________ _ ___________________________________
Steve Manifold _| ~-. University of Texas
eza...@hermes.chpc.utexas.edu \, *_} Center for Electromechanics
____________________________________ \/ ___________________________________
GARTH D SOMERVILLE
In article <1993Nov7.2...@sol.UVic.CA>, jpa...@sol.UVic.CA (John Panusa) writes:
|>If most laws state that bicycles (and riders) have the same
|>"rights and responsibilities" as automobiles, then lights
|>(or at least warnings about lights) should be mandatory.
|>How many cars have you seen sold without a lighting system?
|>
Be careful what you wish for! With this law suit and people campaigning
for manditory lights, we could see bicycle manufacturers installing
permanent lights on new bicycles. They would be irremovable, because
if a consumer removed them and then was hit at night, he might sue
the manufacturer for allowing that to happen. They would be big heavy
systems and extremely bright so you couldn't sue saying you fell down
because the light wasn't bright enough to illuminate every possible danger.
Next, someone will sue because the light doesn't turn automatically
when it gets dark.
My big question is how they could win against a company that followed
the industry regulations? Why isn't it the CPSC that was sued??
Our country seems to have a new theme song -- "I'm a victim, I'm a victim,
its not my fault, its not my fault, I'm a victim and nothing's my fault..."
--
Garth Somerville
somer...@bae.ncsu.edu
gdso...@eos.ncsu.edu
GARTH D SOMERVILLE
In article <2bncff$4...@phobos.unm.edu>, jav...@unm.edu (John Vance) writes:
|>
|>Glen Niebur wrote:
|>
|>>
|>>My bike came with NO reflectors. I bought it 2 years ago, it came completely
|>>assembled, and had no reflectors. I don't even think about riding it at
|>>night.
|>>
|>Interesting. How many other bikes in the shop had no reflectors? How many
|>of those bikes sold for under $1000?
|>
The last three bicycles I bought cost less than $1000, came without
any reflectors on them, and had no owner's manual either. (But they
were good deals though!)
|>
|>Talk to some of your non- cycling friends. Talk to their kids. Ask
|>them what they think of those shiny reflectors on all sides of the
|>bike. A psychiatrist published a study recently that showed that 80%
|>of adolescents believed that it was safe to ride at night with just
|>the OEM reflectors, and 75% of those who rode at night did so without
|>lights. If you don't believe these numbers, risk your life one night
|>and ride down a popular recreational trail. Why do so many people -
|>the majority of people who ride at night - believe something so absurd?
|>Because they think that the reflectors wouldn't be required on all
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|>bicycles if they weren't effective.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
While this may be a contributing factor, I do not think it fully
explains the behavior. Neither the CPSC nor the BMA tells adults
to ride their bicycles down the wrong side of the road, but I see
it done all of the time. No one tells the otherwise intelligent
college students I see weaving around and darting between cars
and pedestrians with reckless abandon to do that either, but it
happens. All the evidence I have seen tells me that a great many
people really are stupid and do not think very much about the things
they do to themselves or to others. That is not a pretty picture,
but I suspect it is the truth.
I would like to find out more about why it is not the CPSC that was sued.
I have _Effective_Cycling_ too, and I see the BMA's role in getting the
ten reflector requirement written. But it is the CPSC, not the BMA, that
is responsible for coming up with these requirements.
I am also curious as to whether it was brought up in the trial that
being seen by motorists at night is only half of the pie, the other
half being the ability to *see* at night. Unless you were under the
impression that reflectors emit light, how could you figure that
it is safe to ride without a headlamp when you cannot see where you are
going or what you are about to run into?
|>
|>What do I think should be done? I think the reflectors are an
|>attractive menace, and bikes should be sold without them. The
|>CPSC's incompetence in this matter borders on malfeasance.
You don't hear the warning bells? I have read in _Effective_Cycling_
where cyclists try to do something good and end up screwing us all.
While your idea sounds good to me, I doubt that is the action that would
be taken! Much more likely is a requirement that adds a heavy, ineffective
headlamp to the reflectors already installed. I can even see laws being
passed that unintentionally (or intentionally) require bicyclists to
burn their headlamp day and night like motorcycles.
Besides, all the regulations in the world won't protect people from
the real problem which is that they simply do not know how to ride
a bicycle. As cyclists, perhaps we should concentrate out efforts on
that front, and not give any legislators the idea that what we want
is more laws and regulations to protect us from ourselves.
bu...@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
> In article <CG71r...@stortek.com> kell...@stortek.com writes:
>>>(John Vance wrote)
>>>This is not a matter of personal responsibility. It is a matter of
>>>the bicycle industry and a government agency blatantly lying to the
>>>public. A teenager believed the lie, and relied the eight reflectors
>>>on his bike to make him visible to traffic. His mistake was
>>>gullibility, and he'll be paying for it for the rest of his life.
>>
>>I wonder why they found Derby to be the responsible party and not the CPSC. It
>>seems that bicycle manufacturers are relying on goverment safety standards. In
>>this case the goverment is lying to the manufacturer at least as much as
>>the manufacturer is lying to the teenager.
>
> Both of you seem to be missing the entire point. This isn't a case of
> the 'government' lying to the public. This isn't the case of Derby Cycles
> lying to anyone.
>
> This is a very simple case. Some blockhead rode his bike in the dark
> without legally required lighting. He was involved in an accident --
> this is the same sort of accident that we so decry in auto drivers --
> the kind where we say it wasn't any accident at all, but callous
> indifference. He was hurt, to bad, but tough hocky pucks.
>
> He should have been issued a citation for riding without lighting.
> And he should have his butt kicked real good.
To add, how does that saying go, "ignorence of the law is no
excuse".
Bu...@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au OR bu...@monu1.cc.monash.oz
DOD# 251 '84 VF 750 Closet Ducatisto
Disclaimer: An idle mind is the devil's nintendo!
David Svoboda
|
|In a recent survey of adolescents, 80% thought that the reflectors that
|came with bikes made cycling at night safe. I guess that dovetails
|nicely with your contention that most people are dumb as rocks and can't
|think for themselves.
Adolescents aren't "most people". When I was a boy, I was given a light
to use on my bicycle at night, with the understanding that it was very
dangerous to ride at night without the light, and that if I was caught
doing so, I would be in big trouble from said parents.
A bicycle, even for an adolescent, when ridden on the street, is NOT a
toy. If parents neglect their children to the extent that they let them
ride around invisible to cars, it is the liability of the parents, not
the manufacturers. The manufacturers are not these kids' parents.
As for an adult, there are any number of ways that we may kill ourselves.
Riding at night without lights is one. Surviving in the world, today
or yesterday, takes a certian amount of brainpower, and if someone is
missing that brainpower, it is again not the fault of the manufacturers.
As Niven put it, "Think of it as evolution in action."
One of the things that bothers me about this court award is the precedent
that it sets, specifically and generally. I am primarily a motorcyclist,
and have just recently joined the pedal ranks. I was pleased to note
that a bike helmet cost less than $100, even for high-quality. A high
quality motorcycle helmet costs upwards of $200 or even $300.
A large portion of this cost is due to a series of lawsuits, in which
helmet manufacturers were sued, because their helmets didn't function as
expected. Not as claimed, but as expected. Any bonehead knows that if
you centerpunch a Plymouth at 70mph with your head, you will not survive,
helmet or not. But these $multi-million lawsuits win anyway. In fact,
they win when the crash victim wasn't even killed by head injury. They
win when the operator didn't buckle the helmet on. They win.
Some motorcycle helmet manufacturers have gone out of the business
because of this litigation (Vetter, for instance), and others have
stopped importing (BMW, Nava).
To bring it close to home, how would you like to have to spend an extra
$10 per bicycle light, because the companies have to make up the cost of
lawsuits? Enough lawsuits out there, and that's what you'll have.
Believe me, the bicycle community doesn't want to see "price by litigation ".
It's a lousy thing to have to pay money for.
Dave Svoboda, Palatine, IL